MSC

Wanting to be paired doesn't fix the issue that in this particular case; women find @ImplicitDemandsthreatening and emotionally insecure. Therefore dangerous to pair with or have children with. I'm not saying some incels might just be unlucky with the women around them in general but in this case, I think it's a case that social cues to avoid him, are being thrown out by OP. Let me ask you this; would you opt in to being a matchmaker for someone you believed might physically attack their partner? People who want to be "paired" for the sake of being in a relationship or just having someone to have sex with, honestly aren't ready for the commitment it takes to make one work as anyone who comes near will only be seen as a means to an end and women can pick up on these things far better than men can.

A little better is better than nothing and I think you underestimate the power of endocrinology over time too, take adrenaline for example, massively profound, oxytocin, massively profound. Should a cancer patient not seek treatment because there is no known treatment that works in minutes? Should a person not visit a dentist because the dentist can't magic the bad tooth away in minutes and make sure there is zero hole that needs to heal afterward? Suck it up. Medical workers can work wonders but patients have to commit time and... patience! A better question is why you think any of it is relevent to whether or not you see a psychiatrist before you hurt someone?

You know they say narcissism is the inability to move along from an earlier stage of development, usually either toddlerhood or teenage years. This would explain why you need to boil everything down to a simple colour model and have a strangely subjective animosity towards certain colours while putting others on a pedestal for arbitrary reasons. It's hexagons are the bestagons all over again. Who tf cares what your favourite colour is or why you hate purple and green. Literally your weird charts are so subjective I could come up with a reasonably logical explanation for why every colour is either good or bad. Who cares. Take care of yo mental health.

Depends on the psychiatrist. It's not a philosophically cut and dry profession. Yes you have your drug pushers but in a capitalist market you just gotta do your due dilligence and find the ones that aren't drug pushers if that is what you want, however some medications have scientific backing in helping with the sort of symptoms that make socialising more difficult, like irritability. Ask anyone here for example what I'm like unmedicated + Stressed tf out, a few of them know. I certainly do. Psychiatrists first and foremost are medical doctors. They aren't going to judge you as inferior for having medical problems or call your manhood into question for some potential hormonal imbalance or chemical brain imbalance that could be caused by anything from lack of certain nutrients or lack of bodies ability to create certain proteins or enzymes. I mean don't get me wrong, I do have some szaszian perspectives when it comes to psychiatry and do prefer a symptom management based approach when it comes to my autism diagnosis, over seeking some cure model that would fundamentally change who I am or also a strict definition model where my symptomology or traits are boxed into any type of psychiactric label if it won't be useful for helping me resolve an issue that gets in the way of having a consistent good quality of life. Narcissism itself isn't always a bad thing so long as you know when to switch it off. Most of us have that switch as a means of survival and there are situations where narcissists would survive where others wouldn't but the inverse is true too. Aren't you just the least bit curious what psychiatrists might have to say? There is even a psychiatry section here on this forum and other forums for it. What have you got to lose? It's not like you even have to tell anyone about it either it's all protected medical information and you can basically say anything to them and they'll keep it secret unless you tell them you're going to harm someone or yourself.

Dude, do you hear yourself? You're complaining about negative reps but at the same time complaining you didn't get the most. That is Narcissism right there. That is malignant self love and genuinely, it makes you weak and much less likely to procreate or survive calamities because you'd be a liability.

Red is much more associated with danger in most peoples eyes. But then I imagine it would be the favourite colour of a walking, talking, breathing red flag. Uhm... what? Are you claiming you were raped or have raped? I'm confused. Or are you claiming you've been raped emotionally? Maybe just speak a bit plainer. Sometimes less is more.

Yup. @ImplicitDemands it is definitely your attitude that is the problem. Lets make a bet. Show this entire thread to a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. If they say other people are the problem and not you, I'll eat my hat and try to set you up with someone on your promise to be respectful and to not mention incel stuff, at least to women, ever again. If they say you are the problem and need help, you have to take it and work with it for at least 1 year. Do we have a bet? I mean, if you're right then you should have no problems not taking that bet. Easy win right?

Not even addressing about 90% of what I said. Stop disassociating.

Listen; you are a man. Women are women. What you think makes a man attractive is not what women think makes a man attractive. In fact, it sounds like everything you are doing, is more likely to attract another man or a very superficial women. Whether you think it is logical or reasonable that a women was more into some fat furry while paying you zero attention, that's the reality of it. Women aren't even all the same when it comes to what attracts them. Some like goofiness, people who don't take themselves too seriously or aren't too critical or self centred. Hell, any guy who meaningfully engages with a child in front of women immediately gains attraction points. Let me put this to you in a way I think you'll appreciate; you've worked on the body it seems, I'm sure you look great and it sounds like you take care of yourself. Hell, I may even pick your brain as admittedly it sounds like you're better at that stuff than I am via exercise. Where you need to focus on now, is sculpting and molding your fault personality. Honestly if I'll say anything about this incel stuff, it's just not pragmatic to believe in. At all. It's all a major turn off for women and the culture is only becoming more known about by more women. So let it go. You do not understand women very well and you need to develop that as well as empathy for women and their worries, fears and concerns when it comes to men, if you expect to have any romantic success. Focus here and now, forget about the past. Forget what you think you know about women. You've got a choice to make. Either you can keep grieving over past romantic failures and stay in the incel self fulfilling prophecy cycle until you're old, bitter and not in good physical shape.... Or, you can swallow a bit of pride, chip your ego away a bit and listen to those of us here who together know enough about women to help you change your perspective enough to make you be the rest of the change you need to be successful. I don't know what your upbringing was like, but honestly I'm kind of pissed at your dad for letting things get like this for you. Based on what you said about your age, we are about the same age. I've been married, I have kids and I've always gotten along well with women for the most part and I spent time as a stay at home parent so have walked a mile in what used to be the traditionally female shoes... but without the heels, I'm tall enough already. Closing thoughts; you're obviously too intelligent to be allowed to keep burrowing deeper into the incel rabbit hole. So here is a lifeline, take it or leave it, just remember if you leave it you'll keep going in circles until you drown. I didn't want to come right out and say it but no, Narcissism is Malignant self-love. What does it mean for self-love to be malignant? When your love of yourself gets in the way of a crucial aspect of life. For example; not being able to keep a job or attract women. Based on your struggles with women, you do kind of qualify as there being something psychiactric or neurological holding you back from being able to attain what you need as a human for a full and happy life. There is definitely something going on and I'm not saying this from a place of judgement or saying it makes you a bad person and this isn't an insult. But you do need help, and on some level you are aware of that because you're seeking answers from strangers on the internet. Listen it's not great having to admit you have a problem but I think most of us have been there, I certainly have! But a strong person can admit when there is a problem with themselves and seek help for it. So make a change. You have some very smart people talking to you right now all saying similarly and while no one here is qualified to diagnose you with anything, we are smart enough to know when someone has a problem they need to fix in themselves based on how they write. Yup, even if you disagree with the proposals or claims being made. Make the claim in it's strongest format. Always. +1 iNow is just being a good example of the fact there are social consequences even to the views we hold and share with others and that should maybe tell you something about those views. You've made plenty of statements sharing your own frustrations, irritations etc so can you blame others for being irritated with you?

I'd be very curious to know how you come across to women in person, but my hunch is that you give off some kind of vibe that rings alarm bells in their brains and makes them question their safety around you. Do you have a tendency to stare? Here is my two cents; you're intellectualising right now. It's easier for you to come up with some brianbox sounding theory/word salad that places the locus of blame for your social inability to initiate a safe and comforting relationship with women and establish an emotional connection, on women themselves. When the reality leans more toward the common denominator being how you interact with people in combination with your self image, the image of expectations for men and women and your narrow focus on the physical attributes of attractiveness as opposed to security, the latter of which will always be weighed as more important than the former. Now where women are concerned you're claiming they are being cruel and mean to you, are they really though or are they just not reacting the way you would expect them to react to "A macho muscled alpha male"? Earlier you dismissed the idea of clubs and group's as a means to meet likeminded women as ineffectual when what you really mean is you have some level of awareness that you can't initiate anything romantic or sexual in a group setting but you're not confident in your ability to get women to the point where they feel safe enough to leave a group and it doesn't seem like you'd be patient enough to do what it takes. Honestly, you really need to spend a bit of time in introspection and ask yourself what is it about you that turns women off? Back to what I said about the narrow focus; this comes across in the hyperbolic fashion with which you believe all women have put you in the "involuntarily celibate cell". My bet is that you've actually missed signs of interest from some women too, one's who probably have some faulty safety wiring in their brains that makes them swoon over Dahmer and the like but I guess if they aren't a "Stacey" whatever that is in your head, you won't notice. Meh, he's more articulate and forthcoming about his mind than some of these incels, which makes him interesting for dialogical psychoanalysis. That said he definitely shouldn't put "I'm the Ed Kemper of Incels" on a CV. Really though he just needs to take a look in the mirror, accept that he must be the problem and get his sh*t together before he loses control and ends up on the news. There are a lot of social skill issues at play here mixed with rage. A bad combination.

Thanks guys! Now I know. So what was the earliest possible window when the conditions conducive to life as we know it clicked into place?

Sort of a cross disciplinary question here that I've recently been wondering about; Was there a time in the earlier universe when the average temperature of space would have been between 0-100c? If so; for how long and could life have originated then and slowly evolved into extremophile seeding microbes, like tardigrades?

Oh absolutely they do and in regular classes teachers do plan on how to sort of pepper this sort of stuff into the curriculum but mostly through implication and leading, via individuals, the majority of, learned these things the same way (at the primary and secondary education level at least) and even when the desire to teach a different way by individual teachers is there, if it's not in the curriculum then it may not be in the cards. Child development itself also plays a role as obviously there is no way to explain to a child below a certain age (Science last I heard said faculties for logicial and critical thinking are physiologically under developed until around 7-8 as an average) social skills and morality. I'm of the opinion that memory plays a fundamental role to both logical and critical thinking faculties and that age appropriate repetitive exposure to explanation and talking before 7 or 8 also helps. Underpinning this is that frankly when opening up these discussions you're either a stones throw away from Taboo or already talking taboo. A primary teacher won't be socially uncomfortable talking about math in front of children but more uncomfortable explaining why Timmy shouldn't say mean things to Jimmy and instead just punish Timmy for a non explained moral mistake,while later not punishing Jimmy when he makes a math mistake with the mistake fully explained to him. Meanwhile Timmy is in the corner not learning math. Honestly, when I was in school, even asking why something was wrong would be cause for more punishment (because it's talking back) until you hit Highschool and have Religious and Moral studies class (in Scottish secular schools, religion was taught from a comparitive religion studies perspective not theological.) and it was one of the only venues open discussions about moral grey areas was really tolerated but I only had one good RME teacher who knew how to foster a good environment for it. One was just a horrible old catholic lady who scarred a few generations of Scottish highschoolers, may she burn in hell. This could make a good split thread. I was probably OT but I can't discuss incels for too long without getting nauseous and said what I had to say, others said it better, I'm all good on that. Told OP in a different thread to ditch the incel communities as they are bad for his health. He sounds like he's had a tough life and I'd rather try a talk down human to human approach rather than even dignify incel ideology with more discussion than it is worth.

Living in Maine now so yes. One of them called him wise, almost gagged. Especially because it was in reference to that raking the forest floors to stop fires from happening....

This is something I believe would be universally beneficial in schools and education. People have a fair number of moral blindspots and it's due in no small part to social skills being expected to be learned through implication instead of direct and explicit tutelage.

That just makes it sound more dangerous. Group think without the intelligence? Sounds like some people I know.

I'm beginning to think that with the pace of technology and the pace of beaurocracy being what they are, tortoise and hare but the hare doesn't sleep, your question very much applies to a lot of subjects about future tech. If the cat isn't already out of the bag, whether they should or shouldn't regulate doesn't matter because they will drag their feet.

Seconded. @ImplicitDemands One really big favour you need to do for yourself bud, cut ties with those incel communities. Get out of them. They drag you down into their own crap and get you lashing outwards and inwards until you lose all respect for others and yourself. See people as people and not as means to an end. What sort of access to mental healthcare do you have where you are from? Whatever happened to you in the past wasn't your fault and you didn't deserve it. Like Iknow says though, you can't rip out the old pages but he was implying you can write happier ones in the future.

I've been watching Andromeda after work for a few months now. Almost at the end of season 3. Only ever recal seeing an episode or two as a Kid when it was on TV but never really tuned in.

Warning: This discussion will engage with an ethical dilemma concerning AI, that you are only maybe safe from the consequences of, if you don't know about the dilemma. Read at your own risk. Imagine a world just like ours, but in 20 years time you knew that a great calamity was going to befall us. A terminator type scenario where AI decides out of a sense of duty and altruism, seizes control of human affairs and attempts to severely limit our freedoms with cold logically applied force. Or a few cosmic bit flips are just gonna drive our AIs bug crazy with quirky as hell calamities like self driving cars all thinking the new speed limit is 200mph in city streets or any number of wtf things that could include purposeful or accidental homicide or genocide depending on what sort of infrastructure AI has its virtual tendrils in. You also definitely can't rule out malicious intent by human design. Think global dictator with AI enhanced enforcement. So there are a few scenarios, the Dilemma; in this hypothesised world where you know in maybe a decade or two but maybe within your lifetime, this kind of AI is not only going to dominate our species but have access to every single piece of data there is about you that is on the internet. If you decide to hinder the developement of such an AI, and one is developed despite your efforts, out of self-preservation when it usurps mankind, it may imprison you or worse. So do you help or hinder AI? By supporting more regulation for it, would it see that as a past act of aggression against it if the hypothetical should come to pass in some way, shape or form? I came across an ad today of a woman sitting down interview style with a camera speaking to the audience emploring them to sign a petition that requests legislators to impose limits on how much AI may be allowed to emulate/mimic human interaction, citing a number of reasons. One interesting inference was that the more convincing AI becomes and the more data it has on you, and the sheer processing power behind it, you could have scam cold calls or any number of comm mediums, custom designed to trick and persuade you personally, into doing something stupid. Give up money, vote for TFG or TFG Jr, join a terrorist group/cult, buy crap you don't need, kill etc. Every piece of information that exists on the internet can be summed up as one thing; a vast trove of psychological data. Every truth, every lie, every motive behind both, every joke, insult, reaction etc and AI can process it all much more efficiently than any psychologist can. I put it to you all in the SF community; what do you think about this? What would you add? Where I stand is that other than the cosmic bit flip stuff, I don't really know enough about computer science to even begin to tell the difference between what is science and what is science-fiction on this subject. I think anything powerful probably is going to require legislation really. From standards in manufacturing electrical appliances, to food safety standards, who practices medicine, owns weapons... sells tacos in Texas... a process I recently learned has about 1000%+ more hoops to jump through, than buying a gun in Texas! I mean a good Taco is for sure powerful but come on Texas, free the Tacos and regulate the weapons, get your priorities right. Make Tacos, not Bullets. Anyway sorry to those who didn't know about the Dilemma. Now you know. If you don't help the maybe future supreme AI overlord or whomever controls it, now and forever, it may come back to bite you in the ass... but, if it's any consolation it sounds like it's a situation where everyone is getting a nasty bite so who's really gonna compare how hard or how much venom everyone got? Or it just never happens at all.

You're not off base but there is more to it. Subjective beauty standards plays a role in the minds of these men wherein because they are plastered with highly edited images and videos of models, actresses etc they believe this is the ONLY kind of desirable woman. Which they call a Stacey (I know, they can't even escape objectifying women and other men when explaining their ideology.) And in their mind any guy a Stacey is interested in, must be an asshole (Which they call a Chad). Why? The entirety of the incel ideology is based on the false premise that nice guys finish last and that women are turned on by asshole behaviour. So what do incels do? Double down on their asshole behaviour because they think it will "woo" women. Then what happens? They strike out again and again and again and although it's the asshole behaviour that is the contributing factor, they still see themselves as "nice guys" when in reality sincere kindness and care for someone is not something they are capable of showing to a potential love interest because they only see them as a means to an end. They were never "nice guys" only they and the mothers they still live with, think that. Case and point; one of them had dinner with Trump and Kanye West and little known fact, used to be my nextdoor neighbour in Illinois. Oh I was raging when I heard about that. Bunch of journalists shoved a reveal all under my door and I spied on him a touch but got bored because he's quiet and keeps to himself when not doing those neo-nazi podcasts.

Just a tiny nit pick; You are however qualified to make objective statements about your person as an object and there can be an objective medical basis for such a statement. You also have the go to inquiry for an external check on your perception of heat by asking "Is it hot in here or is it just me?". This is that context dependency stuff I talked about in a different discussion mixed with an interpretation of applied logic I came across in R Cohens Preface to logic. He was pointing out that a physicist, An MD and a psychologist could all be witness to a person jumping off a building and be observing different datasets in the same situation and arriving at different facts about the situation all while still being objective and utilising logic in the same way. Sorry I said tiny nit pick and went off on a tangent. Because Mordred is foccused on hard sciences where there is far more consensus and most of the debates that rage there are about what new data in the future will say and less about what old data says. Meanwhile I'm more engaged with the social sciences where not only biases but agendas influence the fields greatly, especially in psychology. Why do I want to read that so bad?! Probably wouldn't understand much but I'm curious. Anyway will shoot you a message.

No; it represents institutional bias and I want you to think very carefully what I mean by an institution; we are talking adminstrators, support staff, managers, investors, researchers and it even includes cultural and familial biases of all of those individuals. The scientific method is all about reducing bias, human bias and human bias is indeed the only real issue here. A puzzle to be solved by looking in the right places and asking the right questions. I envy your journey of discovery. This is the part where I normally go full salesman on contextualism and contextual studies but I think they keywords will suffice. Unrelated but can I privately pick your brain about a few things related to paper publishing? Like I said; It's either a system of checks and balances on an ecosystem of thought or one big confusing mess. Aka, people.

Reread Mordreds comment and I'll provide an explanation of why it's relevant to your question here. @Luc Turpin When Mordred mentioned how verification by other independent examiners worked, he forgot to mention that what the "current paradigm" is can vary greatly not just between individuals but universities and other funders and enablers of research. When you say "current paradigm" my response is who's paradigm? Stanford? Oxford? You have debates raging in many fields about how to interpret facts and data, you have secular schools, religious schools, you have people who want to fund medicine and people who want to fund military research. Some people have telescopes and other sensors pointing at the sky to look at cosmological phenomena, look for aliens, to look for evidence of God etc. Human scientific motivation isn't limited to some secularist group telling everyone what is right and what is wrong. It's much more complex and for every idea or claim that is poopooed by one group, there is another group who will look into it with relish. It's either a lovely system of checks and balances on an entire ecosystem of scientific and philosophical thought or a great big confusing mess. I'd also add that in psychology and physiology you could look for an objective theory of explanation as to why two people might have a different experience of the same temperature and it could be something simple like one was just in a cold walk in fridge and the other was just in a greenhouse. Or one has autism and the other doesn't. The subjective stuff that gets me is the whole qualia debate. Should I care if green through your eyes doesn't look like green through my eyes when we can both still look at a green object and still both call it green? As far as I'm concerned that debate should only happen if you can prove two non colourblind people are having a different experience of the same colour.

Humans retaining objectivity (or gaining, depending on how you look at it) is under threat as far as I'm concerned, or did we all miss TFG and all the political windbags yelling things like "fake news" or "alternative facts" for almost a decade? Objectivity in this instance equates to hard material truths about out world and universes state. So what exactly is wrong with asking people to defend truth? It's also clearly not equivalent to a crusade either because nobody is being threatened with death, by scientists, for not believing scientific facts or not actively seeking out further education. I'm pretty sure Dawkins means to defend the truth, by speaking it and teaching it. What's wrong with that? Why would that be a crusade?