Experiment if we all suffered mass amnesia and forgot most of our learned behaviors would girls be nicer to us?

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

I'm sure there is still hardwired hypergamy by instinct which is not a learned behavior so ultimately we would still fall behind.

But I don't think it would be quite as bad because a lot of the misandric cruelty exhibited by women seems to be amplified via learned behaviors.

IE women have learned if they are kind to ugly men, their mean girl friends will spread rumors she fucks the ugly man and so Chad won't want to fuck her since she's degraded by fucking the ugly guy.

But if we all had amnesia, she wouldn't have those taught habits ingrained to her.

Also she wouldn't have an entire lifetime of seeing ugly boys to make her bored with seeing us - we would be fresh and exciting, just like a rare Chad.

Yeah we'd still be innately repulsive and less fascinating but I think the apathy and hostility would be markedly less and they could be a lot more pleasant to be around.

I don't think I'm wishing for ignorance here - it would be nice if one could shred such hostility without a complete mind-wiping. Ideally people evolve out of these behaviors through their own intraspection and are more complex individuals as a result of it, but that seems to be so rare.

 

[ResidentHell]

Female selection of partners is controlled more by sexually dimorphic traits than by social opinion. But sometimes females will mate with violent / statusmaxed males even when they're LTN. For females it isn't always "learned behaviour" to be unfriendly to low-tier males, because under certain conditions they will be friendly to low-tier males (e.g. statusmaxed, wealthmaxed, known history of violence / dark triad)

Also there's no point in receiving kindness from women when you still don't have sex with them. Some women are fairly intelligent and are worth the conversations and their company outside of sex. But many of them are robots who have no relevant value outside of their sexual capacity. If you aint having sex with them, and she's a dumb foid who doesn't critically analyse or she tends to make deductions based on illogical premises, then interaction with them is pointless

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

Female selection of partners is controlled more by sexually dimorphic traits than by social opinion. But sometimes females will mate with violent / statusmaxed males even when they're LTN. For females it isn't always "learned behaviour" to be unfriendly to low-tier males, because under certain conditions they will be friendly to low-tier males (e.g. statusmaxed, wealthmaxed, known history of violence / dark triad)

of coure, I mention in OP that much of it is instinct, but some % is also learned behavior and I wonder what it would be like without that cumulative sum of hatred, where all we had to deal with was her instinctive revulsion and not her learned revulsion

there's no point in receiving kindness from women when you still don't have sex with them

I don't agree with that, even though sex is ultimately a requirement of the ultimate bonding

 

[ResidentHell]

sex is ultimately a requirement of the ultimate bonding

In context of sex relations, bonding is cope. Its structred around a "void" between the two human biological sexes, and humans attempt to "fill the void" by assocoating the concept of "bonding" with sexual interaction (e.g. love relationships). But its all mere fantasy, because the male or female biology doesn't "transform" or "evolve" after sexual intercourse. They just exchange bodily fluids from one body to the other. Males will simply continue to be male, and females will continue to be female. Externally in the tangible world, nothing can actually be achieved from sexual interaction except maybe pregnancy or STDs. Everything else is merely within the imagination, as in your perceived appearance of the other person and the ideas / emotions that you project onto this perceived appearance in attempt to fulfil your romantic fantasy. @subhuman explains this well in a recent thread

sexual relationships are impossible. It is commonly thought that your sexual partner is your "other half" and that your sexual partner will "complete you" and you will fit together like lock and key and so on. But the reality is that men and women aren't complementary, they are just two subjects structured around a lack. When you put them together, they will not make up for the other's lack because there is no relationship between the two. Being is always incomplete. In fact, the whole idea of fusion with a sexual partner is just an illusory fantasy we employ to cope with the trauma of the impossibility of a sexual relationship. The same is true of "love".

Zizek writes "Imagine a gradual process of getting to know a thing, a process of approximation in which the thing ultimately always eludes us, and then imagine that this process of approaching a thing is immanent to this thing itself, so that this thing circulates around a void, an impossibility, in its very core. And it is here that what Lacan calls objet petit a, the object-cause of desire, enters: objet a gives body to this void."

Fantasy allows us to imagine what the Other (in this case the sexual partner) wants from you, in a vain attempt to bridge the fundamental gap of sexual difference. It structures and directs our desires onto an object, called objet petit a. However, this ultimately fails to provide a substitute to the sexual relationship, because it only exists so far as we put ourselves into it and structure it. No actual relationship is established, as it's only an interaction with your own image of the Other. For men (and a lot of women), sexual pleasure comes from this objectification of their sexual partner. Interestingly, for women the greatest pleasures of sex are not sexual in nature. Zizek suggests that the most enticing fantasy of sex for women is the fantasy of telling the tale afterwards.

 

[BraincelsRefugee]

If we all suffered mass amnesia then inkwells would ascend because they would have better personality

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

bonding is cope. Its structred around a "void" between the two human biological sexes, and humans attempt to "fill the void"

The idea of bonding doesn't necessarily require a void.
Is the concept of a human pyramid "there is a void without a pyramid" or just "together we can realize something new" ?

by assocoating the concept of "bonding" with sexual interaction (e.g. love relationships). But its all mere fantasy, because the male or female biology doesn't "transform" or "evolve" after sexual intercourse. They just exchange bodily fluids from one body to the other.

The exchange of bodily fluids can have at least some small influence. But yeah it mostly psychological, and that's fine - our minds are still real things.

Males will simply continue to be male, and females will continue to be female. Externally in the tangible world, nothing can actually be achieved from sexual interaction except maybe pregnancy or STDs.

What you're missing here is that I'm telling you sex is a manifestation of a mental bond - if you are truly bonded then you would not hold back sex from each other.
That doesn't by contrast mean that sex guarantees forming a bond between people alien to each other.

Everything else is merely within the imagination

Our whole concept of personhood is within our imagination, so I don't see why I should belittle imagination.
The idea that you are a person I am conversing with also originates in my imagination.

If my mind validates your existence, it can also validate a bond with muh waifu soulmate should I ever open myself to that.
I'm quite resistant to the idea though so it probably won't happen, but I can't logically rule it out.

 

[ResidentHell]

The idea of bonding doesn't necessarily require a void.
Is the concept of a human pyramid "there is a void without a pyramid" or just "together we can realize something new" ?

By "bonding", I'm talking about the relation between two things that can interact with each other without defining each other. Humans can define pyramids as their own creation in the physical world. But its unclear as to whether male or female can define each other individually, because its uncertain as to exactly where or how these sexes originated. Religious maniacs would give you the Adamic creation story, but scientific theorists would give you evolution theory. All that's known for sure is that males and females are two different biological sexes of the same species. In theory it's possible for them to "bond", but the point is that nothing material will result from them "bonding" except maybe a pregnancy, birth or STD's

What you're missing here is that I'm telling you sex is a manifestation of a mental bond - if you are truly bonded then you would not hold back sex from each other.

It seems you may be misassociating "mental bonding" with "perception of reality"

Reality is based on interpretations and ideas, not on external appearance. Without context everything is meaningless. A meaning cannot be drawn out of something until a context or structure is established. Basically what this means is that people dont see you for what you are independently. They see you in accordance with their own ideas or interpretations, in relation to a structured model which they've already established for drawing meaning out of something they perceive

Furthermore a female doesn't necessarily have to feel any type of way about you specifically, in order for her to allow you to sexually touch her. Because she may be conditional about when or how she allows people to touch her, like a computer algorithm. Anyone who fails to complete all the conditions for her to allow sexual contact, will not be allowed to sexually touch her. The ones who do complete all the conditions for her to allow sexual contact, will be allowed to sexually touch her. Thus it's possible she can be brainwashed or manipulated into misidentifying people who meet the conditions for her to allow or reject sexual contact, because of the fact that her perception of reality is not based on objectivity, but on bias

Here's an imaginary situation for you to think about: Imagine that you actually managed to meet all the conditions that have to be met for a certain female to allow you to have sex with her. But something happens. Somehow the reptilians obtain a sample of your human DNA, and download a virtual duplicate of your consciousness onto their alien tech storage device. After doing this, they synthetically create exact genetic clones of you, and install the virtualized version of your consciousness into the brains of every genetic clone they made. Then they redeploy all your clones onto planet Earth. In this case, how can the girl truly know that she has a "mental bond" with you in particular, when there's now the risk that she will encounter your physical lookalikes that all have virtual duplicates of your consciousness? Because from her perspective, there will be nothing that distinguishes you from the other specimens in terms of appearance or personality, since all of that was duplicated onto them.

I'm not saying "bonding" via sex is completely impossible. What I'm saying is that "bonding" could be more of a algorithmic command that simply activates whenever the person identifies something that appears to clear the relevant conditions (as for this case the command would be to "allow sex"), irrespective of what the inner nature of that thing may be. Rather than it just being a sentiment or emotion thats projected onto and attached to a specific object

In saying that, what's a "mental bond" really worth when it could be based on a bunch of computerized algorithms rather than instinct or emotions?

If my mind validates your existence, it can also validate a bond with muh waifu soulmate should I ever open myself to that.

Which goes back to my second point. Reality is based on interpretations and ideas, not on external appearance. Just because you perceive a bond exists, doesn't validate the existence of a bond

If no bond exists, it would be impossible for you to notice the absence of a bond while you perceive a bond exists. Because ultimately, the reality comes down to what you perceive, not what actually exists outside of your mind

What you perceive doesnt have to agree with what exists in the external world. When your perception of reality is not based on objectivity, but on biases, its possible for you to end up perceiving something that doesn't exist in the external world as how you perceive it to exist. This is the origin of the - Having the perception something that you arent able to ascertain it exists outside the realm of your thoughts and perceptions

 

[pulp]

No

 

[I.N.C.E.L.S. Boss]

If we all suffered mass amnesia then inkwells would ascend because they would have better personality

Be right back, bashing my head to amnesia

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

I think they'd be neutral (best case scenario)

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

Furthermore a female doesn't necessarily have to feel any type of way about you specifically, in order for her to allow you to sexually touch her.

Correct which is why I said it's the inevitable outcome of a bond (ie no sex means you're not bonded) but sex doesn't gurantee bond, a small piece of puzzle

The ones who do complete all the conditions for her to allow sexual contact, will be allowed to sexually touch her. Thus it's possible she can be brainwashed or manipulated into misidentifying people who meet the conditions for her to allow or reject sexual contact, because of the fact that her perception of reality is not based on objectivity, but on bias

of course, but even though males are superior in objectivity and being less biased, we aren't perfect at it either

Here's an imaginary situation for you to think about: Imagine that you actually managed to meet all the conditions that have to be met for a certain female to allow you to have sex with her. But something happens. Somehow the reptilians obtain a sample of your human DNA, and download a virtual duplicate of your consciousness onto their alien tech storage device. After doing this, they synthetically create exact genetic clones of you, and install the virtualized version of your consciousness into the brains of every genetic clone they made. Then they redeploy all your clones onto planet Earth. In this case, how can the girl truly know that she has a "mental bond" with you in particular, when there's now the risk that she will encounter your physical lookalikes that all have virtual duplicates of your consciousness? Because from her perspective, there will be nothing that distinguishes you from the other specimens in terms of appearance or personality, since all of that was duplicated onto them.

She still has a bond with me - the clones ARE me.
'Me' is of course a fluctuating concept as we change over time.

Someone bonded to us at a fixed point in time aren't guaranteed to stay bonded since I or they may change.

Bonding is thus ephemeral as our own individuality.

I'm not saying "bonding" via sex is completely impossible. What I'm saying is that "bonding" could be more of a algorithmic command that simply activates whenever the person identifies something that appears to clear the relevant conditions (as for this case the command would be to "allow sex"), irrespective of what the inner nature of that thing may be. Rather than it just being a sentiment or emotion thats projected onto and attached to a specific object

I'm find defining it as an algorithm sure.
Any thought of feeling can be perceived like that.

In saying that, what's a "mental bond" really worth when it could be based on a bunch of computerized algorithms rather than instinct or emotions?

I view emotion/instinct as forms of such algorith, I see no distinction.
How much is the friendship you and I are sharing now in this moment worth RH ?
Does it matter there is cellular math behind it?

Which goes back to my second point. Reality is based on interpretations and ideas, not on external appearance. Just because you perceive a bond exists, doesn't validate the existence of a bond

Observation is validation - but we should distinguish from true perception (seeing reality) vs imagined perception (seeing what may not be there)

If no bond exists, it would be impossible for you to notice the absence of a bond while you perceive a bond exists.

You imagine 'imagine perceiving' ?

Because ultimately, the reality comes down to what you perceive, not what actually exists outside of your mind

The reality of my feelings are what I imagine, if that's what you mean.
If this applies to all my feels does it make feels worthless though?

What you perceive doesnt have to agree with what exists in the external world.

What I imagine doesn't.
What I -perceive- would be when I correctly assess what is in the world.

When your perception of reality is not based on objectivity, but on biases, its possible for you to end up perceiving something that doesn't exist in the external world as how you perceive it to exist.

Our imagination of reality is bsased on a mix of bias and objectivity - we can float toward one extreme or the other.

This is the origin of the - Having the perception something that you arent able to ascertain it exists outside the realm of your thoughts and perceptions

Bluepill is imagining wrong things about reality which means you are not perceiving the reality.

It is impossible to perceive nonexistent things - in that case you perceive nothing, only imagine.

 

[ResidentHell]

I view emotion/instinct as forms of such algorith, I see no distinction.
How much is the friendship you and I are sharing now in this moment worth RH ?
Does it matter there is cellular math behind it?

Emotions are prone to arbitrary changes. If the "bond" is purely systematic, like how female is attracted to Chad because of evolutionary survival instinct, the bond would be unbreakable unless the evolutionary female sexual mechanism becomes oudated. If the "bond" is based on arbitrary or unregulated factors, it can be broken at any time without any apparent reason

TBH it doesnt matter if the bond has cellular math behind it. But it would matter more whether the bond was based on a categorical / systemic model for "bonding via sex", or arbitrary factors that are not clearly related to a systemic model for "bonding via sex"

If the bond based on arbitrary factors (e.g. personality, status, wealth), the longevity of bond would be more unpredictable. Female sexual interest in a man as regard to their wealth, status or personality can randomly change with time because all these things aren't known to be related with a categorical model for "bonding via sex". Which means the perceived attractiveness of a male who posesses these things (aka wealth, status, personality), will be prone to arbitrary changes

If the bond is based on a categorical model for female sexual selection (e.g. height, face, physical stature, race or skin colour), the longevity of the bond would be easier to predict. As long as the evolutionary female sexual mechanism doesn't change, the female sexual interest in a man as regard to their height, face, physical stature and skin tone / race, will not change, because all these things are known to be related to categorical model for "bonding via sex" (in this instance the model is evolutionary female sexual behavior as for the biological imperative). Which means the perceived sexual attractiveness of a male who does posess these things (aka height, face, skin tone / race), will most likely not change in future

The reality of my feelings are what I imagine, if that's what you mean.
If this applies to all my feels does it make feels worthless though?

Potentially, yes. If what you imagine doesnt correlate with what exists in reality, then its possible your feelings could ultimately be an illusion or simulation of something that currently exists beyond your knowledge. If you dont have absolute control over what you feel, then some being which has more control and regulation over what emotions you feel (e.g. reptilians with advanced abilities), could be using your emotions for merely experimental & research purposes, or even as a kind of toy or plaything

What I imagine doesn't.
What I -perceive- would be when I correctly assess what is in the world.

It is impossible to perceive nonexistent things - in that case you perceive nothing, only imagine

Yes "imagined perception" is what I meant by "What you perceive doesn't have to agree..." and "Having the perception something that...". I use the term "perceive" like you would use "imagine" because people seem to have the capacity to manipulate themselves to the point of perceiving their own ideas and imaginations as "reality". That's what causes reality to become prone to subjectivity --- People can see the exact same thing, but perceive it differently based on their own ideas, imaginations and biased understanding

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

If the "bond" is purely systematic, like how female is attracted to Chad because of evolutionary survival instinct, the bond would be unbreakable unless the evolutionary female sexual mechanism becomes oudated.

That would not make the bond unbreakable - the bond would have a natural expiration date as fidelity to Chad lost it's value over time.

If the "bond" is based on arbitrary or unregulated factors, it can be broken at any time without any apparent reason

There is never any factor which is arbitrary or unrelated - just some more complex or less easy to understand.
The lack of -apparent- reason is our value to perceive the mechanics of thought.

TBH it doesnt matter if the bond has cellular math behind it. But it would matter more whether the bond was based on a categorical / systemic model for "bonding via sex", or arbitrary factors that are not clearly related to a systemic model for "bonding via sex"

Seems you're on a tangent I didn't support - I'm not saying sex creates bonding, I'm saying someone you're emotionally bonded with would generally not deny you sex in most circumstances.

I could see exceptions like where it's not in your interest to have it, like say if an HIV-positive woman loves you but wants to protect you from HIV so doesn't fuck you - or if she is the wife of a sultan and knows the sultan would decapitate you for fucking her, she could deny sex to keep you alive.

In average situations these circumstances do not exist though.

I apologize for not replying to the rest, my head isn't very together tonight.

 

[ResidentHell]

I'm saying someone you're emotionally bonded with would generally not deny you sex in most circumstances.

Yes true. But "emotional bonding" is a coping thought. You cannot read other people's mind which means they could be LARP without you being aware of it. There's a saying that goes along the lines of this: "People go through life constantly trying to convince themselves they are not alone"

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

But "emotional bonding" is a coping thought.
You cannot read other people's mind which means they could be LARP without you being aware of it.

True, though this applies to the conversation you and I are holding now.
Our entire conception of others is based on these assessments and reliance on your judgment.

There's a saying that goes along the lines of this: "People go through life constantly trying to convince themselves they are not alone"

Ironically a plural sentence.

 

[PersonalityChimp]

No mass amnesia for your face

 

[RuudVanNistelrooy]

Your face = your fate.

 

[Wiz32BlackJiggaboo]

Your face = your fate.

 

[DenHaag]

True that we learn how to signal to others how we expect to be treated. Hard resets are hard to do. So hard that one wonders if the payoff may be worth it. Because there is a non negligible part outside one’s control.

—
OT:
What if we were all born two seconds ago with built in memories?