A.P.L.

A Man of Words and Endurance.

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

https://t.co/Ms9FLQfD8H

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@ZOEMFOSSE @zachpogrob He’s such a gorgeous creation

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@zachpogrob That’s a new sticker for sure

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

For the @FoundersPodcast listeners amongst you here, this article was influenced very heavily by episode #144.

David, if you read this, forgive me for outright stealing a line or two from the podcast — it was impossible not to.

Your work has helped my life.

Thank you, brother.

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

https://t.co/00HiQ8fRIo

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

https://t.co/00HiQ8fRIo

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

https://t.co/00HiQ8fRIo

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

Many of the people you follow and listen to on social media are wise and insightful only as long as they plagiarise and regurgitate thoughts and ideas they’ve read elsewhere.

Truly fascinating how flat and downright boring these people are when away from their keyboards.

[Anderson Miller @AndersonLMiller]

“Optimism is a moral duty.”

- @lingauerpiotr

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@AndersonLMiller Thank the great Edwin Land, brother.

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@DionysianAgent Arnold.

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

New method to get a quick and effective workout in when you’re very busy:

Listen to @FoundersPodcast while at work and do 25-50 push ups every time David says “….this idea that you and I have talked about over and over again.”

Alternate between your favourite 10 episodes every day for 3 months and let me know how things went

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@zachpogrob X is really only the great place that it is because of your tweets man

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

Graham was being nice, the lack of substance in the writing is infuriating

[Fandom Pulse @fandompulse]

Bane creator Graham Nolan on James Gunn's Superman movie:

"Superman has one histrionic outburst after another and wonders why he’s mistrusted? Way too beta.

His parents are from Kansas and sound and act like they were inbred in Kentucky. It’s a narrative mess as scenes jump confusingly. Too many characters with no intro to who they are. I know Steve Lombard’s background but a normy doesn’t.

Perry White smokes a cigar with no smoke or ash

Calling fight plays during a fight? That’s idiotic. We never see Metamorpho do anything to break up the war at the end, yet there he is all of a sudden.

I have one unbreakable rule when it comes to movies and entertainment: make me care! I’ll buy all kinds of bullshit you are selling if I care about the characters and stakes. For SUPERMAN…I didn’t care."

Is he right?

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@345marcel @FattyNoNatty Least homoerotic internet exchange btw

Stay girthy, gents

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@zachpogrob @samsheffer The best live music humans can experience is often found in strange, underground bars in cities that have suffered and lived

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@AlsikkanTV True for all of life.

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

I’ve noticed the proclivity to like or dislike musicals (or musical pieces in movies not entirely devoted to being a musical, like “Sinners”) depends largely on temperament.

I like musicals as a whole, and so I don’t mind a movie bursting into song out of nowhere. But if you don’t fuck with it, I won’t judge.

However, this is crazy. The sound design in this scene alone wasn’t even exceptional, so I have questions for Mr. Nolan

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@byzeljko @zachpogrob I share your scepticism regarding general lack of soul in film to some degree, but I also think 2025 was a sensational year for cinema.

Godspeed, brother.

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@byzeljko @zachpogrob Fair.

Could I perhaps offer to help with a recommendation or two? Point me to a general direction of what you usually like, I’ll share with you a few movies from the past 5-6 years I think might speak to you, and what you do with that is up to you.

Sound good?

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

@byzeljko @zachpogrob An absolutely moronic take, brother.

[A.P.L. @lingauerpiotr]

Remarkable.

[Illimitable Man (IM) @SovereignIM]

So @BonesawMD is largely correct in the sense that there is a far greater range of variability within male capacity and personality, and thereby developmental stages relative to women (see: the male variability hypothesis).

However, the reason women are confusing to most men, is very simple. Women are counterintuitive, chaotic, and often incoherent. They like to play this off as being mysterious or somehow clever or emotionally intelligent despite being self-absorbed and routinely signalling an inferior theory of mind (acute understanding of men as beings, rather than simplified self-serving abstractions relative to the feminine), and women can certainly be cryptic and complex, but often this is simply not having it figured out themselves, and having wild shifts in disposition, propensity and orientation relative to where they're at in their cycle.

An ovulating woman is going to be more assertive, flirty, confident, more prone to confrontation and bravado and better able to take savage criticism (more likely to trigger ego reflex than an adverse nervous system response). A woman who feels vulnerable or raw in her bleed or post-luteal is going to be far more prone to take offence, misunderstand things, perceive threat where there is none, not meet her obligations and contradict things she said previously etc.

Women are "complicated" not because they are "more developed" (as you correctly point out) but because they are more counterintuitive, less consistent, on net aggregate more fickle/flakey and prone to contradiction, and require greater paradox tolerance to fully hold as a coherently mapped entity, because women are on average far less coherent (consistent and structured) than men are.

Women simply require men to fill in more gaps than vice versa, and to work out more about them and teach them to them than vice versa. The vast majority of men are not very good at this. Men who are good at it are innately attractive, because women love to become by learning about themselves in a way they cannot by themselves through a man, they love to recognise themselves and find coherence and structure in ordering themselves around a man's gaze, when that gaze is defined by acute perceptivity of aspects of her nature she was not aware of, but resonates with when introduced to.

This is why women are "more complicated" - complication here really means confusing, and they are confusing because they confuse themselves. Women are, for instance, far more prone to make absolute and declarative statements in one phase of their cycle which then they entirely contradict 2 weeks later without any type of remorse for their inconsistency. Women almost feel entitled to their capriciousness ("a woman's prerogative"). Their defence? "I meant it when I said it" - great, but not very good for anyone relying on you, which naturally lowers your perceived credibility and thus the strength of your word.

The fact men at the group level find women confusing is not an indictment against men, in so much as it is the illegibility of women themselves, that is to say, being able to understand them well despite all of the aforementioned is more the byproduct of individual male brilliance, than it should be any sort of expected standard.

If men at the group level all of a sudden start effortlessly understanding, mapping and tracking women when they evolved for warfare rather than attunement to the feminine, they would cease to be men. Because rather than reach the stage where they have integrated their feminine into their masculine to better grasp women, they would simply have all become self-erasingly womanlike themselves (a slight exaggeration, but I think you get the point I am trying to make).

For women reading this who are having a reflexive visceral defensive reaction: let me hold your hand for a second and tell you to think about how other women have treated you in your relationships with them, be they female bosses, friends, family members etc and if this sounds like it tracks for them (rather than think of yourself). Great, glad we've got that sorted and you're able to appreciate the point now.

Many women, especially outlier women, will say that they themselves would not want to romantically deal with a woman, be reliant on, or at the whims or mercy of one in a serious emotionally vulnerable way. Those of you who are physically attracted to your own gender as women, often solely do not go there romantically with them for this very reason: you find them too annoying, unreliable and insufferable, despite finding them pretty to look at (many men agree with you on this.)

You want the prerogative of being the chaotic and incoherent one that is being held (in the child rather than adult role), rather than having to do that for another woman. You want and expect *better* treatment for yourself than you recognise women would be able to give you as a woman, and so you want something *more solid* which is why you look to man, even if you physically prefer the feminine form to the masculine.

In short: even women find women confusing as women, because they confuse themselves - any woman who states otherwise is being dishonest. There is no woman who is perfectly legible to herself, which is why she is even less legible to most men, with only the best of men finding her more legible than her.

This is also why women give terrible dating advice, and mothers routinely sabotage their sons with their views on women. It is not malicious, but ignorant - most women don't even get themselves, so don't know "what works" on them.

Any sufficiently based woman reaches this conclusion, and denigrates the feminine for it in that she holds it as an indictment against her own sex, and may even feel some latent aspect of shame for it. This is why feminine bravado is really just egoic status flexing to her female peers, and not real, genuinely held soul deep belief. All the best women (outliers) are aware of the limitations of women, and hate that so much within themselves they are acutely driven in their awareness to override it as much as is personally possible for them "I'm not like the other girls".

So women are less coherent than men and thus more inherently confusing to them, than men are to women, but women do indeed have a less varied range of maturity/developmental growth relative to men, and thus more neatly fit a "one size fits all" approach - which whilst not exactly true (being a narcissistic asshole works with most women, but will get the door slammed in your face with the best of them) - it is most certainly directionally so.