Ha ha ha!

How prone are very good-looking women to cheat or dump their current mate when they meet someone shinier than the man they're currently with despite any level of investment? (Or just a change from an old experience, or a fulfillment of experiences that even one very good man could not give them).

This is a terrible and extremely unhealthy stereotype (try trusting anyone you like when you believe it), I know, but is the paranoia justified in your experience?

(I'm also aware that this can and often does apply to many high-status men)

I saw these two videos by "whatever" on YouTube. They're of the same guy, approaching complete strangers, but in one he acts like someone with no confidence or social skills, while in the other he doesn't even speak English but he does so with confidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sTgUgM_Pq4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM_IwyW3aGY

The difference in the women's reactions between the two videos is quite different, even more so when compared to similar videos of men speaking confident gibberish or French to girls.

Why is just confidence the number one most important thing? I have low self-esteem and extreme social anxiety around attractive women. It's so bad that I never want to try approaching them, creating a never-ending cycle of never feeling good enough - and all this lack of confidence despite having some personal experience attracting and bantering with reasonably attractive women.

Why do things have to be this way, and are there any ways to get better besides just going up to women and making a fool of myself until I no longer care how they react?

I'm not talking tight skinny jeans here, I just mean something that follows the general shape of the lower leg rather than draping about it.

A company has given me an offer that seems rather good, but despite passing phone screens with other companies I haven't yet gotten to interview or been extended offers to weigh against this one.

While I negotiated the current offer from Friday of last week to last Monday, that the offer was made official was not brought to my attention until yesterday. Also yesterday, the manager I would be working under said that having until Friday to decide seemed reasonable.

Yet, toward the end of yesterday, HR at this company told the recruiter that connected me that they want my answer by the end of today, no additional consideration time given. They also said they had another potential candidate. While the recruiter said that this is a reflection of how urgent it is that they fill this position, I'm not entirely sold.

My employment coach agrees with me that something smells weird about this. He says that this level of hardballing is unprecedented to him and that I'm basically being bullied into making an immediate decision, that I should get on the phone with someone at HR or with the manager and discuss this further.

I've also been advised by some to say yes and then say no, but this option doesn't sit well with me for obvious reasons to the point that I would not consider it.

All this puts me in a difficult position. Should I just go ahead and call up the company and voice my concerns? What would you do, and why?

Last week, I interviewed with a company. They seem to like me and have put the offer on the table (not in writing, however). I spoke with the team manager I'll be working with who said that waiting until Friday to give an answer seemed reasonable. I've since managed to line up at least one other in-person interview with a different company.

However, HR from the first company has decided, since they have another candidate, that they now want my answer, yes or no, by the end of the business day tomorrow. Considering that this was not officially an offer until today (and might not even be until I've seen it in writing), I don't see this as reasonable.

I rather like the position, the pay seems reasonable, and the environment seems decent, but it worries me than I may be missing out on better opportunities. How should I proceed?

I'm of the opinion that it does. For example, most of us don't recognize what the fringe present as evidence for Bigfoot or chemtrails, therefore we tentatively consider these things to be non-existent.

If we did not do this, the idea of the existence of things like floating knives or boogeymen would be equally plausible as their non-existence.

This is not strict disproof or negative evidence, but it seems to strongly suggest that most things falling into this category don't exist; what is this reasoning called, and does it stand up to scrutiny?

I understand the importance of bettering my trade and creating things that strengthen my portfolio, but I honestly just see programming as a job that I don't want to think about once I leave the office unless it's for my own personal enjoyment.

Will this attitude hurt me?

While it would be great to teach everyone in the entire world how to high-yield farm their own food, I know that there are limiting resources even in systems that can sort-of self-maintain, like aquaponics systems that can obtain some of what they need out of the atmosphere and sunlight.

The limiting ingredients might be minerals or inorganic materials like phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, iron, and so on.

Supposing industrial/globalized society were to collapse, from where would these materials be obtained? How would building materials like glasses be made?

I think most people understand the difference intuitively, but I want to see a really rigorous definition of these things.

What I mean is, I think of two examples of men approaching women. One YouTuber is recorded walking straight up to and in front of women, stopping them in their tracks, standing tall, ignoring anything potentially awkward, and just straight up says that he thinks they look good and that he wants their number. He gets them.

The other is stuff I see walking on the street - some guy who stands on the corners with his buddies, makes no effort to approach, and just makes catcalls at girls - but makes no effort to stop them or pursue them. He never gets numbers.

Is this the most important litmus test- just having enough balls to go up to you and hold our frame?

I've found that combining all three of these makes me incredibly nice and incredibly honest, qualities that I really like. If there were some way to achieve the same effect without taking drugs, that would be fantastic.

Would it then follow that a constant buffer of antioxidants and anti-inflammatory molecules would either slow or negate this process?