/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22948823]

In this thread please post funny /lit/ screenshots.

[Anonymous No.22948826]

[Anonymous No.22948834]

[Anonymous No.22948849]

>>22948823
The first part reminds me of how my father told me that the men who achieved scientific advances in the past felt much greater than the scientists of today. The feeling they felt after thousands of years of human effort to resolve a single problem explain the fever of scientific advancement in the 19th century. Modern science is devoid of emotion. Scientists of old went crazy and starved searching the truth.
>>22948826
The problem of the muslim world being the most opressive to women is funny when you combine White guilt and multiculturalism

[Anonymous No.22948858]

[Anonymous No.22948864]

[Anonymous No.22948867]

[Anonymous No.22949242]

ok i have a few of these, i will share

>>22948826
>>22948858
haha

>>22948864
>>22948867
these ones are kinda gay, remind me of those tumblr screenshots you see around the place...

[Anonymous No.22949246]

[Anonymous No.22949248]

conspiracy theory about bertrand russels works that i find funny...

[Anonymous No.22949253]

[Anonymous No.22949255]

>>22948867
Is there anything more anti-antisemitic than writing tax policy into your fictions? Brave.

[Anonymous No.22949256]

[Anonymous No.22949257]

[Anonymous No.22949260]

>>22948849
And look where all that science has got us! Thank those blessed creatures who got us here

[Anonymous No.22949262]

>>22949256
God damn what a classic

[Anonymous No.22949269]

[Anonymous No.22949287]

[Anonymous No.22949295]

>>22949256

[Anonymous No.22949301]

[Anonymous No.22949303]

[Anonymous No.22949309]

miss this anon, whomever he is

[Anonymous No.22949316]

arguably more /his/ than /lit/ but fuk it

[Anonymous No.22949318]

[Anonymous No.22949319]

[Anonymous No.22949324]

[Anonymous No.22949330]

[Anonymous No.22949335]

[Anonymous No.22949343]

[Anonymous No.22949349]

[Anonymous No.22949356]

[Anonymous No.22949365]

>>22949316
hah

does anyone have the schizo infographic about that crazy muslim guy who was obsessed with rene guenon and would always shill his works, and ended up becoming a kinda archetypal figure called the guenonfag?

[Anonymous No.22949369]

From /g/ but still relevant

[Anonymous No.22949377]

>>22948849
Capitalism has ruined everything.

[Anonymous No.22949394]

[Anonymous No.22949401]

>>22949335
this one is great, but the second filter is pretty dumb

why is conditional/ counterfactual statements the only criterion for nuance in speech? theres plenty of ways to speak abstractly and address complex ideas without using counterfactuals. and you can also use the first five categories to talk about some of the most essential goods in life, and in ways that are aesthetically incredible. Keats' ode on melancholy is a report about an emotional state but it would be reductive to describe it as simple hedonistic "brain-thoughts."
(okay there are some conditional statements in there "when the melancholy fit will fall," but you get the point. )

[Anonymous No.22949415]

>>22949287
I don't find Socrates argument very convincing even though I think the guy is cucked

[Anonymous No.22949443]

[Anonymous No.22949448]

>>22948826
Based beyond belief

[Anonymous No.22949462]

mostly everyone has probably seen this one

[Anonymous No.22949465]

[Anonymous No.22949477]

[Anonymous No.22949479]

[Anonymous No.22949482]

>>22949415
The real argument is that if you only have one type of cereal in your life, then that's just how cereal is for you and you'll be content with it (the way humans have lived before modern diets), but it you've spent your life eating a different kind of cereal every week, deciding to one day stick to a single type will leave you desiring for the variety that you've spent years training your brain for.
It's simple Hebbian learning. Form shallow romantic bonds just to break them over and over, and that's how your brain will start experiencing romantic bonds, on a physical neurological level (very hard to undo) and your ability to form long term relationships will be hindered by your learned proclivity to desire short term pleasure-oriented flings.

This has been also demonstrated empirically, with every study on the matter showing that the more partners you've had in your past, the worse the satisfaction in your current marriage will be.
The data shows that this phenomenon is prevalent in both sexes but much more so in women than in men, I assume because when men have recreational sex it's less of an emotional experience and more of a way to cum, whereas for women it's the opposite.

It's pretty simple, really. A promiscuous woman doesn't make for a good wife. This has been obvious to everyone ever, which is why female promiscuity has always been frowned upon no matter what time and place in history.
It's only in modern times that people believe this ideology about being able to engage in all sorts of degenerate behaviors without it having any bearing on how you'll be in the future. Of course these people selectively apply it to the groups and behaviors they want while not affording the same to groups that are against their ideology, but that's another discussion.

Plus there are all the dynamics of childbirth that further make promiscuity less desirable, but that's hopefully obvious to everyone here.

[Anonymous No.22949505]

>>22949482
Go read fiction.

[Anonymous No.22949513]

>>22949505
No.

[Anonymous No.22949556]

>>22949513
Your hyper rationality is simply a defensive mechanism. Go step outside your comfort zone, let fiction inspire your emotions, lest you become what you proclaim humans to be, computers and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.22949573]

>>22949556
That's just basic practical reasoning, but it makes sense that someone who rejects the influence of our human nature as some made up idea of humans being computers (or pretends to do so), would consider it "hyper rationality" lmao.
Keep ignoring the way humans work if you want, but then don't complain when things don't go as planned because you based your decisions on false information that you chose to believe because it *felt* good.

[Anonymous No.22949580]

>>22949482
>on a physical neurological level
>every study on the matter
>the data shows
fuck your science, nigger. Why do you even believe these studies? they put studies out about all kinds of things, who cares what "the science" says (funny how its a the, kinda like the free market, the modern world, the jew, the media .etc.)

this whole argument is retarded. Greek philosophers including socrates were notoriously polygamous and loved to fuck femboys. Turning socrates into some kind of defender of 1950s nuclear family morality is anachronistic and inaccurate, even worse than those christians who try to paint jesus as a proponent of some modern political ideology.

[Anonymous No.22949584]

[Anonymous No.22949600]

>>22949573
Things always go as planned, we just like to ourselves what we plan out. The unconscious manifests. If our thought was reducible to neuroscience we wouldn't be sentient, and I'm obviously not responding to your posts about fucking whores, but to you in general sonce you've reasoned the same way in multiple threads today.

[Anonymous No.22949603]

[Anonymous No.22949607]

[Anonymous No.22949608]

>>22949580
>don't believe studies, Believe whatever you want instead
Retard.

>this whole argument is retarded
You mean the joke post that based its humor on the unlikely juxtaposition of a Greek philosopher and a discussion about modern-day values about promiscuity?

>>22949580
>1950s nuclear family morality
You conveniently forget that the same values are also prevalent in most of the rest of the world (and history), and pretend that not wanting to marry a whore is just something that Americans decided to do in the 50s lmao.
Retard.

>that pic
Take a guess...

[Anonymous No.22949611]

>>22949600
>We like to lie to ourselves

[Anonymous No.22949620]

>>22949600
Made up /x/ nonsense

>multiple threads
First time I come to /lit/ in months and this is the only thread I've posted in.
Believe it or not, there's more than one person who thinks this way, and as humanity discovers more and more about the human brain, this number will only grow, as it's becoming harder and harder to ignore the actual unquestionable truth.

[Anonymous No.22949622]

>>22949620
>Don't read fiction thread

[Anonymous No.22949631]

>>22949622
You mean this? >>22946153
He does mention Hebb, so I can see why you think we're the same person, but no. I don't care if you don't believe me.

[Anonymous No.22949638]

>>22949608
>don't believe studies, Believe whatever you want instead
Obviously believing whatever you want is better than believing studies.

If you believe a study, how many people do you have to believe are acting in good faith? Not only all the researchers working on the study, but also all the participants, the people funding the study. You also have to trust all the previous work in that research field, all the theoretical assumptions that go into that fields methods .etc., (this is especially problematic in soft sciences studying nebulous concepts like "relationship happiness"). All up, this is easily thousands of people you have to trust. You have to believe all of these people are honest, reliable, accurate seekers after truth without any kind of malicious agenda. And you can't even conclusively prove that these people exist.

Whereas if you believe what you want, the only person you have to trust is yourself. Therefore, believing whatever you want is clearly more intellectually defensible than believing in science.

The rest of your post is just bluster and really is beneath contempt, but i just wanted to present the case to you that obviously you should believe what you want rather than believing studies.

[Anonymous No.22949641]

>>22949607
Literal mind virus. Fuck you for posting that

[Anonymous No.22949653]

>>22949638
Schizo-tier logic. Good luck with the rest of your life.

Also, what if I said that I choose to believe what I said regardless of any evidence?
Would that make it true?
Lmao stop wasting my time.

[Anonymous No.22949663]

>>22948867
based and heartofrealitypilled

[Anonymous No.22949698]

>>22949653
>Schizo-tier logic.
its called a philosophical argument. have you even read any philosophy before?

why dont you tell me whats wrong with the premises or the logic of the argument? if it turns out my argument is wrong, we'll both benefit if you can clearly articulate why. Ill be able to discard an erroneous belief, and you'll become clearer and more precise in your thinking. .

and don't just point me to some gay study either, since the whole question at issue is whether it is valid to base your beliefs off gay scientific studies.

I hate you so much. Science and your retarded faith in it are whats fueling everything nightmarish about the modern world, the crusihing of the human will, spirit, imagination and the destruction of everything beautiful.... you seem to think decadence is caused by the fact that people (other than you) get laid lmao, which is really a good thing.

[Anonymous No.22949705]

[Anonymous No.22949714]

[Anonymous No.22949730]

>>22949622
>>22949631
Actually now that I read his post, I disagree with his point.
What he says about Hebbian learning is true, but his conclusion about avoiding fiction is very limited.
First of all, nonfiction has the same effect, considering that we're not going to be able to have a full and clear picture on reality anytime soon, so the selective nature of any factual knowledge we may gather in our life can potentially be just as misleading to our brains as fiction (we should instead strive to gain as clear an understanding as possible of how everything is, while keeping in mind that it's only the best we can do and is not conclusive at all).
Fiction, as unrealistic as it can be, can be a great source of deliberate self-brainwashing to get yourself to change in a desirable/desired way, in a much more effective manner than by simply reading fiction.

Since everything affects you, it's stupid to single out fiction as the thing to avoid, when there are so many other worse influences in your life, for example the people in your life. I'm sure you have family members, coworkers, neighbors, etc who are complete dipshits that shape your mind in undesirable ways too.

The reason why I don't like to read fiction is because I have limited time in my day and life, so any fictional book I decide to spend time on is a life-improving nonfiction book that I'm missing out on, so I'd rather use my time in what I consider a more useful activity than reading fiction, which btw I still do some times, much like I enjoy other forms of fiction such as movies, music, etc.
I'm just selective over what "diet" I'm giving my brain, and if we want to continue with the food analogy, he's the "carnivore-only to avoid the issues of veganism" of diets. A dumb extremist who hurts himself in one way to avoid hurting himself in the opposite way.

[Anonymous No.22949739]

>>22949698
>a philosophical argument
A poor one based on the complete failure of any reasoning.
Pure stupidity of the same kind that leads /x/ schizos to believe things that are obviously untrue.

Again, I don't care to read the rest of your demented post. Stop wasting my time.

[Anonymous No.22949767]

>>22949739
you bluster and seethe because you know im right.

You should read at least little bit of philosophy before coming here and trying to discuss complex questions. Start with the greeks, and stop being such a faggot.

[Anonymous No.22949786]

>>22949767
ok

[Anonymous No.22949787]

>>22948864
I think this is a good critique of a certain type of liberal, but not really all of them. Many are principled, they are just also pragmatists who have studied history and seen that 9 times out of 10 revolution and war actually just make everything shittier and degrade civic virtue.

Radicals have belief and fervor, but in the end this is precisely what makes them so very susceptible to demagogues and grifters. One need only look at the energy of the nu-right circa 2014-2015, and what it has actually morphed into almost a decade later to see that play out.

Arguably, the neo-classical virtue ethicists have a stronger, more fleshed out belief system than most. A lot of radicalism is just powered by resentment and ressentiment; it's inchoate and contradictory. But neo-classicists and Hegelians ,with their emphasis on building identity and a sense of duty, and on promoting virtue, just don't see blowing shit up as an actual sensible solution. The idea that "things are bad because bad people in charge, put le good people in and it will be good," is just infantile. As the Greeks well knew, the society is prior to the individual, the person is the accident to the system's substance. Virtue is something that must be cultivated, not enforced. This is why Socrates is a teacher, not a politician.

But we essentially live in a society built on quicksand, foundations steeped in nihilism and retarded Boomer existentialism as religion, so crisis might be inevitable. It doesn't make it preferable though.

And if there is crisis and collapse, the best bet for regeneration isn't in the radicals, but probably the Church, since they at least still focus on philosophy and education, and have the numbers the carry on in crisis.

[Anonymous No.22949961]

[Anonymous No.22949976]

[Anonymous No.22949991]

>71 replies
>16 posters
shee

[Anonymous No.22949993]

I like this reading list of books useful to get laid

[Anonymous No.22950000]

>>22949991
why dont you share some screenshots then cunt?

[Anonymous No.22950043]

>>22948823
Speaks for itself

[Anonymous No.22950182]

>>22949730
Thanks for actually engaging, since I was wrong to link you to him I might reply with more effort later, as I'm pretty busy at the moment, but good post even if I disagree on a few points.

[Anonymous No.22950194]

>>22950182
To be honest I don't want to argue. I'm just being the Internet autist that I am and can't stop myself from wasting time on shit like this despite having a ton of shit to do. I'll probably continue if you respond later lol.

[Anonymous No.22951210]

>>22949309
Categorically based

[Anonymous No.22952092]

[Anonymous No.22952162]

>>22949462
That, along with Plato on the subway, are my favorites.

[Anonymous No.22952171]

[Anonymous No.22952236]

Bump

[Anonymous No.22952242]

>>22949482
I think getting rid of prostitution makes the data really confusing, because it seems like at most times in history guys could just go bust a nut baggage free

[Anonymous No.22952251]

>>22949556
Hyper rationality is what made you marry a prostitute

[Anonymous No.22952317]

>>22949415
But the guy being cucked is the argument

[Anonymous No.22952494]

>>22949482
It's okay to denounce female promiscuity, but will you also denounce male promiscuity?

[Anonymous No.22952534]

>>22949269
>an exposition on the different types of cocks and the manner in which their appearances inform us about the quality of the soul of a man, based on the metals analogy of The Republic
Kek

[Anonymous No.22952539]

>>22949242
From what book?

[Anonymous No.22952560]

[Anonymous No.22953008]

>>22948867
This response to what is presumably a flippant comment about how LOTR is 'simple and thereby bad' is pretty good at outlining how there are many good stories that exist as representations of the real as opposed to the real - that the conceptual meat of the story is in presenting the interactions between archetypes and the consequences of how they interact with each other. But he goes off the mark when he asserts that LOTR is more 'real' than GOT as a result of GOT 'redundancies'.

Stories composed of interactions between archetypes are (sometimes? always?) explorations of the Self, while stories that include sections that explore social/natural ecosystems (what op has dubbed 'redundant') are explorations of those ecosystems. These are still valuable. You greatly limit the scope of literature if you consider a detailed and technical (not that GOT is, but for sake of example) rumination about systems to not be not worth writing about.

In trying to defend a work anon attacks the contra-work unfairly. Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.22953017]

>>22953008
got is just disgusting soulless porn

[Anonymous No.22953022]

>>22949269
I guess the sage was women in this case

[Anonymous No.22953024]

[Anonymous No.22953025]

[Anonymous No.22953029]

[Anonymous No.22953032]

[Anonymous No.22953229]

>>22949462
>>22953025
Ireland /lit/ af

[Anonymous No.22953350]

>>22949482
yeesh where to start.

Your mode of mind isn't solely determined by reenforcement of prior actions. There will be a factor or mode of thinking that influences you down this path to begin with. If you start considering behaviour from the level that you're considering at then the patterns you'll find aren't going to generalise very well.

I'd advise you against giving more 'explanations' to this phenomena or you're not going to be able to see outside of it if your justifications for this limited-domain view if they keep compounding. You'll just be left with more junk you'll need to chuck out.


The people you're referencing in these 'studies' sound really stupid. You're extrapolating from these people way too far. Just because they're bad at being self-conscious and changing their behaviour doesn't mean thats inherent to the human character. I don't see myself reflected in these people at all.

I also find it really baffling that you've been compelled to drop this way of thinking in here anyway, and how much you 'know' about it. You doing alright dude?

You write like you're relatively young (sorry if you aren't) so i'm not too worried. If you're hovering around 20 and you can shake your head and go 'jesus, what was i thinking, theres more to life than this' then you'll be just fine.

[Anonymous No.22953357]

>>22949556
your shit half-assed response has enabled >>22949513 to throw a bit more dirt over his head. If you really want to help you need to put some effort in lest you give them the means to put themselves in deeper

[Anonymous No.22953369]

>>22953029
Am I going crazy or is show don't tell only screenwriting advice? I enjoy old school novels with an omniscient narrator way more than modern "POV" stuff

[Anonymous No.22953443]

>>22949638
Alright you're also pretty bonkers.

If these people didn't exist it would reveberate into your life in a way you would notice. If the study was made up then the overseeing comittee would be made up. If this doesn't get reported then journalists are made up which means that all stories about current events are fictional which means that there are no people in your life who know people who saw something happen. The only way in which you can be this degree of paranoid hyper-skeptic and accepting all of the corollary falsehoods that emenate from the initial falsehood is if you dont interact with the world at all. Don't be stupid.

You don't have to trust the methods or their theoretical assumptions. Those are publically available and you could understand them. Declaring that science is based on trust of people is laziness on your part.

You can totally say that a study is bogus because you've found a flaw in its workings, or that the conclusions drawn are non-sequiters to the data. But this means of criticism you've settled on is ridiculous. Give it up.

[Anonymous No.22953454]

>>22949584

[Anonymous No.22953460]

>>22949698
i didnt read this until i wrote>>22953443
it's cool that you invite an opposing view. In that context i hope that i've made it obvious to you that indirectly discarding the entire world because you don't trust it is equal parts crazy and sad. Hope you're doing alright dude, because that degree of rejection and suspicion isn't something i'd expect to see in someone who's well.

[Anonymous No.22953468]

my favourite

[Anonymous No.22953487]

>>22949730
Avoiding fiction does not give you a superior mental diet. Given that you seem singularly concerned with reality-itself fiction would do you a lot of good in giving you the full scope of brilliant human experience

[Anonymous No.22953726]

>>22952242
I think it contributes to the notion that men are less affected by this, but men do also tend to cheat more, so it would be interesting to see a study like this in a country that outlawed prostitution, with before and after data.

>>22952251
This isn't hyperrationality. It's the fallacy of ignoring our humanity and pretending we're programmable robots that can do whatever with no other influences.
An actually rational person takes into account the emotional and irrational part of our mind, as it's an important part of the equation.

>>22952494
I did. Male promiscuity is also just as bad for similar reasons, and also for the nth order consequences it has on our culture.
I'm just saying that historically it makes sense to not want to marry a promiscuous woman because she's more likely to make for a bad long term partner, whereas men are less affected by the phenomenon (but not unaffected, so don't take this as me saying male promiscuity is fine).

>>22953487
Not what I said at all lol, re-read my post.

[Anonymous No.22953730]

>>22953350
>Your mode of mind isn't solely determined by reenforcement of prior actions
Of course not. But it's a big influence that's utterly crazy to ignore.

>you'll find aren't going to generalise very well.
I'm not generalizing at all.
I understand why you'd think I am, since most people, even here, are black/white thinking dummies, but I'm talking about it in terms of a distribution curve. A trend, if you will.
Just because there are smokers who live to a healthy 100 it doesn't mean that smoking doesn't *typically* worsens your health and increase your mortality.
There are always exceptions, but if we're talking about the big picture you need to increase your sample size and start looking at the emerging patterns that highlight correlations
If we plotted each person's marriage satisfaction on a graph where X is the number of previous partners and Y is marriage satisfaction, you'll see dots all over the place including the bottom left (no previous partners but low satisfaction) and the top right (many partners but high satisfaction), but the mass of the data will be in a clear line going from top left (no partners and high satisfaction) to bottom right (many partners and low satisfaction). It's what the data shows, it's what we've always known, and it's simply how every influencing factor works.

So by knowing this, if you met a woman with 50 previous sexual partners, who could be the perfect wife (an exception) or one that will stop loving you soon (in line with the trend), and you had to bet a good portion of your life and resources, would you bet on her being the exception or would you bet on another woman with fewer partners who doesn't have to be a rare exception to be a loving wife?

If for some reason you had to pick a person whose job is to never ever gamble for the rest of their life, and choosing wrong resulted in a heavy fine, would you pick the former professional gambler, someone who plays poker once in a while, or someone who's never gambled?
The trend is clear, and while the pro gambler might be able to put it all behind, the neural pathways that associate gambling to pleasure are still there to give him a path of least resistance that he will actively have to fight.
The occasional gambler is the same but on a much lesser degree.
The guy who never gambled is going to have the easiest time pretending that gambling doesn't exist, so if choosing right is important, you'd be crazy to go for the gambler.

Learning to think in terms of trends and distribution curves allows you to understand how different factors influence things in a proportional way, rather than in the simplistic black and white way.

1/?

[Anonymous No.22953736]

>>22953350
>The people you're referencing in these 'studies' sound really stupid. You're extrapolating from these people way too far. Just because they're bad at being self-conscious and changing their behaviour doesn't mean thats inherent to the human character. I don't see myself reflected in these people at all.
First of all you know nothing of the subjects of these studies and are just conveniently assuming they're stupid to dismiss the very factual data that you don't want to accept. And second, you don't have opposing data (with smart people lol) to show the opposite, so you really have nothing to dismiss it with, and can AT MOST say it's inconclusive, but saying it's wrong makes it very clear that you're not interested in knowing the truth, and you just want to defend the worldview that you want to have.
Even ignoring this glaring blunder, very smart people are just as susceptible to their subconscious inclinations as stupid people.
In fact, smart people are better able to rationalize any misbehavior to consciously let themselves give in to any desire they may have.
Also, you embarrassingly fail to understand that we're not talking about something that you can decide, such as not cheating. We're talking about the completely subconscious mechanism that leads them to not be as attracted to their long term partner as they would otherwise be. It doesn't matter how smart or capable of self control you are, you're not going to choose if you love someone or not. Once the love is gone (because you've trained yourself to be incapable of loving someone for long periods of time) you're not going to be able to decide to start loving them again, so your marriage is much more likely to fail, or you'll start wanting to cheat.
A person whose brain has been physically altered to facilitate certain thought patterns (Hebbian learning) will have a much higher inclination to fall into those thought patterns. Especially when it comes to things that we don't really choose, such as our desires and emotions.

>You doing alright dude?
I will never stop finding the inverse correlation between intelligence and cockiness funny and sad at the same time.

>You write like you're relatively young
Not young, just ESL.

>If you're hovering around 20 and you can shake your head and go 'jesus, what was i thinking, theres more to life than this' then you'll be just fine.
That's funny because I used to think just like you, but learning about the human brain/mind shifted my worldview to something that allows me to much more closely match and predict what happens in real life, and now I do think "jesus, what was i thinking, theres more to life than this" about those days.
Don't worry, some people mature slower than others. You'll have your time too buddy.

>>22953357
Lol

2/2

[Anonymouṡ No.22953920]

>>22952171
Reminds me of the best one-line summation I ever heard of the only social contract that matters:

“Civilization is built on cockblocking the undeserving.”

[Anonymous No.22953975]

>>22949787
H-Hegelians?

[Anonymous No.22953982]

>>22950043
People are VERY ugly here. I would know it, I have a mirror at home! hahahahahah

[Anonymous No.22953993]

>>22948823
lmfao

[Anonymous No.22953996]

>>22949257
Hey, it's good to be thoroughly educated. God knows universities aren't doing their job.

[Anonymous No.22954002]

>>22949309
what he is saying is basically true, but you don't have to be all hateful about it

[Anonymous No.22954004]

>>22949415
this

[Anonymous No.22954007]

>>22949401
poetry

[Anonymous No.22954027]

>>22949287
Is it just me or does anyone else get autistically furious when people who use 4chan plugins that change the date format screenshot something?

[Anonymous No.22954061]

>>22949335
This is beautiful

[Anonymous No.22954117]

>>22949335
Painfully true.

[Anonymous No.22954122]

>>22953736
I agree with you're saying here. Where would I start with this applied neurology stuff?

[Anonymous No.22954149]

>>22949482
I don't know what's happening to lit, man. What you're saying is more or less an obvious truth, and then there's all these replies just seething. Now, what to do with this truth is a whole can of worms, but to deny simple reality... You would expect here of all places to know better.

[Anonymous No.22954171]

>>22952539
The Young Hitler I Knew

[Anonymous No.22954197]

[Anonymous No.22954226]

>>22953736
>You'll have your time too buddy.

To be honest, I think many people won't. To accept certain truths and make them part of your worldview requires such a complete shift in ways of life. Not only that, but the truth can cause great psychological suffering. I remember the weekend when I learned about all these statistics regarding marriage, birthrates, etc (and it wasn't just ideological jibber jabber, just harsh facts and that's what got me) and it felt so dire and hopeless. It felt like the world was going to end, and I'm usually the optimistic one. That was only a weekend as I said, but the average person would never ever want to go trough that, so it's better to violently reject you as just some schizo, and to keep living life as they always have.

[Anonymous No.22954275]

>>22953468
lol first reply is based

[Anonymous No.22954573]

[Anonymous No.22954577]

[Anonymous No.22954854]

>>22954027
I think that's the archive, so maybe they just use a different format.
Can't be bothered to check.

[Anonymous No.22954894]

>>22949269
>>22949335
>>22949365
>>22949377
>>22949394
>>22949465
>>22949477
>>22948823


Kiss my arse arvo

[Anonymous No.22954990]

>>22949253
Do you have that posted pic in your screenshot of Schop and the nonono background?

[Anonymous No.22955060]

>>22954122
To be honest I never went too deep into this stuff, so no recommendations from me.
I remember learning most of it from lectures on youtube around 10 years ago when I was really into self improvement, changing one's mindset, etc. I searched a bit but didn't find anything that I recognize. Sorry.
I think I first learned about Hebbian learning in some popsci self help video course I got from TPB, so nothing worth recommending there either (although it was pretty interesting/entertaining, I'll post the name if I find it).
Not really related to this (more about health), but the Andrew Huberman podcast is pretty interesting and he and his guests often recommend books about the topics at hand, so maybe you'll find something there.
Sorry for being a pseud and not being very helpful, but it's a pretty simple concept and once you understand how literally everything you do or experience affects you and physically shapes your brain to adapt to it, understanding a large portion of our behaviors (particularly everything related to our habits and our patterns that we can't directly control) becomes so much easier.
People really underestimate the incredible influence that our subconscious (and the forces that shape it, internal and external) has on our conscious thoughts and actions, and unfortunately people naively think they're in control of themselves with full free will, but don't realize that everything we decide is the result of a complex equation of different influences, from our genes to our education, to the specific set of informations we have fresh in our mind at a particular moment. Even my decision to write this post has been almost completely influenced by something.
This is why there's no such thing as "oh, it's just X, it's no big deal". EVERYTHING affects you. You either make sure you're being affected by positive things, or you're being affected by whatever you let into your mind.
This obviously applies to societies as well. Anything entering the culture will unavoidably affect the people in it, and depending on what it is it's going to have very tangible consequences that retards like the posters above are just going to ignore while the world around them burns like in the "this is fine" dog meme.

Sorry for rambling. My point is that you don't need to understand it in great depth to be able to use it to form a more correct worldview (not implying that that's why you're asking for recs). You just need to make sure you don't fall into the naive traps of ignoring how the brain works to justify whatever you want without having to come to terms with the tangible consequences it comes with.

[Anonymous No.22955066]

>>22954149
>>22954226
It all used to be common knowledge. Even without scientific evidence, it was all more than obvious that what you spend your time doing shapes the kind of person you become.
Now people are not only making themselves believe utterly retarded ideas such as tabula rasa, but they think that you somehow also stay a blank slate throughout your life. It's completely absurd, but not surprising considering the current culture in the west.
I don't want to get too political, but this shift has been brought by the increased prevalence of left-leaning liberal ideologies, which is why you mostly hear this kind of nonsense from young people. It's common to have such naivety when you haven't lived and learned about the uncomfortable realities of the world, which is why almost everyone becomes more conservative as they age and gain a better understanding of the "tried and true" ways of life that have survived for millennia, and most importantly, experience that the stupid childish ideologies they got tricked into believing in their youth, turn out to not work at all in real life (not saying that being right wing is all good and being left wing is all bad, I'm just making an overarching observation for the sake of simplicity in this post).
There are of course people who never mature, but I'm hopeful that at least the people on this site who are exposed to these uncomfortable realities have enough occasions to open their eyes and shed their absurd beliefs.

[Anonymous No.22955115]

>>22949309
When the time comes for this anon I will pour out libations if I didn’t go first

[Anonymous No.22955128]

>>22954577
Why does it have so many replies? I don't see what's so amazing about it

[Anonymous No.22955131]

[Anonymous No.22955132]

[Anonymous No.22955134]

>>22955132

[Anonymous No.22955139]

[Anonymous No.22955143]

[Anonymous No.22955148]

[Anonymous No.22955149]

Hot off the presses

[Anonymous No.22955278]

>>22955132
>>22955134
LMAO

[Anonymous No.22955300]

[Anonymous No.22955706]

>>22955128
big chungus origin story

[Anonymous No.22955738]

>>22955706
is it true? did big chungus really get started by /lit/ of all things?

[Anonymous No.22955740]

>>22955738
just googled it, it's true, holy shit

[Anonymous No.22955928]

>>22955143
Kek good one

[Anonymous No.22955950]

>>22948823
The funniest one is the manga corner one. Or the artemis fowl one.

[Anonymous No.22956133]

>>22955148
please i beg someone find me this thread

[Anonymous No.22956150]

>>22956133
You have the post numbers as identifiers in the image. What's stopping you?

[Anonymous No.22956166]

>>22956150
its not archived anywhere i can find

[Anonymous No.22956169]

>>22956133
Any time you need to find an archived post you just need to find the archive name/domain (easy with Google) and add /<board>/post/<post number>
For example, in this case it's:
warosu.org/lit/post/18299785
It will redirect you to the correct thread.

[Anonymous No.22956172]

>>22956169
>warosu.org/lit/post/18299785
im retarded and dont know how to use th e internet properly, thanks anonb

[Anonymous No.22956179]

>>22953369
Why would screenwriters need such advice? Do you really think beginning screenwriters have issues with constantly having characters narrate their actions? Showing is the primary and natural mode of the screen and they really don't have problems with showing instead of telling.

[Anonymous No.22956345]

>>22953730
Perhaps what people are having difficulty with is this; in life it is never so clear and simple, as you yourself have put it. Never in life is the partner who's had no partners the best, and sometimes the one who's had the most is the better choice, but ultimately these are superficial qualities to assign on a person (although they have admittedly big affects on the brain). I myself would strive for excellence, a partner who is excellent in whatever way suites her would certainly take out any considerations of superficial characteristics, like partners or interests. For to be truly in love, all the other so called qualities are cast aside, yes, what is enchantingly excellent matters most. What that is, is up to your hearts content to know, but I'm certain it wont discern be able to on qualities like promiscuity or delayed gratification percentiles.

[Anonymous No.22956380]

>>22955143
Fuck, I had the same experience reading the Odyssey

[Anonymous No.22956386]

>>22956380
Well both you and the guy who wrote that post are smoothbrain halfwits so it’s okay.

The oral poem documents historical figures for the people listening. Just because you make nothing of it doesn’t mean its intended audience didn’t derive enjoyment or info out of learning of their own local history told to them.

[Anonymous No.22956401]

>>22956386
woah way to assume my wit level bro

I actually braved through it and found it massively enjoyable, I still think of Odessus and his wacky antics all the time I also read it on my own when I was eight.

really it says alot about you that you immediately assumed I didnt like the book and didnt understand it, the GAUL to brood over your fellow anon is PEAK PRETENTIOUS and you aught to be ASHAMED. Goodnight I will not read you reply.

[Anonymous No.22956404]

>>22956401
Is spelling it “Gaul” some attempt at ironic humor?

[Anonymous No.22956546]

>>22952171
Eh, one guy will fall for a blue eyed long-haired cunny and bring that whole state down just to elope with her.

[Anonymous No.22956587]

>>22953008
Good post anon, well said.
>Stories composed of interactions between archetypes are (sometimes? always?) explorations of the Self
I would say "mostly", in the sense that it could be debateably "always" if you allow for certain stretches. For example, I feel that reckoning with "Others" probably always involves comparing those with yourself as a reference point, even if indirectly, e.g. with comparison steps to other Others inbetween.

[Anonymous No.22956601]

>>22955738
yes, I lived it

[Anonymous No.22956609]

>>22956404
NTA, but I chuckled at it.
You were rude (perhaps with some justification), and although he took it in stride and explained better, you couldn't chill out.
He won.

[Anonymous No.22956625]

>>22956179
>Why would screenwriters need such advice?
They're retards.
>Do you really think beginning screenwriters have issues with constantly having characters narrate their actions?
No but they have issues with characterization. Instead of revealing character through subtle action and the unfolding of the story, characters are often described by other characters speaking about them and declaring their character traits. It's quite endemic in modern screen writing.

[Anonymous No.22956648]

>>22956345
>Never in life is the partner who's had no partners the best

[Anonymous No.22956650]

[Anonymous No.22956652]

[Anonymous No.22956654]

[Anonymous No.22956666]

>>22956650
kek

[Anonymous No.22956686]

>>22956345
>Never in life is the partner who's had no partners the best
Why tho? I'm not an ultra-monogamy hang all thots kind of a faggot, but this claim implies that all prior relationship experience is always exclusively positive, as it would follow that even a partner whose entire history of relationship is made out of abuse and manipulation is still always better than a kissless virgin of either sex, while any experience of abstaining from relationships is always bad.

You re right in saying that in life it is never so clear and simple, but to me it seems that complexity arises in that having a relationship with partners with no sexual experience has it's own positives and negatives, while having a relationship with a partner who had sexual experience comes with different positives and negatives, and the nature and ratio of those positives and negatives changes according to my own qualities and those of the partners.

So in the end, some people have good reasons to not desire partners with prior sexual experience, and some people have good reasons to not desire partners without prior sexual experience, and some people truly don't care.

And additionally, I would even claim that tendency should rather tilt towards preference of less prior sexual and relationship experience, as in reality most of such experience is rather negative than positive - as when this experience is meaningful, the parties involved tend to desire to prolong this relationship, and it's end is traumatic, while no-obligations one-night stands generally don't teach people anything at all, even in terms of sex. But that's more of my opinion ad preference as a married man with my first relationship and sexual experience ever being my wife, who was similarly a virgin, so I recognize that I may be biased on that.

In the end John Green is a faggot for claiming that everyone should always be okay with their partner's prior sexual experience, regardless of their own preferences, qualities and ole in a relationship.

[Anonymous No.22956688]

>>22956686
>a married man with my first relationship and sexual experience ever being my wife, who was similarly a virgin
Based

[Anonymous No.22956698]

>>22956686
ummm ok?
and why can't I enjoy your wife's whole grain crunch?

[Anonymous No.22956702]

if anybody has the "femdom" literature "I cannot escape because she's convinced me reincarnation is real" one from a couple weeks ago please repost as I forgot to save it.

[Anonymous No.22956705]

>>22956702
I got you bro, I was just reading this one a second ago
>>22949462

[Anonymous No.22956789]

>>22956698
>and why can't I enjoy your wife's whole grain crunch?
Because you are gay, you only enjoy big cocks, especially brown ones.

[Anonymous No.22956802]

>>22952162
Can you post it

[Anonymous No.22956812]

>>22956789
Well then screw you, anon. I can’t go into the past and un-suck all those delicious brown tranny cocks.

[Anonymous No.22956825]

>>22956802

[Anonymous No.22956830]

>just looked over my master's thesis again
>going to review it with my thesis advisor tomorrow
>realizing all over again that I did a really good job

I'm going to make it, Anons. I'm going to get my MA in English Literature and I'm going to contribute to the Academy in a meaningful way.

Pic related, my thesis is on Ulysses.

[Anonymous No.22956888]

>>22956654
>>22956652
>>22956650
>>22955300
>>22955149
>>22955148
>>22955143
>>22955139
>>22955132
>>22955131
>>22954577
haha, nice, i havent seen these ones before.

the autistic kant fans are my favourite... people need to screenshot more ofthe unusual theories and whatnot they find on /lit/, not just the posts that are deliberate jokes.

does anyone have the infographic about guenonfag?

[Anonymous No.22956893]

>>22956825
I always wonder if that guy actually meant it in a friendly way. As in, “you’re not an intellectual yet, but keep going, you’ll get there. Ah, starting with Plato, perfect choice…”

[Anonymous No.22956930]

>>22956893
can't imagine such a sentence said with a friendly intent.
seems like he's just roasting plato AND the guy

[Anonymous No.22956956]

>>22956830
Share your thesis with us when it's done, anon.

[Anonymous No.22957182]

>>22948823
now i know there are some gems from the lit discords

[Anonymous No.22957247]

>>22956345
>Never in life is the partner who's had no partners the best
Never? Both empirical evidence and common knowledge say it's the most likely to be the best.

>and sometimes the one who's had the most is the better choice
Very rarely

>ultimately these are superficial qualities to assign on a person (although they have admittedly big affects on the brain).
How can they be superficial if they have a big effect on the brain in a way that measurably affects the course of the relationship for the worse?

>I myself would strive for excellence, a partner who is excellent in whatever way suites her would certainly take out any considerations of superficial characteristics, like partners or interests.
>For to be truly in love, all the other so called qualities are cast aside, yes, what is enchantingly excellent matters most. What that is, is up to your hearts content to know, but I'm certain it wont discern be able to on qualities like promiscuity or delayed gratification percentiles
If you're in love with a whore because she's very good at what she does (or for anything else that you find attractive), you're most likely in for a rough ride.

[Anonymous No.22957304]

>>22957247
You're arguing against a trannoid. I don't disagree with his one point, but he's so loose with his supporting arguments, I didn't bother reading his whole post and will discount him as a coping cuck. It's obvious he isn't very good at thinking.

While I would argue that a person's sexual fidelity can only be measured by their actualized commitment and diligence, with broad sweeps of statistics merely useful for preliminary assessings, there aren't ways to accurately to predict character the way most guys would need for a secure household.

Some exceptions would be women with true pious morality, or through chipping women, but those women are less than 10% of women, or because they're chipped, their watched behavior may not show their free will. So as you pointed out, the statistics and thinking you mentioned are the next best thing. In ordinary economic conditions, men are only near their women 2/3rds each day, and half that time they're asleep.

For pious women, a women whose community can confirm she definitely believes in God, and is of good character, and would have to swear by God about her sexual past, but otherwise had a horny streak, but lapsed in a manner still striving for ethicalness.

[Anonymous No.22957309]

>>22957304
>For pious women,
For pious women, I mean a woman ...

[Anonymous No.22957348]

>>22956648
>>22956686
I should have used a different word, often she is not, since we are concerned with the odds here

but really people are not so absolute that you can characterize them in such a way,

That being said I basically do agree with you, though I wonder at the reason behind promiscuity, and wonder how one can transcend a troubled past, because I do think having many partners is troubling, even if it just stems from plain ignorance, which often is the case.

>If you're in love with a whore because she's very good at what she does (or for anything else that you find attractive), you're most likely in for a rough ride.
that is precisely what love is not, that is a thrill and lust, I mean the calmer, steadier thing. When love truly hits you, none of that matters, and you become anchored upon something greater than, perhaps spiritually steadied by each other. All else then slips away.

>>22957304
What is chipping mean? And watched behavior? Like they act different if they're watched OH you mean micro chiping them! Well if we were to do that I suppose it would be fair to chip men too, then both the sexes could be watching each other making sure who is being most authentically faithful. Although that doesnt seem very authentic does it?

[Anonymous No.22957371]

>>22957304
It doesn't matter how moral she is. Once those neural pathways are set in she will always have that inclination, not necessarily to cheat, but to be unhappy with monogamy. In that case the most pious and moral woman will still stop loving you if she's trained herself for variety by making and breaking a large number of bonds over her life.
I've already explained this point here:
>>22953730
>>22953736

>with broad sweeps of statistics merely useful for preliminary assessings, there aren't ways to accurately to predict character the way most guys would need for a secure household.
Correct, but as you partially said, in lack of a perfect predictor of marital success, we can use these partial ones (previous number of partners, personality, interests, habits, etc) to make a prediction that's good enough to increase our chances at a good marriage by staying away from things that are highly correlated with a bad/short marriage. One of them is cheating as you mentioned, one of them is her not loving you after a few years, and many others that can make you miserable even if she loves you and doesn't cheat. For example if she has temper and violence problems, or if she's irresponsible with money (can be fixed in many but not all cases), or if she's perfectly fine but comes with problems external to her, such as a bad family or an incompatibility with what your family likes (these are arguably more minor but not always negligible), etc.

Literally EVERYTHING in one's life affects them and has ramifications and hidden implications.
Every little detail is an indicator of something about a person, and it's wise for you to use these indicators (women call these red and green flags, even though they're often not based on anything real lol) to make decisions about all of your relationships, not just the romantic ones.
Business relationships are another big one. I'll give you an anecdotal example:
Christian friend of my father's opened a restaurant with a devout muslim partner.
Most muslims are normal people but some aren't, and the normal one are some times easily converted to extremism, so I remember thinking that he's taking a slight risk in essentially betting his business on his (devout) muslim partner remaining normal, and that if he had a partner more in line with his own beliefs he'd avoid the risk altogether.
His partner eventually became radicalized and essentially made the restaurant fail out of his hatred of his christian (former) friend.
Even if this outcome was less likely than the outcome of their restaurant simply continuing to exist as usual, it was still a non-negligible risk that he could've avoided by looking at its indicators, and much like in business, you should apply risk mitigation to personal relationships as well, especially if they're as high-stakes as a marriage.

[Anonymous No.22957377]

>>22955148
I always thought the rapings of Zeus was a manifestation of his masculinity at its most brazen, strange though that those myths include it so frequently

[Anonymous No.22957403]

>>22957371
>It doesn't matter how moral she is. Once those neural pathways are set in she will always have that inclination, not necessarily to cheat, but to be unhappy with monogamy.
I don't think those women are necessarily deterministically averse to monogamy, and even if some exceptions appeared to be, they're still probably more likely to be unhappy through some other feelings of unfulfillment. To get to the bottom of this, we'd have to get to the root of their mind. We overwhelmingly can't trust what women claim about themselves, because they're not as rational or self aware as they want people to believe. But we can't prima facie trust statistics and psychological studies, because these still give an incomplete assessing. In any case, these problems can be alleviated through a proper man, or through community moral support.

>>22957348
>that is precisely what love is not, that is a thrill and lust, I mean the calmer, steadier thing.
It's good we agree about this. I apologize for calling you a trannoid and cuck.
Are you young? If you're old I should smack you on the head for your benefit so you think and communicate sharper.

[Anonymous No.22957419]

>>22949287
stopped reading when groyper socratese mixed up fornication an adultery

[Anonymous No.22957473]

[Anonymous No.22957474]

>>22957403
>deterministically
Did you even read my post?
Everything you're saying is arguing against something I didn't say.

[Anonymous No.22957478]

>>22957419
keep us posted on what you don't read

[Anonymous No.22957493]

>>22957474
>In that case the most pious and moral woman will still stop loving you if she's trained herself for variety by making and breaking a large number of bonds over her life.
This comes across as deterministic and fatalistic, which seems wrong.
If bad neural pathways can be made they can also be fixed.
Helping such a woman to understand why she has her wants and how to correct this flaw is under-discussed. If people are made to understand the root of materialistic hedonism they make a step closer to mastering their flesh.

[Anonymous No.22957574]

>>22957493
>This comes across as deterministic and fatalistic, which seems wrong.
You're right, I should've said that it makes it more likely, which should've been obvious based on the rest of my post/s anyway.

>If bad neural pathways can be made they can also be fixed.
Undoing any neural pathway you have formed is exponentially harder and takes much much longer than forming them in the first place. That's why it's often suggested that you form other stronger pathways that can hopefully be the path of least resistance instead, but I wouldn't count on the possibility of changing one's already set in pathways, especially these, which are strong and have usually been formed through years of broken bonds.

>Helping such a woman to understand why she has her wants and how to correct this flaw is under-discussed. If people are made to understand the root of materialistic hedonism they make a step closer to mastering their flesh
You can't really talk someone into changing what their subconscious leads them to have emotional attachment to.
You can convince them that you are something that they find attractive, and you can change how they *consciously* make decisions about their relationships, but once they've made themselves unable to love a single person for a long time, that's not something that's undone by any new realization or piece of knowledge.
Maybe with some serious brainwashing and indoctrination, but that's not a realistic option for a normal person getting into a relationship, and it's much easier to simply avoid people with characteristics that are strongly correlated with bad relationships and avoid the risk altogether.
The "I know she's fucked up but I can fix her" meme is just a meme. IRL that will lead to disappointment more often than if you just picked someone who doesn't need fixing in the first place.
It's honestly incredible that something as obvious as this even needs to be said.

[Anonymous No.22957582]

>>22956888
Wittgenstein is literally me.

[Anonymous No.22957595]

>>22957574
>You can't really talk someone into changing what their subconscious leads them to have emotional attachment to.
You can. I used to be highly sexually charged, but my love for scholastics completely changed my inclinations. I used to look at porn and read manga for excitement, but now I find these to be empty thrills. I find knowledge far more attractive than sex 99% of the time. A woman who can improve on similar lines is a gem.

>that's not something that's undone by any new realization or piece of knowledge.
Why and how?

>that's not a realistic option for a normal person getting into a relationship
It is, it's how many of the normals of Europe were converted to Catholic Christianity.

>it's much easier to simply avoid people with characteristics that are strongly correlated with bad relationships and avoid the risk altogether.
It's not that simple for most people since 70% of modern Western society is sexually liberal.

>The "I know she's fucked up but I can fix her" meme is just a meme. IRL that will lead to disappointment more often than if you just picked someone who doesn't need fixing in the first place.
I'm not sure. Catholic communities are more successful at redeeming lapsed women and have been for centuries. What you're describing is obviously true, but not very insightful, and not helpful advice for the people outside of the 10-30% who were diligent enough to limit their sex drive. We have to think for and help as many people as feasible.

[Anonymous No.22957644]

>>22956888
trips of kek

[Anonymous No.22957657]

The argument itt is so futile. just a lot of people blustering and pretending they know... why not go into life and into new social interactions assuming that you dont know, motivated by curiosity about other people as individuals, rather than starting with a bunch of assumptions based on studies you saw on the internet and gossipy memes you saw online?

"happiness research" in general is just a complete fucking joke... you really expect empirical science to come up with a coherent notion of happiness and solve the existential riddle of how to be happy?

also, just get back to posting funny shit, you faggots

[Anonymous No.22957689]

>>22949257
i do this

[Anonymous No.22957724]

>>22957657
>The argument itt is so futile. just a lot of people blustering and pretending they know
Most arguments on /lit/ are like this sadly.

[Anonymous No.22957730]

>>22957595
>You can. I used to be highly sexually charged, but my love for scholastics completely changed my inclinations. I used to look at porn and read manga for excitement, but now I find these to be empty thrills. I find knowledge far more attractive than sex 99% of the time. A woman who can improve on similar lines is a gem.
I don't really know about your personal circumstances and what the nature of your "sexually charged" past is, but finding something else to take priority in your mind can be an example of the "path of least resistance" I mentioned, but in that case you haven't eliminated your previous pathways. You're merely prioritizing other ones while the previous remain dormant.
It's why you have people who seemingly dropped habits for good (either addiction, such as to substances or sex, or various things they do that they've picked up from their work and whatnot), suddenly relapsing after decades.
You can put effort into keeping them dormant, but you'll always have to make yourself resist the temptation, which someone who has never picked up the habit in the first place won't ever have a problem with.
It's also not a yes/no thing, but a direct proportion. Someone with a past where they were used to finding pleasure in doing X, is more likely to want to do X in the future than someone who didn't do X as much.

>Why and how?
Because the inclinations we're discussing are neurological in nature, and for a new piece of information to even make a dent it needs to be so impactful (either through sheer intensity, for example in the case of a traumatic event, or through consistent and repeated efforts over a long period of time) that it also makes its own neurological changes that contrast the previous.

>It's not that simple for most people since 70% of modern Western society is sexually liberal
That's true, but it only means that your selection of good partners is severely limited, and if you're not one of the lucky few who gets one you'll be forced to pick between people with varying degrees of unsuitability (for long term relationships) that are very unlikely to be truly fixed.
It's an unfortunate truth that we can only accept, as deluding ourselves that it's not a big deal because it's fixable will in most cases (statistically) lead to disappointment, which we're seeing now as sexualization becomes more and more commonplace, so do divorces and marital problems.

1/?

[Anonymous No.22957732]

>>22957595
>It is, it's how many of the normals of Europe were converted to Catholic Christianity.
>I'm not sure. Catholic communities are more successful at redeeming lapsed women and have been for centuries
I don't doubt that it worked/works for changing their lifestyle, but the set-in neural pathways of a born-again former-whore will make her much more likely to be a bad potential wife than a normal woman, so I wouldn't say these conversions are successful at making the change that we're talking about.

>What you're describing is obviously true, but not very insightful, and not helpful advice for the people outside of the 10-30% who were diligent enough to limit their sex drive. We have to think for and help as many people as feasible.
The key here is the proportionality of the phenomenon.
We're unfortunately living in an era where not many good options are available to us, so we need to settle for something suboptimal (and let's be real, we're not ideal either), so armed with knowledge of the dynamics at play we can do what we can to mitigate the problem and try to end up with the least negative outcome.
In this case if you can't find a virgin or nonsexual wife you go for the least promiscuous woman you can find. A girl who's had one long term boyfriend that she's had sex with every day is a much better option than a girl who's never had a boyfriend but she's beed having a one-night-stand with a different guy every week for the same length of time.
There are still many women who have sex but aren't complete whores, and they're more likely to give you a good long term relationship than a converted former-whore.

2/2

[Anonymous No.22957801]

>>22957732
>so I wouldn't say these conversions are successful at making the change that we're talking about.
Not conversions (which tend to be shallow these days) but properly regimented catechization and moral guidance from priests, at the level before the priesthood was gutted from infiltration by degenerates. The youngest generation of priests identifies as conservative, and they'll gradually replacing the liberals.

We were able to drastically overcome our animal natures, mostly through our intellects, so that roughly 10% of us successfully choose to be fidelitous. This is insanely high in comparison with the animal kingdom.

The best drip technique to improve mankind is Catholicism, at least unless something better comes along. The last 2000 years sans the most recent 70 years which will be corrected proves this. Guiding stories of the saints and spiritual advice by theologians can be assisted by secular methods like psychology and neuroscience. All of these can be used in a properly structured society that isn't hostile to excellence to gain ground against immoderation. I don't know if it's possible to morally perfect the entire human race, but we should do the best we can.

[Anonymous No.22957835]

>>22957582
No he isn't, because you're ugly and don't have sex.

[Anonymous No.22957954]

>>22957801
Even though I'm pretty much an atheist myself, I don't disagree on christianity (although I wouldn't be so confident in putting Catholicism at the top, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about other religions to make a serious argument). It's clear that religion is the most effective tool we have available, but it's still not enough to fully restore one's previous inclinations.
Some times not even the strongest bleach can fully remove the stain on your shirt, and if you need a clean one and everything in your closet is stained, all you can do is to pick the least ruined one with a little spot on the side that's not really visible, because insistently deciding on wearing the shirt with the giant coffee stain on the chest and telling yourself that it's faint enough can result in some people still seeing the traces of it.

Sorry for the bad analogy, but my point is that religion is good at fixing the fixable, but unfortunately not good enough to bring a former whore to the state she'd be in if she never became a whore in the first place.

>>22957801
>We were able to drastically overcome our animal natures, mostly through our intellects, so that roughly 10% of us successfully choose to be fidelitous. This is insanely high in comparison with the animal kingdom.
You're talking about how we evolved to become what we are today, which is true, but a separate matter from the topic of us having the brain we have regardless of how we ended up with it.
Yes other animals are less able to make conscious choices and keep their instincts and subconscious proclivities in check, but us humans aren't in total control either, and once we've trained for a certain thought pattern it's very very hard to keep it, and most importantly its subconscious ramifications in check.
Especially if you don't even know these things and never think in these terms, you'll be influenced by your brain's "defaults" without even realizing it, and you'll rationalize your choices post-facto with fallacious logic and excuses, much like the people who "make mistakes" do all the time.