@MentORPHEUS thanks, man!

There's a book by Randolph Nesse called Good Reasons for Bad Feelings: Insights from the Frontier of Evolutionary Psychiatry, where he acknowledges what is evident but hardly talked about: psychology and psychiatry is a mess, a patchwork of diverse and often contradicting theories.

The guy, Nesse, almost single-handedly introduced a whole new scientific field with his previous work, the one of Evolutionary Medicine. Now, he proposes that work is undertaken to integrate all the psychological approaches under an evolutionary paradigm.

The thing is that there are too many university professors with invested interests in this or the other approach, so such a thing is unlikely to happen, at least for a while.

As a result, you have psychologists sticking to a specific approach, e.g. CBT, especially if working in an institute that demands it, and psychologists synthesising their own approach trying to be more flexible and effective.

The main problem in the field is, of course, the Blue Pill. Most men end up there in a process of working through the abuse suffered in the hands of their own mother, and typically adopt a supplicating position: Look, mom, I have a theory that makes you shine with a godly light! Now give me a hug!

I appreciate Maslow too, and I do think that self-actualisation is still the overarching aim for men. That said, most men nowadays are faced with an extreme attack on their very integrity as a person, a female-coded "primacy of chaos over order". So, the need of stabilizing themselves is usually what gets them to ask for help.

Another point: I've come to appreciate the psychoanalysts, more than what is taken for granted in the Angosaxon countries. At least they do have the notions of male and female separate - and that's why they are under attack.

And, of course, for men that are not burdened excessively by their own developmental history, I've confirmed that the Red Pill has already identified a credible way to engage the sexual landscape.

@MentORPHEUS

Not so fun fact: The name Trump appears more often in the Epstein Files...

...than the name Jesus appears in the Bible!

A) I notice you start a new thread with this garbage-ass fact rather than reply to the threat in which I've already rebutted this "he's mentioned!" crap. Here it is for anyone interested. Be sure to read further on in that thread.

B) so what? Jesus is only mentioned in the New Testament, and the Old Testament is more than twice the size.

This garbage-ass fact shows your ignorance on multiple subjects: Trump and the Epstein files, the Bible, and context of any sorts and why context matters.

It takes a trivial amount of time to sift through what you hand wave as trivial or incidental mentions of his name, to get to a quite non-trivial number of unambiguously damning Trump references in the Epstein Files.

Oh really? Well then you should have no trouble actually showing me some.

So far all I've seen is what I've already said:

1) Epstein and cohorts trying to "get" Trump, but admitting they have nothing

2) non-credible tips from non-credible people during elections

3) victims and their lawyers saying that Trump helped them.

So show me some of these supposed "unambiguously damning Trump references in the Epstein Files" that it supposedly takes "a trivial amount of time" to find.