The meek shall inherit the earth

[godelian]

Think of a man like Bill Gates.

Is he attractive to women? Yes and no.

No, because according to the black-pill philosophy, prime-age girls from a middle-class background are not interested in a man's credentials as a provider. They are only interested in non-financial characteristics, of which, first and foremost, the man's attractive looks.

To a prime-age, middle-class girl, Bill Gates is not an alpha, i.e. not a "Chad".

As these middle-class girls get older and go through their "epiphany", even they begin to prioritize "provider ability" in a prospective husband. Hence, even middle-class women in their late twenties begin to become interested in men like Bill Gates.

On the other hand, girls from a financially insecure background cannot really afford in their prime age to prioritize looksmaxx in a sexual partner. They must go straight away for superior funding capacity.

Hence, who goes for Bill Gates?

Women who are older middle class as well as all financially insecure ones including prime-age ones.

Which girls will someone like Bill Gates prefer?

Almost surely the younger ones.

These ones tend to be poor, but men generally don't care about that. Men will rather notice that they are young and pretty.

The dynamics are therefore such that it is the offspring of women from a financially insecure background that tend to inherit the wealth of the likes of Bill Gates.

The corollary is that the offspring of (older) middle-class women drop out of the middle class, inherit little to no assets at all from their looksmaxx father, and become poor in life. The middle class has a strong propensity to destroy itself and to disappear.

Hence, it is the meek who shall inherit the earth.

[Age]

Does this apply to ALL human beings?

[godelian]

Does this apply to ALL human beings?

I think that it is very, very prevalent.

In fact, the looksmaxx preference is the normal situation in biology.

The problem is that in human civilization the ability for a man to make money is disconnected from being tall, handsome, muscled, or having an attractive symmetric face, while in purely natural biology, it actually is. So, for biological species that are simpler than humans, the looksmaxx strategy works absolutely fine. However, for an intelligent species with complex social relationships such as humanity, it does not work at all. Just look at Bill Gates. At no point in his life, the man was even remotely physically attractive.

Moneymaxx pretty much always leads to a different choice than looksmaxx.

The problem is that girls become sexually mature long before they understand this principle, and long before they are able to overrule their innate biology with more complex societal principles. Left to their own devices, and in absence of an immediate, pressing need for money, young women will naturally follow a looksmaxx strategy, which will fail.

[Age]

Does this apply to ALL human beings?

I think that it is very, very prevalent.

In fact, the looksmaxx preference is the normal situation in biology.

The problem is that in human civilization the ability for a man to make money is disconnected from being tall, handsome, muscled, or having an attractive symmetric face, while in purely natural biology, it actually is. So, for biological species that are simpler than humans, the looksmaxx strategy works absolutely fine. However, for an intelligent species with complex social relationships such as humanity, it does not work at all. Just look at Bill Gates. At no point in his life, the man was even remotely physically attractive.

So, to you, some new born babies are NOT even remotely attractive AT ALL while some are, correct?

Moneymaxx pretty much always leads to a different choice than looksmaxx.

The problem is that girls become sexually mature long before they understand this principle, and long before they are able to overrule their innate biology with more complex societal principles. Left to their own devices, and in absence of an immediate, pressing need for money, young women will naturally follow a looksmaxx strategy, which will fail.

Does this apply to ALL girls and young women?

[godelian]

Does this apply to ALL girls and young women?

I do not think that there is any behavioral pattern that applies to ALL individuals. Hence, I do not think that it makes sense to look for one. I am much more interested in why the middle class has a natural inclination to self-destroy. The reason why always seem to be a variation on the same theme:

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times." (Michael Hopf)

I think that "hard times" are just around the corner now. It has been economically too easy for too long in the West. That has allowed fundamentally unsustainable behaviors to take root. In that sense, the complete destruction of the middle class was long overdue.

[Iwannaplato]

Think of a man like Bill Gates.
Hence, it is the meek who shall inherit the earth.

I don't think Bill Gates was or is meek. He was entrepreneurial from an early age and broke rules when it was convenient for him.
He's not a barfight alpha, but he's hardly been meek. He also had a very priviledged background, which to me does not fit with the Biblical intention of 'meek'.

Likewise, when exegetically examining the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for meek is anaw, which refers to someone who is afflicted or bearing a heavy burden.

He did not suffer the burdens of poverty, for example. He was raised in a family that gave him resources most people in the world just fantasize about. On that foundation he took risks, was pushy, and did much of what he wanted.

He was bullied in school for a time. But so was Georges St-Pierre.

I really don't think the Bible meant that the children of the extremely well connected in the business world are going to inherit the earth. That's not even worth mentioning. That was happening, the children of the priviledged, getting much of the spoils, long before the Bible was written.

[Age]

Does this apply to ALL girls and young women?

I do not think that there is any behavioral pattern that applies to ALL individuals.

Then WHY say,
"Is he attractive to women? Yes and no.

No, because ....".

This MEANS that the individual human being known as "bill gates" is NOT so-called 'attractive' to absolutely ALL woman, which, unless ALL are asked, is NOT YET KNOWN.

Hence, I do not think that it makes sense to look for one.

So, if ANY one where to go looking or searching for a "behavioural pattern" for ALL individuals, then just so you are aware, this is NOT thought of as making much sense because "godelian" does NOT think that there is any behavioral pattern that applies to ALL individuals.

YET "godelian" appears to think or BELIEVE that there is A behavioral pattern for ALL individuals, within specific groups of individuals.

I am much more interested in why the middle class has a natural inclination to self-destroy.

Define 'middle class', and what 'class' are you in and WHY?

The reason why always seem to be a variation on the same theme:

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times." (Michael Hopf)

You WERE talking about the group of individuals known as "women", but now you have changed and are talking about the group of individuals known as "men". Now, does this 'behavioural pattern's you just expressed apply to ALL so-called "men"?

I think that "hard times" are just around the corner now.

'Hard times' in relation to what, EXACTLY?

And, what 'corner' are you referring to, EXACTLY?

It has been economically too easy for too long in the West.

Does or would EVERY one say and believe this?

From what I have observed and heard are some people complaining and whinging about how life, and living, is too hard, and NOT just in the so called "west".

That has allowed fundamentally unsustainable behaviors to take root.

Such as for example?

In that sense, the complete destruction of the middle class was long overdue.

This sounds like you were already aware of some 'predetermined plan'. Are you?

If yes, then what is the outcome of 'that plan'?

[Age]

Think of a man like Bill Gates.
Hence, it is the meek who shall inherit the earth.

I don't think Bill Gates was or is meek. He was entrepreneurial from an early age and broke rules when it was convenient for him.
He's not a barfight alpha, but he's hardly been meek. He also had a very priviledged background, which to me does not fit with the Biblical intention of 'meek'.

Likewise, when exegetically examining the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for meek is anaw, which refers to someone who is afflicted or bearing a heavy burden.

He did not suffer the burdens of poverty, for example. He was raised in a family that gave him resources most people in the world just fantasize about. On that foundation he took risks, was pushy, and did much of what he wanted.

He was bullied in school for a time. But so was Georges St-Pierre.

I really don't think the Bible meant that the children of the extremely well connected in the business world are going to inherit the earth. That's not even worth mentioning. That was happening, the children of the priviledged, getting much of the spoils, long before the Bible was written.

ALL of those who are afflicted by, or bearing, a heavy burden DO 'inherit the earth', that is; the 'meek, if they live long enough.

[godelian]

YET "godelian" appears to think or BELIEVE that there is A behavioral pattern for ALL individuals, within specific groups of individuals.

No.

By the way, the way it seems to work, is that you first conclude your point, and that you then go fishing for anything that could even remotely supports your foregone conclusion.

I repeat, I don't know of one behavioral pattern for which there are no exceptions. On the contrary, I think that exceptions can pretty much always be found.

This sounds like you were already aware of some 'predetermined plan'. Are you?

If yes, then what is the outcome of 'that plan'?

I think that the middle class destroys itself. Furthermore, I believe that the middle class has always done that in history.

Furthermore, the middle class does not need any help with destroying themselves. In that sense, there is no grand plan to destroy the middle class.

In my opinion, it is the result of mere biology. All you need to do, is to look at the typical mating behavior of young women in the middle class.

As I said, I believe that even in good times, the offspring of middle-class women, if any, largely drops out of the middle class, and becomes poor and even destitute. They gradually tend to become members of the societal lowest underclass.

That is not necessarily the case for the offspring of middle-class men, if they carefully choose a spouse outside the middle class.

The middle class in the West is currently visibly disappearing.

I believe that this is simply an inevitable process. I also think that the current economic recession will lead to a devastating financial crisis that will mostly wipe out the middle class altogether.

[Age]

YET "godelian" appears to think or BELIEVE that there is A behavioral pattern for ALL individuals, within specific groups of individuals.

No.

By the way, the way it seems to work, is that you first conclude your point, and that you then go fishing for anything that could even remotely supports your foregone conclusion.

Will you provide ANY example for YOUR CLAIM here?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I repeat, I don't know of one behavioral pattern for which there are no exceptions. On the contrary, I think that exceptions can pretty much always be found.

So, this DISCREDITS what you have said and CLAIMED above in regards to ALL, in those groups of peoples.

This sounds like you were already aware of some 'predetermined plan'. Are you?

If yes, then what is the outcome of 'that plan'?

I think that the middle class destroys itself. Furthermore, I believe that the middle class has always done that in history.

Furthermore, the middle class does not need any help with destroying themselves. In that sense, there is no grand plan to destroy the middle class.

In my opinion, it is the result of mere biology. All you need to do, is to look at the typical mating behavior of young women in the middle class.

As I said, I believe that even in good times, the offspring of middle-class women, if any, largely drops out of the middle class, and becomes poor and even destitute. They gradually tend to become members of the societal lowest underclass.

That is not necessarily the case for the offspring of middle-class men, if they carefully choose a spouse outside the middle class.

The middle class in the West is currently visibly disappearing.

I believe that this is simply an inevitable process. I also think that the current economic recession will lead to a devastating financial crisis that will mostly wipe out the middle class altogether.

I ALSO asked you about seven other CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

We await your Truly OPEN and Honest answers.

[godelian]

Will you provide ANY example for YOUR CLAIM here? If no, then WHY NOT? We await your Truly OPEN and Honest answers.

I think a good example is what you will find in Wheat Waffles' video on the matter:

**AVOID** 5 Reasons NEVER to Use Online Dating as a Man

I generally agree with what Wheat Waffles says on the subject. I just limit his conclusions to "prime-age middle-class women". Wheat Waffles is apparently not aware of the fact that everybody else, outside that demographic, cannot afford to behave like that.

In the video, Wheat Waffles depicts online dating as a looksmaxx game in which even someone like Bill Gates does not stand a chance. His billions or other business achievements are to no avail whatsoever. I agree with Wheat Waffles, but he should limit the conclusion to women who can (temporarily) afford to behave like that. The vast majority of women on the globe cannot do that. A woman needs to be quite financially secure in order to be able to afford that behavior, as well as relatively young and attractive.

Concerning "evidence" for his claim, which is quite similar to mine, Wheat Waffles just uses observational data concerning this behavioral pattern and draws conclusions based on that. There is actually no way to experimentally test that kind of conclusions in a reproducible way. The subject is not about microbiology on simple bacteria in a petri scale. The fact that there are inevitably exceptions does not detract from the fact that the behavioral pattern has effectively been observed. The subject lends itself at best to observational studies:

In fields such as epidemiology, social sciences, psychology and statistics, an observational study draws inferences from a sample to a population where the independent variable is not under the control of the researcher because of ethical concerns or logistical constraints. One common observational study is about the possible effect of a treatment on subjects, where the assignment of subjects into a treated group versus a control group is outside the control of the investigator.[1][2] This is in contrast with experiments, such as randomized controlled trials, where each subject is randomly assigned to a treated group or a control group. Observational studies, for lacking an assignment mechanism, naturally present difficulties for inferential analysis.

Your approach to the subject of human behavior is not epistemically sound, as the subject generally does not lend itself to reproducible experimental testing. The best you can typically get, are observational studies; if you can get even those, because most conclusions will generally have to be made based on anecdotal evidence.

[Iwannaplato]

ALL of those who are afflicted by, or bearing, a heavy burden DO 'inherit the earth', that is; the 'meek, if they live long enough.

Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates.

[Age]

ALL of those who are afflicted by, or bearing, a heavy burden DO 'inherit the earth', that is; the 'meek, if they live long enough.

Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates.

WHY NOT?

What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?

[Iwannaplato]

ALL of those who are afflicted by, or bearing, a heavy burden DO 'inherit the earth', that is; the 'meek, if they live long enough.

Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates.

WHY NOT?

What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?

I didn't say he was different from every other human being. Unless you are trying to say that all human beings are meek and the Bible was saying everyone would inherit the earth. Which I think would then make the assertion there worded to confuse.

[Age]

Could be, but that sure don't include Bill Gates.

WHY NOT?

What makes the human being known as "bill gates" different from EVERY "other" human being?

I didn't say he was different from every other human being.

No, you did NOT. However, you did say and write, "but that sure don't include Bill Gates."

Unless you are trying to say that all human beings are meek and the Bible was saying everyone would inherit the earth.

All children, in a sense, are 'meek', but they (if they live long enough) are the ones that finally end up having responsibility of caretaking for the earth. Thus, in that sense, they end up 'inheriting' the earth.

Which I think would then make the assertion there worded to confuse.

Where, EXACTLY, do you see ANY confusion here, or there?

To me, the assertion was NEVER worded to confuse. The reason, however, ANY confusion exists is because of Wrong or MISS interpretation/s being made, and then being passed on down through the generations.
.