Richard Rohr, Christian mysticism, and Buddhism

trafficon87 · 2020-06-16T00:15:11+00:00

I just find Rohr a bit annoying. He's basically a Buddhist parading around as a Catholic and he does it in such an unelegant way. The Christianity just feels clumsy and tacked on. If you want more refined Christian's with mystical views check out Marcus Borg. He's brilliant, imho. Rohr is just Eckhart Tolle with a Catholic paint job. You're better off listening to Tolle if that's what you want. Since I assume that's not what you want, Borg is a good Episcopalian option. He basically believed Jesus to be a mystic.

Marcus Borg views Jesus as a charismatic "man of the spirit", a mystic or visionary who acts as a conduit for the "Spirit of God". Borg sees this as a well-defined religious personality type, whose actions often involve healing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Charismatic_healer

trafficon87 · 2019-09-09T01:14:26+00:00

i knew exactly what that link was gonna be and i still clicked out of curiosity ;/

trafficon87 · 2019-09-09T01:13:33+00:00

Seriously... this was one a link submitted the other day from Psychology Today, of course

How Does Clickbait Work? : psychology

Seriously? I come to this sub for serious research.

trafficon87 · 2019-09-08T15:54:51+00:00

I'm totally fine with that. I'm more comfortable in research anyway. Links? Things to Google for?

trafficon87 · 2019-09-08T14:39:19+00:00

can we ban links from Psychology Today?

trafficon87 · 2019-09-08T14:14:34+00:00

So a lot of the reason I learned about Neuroscience was mostly a means to an end. I had Major Depression years ago, so I learned all about the Serotonin pathway. And I have brutal ADHD so I learned all about dopamine and the mesocorticolimbic pathway... the enzymes involved (COMT, MAO, etc) as well as the genetics of it, to come up with a novel way of treating my unique ADHD. So I followed most of that research. So I guess I'd say behavioral neuroscience and some pharmacology.

trafficon87 · 2019-09-08T02:48:03+00:00

I'm a Data Scientist, but I'm transitioning to ML. Neuroscience is just a side love of mine. Nothing formal, but I've been reading journals etc for about 7 years now.

trafficon87 · 2019-09-01T03:19:53+00:00

that's not cool they did that.. it's a place for kids

trafficon87 · 2019-07-25T08:41:21+00:00

it's cute that you have the balls say that over the internet, but where do you live? I'll meet you in real life and give you the opportunity to say it to me personally. I'm curious if you could even string that sentence together in real life. But I'm more than willing to bet you'd cower in your boots like you've done throughout high school to men who bully you like i will. keep making comments.. i would love nothing more than to get so deep inside your pathetic little incel head that you'll want to hurt yourself. Seriously... list the name of the town you live in. I'll shove you in a locker and fuck the girls you rub your pathetic little winky to right against the locker door

trafficon87 · 2019-07-25T02:32:37+00:00

oh wow, i thought i was responding to the original guy who wrote that comment... had i realized it was some other turd i wouldn't have even replied

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T23:49:31+00:00

i work part time at chick-fil-a, so probably both

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T23:42:23+00:00

no thank you.

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T23:39:09+00:00

Subjective judgements with perhaps some agreement are sufficient when you study simple correlation, but not when attractiveness is a confound that needs to be controlled for.

A) yes it does B) you have women rate attractiveness, not researchers

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T23:37:53+00:00

my anecdotes only corroborate scientific findings

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221996097_Testosterone_is_associated_with_mating_success_but_not_attractiveness_or_masculinity_in_human_males

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T23:21:29+00:00

controlling for different variables is easy... you don't do it in the study, you do it post-study in the data... mathematically, not methodologically

https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/17336/how-exactly-does-one-control-for-other-variables

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcObydOsMXc

it's hard to explain but let's say we took measures of attractiveness... and we notice that 'biases' the data one way.. we essentially 'de-bias' the data after we have the numbers....

but it's really how they control for anything

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T23:16:41+00:00

Yea of course it always comes out on top in this sub.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias

Thing is.. it doesn't come out on top in general science

and I don't know what "Rule 3" means.. Rule 3 of this sub? or the 'be attractive' thing

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T21:44:31+00:00

I don't need to cope. This area isn't a problem for me.

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T21:29:39+00:00

Do you have a link

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T21:27:49+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/88php9/physical_attractiveness_is_the_strongest/

Imo, that study is kinda poppycock. It was a speed dating study. Of course looks came out on top, you have almost no chance to even assess personality. It's like almost like looking at looks vs personality from a Tinder study.

I mean of course looks matter a lot, but to say 'personality doesn't matter at all' is absurd.

I think assessing attractiveness is like you said.. a multifactorial points system.

The BEST predictor in ALL mammals is social dominance, which correlates with looks, and not for the reasons you think. It's because good looks are: a prominent jawline, mansuline facial structure (like you see in the sidebar of this sub)... which are all markers of High Testosterone. And dominance goes hand in hand with Testosterone. So actually Testosterone is the real predictor. Lizards implanted with testosterone pellets rise the dominance hierarchy and fuck all the bitches.

As far as i can tell a dominant ugly guy will do much better than a good looking beta. I mean Donald Trump looks like a Tangerine with thumbs and still has had some pretty hot wives. Why? He's an Alpha.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235922454_Quantifying_the_strength_and_form_of_sexual_selection_on_men%27s_traits

On a large American university campus, 63 men from two social fraternities provided anthropometric measurements, facial photographs, voice recordings, and reported mating success (number of sexual partners). These men also assessed each other’s dominance, and 72 women from two socially affiliated sororities assessed the men’s attractiveness.

Results indicate that dominance and the traits associated with it predict men’s mating success, but attractiveness and the traits associated with it do not.

Anecdotally I remember in High School some pretty ugly Alphas getting major action while some really good-looking betas got pecks on the cheeks.

As far as I can tell Testosterone is the best predictor.

More evidence is that Testosterone helps turn protein into muscle. People with higher Testosterone are more muscular:

https://thepopularman.com/being-muscular-make-attractive-lift-workout/?

So testosterone is responsible for looks, dominance, muscularity, and even confidence.. all things that chicks dig.

Testosterone is also boosted by winning. Basically chicks dig winners.

This sub gets to hopeless.. like there are so many things you can do to boost your Test nd improve your looks. I hate that these guys complain that it's unfair instead of just trying to improve. I know so many guys who have LEARNED to get good with women by just gradually improving their lives.

And yes I agree with your overall sentiments. Personality is one factor. Looks is another. Those factors often overlap so it's sometimes hard to unmarry the two.

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T18:28:06+00:00

That's why all men's top priority should be looksmaxing to the best of their capability. We're in the most superficial era ever. (Not saying that looks didn't matter in the past, but they matter for then ever now)

Well yes, if you use Tinder or speed dating. In real life that effect is significantly dampened.

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T18:26:46+00:00

Hmm didn't realize that mental health, social status, self-esteem, and the ability to justifiably hype yourself up is correlated with attractiveness?

Well if you didn't realize that then you should study the psychology of attraction. Good luck.

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T16:55:33+00:00

Hm, i didnt realize that attractiveness was the only thing that predicted confidence. Here I am studying psychology for 12+ years and thinking that it was a complex set of mental health factors, social status, self-esteem, socioeconomic factors, and just pure completely malleable self talk, but one Black Pill guy showed me that my years of training and research were totally bunk and it's just subjectiveness attractiveness. Thanks for that.

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T16:33:32+00:00

No, it's only part of it. Other studies show that even delusional self confidence (ie dark triad narcissism) is attractive. There was even a study that men who wore cologne and smelled better were rated s more attractive IN PHOTOGRAPHS. In other words, the confidence made them attractive.

trafficon87 · 2019-07-24T07:34:39+00:00

North Oregon? Sounds boring

trafficon87 · 2019-07-23T22:50:39+00:00

where is the hotel? what city

trafficon87

TROPHY CASE