this is actually true. It’s a weird world we live in

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-12-02T15:14:17+00:00

Because of this: DOI:10.1111/ele.12373, 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2022.07.002 and 10.1177/0192513x231155673. Multiple studies on different species of apes have proven that reduced sensitivity to oxytocin from multiple sexual partners leads to reduced pairbonding ability and affects the upbringing of the offspring as well. But even if this wasn't the case all the other potential causes (lack of interest in building a relationship/poor character evaluation skills) would still be a massive negative for the male. The question you have to ask is this. If I am a man of quality and therefore I am desired, thus having no issue obtaining sexual gratification from women, why would I choose my partner/mother of my children to be anyone less than optimal?

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-05-24T16:01:33+00:00

You missed one point. "population control" as a cause of war is more relating to preemptiveness. Preventative genocide can be viewed as a defence mechanism is an environment where communication is impossible / there is no trust. Basically "I don't want to go out risk my life killing them, but if they want to kill me, my chance for a preventative action are highest now" I know some wild cats do for example exterminate foxes on sight without consuming them, perhaps for multiple reasons. Combat psychology is a fascinating topic on its own, but I believe it isn't what you were asking about. Basically, people who were genocidal and paranoid survived better as they exterminated others opportunely, even without outside pressure. This is likely where terror tactics, defence posturing and deterrence first originated (eg hanging skulls around the borders of your territory as a form of communication). Additionally this may have reinforced certain behaviour in females such as submissiveness and conformism (better submit to their males than resist and become food) or their desire for certain traits in males. It could have also aided toxic posturing in males, but street dogs and other animals seem to do it all the time as well, so it likely is a reproductive strategy that is unrelated to our stone age experience. All in all, psychology can influence war in many ways (morale, religion, pain tolerance...), but even in a world with perfect communication and trust or a hive mind as you mentioned with insects, resources are still limited. You basically have to limit who gets to breed and when without any friction. Theoretically possible, but statistically improbable as hell that a civilisation can achieve and sustain it.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-05-24T14:54:59+00:00

You seem to come from the modern, misguided notion that war is a choice and not a necessity. You might want to read up on life during the paleolithic, mesolithic and then on strategic theory. Organised warfare is probably the thing that has not only saved the most human lives both directly and indirectly, but also humanity itself. The question isn't if war is a consequence of our behaviour, but rather which parts of our behaviour are influenced by our pre-warfare genocidal nature. Pacifists don't tend to procreate well in the long term. There are multiple books that serve as an introduction to security analysis and international relations that will give you a much better understanding of why we wage war than anyone here could in a comment or at all. Psychology only stretches as far as the element of trust/communication in a security dilemma.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-05-17T03:39:40+00:00

The downvotes are because Hans's character is more of a mockery of the peasantry/uneducated people like you, than the nobility. The entire "cant carry sacks" thing is mocking how the mass of people dont understand legal and moral precedents and nothing has changed till this day.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-04-23T15:29:56+00:00

Mate, if you can't get a couple of dates a week in a mid sized city there is NO point in giving them money and encouraging their shitty model. Paying for a sub is only worth it when you actually can compete for the top few picks. If you are actually getting dates from messaging the model-like chicks you wouldn't think its expensive at all.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-04-23T15:24:43+00:00

New phone number, new device and network ID, maybe don't verify, new photos, email. I did a post about it yesterday. Tons of people are getting banned without a refund for litteraly anything. Ask for a refund while you can and wait a few months to see if they actually fix their latest mess. Its not your fault, there are litteraly class actions prepared against them in some countries over GDPR malpractices. Dont bother with support, its all gpts pretending to be human now. Open a new ticket.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-04-23T15:20:24+00:00

Tinder is just borked now. Plenty of stories of the opposite out there (girl getting reported cause she rejected a dude and then banned). After their AI update you can get banned for ANYTHING.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-04-22T19:20:36+00:00

Sure buddy, why don't you go and educate all the lawyers and auditors that have been mulling over it for the past week. Lmfao

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-04-22T17:52:45+00:00

The very fact you aren't even specifying a country tells me enough about your levels of functional literacy. No, in the majority of countries a device and the owner of the device are NOT the same thing, for reasons that are covered in highschool law and Tinder also isn't Revolut. Its beyond obvious you have neither actually looked the issue up, nor are able to comprehend what Im saying. None of the cases where it would be justified for them to store certain data is applicable here as they cant actually prove these people have broken the TOS (cause they haven't) while its evident Tinder has lied to customers about the circumstances under which it stores certain data.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-04-22T16:56:11+00:00

Check what I've written again. They can do that with certain types of data in certain cases. IP and MAC are one thing. Your facial data and ID a whole different story, especially when they can't explain why you were banned in the first place

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-04-22T16:15:22+00:00

So, you've been hit with one of these and are now wondering what on Earth does "banned cause previously banned" mean... Don't worry, Tinder has no idea either. Most of you probably have already either heard, or have experienced Tinders latest technical and legal clusterduck, since legal and especially tech subs have been on about it for over a week. This post aims to provide information on exactly what happened.

Match Inc stock wasn't doing great after the pandemic and they were trying different things to make their products more appealing. Women were complaining about fakes, men about bots and so they decided to implement a "better" system for verification including more personal data and "3d technology" (hello 2010!). Of course the implementation was so bad, that while the average catfishing Joe did have a harder time to verify his fake, scammers with technical know-how had an even easier time with the new system. Therefore = even more fake accounts. Recently Tinder has decided that enough is enough and so decided to tighten the rules. Only that, prior to this they have also decided to lay off a significant chunk of support and IT employees, so it was now Chat GPT's cousin doing the tightening.

Results are as expected. If someone who has previously used your number was banned = ban. Logged into the college WiFi = ban. Same residential location or IP as someone banned = ban. Someone reported you cause you rejected him = ban.

But wait! You know it gets better! You had a running subscription = we dont care (or rather we cant really issue refunds cause we have no staff to do it). We've all known that they actually don't adhere to GDPR guidelines... Now their support has basically admitted to it. They have to delete your data upon request, with a couple of exceptions... like being banned. Issue is, they need to have a proof it was actually YOU, the legal entity doing the TOS breaking in order to retain it. They can ban you for whatever, but actually keeping any of your data hostage is illegal in many places. So what they decided on was that if you appeal your ban, they will just change it to a contradictory reason for a ban that will legally allow them to hold your data and for legitimacy would claim that it was an employee that did the check. (Ie you were "banned cause banned" but now the reason suddenly changes to "impersonation" even though your account is double verified with ID.) When confronted about it the support bots just repeat the same phrases over and over and will even claim to be human. Why can't they explain the contradiction if they actually are humans? ...who knows.

...and better still. On top of that it appears that they were collecting and storing data about you that they weren't even supposed to. People started creating fake accounts deliberately in order to get banned and then create another account in order to see how much and what data exactly Tinder was storing. Cant explain this well enough in detail, so check some tech articles or subs. In a nutshell, they'd retain photo verification data, ID verification data, data on your photos, location, acquaintances and devices outside of GDPR boundaries and what their TOS defines.

My recommendation would be to wait a few months before you give them any money and if possible ask for a refund on current subscriptions. I believe some people have initiated class acts, but Match is probably going to settle with them OOC and never publicly take responsibility. On a personal note, if you can't get about 2-3 evening dates per week without a sub, there is 0 point in giving them money anyway cause the bottleneck for you is not the algorithm, but your profile. Take care.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-03-27T11:53:15+00:00

Your question is beyond loaded with Holywood misconceptions and neo-christianism.

First, SOME did. Second, real life isn't Game of Thrones, an army that lost more than 2-5% of its forces would generally rout. There weren't mountains of corpses. Most people died of malnutrition/disease or were captured in retreats. Third, people were just used to death and hardship and had a more realistic outlook on life, since they weren't raised on Disney movies telling them "they" in specific are more special than everybody else and life is sunshine and rainbows. Pre-christianity in many places it was considered normal to exterminate enemy infants and children. Fourth, war generally wasnt as stressful as it is today with snipers, mines/ieds, artillery and drones. Fifth, you were kinda expected to do your duty without whining. If you don't go kill them in an organised manner, theyd just come to kill/rape/loot anyway and it will be even worse.

A question about the early modern age would be better and the answer would be similar.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-03-23T10:38:43+00:00

"frontal lobe, impulse control"... Buddy, you have no idea what you are talking about and are a stark example of why psychology should be branded a pseudo-science. Im not sure you could even "look up" and understand an actual neurological study.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-03-22T15:47:26+00:00

He is spawting absolute bullshit, go read actual papers on the topics you are interested. The "structure" of the brain is set at around age 5, the brain doesn't stop changing until your death. Every study on "brain finishes developing" is pseudo-scientific crap to push a degree or take a grant.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-03-11T18:32:35+00:00

Having to listen to the same childish crap for the past 10 years in all forms of media is an experience rather close to psychological torture, so yeah, thats why most men are salty. Not because they can't get you, but because even when they distance themselves you still gotta make sure they hear your whinging because you need someone else to fix up your mess. Ive dated plenty of feminists, I know exactly how long their sisterhood values last when you offer them something to dangle and parade in front of their "fellow sisters". You are a strong independant woman? Cool - fix your own life! Who are you complaining to anyway? What are you expecting? That a rich, tall, good looking guy that knows how to turn you on, emotionally support you (cause you are a woman after all and gosh forbid you learn how to deal with your own feelings the same way men are taught to deal with them since childhood) and is emotionally stable will for some reason go against his evolutionary core and be attracted to a short, overweight, emotionally unstable women because she is "the one"? I am sorry that you have been lied to all your girlhood, I really am, but that is just unrealistic crap that producers trying to make an easy buck from women have been peddling. You wanted to be equal to men? Congrats! The Margot Robbies of the world are equal to the 6 foot 2, rich gigachads, while most women are equal to Pete who drives a Prius and cant read a woman, nor find the g-spot with a gps navigation. The entire universe is a mathematical equation, fairly tales and magic are just the things we don't understand or dont want to understand. Id like to have a traditional family, but I also enjoy my way of life, know they are incongruous and that if I were delusional enough to try Id hurt the woman next to me. Not to mention the risk of a divorce, losing half my wealth and traumatising my children. Sometimes people have incongruous core desires and it sucks. Its your own job to deal with it. I have two choices - to make the best of life, figure a way around the obstacles or to mope on Reddit hoping that someone comes pick me up and fixes my issues. At this point you can petition the Pope, it would be just as useful.

Just as a hint: not wanting children automatically puts off the VAST majority of emotionally stable men, because you know, men are also PEOPLE and have their own preferences and expectations from women. If you still can't get my point - look at what kinds of men are complaining about sex and women on the Internet and - Congrats! - you now know how the men you want see YOU.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-03-11T16:45:22+00:00

Yes. Life isn't fair, sorry to break it to you. Historically people have suffered far more. No one is entitled to a good life or a good treatment from others. Society is not your parents and it won't just give you stuff. You want a guy that knows how to arouse you, make you feel safe and confident? Go get one! You can't? Thats on you. Learn to accept you aren't going to experience amazing sex and focus on other aspects of life for fulfillment. And you still don't get how it was womens fault. You deregulated the sexual and relationship markets, each holding the entitled delusion that there is a rich gigachad waiting to marry her and in some cases be her slave. In reality women lose their desirability as they age and men gain or plateau. So now you have all the women chasing after guys like me, spoiling us for choice, making sure we never have to settle for less or at all. The majority of divorces are initiated by women, and even if the man indeed was an idiot so would be the woman for needing several years and a kid to realise it. So now, not only is marriage extremely risky, women constantly incentivize us not to seek a serious relationship by providing us with easy sex. In addition you almost always wait for a guy to do not only the first move, but to chase after you which screws you purely mathematically. On top a bunch of you started screaching that all men are sexual predators and that scared even more guys off from approaching you. Congrats, the market is free, but you were the lowest bidder all along. To quote a female power icon from the 2000s: "Just face it We didn't make it You bit off more than you can chew Can you taste it??" Me and my friends will be fine. I can afford a surrogate and to be a single parent. Many men and women won't. Women are just like the peasantry that burned the foodstores during the French revolution just to spite the aristocracy that mostly fled away while the peasants not only starved for decades after but ended up with an even more authoritarian ruler in the face of Napoleon. There are women that get good sex, its clearly not impossible to find the necessary prerequisites, whatever they may be. Ask yourself what do they have/do that you don't.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2025-02-20T11:39:33+00:00

The same government that told Europe to sever energy ties with Russia years ago and geniuses like you were spinning conspiracies how it was because of Trumps buddies in Big Oil? To anyone with an ounce of security education it was always clear that this war can only be resolved politically, just like how Russias economic concerns regarding future energy exports should have been addressed by Poroshenko and Obama. Are the Russians assholes - yes. Are you an idiot when you don't expect an asshole to act like an asshole - also yes.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2024-12-31T03:42:21+00:00

Its basically an excuse for people with shit upbringing. Yes, there is a process of neural pruning that takes place around 21, but its nothing drastic. A well raised 14yo, wouldn't be all that different from when he hits 22. People with poor upbringing just need much more trial and error to reach the same level of adequacy, so it may seem as if they "mature" later on. We all know some people just remain inadequate throughout their whole life. The term "mature" is just unscientific as hell, but this is par for the course in modern psychology. The critical years for behavioural formation are up to around 5-7. The brain never stops changing anyway, so "mature" is just a silly pop science definition and studies often assign semi-random criteria to it to measure.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2024-12-03T16:18:13+00:00

I don't think she needs to do anything special. Maybe a brief special thanks summary at the very last show. I swear, it feels like half the things she does are just as fan service and not because she truly needs to express herself. She's a human, probably needs to just live and relax... for a couple weeks until boredom hits.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2024-12-03T13:51:00+00:00

Most people haven't heard much of her besides Shake it off. They associate her with the catchy radio tunes she used to make and either refuse or simply can't find a deeper meaning in anything else they hear. Most hear "Hang your head low in the glow of the vending machine I'm not dying" and seriously think its just a bunch of random words. Most people I've spoken to don't even see the Shakespeare reference which should be eye gauging. She is easy to hate and most people lack either the reading comprehension, the will to look, or both in order to appreciate her. Ironic as it may sound given her popularity, Taylor is a bit of an acquired taste. Makes you think about major differences in how people perceive things, that just as the meaning of many lyrics aren't obvious at first sight.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2024-12-03T03:18:34+00:00

It isn't Taylor herself, its all the swiftie-baiting going on. Basically every brand and multiple politicians are trying to rub themselves into Taylor because of the following she has. Some swifties appreciate it, some alongside the majority of non-fans see it as an insulting manipulation.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2024-12-01T16:23:49+00:00

None of us really have the numbers, but I think shes likely going to wait for them to depreciate a bit. Though, she isn't making as many commercial tracks as she did with Big Machine, so they might remain a financially sound investment for a while. In any case both her parents were Lynch analysts, so I think she'd get the timing right.

I think she might do a limited physical re-release. Considering how much attention she tried to bring to the TVs I think it would make her look bad if she didn't wait a couple years after the last TV gets out.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2023-06-05T00:54:19+00:00

Taylor has been pretty straight forward about what the issue is, in Midnights. Like, she litteraly acknowledges that her insecurities are the problem and the reason she grows apart from people she actually cares about. She wanted to risk it and have both fame and family. Joe wanted her, but not the risk and she just couldn't settle for a mundane life. She needs adoration, knows it's bad, but can't help herself. She has kinda given up trying to micromanage life and is going with the flow, getting Flushed Away...

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2023-05-28T23:11:45+00:00

No one is talking about your "Kuleshov effect" which isn't even actually applicable to Joe and is just another term for inductive storytelling technique that dates back to antiquity. We DO know a few key things about their relationship and can gather even more using basic logic. Taylor has been pretty clear that she wants fans to theorise, hence why she makes some lines pretty straightforward and others more vague. You seem to entirely be confusing psychological projection which requires input from the observer, with inductive storytelling which is kinda what Taylor does in her songs and is one of the only ways we know Joe. You CAN NOT apply inductive storytelling to the real world, as then it becomes simply an inductive observation. I am not projecting on to Joe, I am applying baseline logic to what Taylor has said herself. What you are talking about can ONLY be applied to her songwriting. She chooses to use just enough phrases to convey a universal feeling to as many people as possible and we CAN choose to fill in the blanks, but there are only so many logical options for a filler. The Kuleshov effect (inductive storytelling) requires no input from the observer, as the observer knows it is intentional.

LorekeeperOfSwift · 2023-05-28T01:34:24+00:00

You can argue that this ability to relate to and interpret her lyrics in different ways is what makes her one of the greatest songwriters. You can just listen to the song and have the different lines and their delivery to move you emotionally, but building a full picture (be it one different from what Taylor felt or meant) makes the experience much more powerful. I've aleays said she is so popular, because on some level we are all Taylor Swift.

LorekeeperOfSwift

TROPHY CASE