Posts by Jack Smith5

There’s some truth to that, sure, but it’s hardly a universal rule. It really just comes down to the specific circumstances and the individual involved. Some people operate that way, others don't. It's not one-size-fits-all.

What the OP is actually looking for is simple: just get out there and do it. You build something worthwhile because it needs to exist, not because you’re hunting for clout. Don't go in expecting a thank-you note, a paycheck, or some shiny trophy. If you approach it that way, then anything you happen to pick up along the line—whether it's recognition or a little extra cash—is just a nice little bonus you didn't see coming.

Back in the spring, I helped out a neighbor by tilling up his garden with a rototiller. I didn't charge him a dime, nor was I looking for any kind of handout. A couple of days later, he shows up at my door with these exotic tomato seedlings as a thank you. It was actually perfect timing; I’d been wanting to experiment with different heirloom varieties in my own backyard to see which ones actually thrive and which ones are just a waste of space, but I hadn't really figured out where to source them without making a whole production out of it. Honestly, it felt like a bolt from the blue.
Honestly, it’s a hell of a lot better than if I’d just charged fifty bucks and watched it vanish instantly at a Shell station.
What goes around comes around—and trust me, you’re the one who's going to be footing the bill.

When you stop sweating the small stuff and quit making a mountain out of someone else's moods or endless demands, things tend to level out. I’ve found that if you just handle business with a bit of chill and don't let other people's chaos become your problem, life has a funny way of balancing the scales. Eventually, everything settles, and you somehow end up getting back exactly what you put in—just maybe not in the way you originally expected.

Nice one, Nicholas Gonzalez8. If you aren't looking for a handout, you can't really lose. The real issue is that everyone’s expectations are totally out of whack—customers want way too much for their buck, while sellers try to charge an absolute fortune for whatever they're peddling.

It’s actually pretty straightforward. You just have to get good at something—really master a craft. Once you hit that level, people start noticing the talent or the sheer passion you put into it. That leads to genuine compliments, which boosts your confidence, which fuels more motivation to improve, which leads to even more recognition. It’s a positive feedback loop.

That’s exactly why I asked him about his specific traits, virtues, and skill sets. He needs to take what he loves and polish it until it shines.

Most "popular" people are essentially popular for nothing; their status is built on a vacuum.
Think of it this way: Person B thinks Person A is cool. Then Person C sees how much Person B admires Person A, so suddenly Person C decides Person A is cool too. It spreads like wildfire through D, E, F, and so on.
People tend to follow the herd, and that mentality is contagious. Eventually, though, once people grow up and move past that phase, they stop buying into the "cool factor." At that point, all that matters is what Person A actually brings to the table—their character, their skills, and their integrity. If they don't have those, the "coolness" evaporates, and they aren't worth mentioning anymore.

So, if you actually have substance—real character and real skills—you don't need to chase trends or pretend to be someone you're not. What you need is results. Focus on honing your craft and showing it to the world.

It’s not actually about the money. It’s more about those moments when you need an urgent car repair and your bank account is looking pretty grim. In a situation like that, I’d gladly sink a few hours of my own time into helping someone out without expecting a single cent in return—with one condition: you just pay it forward by using your own skills to help a third party for free.

Case in point: I was over at my neighbor's place recently and was fixing up his hedge trimmers. One of the gears had gotten smoothed out, so instead of buying a whole new part, I just pressed a different gear against the worn one to realign it, and now it’s running like it just came out of the box. I didn't spend a dime on parts; it just cost me maybe thirty to sixty minutes of my afternoon. So why on earth would I charge him for that? Why shouldn't these kinds of favors be free? At least for the people close to you, or the acquaintances you know you'll be seeing around again anyway.

If you want anyone else to change their mind about you, you have to start by changing how you view yourself first.
So, what are we talking about here? What are your actual strengths, skills, or virtues?

Nicholas Gonzalez8 said:So, I was recently sitting there watching the movie "Pay It Forward". It’s about this kid who comes up with this whole scheme to fix the world by doing massive favors for three different people—totally unconditional. All he asks in return is that they pass that good energy along, helping at least three more people each. Just a chain reaction of kindness.

Think about the math for a second—if that chain just keeps moving for ten rounds, you aren't just helping a handful of people, you're impacting a massive crowd (3 => 9 => 27 => 81 => 243 => 729 => 2187 => 6561 => 19683 => 59049). Pretty wild when you look at it that way, right? Obviously, not everyone is going to step up and pay it back—some people are just selfish—but there are always those folks out there who actually find joy in lifting others up and would keep it going. If that became the standard, the whole damn world would be a much better place.

It actually warms my heart to see how much that movie inspired people globally, leading to these actual "pay it forward" movements popping up everywhere. There was even a big push for something similar right here in the States 🙂. But it leaves me stuck on one specific question: why hasn't this become the default way we live our lives? Why can't we all just help each other unconditionally without strictly limiting ourselves to just three people? What's actually stopping us from making this a lifestyle?

For others to stop waiting and actually make the first move.

Nah, that’s what people call "living in the moment." Kids live in the present, just like drunks and the clinically insane. They don't give a damn about what happens tomorrow or what went down yesterday—and honestly, that's the whole point of being a drunk. Animals do the same thing. It seems like "normal" people are actually the ones who aren't functioning correctly; they're never truly present, always stuck dwelling on the past or obsessing over the future. Just look at how we operate. What's the first question you get when you walk into an interview for a job at a place like Goldman Sachs? "Where do you see yourself in five years?"

I feel like we’ve already covered this question from the title.
A person is at their happiest when they are actually happy. Childhood isn't some universal rule, but if most people claim they were at their peak back then, it tells you something about their adult lives. It suggests those people aren't living truly fulfilled lives—they've just settled for compromises and ended up doing things they don't actually care about.

amberfox4 said:I find myself siding with those who argue that we were at our absolute happiest during our childhood years. Though, if I’m being honest, I was fortunate enough to have a rather happy upbringing myself.
But one cannot deny it—that specific level of genuine, unadulterated carefree bliss, that profound sense of peace and pure joy sustained over such long stretches of time... it is a luxury reserved exclusively for children.
God, what I wouldn't give to retreat back for just a single week to when I was five, six, or seven years old. Actually, make it eleven or twelve... hell, I'd even take fourteen, just for the chance to soak up that feeling once more.

That just means you never actually grew up the way you were supposed to. It means life just happened *to* you, and now you're just stuck enduring it instead of actually living it.

Richard Wells said:Then why does it seem like most adults are just miserable?

It's because they aren't actually given the chance to live happily or work with any sense of purpose. They're either forced into it, or they've just convinced themselves they have to settle—stuck in jobs they can't stand or trapped in family dynamics that drain them.

You aren't actually at your happiest when you're a kid. Back then, you’re basically stuck in a box—limited, restricted, and completely dependent on everyone else just to function. You can't pull off anything on your own.
True happiness comes when you're finally doing what you love alongside the people you love. Period.

Exactly. It’s less about what’s actually being said and more about how it’s delivered. The actual content always takes a backseat. We look at who’s talking first, then we analyze their tone and non-verbal cues, and only then—if we're feeling generous—do we even consider the substance of the message.

You could tell someone, with all due respect, that they sound like a total fanatic, and they might not even blink. But you tell them, "Nice hat," and suddenly you've started a fight.

hiddenbear62 said:I was always raised to be brutally honest, and honestly, that whole mindset has really come back to bite me. I guess I’ve pushed way too many people away just because I couldn't help but say exactly what was on my mind 😢

Look at it this way: those people didn't actually deserve your friendship in the first place.
If someone decides that your honesty is a valid reason to pick a fight or cut ties, they aren't worth your energy.
In a sense, you did yourself a favor. The real work starts now—finding the people who actually value your transparency. That part is definitely harder, but once you find them, you can finally stop filtering yourself and just exist. You'll be happy, and the connection will feel much more substantial. It makes the wait and the effort totally worth it.

The psychology behind sports fans is identical to that of players in any team-based game, or politicians, doctors, police officers—basically any profession where people stick together and watch each other's backs.

The only real difference lies in their methods and how they go about handling their group tasks.

Fans get fired up when they can identify with the name of the team they represent (much like soldiers fighting for the country). Doctors get fired up when they identify with their own kind; they’re the only ones who truly understand the sacrifices required by their job. They won't tolerate outsiders trying to strip away the rights and privileges they've fought so hard to secure—and yes, I’m including the kind of corruption they all mutually recognize and justify because of the "stress" or the paychecks.

Every single group develops its own set of justifications that allow them to do what they do, even when they’re consciously breaking the law. It’s the same with cops, and it’s the same with politicians.

Politicians have their excuses because they believe the masses wouldn't know what to do without them. In their minds, they were born to lead, performing heavy responsibilities that grant them more rights than everyone else. Naturally, they feel perfectly justified using all those perks an average citizen could never touch.

For a fan, the "reward" is that raw sense of identity and connection to the group. For doctors, the reward is the same, though obviously supplemented by a paycheck. It’s similar for politicians, too. But if you just look at the way politicians or doctors speak to laypeople or viewers on a network like CNN, or even how they talk to one another, you'll notice a specific language. It’s a coded way of communicating that highlights the pack mentality inherent in every individual within that group.

Fans are just the extreme version of this phenomenon; they're more primitive and prone to making a scene through wild behavior, whereas the others prefer to hide their savagery from the public eye.

I don't get it. How is being honest "undesirable" unless someone is trying to point out a flaw? Isn't that exactly when honesty matters most?

Let’s say you’re an artist, or at least you think you are. Your paintings are masterpieces in your eyes, then some random person walks by, looks at them, and tells you straight to your face that they're garbage. Would you burst into tears, or would you try to deck them?
And are they supposed to follow that up with a tutorial on how to fix it, or maybe offer to paint it for you instead?

The person complaining doesn't always owe you an explanation, especially in a situation like that. Sometimes you just see that something is off and there's no fixing it. It's better to snap someone out of their delusion than to let them sit there trying to sell you a load of nonsense.

It reminds me of a scene from an old sitcom on ABC where the wife signs up for a wine tasting course and comes home acting like a total connoisseur. She starts reciting this memorized script about flavor profiles to her husband, basically lecturing him on how much more sophisticated she is than he is. So, what does he do? He pours cheap boxed wine into an expensive bottle and lets her taste it. She keeps talking nonsense about the "notes" of the vintage, until he finally snaps and tells her directly that she has absolutely no idea what she's talking about. Brutal, but fair.

I am 100% in favor of bringing people back down to earth when they start getting ahead of themselves. From what I can tell, you seem to think that shouldn't be done...

rustynomad23 said:Of course, we aren't talking about such erratic shifts. However, if your lens is completely fixed, no amount of information can alter it. Yet, since information is what shapes that lens, when does that evolution stop?

The filter is the prism; once the information passes through, it becomes the worldview.

That is precisely why this interests me. Depending on their prism, people selectively pick only the facts that support their existing ideas about the world.
The ultimate goal should be the possibility of achieving maximum objectivity.

No, you won't. That is the nature of a prism; it is multi-dimensional. New information adds a dimension rather than erasing the previous state.🙂

It seems we are in agreement.🙂
Naturally, there is always another way.

The concept is to move beyond the framework of good versus evil.

I appreciate the use of the term "sieve."🙂
A similar idea suggests that adding key information would simply create another hole in the mesh.

At what stage did your sieve form? During which era of your life? What exerted the most influence upon it? Family? Education? Society?

Is there a single event or piece of information that could drastically alter it?

When does bone remodeling actually stop? Never. Your bones are constantly growing and repairing themselves throughout your entire life, regardless of whether you've dealt with a fracture or not. Every ten years or so, your skeleton essentially undergoes a complete turnover. It’s a similar concept to how we think about certain types of industrial filtration systems—constant renewal to keep things functioning.

It starts out as this massive, overwhelming presence during childhood—just a huge, heavy concept that takes up all the space in your head. But as you grow up, it’s like this increasingly fine mesh begins to settle over the core of it. A filter starts forming, layer by layer, getting tighter and more refined until the whole thing is being processed through this tiny, intricate little screen.
You probably hit that point of total completion somewhere around the time you started a family, but that doesn't mean you're stuck there forever. Life isn't exactly a finished product just because you've checked all the boxes.

It’s worth considering a change here. For instance, there are other ways to weave the filter that might actually be more efficient.
And who exactly showed you that other way of looking at things? Some other person, obviously. It’s all about that moment of realization—that specific piece of information hitting you. But let's be real: the filter hasn't actually vanished. You've just added a new layer on top, and once you're comfortable there, you strip the old one away.

When you’re a teenager, everything feels like an open door. You’re walking around with this massive ego, convinced the world is basically your personal playground and that you’re some kind of unstoppable force. Back then, I used to think all I needed was a little bit of seed money or maybe a hand from someone established to finally launch my grand designs. It felt like success was just one lucky break away. But then reality hits. If you actually try to pull something off, you realize pretty quickly how wrong you were. And if you don't try? Well, you eventually grow out of it. You start to see that those "world-changing" ideas weren't actually grounded in anything real—they were just unreachable fantasies. Eventually, you just drop that whole perspective entirely. It’s less of a choice and more of a slow realization that the world doesn't owe you a thing.

You eventually start looking more like the system you were born into, and you begin to accept it. You make peace with the fact that real change is an uphill battle—if it happens at all. Eventually, your priorities shift entirely toward just getting through the day and surviving. You settle on the compromise that maybe making small, incremental tweaks to make life slightly more comfortable is enough. And for most people, that’s plenty.

This is exactly why I got sucked into all of this in the first place. It really just comes down to how people cherry-pick from a massive sea of information, grabbing only the bits and pieces that happen to fit their own preconceived notions of how the world works.
The whole idea is about trying to get as close to an objective view of the situation as humanly possible.

If you want to be truly objective, you have to stop playing gatekeeper with your sources. Don't just filter out information before you've even looked at it based on who sent it; that’s just bias in disguise. Instead, take everything in—raw and unfiltered—and then put it through the wringer. The real work starts when you begin interrogating those sources with direct, pointed questions. You use those answers to gauge whether the data actually holds water. Think of it like using a sieve: you aren't discarding things randomly; you’re using your own education and lived experience as the mesh to catch the junk and let the substance pass through. You can't accurately judge the quality of an argument unless you have enough specialized knowledge to know what a "good" answer actually looks like.

Let’s be honest: the very first filter people tend to run everything through is...
Who’s actually doing the talking? It all comes down to credibility.
And another thing:
It all comes down to the education you’ve banked and the actual life experience you bring to the table. That’s the lens through which we filter everything we hear.

If we don’t know who someone is, where they came from, or even what the hell we're actually talking about, I think we’re either hitting a mental reset button or stumbling into one of those rare, fleeting moments of genuine excitement—you know, that rush you get from a new idea, a sudden realization, or just a random urge to learn something new. It feels like the exact same neurological loop that drives a kid into a frenzy when they’re begging for a new iPhone or a mountain bike. Or, honestly, it's probably the same chemical spike a woman gets when she finds that perfect pair of shoes while shopping at Nordstrom. It's that sudden spark of "I need this" or "I want to know this," triggered by pure novelty.🤣 Maybe it’s a guy just browsing for a new ride at the dealership.😂)

Exactly, which is why it’s more of a prism—it's multi-dimensional. New information adds a layer rather than just erasing what was already there. 🙂

Maybe. I remember when I was a kid, I absolutely hated eating green beans, peas, kale, or leeks. Now? They’re my go-to. It’s because at some point, I started perceiving them as "home-cooked" and healthy compared to store-bought stuff, so they automatically tasted better. Toss in some homemade sausages and they become a favorite. Honestly, they're way better than any heavy Sunday roast or, God forbid, fast food. I barely touch junk anymore.

When do you think your filter was formed? At what age? What had the biggest impact—family, education, society?

Hmm, as for the version of the filter I carry today... I don't know, maybe somewhere around my junior year of college? Maybe.

But if we're talking about when I first started filtering info the way I described earlier—I can't quite pinpoint who was saying what, it's been too long—but I'd say it was around middle school. Somewhere during that transition into puberty, say between ages 12 and 15. Before that, everything was black and white for me. Heaven, hell, Santa Claus... whatever people told me existed, I believed.

Is there an event or a specific piece of information that would have drastically changed things?

It's hard to think of one single thing that would have flipped the switch...

I suppose I should start by listing examples of information I would most aggressively reject through my filter—people with zero credibility peddling garbage info.

- Fortune tellers, psychic medium types, and their ilk.
- Certain politicians.
- Pseudo-scientists and "alternative" gurus with no credentials who are essentially just looking for donations for their "knowledge."
- Journalists from certain media outlets.

I can't think of a single "average Joe" whose info I would reflexively reject right now. I might become skeptical during a conversation based on their arguments, but in the case of the groups mentioned above, I basically tune them out the second I see them.

Now that I've identified them, what would actually have to happen for me to start believing them?

- They would need to predict specific things with precision, repeatedly, without error, including names and descriptions of the people involved.

- They would need to shut up and actually answer questions as they are asked, instead of twisting them. I also judge non-verbal cues heavily. Plus, they’d have to back up radical stances with action—actual laws and decisions that move toward what they promised, not away from it.

- They would have to prove their claims scientifically through experimentation—repeating results accurately and logically—especially if those claims contradict established science.

- They would need to actually research their topics rather than just plagiarizing or translating content from other sources. They'd need to do boots-on-the-ground reporting for an extended period before publishing conclusions, and they’d need to be properly educated in the field they are discussing.

Maybe the common thread here is that I built my filter largely based on how others perceived the world. I agreed with those perceptions. I gathered that info from various places—mostly documentaries on TV or articles and forums online. Other people were really just a third tier, repeating or slightly tweaking information I had already absorbed from those primary sources regarding what was considered "good" or "true."

I can't pinpoint the exact moment everything clicked, though I can point to one specific book—*Conversations with God*. It fundamentally shifted how I viewed myself and everyone else. Over time, I’ve tempered those views, sliding back toward my old mindset, though not entirely. A bit of skepticism always lingers; I find it hard to believe that everyone could be radically honest and completely shameless at every single moment. For instance, the idea of being totally open about sex right in front of your kids without things getting awkward? In today's society, that's just not a viable concept. Maybe in some distant future it could work, but right now, it’s a bad idea.
That book was just one of several turning points for me. Most of my other realizations came from watching certain people on TV or deep-diving into documentaries online.

Oh, that reminds me—Michael Ruppert and that documentary *Collapse* from about six years ago. If I'm being honest, that was another major epiphany. Much like with the book, my initial reaction eventually mellowed out. He was forecasting global ruin and total economic meltdown because of our absolute addiction to oil. And sure, we're dependent on it—we even use petroleum derivatives to make things like toothpaste—but I’ve come to realize that while there would definitely be chaos and growing pains, society has enough resilience to survive without it. We don't necessarily have to end up in a *Mad Max* wasteland.

Since then, I’ve started building upon those early insights to figure out what actually works for me. My vision for the world has evolved away from those original sources, even if I still hold onto their core principles: the world needs to be sustainable, food should be locally sourced, people should focus on cooperation rather than cutthroat competition, and mass production should be kept simple and "uncomplicated."

Anything that flies in the face of those fundamental values, I either reject outright or dismiss as an inferior solution that might only serve as a temporary fix.

Alright, then I guess I'll just go ahead and get back to workand finish up😁

You can't just swap out your worldview every single day; why would you even want to? That’s not "learning," that’s just being indecisive.
If your perspective shifted constantly, we’d be walking contradictions—selfish today, generous tomorrow, saintly the next day, and a villain by Friday.

You need a filter to process everything coming at you. And that filter becomes useless if you’re constantly rebuilding it from scratch.

The real metric is the quality of that filter: how much garbage does it let through, and how much actual substance does it keep out?

People love thinking an "alternative" worldview makes them special or unique. In reality, millions of people share those exact same views. It’s not alternative; it’s just a different flavor of the same thing. The problem is that because of their specific filter, they label anything from mainstream sources as untrustworthy, causing them to miss a mountain of useful information. Of course, the reverse can happen too.

Why would I go looking to change my outlook when I already know exactly which situations and people are toxic to me and which aren't? If I shift my entire perspective, I lose that hard-earned intuition.

I think the real key isn't about having a static view, but recognizing that there's always room for adjustment and that nothing you know is absolute truth. It’s more important to learn how to read someone's body language than to listen to their words. Whether it’s science, politics, or just how to build something, there’s always a way to do things differently than what you were taught. You shouldn't dismiss a different method by default; instead, you should listen to the other person until they finish, then hit them with a barrage of questions and counterarguments to see if their version actually holds water compared to yours.

That approach—how you evaluate people and ideas—is fundamentally part of your lens. If we kept changing it all the time, we’d be lost in space and time, drifting aimlessly like a ghost in a sci-fi movie.

In reality, "good" and "bad" don't exist in a vacuum. We have to use our own filters to decide what works for us and our community. Without that internal compass, we wouldn't even know what we want for ourselves or which career path actually fits who we are.

Quentin Tarantino

Megan Wilson8 said:I honestly think it all comes down to how you were raised. For instance, I grew up with my grandmother—she was an absolute sweetheart who refused to see any evil in anyone. People could walk all over her, and she’d just take it because she was so incredibly naive. And honestly? I turned out exactly the same way. I tend to cave the second someone tells me what to do... But look, life experience is slowly starting to shape me, bit by bit. I'm actively fighting to stop being that pushover... at least not when it ends up hurting me.

It all comes down to perception. My grandfather passed away a pretty simple, unassuming man. He spent his entire life grinding through endless shifts—jobs that were grueling and exhausting—mostly for people who didn't give a damn about him or barely acknowledged his effort. But honestly? It didn't bother him. He found a weird kind of peace in just staying busy; he was happy as long as there was work to be done. He used to tell me that he didn't care what people called him or how they viewed him, provided they weren't going out of their way to be malicious. When it came to money, he never let it go to his head. He wasn't greedy. If someone asked him for help, he gave it. I remember being about ten or eleven years old, asking him for a pack of Marlboros, and he wouldn't have thought twice about handing them over. He told me that straight up. He just lived life on his own terms.
He was "chill" about pretty much everything. You could have practically stood on his head and he wouldn't have blinked. Nothing really got under his skin, and honestly, he lived a pretty happy, fulfilled life—well, if you ignore the occasional little thing like a world war here and there.😂 I guess it’s more or less the same thing.
Quentin Tarantino

Joseph Gonzalez57 said:It feels to me like you're becoming a bit obsessed with this...🙂 relax.
First off, where you live doesn't dictate your psychological makeup. You can find plenty of shady characters looking to scam someone out of a few dollars in the middle of nowhere, too.
From what I've seen, human nature is pretty much independent of geography; it's shaped by life experience, as I mentioned earlier. Everyone has their own reasons for how they act.

You’re one hundred percent right on that point, but my actual intention was to focus on the people who... Things are finally starting to pick up today. It’s about time. Back in the day, when people talk about "country living," there’s a massive distinction they tend to miss. I'm talking about the gap between folks who have lived in rural America their entire lives—people whose families have worked the same dirt for generations—and those who just moved out to the sticks recently. Or, you know, the actual ghosts of the past, the people who inhabited these towns long before we ever showed up. You catch my drift?

These are the people who have grown sick of the city grind and just want to live a completely different kind of life.

gentlesailor25 said:I mean, I guess the only way that works is if you're looking for some kind of pushover you can just manipulate whenever you feel like it.😁
Personally, having a partner who just doesn't catch on to anything would probably drive me absolutely insane.

Actually, I see it differently. A manipulator isn't looking for a fool; they're usually hunting for someone even more cunning than themselves. On the flip side, it's the people with genuine intentions who gravitate toward the naive. They might see the simplicity as a flaw, but they view that inherent goodness as a redeeming quality that outweighs everything else.

Look at the folks moving out of the concrete jungles and back to the countryside lately. They aren't looking for those sleazy, small-town types who spend their whole lives trying to cheat a neighbor out of a few extra bucks just so they can brag about it at the local diner. That kind of behavior is just bottom-tier.