Stop Wanting Casual Sex

Got a question on Reddit:

Hey, I saw your post on [removed] and it hit a nerve. “I stopped pursuing sex with random women.” I’m a former sedditor, was reasonably successful PUA about 6-7 years ago, got into a relationship, but now married.

I still remember casual sex as intoxicating. I never felt so alive as having success with random women, I loved it. I still yearn for that experience. I’ve lived a good/varied life: married to a good woman, good friends, professional success, traveling around the world, skydiving, motorcycling, mountaineering. I’ve had people die in my hands, I’ve saved people’s life.

But nothing quite gives me that thrill that I had with casual sex.

I’m wondering what changed in your life to make you stop wanting that? Or if you do still enjoy it, could you clarify your position? I think about this a lot and don’t know many folks from the rationality community do.

Thanks

————–

And I answered that question:

Hey [removed] thanks for saying hi!

In short – casual sex still feels physically good but it doesn’t have the psychological reward it once did. This is because of an evolved worldview (from my studies and life experience) where I find it better long-term for both me and others to not pursue casual sex.

In long (this got out of hand when I started typing but I felt my story necessary to explain my answers to your difficult, and important questions)…

I got into pickup pretty immediately after graduating from college. I graduated a virgin, and had been plagued by sexual insecurities since middle school. I found the game community through Patrice O’Neal standup of all places, which led me to Heartiste, RSD, and the likes. I found these around the same time I started lifting weights and feeling good about my career.

I started becoming attractive. Both physically (weight lifting and social skills developed from game), and I started to feel attractive internally. Results followed (and reinforced both the internal and external feelings).

Losing my virginity was big, but it didn’t “solve” my problem. I became obsessed. For about 2 years I was going out to bars 5-6 nights a week hitting on women with the intention of having sex. And I had lots of sex.

This obsession led to indulgence. I became psychologically addicted to it all. The chase, the flirting, the sex, the sense of intimacy. You’re absolutely right that it was a thrill. Casual sex is a conquest. Like your mountaineering and skydiving, it is an accomplishment of a goal that we are rewarded for our efforts. Unlike mountaineering and skydiving, the conquest is another person. It’s primal, it’s animalistic, it’s *powerful*. It is awesome.

At least, that’s how I felt in the moment. In hindsight, it was the similar sense of power that comes with a good drag from a cigarette – it made me feel strong and powerful, but I didn’t feel as strong and powerful without *it* (nicotine, women).

After 3 years immersed in game, I started to doubt my end game. My end game was *happiness* and my method was to become the most attractive person I could. In the process, I destroyed my inhibitions and insecurities (which I see as a good thing), but I started to feel this wasn’t the ultimate good.

I took my “main chick” at the time as my monogamous girlfriend as sort of a personal experiment. I wanted to see if this was truly an unhealthy addiction and if I could find happiness without the constant pursuit. Not the best reason for entering a relationship (lol) but it was radically different from what I’d been doing.

Around the same time, again, I found my reading evolving. Instead of game blogs, I started reading a lot of old great texts. The latest on rationality is great, and Scott’s the best writer I know in this “sphere” but most writing on virtue and happiness is just boring regurgitation of the wisdom contained in old epic poems and religious texts. Those are easily dismissed because they’re 1) old and 2) didn’t show their data. More psych communities should start with the hypothesis that the old wisdom (eg biblical) is true and work to disprove it. /side rant lol

These old books preach virtue as the path to happiness. Virtue mostly being defined as living in accordance with nature while rejecting the pursuit of things (money, status, sex). Sex for me was the big one. I removed my want for money and status in my pursuit of sex as a PUA. Now, I wanted to focus on removing the unhealthy desire for constant sex and female attention.

This led to changing how I view the women I was interacting with and my actions. When I was in pickup, I saw the highest goods as *being attractive* and *honesty*. If I was attractive, as long as I was being honest, I was doing “the right thing”. For example, I always told girls I wasn’t monogamous and wouldn’t take them on dates to “get their hopes up” to keep their expectations in-line.

This is what changed, for me, the shared thrill you and I had with casual. Casual sex is fun, but it’s certainly not the ultimate good. I see what I was doing to women (even when they all enjoyed it) as ultimately destructive. I was giving myself hits of heroin by having sex with them, and I was giving them heroin at the same time. I was making them want more heroin, instead of *not wanting things* which makes a relationship based on virtue possible.

I know I keep making drug references but I’m not an addict and I don’t really have an addictive personality lol. It’s just for comparison, and I think it’s a fair comparison. Also I promise I’m not a Bible-thumping religious zealot. I just see a lot of wisdom in the Bible (and similar old books), and more and more modern science backing that up (short version: happiness isn’t found in hedonistic pursuit).

Now I see virtue as the highest good, and the true path to happiness, which I see as a *true contentedness*. I highlight this because it must be genuine – you must want this contentedness instead of secretly wanting attention from the hottie at the gym. I see this also in the case of relationships. Relationships based on this virtue (where each other’s happiness is the goal and virtue is the means) are much more likely to last than trying to maintain your attraction and attractiveness as the primary reason for the relationship (which, by definition, will fade over time). My reason for being in my monogamous relationship evolved over time, and that relationship eventually ended, but I’m grateful for all the experiences.

I’m happy to talk more about any of this.

I’m also happy to hear that you’re now married. I’m truly envious of that, and I hope you search for beauty and happiness in that and in you. Because it isn’t elsewhere… I looked 🙂

Heartiste and GBFM, the Best Of Collections

I do not own any of this content. I’m just a fan of Heartiste and GBFM’s work. Someone else compiled Heartiste’s. I put the GBFM book together. If anyone has a problem with me hosting this, let me know and I’ll take it down.

For those that don’t know, Heartiste is one of the best writers on game/relationships. His blog was banned. GBFM Great Books for Men is a poet/renaissance man that posted comments on Heartiste and Dalrock. He’s more interested in restoring honor and virtue to the world than game. For that reason, I thought about only posting GBFM’s book, but Heartiste helped shape me into the man I am today, so maybe he’ll have a positive influence on you and your relationships.

Heartiste will make you attractive. GBFM will make you happy. I recommend the latter.

Best of Heartiste: https://gofile.io/?c=Ed3lz4

Best of GBFM: https://gofile.io/?c=STDr0d

Stoicism FAQ

  1. What is stoicism?

From wikipedia, which I think provides a great definition:

Stoicism is a philosophy of personal ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world. According to its teachings, as social beings, the path to eudaimonia (happiness) for humans is found in accepting the moment as it presents itself, by not allowing oneself to be controlled by the desire for pleasure or fear of pain, by using one’s mind to understand the world and to do one’s part in nature’s plan, and by working together and treating others fairly and justly.

The Stoics are especially known for teaching that “virtue is the only good” for human beings, and that external things—such as health, wealth, and pleasure—are not good or bad in themselves

Basically, not wanting material things and finding our sole meaning in acting virtuously which, the stoics propose, is how we can achieve happiness by living the present. Virtue basically means not wanting things.

 

  1. Who are “the stoics”?

From Daily Stoic:

It had three principal leaders. Marcus Aurelius, the emperor of the Roman Empire, the most powerful man on earth, sat down each day to write himself notes about restraint, compassion and humility. Epictetus endured the horrors of slavery to found his own school where he taught many of Rome’s greatest minds. Seneca, when Nero turned on him and demanded his suicide, could think only of comforting his wife and friends.

 

  1. Isn’t ambition good?

Ambition can be a good thing. The problem is that ambition – having a strong desire to accomplish, is often aimed at a goal that was developed with external influence. We are chasing a goal that we desire not because it is good for us, or will make us happier, but because of outside influences that are directing us to want things.

When we want things, we are necessarily not free. We can work hard to achieve and get those things that we desire (something, success with women, a promotion), but it doesn’t solve the problem that we want things.

Stoicism teaches to stop wanting things. To be an ambitious stoic is to be a by-the-book stoic – to renounce pleasures and most all things society asks us to participate in. Stoicism is internal work with internal reward, rather than working on external appearances or results.

 

  1. Then what do you do all day?

As a stoic, you don’t have to do anything. But you can do anything. The point is to be perfectly content at all times. It’s to find beauty in any moment.

Your Senecas and Epictetuses would probably be big fans of meditation. Simply sitting and being still for large amounts of time. Walking in nature. Appreciating nature. Being in love with someone who loves you and raising a family.

These are things that you can enjoy in the moment and that can keep you in the moment. The stoics stress living in the moment because it means you aren’t living in the future (wanting something different) or living in the past (regretting or wishing things were different). Happiness is found in the present moment, and no other.

 

  1. Aren’t experiences a good thing? Travel, etc?

This largely goes back to the ambition question. Experiences aren’t bad. It’s helpful to be a strong, well-rounded individual. This helps with stoicism because you will be more able to be content in the moment.

There are a couple problems with travel and racking up adventures or other experiences. One is that you don’t need to travel to get a unique experience. There are new experiences waiting for you in nature, at the sports bar down the street, and with the person walking past you in the crosswalk.

When we look to travel to give us new experiences, we ignore the beauty and the variety that surrounds us every day.

Don’t do that.

 

  1. What if I want my children to live easy lives?

People don’t live easy lives. While I think it is important for a person to be happy to be well-educated, most of that education will come outside of school systems. Your peer group and the influences your child is exposed to will have a tremendous effect on his upbringing and his opportunity for happiness.

Does your child start wanting at a young age – the newest toy or video game in the commercial and develop insecurities from children’s magazines? Or is he outside being creative with his friends with sticks and rocks in the park?

Do you work 80 hours a week so he can go to a great college, but put him in front of a screen so that you can stay focused on your job? Or do you go out to the park with him to foster that creativity and enthusiasm for play?

Wanting the best for your child, like most things, can have different meanings. Society’s definition of good life for your child might mean he has access to all the video games and snacks that he wants. Your definition might be he develops a joy of reading and makes friends easily. These require different types of parenting.

 

  1. Can you stop wanting without achieving success?

Yes.

This is a tough one. I’m not poor. I have decent savings. Marcus Aurelius was the emperor of Rome at the peak of its power. It can be easy for us to say “stop wanting things” because we either have it all or have the option to have things that other people want. We have achieved “success”, to some extent, in the material world. Can this stoicism, this virtue, this lack of wanting, be achieved without first having that material abundance?

Stoicism can be practiced by anyone. It is probably more difficult to leave the material world once some success has been found. There is always more you can have. More money, more things, more friends, more status. No one will ever have more than everyone else in all these things. Especially when their metric is determined by others.

Once we achieve some success, we are rewarded. We get the promotion, and we get more money that we can buy things with. We buy a car and our neighbor gives us props on having a cool car. We charm the girl, and are rewarded with an orgasm.

These rewards are temporary, but they reinforce that we are doing the right thing. So, we continue to strive for more money, promotions, cars, and women.

 

  1. Isn’t stopping a pursuit just weakness or sloth?

No.

To change course, to stop a pursuit that you were working on because it no longer aligns with the person you want to be is one of the smartest things you can do.

There is a distinction to be made with weakness and sloth. Your virtue, your rejection of material things, must be genuine. If you are not honest when you are practicing stoicism, you will secretly envy others who achieve success, while you gloat to your friends that you don’t want things and quote the old stoics or my FAQ.

You cannot be happy while pretending to be stoic and virtuous. Honesty is a virtue, and all other virtues are false if you are not honest. To be virtuous in a world that discourages contentment and virtue requires more courage and strength than anything else in life. It is the opposite of sloth and weakness.

The strength is mostly internal. You are not signalling your intelligence or muscles to the world, so you are not externally rewarded for your strength. That is why, from the outside, it can appear as if you are weak and lazy. But if you are honest and virtuous, you will be unaffected when others call you names to try to bring you down. They chose their path, the material path, and yours conflicts with theirs. They live for external rewards, so just as it is important for them to be seen in the new sports car, it is important for them to be seen as strong and intelligent.

Strength and honor.

Book review: Lolita (hella spoilers)

“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul.” These are the first words in Vladimir Nabokov’s novel Lolita.

Dolores, little Lo, Lolita is Humbert’s obsession. She is what provides him with joy. She is what leads to his unhappiness. It is not her fault.

We all have a Lolita. It can be a step-daughter pretty girl you’re in the middle of a cross-country road trip (I hope it’s not). It can be your wife, who’s of legal age and always has been. Your Lolita can be whiskey, or your job.

Lolita is a manifestation of Humbert’s desires. Humbert is a pedophile. He is attracted to little girls. More specifically, he is attracted to the “nymphette” –  a small subset of little girls that are attractive to him. It’s hard to tell from the novel whether this “type” is simply the girls that show Humbert attention, or whether it’s the type of girl that behaves more promiscuous than girls her age, reads girl magazines, and shows awareness of her sexuality.

We want our desires to manifest and make us happy. This is what Humbert wants, and he makes it happen. He moves in with this girl of his dreams and builds an image that can work for his fantasy. Sound familiar, yet? We’ll get there.

We don’t know if the girl actually falls for him. He frames the book in a way to make it seem like it is a mutual falling in love – like the girl jumps on him when she has the chance because he’s a hot, older guy that should appeal to that kind of girl (nymphette, reads girl magazines).

However, it is later revealed that Lo has a revulsion to Humbert. She tries to runaway, she flirts with other men, and in quotes she says he raped her. It’s not the mutual love story he crafted early in the novel. He turns her into what he wants her to be in his mind.

Doing this is narcissistic, and it’s how he can get what he wants. He changes, after the fact, how she viewed him and acted towards him, in his mind, instead of changing himself into something that she would actually want to be with. Or, even more difficult, accepting that she will not want to be with him. This takes responsibility and work. Blaming others and changing events in your mind is much easier.

I wasn’t surprised when Humbert killed the man Lolita ran away with. The man was a creep, and wasn’t good for Lolita, but more than that, the dude was a villain in the narrative that Humbert had built for himself. Humbert wasn’t living in a rational world with individuals. He was living in a world where people are supposed to serve him and his fantasies. When a new man entered Lolita’s life, that served as a disruption to the narrative that was supposed to play out. When he murdered the guy, Humbert was the hero in the narrative he built for himself.

If your takeaway from Lolita was that this is a book about a creepy old man, and you are a good person because you are nothing like Humbert, then you simply aren’t self aware. We all have narcissistic qualities. As mentioned earlier, we project our wants and desires in our own love lives on our environment. This is a defense mechanism for doing something difficult – sacrificing and working to improve ourselves in order to find happiness instead of happiness happening because of events external to us.

It’s a beautiful book that exposes the dark in all of us (if we are willing) through a beautiful story written by a narcissist.

Humbert broke the law. He ruined a girl’s life. He killed a man. He is not good. But he is no less happy than the narcissistic reader that continues to find problems with the world instead of putting in the work to change.

Arguments against evolution are more practical than arguments against God. Change my mind.

[Note: I wrote this post for R/Atheism. It was kind of a troll post but also there’s meaning behind the argument I make. I didn’t expect an intellectual discussion to follow, and I didn’t get one. I also didn’t expect zero people to get the argument. I got a louder version of what I expected, “You don’t believe in evolution you RETARD that’s now how evolution works.” I’m paraphrasing. They don’t use the word retard on r/atheism because it’s inappropriate. It’s a weird subreddit.]

Argument against God: there is no physical evidence of a superior being/creator. Therefore we should not believe in the concept. If presented with physical evidence, we will change our mind.

Argument against evolution: we didn’t evolve from monkeys because there are still monkeys. Science is trying to destroy our connection with God, whose message is that we don’t need things to be happy.

By practical, I mean that which leads to the most long-term individual happiness/contentment.

The problem with the arguments above is there is lots of wisdom in the Bible and in finding contentment not through hedonistic pursuits but rather by rejecting vice and our “animal” instincts – which lead to more cravings. The Bible isn’t the only source that discusses hedonistic pleasure, you can build this up from science, but science lags behind religion in this department.

So while evolution is true, its findings don’t lead to further individual happiness but only lead to more addictions. We can fall back on the excuse “we’re just animals” but that’s a weak excuse, given our cognitive abilities that aren’t shared by other animals. There are all sorts of incentives at play by companies and grant approvers to prioritize theories that will lead to more profits. There isn’t much profit in the rejection of consumerism and vice, so there are lots of natural forces working against the theory of God.

I am not denying evolution. I’m saying the arguments against God are not that helpful to the individual’s long-term happiness given this context. Truth is an important element in happiness – one cannot deny the truth willingly and be happy. But also, one cannot deny the truth repeated in history that chasing simple pleasure doesn’t lead to long-term happiness.

Belief in God is more practical than belief in evolution. Change my mind.

Email from Uncle:  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/middle-class-americans-are-sick-elite-privilege/589849/ 
Excellent. Well said and intellectually honest. 
My response. On reading it back, it shows that I’ve been reading a lot of The Last Psychiatrist lately.
I don’t think this article is good or intellectually honest. [Uncle] is right – that it is well said. It’s well-said thoughts that appeal to its target audience (subscribers of The Atlantic).
It stopped being intellectually honest when it said Hillary was “10,000 times as appealing [as Trump]” lol that’s an intellectual, academic statement if I ever heard one. Then it listed racism and sexism as reasons Trump won. That’s what the readers of the Atlantic want to read – that they’re the “good guys” and Trump supporters are bad people.
The main point of the article is reached in the last couple paragraphs – Democrats should be a party of justice – that attacks those that don’t play by the same rules. The article says look beyond economic interests, but that’s all the author does is look at economic interests. The author thinks we should hold “the elites” (I’m not a fan of the term cuz it’s too vague and not defined here) accountable when they violate codes of ethics or have rights that don’t belong to others – non-elites. That’s the whole campaign Trump ran on.
Trump won because Republicans are tired of the establishment politicians that promise and don’t deliver. The politicians that say they’ll make changes to corruption and stop the handouts (like the bailouts). No ordinary citizen relates to, or likes these types, not even evil republicans.
Democrats are the good guys because they want us all to live by a moral code – as long it’s The Democrat moral code. They are the party of fairness – to each a piece of the pie. They fail to see that Republicans are the party of a different fairness – to each their own. Democrats are the party of do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t physically harm others. Republicans are the party of traditional boundaries – boundaries in place to keep hierarchies in tact that are believed to serve a function for both the individual and the larger group (the family, the community, the country).
Democrats can point to the community hierarchies and call them racist, but that’s not calling a black man a spade a spade. They’re straw-manning the republican belief system in the same way Republicans refer to Dems as “no-good welfare queens”.
Should we all have to live by the same moral and ethical codes, as the author points out? Cuz that’s the debate that the two parties have had for centuries. We (middle class) don’t agree on those core values. We (middle class) do agree that we don’t like the idea of being exploited. But the article doesn’t go into how we’re being exploited, and how a president can stop us from being exploited. It gives the same talking points that an establishment politician would give, without any substance. “You are being exploited. We need change!”

Libertarianism is an unsustainable political ideology

The goal of libertarianism is maximum individual freedoms. According to libertarians, this is accomplished by a government that does not interfere with individual’s lives. This means there is no regulation of the economy, no laws limiting behavior so long as it doesn’t interfere with others’ lives, and no waging wars that citizens will fight in. This libertarian goal will not last under a libertarian policy. Here’s why.

Capitalism drives the people at the bottom towards socialism.

An advanced economy makes the essentials in life easier. When that happens, people don’t need to work as hard for the “essentials” needed to survive (housing, food). When this happens, there is an evaporative cooling of high value folks as life gets easier.

The world becomes less cut-throat as technology and division of labor increase the standard of living. This happens largely because high value individuals, as valued by the marketplace, are more likely to have fewer children than those that do not spend their reproductive years having children. It is compounded because there is less of a need for high value people because there are fewer hardships – due to the advanced economy that can solve most problems.

When there are fewer people being valued by the economy, they will seek to increase their value through other means. This can mean trying to bring down those that are valued.

A large reason for this is jealousy. So much demand is generated by advertising and marketing. Advertising and marketing target people’s insecurities to create a demand. Then the product is promised as an answer to that insecurity. This is problematic to libertarians for two reasons.

One, people will never find fulfillment in these things promised by companies. It means they will continue to want, and they will likely turn to more things to seek that fulfillment. While this grows the economy, which libertarians argue is good, it doesn’t answer people’s problems. People that cannot afford “the answer” to their insecurities will be jealous of those that can.

Two, most people aren’t wealthy. The majority of people cannot afford the extreme riches that are seen as fulfilling to the insecurities. This means that to reach the largest audiences, companies must cater to the people that cannot reach the highest levels of income and spend. This includes news and media companies. When the majority of people are looking for answers to their own insecurities, news and media companies must empathize with these people and create a solution. One solution is to tell them to work harder. That doesn’t sell as well as attacking the wealthy for not contributing their share to taxes and social benefits. Companies can actually profit by pushing socialist narratives. This is ironic, and it makes sense.

Another issue with libertarian policy is that totalitarianism can be accomplished by private companies. This was demonstrated over the last couple years with the growth of media platforms that then silence and cut funding from content creators that have ideas counter to the ideology of the company.

Just like the US Constitution restricts the power of the government, there must also be checks in place for private companies so they don’t become too powerful over others. There needs to be some regulation to advanced markets. Without this regulation, people will view private businesses as evil, which opens up an opportunity for socialist policies to attack businesses.

This makes socialist political parties appear like the good guys, even though large government is much more likely to turn totalitarian than private companies competing in a free market. There isn’t another option for governments, without going through significant hurdles.

Liberal social policies lead to socialism.

Just like an unrestricted free market leads to socialism, so do the social policies libertarians push for. I will use a couple examples to show this point: open borders and birth control, but this extends to other “social issues” in politics.

Opening borders to low value individuals invites more people that are likely to want socialism. The libertarian argument is that with open borders the economy will have more consumers and producers that can innovate and solve each other’s problems. Few of these immigrants have few skills that are valued in an advanced economy. The rest work for low wages and end up in the same pool as the citizens that are likely to turn socialist.

Birth control allows women to maintain a sexually active lifestyle and stay productive in the workplace. This is great for the financial economy but has negative effects on the happiness of both men and women because they aren’t realizing the promises they were given in grad school and the latest commercials. “Have sex and build your career while you’re young and then settle down when you’re older.”

Problem is, the qualities that make for an attractive man – strong in mind, body, and wallet, are not what make for an attractive female – youth and beauty. Because of that, the sexy man isn’t with options to date the young hottie isn’t going to be as interested in the older career girl.

As women continue to work as hard and as many hours as men without realizing the benefits in the sexual market, they will turn to other means to find their happiness. Since the free market didn’t work out, an obvious alternative is to seek socialist policies that promise equality and freedom. Just like the promises of advertisements and grad school counselors, the promises of socialism will not deliver.

For these reasons, a modern economy needs conservative social policy if the individual happiness is a priority. It should be.

Libertarianism is an unsustainable political ideology for the two reasons mentions. Capitalism, unconstrained, leads to totalitarianism through both monopoly over minds of consumers and from the tendency for individuals at bottom rungs to drift toward a preference for socialist equality. The social policies recommended will also lead to socialism by degrading the strength of individuals that free markets rely on.

The problem with libertarianism is that it puts the financial market as the primary good in the world. This goes against most psychological metrics, which would prioritize individual happiness or contentment, and economic metrics, which prioritizes utility – not just financial growth.

Austrian economic theories are an excellent starting point for learning about Bitcoin

Bitcoin is far more than a payment method. Bitcoin is a political statement. It’s a global currency that doesn’t have the backing of a government – and it’s for that reason that it is better than other currencies.

Understanding Austrian economics is a great way to learn about Bitcoin because the economic background allows us to understand why it makes sense as a currency, why it makes sense as a payment platform, and many of the use cases for Bitcoin – such as international currency.

A currency is a means of exchange. Currencies get their value from their power to function as that means of exchange. In the most primitive societies, something like corn can function as a currency. It can be weighed and scored on quality and can be traded for any number of goods. A cow or a television can be measured in “pounds of corn.”

Metals were used as a means of exchange because they held value more long-term than corn. Silver and gold don’t expire or deteriorate as fast as corn, so they can preserve value. Paper dollars representing gold and silver emerged because they are more easily handled than precious metals, and can be broken up to represent more granular amounts without using a chisel and a scale.

Even when dollars stopped representing precious metals, those paper dollars were given value because people agreed they have value. That value continues to fluctuate – when more dollars are flooded into the market, we value dollars less than what they once were. That’s why bread costs $3 today instead of $0.25 like it may have fourscore years ago. Sorry, I’ve been trying to use the word fourscore for a while now.

Bitcoin is a currency that gets its value from this use. People believe it has value compared to other currencies. It can be viewed as more efficient than dollars because it can be transacted globally without exchanging to new currencies. Because there are a fixed number of coins that will ever exist, it stores its value longer than a dollar that is subject to the whims of governments – and those Austrians were fans of currencies that best maintained their value long-term. It stores its value better than gold, which had an undetermined unmined quantity.

The Austrians were free market people. They saw the most advanced societies as those societies that welcomed the division of labor, which means societies that welcomed trade of products and services from the widest ranges of people. A currency that must be converted risks transaction fees and governmental overhead than can limit some people from sharing products or services – especially across country borders. By eliminating those obstacles, a currency can welcome more contributors into the economy to produce and consume.

Last, there are use cases for Bitcoin that benefit the individual, and the individual is the most important player in the Austrian economy. Everything starts with the individual – the want to spend. The need to produce. That is where man finds meaning according to the school of Austrian economics. Individualism is the center of economic theory, psychological theory, and social theory.

Those economists want to remove obstacles in offset to best enable individualism. In addition to a global currency that is more efficient than dollars at enabling this, cryptocurrency offers additional benefits to the individual. Man can skip the administrative hurdles that exist to promote, but are actually limiters to the economic sharing that exists in the economy.

Austrian economics is an excellent starting point to learn about Bitcoin because it is through this study that we learn how currency gets its value, the characteristics of a good currency, and the importance of a global currency in a world that is increasingly global in its enterprise.

The majority of people have never had an original idea

Everyone likes to argue, but few bring anything new to the table. Actually, I’m not sure everyone likes to argue. But everyone argues. Just say, “Trump should be reelected” and you’ll get an argument out of most people.

Most people have never had an original idea for two reasons: they don’t have the courage and they are told what to think.

People are told what to think

Not other people. All of us. We are constantly being told what to think. We are sold entertainment and products in commercials and conversation. We are sold ideas in movies, TV, celebrity award speeches, and conversation with friends that got an idea from the celebrity award speech.

Most people don’t want you to have a contrary idea. Contrary ideas can threaten our worldview and our ability to interact with the world in a productive way. More than that, a contrary idea could mean someone doesn’t make the sale.

If we don’t value their product, they make less money. Companies want us to think we need their products and services. They are incentivized to want us to think like their ideal customer. So they make their product attractive, and sell you on the idea that you will be attractive if you buy their product.

The company you work for wants to maximize their own profit. That is their ultimate incentive. So while they decorate the office with pretty lights and art and beer, they do that so you are more likely to stay late and make them money. They want you to think like the ultimately loyal and profitable employee.

There’s so much noise in the world, that it’s hard to decipher what’s important and what’s not. Everyone has their answer for what’s important. To have a unique idea, you need to step away from the noise. You need to ignore the psychological attractions that are included in the advertisements and latest internal company memo. Those are distractions from your own free will and ability to produce ideas.

Someone busy being filled with thoughts is someone that will continue to buy products and someone that continues to buy products is someone that continues to work for a company because they need to pay for products.

All of our lusts and attractions are noise. They keep us wanting without giving us an answer to the fulfillment we crave by indulging.

People don’t have the courage

It’s hard to have an idea. Our world is so full of noise. We have 24-hour news on TV, social media, and phone pop-ups. We have constant communication with the world through comments and message forums. We are surrounded by ideas, and we are rewarded, with money and promotions from our company and with material objects that bring us “status” (as depicted in the commercial) from companies we buy from.

To say “no” is to reject needs. Companies sell us needs. If we don’t need, we are infinitely powerful, yet we are outcasts in our social groups and dating markets and everyone that does give in to the “needs” they are sold. Which is almost everyone. When we have a contrary idea, we say no to almost everyone.

It’s scary to say “no” to almost everyone. We’re hard-wired to want to be included in social circles, to be attractive to the other sex, and to not be “weird”. Our primitive brains see those things – social circles, sex, and status as the ultimate virtues. Those are what survive and replicate in the animal kingdom.

But we’re humans. And while we are animals, we’re better than all other animals in that we can choose not to give in to the passions and enslaving ideas that are thrown our way. Not only do we say “no” to others when we summon the strength to go against the grain, we say “no” to our own primitive brains.

To have an idea means to do something different – to view the world in a different way. To view the world in a different way means to view it different than our primitive brain and all the stimuli we come across – which all has its own agenda.

It’s even harder to share that idea.

Have a unique idea. It’s probably in your best interest.