Bet. | MGTOW

mostmagnificent · 2018-03-04T15:39:28+00:00

You will never be truly happy alone111 points•39 comments•submitted 2 years...

[–]TheRealBuddhabrot 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]misandrists_hate_him12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]richardhead66661 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gods_bones10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dare all you happy fellas to get rid of your damn social media, text messaging, pets, friendships, relationships,etc for just one year then you fucking talk to me about happiness.

Done. Actually, I did one better: I kept Facebook so that I can keep posting red pill memes about how women are ruining the world so that I can encourage more men to go MGTOW. Aside from that, I don't talk to anyone and no one talks to me.

My cellphone has been dead for weeks. I can leave it off whenever the battery dies and not charge it for months, and nothing will have changed. And that's the way I like it.

Haven't had pets since I was 14.

My friendships ended once I graduated college and everyone went their separate ways.

I'm the happiest I have ever been. I spend all day alone, all night alone, and the only worry I have is choking to death with no one around to do the Heimlich Maneuver, but I've since decided that that is a relatively painless way to die, so bring it on.

[–]JStheHammer 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lone_nordic_wolf1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nikalumoglich1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]gods_bones6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gods_bones4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

So what? Humans are only social creatures insofar that we need to combine resources in order to survive. There's nothing to suggest that we need to socialize in a world where food is available in the grocery market and all your conversations can be had through the apps in your cellphone.

It's known that men/women who are "loners" so to speak do not live long, healthy and prosperous lives.

All that shows is that blue pill morons who have been brainwashed into thinking they need other people around them to be happy are unhappy when they have nobody around. My experience has been the direct opposite. I am much happier and more fulfilled without anyone infringing upon my space than I was with people around me. None of that evidence accounts for red pillers who came to the realization that everybody around them are users who try to exploit them for resources. Such a realization would cause you to lose any meaning in socializing with others.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

My experience has been the direct opposite. I am much happier and more fulfilled without anyone infringing upon my space than I was with people around me. None of that evidence accounts for red pillers who came to the realization that everybody around them are users who try to exploit them for resources. Such a realization would cause you to lose any meaning in socializing with others.

Your experiences are still not an accurate reflection of reality. This study found that, after adjusting for all other variables such as alcohol use, exercise, etc, the only indicator that suggested a long happy life was through healthy relationships. That fact will fall on deaf ears on this sub, I understand that but it is still what the study has found thus far. You might think you're much happier but I can guarantee you that if I contrast your life and overall contentment a decade from now versus someone who socializes and has many solid friendships, that person will be, without a doubt, happier.

[–]gods_bones2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]gods_bones3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Are you unable to read my previous comments? I already stated:

There's nothing to suggest that we need to socialize in a world where food is available in the grocery market and all your conversations can be had through the apps in your cellphone.

and

All that shows is that blue pill morons who have been brainwashed into thinking they need other people around them to be happy are unhappy when they have nobody around.

Those studies do not account for a person like myself who is not blue pilled. I don't need people around me to be happy because I see socializing for what it is: ulterior motives to extract resources and support. Therefore, for someone like me, the exact opposite of their findings is true.

Those studies are also bullshit because of the way they are conducted. They form a hypothesis before conducting any study, which immediately sets their predisposition before any research is gathered, and then they select a tiny sample of people from the environment around them, and then apply the results from their tiny biased sample group to the worldwide population of humans.

That's not science. That's a joke. In any other field of study, such a method would get you laughed out of the room.

Their studies also ignore the fact that hermits are, and continue to be, a very real group of people living on the fringes of society and have existed since the dawn of time. So yes, it is very much possible to exist without the need to socialize with people throughout your daily life.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

There's nothing to suggest that we need to socialize in a world where food is available in the grocery market and all your conversations can be had through the apps in your cellphone.

Of course there is. Just because you believe you are better off alone and apart from everyone else doesn't necessarily mean that is what's best for you. Your logic is akin to believing you don't need the doctor or the pharmacist anymore because you have the internet now. And your logic is also akin to believing you don't need to eat whole foods because we have vitamins and minerals in bottles. Just because there are advanced options does not necessarily undermine the underlying, true reality of the matter. Loners are not healthy.

Those studies do not account for a person like myself who is not blue pilled. I don't need people around me to be happy because I see socializing for what it is: ulterior motives to extract resources and support. Therefore, for someone like me, the exact opposite of their findings is true.

How are you so sure? You can't tell me that out of the hundreds of men that they followed, that there weren't at least a couple "alphas". Regardless if you're alpha, omega or beta: you are a social creature by nature whether or not you disagree. The only reason humans have gotten this far from our ancestral past is because we worked together, built together and procreated together. It's biologically advantageous. Your body and psyche rely on human interaction to feel ok.

Those studies are also bullshit because of the way they are conducted. They form a hypothesis before conducting any study, which immediately sets their predisposition before any research is gathered, and then they select a tiny sample of people from the environment around them, and then apply the results from their tiny biased sample group to the worldwide population of humans.

Have you even looked into the link that I posted? If you did, you wouldn't have made this comment. See, the entire purpose of the study was to simply observe these men and the recurring patterns in their lives. They had absolutely no idea what "factor x" was that allowed some men to live longer and happier than others. It was only after multiple generations and after multiple waves of researchers that they were able to understand that factor x was actually healthy relationships.

That's not science. That's a joke. In any other field of study, such a method would get you laughed out of the room.

Usually Harvard studies garner quite a bit of attention and respect. I'd like you to point me in the direction that I'd be able to find these individuals that would scoff at such a study because they'd hardly be scholars. I'd even guess these individuals would be similar to high school students scoffing at their biology teachers.

Their studies also ignore the fact that hermits are, and continue to be, a very real group of people living on the fringes of society and have existed since the dawn of time. So yes, it is very much possible to exist without the need to socialize with people throughout your daily life.

I never said that hermits didn't exist. Hermits by nature die sooner than other populations, which only solidifies my point. Perhaps by nature hermits have underlying medical issues such as co-morbid depression or social anxiety that also contributes however it is without a doubt the social isolation that kills.

[–]gods_bones2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Of course there is. Just because you believe you are better off alone and apart from everyone else doesn't necessarily mean that is what's best for you. Your logic is akin to believing you don't need the doctor or the pharmacist anymore because you have the internet now. And your logic is also akin to believing you don't need to eat whole foods because we have vitamins and minerals in bottles. Just because there are advanced options does not necessarily undermine the underlying, true reality of the matter. Loners are not healthy.

False analogy. Just because you can't understand what I am saying doesn't mean that my point is invalidated. I made the grocery store comparison because it completely negates man's need to hunt for food, which is a phenomenon which did not exist even 100 years ago. Your vitamin and doctor analogies do not apply.

As for loners: how do you know? You've never met a healthy loner in your life. Doesn't mean they don't exist.

You can't tell me that out of the hundreds of men that they followed, that there weren't at least a couple "alphas". Regardless if you're alpha, omega or beta

Actually, yes I can. Because I didn't say I was alpha, I said I was red pill. That means I am no longer brainwashed by gynocentrism into believing I need anybody except myself. There is nobody in their tiny sample population who thinks that way. They believe they need people around them to feel happy, therefore their ability to feel happy is limited to what other people can give them. That's not the way my brain works.

See, the entire purpose of the study was to simply observe these men and the recurring patterns in their lives. They had absolutely no idea what "factor x" was that allowed some men to live longer and happier than others. It was only after multiple generations and after multiple waves of researchers that they were able to understand that factor x was actually healthy relationships.

Doesn't matter. All the people they are researching are blue pill bastards who are stuck in the matrix thinking they need other people to provide happiness. None of the people they interviewed are loners who find humanity disgusting and a waste of time. Therefore, all their results are homogeneous and therefore flawed.

Usually Harvard studies garner quite a bit of attention and respect. I'd like you to point me in the direction that I'd be able to find these individuals that would scoff at such a study because they'd hardly be scholars.

So? That means their opinions are worthless? Let me tell you another word for "peer-reviewed": groupthink. Same exact concept. I'd respect their opinion more if they aren't "scholars" subscribing to the same school of thought as each other.

Hermits by nature die sooner than other populations, which only solidifies my point.

Again, you have no idea what a hermit's life consists of, and therefore your assertion that they prove that humans need relationships in order to be healthy and live longer is, yet again, a false analogy bolstered by groupthink.

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gods_bones3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gods_bones3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gods_bones5 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gods_bones2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gods_bones2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're pandering at a semantic

No, I'm not. I'm "pandering" the motivation behind isolating yourself by choice, versus being forcibly isolated against your will. You're just reducing my words to mere "semantics" because you refuse to give it any weight because it would destroy your argument.

Show me the part in all your "studies" where they interviewed misanthropes for 20 years along with the rest of the sample population they chose to follow in their longitudinal research? There aren't any. Because their method of selecting sample populations is inherently biased.

Show me the part of the study where they recorded the experiences of people who were happy about being isolated versus the people who were unhappy about being isolated? You can't. Because the research automatically assumes that isolation is a bad thing and nobody would willingly choose it.

Show me the part of the study that guarantees that no matter how happy or unhappy you feel about living life as a reclusive hermit, no matter how you voluntarily chose this lifestyle versus being forced to become a reclusive hermit because everybody you knew abandoned you against your will, your lifespan will immediately shorten because you are isolated, with all other variables being made equal? You can't, because the researchers never bothered to design their studies in such a way because the thought of anybody being happy about being a recluse is incomprehensible to them when they came up with their hypothesis.

And that's why your studies will always be fraudulent. Fraudulent in its population, fraudulent in its methodology, fraudulent in its results, and fraudulent in its pre-determined hypothesis.

[–][deleted]0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most of these studies follow people, they are called observational studies. They don't go out with any predetermined goals. They follow various people and analyze the data. Those that die early are usually alone. They could be alone because they want to be, they could be alone because they were abandoned or they could be alone because they deal with mental illnesses that recluses them from the rest of society. It inherently doesn't really matter. Your argument is like a study claiming that people with broken legs usually have diabetes and you arguing that it depends if the person voluntarily broke their legs or involuntarily broke their legs. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day broken legs are broken legs and voluntary isolation and involuntary isolation still involve isolation. This sort of brings us back to an earlier thought where I said you might believe you're happier and better off when you're alone but you could very well be wrong. I'm here saying you are actually wrong based upon what many psychologists and professionals in the field have to say. Like I said, humans thrive off social interaction in the community. You may think you're better off alone but either you're suffering from a mental illness that is currently isolating you in which I'd say get help or you're simply mistaken and I'd say please don't fall too far down the rabbit hole.

[–]gods_bones1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your argument is like a study claiming that people with broken legs usually have diabetes and you arguing that it depends if the person voluntarily broke their legs or involuntarily broke their legs.

Nope, once again, false analogies. If you need to compare a psychological study to a physical ailment, you've already lost the plot. Psychology and medical studies have nothing to do with each other. The processes of the brain has nothing to do with the study. It doesn't matter if they didn't set out with a predetermined goal; EVERY psychology study will have a hypothesis before it begins, that's the point of a hypothesis. The point of a study is to prove whether the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. You can't just go out and start a 20-year-long research without having a hypothesis already in place. Further proof you have no idea what you are talking about. "Predetermined goals" also do not have anything to do with random size sampling. The nature of picking a sample population has to do with either haphazard sampling, or a qualitative sampling. Neither of which accounts for the rare qualities of a fringe subculture. You can pick 100 random Joes off the street, and all of them could be blue pill gynocentric brainwashed providers who believe that they need women, family and friends to be happy, and a total 0 number of red pill misanthropic men who actively pursue isolation as a lifestyle goal. I have basically said this to you over and over and over again. Anybody who has studied any basic Psychology class would understand what I am talking about, but you still fail to grasp these basic concepts about picking a sample population and the inherent biases that affect any and every study/experiment. These are biases that cannot be removed because they are inherently present by design.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, which is why you keep on parroting the same old bullshit no matter how many gaping holes I point out. Therefore, this our last conversation. I've already said everything I care to say, and if you don't have the IQ necessary to understand it, then that's your problem.

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The only reason I haven't been able to actually comment on how the study was done is because it's locked and payment is needed to gain full access to the methods. The only bit that they offer for free is the abstract which goes:

The included studies provided quantitative data on mortality as affected by loneliness, social isolation, or living alone. Across studies in which several possible confounds were statistically controlled for, the weighted average effect sizes were as follows: social isolation odds ratio (OR) = 1.29, loneliness OR = 1.26, and living alone OR = 1.32, corresponding to an average of 29%, 26%, and 32% increased likelihood of mortality, respectively. We found no differences between measures of objective and subjective social isolation. Results remain consistent across gender, length of follow-up, and world region, but initial health status has an influence on the findings. Results also differ across participant age, with social deficits being more predictive of death in samples with an average age younger than 65 years. Overall, the influence of both objective and subjective social isolation on risk for mortality is comparable with well-established risk factors for mortality.

At the end of the day, you're defensive of voluntary isolation. We know as a society that isolation kills. I hope you find your way through this. Peace.

[–]gods_bones3 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How about a meta-analysis of 148 studies, encompassing 308,849 participants? Or are you going to somehow find an excuse for this one as well? Your ignorance is blasphemous.

Across 148 studies (308,849 participants), the random effects weighted average effect size was OR = 1.50 (95% CI 1.42 to 1.59), indicating a 50% increased likelihood of survival for participants with stronger social relationships. This finding remained consistent across age, sex, initial health status, cause of death, and follow-up period. Significant differences were found across the type of social measurement evaluated (p<0.001); the association was strongest for complex measures of social integration (OR = 1.91; 95% CI 1.63 to 2.23) and lowest for binary indicators of residential status (living alone versus with others) (OR = 1.19; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.44)

No seriously, I would suggest talking to someone. Voluntarily isolating yourself is not normal.

[–]gods_bones1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gods_bones2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FritzLn4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Bet.
Author	mostmagnificent
Upvotes	28
Comments	41
Date	March 4, 2018 3:39 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/81ycax/bet/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/bet.586057 https://theredarchive.com/post/586057

Comments