# Abundance vs Scarcity Dating Mindset



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

*Scarcity Mindset*: The belief that people are a limited resource. Belief of looking for and finding your soulmate, or that very few people would be interested in you - or the other way around, that you'd be interested in very few people. The underlying fear is that every rejection or break up is a step closer to ending up alone. 

*Abundance Mindset*: "Plenty of fish in the sea". There are lots of people out there who can be attracted to you, who you can click with and develop a great relationship with. If this relationship I'm pursuing doesn't work, I am aware of existing potential out there. 

Which mindset do you relate to the most, when it comes to dating? 
How does it affect your dating life? 
Has your mindset changed over the years? 

A few thoughts, as I write this OP: it seems to me that both of these taken to an extreme would be negative. For example, the abundance mentality can lead to a reluctance to commit or settle down, because you're constantly aware of other possibilities. The scarcity mentality can make it difficult to let go of a toxic relationship, because there's this underlying "I will never find a connection like this" belief. Thoughts?


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

With with more than 6 billion inhabitants it is the abundance mindset is the only sane conclusion.

Even if you live in an inbred town of 50.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Quality people are a scarce resource whether you're hiring for a job or seeking a life partner or anything.

It's easy to think there is an abundance of quality people if you are not very discerning in your search. That said, there is something positive about adopting an abundance mindset even if it isn't really true, as long as it doesn't get carried away...

The abundance mindset taken to an unhealthy extreme reminds me so much of my ENFP friend. Militant positivity, arrogance, unconcerned with reality, and always flitting from one person to another.



fleur du mal said:


> For example, the abundance mentality can lead to a reluctance to commit or settle down, because *you're constantly aware of other possibilities*.


Sounds exactly like Ne, doesn't it?


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Desthro said:


> With with more than 6 billion inhabitants it is the abundance mindset is the only sane conclusion.
> 
> Even if you live in an inbred town of 50.


Lol! Typical Ne-dom response. I relate. 



Dante Scioli said:


> Quality people are a scarce resource whether you're hiring for a job or seeking a life partner or anything.
> 
> It's easy to think there is an abundance of quality people if you are not very discerning in your search. That said, there is something positive about adopting an abundance mindset even if it isn't really true, as long as it doesn't get carried away...
> 
> ...


That's what I was thinking as I wrote this, abundance does seem to fit more with Ne lol. 

Quality people _are_ hard to find, but perhaps the key difference here is whether you believe you can find them. And if you do, will it work out? If it doesn't work out, will you find someone else? I think you can have standards and still acknowledge the possibilities out there. Perhaps an abundance mindset is also naturally more optimistic. 

Like I said, I believe both scarcity and abundance extremes can be really detrimental.


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

fleur du mal said:


> Lol! Typical Ne-dom response. I relate.


<3



> Quality people _are_ hard to find,


This is patently false. Almost everybody I meet has a minimum amount of some sort of (good) quality. I may not like them as much as others, but I can appreciate their uniqueness and perspective. 

Scarcity, then, becomes a witch hunt for the "one" that is "perfect" according to a long laundry-list of desirable qualities. It's selfish if anything else, because they won't value someone for being different or appreciate their experience.


----------



## Aquiline (Oct 19, 2016)

I don't really date, but affection, the physical properties of love and company are easy to come by. I like my alone time, but whenever I feel like having some togetherness, it isn't hard to find.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I often find myself doing a balancing act lol. I relate to both, but maybe scarcity slightly more, because I think as someone already mentioned, "quality" is hard to find (specifically in terms of compatibility). But I also think that, more hypothetically, there are a lot of people in the world which means a lot of potential. Most of that will be unrealized, because I think that's just how it is, logistics and practicality narrow things down for you. 

So I guess I think abundance in terms of numbers and hypotheticals, scarcity in terms of quality/something that'd actually be workable.


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

Whoa. Guess I'm the first abundance mindset. 

Y'know, I think this mindset has helped me a lot. I've never once in my life stressed about having a partner, even after not really dating for the vast majority of high school - didn't start until the end of it, really. I'm pretty ballsy to begin with when I like someone, but not freaking out about whether or not x likes me because I believe that good people like them are scarce has helped me actually win people like x over.

I dunno if it's the type of guy I attract either, but most people I end up with are very genuine people. I've been in maybe one bad relationship, and looking back he was _terrible_, but when I got tired of the BS I dropped him and moved on with no issues because I knew I could find someone else eventually. 

Because I've generally had a pretty clean relationship history though, I'm pretty trusting of people. That ends up paying off too. My main issue is mostly getting bored to be honest, I think that's gonna bite me in the ass one day, lol.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@Wild

OMG, I am the EXACT same way. I could've written the same exact thing you did. That's freaky. I started dating towards the end of high school, when I was 17. I even stopped right then and there, because I knew I couldn't date anyone in my home country. I caught up plenty on that gap recently, but so far, I've never had issues worrying about whether I'd find someone, I just knew I would.. and I did. I was always optimistic, even after a break up, most of which I initiated. I'm always optimistic about these things, which makes romantic things unfolding easier.

I _also_ hear you on getting bored easily.. :blushed:


----------



## Wild (Jul 14, 2014)

fleur du mal said:


> @Wild
> 
> OMG, I am the EXACT same way. I could've written the same exact thing you did. That's freaky. I started dating towards the end of high school, when I was 17. I even stopped right then and there, because I knew I couldn't date anyone in my home country. I caught up plenty on that gap recently, but so far, I've never had issues worrying about whether I'd find someone, I just knew I would.. and I did. I was always optimistic, even after a break up, most of which I initiated. I'm always optimistic about these things, which makes romantic things unfolding easier.
> 
> I _also_ hear you on getting bored easily.. :blushed:


:blushed: bae <3


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Uhh I think I am more in the middle

Might approach dating as theres a sea and abundance. Pretty easy access. 

My approach to actual intimacy or something serious is more scarcity. Far and few between.

Its pretty easy for me to find a date or hookup. I do not fall into relationships frivolous tho.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

a good question would be if the internet changes your mindset, tilting it toward abundance, since it has never been easier to meet new people, especially those not near you...another question would be if introverts have experienced this shift more than extroverts?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

NinjaBladesOfDoom said:


> I often find myself doing a balancing act lol. I relate to both, but maybe scarcity slightly more, because I think as someone already mentioned, "quality" is hard to find (specifically in terms of compatibility). But I also think that, more hypothetically, there are a lot of people in the world which means a lot of potential. Most of that will be unrealized, because I think that's just how it is, logistics and practicality narrow things down for you.
> 
> So I guess I think abundance in terms of numbers and hypotheticals, scarcity in terms of quality/something that'd actually be workable.


I disagree...it's a simple numbers game across the board...the more people you meet the better the chance some will be quality people


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Abundance, there are 3.5 million women in the world, the cup is always overflowing.

Scarcity is toxic, results in oneitis, putting women on the pedestal and clingy desperate behaviour.

Abundance, results in a more positive mindset and things like rejection become water off a ducks back. 

That said, making the transition from scarcity to abundance is not an easy task. 

Like someone once said "Be interested in one woman you probably wont get with her, be interested in 10, you will probably get with 1".


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

I have a "condition" that's commonly referred to as "love-shyness", coined by Brian Gilmartin. 
Basically, I'm very shy about expressing romantic interest. I can't approach a girl, ask a girl out etc. So I have a scarcity mentality in the sense that it's very rare to spontaneously be asked out (never happened actually, although I've had a couple of times when girls seemed friendly and initiated conversation - hard to know what their intentions were, though).
Also, I assume because I'm not often approached by girls that I am quite ugly. But I'm still not sure, because, after all, I don't approach them, and that's the norm. I'm probably ugly in part _because _I don't, ironically. Girls want the confident, assertive guy.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Quality people aren't hard to find. Everyone is in a sense quality. Quality people thinking you're quality is for most humans really difficult to find I'd like to believe. "Quality" is finally defined in the thread.

It leaves me in the optimistic abundance camp thinking "everyone". Twist is real life keep throwing me in the scarcity camp thinking "anyone here?".

If dating is fishing... I'm looking for good fishermen because I ain't a fucking fish. If I am a fish, I wish to not get fucked up by a human.

If dating is hunting. I'm looking for fellow hunters to befriend.


I actually dislike the word dating. As I'm quite unfamiliar with the whole concept of trying to show off for 1 person I might end up hating. What I try to do is meeting people without any notions of deeper relationship. I don't want to meet "the best you", I want to meet "you".


----------



## nádej (Feb 27, 2011)

Abundance, to the point where sometimes I think this mindset has negatively impacted relationships I have been in. It's hard to make a switch from "there are so many great people and there is so much potential for love" to "I want to be with this one person and only this one person," even when I ultimately do want a long-term monogamous relationship.


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

nádej said:


> Abundance, to the point where sometimes I think this mindset has negatively impacted relationships I have been in. It's hard to make a switch from "there are so many great people and there is so much potential for love" to "I want to be with this one person and only this one person," even when I ultimately do want a long-term monogamous relationship.


Idk I like my monogamous relationship but I feel like there could be so much more. Always more. If they are at odds, things must change to make them reconcile. What is the answer?


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

abundance absolutely, there have been people who I have thought I would never in a million years be attracted to or see myself settling down with until I get to know them!
I feel like majority of people have something to offer and there isn't a small set percentage of people "right" for me. relationships aren't perfect - sometimes you have to work hard in them..


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

pwowq said:


> Quality people aren't hard to find. Everyone is in a sense quality. Quality people thinking you're quality is for most humans really difficult to find I'd like to believe. "Quality" is finally defined in the thread.
> 
> It leaves me in the optimistic abundance camp thinking "everyone". Twist is real life keep throwing me in the scarcity camp thinking "anyone here?".
> 
> ...


The "Best You" is still "You", it just means that a person is making an effort.

Should they behave like they are in work? Or at a family meal? Or should they put their worst qualities forward instead?

What are we, but good habits and bad habits.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

I think 'love-based' chemical(s) are designed for humans — that is, can develop on ''anyone,'' in any degree — if the right about _stimulus / time-consumption_ is applied. I do not think hormones are consciously selective — no more than ''puberty,'' selects pornography preference. 

Or in other words, there are an abundance of specimen(s) that hold the _capacity_ for (X)-individual to love another (e.g., everyone starts off with equal %), and a scarcity of individual(s) that would acquire sufficient potentiality for (X)-person _allow it_ — or see reasoning to.

I do not think individual(s) deny 'dating' (X)-individual because only a scarce amount of humanoid(s) meet (X)-criteria / compatibility— because they do not want to allow the potentiality of (X)-person to become ''compatible,'' without to meeting the proper (or most healthy), _criteria._


Ex;

I know there is (X) potentiality [subconsciously] to fall in love with a homeless male (i.e., will cause a hassle) — so I will never give one the time of day — there is no ''reason,'' to. Why risk letting (X)-chemical(s) be 'released' on the_ incorrect_ specimen.


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

Catwalk said:


> I think 'love-based' chemical(s) are designed for humans — that is, can develop on ''anyone,'' in any degree — if the right about _stimulus / time-consumption_ is applied.
> 
> Or in other words, there are an abundance of specimen(s) that hold the _capacity_ for (X)-individual to love another (e.g., everyone starts off with equal %), and a scarcity of individual(s) that would acquire sufficient potentiality for (X)-person _allow it_ — or see reasoning to.
> 
> I do not think individual(s) deny 'dating' (X)-individual because only a scarce amount of humanoid(s) meet (X)-criteria / compatibility— because they do not want to allow the potentiality of (X)-person to become ''compatible,'' without to meeting the proper (or most healthy), _criteria._


So the formula for it is something along the lines of:

L = (H*C*P)/T

L = % of Total People Who are "the One"
H = All People Available by Sexual Preference
C = Capacity Factor Expressed as a Percentage
P = Personal Threshold of Mateability (Yes this is a new word) Expressed as a Percentage
T = Total Human Population


So even if the result is say, 0.1%, 0.1% of 6 billion is like what, 6,000,000 people? Evenly distributed that's pretty easy to find.


----------



## Clouds are singing (Sep 28, 2016)

I know that there probably are a lot of people out there for me, but I still relate more to the scarcity mindset. I think this simply comes from my own insecurities which makes me feel undesirable, and so I can't really believe (even if I logically know) that anyone other than my current boyfriend would date me.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Desthro said:


> So even if the result is say, 0.1%, 0.1% of 6 billion is like what, 6,000,000 people? Evenly distributed that's pretty easy to find.


Indeed — and simply put; ''scarcity,'' is not really as it _seems_. Of course — to suspend the ''logical / mathematical,'' aspect of it, very few will accept this, or adhere to performative contradictions to their own claims.

'_There are plenty of fish in the sea'

'But I'm only going to try with 3'.

So, there are not many fish in the sea_.

That is, anyone can fall in love with anyone — I have no doubt(s) you and I could possibly fall in love quite simplistically given the correct tools (e.g., going by allowance of (X)-chemical(s) to be expressed through conditioning). They are already _enabled_. Of course, for a variety of reason(s) — even [physical attractions] — _why would we do/entertain that .._ (?)


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

Catwalk said:


> Indeed — and simply put; ''scarcity,'' is not really as it _seems_. Of course — to suspend the ''logical / mathematical,'' aspect of it, very few will accept this, or adhere to performative contradictions to their own claims.
> 
> '_There are plenty of fish in the sea'
> 
> ...


Possibly is a doubt. I believe we could absolutely become enamored with one another for a prolonged period. Who else can take love and turn it into a mathematical formula hmm? LOL


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Desthro said:


> I believe we could absolutely become enamored with one another for a prolonged period. Who else can take love and turn it into a mathematical formula hmm? LOL


And so it begins.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Reality Check said:


> The "Best You" is still "You", it just means that a person is making an effort.
> 
> Should they behave like they are in work? Or at a family meal? Or should they put their worst qualities forward instead?
> 
> What are we, but good habits and bad habits.


We are what someone else sees.

They should drop the whole role playing because many are very bad at it. It's always obvious face2face when I meet a rehearsed role.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

however, meeting people is one thing and investing time to get to know them is another...so while you can easily meet many people, you can only get to know a few...so abundance still reduces to scarcity the more serious you become


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

pwowq said:


> We are what someone else sees.
> 
> They should drop the whole role playing because many are very bad at it. It's always obvious face2face when I meet a rehearsed role.


I'm not sure what you are on about with this role play thing, I have done acting classes for a bit though so yeah there are exceptions.


----------



## Mirkwood (Jul 16, 2014)

When in relationship it is scarcity and when outside abundance?...

I really dunno what to say, i've met a lot I think, and only a few have been very special to me, where i felt good, wanted and wanting.

There is a ton of people in the world, but really it becomes a bit less if you count away the taken, bad matches, etc.
And who you will actually meet despite being in the era of internet.
Also it depends on your age, when your in 20s almost all could be single, but maybe not so much in 30 and 40.

Also to remember, there is lots of good social interaction to be had with non-soulmate, the non-romantic, non-sexual. Where you just talk and etc.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

I am actually surprised to see most answered with abundance. To me it is the far healthier mindset.
I'm unfortunately definitely in the scarcity mindset - while I believe all people are lovely, I do not believe I am compatible with many people. Honestly, I believe I'm compatible with barely anybody so the idealization of ''the soulmate'', that one rare exception comes. I actually don't believe in a single soulmate but rather multitude, yet still, I think those with whom it can actually work with, are a rare, rare breed. I've also become cynical which has added to the scarcity mindset.


----------



## mangodelic psycho (Jan 12, 2015)

wrong thread


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

I almost never encounter women that are attractive to me and free and interested in me, so, basing on it, I vote for scarcity.


----------



## Luci Ferre (Jul 24, 2016)

the logical answer is probably abundance- purely out of quantity, but, i find it hard to find people that are of 'quality.' if that make sense? People that tick all my boxes and make me feel safe. so in that sense: Scarcity.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

The clear answer is "abundance" but in reality the truth is somewhere between both extremes. I consider myself to be a quality person so even if I weren't married and I were dating I wouldn't just date any woman just because she's available. Plus I have personal standards like having an age limit of around ±10 years (I could be a bit flexible with age but nothing too far beyond 10 years younger or older), not all woman are single and available, not all women are even interested in relationships and only want a fling, etc.

So I'd say the higher your standards the more scarce the dating pool seems. I have high standards so while there are plenty of people out there, I wouldn't seriously consider dating most people beyond a casual hookup or fling. Someone with little to no standards would see the dating pool with much abundance though!


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Abundance mindset is a necessity in order to not lower yourself down, aswell as reminding that you can't put all your eggs in one basket. Gently tell those talking about loyalty and whatnot to you that your self worth is greater than projections.


----------



## nate23 (May 30, 2014)

The obvious answer is scarcity. Unless you have low standards ofc.

Depends really,there are *enough* girls out there,numerically speaking,who'd meet the bare minimum criteria for overall attractiveness but they're very hard to find and it takes a lot of time and from there on everything else can basically be/go wrong. 

We need selective breeding and more modern,better systematized tools for seeking partners.


----------



## Hollow Man (Aug 12, 2011)

I am starting to understand the abundance mindset more, but I think I am naturally more a scarcity kind of mindset guy. 

People can get love and affection from a lot of different potential people. I saw someone post this and put it well earlier in the thread. I kind of agree. Though, I seem serious at first, and I take a lot of time to warm up. So, I am probably not as graceful as most. But, it can be liberating to be single and to explore the possibilities of potential love interests actively. I guess I do do this, but I don't really act on it. I just let it stew in my head, which could be a bad thing. If done too often.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> I disagree...it's a simple numbers game across the board...the more people you meet the better the chance some will be quality people


That is true but I see the proportion of 'quality people' being more or less constant, and a minority. At least in my case. So they will still be uncommon (scarcer?) in comparison to the overall number of people you meet. If 5 in 100 are good matches, that means you've met people 'abundantly' (100 of them), but were only compatible with 5 (scarcity). I guess I'm defining them in relative terms though.


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Tranquilized Cat said:


> I am actually surprised to see most answered with abundance. To me it is the far healthier mindset.
> I'm unfortunately definitely in the scarcity mindset - while I believe all people are lovely, I do not believe I am compatible with many people. Honestly, I believe I'm compatible with barely anybody so the idealization of ''the soulmate'', that one rare exception comes. I actually don't believe in a single soulmate but rather multitude, yet still, I think those with whom it can actually work with, are a rare, rare breed. I've also become cynical which has added to the scarcity mindset.


Abundance mindset is simply wrong. Plain and simple. Only 6,25% of people of opposite sex are from inspirational partner type, even less are viable for relationship due to various flaws and life circumstances.

Somehow I suspect the people with abundance mindset are making up most of the people who are responsible for the huge divorce stats and lots of messy divorces.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

It seems like abundance is more logical and healthy. Perhaps it's just that I can intellectually agree with it.

But I think, emotionally, I am way more scarcity and scarcity overall. I know there are many great people in the world, but my life experience has shown me I don't have much interest in physical and romantic intimacy with most people. I don't even know why a lot of the times--could be amazing and I could list a bunch of positive qualities, they could be interested in me, but sometimes I just don't feel that hunger and I suppose I look for an ideal that is both positive qualities, logical compatibility, and also the onitis hunger.

Because yeah, when I'm really into someone I like to feel obsessed---not to the point of freaking them out or detriment to my life, but to the point of like 'I don't want anyone else--I don't want more.' I mean, where the idea of cheating is instinctively repulsive 99% of the time (lol--what's the other 1%?) because I imagine what it would feel like for them, or how it would feel to lose my partner, or to have a secret blocking intimacy, or how repulsive it would be to wake up next to a stranger (like in a fling), and recognize that I may have lost someone I could truly trust. I know you're not talking about 'cheating' in your OP, but just comes to mind how my brain works when I am in a relationship I am absolutely emotionally thinking--there is NO other. Which sounds like scarcity. 

Or rather, I am *feeling* there is no other though cognitively I can understand that's not true--maybe sometimes emotions and logic are at odds in me though and I'd love for them to be consistent with each other.

Abundance feels to me something that is numbing. I can imagine seeing myself compatible with many many people...but then I don't really 'feel' myself or anything in those fantasies. It would just be like a job or something. A job to be with as many people as possible, and then I would feel like I was doing it all for them anyway, since I wouldn't even be enjoying it. So yeah--it's possible, but it's not something I enjoy thinking about. I have thought of it at times when frustrated with romance. Sometimes I wonder if it would just be better to relax on expectations about intimacy or scarcity mindset. 

But the other thing, I think, is that it can be very overwhelming to me to even dip into the deeper emotions, attachment, and intimacy. And so knowing one person very very well, and having a special fit with them sounds way less overwhelming or unsettling than trying to do that with many, or repeatedly. So it could just be related to anxiety or stress level--feeling overwhelmed, rather than the other statements in the scarcity. 

I mean, I understand that yeah...there are many possibilities. But I don't feel like they are so common that I want to pursue them.

I think finding a good mix of the two is probably best. Too much scarcity sounds toxic--too much abundance just sounds diluted for me at least.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

It's interesting how many people look down on the abundance mindset, or see it as having low standards. I can't say I agree.

It's an outlook, or a perspective. It doesn't mean that I would necessarily get together with _everyone_ who came along, but I believe that I _could _find someone I was compatible with if I put myself out there. I believe that people would find me attractive, and worth getting to know. It's a form of optimism, and it doesn't mean you have no criteria or standards. 

I personally see a lot of people with a scarcity mindset almost deny themselves opportunities that come their way. They don't go for it, they don't make a move or even explore the possibility because they fear rejection, or they just find it hard to believe that someone would be into them. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because someone WILL come along and be interested in you, and you'll miss out, which reinforces that mindset. 

A mixture of both seems ideal to me. Acknowledging that connections are unique, that people are unique and that you have something special with someone, but also knowing that if it doesn't work out, you won't die alone. You will eventually find something as good, perhaps even better.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

@MeltedDecay - I see what you're saying about the abundance mindset seeming "diluted". The way I personally experience doesn't really align with how you describe it. When I'm in love, and there is so much intimacy and connection, I don't pay attention to anyone else. The whole world just fades away. I'm not constantly scanning for more partners or more possibilities, nor do I feel compelled to pursue them all. This only happens when I'm actively looking to date, and single. I'm very aware of how unique and special my connection is with my significant other. A lot of people in the thread have expressed something similar: scarcity when in a relationship, abundance when single.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

NinjaBladesOfDoom said:


> That is true but I see the proportion of 'quality people' being more or less constant, and a minority. At least in my case. So they will still be uncommon (scarcer?) in comparison to the overall number of people you meet. If 5 in 100 are good matches, that means you've met people 'abundantly' (100 of them), but were only compatible with 5 (scarcity). I guess I'm defining them in relative terms though.


true, but 5 is still a lot more than, say, 1 if you only meet 20 people, as was the case for many irl before technology made it possible to meet 100 people online


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> true, but 5 is still a lot more than, say, 1 if you only meet 20 people, as was the case for many irl before technology made it possible to meet 100 people online


Do you live out in the middle of nowhere?

20 - 100 is like what I would expect in a village


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

kaleidoscope said:


> It's interesting how many people look down on the abundance mindset, or see it as having low standards. I can't say I agree.
> 
> It's an outlook, or a perspective. It doesn't mean that I would necessarily get together with _everyone_ who came along, but I believe that I _could _find someone I was compatible with if I put myself out there. I believe that people would find me attractive, and worth getting to know. It's a form of optimism, and it doesn't mean you have no criteria or standards.
> 
> ...


I see scarcity as putting too much pressure on other people. With an abundance mindset, people are more likely to just enjoy what is happening and not worry about losing what they have and trying to cling on Which is paradoxically what drives some people away as they feel they cannot breathe. 

Also if single, I see scarcity mindset as almost toxic. Every person someone interacts with gets given too much value as opposed to just enjoying time with them. They become like a treasure or sacred artefact.

Scarcity is what causes chasing, persuing and stalking in my eyes. Not as in being the pursuer and leading the interaction. But actually going full on stalker shit. Then getting heart broken and depressed, because some person someone hardly knows has been given too much value.


It has nothing to do with loyalty which is what I think some people are on about.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Reality Check said:


> Do you live out in the middle of nowhere?
> 
> 20 - 100 is like what I would expect in a village


most women are either not eligible (for one reason or another) or I never meet and have a chance to know them...so, yes, 20 irl is a reasonable figure for an introvert over a period of a few years


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> @*MeltedDecay* - I see what you're saying about the abundance mindset seeming "diluted". The way I personally experience doesn't really align with how you describe it. When I'm in love, and there is so much intimacy and connection, I don't pay attention to anyone else. The whole world just fades away. I'm not constantly scanning for more partners or more possibilities, nor do I feel compelled to pursue them all. This only happens when I'm actively looking to date, and single. I'm very aware of how unique and special my connection is with my significant other. A lot of people in the thread have expressed something similar: scarcity when in a relationship, abundance when single.


I revised this, but going to make a new post as a response and respond again to this. The original response was about my cat.

It seems important to hold onto the reality that the world will not end if you are single. So perhaps that's how I'm seeing the 'abundance' and can relate to it more that way.

With 'scarcity' I think that just projecting fears so much that you avoid taking any risks or experimenting can just become a self-fulfilling prophesy.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

On a serious note, I need some abundance right now. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, drinking and flirting is so much damn easier than this sober bullshit. Missing obvious f**King social cues. grrrrrrrrrrr

Sorry, I'm in a very scarcity focussed mindset right now.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Okay--hoping this is more on-topic. 

I think I was more confused by what you meant.

After thinking and writing on it alot, it seems 'abundance' is more representing an optimistic attitude and scarcity pessimism and negative predictions.

But the whole 'soulmate' thing being 'scarcity' throws me for a loop, I guess. 

Isn't that also a type of 'abundance'? Not abundance in quantity, but in quality. Having hope or faith in the possibility of a very wonderful relationship, regardless of whether you believe it's common, seems to me also a type of abundance. 

I would rather be alone and be warmed by the knowledge that wonderful relationships exist despite the many I've seen that are not. 

One could also stay in a toxic relationship because they aren't being specific enough about what they expect in a relationship, or understanding their ideal relationship dynamic. Not because they are afraid they can never be in others. Sometimes being alone is an abundance compared to being in a relationship--with time and energy for yourself and freedom from an situation that is less than ideal or satisfactory.

But I actually feel warmed when I think that certain relationship dynamics exist, and certain people I may be compatible on those levels exist--it doesn't matter if they are abundant if I feel happier being alone and pondering them or knowing that they exist than being in a relationship that doesn't seem to match. Plus, if I am single it means I am making myself available to that possibility, which I notice your 'fish in the sea' thing also sort of does. It's acknowledging possibilities and also allowing you to focus on yourself.

So perhaps a sort of odd mix of abundance and scarcity thinking idk.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

*Definitely Scarcity Mindset* Mostly from experience. there are 6 billion people to choose from but since there are more women on earth, there is more competition with guys. Also, i'm twenty years old, i never had a relationship, let alone a relationship with someone i truly love & trust, because a relationship doesn't mean true love, if it exists. I don't think girls have the patience or the personality to possible start a relationship with me. Today, girls expect a lot from guys and if they don't, they're often not interested in people like me. It's sad that even on the internet people like me are quite rare and have difficulties to understand me. i don't believe i will ever be able to start a true, responsible and fullfilling relationship. it's actually sad.


----------



## Sour Roses (Dec 30, 2015)

Scarcity -

I'm *really* picky.

The percentage meeting my standards is infinitesimal. 

Why try every cookie in the cookie jar when you know what you like? 


If people have a few good qualities? = temporary acquaintance / friend. I don't need to date them, LOL.


I've always had this idea that the "sampler package" dating method is for very social extroverts. 
It's like a form of entertainment for them.


But for me, I don't invest in someone by partial measures... so I've never been interested in the loosey goosey type whatsoever.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Honestly it depends on where I am in my life and whether I feel like I am seeking relationships that are just for now or whether I feel like that have to have long term prospects. 

...Which has actually created some problems for me, because even if you are just enjoying your time with someone and they didn't express wanting something more, any honest conversation about why you'd never consider them for a long term commitment is apparently very offensive.


----------



## Dora (Apr 25, 2016)

I really wish it was abundance, and I strive to take that mental approach, but it isn't working for me. I just don't feel it. For a partner, I really need to feel a sense of connection. Something I want to work with. And it either is there, or it isn't and nothing can be done about that. If I love someone, I will always love them, unless _they _change as a person. I may no longer want to be with them if it isn't working, but I will feel the same. I am very constant in that. To a fault. My teenage crush will still make me have butterflies in my stomach, even though nothing ever happened and sometimes I haven't seen him years at a time.

This would probably explain, why at almost 29, I have only had two relationships. It's not for stubbornness or for lack of trying. But if I try force myself into something, I just feel like crying, because all the effort just makes me uncomfortable and somehow contaminated.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

MeltedSorbet said:


> Okay--hoping this is more on-topic.
> 
> I think I was more confused by what you meant.
> 
> ...


The key difference I think here is in the attitude with which you approach potential mates. Abundance would look at a person thinking - aww, I wanna get to know you. This attitude allows them to stay optimistic and energized within the dating world, be open to the possibilities with their hands open. I don't see it as being flaky at all, but rather happy that there are so many interesting people to get to know as potential partners. It's definitely the ''plenty of fish in the sea'' thinking. You might get someone who after a breakup is feeling pessimistic, like ''well there goes the one person i finally found whom I liked and could get along with'' vs. ''that is upsetting, but heads up, I'm back in the game and can't wait to meet new people''.

Scarcity is clinging to a specific ideal or a specific feeling that you are seeking. It's like a measurement against which you weight every partner while I believe abundance mindset allows you to take every person for who they are hence staying optimistic. With scarcity every disappointment only adds to the belief that no one else but your soulmate is meant for you.

I don't know. I'm also just philosiphying, trying to explain the specific feeling I get when imagining both mindsets. I can feel the difference but it's hard to put into words.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> true, but 5 is still a lot more than, say, 1 if you only meet 20 people, as was the case for many irl before technology made it possible to meet 100 people online


So my first reaction as an introvert is, if I'm going to have a 5% success rate regardless, I might as well only interact with the fewest number of people to get there  while also being representative of a larger number (avoid bias)... being that increasing the number of interactions just as easily increases your odds of meeting people you _don't_ get along with. 

Of course, there are other factors that can change your odds in the first place, like your character, where you are in life, cultural/values fit, etc.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

NinjaBladesOfDoom said:


> So my first reaction as an introvert is, if I'm going to have a 5% success rate regardless, I might as well only interact with the fewest number of people to get there  while also being representative of a larger number (avoid bias)... being that increasing the number of interactions just as easily increases your odds of meeting people you _don't_ get along with. Of course, there are other factors that can change your odds in the first place.


As far as numbers game goes, I would say 10-20% success rate. That said it depends what defines success.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Reality Check said:


> As far as numbers game goes, I would say 10-20% success rate. That said it depends what defines success.


Yeah, the 5% was hypothetical.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Tranquilized Cat said:


> The key difference I think here is in the attitude with which you approach potential mates. Abundance would look at a person thinking - aww, I wanna get to know you. This attitude allows them to stay optimistic and energized within the dating world, be open to the possibilities with their hands open. I don't see it as being flaky at all, but rather happy that there are so many interesting people to get to know as potential partners. It's definitely the ''plenty of fish in the sea'' thinking. You might get someone who after a breakup is feeling pessimistic, like ''well there goes the one person i finally found whom I liked and could get along with'' vs. ''that is upsetting, but heads up, I'm back in the game and can't wait to meet new people''.
> 
> Scarcity is clinging to a specific ideal or a specific feeling that you are seeking. It's like a measurement against which you weight every partner while I believe abundance mindset allows you to take every person for who they are hence staying optimistic. With scarcity every disappointment only adds to the belief that no one else but your soulmate is meant for you.
> 
> I don't know. I'm also just philosiphying, trying to explain the specific feeling I get when imagining both mindsets. I can feel the difference but it's hard to put into words.



That makes sense. It sounds like abundance thinking would make someone more resilient for losses and help them cope better.

I think it matters what you are looking for. I mean, if I am looking for someone to smooze with, to chit chat, to just distract myself and listen to their stories, to get to know for an evening, then abundance is the way to go. That's how I navigate larger social events...just going through, wondering what kind of people are there and starting up conversations with ones that seem receptive. 
But I am generally just kind of in it for the absolute moment.

When I am looking at physical intimacy, I am looking for something more specific because I really don't have the energy or the organization skills to have casual small relationships. So I really AM looking more at specific conditions that are far more stringent. 
And I think this is normal. The more experience we have, the more we refine what really makes us happy. For some people, dating is fun. And you can discover that about yourself with experience.

I can imagine someone deciding I only want to have casual flings, and that's great if it's what makes them happy. They know themselves best, and should certainly take some caution to avoid getting too entangled with another person who's looking for a different life goal.

Or some maybe enjoy casual flings while single, but are also looking for long-term commitment, which seems like probably one of the best techniques because then even while single you're still sort of 'exercising' relationship skills and you're also getting to know people.

I'm not sure if this is what's describing 'abundance,' but I think it's separate than just knowing there are fish in the sea. It's actually wanting to explore those fish when otherwise unoccupied. 

The last time I tried dating, I went out as friends with two people. I enjoyed their company and went out with them several times. I absolutely think they seemed like great people--was glad to be able to do that. But I didn't feel we had compatible interests. I felt some pressure to extend intimacy more or to just go somewhere with the relationships, but I didn't want to. It was like I reached a point and am wondering...well...do I really fit this person into my life? 

The first guy wanted to have a family one day. It doesn't match my goals. The other guy seemed to be set on being a bachelor and wanted to have kinky fetish sex and just be friends if I want. It both sounds extreme, and mind you neither of these people were just like pushing that agenda. All the times we hung out we talked about various interesting things--a lot of science, writing, favorite books, childhood experiences. It's not like the entire time was focused on these 'long term goals.' But I just felt that I wasn't willing to make any further step forward.

I suppose it was disheartening to me. I think part of my 'scarcity' mindset, or projecting fear and inhibition onto potential social exchanges is actually that I am afraid of being somewhat expected to do more or to commit more. I've heard people in this thread say scarcity mindset is some kind of 'stalkerish thing that's confining' but I actually fear having to be the one to break things off, which is pretty much the story of almost every relationship I've been in. In the two long-term, serious, committed relationships I was the one to end both of them. I had to hurt another person...it's something I don't want to get into again.

So I find myself out of step with perhaps the larger community who does date. I don't want to date to test things out if I am fairly sure we've got incompatible long-term goals or if I can't feel myself 'falling in love' with them without the physical intimacy.

I want to just have friendships or meet people while going about my life, and am perfectly 'abundant' in my thinking that yes, I can have friendly conversations with many fish in the sea. I cannot logically accept that intimate relationship compatibility is that abundant, but it is good to think about how on the global scale it probably is, though then you're looking at long distance relationships which I've got little experience in.

I feel like I have two modes with people...either extreme extroversion in the moment where I'm putting all my energy into getting to know new people for a little while....or relationship. There's not much in between because I have no organization skills. The in-the-moment is good because they're there right in front of me and I don't have to manage any kind of meeting. The relationship is good because they're going to be also making an effort to organize spending time together and I'll want to spend a bunch of it with them...

So idk if that reflects a certain scarcity/abundant mindset. It's like I don't know how to manage my social energy. I wonder if the abundance/scarcity might also reflect extroversion/introversion in some way (outside of it being a reflection of positive thinking).


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

For people who are easily disheartened by a few less good experiences, and have taken this personally to the extent that they're wondering whether they themselves are somehow hard to love, learning to live more in abundance is a very good thing. In that case it's a way to get rid of an unhealthy mindset. If you feel "rescued" because someone "finally" loves you somehow you might be very panicky about holding on to that person. 

I think it's also bad when people reinforce that mindset in their partner - some people do this, create the feeling with their partner that nobody else would love them. Out of jealousy, out of a misplaced sense of ownership. This can be very damaging. If you went through that experience you definitely benefit from getting rid of the idea that you are not worthy of being loved. 

On the other hand, there's also people who tilt more towards a narcissistic type of abundance mindset - they don't care about specific people just because they can just replace their partners or friends as they seem fit. They go the the unhealthy side of abundance, where they act like people are lucky to be able to be with them and should somehow be grateful.

Basically I agree that it should be a mix - you can feel like a worthy person who could be attractive to many people, but also be grateful if someone actually does show you affection and not take it for granted, and appreciate that particular person for their own uniqueness.

Personally I do skew a bit towards scarcity - mostly because like a proper INTJ I have a way of stumbling into relationships somehow rather than feeling I influenced it in some way. But on the other hand I'm not worried about not being attractive. It's more that I can only be accidentally attractive. It's just a feeling that there might be abundance but also, that I'm walking around with a blindfold on and someone really has to be willing to tap me on the shoulder, lol.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

Let me just set something straight here:

"There are 6 billion people! Love is abundant!"

-There are billions of known diamonds in the world.
-Thousands of people have summited Mount Everest.
-There is enough gold in the core of the Earth to pave the entire world a meter deep.
-Helium is the second most plentiful element in the Universe, yet it is rare on Earth.
-95% of the Universe is dark energy and dark matter. Find me some and we can share the Nobel Prize.
-How is it possible to starve to death when you only need 8 megajoules of energy a day to live and 30,000,000,000,000,000 megajoules of solar energy strike the Earth every day?

"Abundance" is not a matter of quantity. It is a matter of availability.


There are certainly millions of people in the world who are a great match for you (and only God knows how many in the Universe...). That does not mean you are _exposed_ to millions of people who are a great match for you.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

NinjaBladesOfDoom said:


> So my first reaction as an introvert is, if I'm going to have a 5% success rate regardless, I might as well only interact with the fewest number of people to get there  while also being representative of a larger number (avoid bias)... being that increasing the number of interactions just as easily increases your odds of meeting people you _don't_ get along with.
> 
> Of course, there are other factors that can change your odds in the first place, like your character, where you are in life, cultural/values fit, etc.


you can settle for the first acceptably compatible person, but that would be your scarcity mindset making the decision...in fact, compatible candidates are not all equally compatible, and chances are you will meet people who are at least as, if not more, compatible than the very first person...again, it's stats, a simple numbers game

the classic example of this statistical truth is the highschool sweethearts who marry at 19...how many, in fact, marry a compatible person?...how many might have found someone more compatible by waiting a few years?..._statistically_, most of them would have benefitted by meeting more eligible candidates

and you will certainly meet many people you don't get along with, but you don't have to continue talking to them and they will probably feel the same way about talking to you, so I fail to see why that is a problem?...personally, I like talking to different people and find I can usually learn something from the experience


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Dante Scioli said:


> There are certainly millions of people in the world who are a great match for you (*and only God knows how many in the Universe...*). That does not mean you are _exposed_ to millions of people who are a great match for you.


Are you suggesting that if given the opportunity you'd be into inter-specie miscegenation?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> you can settle for the first acceptably compatible person, but that would be your scarcity mindset making the decision...in fact, compatible candidates are not all equally compatible, and chances are you will meet people who are at least as, if not more, compatible than the very first person...again, it's stats, a simple numbers game
> 
> the classic example of this statistical truth is the highschool sweethearts who marry at 19...how many, in fact, marry a compatible person?...how many might have found someone more compatible by waiting a few years?..._statistically_, most of them would have benefitted by meeting more eligible candidates
> 
> and you will certainly meet many people you don't get along with, but you don't have to continue talking to them and they will probably feel the same way about talking to you, so I fail to see why that is a problem?...personally, I like talking to different people and find I can usually learn something from the experience


People work like an economy.. in this case, the dating economy. 






The # of your potentially compatible partners is fixed, while your effort is variable. At some point you will max out and your "ROI" will be negative (you'll be making more effort to meet fewer people). The point where you meet the most people with the least effort is the sweet spot (e.g. 1 in 20 vs 5 in 100). 

This has nothing to do with settling, though. If you can still do better compatibility-wise, then you have to increase your 'labor' (efforts) further. The hard part is knowing when you've maxed out before you do so and take it out on others that your dating life keeps getting worse...which may in fact lead someone to change from an abudance mindset to a scarcity one.


----------



## nate23 (May 30, 2014)

ninjahitsawall said:


> People work like an economy.. in this case, the dating economy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


BS ppl change

Also ppl have no absolute knowledge of criteria and are neither of such determinative value as they think,can change as well over time and with incoming information. What makes "a good match" in practice is something more abstract and relative. 

If we're talking about base level criteria that are very clear: the ppl of interest you found,at this point still mean nothing.

1 in 20 is less than 5 in 100 here

Also less information -> less perspective,more bias,less eventual options...etc

To meet enough ppl over a certain timespan(one that's acceptable),where you are certain you'll end up meeting your future one is something very basic you must factor in. 

It's matter of having convenient and efficient means and skills to screen,meet and interact(in a qualitative sense) with those of interest.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

nate23 said:


> BS ppl change
> 
> Also ppl have no absolute knowledge of criteria and are neither of such determinative value as they think,can change as well over time and with incoming information. What makes "a good match" in practice is something more abstract and relative.
> 
> ...


Figured someone would say that. Factory size and equipment (said to be fixed in that video) can change over time as well, yet they are still considered fixed with respect to labor. In an earlier post I mentioned that people can also alter their odds by making personal changes, which in this analogy would be the equivalent of renovating the factory. That can change your compatibility odds. That was effort put into changing yourself, rather than meeting others though. If that factory is never upgraded, effort will max out at some point.

I think what is "enough people" to find the 'right' one, depends on the person as well. Related to that, possibly, if they have to interact a lot and only rarely encounter compatibility, a scarcity mindset can result despite all those interactions. Similarly, someone who doesn't interact as much but already has bettter compatibility with most people when they do, might have an abundance mindset, because from that perspective, all they have to do is just keep meeting people, and their options grow.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

BlackDog said:


> Are you suggesting that if given the opportunity you'd be into inter-specie miscegenation?


http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf

10^10^28 meters away, there is an exact copy of you. :wink:


----------



## Aarya (Mar 29, 2016)

I've always been the "Scarcity" type, but this is just me and my emotional capacity, needs and expectations. I love human contact and warm relationships, but I am not "the one in the spotlight" type and I do not need or feel good having a lot of superficial connections or stuff just to fill in some emotional needs. I cannot and I will not share everything that I have and have accumulated with everyone who happens to pass by, throw some looks and pack a line or two. Others are open to experimenting and I never judged anyone by this solely, but I felt I've been judged for not being eh... how to put it, more open to the idea of sleeping around with guys or "experimenting". In which case I return the 'favor' of judging though rarely express them vocally unless needed. I will just change my attitude towards you. Everything until you impose your ways on me when you don't even really care about me or know my life or dreams/expectations.

Now however, I think somewhere in the middle is better than either never meeting anyone new or having the courage to talk to the one you like/feel attracted to, or going 10+ in a year not even knowing what you want or need yourself anymore. The problem is an "abundance" many times indicates some big imbalances, or he/she might have unhealthy concepts about human interpersonal relationships/personal unsolved issues. It's about how our psychology works. It doesn't mean this is the end, they don't deserve to be taken seriously anymore, or anything like this. I think however that it is harder to show/try to help people who overdo something balance themselves, more than it would be for those who would prefer to do something more but haven't gotten close to it yet. The first category will oftentimes need to burn themselves first to get the lesson.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

you puny humans and your ''dating''
FUCK DATING
I GOT BOOKS
never understood the concept of wanting to be around other people 24/7
i go to bed alone and i wake up alone
i can do what i want, when i want
with whom ever i want
wouldn't want it any other way


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

kaleidoscope said:


> The underlying fear is that every rejection or break up is a step closer to ending up alone.


I don't know if it's necessarily a fear of ending up alone (is there ever an "end" point anyway?)

Maybe about being alone for significant amounts of time though - if you know that someone who got away is rare (even in nature, some sightings only come along once every so many years)... or about being alone during crucial times as you see them (baby-making years for women?), etc.

Maybe those things aren't even necessarily fears at all, and you could be fine with either path (alone/coupled), but you do see them as practical concerns to take into consideration when attempting to envision and plan a life.



Desthro said:


> With with more than 6 billion inhabitants it is the abundance mindset is the only sane conclusion.
> 
> Even if you live in an inbred town of 50.


How do you make the leap to that this is the only "sane" conclusion?

Because there are people outside of that inbred town? What if you don't have a computer, or a smartphone, or a car, or money, or other means to meet (or be with) these people? What if you're rejected for being inbred and unworldly if you finally do and the majority of those people aren't options? What if you only relate to other inbred people from similar small towns where the dynamics as far as typology and character profiling are almost exactly the same? Maybe this person you've met who finally gets you just like Bobby did at home is _technically_ someone new, but are they, really? Or is it gonna be the same old patterns? (Maybe minus the memories).

Sure, you could probably beat the odds of that... prophecy? Lol. But it's likely going to require a lot of hard work, both outwardly and inwardly, and scarcity would very possibly be a part of that person's reality for at least a (long?) time.



kaleidoscope said:


> Perhaps an abundance mindset is also naturally more optimistic.


I kinda find it depressing. Like everything and everyone is very easily replaceable, so why not become a nihilistic hedonistic sociopathic solipsist who doesn't truly invest in anything at all. (So that's being pretty dramatic, but still).

Without the proper backing of belief (this was significant, this was special), memories, intimacy, trust - I'd worry that dissociation would set in and that everyone would start collapsing into archetypes (personality types?) too. 



kaleidoscope said:


> I knew I couldn't date anyone in my home country.


_No one_? 

Sounds like scarcity mindset.

What if you've begun to feel this way about the entirety of planet Earth, and not just a country? 



kaleidoscope said:


> scarcity when in a relationship, abundance when single.


I can sort of be the opposite. In a relationship requiring a lot of work almost anything can look better, but when single I remember how difficult it is even getting to the relationship stage (and wanting to) in the first place, and how rare wanting to commit to a person at all is.

Maybe I haven't met the (a) "right" person. I know people who wouldn't describe their relationships as a "lot" of work. I've met plenty of people (romantically) myself though. So if it is about that "right" fit, my slipper is far from a one size fits all (or even many), lol.



MeltedSorbet said:


> But the whole 'soulmate' thing being 'scarcity' throws me for a loop, I guess.
> 
> Isn't that also a type of 'abundance'? Not abundance in quantity, but in quality. Having hope or faith in the possibility of a very wonderful relationship, regardless of whether you believe it's common, seems to me also a type of abundance.


I really like this. I've always been intrigued by the concept of a twin flame (sort of a tangent, but in theme with what you're saying). It's a New Age belief that I've seen in various forms, but it takes into account reincarnation, an afterlife, a multiverse of separate dimensions, etc - so very abundant in possibility, despite a focus on a "one" within that. 

There's also a belief that it's rare to meet this person (flame, entity, soul(s), frequency manifestation, angel, idk?) in your lifetime, or for them to even be alive at the same time as you. The belief is that they tend to show up when you're at a similar place in "soul" evolution and ready to move "on" and/or when you're at an extreme point in crisis on a soul level. (There's further belief that this reality only exists if you... believe in it  But if you do, then it's available to you).

I've always been interested in duality, broadly, (I defined myself as a Taoist for a while spiritually), so it's food for thought to me on several levels.

That sorta... brand? ...of spirituality used to appeal to me more when I was younger though. There's a plan, a purpose, a set of blueprints when it comes to the "soul" and to "growth" (I mean, there is to an extent here - the majority of us grow from infancy to adulthood in a fairly predictable way, with various shared stages and developments, etc). There's a story to unravel, and there is an end point. 

I've broken free from that a bit.



kaleidoscope said:


> Which mindset do you relate to the most, when it comes to dating?
> How does it affect your dating life?
> Has your mindset changed over the years?


When it comes to dating or to falling in love?

My dating life has been abundant since I was about fifteen (I'm 31 now). I've been in LTR's too, but there were options outside of them.

If I didn't think I were supposed to be on the hunt for a particular person, for a life partner (even for a portion of it), for the potential father of my children... I think I could settle into casual dating more just fine. I get along with a lot of people, and I can crush easily. I've wrestled with how much of those "supposed to's" are just programming, and if I'm lying to myself in thinking that committed monogamy is only worth it with goals like those in mind. It's further complicated, because I think I'd only want those things with someone if it weren't about those things? Just the feel goods? But then when are you wasting your time? I dunno. (Plus, if you're gonna go all in, at all, shouldn't the "feel goods" be falling in love?)

And then when it comes to falling in love I believe in scarcity. Head over heels, this person is on your mind all the time kind of love. Scientifically it doesn't really make sense that we could feel this for anyone who crosses our path. We'd never get anything done. I'm not sure that I agree with the argument that we could _eventually_ feel this for anyone either - I've been literally repulsed by people before, and I think nature steps in to make this happen at times for genetic/procreation reasons - but I do agree that it could maybe happen for at least some people if you invest a little more time in them.

BUT. Why are you investing that time in the first place if you're not sold up front? There's gotta be a reason to see it as worth it. So if you're doing it simply for the sake of hoping for a relationship, I think that abundance mindset can look similar to the fears you mentioned with scarcity (fear of being alone).

How has my mindset changed... well. I've dated enough that a lot of people have become somewhat predictable to me. So I tend to invest even less up front, and that initial spark, that initial feeling that this person, that this encounter is "special" has become more important too. Otherwise I can't get excited or feel good about it (so why bother?) That only comes around every so many people. Plus. I've learned you have to be careful. I've maybe written people off as predictable who weren't... because they reminded me of these other people ...who I may have never known if it weren't for an abundance of knowing said "type" of person. 

So I think it's almost healthy to get hung up on people at times if it's helping you to work through or hold onto feelings... you know, to keep those as a part of the equation in the whole dating process, LOL. Plus, removing yourself from the game every now and again to reflect is a good thing too, I think. If you start to feel like you're just going through the motions you might miss out on people too.


----------



## la_revolucion (May 16, 2013)

I voted abundance. I have never struggled to find an interesting man to date.... I am attractive and not an elitist with a man's looks and height. So I do okay. Dated some interesting and unconventional guys due to this.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I refuse to be cynical and/or nihilistic about this. There's plenty of people out there. The only way to find someone is to keep trying. The people who embrace the scarcity model have simply given up. I realize that after being burnt enough times, maybe that's what causes this, but I firmly believe that finding the right person can heal even the deepest of wounds. I've seen it happen.


----------



## Hei (Jul 8, 2014)

While I do think there are plenty of people globally I could be compatible with, plenty of types I do well with, I really like the dynamic I have with ENFPs. So I do impose limits on myself.

I also gravitate toward the scarcity mindset because I have a smaller percentage of the population I can date on sexuality alone.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I refuse to be cynical and/or nihilistic about this. There's plenty of people out there. The only way to find someone is to keep trying. The people who embrace the scarcity model have simply given up. I realize that after being burnt enough times, maybe that's what causes this, but I firmly believe that finding the right person can heal even the deepest of wounds. I've seen it happen.


I firmly believe that you don't need a person to heal deep wounds. At least romantically. And that people can just add salt to wounds.

No one (or at least not "the people" ...so, like, all of them) has (have) "simply given up" because they embrace scarcity. Maybe the problem is too many dates and fish. Like the prince in Cinderella. Lol. After a while he starts yawning with so many options. He needed something special, scarce to get his blood moving again.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Scarcity.

On their end:
There's the distance component: Yeah, 7 billion, not all of them are local and odds are I won't care about most of them. 
There's the life circumstances component: They may not be in a position where they can pursue a relationship.
There's also their end of the deal: Even if I am interested, they may not return the sentiment. (Note, I don't feel I am unlovable or unattractive, I just know one-sided situations do occur and deserve note.) 

On my end: 
There's the standards component as others have mentioned (picky).
There's also the fact I have other pursuits I care about and prioritize over finding a partner, so the time I can devote to sniffing around is limited. 
There's also the fact I get exhausted as fuck around strangers, I dread meeting them, ergo, my energy is limited.

On this topic, what's the intro/extro and thinker/feeler ratio in terms of expounding the abundance mentality? It's easy to talk when you've no energy limitations and don't feel soul-sucking dread at the prospect of sifting through assloads of strangers. @kaleidoscope

---

Aside: I find both mentalities have the potential to be unhealthy. A scarcity mentality can lead you to cling onto a prospect out of desire for them to be "The One". An abundance mentality can lead you to casually ditch people over trivialities/because they aren't your perfectly customized ideal/"The One", instead of putting effort into relationships. You risk commoditizing people. 

I don't think either mentality is safe from ignorance-driven idealism, they just deal with it differently.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> I firmly believe that you don't need a person to heal deep wounds. At least romantically. And that people can just add salt to wounds.
> 
> No one (or at least not "the people" ...so, like, all of them) has (have) "simply given up" because they embrace scarcity. Maybe the problem is too many dates and fish. Like the prince in Cinderella. Lol. After a while he starts yawning with so many options. He needed something special, scarce to get his blood moving again.



I don't discount that we don't need a person to heal the deepest of wounds, I just said that I believe there are such people out there. I can find amazing attributes in people, often they don't even know they have. Alas, you are right, there are plenty of mundane folk out there.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Alas, you are right, there are plenty of mundane folk out there.


I never said anything about mundane folk.

I said that an abundance of options can make scarcity attractive.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Veggie said:


> I really like this. I've always been intrigued by the concept of a twin flame (sort of a tangent, but in theme with what you're saying). It's a New Age belief that I've seen in various forms, but it takes into account reincarnation, an afterlife, a multiverse of separate dimensions, etc - so very abundant in possibility, despite a focus on a "one" within that.
> 
> There's also a belief that it's rare to meet this person (flame, entity, soul(s), frequency manifestation, angel, idk?) in your lifetime, or for them to even be alive at the same time as you. The belief is that they tend to show up when you're at a similar place in "soul" evolution and ready to move "on" and/or when you're at an extreme point in crisis on a soul level. (There's further belief that this reality only exists if you... believe in it  But if you do, then it's available to you).
> 
> ...


Thanks--I sort of just imagine what it would be like to be in some kind of secure, amazing relationship, given my experience of finding that and also discovering more what it means by experiencing the opposite.

So it's just nice mental exercise.


I like hearing about the twin flames though. I also used to be really into different types of new age beliefs, though I never ran into that one. I think I've moved past it too, but then yesterday I was in a store and saw this blue candle...and was like...this candle is calling to me. And then burned in this morning--it's supposed to open the third eye--I was torn between throat and third eye, as I've had ongoing issues with throat chakra. But I chose third eye because some psychic lady said I should open my third eye, plus, I figured that if you can open your third eye you'd be better able to tell which candle to get in future scenarios. Right?

So yeah...

But the soul mate thing is really just birthed from my own yearning. I love the idea that people love each other in such perfect ways that it's almost unimaginable to me. And as much as I also love the idea that I might, perhaps, find love like that--it still makes me happy just to know some people do and that it is possible. I guess maybe that's like the twinflames who miss each other chronologically, that just to know they exist must still be amazing and also that there could be something is also beautiful.

idk...at all


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> I never said anything about mundane folk.
> 
> I said that an abundance of options can make scarcity attractive.


We're having a fun dance with words, aren't we?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> We're having a fun dance with words, aren't we?


I just think that we're saying two separate things and that you're putting words in my mouth.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

MeltedSorbet said:


> I like hearing about the twin flames though. I also used to be really into different types of new age beliefs, though I never ran into that one. I think I've moved past it too, but then yesterday I was in a store and saw this blue candle...and was like...this candle is calling to me. And then burned in this morning--it's supposed to open the third eye--I was torn between throat and third eye, as I've had ongoing issues with throat chakra. But I chose third eye because some psychic lady said I should open my third eye, plus, I figured that if you can open your third eye you'd be better able to tell which candle to get in future scenarios. Right?


I supposedly opened mine in a Tao ceremony and I feel like I tapped into the duality (maybe having to do with the twin flame?) on a very trippy level. (Just the other day I was talking about this with someone, and they were like, oh yea, that can cause psychosis if you're not careful. (Not to scare you, I'm sure you're fine ) I've heard other similar stories too though, so maybe there's some... empiricism? If you're really creative about who decides these things and with what backing at least, haha). (Let me know if anything happens or you wanna talk :shocked::tongue::happy.

It was right after I'd gotten into enneagram and type seven and Peter Pan (puer aeternus) and I had some weird experience having to do with my INFP sister (Wendy). I remembered when we were kids and we'd play these games where I would play one character and she would literally play everyone else. In whatever lucid state I was in by my lonesome she started basically symbolically-archetypally shifting into Loki in my mind (so shape shifting brother) and I was Thor (singularity), our genders didn't exist, and I started having bizarre visions and stuff. Long story. But I started wondering who and what DID exist, and it felt incestuous somehow. (I actually wasn't on drugs, believe it or not, LOL, either. Just prolonged sleep deprivation and fasting, plus... whatever that ceremony released?)

I really craved the idea of a third force after that experience. A feeling of "otherness" and of foreign in a healthy sense... without it somehow, like, collapsing into a wave of pure potential energy outside of myself? Possibly wiping out of existence anything that had ever been important to me (so, like, my sister, or my family?)

Pure potentiality scares me. I like those fixed points (ONE, but also, two, three, four...). (If I'm not being, like, completely vague). (But then, you don't want reality to become so fixed that you feel like it's become incestuous, resistant, and there isn't the potentiality for the unknown).



MeltedSorbet said:


> I guess maybe that's like the twinflames who miss each other chronologically, that just to know they exist must still be amazing and also that there could be something is also beautiful.


I hate the idea of missing out on something especially cool, but if we're expanding belief to a multiverse I guess there's time


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Scarcity.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> I just think that we're saying two separate things and that you're putting words in my mouth.


No ma'am. Any words I post are my own. I would never presume to speak for you, nor anyone else.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

tanstaafl28 said:


> No ma'am. Any words I post are my own. I would never presume to speak for you, nor anyone else.





tanstaafl28 said:


> I don't discount that we don't need a person to heal the deepest of wounds, I just said that I believe there are such people out there. I can find amazing attributes in people, often they don't even know they have. Alas, *you are right*, there are plenty of mundane folk out there.


How can I be right about something I didn't say?

I can find amazing attributes in people as well. Different flavors. If everyone's just a different flavor, what's keeping me from having a flavor of the month? If I don't have a favorite what's the point in choosing one at all? Do I spin and point? Okay, you. Randomly. Let's get married or commit to each other for a long time. So like longer than a month.

I find that depressing. It doesn't mean that wanting a favorite flavor means that I don't like the other flavors or find them mundane.

Also, you kind of spoke for the scarcity population with your they've simply given up bit.

No, it's not that simple at all, and I'm sure plenty have put more thought into what they believe and want than that.

And perhaps many are getting out there more than you are.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> How can I be right about something I didn't say?
> 
> I can find amazing attributes in people as well. Different flavors. If everyone's just a different flavor, what's keeping me from having a flavor of the month? If I don't have a favorite what's the point in choosing one at all? Do I spin and point? Okay, you. Randomly. Let's get married or commit to each other for a long time. So like longer than a month.
> 
> ...


Poor word choice? 

My apologies. I'm feeling a little fuzzy headed tonight, (and I haven't even done/taken anything to create such a state). I will be more careful with my words in the future.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

kaleidoscope said:


> * Which mindset do you relate to the most, when it comes to dating? *
> How does it affect your dating life?
> Has your mindset changed over the years?
> 
> A few thoughts, as I write this OP: it seems to me that both of these taken to an extreme would be negative. For example, the abundance mentality can lead to a reluctance to commit or settle down, because you're constantly aware of other possibilities. *The scarcity mentality can make it difficult to let go of a toxic relationship, *because there's this underlying "I will never find a connection like this" belief. Thoughts?


Scarce. But I'm INTJ (for whatever that's useful on this context) and in short I see/think/perceive more than people guess (on me) so, most times encounters fall short. I don't exactly relate this to difficulty leaving-let-go toxic relationships. I understand your point and believe it's a valid logic idea a lot of people apply, but in my case I've walked out of relationships that aren't good even loving them deeply, (if it doesn't work then chances are given (for both), we try but it's not a must to stay together, there is always something-someone in this case: alternative, better, etc.)



Dante Scioli said:


> Quality people are a scarce resource whether you're hiring for a job or seeking a life partner or anything.


true, I believe a lot of people live double unhealthy standards regarding love relationships. Many are not even 5% apt for a job but they seem 100% apt for their relationship/heart? there is an old thread around here of the many things people won't let friends do because is insulting, but many actually let -and live- with their partners, because they are not even friends.

The usual line is "*quality people are hard to find*" but I think is actually "difficult to *discover*". People, with good positive traits, often learn to dissimulate or to avoid showing things that makes them vulnerable. We all have a say, but social predators scan their environment. The product market is a lot easier than the people market. So, a lot of "quality" people will only let you SEE after a while, why? lots of clingy, unhealthy people out there.


*Quality people everywhere? *sure that's true, everyone is quality!. This is valid if one just joined a religious cult and as everything it starts saying everyone is beautiful, good, nice, kind, brother, family. There are lots of kinds of people, like kind, beautiful, loving, etc, but healthy is not just one characteristic, *you can be kind but unhealthy*. And this kinda pushes the situation into evaluating several points on people.

Besides being an old soul and almost reaching 40, I've heard lots of things "oh everyone is beautiful" and being in contact with this people for years allowed me to see that in fact, they lacked vision and abilities to spot the negative traits just in time (When I saw it or others did), and some are just superficial calling everyone friend, quality people. I worked for 13+ years on a large company and if I got one cent for every one who said so many positive loving things about other people there I would be rich: they fucking hate each other, only very few were able to say things to their face (honesty), 

*In short: we can't take serious just some people words about positive quality evaluations of others*. So, we could take the same backwards right? putting doubt on "negative" evaluations of others? NO. And this is not pessimistic. Because what I'm talking about here is not a negative evaluation, it's an empty space and we can't say anything about someone we don't actually know about. It's like hiring someone, you just don't know, and you can't assume.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

kaleidoscope said:


> *Scarcity Mindset*: The belief that people are a limited resource. Belief of looking for and finding your soulmate, or that very few people would be interested in you - or the other way around, that you'd be interested in very few people. The underlying fear is that every rejection or break up is a step closer to ending up alone.
> 
> *Abundance Mindset*: "Plenty of fish in the sea". There are lots of people out there who can be attracted to you, who you can click with and develop a great relationship with. If this relationship I'm pursuing doesn't work, I am aware of existing potential out there.
> Which mindset do you relate to the most, when it comes to dating?


Actually both. I do not see individuals as merely fish in the sea, each is unique individual and thus scarce.
On the other hand I do not fear rejection for fear of being alone. I mean I do not fear being alone. (Possible relationship actually have to beat being alone and it's own pros).

And so I have no problem rejecting the wrong opportunities and I do not fear rejection, yet I when I decide to explore an opportunity I do so seriously. It's not something I would like to do halfheartedly.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

@*kale* idescope

I believe people of "average quality" are easily interested in me, but I have idealism to hold out for the special ones, which are the only ones I'm really capable of falling in passionate love with.

Essentially, I think I can get into relationships easily, and I get unwanted or mediocre interest far more than I am really interested in others. I also get girls I slightly like, but not enough to date at this point, but I could probably settle for once I'm more mature and prioritise more on having a family in general. Where does that place me then? I basically think if it comes to it and I haven't made it work with a 9 or 10 out of 10, I will probably "settle" for someone to start a family with, say if I'm still single by 40-odd. That sounds very easy to me.

I fit the scarcity angle from the fact that special girls are scarce.. and that I have a relentless idealism for them- but at the same time, even if I've been "in love" with a girl, I don't even think even then that I thought I would end up with them at my early age. Some of them didn't work out how I'd have liked, but that wasn't to say I expected to commit and marry them from that stage.

So I'm like a weird mix between sexual non-chalance and idealism.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

*Which mindset do you relate to the most, when it comes to dating? *
Scarcity. I relate to it not because I don't think there are many, many people out there or that many of them are not great people, but because I find myself in a highly specific niche and in a very small pool which greatly reduces MY options. Were I someone else, then it could be different.

First, I am an INFP e4 woman. Not bubbly, not externally warm or friendly but intense and temperamental, too cerebral/intellectual and arty farty, reserved and religious/spiritual yet not uptight and a touch too free-spirited & idealistic for the conservative crowd, etc. Personality is not the typical, desirable female personality. I must be "warmed up" at first, which takes some time and patience, and that is too much work for most men in today's dating world. The few who make this effort are often not attractive to me.

Second, my worldview, as touched on above, doesn't jive with most people. I have some peculiar beliefs and philosophies that will alienate most people, as they affect my everyday life choices and overall life goals. I used to think this was something to work around. It is not.

Third, I don't really like people. I have a deep concern for the well-being of humanity and wish to see all individuals happy and fulfilled and reaching their potential. I expend a lot of energy & personal resources working towards this ideal. But I don't really _like_ most individuals. 

As noted above, those who are _attracted_ to me are often not _attractive_ to me and/or are fundamentally incompatible. I require someone special and don't apologize for it.

*How does it affect your dating life? *
What dating life?

I used to date more when I would give guys a chance who I knew in my gut were not right for me or who I could never be attracted to, but it is exhausting and futile, so I just don't bother. If someone indicates interest in me, and I feel even the slightest glimmer of possible attraction and no compatibility deal-breakers are there, then I am open to dating them. You wouldn't believe how rarely that happens...

I wouldn't bother with relationships at all if I had different morals and emotional makeup; since I like solitude and an independent identity, I'd just take a lover here & there and not worry about things like long-term compatibility or the "life partner" aspect, but I'm too spiritual and sensitive.

*Has your mindset changed over the years? *
No. It has possibly gotten worse though. I used to have some delusions that certain obstacles were not obstacles, but now I am enlightened and jaded.

I have always enjoyed tragedy and never had a "happy ending" view of love. It is a romantic view, just not a happy one. It would probably do me some good to take a different view, but I think fear a greater disappointment if I concoct a vision of happiness...



kaleidoscope said:


> A few thoughts, as I write this OP: it seems to me that both of these taken to an extreme would be negative. For example, the abundance mentality can lead to a reluctance to commit or settle down, because you're constantly aware of other possibilities. The scarcity mentality can make it difficult to let go of a toxic relationship, because there's this underlying "I will never find a connection like this" belief. Thoughts?


Agree, they are both negative. It also treats people like products for consumption. Ew.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

There is far more behind abundance than just numbers. It is easy to consider the world (or your town, country) as a giant pool of options, but it's not. Besides a lot of factors come into play as age, strong ideologies that can affect what perhaps is a compatible lifestyle, distances, married or not etc.

And... it's not difficult to find ONE person approaching a worldwide important monument full of history, perhaps religious matter, culture, etc... and just "click" a selfie, only to find out the person knows nothing about it, and only did it (travel?) to place pictures on her-his facebook while ignoring all aspects of the context, and also placing a "yolo" text somewhere. I said is not difficult to find ONE, but the truth is nowadays a lot of people claiming individuality and originality are paper copies of some standard models. So much for the _multitude when a lot of people behave the same_.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Veggie said:


> I supposedly opened mine in a Tao ceremony and I feel like I tapped into the duality (maybe having to do with the twin flame?) on a very trippy level. (Just the other day I was talking about this with someone, and they were like, oh yea, that can cause psychosis if you're not careful. (Not to scare you, I'm sure you're fine ) I've heard other similar stories too though, so maybe there's some... empiricism? If you're really creative about who decides these things and with what backing at least, haha). (Let me know if anything happens or you wanna talk :shocked::tongue::happy.
> 
> It was right after I'd gotten into enneagram and type seven and Peter Pan (puer aeternus) and I had some weird experience having to do with my INFP sister (Wendy). I remembered when we were kids and we'd play these games where I would play one character and she would literally play everyone else. In whatever lucid state I was in by my lonesome she started basically symbolically-archetypally shifting into Loki in my mind (so shape shifting brother) and I was Thor (singularity), our genders didn't exist, and I started having bizarre visions and stuff. Long story. But I started wondering who and what DID exist, and it felt incestuous somehow. (I actually wasn't on drugs, believe it or not, LOL, either. Just prolonged sleep deprivation and fasting, plus... whatever that ceremony released?)
> 
> ...


Thanks--

Yeah, I can see how it would be associated with psychosis. I've never been super interested in it because I'm familiar with having a weird view of reality and the world around me. I mostly worked on my throat chakra and also gut chakra before--because I am a creative person so I think that it probably relates to the throat. Plus turquoise is my favorite color. And I tent to try not to burden others with my emotions, which results in holding them in until it can be hurtful to me or until I may become bitter, at times.

It's been pretty good so far. I've been trying to focus on seeing myself more clearly and one thing I recognized after burning the candle, that I already knew, was that I just have this really strong desire for connection. Maybe being So/sx or sx/so--it's something that's made me super impractical at times. I was just contemplating how my 'original sin' if I want to think of it that way is romantic attachment/lust. Over and over again it comes up as something I'm not willing to give up for spiritual development.

When I was in middle school I began reading some buddhist texts and meditating, and as much as I agreed with compassion and suffering, I couldn't accept the idea that I should give up all attachments. Even now I cannot see some attachments as bad in nature, even if they cause suffering. I feel they make the world a more beautiful and meaningful place. So it was one of the points that pushed me away from buddhism and spiritual development, though I did get into paganism because I feel there's more of positive attention to the body and nature that is sometimes looked down upon by other religions.

And then again I was a teen and trying to learn from Don Juan (lol) by Carlos Casteneda, and I practiced lucid dreaming and looking at my hand. But then...what did I spend my teenage girl lucid dream on? On imagining kissing the guy I was pining after.

I felt both angry at myself and also a pull towards that. A desire for connection. So it's been something in my life that I've not been sure how to judge. On one hand I try to tell myself it's natural and that it's part of who I am, on the other I fear that I am wrong and that actually it is a sin or something...a selfish sin. IDK I guess time will tell and I'm not aware yet.

But that's what I thought about with the third eye--that desire and accepting it as part of myself and my spirituality. I think my intuition usually works more as finding little pieces and following them like a trail of breadcrumbs, rather than having much figured out. So I did find this interesting and erotic poem about Inanna and Dumuzi. It's got a lot of erotic imagery too. The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi

idk


I'm not really worried. I've been through way harsher periods of questioning reality and perception and I am kind of used to it. 

The story about your sister as Loki is really interesting. I am not sure if I completely know how you felt, but I totally know the desire for 'otherness' of a healthy kind. I think one of my greatest fears is complete isolation--being unsure that anyone else exists, and sometimes I feel that way when I get unhealthy. When feeling like that, I desire to be assured there are other people so much. I guess maybe that's part of the desire to connect--to have individual identities that we can interact with and feel both together and individual. 

That sounds scary to wipe out of existence important attachments and connections--and yeah, incestuous certainly sounds bleh. I can see how you felt like getting out of that musing. lol 

That's a reassuring thought--that there is time. I did read that third eye is related to perception of time. Would be nice to feel as if there is plenty of it.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Scarce. Honestly, it feels like I have been searching for one woman my whole life... I dont really believe in twin flames, new age speak sometimes makes me cringe. However, I do believe there are a type of woman for a man and vice versa, but because of our culture that is very artificial and lacks fundamental knowledge, for one to naturally be in intune to their own genuine personality, a sort of psychological crust begins to form over from all of our influence and imitation of the people around us in our culture, that this crust becomes the identity that we follow. Thus we seek out what is dictated in culture, we find connection in, we yearn for it. Not that it is a bad thing, it just is... I see it with me, its what I think. 

However, with that said, even though I feel this way, there is this deep seated, hunger for a genuine relationship, a partner that I feel like I have always been looking for, in some strange way. One I can have a real connection with, where we mirror each other, and our relationship can be something mystic almost, otherworldly. I dont know if this is dysfunctional on my part, but it is something I seek, unconsciously, and sometimes knowingly. But its what I really want... but at the same time, I wish I was not built this way... I tried the settling thing, and man was I miserable, I couldnt do it, and I ended up breaking her heart. And I tried the multiple dating stuff, and again I wasnt fulfilled, just felt confused at the end of it LOL. sometimes I wish I was abundance, just so that I wouldnt care about this, and I could do whatever I wanted, but I do care, and I cant act like I dont, its how I am, and there is nothing I can do about that...:crying:


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

MeltedSorbet said:


> I began reading some buddhist texts and meditating, and as much as I agreed with compassion and suffering, I couldn't accept the idea that I should give up all attachments. Even now I cannot see some attachments as bad in nature, even if they cause suffering. I feel they make the world a more beautiful and meaningful place. So it was one of the points that pushed me away from buddhism


Me too!



MeltedSorbet said:


> That sounds scary to wipe out of existence important attachments and connections


Yes.


----------



## Hypaspist (Feb 11, 2012)

_Which mindset do you relate to the most, when it comes to dating? _

Scarcity. 

_How does it affect your dating life? 

_I just realize that partners where I live are a VERY finite source, and each no means one less to choose from. The list of people I'm compatible with dwindles everyday.

_Has your mindset changed over the years? _

Yes. You think that everything's fine and dandy when you're in your high school years, but if you don't get traction then, it's going to be an uphill battle later on. Dating was never really an issue, I didn't care much for it, but over time not having a partner becomes a massive burden. It just makes things a drag.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

MeltedSorbet said:


> I was just contemplating how my 'original sin' if I want to think of it that way is romantic attachment/lust. Over and over again it comes up as something I'm not willing to give up for spiritual development.
> 
> When I was in middle school I began reading some buddhist texts and meditating, and as much as I agreed with compassion and suffering, I couldn't accept the idea that I should give up all attachments. Even now I cannot see some attachments as bad in nature, even if they cause suffering. I feel they make the world a more beautiful and meaningful place. So it was one of the points that pushed me away from buddhism and spiritual development, though I did get into paganism because I feel there's more of positive attention to the body and nature that is sometimes looked down upon by other religions.





> That sounds scary to wipe out of existence important attachments and connections--and yeah, incestuous certainly sounds bleh. I can see how you felt like getting out of that musing. lol


 sorry to bud in like this, but I saw @Veggies post and it, of course, highlighted some of the above, so as a result, I felt kinda moved to to respond, I suppose. I usually dont write about this sort of stuff on the internet too much anymore, for specific reasons... but i guess i can a little here. the idea on giving up attachments is often misconstrued. Some how it is seen as a negative thing, that attachments themselves are negative. But the way it goes is that attachments are lawful and they are quite ordinary. But I suppose it makes sense to fear the thought of something like that, all attachments, what am I without my attachments? But I think too much focus is put on the word attachment and what that may mean to "me" and the idea of "giving up" isnt really explored. Like what in me is scared? What is it that is giving up anything? 

Perhaps the thing we call "I", myself, MeltedSorbet, if you will, is merely a mass of influences, something akin to a body snatcher... something that developed in life, and crystallized to become a psychological constant, and its "attachments" are merely its identifications, to all of the falsities, that affirms it, when it is in fact nothing -- but a crystallization. This is not to say it does not serve a purpose, it interacts with what created it, the world of man. It is a part of our automatic function to form connection, and psychologically bind with things, to the degree that you form aggregation of functions that are triggered, and shift based on the stimuli that they are bind to, it's the identification with this functional process, that makes it a terror. It is in this that ideas on ego come to play, doing away with attachments, in this case, is doing giving up the way in which it possesses you. 

That is what must die, the idea is that you arent what is triggered, you are not that process... there exists in you, a main personality, a primordial one (a subconscious one), which is more authentic but because of life, has become encased by a very thin, crust, that has become identified with, and perceived as you. As a result, it has been building over time, via education, words, imitation, opinions, and so forth, that it has become a lawful part of your existence. but it has stifled the more authentic possibilities in you. so what is it that one is giving up? Is it the attachments, or is it the sleep of living life on autopilot, oblivious to the genuine function of what it means to be a human that has being? Attachments are projections, a filtration process which takes only the things it likes in, as well as diluting the objectivity of existence, and minimizing it to the quality of a half a sleep glance in the mirror, or a lens which is colors everything, and leaves nothing to truly be experienced, as it is. The idea of losing "me" is deceptive thing that what is false in me, doesn't want to lose its hold, where it takes everything, and leaves nothing for the real gem that you are. It serves a function now, but it wants everything, and we are used to giving it everything.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Macrosapien said:


> sorry to bud in like this, but I saw @*Veggie*s post and it, of course, highlighted some of the above, so as a result, I felt kinda moved to to respond, I suppose. I usually dont write about this sort of stuff on the internet too much anymore, for specific reasons... but i guess i can a little here. the idea on giving up attachments is often misconstrued. Some how it is seen as a negative thing, that attachments themselves are negative. But the way it goes is that attachments are lawful and they are quite ordinary. But I suppose it makes sense to fear the thought of something like that, all attachments, what am I without my attachments? But I think too much focus is put on the word attachment and what that may mean to "me" and the idea of "giving up" isnt really explored. Like what in me is scared? What is it that is giving up anything?
> 
> Perhaps the thing we call "I", myself, MeltedSorbet, if you will, is merely a mass of influences, something akin to a body snatcher... something that developed in life, and crystallized to become a psychological constant, and its "attachments" are merely its identifications, to all of the falsities, that affirms it, when it is in fact nothing -- but a crystallization. This is not to say it does not serve a purpose, it interacts with what created it, the world of man. It is a part of our automatic function to form connection, and psychologically bind with things, to the degree that you form aggregation of functions that are triggered, and shift based on the stimuli that they are bind to, it's the identification with this functional process, that makes it a terror. It is in this that ideas on ego come to play, doing away with attachments, in this case, is doing giving up the way in which it possesses you.
> 
> That is what must die, the idea is that you arent what is triggered, you are not that process... there exists in you, a main personality, a primordial one (a subconscious one), which is more authentic but because of life, has become encased by a very thin, crust, that has become identified with, and perceived as you. As a result, it has been building over time, via education, words, imitation, opinions, and so forth, that it has become a lawful part of your existence. but it has stifled the more authentic possibilities in you. so what is it that one is giving up? Is it the attachments, or is it the sleep of living life on autopilot, oblivious to the genuine function of what it means to be a human that has being? Attachments are projections, a filtration process which takes only the things it likes in, as well as diluting the objectivity of existence, and minimizing it to the quality of a half a sleep glance in the mirror, or a lens which is colors everything, and leaves nothing to truly be experienced, as it is. The idea of losing "me" is deceptive thing that what is false in me, doesn't want to lose its hold, where it takes everything, and leaves nothing for the real gem that you are. It serves a function now, but it wants everything, and we are used to giving it everything.



But

But how do you know that it wants everything. I think taken to extreme "I" and identity is very divisive. I mean, attachment can lead to great suffering. If you're attached to you know, thinking about current events, some idea of religious or racial superiority, then that can lead to wars and various other human rights violation...a whole flood of suffering. So I agree with you that it can be dangerous to forget that we are all really the same inside. Like drops of water of the same substance, just with individual form. It's important to remember that despite superficial differences and even our very identities that are 'deeper' than that, that we are very much the same and capable of a range of possibilities and emotions, and experiences.

But I think the other extreme is also frightening. Because if we are all sort of 'melted' out of our crystal form into a big soup of homogenous goo and there is no longer identity at all, then that makes me feel alone. Because then we are all one and we are alone because we cannot interact with other entities because they don't exist as they have no identity and neither do we.

There's not even 'we' any more if there is no 'I.'

I think while it is dangerous to give everything to attachment...that I would rather learn to appreciate the role identity plays--to appreciate others identities. Like literal snowflakes, people are all made of water but they each have their own crystal form...each representing a different set of possibilities that were lost and some followed. Each a special code. And then, with individual identities, we can also connect and separate and create new things that are also losing possibilities, but expressing certain ones.

So I don't want to view that creative potential as negative because it also contains destructive potential. I mean, at least not in life. I would rather view it as part of reality and not an illusion. Also, I would rather not be alone in life. Even if we're all water or something, I'd rather be able to interact with other forms and you know, learn things from them, and join and be apart. And discover new things. And I need to have an identity for that and so does the other person.

I don't know how much my thoughts about any of this really change anything. You're probably right that it's not that bad--but perhaps it's more about balance.

I also really did stop learning about esoteric stuff a long time ago, so I'm probably a bit rusty with my argument and understanding. I like some branches of paganism (neopaganism too) because a lot of it celebrates diversity in nature, diversity in people, physically connecting and honoring the body, and exchanging love. idk. I haven't been pursuing spiritual development for a while and probably should get back to that.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

If I'm being honest with how I approach dating, then Scarcity mindset. I'm pretty damn picky, and that makes my selection pretty scarce.


----------



## Desthro (Feb 18, 2016)

Dating is just so unfair. Two people trying to hide their worst from one another, two people lying by omission to put their best foot forward. It's like a job interview for your emotions. It sucks.


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

MeltedSorbet said:


> There's not even 'we' any more if there is no 'I.'


I believe in esoteric teachings, which ancient Buddhism would be, there is a difference between "I" ... and "me"... it's why I put emphasis on, "what we call "I"..." When discussing something like that I think it is a good point of reflection, to consider what "I" really is? And what does it mean to say, "I" is an illusion? Which "I"? That which I call "I", IF YOU ASK ME, that is better called "it". I believe, the idea is, we dont really have real "Identity" to begin with, so there really is nothing to lose, except the illusion that we do have it in the first place. To have something is to be in possession of, to have a an "I" suggests singularity, and nothing in our expression suggests singularity, but more so fragmentation. "I" in such ideas, would be something that is unchanging, referring too, not influenced or affected by outer life -- but maintains its original state, due to being unified. But there exists a germ of individuality, real individuality that you were born with, but it exists in us subconsciously, and does not participate in life, due to what has become crystallized over it.

The objective, if you ask me, is to have a real "I", a real identity, that is authentic to you, and not something which was learned, impressed upon you, where you live in projection and the idea of having an indivisible self. One of the problems, is that we are so top heavy... and yet we have all of this other stuff going on, that we rarely engage in a meaningful way, that could help us to have real identity. If our mind, and how we us it, is left to proceed in the way it does, it will constantly be in a state of projection, identification with everything. And what we call identity, is an automatism, an automatic process, which happens without any real volition, but only due to established likes and dislikes, willingness or unwillingness to obey psychological patterns, which were all learned, quite accidentally, without any surface level rhyme or reason, beyond you just happened to be there and were malleable enough, to be imposed upon. 

Now, I for one, dont think it is possible to get rid of this false "I", like I mentioned, its a lawful part of us, and it has a function, out in society. The need is in making a separation between this false thing and the psychological germ of a real "I". It is possible to have your automatic functions happen, in the same way they do, by external stimulus... but to also be able to observe it, in that moment, all of this process.... and sense a real separation between what is automatic, and what is not a part of that function. And the more it occurs, the more you begin to move away from ideas that self is this or that. In fact that doesnt matter anymore, because you begin to have a taste of what life is like, a part from the automatic state that I am always identified with... that I am always asleep in. And you begin to love that taste, for you see what is really going on inside, and yet u arent run by it. It's through gaining a real "I" that makes it possible to experience the objectivity of experience, I in you, and you in me. well.. at east thats the theory anyways.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Macrosapien said:


> I believe in esoteric teachings, which ancient Buddhism would be, there is a difference between "I" ... and "me"... it's why I put emphasis on, "what we call "I"..." When discussing something like that I think it is a good point of reflection, to consider what "I" really is? And what does it mean to say, "I" is an illusion? Which "I"? That which I call "I", IF YOU ASK ME, that is better called "it". I believe, the idea is, we dont really have real "Identity" to begin with, so there really is nothing to lose, except the illusion that we do have it in the first place. To have something is to be in possession of, to have a an "I" suggests singularity, and nothing in our expression suggests singularity, but more so fragmentation. "I" in such ideas, would be something that is unchanging, referring too, not influenced or affected by outer life -- but maintains its original state, due to being unified. But there exists a germ of individuality, real individuality that you were born with, but it exists in us subconsciously, and does not participate in life, due to what has become crystallized over it.
> 
> The objective, if you ask me, is to have a real "I", a real identity, that is authentic to you, and not something which was learned, impressed upon you, where you live in projection and the idea of having an indivisible self. One of the problems, is that we are so top heavy... and yet we have all of this other stuff going on, that we rarely engage in a meaningful way, that could help us to have real identity. If our mind, and how we us it, is left to proceed in the way it does, it will constantly be in a state of projection, identification with everything. And what we call identity, is an automatism, an automatic process, which happens without any real volition, but only due to established likes and dislikes, willingness or unwillingness to obey psychological patterns, which were all learned, quite accidentally, without any surface level rhyme or reason, beyond you just happened to be there and were malleable enough, to be imposed upon.
> 
> Now, I for one, dont think it is possible to get rid of this false "I", like I mentioned, its a lawful part of us, and it has a function, out in society. The need is in making a separation between this false thing and the psychological germ of a real "I". It is possible to have your automatic functions happen, in the same way they do, by external stimulus... but to also be able to observe it, in that moment, all of this process.... and sense a real separation between what is automatic, and what is not a part of that function. And the more it occurs, the more you begin to move away from ideas that self is this or that. In fact that doesnt matter anymore, because you begin to have a taste of what life is like, a part from the automatic state that I am always identified with... that I am always asleep in. And you begin to love that taste, for you see what is really going on inside, and yet u arent run by it. It's through gaining a real "I" that makes it possible to experience the objectivity of experience, I in you, and you in me. well.. at east thats the theory anyways.


Somethoughtsaboutattachment:

I was thinking about it since this discussion, more. And I do think that it's a good quality to be able to separate one's self from attachments. Meditation helps one to discern that there is another part of you that isn't your thoughts or your attachments or reactions to your environment.

So that's a real benefit.

Then also just thinking about the problems that can come from attachments. And how useful it is to be able to prune them.

I suppose addiction is a very literal and visceral example of how attachments can become overgrown or overwhelming. Something about oral fixation and just who even knows what--like a force that one has trouble disentangling one's self from. Which really controls you, rather than a conscious choice anymore.

I was also just thinking of how messy they can become. Like looking up at the sky tonight and seeing an airplane flying past, and thinking of how pleasant it was to observe those people going on with their lives from afar--just imaginng them up there. And then also recognizing that since childhood I thought of airplanes as a blight, since they sort of polluting. And so there's two attachments, that if they are like real strings they get tangled up. Imagining all the things we really do place value on and how easy it is for those to get tangled in knots because you love people in airplanes, but you also love birds and nature which suffers from airplanes. And so expand that out to even more and it's a giant knot of different attachments, valuations, and can be quite constraining.

I did think, from what you're saying, about how the reactions and relationships can feel disingenuous (geeze grammar). But also wondering if that's just their nature. We have relationships with the outside world and those leave scars on us, they can sometimes heal too. That they represent our relationship with the external world which could really change--could be almost anything, but the experiences tend to build up if not moderated, and then they become a tangle that can feel entrapping. 

So by culling some of the attachments, and remembering that we are really independent of them and stronger, then we can have a clearer view of what we want to do on earth outside of just reactions to pulls and influences.

I absolutely agree with you about how useful it is to see what's really going on inside in a more objective way, rather than to be run by it. I think that's a great influence of Buddhism and meditation.

IDK--yeah...in theory. This was a good conversation though because it helped me realize how many attachments and my own 'mishandling' of them maybe can sabotage me. Being capable of cutting or culling, or seperating one's self is essential.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Veggie said:


> Me too!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.


Its not really scary. You are currently judging things and classing them as beautiful.

Just let them be. Just be and relax.

Kind of like when we were kids and just absorbed everything, instead of focussing, judging, criticising, thinking and analysing.

Just be what ever IT is and enjoy it.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Reality Check said:


> Its not really scary. You are currently judging things and classing them as beautiful.
> 
> Just let them be. Just be and relax.
> 
> ...


Um. Okay. It is when you have the experience I mentioned a few pages back, go into psychosis, and feel that you experienced, like actually experienced, something on a level that wasn't theoretical.

You and @Macrosapien are annoying me right now, so I'm gonna come back when I have the energy to properly respond and give you guys the respect you deserve, because you're not bad people. This isn't a conversation you sum up in a post or two, however, or even something I feel like doing in the first place at the moment.

Saying I don't agree with or like something for my present self doesn't mean I don't understand the idea or the philosophy. I do however strongly suspect that neither one of you understand the experience that I had and the way in which it personally enlightened my thoughts and feelings. Please share your experiences with fasting, sleep deprivation, hallucinations, quite possibly prophecy, and chakra ceremonies if so.

"Don't assume that your wisdom trumps someone else's and come barging into a conversation with a sermon" - Guru Veggie.

"You can't always use fear as a reason for why everyone does or doesn't make decisions. It usually tends to be more complex than that" - Also Veggie

"Man who fears cutting off his hand still regrets it when he overcomes the fear and does it anyway" - Confucius


* *




(jk. Veggie)


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@Reality Check - Doesn't this absorbent little fella look whimsical and childlike?


* *















As children we also tend to have the protection and guidance of parental units.

As adults we learn the art of protection.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Macrosapien said:


> Scarce. Honestly, it feels like I have been searching for one woman my whole life... I dont really believe in twin flames, new age speak sometimes makes me cringe. However, I do believe there are a type of woman for a man and vice versa, but because of our culture that is very artificial and lacks fundamental knowledge, for one to naturally be in intune to their own genuine personality, a sort of psychological crust begins to form over from all of our influence and imitation of the people around us in our culture, that this crust becomes the identity that we follow. Thus we seek out what is dictated in culture, we find connection in, we yearn for it. Not that it is a bad thing, it just is... I see it with me, its what I think.
> 
> However, with that said, even though I feel this way, there is this deep seated, hunger for a genuine relationship, a partner that I feel like I have always been looking for, in some strange way. One I can have a real connection with, where we mirror each other, and our relationship can be something mystic almost, otherworldly. I dont know if this is dysfunctional on my part, but it is something I seek, unconsciously, and sometimes knowingly. But its what I really want... but at the same time, I wish I was not built this way... I tried the settling thing, and man was I miserable, I couldnt do it, and I ended up breaking her heart. And I tried the multiple dating stuff, and again I wasnt fulfilled, just felt confused at the end of it LOL. sometimes I wish I was abundance, just so that I wouldnt care about this, and I could do whatever I wanted, but I do care, and I cant act like I dont, its how I am, and there is nothing I can do about that...:crying:


Since I can relate to your philosophical/spiritual inclinations despite dislike of "woo", as well as the unconscious search for "the singularity" lol, I will say this: do you consider what you seek to be an attachment?  

(Scarcity mindset does sound a lot like an irrational fixation. That's the initial impression I got reading the description actually, now that I think about it)


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

To the OP, I think you have a different understanding of scarcity and abundance than I.

This is a fundamental, DEEP, philosophical choice in life, which drives much. 

If you lose a job, are there plenty of jobs just waiting? or are jobs very scarce? Do you save most pennies, or do you spend freely knowing there is plenty of money to be had in the future.

I think the reference to enneagram stackings is spot on. Sp is the quintessential scarcity. Sx might be conflated with abundance. So? confused by the discussion, or perhaps firmly in one camp or the other.
What happens when you date someone who is opposite from you? In extremes, it causes problems. I was married to a strong scarcity person, and I'm total abundance. I'm the grasshopper who does not save, and she is the ant planning for winter. 

To the question, I'm ever so picky, but i know in my soul there is more than one out there, and If I spend the time and energy and research I probably won't find her!!!!


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

errmm.... @*Veggie*s im totally confused. what did I do, besides have an opinion, which was not personal? I havent read a single post really, I just saw the questions of Meltedsorbet's post and decided to just those two quotes basically. 

anyways, you dont have to respond to me, you can just respond to reality_check, im bowing out of the discussion, which is derailing the thread anyways. I just figured I would share a bit of what I am actively in the practice of in an actual school, it had nothing to do with you. In the system I am a part of we are told to not discuss ideas (which i will go back to), do not make them ordinary or subject them to our inability to convey them, it just becomes formatory, fodder the mind spews. It's difficult enough to have true understanding. with that said, I apologize that you got offended or annoyed, but it wasnt about anyone, it's just words, ideas...


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Since I can relate to your philosophical/spiritual inclinations despite dislike of "woo", as well as the unconscious search for "the singularity" lol, I will say this: do you consider what you seek to be an attachment?
> 
> (Scarcity mindset does sound a lot like an irrational fixation. That's the initial impression I got reading the description actually, now that I think about it)


 I will pm my approach of this question, some time in the immediate future, it's a good one... the question that is.


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

Mine has always been a 'scarcity' mindset. This is largely because most, if not all women are uninterested in me. This kind of mindset is the reason why I ended up settling for someone who I was not compatible with at all. My thinking at the time was "Hey, she's a woman and she's interested in me. I'd better make sure we're together before I lose my one and only chance". I know it's kind of sad, but that was exactly how I thought at the time.

These days I still have the 'scarcity' mindset for the most part anyway. But nowadays, I understand that I will be OK even if I am single for the rest of my life. I refuse to settle for anyone, I want to make sure that she's right for me before I commit to anything.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Macrosapien said:


> errmm.... @*Veggie*s im totally confused. what did I do, besides have an opinion, which was not personal? I havent read a single post really, I just saw the questions of Meltedsorbet's post and decided to just those two quotes basically.


Well you did mention me. It didn't really seem like an opinion so much either as a "let me explain it to you" - you can bow out if you want, but I will probably respond (not totally a derail, really, as posts seem to get to an underlying philosophy in regards to these matters).

And is it difficult to have "true" understanding? Did someone tell you that, or do you feel that you don't truly understand? Because if you don't, then I don't get why you're 'splaining to me, you know? I do feel like I understand my perspective very well. Maybe you can take something from it. (You'll have to read it though ;P).


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Macrosapien said:


> I will pm my approach of this question, some time in the immediate future, it's a good one... the question that is.


Just curious, why can't you share here? You roped people into discussion in the first place.

I'm interested in ideas about the "singularity" and I can certainly speak on them - actually, I brought up that term a couple pages ago. I used to go very frequently to a Taoist temple.

Have you considered that whatever instruction you're under _is_ ego based? If they're advising that you don't openly discuss ideas, or that other people would be incapable of understanding? (Keeping your status as master of knowledge protected and out of line of scrutiny?)

One of the first things I did when I used to go to the temple was to challenge their authority and everything they said to see how they responded, and if they could.


----------



## Aridela (Mar 14, 2015)

Scarcity. 

Sure there's plenty of fish in the sea but why go for a minnow when you could get a swordfish?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Abundance.

People are, at present, a renewable resource.

(Sorry, probably the most "Te" shit you will read in this thread.)

The wider you cast that net, the more likely you are to find that swordfish.



kaleidoscope said:


> A few thoughts, as I write this OP: it seems to me that both of these taken to an extreme would be negative. For example, the abundance mentality can lead to a reluctance to commit or settle down, because you're constantly aware of other possibilities. The scarcity mentality can make it difficult to let go of a toxic relationship, because there's this underlying "I will never find a connection like this" belief. Thoughts?


To address the OP, yes. You need a correct balance of the two.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Aridela said:


> Scarcity.
> 
> Sure there's plenty of fish in the sea but why go for a minnow when you could get a swordfish?


Id rather have a dolphin


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

Veggie said:


> Just curious, why can't you share here? You roped people into discussion in the first place.
> 
> I'm interested in ideas about the "singularity" and I can certainly speak on them - actually, I brought up that term a couple pages ago. I used to go very frequently to a Taoist temple.
> 
> ...


 I didnt rope anyone in, the discussion was occurring before me, I just joined it with a perspective. 

Everything is ego based,it takes ego to seek anything at all. we begin from the surface.I chose to privately discuss it because I try to be a man to my word. Ive debated plenty and I find no purpose in doing so.


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

abundance mindset. i'm of the belief that everyone systematically fits into a real life trope, of which there are many of each, so if you couldn't bag one in particular then chances are there are plenty more out there with similar properties that'll hit the same buttons. there's nothing wrong with attachment (and i'm no stranger to the feeling) since each and every bond we foster is unique and special to us in some way but the significance we attach to these bonds is principally illusionary. something like, "i've felt this feeling many times before so i'll probably feel it many times more." though that isn't to say that the idea of a soulmate/twin flame/etc isn't appealing to me because it so totally is, but... idk. love is an enigma.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

I'd think the scarcity mindset fits me, although it's not as if I'm an active participant involved in the dating world to know whether or not this is an accurate representation of my situation.


----------



## AvaISTJ (Nov 24, 2016)

Abundance. There has statistically never been so many people on the planet or in the country. And not that I'm God's gift, but I think I'm a pretty good catch. And even if I'm a little picky that still leaves a lot of potential mates that I could hit it off with.


----------



## EndsOfTheEarth (Mar 14, 2015)

Scarcity, for while I know that technically there are a lot of people on the planet. The stars don't align that often for me no matter what I do. It takes a certain kind of fringe dweller to desire this. I can meet hundreds of people and never find a single speck of mutual interest amoung them.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Scarcity. 

I think all the talk of "there being so many people out there" is kind of irrelevant. Sure, if you look at it from a purely numerical perspective that is true. 

But what is important, to me, anyway, is finding a partner who understands my personality and shares a vision for the future with me. Those people are rare, and worth holding on to - even if that requires making a personal sacrifice. What does seems to be true though, at least for me, is that somebody will pop up when I'm distracted by something else and not actively seeking women out.


----------



## camous (Jul 12, 2015)

I am from the first one scarcity. I think it comes from first a low self esteem for many years "I am not worth anyone" and then being a lesbian and not finding relationship partners so yeah it does make me believe that there aren't so much people for me out there. Also I guess you could call me picky. I try to be a bit more open and my confidence has grown but boy i trust no one so it's not easy!


----------

