Blackpill Everyone needs the self-reinforcing cycle of good looks, money, status (primal value) to be confident in this world. To argue this is to be cucked.

[Pinpoint]

Artificial self-reinforcing cycle of copes is all that remains for people who don't have true value.
The initial stimulus we all get in life is that mankind is optic-oriented (looks based, because practicality is kind of a passe thing. But looking good, and being display worthy makes you able to be valuable in the eyes of other optic-oriented mentally numb people. We all kind of accept human superficial materialistic primality and just go along with it and live the lie that way.)
To get self-reinforcing cycle based on non superficial things wil lleave oyu high and dry in life.
And even if this isn't the totality of the case, the fact it is the majority makes it practically universal.
If 90% of monkeys are loud and obnoxious and wild, then they should all practically be stanced as such for protection or security. Same with foids. If 90% of them are that way then it should just be labelled that way because it is the safest, and most logical course.
If the majority of a thing/ animal/ natural item has a certain tendency the majority of the time then that is just the base/intended output of something's natural-matter/ primal-matter. Since it wasn't sociology that did this to them. This is underlying geno preprogramming.

The real wealth in life comes from primal dominance credit. And because it is only gotten really through birth/ genetics (humanity's firewall/ safety precaution to determining who is truly worthy of their primal worship).
What is the self-reinforcement material certain people geti f they are bad looking? nothing substantial. And so, they amount to nothing and their determination dies.

 

[OmniVoid]

Agreed. High IQ. All that matters is survival in the real world and reproduction. You need the genetic quality, a good reputation with people to max chance of survival(status), and resources.

 

[mylifeistrash]

Artificial self-reinforcing cycle of copes is all that remains for people who don't have true value.
The initial stimulus we all get in life is that mankind is optic-oriented (looks based, because practicality is kind of a passe thing. But looking good, and being display worthy makes you able to be valuable in the eyes of other optic-oriented mentally numb people. We all kind of accept human superficial materialistic primality and just go along with it and live the lie that way.)
To get self-reinforcing cycle based on non superficial things wil lleave oyu high and dry in life.
And even if this isn't the totality of the case, the fact it is the majority makes it practically universal.
If 90% of monkeys are loud and obnoxious and wild, then they should all practically be stanced as such for protection or security. Same with foids. If 90% of them are that way then it should just be labelled that way because it is the safest, and most logical course.
If the majority of a thing/ animal/ natural item has a certain tendency the majority of the time then that is just the base/intended output of something's natural-matter/ primal-matter. Since it wasn't sociology that did this to them. This is underlying geno preprogramming.

The real wealth in life comes from primal dominance credit. And because it is only gotten really through birth/ genetics (humanity's firewall/ safety precaution to determining who is truly worthy of their primal worship).
What is the self-reinforcement material certain people geti f they are bad looking? nothing substantial. And so, they amount to nothing and their determination dies.

I hate people who lie to kids and young men about how life is fair and how if you work hard to compete, you can get women, have a good career, etc.

People should be honest about shit from the very start.

 

[Braincel14w]

Just fake it til u make it braaaaaaaaaah

 

[Gengar]

Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron

 

[Pinpoint]

Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?
Then your arguments are invalid.
No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.
I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron

sour chasm