Como Ser Alpha?

[Aroma]

3 horas atrás, duh_prada disse:

Vejo que muitos aqui admiram o fato de ser "O FODA", e não o que esta por tras, acho que essa ideia de ser ambicioso, achar que o mundo tem que girar ao seu redor, é o grande problema do mundo estar a merda que está. Esse lance de ser ambicioso, determinado e querer que tudo gire ao seu redor, a longo prazo, deve dar um puta vazio existencial. Acho, sinceramente, que como o planeta satirizou ali o amigo acima, falando que ele quer ser um monge.. acredito que um monge seja muito mais feliz e realizado que um super empreendedor fodao que toca o foda-se em tudo e só quer chegar no topo..

 

ps: to meio dormindo deve ter ficado uma merda as ideias aí, mas da pra entender kkk #pas

 

Isso é o que você acha. O grande problema do mundo são as pessoas que se preocupam com a vida dos outros, não com a delas mesmas.

 

E não queria falar nada sobre isso, mas se vocês acham mesmo que os monges ficam 8hrs+/dia meditando pela serenidade de qualquer existência que não seja a deles própria, sinto muito... não tô dizendo que não desejem o bem para o resto das coisas vivas e a harmonia do mundo, só que sua principal motivação para fazerem o que fazem é o bem estar da sua própria existência.

 

 

3 horas atrás, gabrielwhey disse:

Discordo,claro que o bilionário está ajudando mais, porém altruísmo não se mede pela riqueza, mas pela abnegação  em ajudar, um cara que dá 100% está dando o seu melhor, ou seja é mais abnegado e altruísta que o bilionário que deu 1%.Numa hipótese se invertesse o quadro, o bilionário ficasse pobre e o pobre bilionário, as porcentagens se manteriam.Ou seja o bilionário se tivesse a nossa grana poderia está dando 20,00 R$ e o pobre que deu tudo poderia está dando 1 bilhão. 

 

 

Em termos relativos seu raciocínio faz sentido, mas em termos reais 1 bilhão é e será sempre bem mais que R$ 20,00. Já dizia Roberto Campos que o mundo será salvo não pelos caridosos, mas pelos eficientes.

 

 

Abraço.

Editado Maio 29, 2016 às 07:57 por Aroma

[planeta]

na boa, não consegue enteder coisas simples aí fica difícil

 

se vc for rico pode ajudar milhares de pessoas...

se vc não é ambicioso,  1/6 do seu salário muda a vida de quantos famintos ?

 

 

eu faço paõ com 2 ovos toda vez que alguem bate aqui pedindo comida, acontece umas 3x por mes sei lá...  mas não rpeciso falar pra ngm(agora fui obrigado).... se fossem muito mais eu não poderia fazer, pq fiquei muitos anos sendo caridoso e altruista demais e com pouca ambição... foi um erro que estou tentando mudar... e 

 

se vc tiver 1 bilhao pode sair distribindo comida pra todos os famintos...  ambição... alimentar todos os famintos... depois disso a proxima ambição será ser ditador pq vc obviamente é o cara que vai(acha que vai) fazer  o melhor pra todos...  hahahahah é sério

 

 

sobre mendigos serem altruistas é exatamente oq vc não entendeu.. eles se tornaram mndigos pq não tiveram ambição....  deixaram a situação ir piorando e não ligaram...  se vc passar a ser menos ambicioso do que vc é, pode correr o risco de não conseguir manter nem vc mesmo... e depender da caridade alheia

 

 

 

...

10 horas atrás, duh_prada disse:

Vejo que muitos aqui admiram o fato de ser "O FODA", e não o que esta por tras, acho que essa ideia de ser ambicioso, achar que o mundo tem que girar ao seu redor, é o grande problema do mundo estar a merda que está. Esse lance de ser ambicioso, determinado e querer que tudo gire ao seu redor, a longo prazo, deve dar um puta vazio existencial. Acho, sinceramente, que como o planeta satirizou ali o amigo acima, falando que ele quer ser um monge.. acredito que um monge seja muito mais feliz e realizado que um super empreendedor fodao que toca o foda-se em tudo e só quer chegar no topo..

 

ps: to meio dormindo deve ter ficado uma merda as ideias aí, mas da pra entender kkk #pas

o monge é feliz se não tiver desejos, o caminho da iluminação budista é se livrar dos desejos

 

 

quem aqui não tem milhoes de desejos?

[planeta]

SOLIPSISM, EMOTION & ARGUMENTS

“Any woman who is sure of her own wits, is a match, at any time, for a man who is not sure of his own temper.” – Wilkie Collins

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Male Ignorance
3.) Insecurity: A Basis for Feminine Indignance
4.) Cause & Effect vs Solipsistic Blame Attribution
5.) The Invalidity of Female Emotion & It’s Frustrative Affectation
6.) Emotional Endurance
7.) In Closing

1.) Introduction:

You do not argue with women when you wish for them to comprehend, comply or agree. You cannot argue against woman’s feelings, only manipulate them. Argument necessitates reason, but reason is ineffectual in conflict with women. In non-political matters, where a man will yield to superior logic, a woman will not. And so man must manipulate woman’s emotions in a way that makes her cooperative, or he should not engage her at all.

If a woman is so entitled or indignant that you find yourself unable to escape her compulsion to argue, you would be wise to engage her as a Machiavellian rather than a logician. Man must remember that when lured into argument with a woman, he is at battle. The dispute at hand is Machiavellian, not rational. A game, not a civilised debate. The man who believes the argument is about mutual cooperation via the discovery of truth rather than the assuagement of the involved woman’s emotional state, operates on a doomed axiom. A man’s desire to problem solve is fundamentally incompatible with a woman’s desire for catharsis.

2.) Male Ignorance:

Men are quite wrongfully taught they should placate women’s emotions, or engage in mind-numbingly futile attempts to reason with them. To do either is to forfeit power before conflict even begins. Such strategies are losing propositions. Man should neither placate nor reason with a distressed woman. But rather, he should be charming enough to keep conflict superficial. When argument cannot be avoided, he need be Machiavellian enough to belittle her. He should not under any uncertain circumstance argue back-and-forth with any degree of seriousness, for arguing against a woman’s emotional state is as foolish as it is masochistic.

If conflict is unavoidable and reason impenetrable, all that is left is to assert dominance. This is man’s only recourse when a woman is trying to dominate him psychologically. Once her emotions have settled, it is wise to explain your reasoning and expectations as a way of guiding the woman, should you care for her. But only outside the confines of argument, never in the heat of it. Naturally, if the woman in question is insignificant, such paternal patience is unnecessary. Aftercare is discretionary.

3.) Insecurity: A Basis for Feminine Indignance:

When an argument begins, a woman’s emotions ensure her uncooperativeness. When a woman stands on the precipice of dissatisfaction, her imperviousness to reason makes the mere concept of argument inane. The key to cooperation therefore lies in keeping her emotional state positive. Just as one would not build a dam for water in a volcano, they would be wise not to attempt reasoning with a distressed woman.

And yet a woman’s feelings are quick to sour. Even the tamest critiques and concerns can result in ill feeling, largely by merit of woman’s inability to handle such things. And so the trap of arguing with a woman is always there, should a man express himself without filtering himself. Often a man knows not how such benign comments result in such grave offence. But such unsophisticated sensitivity is intrinsic to femininity.

One would not be mistaken for thinking I am describing the insecure, rather than women per se, but then it would be disingenuous to assert that the vast majority of women are anything but insecure. So are these things traits of women, or traits of the insecure? I would say both. But then I would also assert that women are intrinsically insecure, and that many arguments take place because a woman is demanding her insecurity be assuaged in spite of the overwhelming importance of the issue at hand. Men who exhibit similar behaviours are likewise womanlike in their mental frailty.

4.) Cause & Effect vs Solipsistic Blame Attribution:

When you argue against a woman’s feelings, you enter her frame by tacitly accepting the validity of her emotion’s premise. Acknowledgement is all it takes to give the irrationality of her emotion credence, and therefore such acknowledgement should be avoided.

Much to our mutual annoyance, a woman’s feelings are typically anything but valid. You see, to a woman, whatever she feels – in spite of why she feels it – is valid. Women care not for “the why” behind their feelings, but simply the fact that they are feeling. As such, the presence of a feeling is proof enough of its validity to a woman, in a sort of infinite solipsistic loop she intuits “the feeling exists, therefore, it is valid.”

If she feels a negative feeling, regardless of the reasonableness of your position, she will blame you for it. In this manner she disregards the importance of cause and effect, because such things are irrelevant to her emotion’s solipsism. As cause and effect take place outside of the female mind, it is irrelevant to her. Solipsism cares not for abstraction.

Now while one could posit that blame qualifies as an investigation into the “why” of how she feels what she does, it really isn’t. Because the blame given is entirely arbitrary by merit of its solipsistic nature. Owing to a lack of abstraction, it is simple blame attribution and affirmation for the self-perpetuation of her emotional state. It is not investigative in the cogent sense of the word.

If she were truly interested in “the why,” she feels what she does, she would look beyond blame, analyse her actions for wrong-doing and come to a reasoned judgement on if her feelings were a reasonable or unreasonable response. If she found them to be unreasonable, she would disregard them and show interest in solving the initial issue. She would do this, rather than allow her feelings to take precedence over the issue which triggered them. Of course, this is not how women work. It is the feeling born of the issue that takes priority, not the issue itself. A minority of women can do this retroactively, but I have known not a woman who can do this in the moment. Dare I say, none can.

5.) The Invalidity of Female Emotion & It’s Frustrative Affectation:

Say a female colleague is making grave errors in her work and you give her suggestions on how to improve her technique. All too commonly, if suggestions were not given with great euphemism and diplomacy, you would cause offence. As such, you can see how easily the premise for a woman’s feelings is flawed. Because it is not difficult to offend a woman, and neither does she need a logical reason to be offended, feeling bad is offence enough. And intolerant to stress as women are, it is a laborious inadvertence that occurs with great frequency.

And so it is the woman’s nature to constantly misdirect the man away from his criticisms and concerns, and rather, to vilify him for daring to infringe on the sanctity of her emotional well-being. Where man will endeavour to make his original point, stick to the point, have the point recognised and come to an arrangement over his concern; the woman cares only about how his point made her feel, not the point itself. Man doubles down on his reasoning, provoking more negative feeling in the woman; who in turn doubles down on the importance of her emotional state.

And so the woman will neither address the point, nor give the point much thought, much to the complete torture of the well-intentioned man. Naturally, this leads to endless frustration and only serves to further alienate the two parties. Women are quick to offend, quick to anger, and slow to reason even in the absence of hostility. Indeed, it is such traits that are often the cause of hostility. Whilst man wants to pursue what he believes to be a problem that needs addressing, the only problem worthy of addressal in a woman’s mind is the maintenance of a positive emotional state. Whilst the man continues to attempt fixing the original issue, the woman becomes more annoyed her emotions are being ignored.

And so at such a crossroads, male and female nature is at odds. Man wants to pursue what he believes to be “the truth,” or “correct.” Whilst a woman wishes to maintain her emotional well-being at any cost. It is for these reasons we refer to women as “the most responsible teenager in the house.” They cannot cope with stress in the way that men can, and so they can neither reason nor argue as well as men can. Remember, one need not be the superior logician to win an argument, as the prowess in which women argue with stands testament, you merely need be the more psychologically dominant.

An upset woman will dominate the frame of an interaction by maintaining your mutual focus on an indignant investigation of her feelings; particularly, the source of her feelings. And of course, in argument, it is you who is the undisputed stimulus for her negative feelings. In this frame of mind, absolutely nothing matters to a woman other than her need to understand her feelings and receive validation of their legitimacy. I am repeating this point with great frequency, but it is important it is internalised: your point is irrelevant to her if it elicits emotional discomfort.

6.) Emotional Endurance:

A woman does not care if she is “in the wrong,” has disobeyed or betrayed, for a creature who does not excel at logic is neither cogent nor appreciative of such a thing when upset. Even at the best of times, women struggle to balance reason with emotion. That’s when they’re trying. In argument, they’re not even trying. She will not give in, solipsism sees to it that women are stubborn.

Arguments nourish women, they feed her emotionally. Bar the histrionic man, argument absolutely exhausts men. Not only that, but being the party far more privy to the realm of reason, it is likelier you will give in than it is she. Her indignance will out-endure not only your reason, but likewise, your desire to even advocate for yourself.

If you get angry, your anger will be used to immediately invalidate your disagreement whilst simultaneously validating the credibility of her histrionics. Your anger will be turned against you, you will be painted as the oppressor, and her, the victimised. You will be made to feel guilty for your anger. And then following from this premise, your anger will be used to retroactively scapegoat you for her unacceptable decorum.

The narrative put forth will be that it’s your fault she’s upset, even if it isn’t. Even if you know with your full faculty of reason that such a thing is ridiculous; women do not care.

7.) In Closing:

It is not in your interest to work against her emotions, but rather, you should work in tandem with them. Leverage her emotions, change them so that they are conducive to rather than defiant of your goals. Know how to make her feel good, and her agreement will be yours. Argue against her emotions, and no matter how grand and well articulated your point, she will never agree. Equity and reasonableness are of minor relevance to a woman’s emotional self-satisfaction. Women do not sacrifice their emotional well-being to do what is morally or reasonably right, but rather, they sacrifice what is morally or reasonably right as to fulfil their emotional needs. 

By manipulating her feelings to something more beneficial to yourself, you can change her frame, or even pull her into yours. This is why when receptive, amused mastery is excellent. Arguing a woman’s emotions with reason, as is man’s predilection, is a losing proposition. For her emotions are far too visceral to be swayed by the passionlessness of reason, the heart cares not what the head thinks, and a truer thing could not be said for women.

Editado Maio 29, 2016 às 16:47 por planeta

[cormaya]

1 hora atrás, planeta disse:

na boa, não consegue enteder coisas simples aí fica difícil

 

se vc for rico pode ajudar milhares de pessoas...

se vc não é ambicioso,  1/6 do seu salário muda a vida de quantos famintos ?

 

 

eu faço paõ com 2 ovos toda vez que alguem bate aqui pedindo comida, acontece umas 3x por mes sei lá...  mas não rpeciso falar pra ngm(agora fui obrigado).... se fossem muito mais eu não poderia fazer, pq fiquei muitos anos sendo caridoso e altruista demais e com pouca ambição... foi um erro que estou tentando mudar... e 

 

se vc tiver 1 bilhao pode sair distribindo comida pra todos os famintos...  ambição... alimentar todos os famintos... depois disso a proxima ambição será ser ditador pq vc obviamente é o cara que vai(acha que vai) fazer  o melhor pra todos...  hahahahah é sério

 

 

sobre mendigos serem altruistas é exatamente oq vc não entendeu.. eles se tornaram mndigos pq não tiveram ambição....  deixaram a situação ir piorando e não ligaram...  se vc passar a ser menos ambicioso do que vc é, pode correr o risco de não conseguir manter nem vc mesmo... e depender da caridade alheia

 

 

 

...

o monge é feliz se não tiver desejos, o caminho da iluminação budista é se livrar dos desejos

 

 

quem aqui não tem milhoes de desejos?

altruísmo vem antes de riqueza cara, abro exceção pros mendigos, se todo mundo for pensar assim ''há só vou ajudar quando ficar rico'' não ajuda ninguém nunca, E A FOME NÃO ESPERA CARA

e tu realmente acha que alguém que n doaria quando 10% do salário fosse 80 reais vai doar quando 10% for 50 mil reais? kkkk

 

eu tb n falo pra ninguém, quem tá entendendo errado é voce amigo, eu to atrás do anonimato aqui no fórum, vou promover a quem e a que com essa atitude? falei e falo de novo cara pra jogar luz na cabeça dessa moçada... cristiando ronaldo.. puta que pariu.

 

e mendigo é altruísta justamente porque sabe o que é NÃO TER, se coloca na pele dos outros

se ele é mendigo alguma coisa aconteceu na vida dele, talvez porque n foi ambicioso o suficiente, teve problemas com álcool ou outras drogas, quem sabe?

n to falando pra n ser ambicioso, mas que ser ambicioso não é motivo pra ser egoísta

 

1/6 do meu salário da um pouco mais que um salário mínimo, vai por mim amigão n vou ficar menos pobre com isso, faço com gosto, vergonha sentiria se pegasse essa grana e gastasse em coisa inútil como esteroides pra ficar bonitinho.

[planeta]

hahah não vou discutir nem responder ofensas contra minhas futilidades..

 

 

mas querer diminuir o CR7 hahaha, véi... o cara é endeusado por milhoes, e isso é ser alfa..

 

veja o título do tópico

Editado Maio 29, 2016 às 17:03 por planeta

[M4thAC]

Essa Suzane Richthofen é a prova de que habilidade de comunicação é a habilidade mais importante que existe. A mulher tem uma puta condenação nas costas, foi odiada por todo o país e mesmo assim continua manipulando quem quiser. Inclusive em uma das entrevistas que ela deu pro Gugu foi capaz de criar empatia com milhares de pessoas que assistiram, mesmo que essas pessoas odiassem ela. Não que as pessoas passaram a acreditar na inocência dela, da forma que ela fez com muitas pessoas na cadeia, mas ela conseguiu criar uma conexão ridícula com quem assiste, mesmo com essas pessoas pedindo a cabeça dela. Aposto que se ela conversar por 1 hora pessoalmente com qualquer um, ela consegue fazer qualquer um ficar meio balançado. Agora imaginem se ela não fosse uma assassina, onde poderia chegar com isso? É como minha mãe disse: A cadeia é praticamente dela. Ela faz o que quiser, inclusive sair no dia das mães.

 

Ah, psicopatas... São tão habilidosos, pena que são doentes.

[Visitante]

Excelente vídeo, principalmente pra quem é jovem

 

Galera queria aproveitar também o tópico, como aqui tem muito nego inteligente e visionário, a galera não é mente fechada, é o seguinte:

Pra maioria dos homens a região anal é um tabu, eu sinto muito prazer nessa área, tudo começou com minha mulher, estávamos fazendo sexo oral e ela tava mt perto do cú, os dedos tava na bordinha, eu tava sentindo muito prazer, pedi pra ela beijar ela foi explorando a região e o resultado que hoje em dia não consigo gozar sem tomar dedada e beijo no cú, postei no outro tópico a galera me tirou de gay, mas sou 100% hétero, e não é pq sinto prazer pelo anus q isso me faz menos homem, indico a todos experimentarem.

Mas o problema é estou enfiando todo objeto pontudo no anus, tou realmente viciado e sem pudor, a ultima q aprontei foi enfiar o controle da tv, ele é preto então me chamou a atenção, tem uns 18x10cm, enfiei tudinho, ai quando minha mãe foi ligar a tv viu q tava com sangue, e ela já andou reparando q tou estranho ultimamente, uma vez me pegou andando de bicicleta sem o banco se assustou mt perguntou o q eu tava fazendo, fiquei muito nervoso não soube responder direito, depois fiquei sabendo pelo meu pai q ela tava chorando mt e decepcionada comigo mas n quis falar o motivo. Tenho ciência de q sou macho, mas se minha família descobrir vai ne julgar, estou realmente P-A-S-S-A-D-O com tudo isso e queria pedir ajuda da galera, paro de vez com esse vicio ou abro o jogo com a família?

aos engraçadinhos q vierem com piadinha nem vou responder, o q tou contando é serio e n tenho nenhuma dúvida da minha opção sexual

[planeta]

42 minutos atrás, M4thAC disse:

Essa Suzane Richthofen é a prova de que habilidade de comunicação é a habilidade mais importante que existe. A mulher tem uma puta condenação nas costas, foi odiada por todo o país e mesmo assim continua manipulando quem quiser. Inclusive em uma das entrevistas que ela deu pro Gugu foi capaz de criar empatia com milhares de pessoas que assistiram, mesmo que essas pessoas odiassem ela. Não que as pessoas passaram a acreditar na inocência dela, da forma que ela fez com muitas pessoas na cadeia, mas ela conseguiu criar uma conexão ridícula com quem assiste, mesmo com essas pessoas pedindo a cabeça dela. Aposto que se ela conversar por 1 hora pessoalmente com qualquer um, ela consegue fazer qualquer um ficar meio balançado. Agora imaginem se ela não fosse uma assassina, onde poderia chegar com isso? É como minha mãe disse: A cadeia é praticamente dela. Ela faz o que quiser, inclusive sair no dia das mães.

 

Ah, psicopatas... São tão habilidosos, pena que são doentes.

mas ela é mulher, manipulação é a arte delas, já nascem sabendo.... 

sabem oq é engraçado?  a liberação sexual e vadiagem faz o poder de manipulação da smulheres diminuir... oq é ir^nico pq é mais um assunto que o desejo das feministas voltará contra elas... elas querem mais poder, mas qdo mais homens perceber oq elas estão fazendo, o poder delas será ainda menor que antes... e antes era alto...  muito cara é poderoso só porque foi manipulado por uma mulher a fazer grandes coisas pra agradá-la

....

....

 

 

o poder da beleza

 

 

Halo effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

For other uses, see Halo effect (disambiguation).

It has been suggested that Physical attractiveness stereotype be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since May 2016.

The halo effect is a cognitive bias in which an observer's overall impression of a person, company, brand, or product influences the observer's feelings and thoughts about that entity's character or properties.^[1][2] It was named by psychologist Edward Thorndike in reference to a person being perceived as having a halo. Subsequent researchers have studied it in relation to attractiveness and its bearing on the judicial and educational systems. The halo effect is a specific type ofconfirmation bias, wherein positive feelings in one area cause ambiguous or neutral traits to be viewed positively. Edward Thorndike originally coined the term referring only to people; however, its use has been greatly expanded especially in the area of brand marketing.

The term "halo" is used in analogy with the religious concept: a glowing circle that can be seen floating about the heads of saints in countless medieval and Renaissance paintings. The saint's face seems bathed in heavenly light from his or her halo. Thus, by seeing that somebody was painted with a halo, the observer can tell that this must have been a good and worthy person. In other words, the observer is transferring their judgment from one easily observed characteristic of the person (painted with a halo) to a judgment of that person's character.

The halo effect works in both positive and negative directions (the horns effect): If the observer likes one aspect of something, they will have a positive predisposition toward everything about it. If the observer dislikes one aspect of something, they will have a negative predisposition toward everything about it.^[3]

 

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1History
  • 1.1Supporting evidence
• 2Role of attractiveness
  • 2.1On personality
  • 2.2Academics and intelligence
  • 2.3Political effects
  • 2.4The judicial context
  • 2.5Gender differences
  • 2.6Possible cause
• 3Reverse-halo effect
• 4Education
• 5Branding
• 6Further research findings
• 7See also
• 8References
• 9Bibliography
• 10Further reading

 

History[edit]

Edward Thorndike, known for his contributions to educational psychology, coined the phrase "halo effect" and was the first to support it with empirical research. He gave the phenomenon its name in his 1920 article “A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings”. He had noted in a previous study made in 1915 that estimates of traits in the same person were very highly and evenly correlated. In “Constant Error”, Thorndike set out to replicate the study in hopes of pinning down the bias that he thought was present in these ratings.

Supporting evidence[edit]

In "A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings", Thorndike asked two commanding officers to evaluate their soldiers in terms of physical qualities (neatness, voice,physique, bearing, and energy), intellect, leadership skills, and personal qualities (including dependability, loyalty, responsibility, selflessness, and cooperation). His goal was to see how the ratings of one characteristic affected other characteristics.

Thorndike's experiment showed how there was too great a correlation in the commanding officers' responses. In his review he stated: "The correlations are too high and too even. For example, for the three raters next studied[,] the average correlation for physique with intelligence is .31; for physique with leadership, .39; and for physique with character, .28".^[4] The ratings of one of the special qualities of an officer often started a trend in the rating results. If an officer had a particular "negative" attribute given off to the commanding officer, it would correlate in the rest of that soldier's results.

Role of attractiveness[edit]

A person’s attractiveness has also been found to produce a halo effect. Attractiveness provides a valuable aspect of the halo effect to consider because of its multifaceted nature; attractiveness may be influenced by several specific traits. These perceptions of attractiveness may affect judgments tied to personality traits. Physical attributes contribute to perceptions of attractiveness (i.e. weight, hair, eye color). For example, someone who is perceived as attractive, due in part to physical traits, may be more likely to be perceived as kind or intelligent. The role of attractiveness in producing the halo effect has been illustrated through a number of studies. Recent research, for example, has revealed that attractiveness may affect perceptions tied to life success and personality.^[5] In this study, attractiveness was correlated with weight, indicating that attractiveness itself may be influenced by various specific traits. Included in the personality variables were trustworthiness and friendliness. People perceived as being more attractive were more likely to be perceived as trustworthy and friendly. What this suggests is that perceptions of attractiveness may influence a variety of other traits, which supports the concept of the halo effect.

On personality[edit]

Dion, Berscheid & Walster (1972) conducted a study on the relationship between attractiveness and the halo effect. Sixty students from University of Minnesota took part in the experiment, half being male and half being female. Each subject was given three different photos to examine: one of an attractive individual, one of an individual of average attractiveness, and one of an unattractive individual.

The participants judged the photos’ subjects along 27 different personality traits (including altruism, conventionality, self-assertiveness, stability, emotionality,trustworthiness, extraversion, kindness, and sexual promiscuity). Participants were then asked to predict the overall happiness the photos' subjects would feel for the rest of their lives, including marital happiness (least likely to get divorced), parental happiness (most likely to be a good parent), social and professional happiness (most likely to experience life fulfillment), and overall happiness. Finally, participants were asked if the subjects would hold a job of high status, medium status, or low status.

Results showed that participants overwhelmingly believed more attractive subjects have more socially desirable personality traits than either averagely attractive or unattractive subjects. Participants also believed that attractive individuals would lead happier lives in general, have happier marriages, be better parents, and have more career success than the others. Also, results showed that attractive people were believed to be more likely to hold secure, prestigious jobs compared to unattractive individuals.

Academics and intelligence[edit]

A study by Landy & Sigall (1974) demonstrated the halo effect on judgments of intelligence and competence on academic tasks. Sixty male undergraduate students rated the quality of essays which included both well and poorly written samples. One third were presented with a photo of an attractive female as author, another third with that of an unattractive female as author, and the last third were shown neither.

Participants gave significantly better writing evaluations for the more attractive author. On a scale of 1 to 9, the well-written essay by the attractive author received an average of 6.7 while the unattractive author received a 5.9 (with a 6.6 as a control). The gap was larger on the poor essay: the attractive author received an average of 5.2, the control a 4.7, and the unattractive a 2.7, suggesting readers are generally more willing to give physically attractive people the benefit of the doubt when performance is below standard than others.

In a study conducted by Moore, Filippou & Perrett (2011), researchers sought to determine if residual cues to intelligence and personality existed in male and female faces by attempting to control for the attractiveness halo effect. They manipulated the perceived intelligence of photographs of individuals, finding that faces manipulated to look high in perceived intelligences were also rated as more attractive. It was also found that the faces high in perceived intelligence were also rated highly on perceived friendliness and sense of humor.

Political effects[edit]

A study by Verhulst, Lodge & Lavine (2010) found that attractiveness and familiarity are strong predictors of decisions regarding who is put in a position of leadership. Judgements made following one second exposures to side by side photos of two US congressional candidates were reasonably predictive of election outcomes. Attractiveness and familiarity were correlated with competence in this study. Candidates who appeared more attractive and familiar were also seen as more competent and were found more likely to be elected. Similar studies (Palmer & Peterson 2012) found that even when taking factual knowledge into account, candidates who were rated as more attractive were still perceived as more knowledgeable. These results suggest that the halo effect greatly impacts how individuals perceive political knowledge and it demonstrates the powerful influence of the halo effect in politics.

The judicial context[edit]

This section requires expansion.(April 2014)

Study results showing the influence of the halo effect in the judicial context exist:

• Efran (1974) found subjects were more lenient when sentencing attractive individuals than unattractive ones, even though exactly the same crime was committed. The researchers attributed the result to a societal perception that people with a high level of attractiveness are seen as more likely to have successful futures due to corresponding socially desirable traits.
• Monahan (1941) studied social workers who were accustomed to interacting with a diverse range of people and found that the majority experienced difficulty when asked to consider that a beautiful person was guilty of a crime.

Gender differences[edit]

A study by Kaplan (1978) yielded much of the same results as are seen in other studies focusing on the halo effect—attractive individuals were rated more highly in qualities such as creativity, intelligence, and sensitivity than unattractive individuals. However, in addition to these results Kaplan found that some women were influenced by the halo effect on attractiveness only when presented with members of the opposite sex. When presented with an attractive member of the same sex, the effect was attenuated for some women. Dermer & Thiel (1975) continue this line of research, going on to demonstrate that jealousy of an attractive individual has slight effect in evaluation of that person. Their work shows this to be more prevalent among females than males, with some females being less influenced by the halo effect.

Possible cause[edit]

Kanazawa & Kovarb (2004) have reasoned that if the following four assumptions were true, beautiful people are indeed likely to be more intelligent and provided empirical evidence for these assumptions.

1. More intelligent men are more likely to attain higher status.
2. Higher-status men are more likely to mate with more beautiful women.
3. Intelligence is heritable.
4. Beauty is heritable.

Reverse-halo effect[edit]

The devil effect, also known as the reverse halo effect, is when people allow an undesirable trait to influence their evaluation of other traits.^[6] The Guardian wrote of the devil effect in relation to Hugo Chavez: "Some leaders can become so demonised that it's impossible to assess their achievements and failures in a balanced way."^[7]

The relation of a crime to attractiveness is also subject to the halo effect. A study presented two hypothetical crimes: a burglary and a swindle. The burglary involved a woman illegally obtaining a key and stealing $2,200; the swindle involved a woman manipulating a man to invest $2,200 in a nonexistent corporation. The results showed that when the offense was not related to attractiveness (as in the burglary) the unattractive defendant was punished more severely than the attractive one. However, when the offense was related to attractiveness (the swindle), the attractive defendant was punished more severely than the unattractive one. The study imputes that the usual leniency given to the attractive woman (as a result of the halo effect) was negated or reversed when the nature of the crime involved her looks.^[8]

Education[edit]

Abikoff et al. (1993) found the halo effect is also present in the classroom. In this study, both regular and special education elementary school teachers watched videotapes of what they believed to be children in regular 4th-grade classrooms. In reality, the children were actors, depicting behaviors present in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), or standard behavior. The teachers were asked to rate the frequency of hyperactive behaviors observed in the children. Teachers rated hyperactive behaviors accurately for children with ADHD; however, the ratings of hyperactivity and other behaviors associated with ADHD were rated much higher for the children with ODD-like behaviors, showing a halo effect for children with ODD.

Foster & Ysseldyke (1976) also found the halo effect present in teachers’ evaluations of children. Regular and special education elementary school teachers watched videos of a normal child whom they were told was either emotionally disturbed, possessing a learning disorder, mentally retarded, or "normal". The teachers then completed referral forms based on the child's behavior. The results showed that teachers held negative expectancies toward emotionally disturbed children, maintaining these expectancies even when presented with normal behavior. In addition, the mentally retarded label showed a greater degree of negative bias than the emotionally disturbed or learning disabled.

Observations

"In the classroom, teachers are subject to the halo effect rating error when evaluating their students. For example, a teacher who sees a well-behaved student might tend to assume this student is also bright, diligent, and engaged before that teacher has objectively evaluated the student's capacity in these areas. When these types of halo effects occur, they can affect students' approval ratings in certain areas of functioning and can even affect students' grades." (Rasmussen, Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology, Volume 1, 2008)

"In the work setting, the halo effect is most likely to show up in a supervisor's appraisal of a subordinate's job performance. In fact, the halo effect is probably the most common bias in performance appraisal. Think about what happens when a supervisor evaluates the performance of a subordinate. The supervisor may give prominence to a single characteristic of the employee, such as enthusiasm, and allow the entire evaluation to be colored by how he or she judges the employee on that one characteristic. Even though the employee may lack the requisite knowledge or ability to perform the job successfully, if the employee's work shows enthusiasm, the supervisor may very well give him or her a higher performance rating than is justified by knowledge or ability." (Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M., Applied Social Psychology, 2012)

Branding[edit]

The halo effect is also present in the field of brand marketing. One common halo effect is when the perceived positive features of a particular item extend to a broader brand. A notable example is the manner in which the popularity of Apple’s iPod generated enthusiasm for the corporation's other products.^[9] Another example is Subway's brand image as a "healthy" variety of fast food. The perception of a restaurant as "healthy" causes consumers to underestimate the caloriccontent of its dishes.^[10] Marketers take advantage of the halo effect to sell products and services. When a celebrity spokesperson endorses a particular item, targeted people's positive evaluation of that individual can influence their perception of the product itself. Job applicants are also likely to feel the impact of the halo effect. If a prospective employer views the applicant as attractive or likeable, they are more likely to also rate the individual as intelligent, competent, and qualified.

The term "halo effect" has also been applied to human rights organizations that have used their status to move away from their stated goals. Political scientistGerald Steinberg has claimed that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) take advantage of the "halo effect" and are "given the status of impartial moral watchdogs" by governments and the news media.^[11][12]

The Ronald McDonald House, a widely known NGO, openly celebrates the positive outcomes it receives from the halo effect. The web page for the Ronald McDonald House in Durham, North Carolina, states that 95% of survey participants were aware of Ronald McDonald House Charities. This awareness is attributed to the halo effect, as employees, customers, and stakeholders are more likely to be involved in a charity that they recognize and trust, with a name and logo that are familiar.^[13]

A brand's halo effect can protect its reputation in the event of a crisis. An event that is detrimental to a brand that is viewed unfavorably would not be as threatening or damaging to a brand that consumers view favorably.^[14][15]

Further research findings[edit]

Murphy, Jako & Anhalt (1993) argue: "Since 1980, there have been a large number of studies dealing directly or indirectly with halo error in rating. Taken together, these studies suggest that all seven of the characteristics that have defined halo error for much of its history are problematic and that the assumptions that underlie some of them are demonstrably wrong." Their work claims that the assumption that the halo effect is always detrimental is incorrect, with some halo effects resulting in an increase in the accuracy of the rating, in their opinion. Additionally, they discuss the idea of "true halo"—the actual correlation between, for example, attractiveness and performance as an instructor—and "illusory halo" that refers to cognitive distortions, errors in observation and judgement, and the rating tendencies of the individual rater. They claim that any true differentiation between true and illusory halos is impossible in a real-world setting, because the different ratings are strongly influenced by the specific behaviors of the person observed by the raters.

A study by Forgas (2011) states that one's mood can affect the degree of the halo effect's influence. When someone is in a favorable mood, the halo effect is more likely to be influential—this was demonstrated by study participants choosing between pictures of an elderly man with a beard and a young woman, and deciding which subject possessed more philosophical attributes. Additionally, when asked to list the happy times in their life, the halo effect was more evident in the perceptions of the participants. Forgas's study suggests that when one is gauging the extent of the halo effect in a situation, one must consider the emotional state of the person making the judgment.

 

 

 

Editado Maio 29, 2016 às 18:38 por planeta

[MrCrowley]

18 minutos atrás, Bright13 disse:

uma vez me pegou andando de bicicleta sem o banco

 

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

[Kaio_Amaral]

  Cara, é realmente sério isso? okapokApKAoakpoakapokAPoakokA

 

  Para com isso mano, olha as coisas que tu tá fazendo. Se tu não reconheceu a escrotice, leia seus posts com atenção, poaekoaekOPAEKaEOPK

[planeta]

Alpha Tells

By Rollo Tomassi

For as long as I’ve been writing in the manosphere, the definition of “what is Alpha?” has been the number one point of contention I’ve had to state and restate the most often. I’m not going to rehash this now as I have several posts on the nature of Alpha already linked in the sidebar, so if you’re looking for my take on Alpha that’s where to find it.

However, to lead in to today’s post I need to address the basis of what I believe are the most common misunderstandings about the term Alpha.

Well before the inception of this blog, in the early beginnings of what would evolve into the manosphere there was a need of terminology to describe the more abstract concepts developing in the ‘community’. Some of these analogies and terms are still with the manosphere today, others have morphed into more useful abstractions; Alpha Widows, Hypergamy (in its true nature), the Feminine Imperative, even Red Pill awareness are all examples of established terms or analogies for understood abstractions. Among these are also the concepts of a man being Alpha and Beta.

From The Unbearable Triteness of Hating at CH:

5. Etymology Hate

Hater: Your definition of an alpha male is false. In the animal kingdom, the alpha male is leader of the pack, not a cad/badboy/jerk who pumps and dumps women.

Isn’t it just like a nerd to get hysterical over the appropriation of a narrow-sense scientific term to conveniently illustrate broader truths about men and women.

One of the most common disconnects men encounter with the Red Pill for the first time is equating the term Alpha with its usage in describing the mating habits of Lions, Wolves or Silver Back Gorillas. It’s easy to ridicule or simply dismiss a valid, but uncomfortable, Red Pill truth when you’re simplistically comfortable in defining ‘Alpha Male’  in literal etymological terms.

This is the first resistance blue pill men claim they have with the Red Pill. They have no problem understanding and using abstractions for blue pill concepts they themselves are ego-invested in, but challenge that belief-paradigm with uncomfortable red pill truths and their first resort is to obstinately define Alpha (as well as Hypergamy) in as narrow, binary and literal a sense as they can muster.

“Get in Touch with Your Feminine Beta Side”

The next most common misunderstanding comes from conflating the abstractions of Alpha and Beta with masculine and feminine traits. In this (often deliberate) misdirection, the concepts of being Alpha or Beta become synonymous with being masculine or feminine. This is the personal basis of Alpha and Beta many Purple Pill advocates (really blue pill apologists) comfortably redefine for themselves, to suit themselves.

This purple pill conflation is really just a comforting return the the curse of Jung – anima & animus – if the complete man is an even mix of Alpha and Beta, masculine and feminine, then all the worst aspects of his “betaness” can’t be allbad, and he reinterprets what really amounts to a complete androgyny as “being the best balance”.

Unfortunately, and as blue pill chumps will later attest, the feminine expects to find its paired balance in the masculine, not an equalist idealization of both in the same man. Thus women, on a limbic level, expect men to be Men.

This one of the missives of an equalitarian mindset; that an individualized, egalitarian balance of masculine and feminine aspects in two independent people should replace the natural complementary interdependence of masculine and feminine attributes in a paired balance that humans evolved into.

What purple pill temperance really equates to is a 21st century return to the 20th century feminized meme “men need to get in touch with their feminine sides”… or else risk feminine rejection. 60+ years of post sexual revolution social engineering has put the lie to what an abject failure this concept has been.

What they fail to grasp is that an Alpha mindset is not definitively associated with masculine attributes. There are plenty of high-functioning, masculine men we would characterize as Alpha based on our perception of them in many aspects of life, who nonetheless are abject supplicating Betas with regard to how they interact with, and defer to women.

Whether that disconnect is due to a learned, Beta deference to the feminine (White Knighting), some internalized fear of rejection, or just a natural predisposition to be so with women, isn’t the issue; what matters is that the abstraction of Alpha isn’t an absolute definitive association with the masculine.

Likewise, Beta attributes are neither inherently feminine. As has been discussed ad infinitum in the manosphere, 80%+ of modern men have been conditioned (or otherwise) to exemplify and promote a feminine-primary, supportive Beta role for themselves and as many other men they can convince to identify more with the feminine.

The Beta mindset isn’t so much one of adopting a feminine mindset as it is a deference to, and the support of, a feminine-primary worldview.

The reason purple pill (watered down red pill) ideology wants to make the association of Alpha = Masculine, Beta = Feminine is because the “get in touch with your feminine side” Beta attributes they possess in spades can be more easily characterized as “really” being Alpha if it helps make him the more androgynously acceptable male he mistakenly believes women are attracted to (if not directly aroused by).

Alpha Tells

From jf12:

The sexual alphaness of a male towards a female is exhibited by her wanting to please him, and the sexual betaness of a male is exhibited by him needing to please her. A man’s alphaness obviously and definitionally does not cause her to more require him to please her (i.e. alphaness does not rub off like that). And also, betaness is not transferrable, no matter how much we betas wish that our women-pleasing caused women to want to please us.

Moreover, the social dominance of a male in a male hierarchy is barely correlated with his sexual alphaness, and certainly not causal. There are far too many counterexamples, such as Bill Gates, Napoleon Bonaparte, Horatio Nelson, and the list is very very long.

However, and this is a key sociologically empirical point, the social dominance of a *female* human (the best kind!) in a *female* human hierarchy is extremely correlated, in this precise way: A woman to whom women cater to will 99.9% of the time demand to be catered to by her man. This is why women believe man-pleasing women (I admit there are some) are “lesser”. It is also why men (e.g. me) who have tended to be mated to females who are socially dominant in a female hierarchy are invariably betas. It’s simply false that female-dominant women tend to choose men who demand pleasing.

What critics of an Alpha/Beta dichotomy conveniently sweep under the conversational carpet is that the dichotomy they want to debate only exists intheir convenient, personal interpretations of Alpha or Beta mean to them.

From a male perspective we can endlessly debate (from our own personal biases) what we believe constitutes an Alpha state (remember, an abstract term, stay with me here) and the expectations of which we think women shouldrespond to according to those expectation. But it’s women’s instinctive behaviors around Alpha men (or men they contextually perceive so) that provide us with the tells as to how she perceives a man’s Alpha or Beta status.

For as much as we believe women should respond to our definition of Alpha – and despite how women will explain they agree with those self-prescribed definitions – as always, it is their behaviors when in the presence of, or in a relationship with men they perceive as being Alpha (or of higher sexual market value than themselves if you prefer) that they bely their true, instinctual recognitions of Alpha.

In a social environment where men are conditioned to believe that women are as equal, rational agents as men, the belief men put their faith into is that women will appreciate their intrinsic qualities and base their sexual selectivity upon a man’s virtue, bearing, intelligence, humor, and any number ofattractive intrinsic qualities. However, the truth of what women base their sexual selectivity upon (arousal) is far more evident in their instinctual, unconditioned behavior when around Alpha men – as well as men’s instinctual sensitivity to that behavior.

There are many examples of this Alpha reactive behavior. I’ll make an attempt to illustrate a few of them here, but I expect there’ll be many more offered in the comment thread an I’ll encourage a discussion of the behaviors that serve as Alpha tells. Rossy/Heartiste has made a sport with his ongoing “spot the Alpha” series of posts in which he analyzes a picture or video of a woman’s reaction to a man who she is obviously has an Alpha interest in as her body language and subcommunications suggest. (h/t to CH for today’s image)

The common criticism of these images is that red pill men would read too much into these displays, but the underlying message in that criticism is rooted in understanding and willfully ignoring what our instinctual perceptions of them are. We know Alpha when we see it, but need an explanation to protect our own ego’s Alpha assessment of ourselves.

The Real Selection

For all the delighted ego ’empowerment’ of women boasting they are the sexualselectors in this life, there is still a nervous uncertainty about being found acceptable themselves to an Alpha lover of higher SMV status than they might otherwise merit. This is where the illusions of an assortive mating model break down for women. If feminine-primary sexual selection were the only element to mating there would be no need for the behaviors women are subject to in seeking the approval from men they perceive as Alpha.

There’s a look, an attitude and a presence women will give to Men for whom they have a natural deference to. I don’t just mean blatant sexual subcommunications like casually biting her lower lip, or the hair twirling that’s almost cliché now. It goes beyond the sexual into a kind of meta-attraction/arousal. While the sexual urgency for an Alpha is strong and manifests in a woman’s forwardness toward him, the meta-attraction is both of submission and a subconscious desire for his approval of her.

Men predisposed to a Beta mindset also display many of these same behavioral cues with the women they hope will appreciate them in the same fashion a woman does for a Man that her hindbrain instinctually knows is of a higher SMV. In Beta men we see these behaviors as evidence of “clinginess” or “neediness” and is an identifiable Beta tell; but in women this natural and unprovoked leaning in to a Man, this desire to submit for his approval, is a positive indicator of Alpha attraction.

This is why, as third party observers, we instinctually find such behavior in men distasteful; we subliminally sense a complementary imbalance between the man and woman.

When a woman makes an unforced effort to please a man with subtle words, unintentional wide-eyed contact, and body positioning / posture you’re dealing with a woman who is compelled to defer to you as Alpha.

That isn’t to say this can’t be faked. In fact strippers, good ones at least, are not just physically arousing, or more sexualized, but are in tune with the deficit most men feel when it comes to this Alpha deference. Beyond just the sexual aspect, one thing that makes strippers so enticing and seductive is that the majority of men are simply unused to the fawning affections and Alpha interest (albeit feigned) of any woman, much less an attractive one.

This is also one reason men become so prone to ONEitis both inside and outside this contrived, transactional, sort of attraction. Men are the True Romantics, they want to believe a woman’s sincerity in her Alpha deference to him.

Does the girl you’re interested in come to you, or do you go to her?

I’ve emphasized the importance of establishing and maintaining Frame for years now, but I sometimes wonder if the importance of holding Frame isn’t lost on most men.

To an equalist mindset this Frame establishment seems like I’m advocating men be domineers of their relationships and a man rely on some dark manipulative psychology to enforce his will in that relationship. That’s not what I’m suggesting for the simple reason that it’s too effort consuming, and genuine desire is unsustainable within that constant effort. Maintaining Frame demands a voluntary, uncoerced, desired compliance.

What I’m suggesting is that men simply not invest themselves in women whose Alpha interest in them is mitigated by doubt or an obvious SMV imbalance. This is difficult for most men as it conflicts with our want for an idealized romance with a woman – a want for a love that requires a mutual definition with a woman lacking the capacity to realize this with him. And it’s within that idealized desire men lose Frame and excuse the behaviors of Alpha deference.

The Medium IS the Message

As I’ve written in the past, the Medium IS the Message with women. On some level of consciousness men instinctually understand their relative status with a woman based on the behaviors she directs toward him.

Is she affectionate without being prompted or only when circumstance makes your comfort needed for her?

Is Amused Mastery an easy default for you, or does she resist even playful attempts at it?

Does she initiate sex with you, or is your provocation only ever the precursor to sex?

Is sex even a priority for her (with you)?

Does she make efforts to make things special for you (you both) or is your relationship one of her grading your efforts in qualifying for her Alpha approval of you?

What most guys think are ‘mixed messages’ or confusing behavior coming from a woman is simply due to their inability (for whatever reason) to make an accurate interpretation of why she’s behaving in such a manner. Usually this boils down to a guy getting so wrapped up in a girl that he’d rather make concessions for her behavior than see it for what it really is. In other words, it’s far easier to call it ‘mixed messages’ or fall back on the old chestnut of how fickle and random women are, when in fact it’s simply a rationale to keep themselves on the hook, so to speak, because they lack any real, viable, options with other women in their lives. A woman that has a high interest level in a guy has no need (and less motivation) to engage in behaviors that would compromise her status with him. Women of all ILs will shit test, and men will pass or fail accordingly, but a test is more easily recognizable when you consider the context in which they’re delivered.

Are you making psychological concessions with a woman who’s never displayed an Alpha deference to you?

[gabrielwhey]

17 horas atrás, Aroma disse:

 

Isso é o que você acha. O grande problema do mundo são as pessoas que se preocupam com a vida dos outros, não com a delas mesmas.

 

E não queria falar nada sobre isso, mas se vocês acham mesmo que os monges ficam 8hrs+/dia meditando pela serenidade de qualquer existência que não seja a deles própria, sinto muito... não tô dizendo que não desejem o bem para o resto das coisas vivas e a harmonia do mundo, só que sua principal motivação para fazerem o que fazem é o bem estar da sua própria existência.

 

 

 

 

Em termos relativos seu raciocínio faz sentido, mas em termos reais 1 bilhão é e será sempre bem mais que R$ 20,00. Já dizia Roberto Campos que o mundo será salvo não pelos caridosos, mas pelos eficientes.

 

 

Abraço.

 

17 horas atrás, Aroma disse:

 

Isso é o que você acha. O grande problema do mundo são as pessoas que se preocupam com a vida dos outros, não com a delas mesmas.

 

E não queria falar nada sobre isso, mas se vocês acham mesmo que os monges ficam 8hrs+/dia meditando pela serenidade de qualquer existência que não seja a deles própria, sinto muito... não tô dizendo que não desejem o bem para o resto das coisas vivas e a harmonia do mundo, só que sua principal motivação para fazerem o que fazem é o bem estar da sua própria existência.

 

 

 

 

Em termos relativos seu raciocínio faz sentido, mas em termos reais 1 bilhão é e será sempre bem mais que R$ 20,00. Já dizia Roberto Campos que o mundo será salvo não pelos caridosos, mas pelos eficientes.

 

 

Abraço.

 

17 horas atrás, Aroma disse:

 

Isso é o que você acha. O grande problema do mundo são as pessoas que se preocupam com a vida dos outros, não com a delas mesmas.

 

E não queria falar nada sobre isso, mas se vocês acham mesmo que os monges ficam 8hrs+/dia meditando pela serenidade de qualquer existência que não seja a deles própria, sinto muito... não tô dizendo que não desejem o bem para o resto das coisas vivas e a harmonia do mundo, só que sua principal motivação para fazerem o que fazem é o bem estar da sua própria existência.

 

 

 

 

Em termos relativos seu raciocínio faz sentido, mas em termos reais 1 bilhão é e será sempre bem mais que R$ 20,00. Já dizia Roberto Campos que o mundo será salvo não pelos caridosos, mas pelos eficientes.

 

 

Abraço.

No meu argumento, o que defendi não foi quem faz mais diferença no mundo, ou qual dos dois ajudou mais, concordo plenamente que o bilionário com seu 1% será muito mais eficiente , é lógico,mas o que defendi foi quem é mais altruísta ou mais caridoso. 

[VinixD]

Têm uns aí confundindo ambição com ganância.

Ambição é essencial para o sucesso, achei que todos concordavam com isso. Você querer/ser/ter algo é evidente que precisa de ambição, se não está fadado ao fracasso.

 

Também não acho que altruísmo seja mais importante que ambição. Os dois podem caminhar juntos, não são excludentes.

Vide o exemplo dos mendigos. São altruístas mas vão continuar dormindo na rua e tendo uma vida medíocre.

Veja bem, não estou julgando o que eles fizeram ou deixaram de fazer para estarem nessa situação, só estou dizendo que ser altruísta não te garantirá sucesso nenhum em outras áreas da vida. Aí que entra a ambição.

 

 

[C.Golden]

19 horas atrás, Bright13 disse:

 

Para que ta feio po!

Toda semana tu aparece com essas bobagens, tu não era assim.

[lucasf21]

6 minutos atrás, CassioGolden disse:

Para que ta feio po!

Toda semana tu aparece com essas bobagens, tu não era assim.

Vdd.. agora ele deu pra ser troll e ja perdeu a graça.

francamente, isso é atitude de criança.

[lukao1993]

Bright, desculpa mas alguém vai ter que falar: Você não é engraçado.

[duh_prada]

2 horas atrás, VinixD disse:

Têm uns aí confundindo ambição com ganância.

Ambição é essencial para o sucesso, achei que todos concordavam com isso. Você querer/ser/ter algo é evidente que precisa de ambição, se não está fadado ao fracasso.

 

Também não acho que altruísmo seja mais importante que ambição. Os dois podem caminhar juntos, não são excludentes.

Vide o exemplo dos mendigos. São altruístas mas vão continuar dormindo na rua e tendo uma vida medíocre.

Veja bem, não estou julgando o que eles fizeram ou deixaram de fazer para estarem nessa situação, só estou dizendo que ser altruísta não te garantirá sucesso nenhum em outras áreas da vida. Aí que entra a ambição.

 

 

Exato, ambição é diferente de ganancia. Por ser internet, dá a entender que a ambição que falam aqui é mais voltada pra ganancia, pq tu nao tem como ver a pessoa e entender o jeito que esta falando, mas do jeito que escreve parece ser a 2ª opção kkkk

[vizerdrix]

Eu sou muito cético com a importância de ser muito ambicioso hoje em dia. Antigamente, eu tinha uma opinião oposta, achava que ser ambicioso era a pedra de toque para o sucesso e a felicidade. O grande problema em ser ambicioso demais é que a ambição cega. Suas ambições são fruto das suas projeções para o futuro, não são, portanto, reais, mas sim imagens criadas pela sua mente a fim de fazê-lo mover-se na direção de um cenário que você enxerga como o "mais prazeroso".

 

Na minha opinião, a maioria das pessoas já são suficientemente ambiciosas, elas já tem sonhos grandes para o futuro, profissionais e pessoais, mas elas não alcançam o que desejam porque falta-lhes uma outra qualidade, que é a força. Ser ambicioso sem ser forte é como se preocupar em construir primeiro as janelas e portas de uma casa sem delinear primeiro os alicerces principais. Na ausência da força, o homem ambicioso falha em dar tudo de si por um projeto de vida, sua ambição fica presa no campo da imaginação, e ele não evolui ou então evolui muito pouco.

 

Eu mesmo conheci várias pessoas que eram extremamente bem sucedidas na vida e felizes com suas conquistas, mas que não eram ambiciosas, elas apenas tinham uma força psicológica e espiritual muito grande e por isso eram capazes de grandes feitos. Quando se é suficientemente forte, o sucesso vem naturalmente, a ambição serve apenas como bônus.

[FrangoEctomorfo]

É fácil ficar rico. É fácil ser um gênio. É fácil casar com uma top model.

 

Se é fácil, pq poucos conseguem? Ou não é fácil, ou as pessoas não querem. Eu acho que as pessoas não querem.

 

De cada 10 homens que estão lendo esta frase, aposto que 9 não pensaram hoje, ao acordar, que o objetivo é ficar rico, casar com uma top model ou ser um gênio.

 

Daí vem a importância da ambição. A estratégia que eu uso é mirar no 10 para acertar no 8. Eu chamo isso de "vencer perdendo". Estipule uma meta mais alta do que você consegue, pois o fracasso se tornará vitória. Se você almeja o 8, mire o 10, pois se errar por 2 ainda assim acertará. 

 

Se seu plano é ser bilionário e você falhar, pode ser que você fique milionário.

[duh_prada]

34 minutos atrás, FrangoEctomorfo disse:

É fácil ficar rico. É fácil ser um gênio. É fácil casar com uma top model.

 

Se é fácil, pq poucos conseguem? Ou não é fácil, ou as pessoas não querem. Eu acho que as pessoas não querem.

 

De cada 10 homens que estão lendo esta frase, aposto que 9 não pensaram hoje, ao acordar, que o objetivo é ficar rico, casar com uma top model ou ser um gênio.

 

Daí vem a importância da ambição. A estratégia que eu uso é mirar no 10 para acertar no 8. Eu chamo isso de "vencer perdendo". Estipule uma meta mais alta do que você consegue, pois o fracasso se tornará vitória. Se você almeja o 8, mire o 10, pois se errar por 2 ainda assim acertará. 

 

Se seu plano é ser bilionário e você falhar, pode ser que você fique milionário.

Concordo em partes.

 

Acredito que 10 dos 10 acordam querendo sim mulheres gostosas, lamborghini e shape foda. Problema que apenas 1 dos 10 trabalha e tem a força de vontade para isso. Ambiçao acredito que quase 100% das pessoas tenha, falta é a vontade pra realizar o que deseja. Famosa zona de conforto

[lukao1993]

35 minutos atrás, FrangoEctomorfo disse:

É fácil ficar rico. É fácil ser um gênio. É fácil casar com uma top model.

 

Se é fácil, pq poucos conseguem? Ou não é fácil, ou as pessoas não querem. Eu acho que as pessoas não querem.

 

De cada 10 homens que estão lendo esta frase, aposto que 9 não pensaram hoje, ao acordar, que o objetivo é ficar rico, casar com uma top model ou ser um gênio.

 

Daí vem a importância da ambição. A estratégia que eu uso é mirar no 10 para acertar no 8. Eu chamo isso de "vencer perdendo". Estipule uma meta mais alta do que você consegue, pois o fracasso se tornará vitória. Se você almeja o 8, mire o 10, pois se errar por 2 ainda assim acertará. 

 

Se seu plano é ser bilionário e você falhar, pode ser que você fique milionário.

Essa é a minha estratégia na faculdade. Eu estudo pra tirar 10 pq eu sei que assim eu tiro uns 7~8. 

 

Se eu estudar pra tirar a nota mínima eu tiro 0 hahah

[FrangoEctomorfo]

6 minutos atrás, duh_prada disse:

Concordo em partes.

 

Acredito que 10 dos 10 acordam querendo sim mulheres gostosas, lamborghini e shape foda. Problema que apenas 1 dos 10 trabalha e tem a força de vontade para isso. Ambiçao acredito que quase 100% das pessoas tenha, falta é a vontade pra realizar o que deseja. Famosa zona de conforto

 

Sim, sim. Mas veja: "querer" é uma coisa. Todo mundo quer ser rico. E "Querer", com Q maiúsculo, é outra. Poucos acordam e pensam: "que belo dia para eu me aproximar do meu primeiro bilhão".

 

Por isso eu disse: "De cada 10 homens que estão lendo esta frase, aposto que 9 não pensaram hoje, ao acordar, que o objetivo é ficar rico, casar com uma top model ou ser um gênio."

 

Saca?

 

7 minutos atrás, lukao1993 disse:

Essa é a minha estratégia na faculdade. Eu estudo pra tirar 10 pq eu sei que assim eu tiro uns 7~8. 

 

Se eu estudar pra tirar a nota mínima eu tiro 0 hahah

 

Perfeito.

Funciona, inclusive, na academia. Estimule uma meta para o supino maior que seu progresso natural.

[Visitante]

9 deles acordaram pensando em qual tênis comprar com o dinheiro que sobrou do salário depois de comprar outras porcarias em vez de investir/guardar o dinheiro

[VinixD]

Aí é que tá, é óbvio que apenas ambição não vai fazer o cara vencer na vida. Ela é como se fosse o combustível para o cara "ralar" e ir a luta pelos seus objetivos.

Acho engraçado porque grande maioria tem a ambição de ser rico, mas poucos tem objetivos e/ou metas para isso. Pode reparar que a maioria que fala que queria ficar rico diz: "nossa, poderia ganhar na mega-sena". E é essa mesma turma que está "contente" em ir trabalhar a semana inteira de empregado, reclamar do salário o dia todo, comprar uma casa parcelada em 30 anos, enfim.

Sou totalmente a favor da estratégia do Frango, e aproveito para parafrasear Flávio Augusto: "Nem todos que tentam vão ser milionários. Mas uma coisa eu digo, qualquer um, sem exceção, que arregaçar as mangas e por a mão na massa, pode ter uma qualidade de vida melhor".

 

[Thraex]

3 horas atrás, FrangoEctomorfo disse:

Se seu plano é ser bilionário e você falhar, pode ser que você fique milionário.

Caralho mano, você leu minha mente. Hoje quando saí da academia tava pensando justamente nisso. Isso faz todo o sentido. Se você está mais preocupado em ganhar um bilhão, então ganhar um milhãozinho vai parecer fácil fácil... Ao mesmo tempo que tudo irá parecer mais difícil para aqueles que estão mais preocupados em arrumar um mero emprego.

[OBS_cenous]

23 horas atrás, FrangoEctomorfo disse:

Se seu plano é ser bilionário e você falhar, pode ser que você fique milionário.

frase da minha vida agora kkkkkkk

[spankeer]

Alguém tem o livro fantasias sinestésicas em pdf? Se alguém tiver, me mande mp, obrigado.

[planeta]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

June 20, 2010 by artamaze

We referred to it back on April 19 when we talked about the ellipse.  Contrapposto. Big word, simple concept.  It means that when drawing the figure, make the shoulder line and the pelvis line go in opposite directions; one up, one down.  It’s an invention of the ancient Greeks, was de rigueur from the Renaissance to the 19^th century and is still with us to the max. You can’t pass a shop window, skim a fashion magazine or glance at your junk mail without getting an eyeful of contrapposto.   So, thank the Greeks.  Around 480 BCE this happened in Greek culture, the Kritios Boy.  Notice how his pelvis is higher on the right than the left.  The shoulders are straight, that’s true. Later the shoulders would also slope, in the opposite direction.  It seems so natural, so graceful, so at ease, that we’re tempted to take the contrapposto stance for granted.  But before the Kritios  Boy, the Greeks imitated Egyptian sculpture, which was stiff and square, even when making an attempt at expressing conviviality, like this Egyptian couple, ~2500 BCE.   Even though one foot is in front of the other, the legs are stiff and there’s no shift of the weight to one leg, which would cause the pelvis to tilt up on the side of the load bearing leg.

Here are some Renaissance icons…

The use of the contrapposto design became so dogmatic that even a reclining figure like Michelangelo’sDawn at the Medici tomb has that at-ease-soldier twist.  What are we to make of a dying body on a cross  gracefully complying with this aesthetic fashion?  Is Michelangelo perhaps sacrificing expressiveness on the altar of aesthetic dogma?  By the 19th century contrapposto was used in an obviously formulaic, even insip, manner.  I give you Ingres, right.

Still, it’s a useful tool.  And, clearly, we’re still standing around with one shoulder up and the hip on the other side pushed up by the load bearing leg.  When drawing the figure, look for the contrapposto lines, put them in with a bold stroke of your pencil and leave them there.  There’s no doubt that contrapposto animates the figure.  At left, a drawing by L.D., a student in my Thursday drawing class, working from the ad shown at the top of this page. He eventually took the contrapposto lines out, but without their guidance this drawing would miss its grace. Despite the drapery, you can see that the model’s right hip is higher the the left. Btw, you will not find the contrapposto stance in any ballet positions or in any martial arts.  More on that another time.

[planeta]

pior que já fiz várias vezes isso, xaveco as minas do tinder,  faço elas  acharem que precisam me convencer a sair com elas, mandam nudes, depois nem converso mais exceto se elas me chamarem hahaha

 

It Builds Character To Reject Women

November 3, 2008 by CH

If you are a man who has never rejected a woman for sex or dating, you are doing something wrong. You are, in fact, depriving yourself of one of life’s greatest pleasures and privileges, and avoiding a true test of your masculine mettle.

As we all know by now from the science, from common sense, and from reading my powerful words of genius, the default barter mechanism in the sexual market is female choice, male display. This is a natural consequence of the disparity between the scarcity of eggs and the surplus of sperm. But men are not entirely helpless to actively influence market prices; they choose as well. If men did not choose at all, women would not have evolved an instinct for improving their looks through fashion, makeup, and exercise. If I had to put a number on it, I’d say on average women do 70% of the choosing and men do 30% of the choosing. At the tails, the alpha-iest men do all the choosing and have to beat off their female suitors while the fattest, ugliest women must settle for whatever man will take them. The general trend, though, is upward dating for most women and a few men.

The fact of this mating dynamic explains why turning the tables and exercising male choice is such a powerful psychological game technique for seducing the minds of women. By behaving as if you are actively choosing women, and even occasionally rejecting them, you mimic the natural actions of the top 10% of men whose default mating strategy is choosing from an illimitable source of pussy and wielding the merciless power of sexual rejection.

Maxim #18: The two fundamental propositions upon which all game theory rests are male choosiness and female abundance. All alpha males have these two mindsets in common.

Corollary to the above: Male choosiness and female abundance do not necessarily have to be true for the strategy of behaving as if they are true to be effective at seducing women.

Try to put yourself in women’s shoes. When you are on a date, imagine you are a woman. Think like she would think. Feel like she would feel. Is this girl right for me? Are we compatible? What are her values? I’m just not sure if she’s the one; let’s see what else she has going for her. I need to keep my options open. I’m not ready to make a decision. I really need to be wowed, I wonder if she can do that for me. She seems kind of nervous. Is she dull? Am I out of her league? Damn, she just said something stupid. Maybe she’s not the one.

Keep thinking like this and soon your outward behavior will reflect your inward feelings. Suspend your disbeliefs long enough until they have become unshakeable beliefs. Once you have mastered the mindset of women, you will have mastered women themselves.

Maxim #19: The alpha male thinks and acts more like a woman than a man in matters of seduction. He understands his adversary’s psychology, and uses it to shatter her defenses.

The next time a woman who does not meet your attractiveness standards hits on you, humor her for a bit, lead her on, then politely reject her.

“What are you doing this Friday?”
“Oh, I should tell you I’m seeing someone.”

Do this even if you are hard up. Commanding the power of female/alpha male choosiness will enrich your soul and fortify your ego. You’ll feel bad for the girl for maybe 30 seconds, but the value-boosting afterglow will last for weeks. This is all about long-term thinking. Capture the female essence of sexual choice and make it a part of you.

Girls hitting on you is a rare event for most men, so you’ll need to be more active in your policy of preferential sexual consumerism. As long as you are dating two or more women simultaneously, you should have no qualms rejecting at least one of them for not being up to snuff. Choose one for dismissal and stop calling her for dates. It doesn’t have to be the least attractive chick; in fact, it’s more character-building and alpha-boosting to reject an attractive girl for an odd facial tic or bland personality. If she doesn’t get the hint, be candid and tell her she just isn’t right for you. Women, especially 7s and up, rarely hear this, so it will tear at her soul like the claws and teeth of an army of demons. If you can withstand the brief flicker of guilt and loss of sexual opportunity, her pain of rejection will actually feed your incipient alpha animal spirit, stengthening you, making you tougher, more appropriately detached, and able to clearly see and pursue your self-interest. Through the action of choosiness, your self-worth will skyrocket. And others’ evaluation of your worth will similarly follow.

If you believe there are “better” or more “moral” paths to alphaness, know this: Every alpha male is intimately familiar with the ego-stroking power of sexual choosiness. They have all, good and bad, enlightened and crass, rejected women in one way or another and crushed their souls, often on the flimsiest pretexts. Some are kind enough to dress it up in polite fictions; others are id monsters who flaunt their sexual despotism without regard for social convention or righteous preening. But all have lowered the boom. It goes with the territory.

The more women you reject, the more women will sense your radiating power to inflict pain and loss and subsequently want you. Buttress your inner game by being choosy, and rejecting freely.

[duh_prada]

Meio off aqui, mas comecei a ver ontem e curti pra caralho. Já assistiram Cosmos no netflix?