W
Wizard
Greycel
★
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2017
- Posts
- 9
When you talk to a woman and she's disgusted by you, the person wants you to take that disgust on your shoulders. They want to make you the "owner" of the disgust and negativity, your existence caused that reaction in them but they want to attribute a intentional causation to you, they want your actions to be the cause of the disgust and as such they pin it to your neck and run you off in to the desert like a scapegoat. They want to create a distance not only from you but what feelings you brought up in them.
The personality meme lays on the false assumptions that social interaction between two human beings is naturally positive, and that again lays the sin at your feet when this pure, good, nature is not manifested by your actions. People are good, human interaction is good, and as such you must have corrupted the process, you must have done something grossly wrong, you must have upended the natural order with corrupt intention. The disgust and negative response from the other person was your creation, it was your corruption thrown back in your face, and you take ownership as the creator of that negativity and must let it flow through your entire being as something you brought in to existence.
The reality is that human interaction is not a innately positive thing for both parties, it implicates certain parties in equivalence, it compromises sense of self, it can disgust people, it can bring on dissonance, it can unsettle peoples peace, it can bring on physiological reactions. Your existence and external form alone can bring on these negative outcomes from social interaction and the ability to bridge the gap does not come from words and conversation, it does not come from overtures, it must come from someone who is willing to treat you as a human being to begin with. We have no control over if people are willing to treat us as human beings, we have no control over how much they rely on distancing themselves from what you "are" to keep their personal peace and identity.
There are so many barriers between us and we know how much our external attractiveness, our social status, our value, modifies how people even interpret our intentions. Conversation as an act does not break this, pure intentions do not break this, trying to convey your pure intentions in the most honest way can not break this. There must be an agreement to treat each other as human beings, this is not the natural state of nature. This is not the natural state of social interaction, one person opening up and taking the initial hit of aversion does not inspire the other to open up. Game theory does not apply here with an asymmetricc value proposition. Until there is, people's social reactions are their own, they will try to lay them on your soul but they are theirs alone. You can only reflect on your intentions, you can only reflect on what you intended from the interaction, you can only engage and when they try to lay negative emotions at your heart with their reaction remember this is all theirs, this is their creation, this is their disgust. It is not yours, you do not corrupt anything, this is all there ever was.
You can pay attention to this interactions to predict the future, to know what's likely to happen in the future and anticipate outcomes in a mechanical way. You can know that the feeling of rejection will hurt emotionally, you can know that it will feel bad when they make a disgusted face, you can know what it feels like to have it confirmed you will be cut off from the social world, you can know what it means to be a low value man who is vulnerable to the social world. But, you can feel them and return them back to their faithful owner, the one who tries to lay it at your feet. Your ability to know why they treated you this way is completely limited if they won't let you engage with them, assuming that you corrupted it with your action in the heat of the conversation leads to the complex analysis that creates these emotional overwhelming moments. You rip apart your own soul inflicting all this negative energy in every possible way on your actions, intentions, and application of "knowledge" yet we know there's plenty of reasons why someone could inflict it on you that are not your fault, and not valid. You are not always the corrupter.
An analysis of our actions must be carried out postmortem in considered manner, we take mental notes and consider it at night with a piece of paper. But in the moment we must create a wall in a sense, lookism is an example of why they could be treating us this way and the one most of us suspect. We build up that stoic wall and refuse to take on their disgust, if they are not willing to actually give us a conversation discussing their emotions and letting us explain our intention then there is no intention at actual discussion or interaction. Do not take it on, do not let it flow through you.
If we work through what it means to be a low value man, and accept the outcomes of that, we can not be pushed in to anxiety about the confirmation that we're a low value man. The possibility of being alone forever, the possibility of being dominated by the socially valuable, we accept them. Then we can just accept those brief flashes of rejection and disgust and hand them back.
We are not the corrupters of some pure world, we may be an inconvenient truth that exposes a nature of the world they had preferred to ignore, but we are not the corrupters of human interaction. Do not let them make you a vessel of sin to absolve the fallen world, let it slide off you and take confidence that their social reaction is their own alone.
The personality meme lays on the false assumptions that social interaction between two human beings is naturally positive, and that again lays the sin at your feet when this pure, good, nature is not manifested by your actions. People are good, human interaction is good, and as such you must have corrupted the process, you must have done something grossly wrong, you must have upended the natural order with corrupt intention. The disgust and negative response from the other person was your creation, it was your corruption thrown back in your face, and you take ownership as the creator of that negativity and must let it flow through your entire being as something you brought in to existence.
The reality is that human interaction is not a innately positive thing for both parties, it implicates certain parties in equivalence, it compromises sense of self, it can disgust people, it can bring on dissonance, it can unsettle peoples peace, it can bring on physiological reactions. Your existence and external form alone can bring on these negative outcomes from social interaction and the ability to bridge the gap does not come from words and conversation, it does not come from overtures, it must come from someone who is willing to treat you as a human being to begin with. We have no control over if people are willing to treat us as human beings, we have no control over how much they rely on distancing themselves from what you "are" to keep their personal peace and identity.
There are so many barriers between us and we know how much our external attractiveness, our social status, our value, modifies how people even interpret our intentions. Conversation as an act does not break this, pure intentions do not break this, trying to convey your pure intentions in the most honest way can not break this. There must be an agreement to treat each other as human beings, this is not the natural state of nature. This is not the natural state of social interaction, one person opening up and taking the initial hit of aversion does not inspire the other to open up. Game theory does not apply here with an asymmetricc value proposition. Until there is, people's social reactions are their own, they will try to lay them on your soul but they are theirs alone. You can only reflect on your intentions, you can only reflect on what you intended from the interaction, you can only engage and when they try to lay negative emotions at your heart with their reaction remember this is all theirs, this is their creation, this is their disgust. It is not yours, you do not corrupt anything, this is all there ever was.
You can pay attention to this interactions to predict the future, to know what's likely to happen in the future and anticipate outcomes in a mechanical way. You can know that the feeling of rejection will hurt emotionally, you can know that it will feel bad when they make a disgusted face, you can know what it feels like to have it confirmed you will be cut off from the social world, you can know what it means to be a low value man who is vulnerable to the social world. But, you can feel them and return them back to their faithful owner, the one who tries to lay it at your feet. Your ability to know why they treated you this way is completely limited if they won't let you engage with them, assuming that you corrupted it with your action in the heat of the conversation leads to the complex analysis that creates these emotional overwhelming moments. You rip apart your own soul inflicting all this negative energy in every possible way on your actions, intentions, and application of "knowledge" yet we know there's plenty of reasons why someone could inflict it on you that are not your fault, and not valid. You are not always the corrupter.
An analysis of our actions must be carried out postmortem in considered manner, we take mental notes and consider it at night with a piece of paper. But in the moment we must create a wall in a sense, lookism is an example of why they could be treating us this way and the one most of us suspect. We build up that stoic wall and refuse to take on their disgust, if they are not willing to actually give us a conversation discussing their emotions and letting us explain our intention then there is no intention at actual discussion or interaction. Do not take it on, do not let it flow through you.
If we work through what it means to be a low value man, and accept the outcomes of that, we can not be pushed in to anxiety about the confirmation that we're a low value man. The possibility of being alone forever, the possibility of being dominated by the socially valuable, we accept them. Then we can just accept those brief flashes of rejection and disgust and hand them back.
We are not the corrupters of some pure world, we may be an inconvenient truth that exposes a nature of the world they had preferred to ignore, but we are not the corrupters of human interaction. Do not let them make you a vessel of sin to absolve the fallen world, let it slide off you and take confidence that their social reaction is their own alone.