/n/ - NEET

Beta is defined by attitude, not actions.

>>14359
Your attitude makes you take certain actions and don't even consider other ways.
If your attitude is "beta" it's less than likely that you will try some "action" like trying to hook up someone, isn't it?

Edited because I phrased it like shit. Twice.

>>14361
The last part is still completely unintelligible. While attitude has influence over actions, actions are not taken as a result of a specific attitude. I choose not to have a facebook because it's a vapid, puerile cirlcejerk where everyone tries as hard as they possibly can all the time in a formulaic and tiresome way. Does that mean I'm going to be a submissive little bitch any time I interact with someone who has a flesh gash between their legs?

Beta is defined entirely as a specific attitude towards women. It's possible to have a massive score while not exhibiting a single beta trait.

>>14362
It's also possible to have a 0 while being an absolutely raging beta. The score is reflective of how dependent you are on socialization for gratification and how likely you are to conform to social expectations. Someone can be completely retarded and still successful simply because they relentlessly seek attention and membership of as many social circles as possible. That success is attributable to the sheer volume of people they're getting exposure to, not any inherent traits or attitudes.

>>14364
>While attitude has influence over actions, actions are not taken as a result of a specific attitude. I choose not to have a facebook because it's a vapid, puerile cirlcejerk where everyone tries as hard as they possibly can all the time in a formulaic and tiresome way. Does that mean I'm going to be a submissive little bitch any time I interact with someone who has a flesh gash between their legs?
Your action is that you don't have a facebook because it's shit, which was defined by your attitude about socialization. How does it prove that your action is not a result of your attitude?

>It's also possible to have a 0 while being an absolutely raging beta
So, somebody who is beta and doesn't want any attention and keeps away from all social contact suddenly has a facebook, relationships, friends, etc.? (Or any of the things that won't give you points in these charts).
I understand your point, but you're taking it way too away from reality here.

Back to the "attitude won't make actions", my point is that a certain "attitude" is a behaviour, and that said behaviour defines the actions the individual will take in determined situations. Just as you can't be a suicidal person if you're not sad/depressed/emotionally damaged, it isn't likely that a "beta" will have traits that are common in "non-betas", like relationships, friends, social interaction, etc.
Let's say that you can't have any actions without attitude, but that equally means that if you have an attitude, exactly because of that, you will tend to perform certain actions which reflects your point of view in the situation (In this case, they're shown in these charts as some of the most common traits "betas" tend to have. This chart isn't meant to be taken seriously, more like a joke about powerlevel).
Of course there are exeptions, to all, but that's to be expected.

>The score is reflective of how dependent you are on socialization for gratification and how likely you are to conform to social expectations.
>how dependent you are on socialization for gratification
What? Where is that stated? Not all relationships (either lovers or friends) are for personal gratification as to brag about "How cool I am". That's toxic. I agree that that is disgusting but that isn't a rule or something, or at least that's what I want to believe.

>>14365
>you don't have a facebook because it's shit, which was defined by your attitude about socialization
I don't have a facebook because facebook is shit, not because of a specific and prevailing attitude about engaging in social activities. My argument is that people can engage in the same action for differing reasons. Your argument is that actions can be mapped one-to-one, in a completely unambiguous way to singular motivations and worldviews. That's absurd.

>who is beta and doesn't want any attention
Betas are often desperate for attention. You're mistakenly confusing introversion for being a beta, which is reflective of your misunderstanding of the original concept. Like any popular conception, it is doomed to misuse and dilution. However, this doesn't render its original definition null. I'll state this only once more; beta is defined by a mindset towards women - it has nothing to do with being socially apathetic or holding a preference for solitary activities.

>Not all relationships (either lovers or friends) are for personal gratification as to brag about "How cool I am"
I'd go as far to state that every relationship between people under the age of 30 has been undertaken for exactly those reasons. Recreational sex is a part of it, but most people just do it because they want to be perceived as normal. That dependance on other people for constant legitimation is far more beta than choosing to abstain from it all.

>>14365
>you can't be a suicidal person if you're not sad/depressed/emotionally damaged
Again, that's superficial and ultimately erroneous to state. I've entertained suicide on multiple occasions with the driving motivation being the totally arbitrary and valueless nature of human existence. This was when I was much younger and have now settled into a state of cheerful indifference where I don't see nonexistence being inherently preferable to existence. It's very easy to try and simplify people's motivations and actions into this convenient attitude system but nothing is simple enough reduce in that way.

http://m.friendfeed-media.com/2da79442231982a471aa37bbdcf283d9f092ea87

>>14367
Ok, I meant suicidal as "sad to the point of desiring to end your life by your hands", but it's true that things can't simply be reduced into convenient qualifications. If I wondered about what would happen if I kill myself while being detached from reality, that would equal suicidal without depression. My bad.

>>14368
Think about it like a game of chess. Does every decision in a game stem from some emotionally driven, fixed set of beliefs towards something? Surely human behavior is more complex than everyone just liking or disliking things and taking ridiculously polarized stances towards everything.

>>14369
>Think about it like a game of chess. Does every decision in a game stem from some emotionally driven, fixed set of beliefs towards something?
I could argue that, since after all, you make your moves based on what you think is the best decision to win the game, and that could be a hunch, which is some emotional drive which leds you towards what you think is the best move, or it could also be 100% logical, based in some planned strategy.
Said decision could be going for a plan full defensive, aggressive, both, passive, etc. There is no limit to that. But each individual has a "main" attitude, or behaviour, which may or may not change. And regardless of that, not everyone is cut off to play chess, just as some people isn't cut to be social butterflies or "get out and live your life" (as most of people somehow seem to believe).
If that people aren't experienced in this, or aren't even interested, you get people who don't enjoy chess and try to keep themselves away from it. The reason could be their "attitude", but it doesn't really matter in the end if it is reflected in their actions.

Either way, I get your point. I never said human behaviour is simple, I only said it's one of the main things that led our life. They change over time, they adapt over time, they're not always the same. Mono no aware yo.
But they still define us, and we tend to repeat some actions based on what we believe is how we should act like/live our life.

>Surely human behavior is more complex than everyone just liking or disliking things and taking ridiculously polarized stances towards everything.

But I never stated or implied something that. If I thought that way I wouldn't be discussing evangelion-tier topics on an almost dead chan in the internet, and it would also be impossible for me to agree with you on the points you raiced in your posts.

My thought is that an action is a byproduct of your attitude towards the situation you're facing + the situation itself. You may not want to leave your house or room because you're scared of doing so, but if there's suddenly an earthquake, it's a possibility that you may run away even when it goes against your main behaviour of "this place is my safe site and I won't leave it". And vice-versa, you may enjoy doing things you normally wouldn't because you want to experience new things. And so with thousands of cases.

What the fuck are we discussing, again?
I thought this thread was to cirlejerk about being wizard apprentices. Shit man, how did I even get here. Either way, I'm too tired to continue arguing.
Good discussion anon, good luck in whatever you're doing. It's nice to see there's still people around here.

>>14370
When you take a dump, do you do it because you feel you are guided by some lofty vision or ideal? Seriously just read into some basic psychology. We're just warm blooded mammals that have deluded ourselves into believing we posses some level of sentience. People are fucking apes reacting blindly to anything that provokes fear, just look around you.

Spontaneous philosophical discussions on obscure, dead imageboards are my fetish

>>14371
>Spontaneous philosophical discussions on obscure, dead imageboards are my fetish
What a waste of time.

>>14359
>Beta is defined by attitude, not actions.
You know what they say: we are not wolves. We should really stop using "beta" as a shorthand for a more specific set of traits.

What do we mean by "beta", anyway? Submissive, meek, gentle?

Because if so, then I'd argue that these character traits have little to do with one's "power level". Your degree of being a fucking loser is defined by your actions, not character. For instance, spending lots of time on image boards is one such good indication.

And we've been through this countless times before. That is the kind of stuff "Wizards" discuss on a daily basis, either to distract themselves from actions they need to take or in a misguided attempt to get support from random people on the internet.

"Beta" is honestly kind of a dumb label, but people do on a deep level look down on those they perceive as weak and not secure in themselves. And honestly, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. If you don't respect yourself, you certainly don't deserve the respect of others; conversely, trying to pretend you respect someone you don't and ought not to is patronizing them as if they were a child that really can't do any better. Which pretty much everyone actually can, really, and the second you start denying that ability in yourself is when you start being truly lost.

I think it has less to do with looking good and focusing on getting chicks or whatever as people seem to think, too, it just has to do with attitude more than anything else.

>>14377
I do not grasp the concept of respect. How do you decide that someone has respect for themselves and that the standards that they apply to confer self-respect are well founded? There are mental illnesses that render people in a perpetual state of mania - do you consider these people respectable because they are incapable of not "respecting" themselves?

The concept is entirely meaningless and silly. How can you infer from a persons actions what their total self relationship is? How do certain actions retain precise meanings? Nothing makes any sense.

>>14378
People are able to tell almost instinctually whether another person has confidence and respect for themselves, or at least they can certainly pick up on whether they seem to. That's where attitude comes in.

As for your second question, well, sociopaths and people with sociopathic tendencies, those that tend to value others little, do in fact often seem to make it far in the business world. There's a reason that the sociopath is said to have a lot of superficial charm. Because they're genuinely that manically certain of themselves, and unworried about others.

Yeah, it doesn't make a ton of sense. A lot of human behavior doesn't.

>>14379
>are able to tell almost instinctually
A feeling isn't a substitute for a framework. In the absence of a well defined and consistent set of relations, there is no underlying meaning. The "instinct" you refer to can be reduced to a response that is generated from very specific pieces of environmental information. Body language, tonality, social relationships, etc - there is overlap amongst many of these variables and the result is less than analytical. It's more of a "I like this person" result, which is absolutely worthless and indicates nothing about the subject's mental state or cognitive properties.

None of this even begins to address the underlying issue. People's values and ambitions differ, which leads to the unskilled and inept being supremely confident of very little. This is why it's meaningless to "respect" someone because they "respect" themselves - that self respect is never sufficient because there's no shared value framework from which all human's assess themselves by. What happens when there are no values or goals a person person decides are worthwhile to pursue?

>sociopaths and people with sociopathic tendencies
It's not just sociopaths or strictly people suffering from personality disorders. Anyone can be conditioned to behave in a way that projects this impression - there are just some people who are naturally disposed to it, without actually assessing what properties they have that would merit such behavior. It's less about people actually possessing qualities that merit self-respect than it is people realizing the heuristic is effective for influencing others and behaving in a "self-respecting" way regardless.

>>14357 here

You know what, I love this chan. Since my post an actual decent conversation has come out of the thread, rather than 'HURR DURR UR A FAGET *flings shit*' that you'd normally see on 4chan.

I think I'll stay.

>>14381
Ubuu is great for discussion and we generally try to share our points of views instead of shoving 'em into other anon's cunts.
It was better in the past, we had a lot of debate about a lot of things, both serious stuff and shit for gigles, but the majority of the userbase left for some reason. Now most of the users that populate this place are people who enjoy quite chans and/or people attached to this site.
It's really appealing if you enjoy calm boards, the only con being that we have periods where we don't have much activity for a few days.

>>14383
or periods where we just have a series of shitstorms >_>

>>14380
I think most people who are able to act in that way aren't exactly aware of it or the how and why of it. Not many people seem to be, which is why you have so many shitty explanations for the why and how of it like the whole alpha/beta thing.

Your explanation doesn't explain much either. People's values and ambitions differ, those who don't have set interests and ambitions seeming less attractive, etc, etc.. It doesn't even have to do totally with having interests outside yourself that you pursue, it's about SELF-interest. Again, there's a reason that a lot of those who are able to take this and run with it fairly effectively are those that really don't have interest in much other tan themselves.

I also don't see why it's meaningless to respect or not respect someone by your own values or your own natural tendency to react just because there's no species-wide framework. Individual personality and culture is good for a little, and I bet that's part of what it is useful for.

>>14383
>>14381
Anon who's arguing with original anon here. I'd become really fucking disillusioned with this before starting this, just because most of the people who post tend to come off as meanspirited, the one trip left who consistently posts is fairly bitchy-seeming, and all that. Most of the people I liked are no longer here or I've alienated. But yeah, this is pretty nice actually.

>>14387
>Anon who's arguing with original anon here.
If by "original anon" you mean this post's anon >>14362 , it's actually who you're quoting right now lol.

>I'd become really fucking disillusioned with this before starting this, just because most of the people who post tend to come off as meanspirited,
Nah, I don't know if you were here before of 2012, but anons were harsher, though debate was really nice back then too.
Actually, everybody was harsh because we knew we were just making some noise and venting a bit, nothing serious. It was pretty fun overall.

>the one trip left who consistently posts is fairly bitchy-seeming, and all that.
>trip
>bitchy-seeming
The definition of an average tripfag. Just ignore the attention whore.

>Most of the people I liked are no longer here or I've alienated. But yeah, this is pretty nice actually.
Oh, yeah, it's a shame people left, but even if ubuu is calmer and we don't have too much activity now, it's still a very nice place to visit daily. At least it is for me.

The thing is that some/many recognized users don't always post with their names. I am a recognized user and I've been posting under anon quite a bit.
Also, nice "boss" picture. I wonder where you found that one :P
jk.

>>14390
M…-san, you're talking with X-kun, that post holds way too much irony.

>>14391
*wink*
I am actually not as involved in posting as I'd like to be. I will be posting more in the future; and I should have a lot more time once summer rolls around.

Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to attack you or anything pointing out the picture. I was just thinking how proud I was that the picture started circulating so quickly. :')

>>14392
>Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to attack you or anything pointing out the picture. I was just thinking how proud I was that the picture started circulating so quickly. :')

Nah, don't worry for that. I've actually been told worse shit before and I didn't even flinch.
If it makes you happier, I actually found it on /a/ the other day, though I remember it was posted around here some time ago though but forgot to save it.

>>14389
Eh, I just meant who I was replying to those last couple posts. I have a headcold, feel like I got a military surplus blanket on my brain. Don't feel like trying to follow the thread this moment.

I think 2012/3 was around when I started lurking a lot, actually, maybe a bit before. People did vent but there seemed to be a sort of camaraderie that's lost now.

.. Maybe that's partly me projecting.
Do any of you know the feeling of trying to convince your brain someone isn't worth caring about and consistently failing, even though they haven't exactly been great to you? And then, maybe as a coping mechanism, realizing that probably half the people you know don't really give a shit about you, and a good share of them don't interest you anyway? And not knowing where to go or what to do in response to that?
Sorry for the rambling.

>>14394
Did you mean my entire life >_>
I get you 110%.

Why did this turn into a circlejerk? I'll just revert to not posting if everyone's gonna gay-out the second it appears the site has activity.

>>14386
>most people who are able to act in that way aren't exactly aware of it
I completely disagree. It's something that out of necessity is intellectualized but over time becomes effortless. People who regularly engage in socialization don't have to make any conscious effort because they can process everything unconsciously. Just because it's being processed at that level doesn't mean the activity is without its nuances.

How do you explain the mountains of self help material and literal academic fields that surround the topic? Clearly being able to influence other people is going to be a subject of interest for every existing human.

>those who don't have set interests and ambitions seeming less attractive
I don't understand what you're saying here.

>it's about SELF-interest
So, we've returned to this idea that narcissists and people who apply infantile defense mechanisms are the pinnacle of "respectability"? Just play some online games and see the volume of hate mail you receive - these are the same mechanisms that drive people into a state of complacency.

>don't see why it's meaningless to respect or not respect someone by your own values
Relativism pretty much negates the whole process. It's obviously not going to be a widespread position, but I don't acknowledge the concept of value as something that has physical inherency. I'm only carrying on this discussion because it's apparent that others don't share that metaphysical position.

>>14397
Haha, whooo.
SHARE YOUR WOES ANON.

>>14400
Feel free to if you want, you haven't really shifted my opinion much.

All those self-help books exist and continue to be written at such a rate and in such variety BECAUSE of exactly what I said. Those who assume a posture of confidence often do so subconsciously. Maybe they're aware of it on some level, but part of the reason so many people are so fundamentally unable to do so is precisely because it's not something that you affect purely by telling yourself you have to. It's a mental attitude, and it's one that requires training to apply.
I didn't say there isn't nuance to it, I just said a lot of those who have it don't seem aware they do, don't seem aware acting in any other way would be a problem. And maybe they are, but the point is that it's a habit more than anything else

*seem
Hah, sorry, and that's one of a few typos there isn't it? Should probably get in the habit of actually bothering to proofread.

What infantile self-defense mechanism?
What you describe seems more like a function of plain insecurity than anything else, which is actually kind of the opposite of what I was trying to describe.

Yeah, it's not a concept with set physical properties and worth, it's a psychological one. Value in general is largely a psychological one. The only time it isn't is when it's purely driven by the need to sustain life itself or the security of yourself or those around you, and even then it tends to be processed in pretty relative, personal terms. I don't know how that does or should change anything.
MEANING is primarily a psychological concept anon, fuck.

>>14405
>posture of confidence
Again, we're still using terms that hold no definition. If you can't articulate a set of characteristics that universally identify someone as "being confident", no such classification exists. I still have absolutely no comprehension of what this could mean, as I don't look to the physicality of a person's behavior to asses the intellectual merits of what they are expressing. Are there magnitudes of confidence? Are certain hand gestures more confident than certain tonalities? How do you systematically measure the degree of confidence of an action and the holistic confidence level of the person engaging in said action?

>What infantile self-defense mechanism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control#Attributional_style
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28making_excuses%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

All evidence would suggest that being "spontaneously" confident manifests most strongly in individuals with the least sophisticated and analytical psychological makeup. If you're unable to simultaneously perceive limitations and implications of what you're saying while considering all competing alternative, you might be disposed to more readily mistaking your thoughts for being significant. Confidence is proud error.

>not a concept with set physical properties and worth, it's a psychological one
Psychological processes are physical processes. Whether or not your own subjective rendering of reality might lead you to mentally construct objects of value, the physical processes that constitute this operate with no such concept.

>Confidence is proud error.

Which really is the mark of success in the world we live in. It Always cracks me up when people treat sensitivity, depth and emotional complexity as if they were values priori. Anything that makes everyday life easier is a quality, everything that makes it harder is a flaw. Period.

>>14407
Absolutely. Which is what I was trying to get across talking about psychotically concepts. Easier, harder, better, worse, meaning, confidence, even that perceived error, that's all down to human view.
That doesn't mean they aren't important and don't have value (value also being something wholly subjective, after all). If you're willing to believe they don't just because you can't prove they do in a concrete manner, I really don't see what your point in living would be, much less in bothering to argue with strangers.

>>14408
*psychological
Haha, really do need to get into that habit. Oh well, at least it was a typo which was oddly relevant to an earlier part of this.

>>2407

Normalfag

I'm 41. I'll be a wizard one day.

+7 Virgin
+2 Never been to a party
+8 No facebook account (this one shouldn't count, facebook is dead)

Apprentice Wizard Bonus
+5 (age 21 - 16)

Powerlevel 22. Being a virgin is really not as big a deal as this list makes it out to be, probably should be a +5 max.

+4 NEET
+4 raised by a single mother

Got psychiatric diagnoses that aren't social anxiety and autism though.

150, i'm surprised i can go higher.

As soon as Vasalgel is on the market i will change class to a semen demon.

>>2333

+3 Kissless
+9 Never had a girlfriend
+3 Have a crush on a girl you don't know
+7 Virgin
+3 Play MMO's

= 25

Is that time again?

>>2333
46

>>2402
58

Good, good, it keeps raising. I can't wait until I become an archmage.

This thread proves how normie this board is.

9+Never had a gf
6+Friendless
6+No friends 5 years
3+Never had a best friend
2+Social Anxiety
8+No Facebook account

huh, 34.

62
Oh well.

whoops 4

45
welp

>>2422
all right, was a total of 55 years ago now it's…

35

>>16462
Nice! What'd you strike off?

>>16462
Fucking your imaginary friend doesn't count.

>>16469
Dated a real 3D girl and stuff