My Issue with the 'High Value' Tag

[michael2]

So we've all heard this buzz word, but I have a big issue with it.

What type of person comes to your mind when you think of someone who is "high value"?

How about someone who you would tag as "low value"? What do you imagine?

It's likely when imaging a 'high value' person you saw someone good looking, financially well off, popular, if a man tall and well built, if a woman she probably had a body like a lingerie or instagram model.

When you imagined a 'low value' person you probably thought of someone unattractive, short, doesnt make alot of money, unpopular.

Are you starting to see the issues I have? Was that really a fair assessment of someone's 'value'?

Society has attached a person's value to superficial traits. It's akin to judging someone primarily by their outward appearance, and not the content of their character.

Think of it like this. One man is a 5/10 in the looks department and 5'7" tall. He is a hard worker, genuinely good person, and makes 40k a year. Another man is a 8/10 in the looks department and 6'1" tall. He is a hard worker, genuinely good person, and makes 120k a year. Does society consider both of them high value? No. The first man may not be considered "low" value, but he might as well be because he won't be considered high value. Notice how there's no inbetween. Your either in or your out. There's no middle class.

In reality, everyone is high value by default. Why? Because every person has innate positive qualities and potential, even if their full potential isnt realized yet. Someone only becomes 'low value' when they allow negative traits to ruin who they are, like unkindness, lack of empathy, greed, narcissism, laziness, etc.

Just really fed up with how there's all this advice about becoming 'high value' primarily centering on making more money and looking better. The reason this is the case is because the vast majority of people are still enslaved to primitive, immature impulses.

I'll explain.

Growing up as a child, what did we want to eat? The best tasting thing available! Whether that was candy, hotdogs, or whatever. As we grew older we began to understand for our long term health and well being we needed to not east just the best tasting things available, but also some not so nice tasting foods like vegetables and fruits because they provided us with nutrition our body truly needed. Both genders can take that to the extreme though, with women marry much, much older or even elderly or completely unattractive men because of their wealth, or men who date very unattractive (usually morbidly obese) women just so they can have sex with someone.

So yeah, I don't like this term 'high value' and thinks it points people in the wrong way...everyone wants to become 'high value' so they can attract another 'high value' person. Its insane. It's not teaching people balance or to be satisfied with someone unless they are 'extraordinary' in a vain sense. This is why we are going to have more and more lonely people out there because your going to have more and more people chasing unrealistic standards and dreams

 

[CenotaphGirl]

I think certain people have more value than others… just the wayyyy it is…

I think the high value movement can be positive if it encourages more people to try and better themselves.

My brother asked me if he was high value once I was like uhhh of courseee but in reality (in terms of the movement) he is mid value because he needs support and help.

 

[ardour]

You're confusing value with attraction.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

It comes from the SMV, the Sexual Marketplace Value, which is the result of a suspension from reality under the duress of ones own neurochemistry. Or in blunt, plain English: People only think in terms of a Sexual Marketplace Value because their hormones seize control of their better judgment and make them do so.

Because it's entirely possible to be sexually attracted to someone that you otherwise aren't attracted to at all, or have nothing in common with or someone that is just not a good otherwise match for you outside of sexual attraction.

As for High Value/Low Value, my diagnosis is that the entirety of the spectrum is diluted with hormonal thinking as mentioned above. And the reason that's such a large problem is that the mechanical functionality of upkeep for the world that we live in, is not dependent on hormonal thinking, it's dependent on logical thinking. So as the saying goes, the problem is that you've got a square peg, trying to fit it into a round hole (no pun intended, but I mean, lulz anyway).

 

[CenotaphGirl]

It comes from the SMV, the Sexual Marketplace Value, which is the result of a suspension from reality under the duress of ones own neurochemistry. Or in blunt, plain English: People only think in terms of a Sexual Marketplace Value because their hormones seize control of their better judgment and make them do so.

Because it's entirely possible to be sexually attracted to someone that you otherwise aren't attracted to at all, or have nothing in common with or someone that is just not a good otherwise match for you outside of sexual attraction.

As for High Value/Low Value, my diagnosis is that the entirety of the spectrum is diluted with hormonal thinking as mentioned above. And the reason that's such a large problem is that the mechanical functionality of upkeep for the world that we live in, is not dependent on hormonal thinking, it's dependent on logical thinking. So as the saying goes, the problem is that you've got a square peg, trying to fit it into a round hole (no pun intended, but I mean, lulz anyway).

Apexieee!!!! This is sooo true, see at first I was thinking, maybe Ardour is on to something, but then I read this and I was like ah ha! Apex knows how to put it so that I can really understand it. The movement was more constructive without the hormonal thinking sprinkled into it. The movement for men has now taken shape as the "man up movement". Go to the gym, make money, have women on rotation and never fall in love, do not compliment or help any woman ever... That sounds super hormonal.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

Apexieee!!!! This is sooo true, see at first I was thinking, maybe Ardour is on to something, but then I read this and I was like ah ha! Apex knows how to put it so that I can really understand it. The movement was more constructive without the hormonal thinking sprinkled into it. The movement for men has now taken shape as the "man up movement". Go to the gym, make money, have women on rotation and never fall in love, do not compliment or help any woman ever... That sounds super hormonal.

I think it depends partially on where men fall individually with the introvert/extrovert slope.
The world is designed to be in the favor of extroverts, likely as a natural phenomenon rather than an intentional construction. Because humans are a social species. This is compounded for men, because men are expected to be stand-alone figures with no help, but if they are introverted or have a lack of social skills, that works against them in terms of resource acquisition and resource management, lest they optionally choose to go and develop those skillsets.

Example, I barely have enough money to buy a used car and keep up with the maintenance of it, however, mathematically speaking, my net ratio (that is, the difference between my savings and the amount that I spend in a month) is roughly X6 higher than my monthly spending. So I don't make much, but I don't spend much, either, allowing me to live low and simple by leaning into the strengths that I'm easily and cheaply entertained.

Meanwhile, there are highly social men locally that I know who have careers in local radio making roughly X4 the amount of money that I make in a month, who can't save enough money to cover their monthly expenses beyond that of maybe 2 months, the position I would be in if I went out and bought a used car instead of just hardassing it up with my legs and a bicycle.

This also works this way for women as well.
My sister and my ex both make a significant amount more of money than I do, however they both have kids and both spend their money about as fast as they make it, so even though my ex makes X5 my yearly income, I have X3 the amount of money in savings.

Understand?
It doesn't matter how much money you make, if you never learn to control your spending and learn to budget more rationally.

With highly social men, they aren't thinking about their future most of the time, they're usually thinking about what is immediate. I call it the Chad Paradox. Dude has all of the social skills to get whatever woman he wants, but none of the mechanical comprehension to realize that's probably the least masculine approach to the longevity of oneself.

It's a little bit different with women, because up until more recent years, women weren't expected to shoulder the world the way that men have to. Your average men didn't make it that way, either, in all actuality inflation and interest rates make it that way. People don't like that answer because it sounds conspiratorial, but in all actuality if you go ask your bank for a terms and conditions of services paper, Fractional-Reserve Banking is written in it, which generally isn't a problem...until things like Inflation and Interest Rates make it to where everyone tries to withdraw money at the exact same time...THEN there's a problem. China is currently experiencing that problem, commonly called a Bank Run. Their banks are on withdrawal lockdowns, people are not allowed access to the money in their bank account and can only withdraw X amount of money per day/week.

 

[TropicalStarfish]

Where are you all getting all this asinine information (speaking, specifically, to the notion of a, 'high value person')?

It's like trying to discern the weather by reading the patterns in tree bark.

Does unit #7348 in an anthill in the amazon have more value than unit#4326? Who gives a fresia. Pull your head out of your ass and live. Life's short and it's unfair. Make the best of it. Learn from those giants of the past that, 'attempted,' to give us knowledge.

Who do you think has more clout? Pseudo intellectuals and influencers and their bullshit? Or people like Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, R.D. Laing, Thomas Szasz, Joseph Campbell.

Willfull ignorance can take a hike. When you acquire knowledge and are aware of truth, you can easily glide right over the superficial bullshit. And it's all bullshit these days...

MVP's and VIP's are just terms respective to certain cultures. And in those cultures, your only on the, 'in,' if you're in anyway. It's just something people fall into. It has very little to do with choice and will power.

This is the best we can do right now. If you want to do better, just tune out, and head on over to Project Gutenberg

 

[Deosil]

There are many negative off-shoots to societal normalities/systems and this concept is just that in my opinion. The idea that someone is of more value than someone else is abhorrent to me. Every human being has negative impacts on society, philosophically and practically every day (thank goodness for cognitive dissonance - where would we be without it?) regardless of there visual appearance and hierarchy. If this is the case, are they still of high value if we tally there negative contributions?

This concept is essentially egotistical narcissists trying to demonize the vulnerable and weaken them even further in order to elevate there standing in society and satiate there ego in my opinion.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

Who do you think has more clout? Pseudo intellectuals and influencers and their bullshit? Or people like Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, R.D. Laing, Thomas Szasz, Joseph Campbell.

That people want clout and influence in the first place is part of the problem.
Jim Jones wanted clout and influence, look how that turned out.

 

[M_also_lonely]

Value has to do with context. Come to my country, pull up your sports car besides a cafe or a mall, dressed in a business suit, with a fancy haircut and some accent. The women won't stop staring at you. Now do the same thing in the neighboring village. The village ladies will wonder what planet is this thing from. Now instead, dress in a local attire and claim to be the owner of 500 cows. They will want to marry you immediately.
In both cases, things that determined value were different. But something had to determine value and since it is a relative measure, it enables the possibility of making a choice.
________
What you are trying to get to is understood and "should" make sense, but umm, we're not there yet. And most likely, we won't ever be. Value exists because certain things are not available in an unlimited quantity. And as a consequence, the idea of a hierarchical system is born. Not all doctors are the best. Thus you want the best one to serve you. And thus he charges extra.

Value is going to exist in some or the other form. It is the perceived measure of something's stance in that hierarchical system. We can't change that unless the entire humanity has achieved absolute equality of outcome, which obviously, isn't possible.
________

Now to your concern. Well, things like looks, money, status, etc. are given value not only because it is created and imposed by society. Its roots are in nature. You are wired to be attracted towards a woman with certain physical attributes and to be repelled by certain other ones. Women are wired to be attracted towards men of higher status in a particular setup as per their beliefs. You might be kind, polite and compassionate towards the people on the lower end, but the point is, it doesn't "drive" you to mate. The qualities that "drive" your instincts to mate, do and will revolve around the fundamental masculine and feminine traits that our brains are wired to be attracted to.

We live in a world where both aspects matter. If you are broke and homeless despite being kind and compassionate, sadly you will not be able to raise your child in the best conditions.
Yes, that doesn't mean you don't have a choice. Its like chess. You can move your pieces in a lot of different ways but you can't break the rules.
What you are asking is that humans should give up the instinctive and material aspects and solely rely on the spiritual aspect. This isn't really possible in my opinion.

 

[M_also_lonely]

I too went full spiritual a couple of years ago when I got rid of my loneliness and depression problems. It really helped me see the world on a much deeper level. I was able to see certain stupidities that humans make. And that treated my low self esteem.
But on the downside, it got me nowhere. I too wanted to enjoy some fruits of the materialistic life. But I was missing out. It shouldn't be possible.

That's when I realized, it has to be a mixture of both. Human is in the middle of being an animal and an enlightened being. And thus has to act that way.
Zorba The Buddha...!!

 

[TheRealCallie]

The best tasting thing available! Whether that was candy, hotdogs, or whatever. As we grew older we began to understand for our long term health and well being we needed to not east just the best tasting things available, but also some not so nice tasting foods like vegetables and fruits because they provided us with nutrition our body truly needed.

Going to stop you right there. I know many kids who would eat more broccoli and spinach than they would candy or hot dogs. Not everyone has the same taste buds and think the same things are good as others....much like attraction. I know several people who think chocolate and pizza are disgusting. They are obviously crazy ass monsters, but there you have it.


Let me just throw out another term, which isn't a "good" term.....high maintenance. People throw that word at women all the **** time. How is that "FAIR"? Life isn't fair. Never has been, never will be. Find a **** way around it instead of just continuing to make excuses.

 

[Sci-Fi]

I didn't know that was a "buzz" term, never heard of it. Like some have mentioned it seems like you are confusing a few things and also tossing out a lot of stereotypes to back up your points.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

Let me just throw out another term, which isn't a "good" term.....high maintenance. People throw that word at women all the **** time. How is that "FAIR"? Life isn't fair. Never has been, never will be. Find a **** way around it instead of just continuing to make excuses.

I really don't know why that's used against women the way that it is. Life is a high maintenance experience. Of medicine in particular and of health costs, because I mean, without that as a base we won't live long enough to even get to the debate, right? And everybody knows that medicine and health is expensive as Hell. Therefore, the base of life is high maintenance.

Arguing trinkets and splitting hairs just seems like a fruitless endeavor when vitally important medical procedures like heart surgery are so expensive that it'll absolutely impact someones base financial planning. But I mean it's not like a car or a home, you can't just find an alternative solution, you kind of need your main organs.

And I understand that doctors want to make money and that's the incentive that they are given being the costs of medical school, but I mean you'd think at least something like your main vital organs wouldn't be priced out outrageously and easily wrecking someones finances for several years with payments.

If you're born with a heart condition, you're born with a heart condition. That's not really anything the individual had any control over, you know?

 

[user 188644]

If your not high value it's because you don't value yourself highly.