u/Darkmegane-kun

I’ve been reading and participating on a few recent threads here about tall men dating shorter women vs. taller women, and it feels like there’s a massive disconnect between how some women view our options and what the average tall guy actually experiences.

A lot of comments claim that tall guys "choose" shorter women out of active preference, or that if we wanted to date a tall woman, we could "just filter for it." But looking at it pragmatically:

The Math: Women 5’9”+ make up roughly 1–2% of the population. Once you filter for age, location, mutual physical attraction, lifestyle, and values, that pool shrinks to almost nothing.

The Reality of Male Dating: Unless a guy is in the top tier of looks/charisma, being 6’3” doesn't automatically mean having an endless line of women waiting. We still deal with app dryness, cold approach friction, and rejection.

In my experience, guys often end up with shorter women simply because shorter women tend to express interest more overtly, making the interaction happen naturally. That’s how it’s been for me at least.

Personally, I actually prefer taller women, but as a fairly quiet/introverted guy who relies mostly on natural interactions, it feels like strictly targeting tall women would shrink an already tight dating pool down to zero.

For the tall women here: Do you actually see tall guys approaching you in the wild, or is the expectation that we’re supposed to actively hunt down that 1%? Also are you more lenient with taller dudes looks wise, meaning if they are taller than you they get bonus points that can make up for them being otherwise not your type?

And for the tall guys: How many of you actively filter for height vs. just going with whoever shows genuine mutual interest?

I know the entry level job market in the GTA is rough right now, and security is usually recommended as a fallback. I’m considering picking up guard/bouncer shifts in Toronto or Peel Region.

My background: I’m 6'3", 245 lbs, with background in Muaythai and some judo . I plan on getting my Ontario Security Guard License and CPR certification first.

Obviously I’m aware that de escalation is the number 1 priority, and I would never resort to my training unless in extreme circumstances, thankfully that never happened to me as an adult.

For anyone working in venue security, event security, or hospital/corporate guarding in Toronto:

Does martial arts/grappling experience actually give you an edge with GTA hiring managers (specifically for bouncer or mobile response roles), or do they just care about who has a valid license?

Is physical presence / standing control useful for landing higher paying gigs (e.g., downtown clubs, event venues, loss prevention), or is the market so flooded that it doesn't matter?

Any specific security companies or venue groups in the GTA you'd recommend applying to (or avoiding)?

Appreciate any honest feedback on what the market looks like right now!

Western culture heavily prioritizes the concepts of novelty and freedom. We naturally value both, and we desperately want to believe we possess true agency. But recently, I’ve been struggling with the idea that as long as we have biological needs, true freedom is functionally impossible. Yeah I know free will and determinism are one of the biggest problems in philosophy but still it’s something I have been thinking about continuously since my teen years.

I am, for the most part, governed by my environment and my biological framework. I might go as far as claiming that we are slaves to that biologically framework. I have the desire to rebel against this framework, but I ultimately don't have much of a choice. I have to eat, drink, sleep, and satisfy base biological imperatives. It doesn’t matter how we label these needs or what psychological narratives we attach to them; the drives themselves are entirely outside of my control.

If I refuse to fulfill these needs, the result is death.

This led me to a bleak but seemingly logical conclusion: if every action we take is ultimately tethered to maintaining this biological machine, then we are never truly free while playing the game. Therefore, the only ultimate form of rebellion a complete assertion of will against the biological framework is a complete exit from the game.

However, I’m caught on a counter argument to this:
Is exiting the game actually a rebellion, or is it just the ultimate submission? Biology has a built in fail state. If you deprive the system of inputs, it terminates. By choosing to exit, aren't you simply executing the system's programmed "shutdown sequence" under deprivation? If entropy (breaking down and returning to rest) is the default state of the universe, then life itself the constant consumption of energy to maintain order against that decay might actually be the true resistance.

I’d love to hear how others approach this paradox:

Can true agency exist within a system where the foundational axioms (biological needs) are entirely dictatorial?

Is the conscious "desire to rebel" against our biology an evolutionary glitch, or does it serve a functional, systemic purpose?

What’s the ultimate driver of this desire to rebel? Is it a desire for freedom, or just simply inability to play the game?

Philosophically, does the act of "opting out" represent the ultimate triumph of free will over biology, a failure to adapt or just a submission to the laws of physical entropy?

Hey everyone,

I’m looking for a reliable training partner to hit the gym with, keep each other accountable, and maybe mix up our routines. I’m a 24 year old student at UofT studying Cognitive Science, Stats, and Astronomy. I just came back from a summer gig in the Yukon and injured myself while there so have been taking it a bit easy. I split my time between campus and Mississauga, so I’m pretty flexible on where we train.

A bit about my current fitness goals: I'm a bigger guy (6'3", 240lbs) and my main focus right now is conditioning for the UofT novice walk on rowing tryouts coming up this September. My workouts usually involve a mix of standard lifting and jump rope, but I also train in combat sports specifically Muay Thai and Judo (currently rocking a yellow belt). Outside of the gym, I try to get outdoors for hiking and camping whenever I can.

Whether you're looking to spot each other on the big lifts, suffer through some cardio/rowing prep together, or even do some pad work, let me know. I'm open to training with anyone who brings good energy and is consistent.

Shoot me a DM or leave a comment if you're interested!
Which specific gym or facility (like the campus athletic center or a local commercial gym) are you planning to train at so we can tailor the post's location a bit more?

Hey everyone,

I’m looking for a reliable training partner to hit the gym with, keep each other accountable, and maybe mix up our routines. I’m a 24 year old student at UofT studying Cognitive Science, Stats, and Astronomy. I just came back from a summer gig in the Yukon and injured myself while there so have been taking it a bit easy. I split my time between campus and Mississauga, so I’m pretty flexible on where we train.

A bit about my current fitness goals: I'm a bigger guy (6'3", 240 lbs) and my main focus right now is conditioning for the UofT novice walk on rowing tryouts coming up this September. My workouts usually involve a mix of standard lifting and jump rope, but I also train in combat sports specifically Muay Thai and Judo (currently rocking a yellow belt). Outside of the gym, I try to get outdoors for hiking and camping whenever I can.

Whether you're looking to spot each other on the big lifts, suffer through some cardio/rowing prep together, or even do some pad work, let me know. I'm open to training with anyone who brings good energy and is consistent.

Shoot me a DM or leave a comment if you're interested!
Which specific gym or facility (like the campus athletic center or a local commercial gym) are you planning to train at so we can tailor the post's location a bit more?

I recently completed the CFAT and TSD-PI. Looking for insight on how much these results might be "deflated" by specific external factors

The Scores (Anglophone Officer reference group):
Verbal: 76th percentile
Spatial: 42nd percentile
Problem-Solving: 72nd percentile
Total: 72nd percentile

The Context:
I’m 24, majoring in Cognitive Science (Computational Cognition) with minors in Stats and Astronomy. I took the test unmedicated for ADHD and English is my second language. I also have persistent depression and generalized anxiety.

My Questions:

1. Is a "drag" on these scores statistically reasonable given the ADHD (time/executive function pressure) + ESL combination in a timed, competitive environment?

2. How does an "Officer" reference group compare to the general population? I’m struggling to interpret these as my "true" baseline.

3. Personality: My results (91st Openness, 5th Conscientiousness, 10th Agreeableness). Has anyone with similar results performed well in high-level analytical/STEM roles?

I’m trying to decide if it’s worth pursuing a formal clinical (WAIS) assessment. Any perspective is appreciated.

Hey everyone, I'm a student in my mid 20s from Toronto working up here for the summer and I've got a 3 day turnaround in Whitehorse before heading out to a remote camp.

I don’t like to drink so not looking to just sit in a bar and drink, but I'd love to know where people naturally hang out or chat during the week under the midnight sun. Would be to bars too if they are non drinker friendly.

Any good social hubs, cafes, or community spots I should walk over to while I'm here? Thanks!

I study cognitive science and have spent some time training Muay Thai and Judo. Recently, I was thinking about a famous philosophy thought experiment called "Mary's Room" (where a scientist knows every physical fact about color but has never actually seen color) and wondered how it applies to combat sports.

Here is the hypothetical:
Imagine a person who is in absolute peak physical and mental condition. Perfect cardio, maximum strength, elite flexibility, and perfect reflexes.

Furthermore, they have perfect "textbook" knowledge of martial arts. They know the exact biomechanics of a roundhouse kick, the precise leverage and kuzushi required for a Judo throw, and the exact distance needed to slip a jab.

However, they have never once physically practiced a martial art, sparred, or hit a bag. They have only read about it and watched it.

If they stepped onto the mats today:
1 Could they hold their own in a fight or sparring match against an average trained amateur?
2 Could they be an effective coach? (They can see exactly what a student is doing wrong biomechanically, but they don't know what it feels like to execute the move).

My initial thought is that combat requires procedural knowledge and kinesthetic feedback you can't learn the "feeling" of someone shifting their weight or aggressively invading your space from a textbook. Your CNS just wouldn't know how to fire properly.

What do you guys think? Would their raw athleticism and perfect theory be enough to survive, or would they just completely freeze up?

I study cognitive science and have spent some time training Muay Thai and Judo. Recently, I was thinking about a famous philosophy thought experiment called "Mary's Room" (where a scientist knows every physical fact about color but has never actually seen color) and wondered how it applies to combat sports.

Here is the hypothetical:
Imagine a person who is in absolute peak physical and mental condition. Perfect cardio, maximum strength, elite flexibility, and perfect reflexes.

Furthermore, they have perfect "textbook" knowledge of martial arts. They know the exact biomechanics of a roundhouse kick, the precise leverage and kuzushi required for a Judo throw, and the exact distance needed to slip a jab.

However, they have never once physically practiced a martial art, sparred, or hit a bag. They have only read about it and watched it.

If they stepped onto the mats today:
1 Could they hold their own in a fight or sparring match against an average trained amateur?
2 Could they be an effective coach? (They can see exactly what a student is doing wrong biomechanically, but they don't know what it feels like to execute the move).

My initial thought is that combat requires procedural knowledge and kinesthetic feedback you can't learn the "feeling" of someone shifting their weight or aggressively invading your space from a textbook. Your CNS just wouldn't know how to fire properly.

What do you guys think? Would their raw athleticism and perfect theory be enough to survive, or would they just completely freeze up?

Recently, I’ve been thinking about the origins of my own thoughts and whether we I truly claim ownership over them if they aren't historically novel.

I frequently find myself independently arriving at concepts, only to realize later that they are established historical frameworks. For example, before actually reading Marx, I noticed the mechanics of labor surplus and how the value of workers' labor is captured by stock buyers. Similarly, when thinking about Descartes’s mind body dualism, I independently hit the friction between the conceivability principle and possibility, realizing that conceivability is strictly limited by our cognitive architecture. Again nothing new or independent.

Because I am essentially just running a computational process on my observations and independently reaching the exact same conclusions as thinkers before me (like a form of cognitive convergent evolution), it makes me wonder if I am capable of producing anything new.

I do remember reading something about intelligence and how there’s a minimum intelligence bench mark to be able to come with anything remotely original(if there’s such a thing) but I haven’t refreshed my memory on that so I could wrong.

If we look at the mind through an empiricist lens (like Hume) or as a computational engine, it seems impossible to generate a thought ex nihilo. We are just synthesizing existing data points into different structural arrangements using established logic.

My questions are:
In philosophy of mind and epistemology, how is the "ownership" of a thought defined if the thought is merely an inevitable logical output of a shared human cognitive architecture?

Are there philosophers who argue that the computational act of generating the thought locally is what gives you ownership of it, regardless of its historical novelty?

What is the current philosophical consensus on "originality"? Is it generally accepted that true originality is merely combinatorial syntax (rearranging existing inputs), or are there arguments for the generation of entirely new cognitive raw materials?

Any reading recommendations regarding the intersection of cognitive computation, thought ownership, or the conceivability of new ideas would be greatly appreciated.

I have been reflecting on the philosophy of mind and the epistemology of emotion, specifically regarding the concept of love, and I am hoping to get some perspectives on a few interconnected questions.

First, I am curious about how Frank Jackson’s "Mary's Room" thought experiment applies to complex emotions rather than just physical senses. Imagine a person who possesses a vast amount of objective and practical knowledge about relationships. They understand the mechanics of behavioral obligations, the psychological frameworks of attachment, and the biological distinctions between lust, attraction, and long term attachment.

However, if this person has never actually felt the subjective, unconditional affection of love, do they truly "understand" it? If we apply the Knowledge Argument here, it seems that having all the objective data in the world cannot substitute for the "qualia" the subjective "what it is like" to actually experience the emotion.

This leads to my second question regarding "first person authority". Because human experience is fundamentally subjective, is it philosophically sound for an individual to claim they have never experienced love? We generally assume people have an epistemological privilege or first person authority over their own current mental states so is it also philosophically sound to say that person did or did not experience love?

However, can a person be mistaken about their own emotional history even if they took significant amount of time and effort I understand it through the available psychological and philosophical literature?

For instance, psychology shows us through the Schachter-Singer two-factor theory that individuals frequently misattribute physiological arousal and use environmental context to incorrectly label their emotions. From a philosophical standpoint, could someone mislabel a trauma response or an anxiety-driven survival mechanism (like compulsive caregiving) as "love" for years, only to later realize they lacked the true qualia of the experience?
Finally, how does philosophy generally categorize love in this context? Is it considered a single, identifiable emotion, or is it more accurate to view it as an "emotion complex" made up of various intersecting dispositions, evaluations, and feelings?

I would appreciate any insights on how the epistemology of emotion tackles the subjective absence of a feeling, and whether we can truly understand what we haven't personally felt.

I’ve been on dating apps on and off and although there are a fewer tall ladies to begin with, I noticed I rarely if ever match with taller ladies, even when I had a decent match rate.

My last 2 relationships were with women who are 5’3 and 4’11 and the shorter one seemed to like my height more.

I know I’m not everyone’s type, but I prefer taller ladies and I thoughts that taller ladies would prefer taller men too.

My theory is that taller ladies are more aware of the statistics and know men taller than them are already rare so theres an even smaller chance they are compatible otherwise.

For reference I’m 6’3, 24 living in Toronto area

Hey everyone!

I originally posted this in the r/tall subreddit, but since it's a bit niche, I figured I'd cast a wider net here to reach my fellow locals.

I'm looking to see if there's any interest in getting a group of us tall folks together for a casual meetup in the city. It would be great to grab some drinks/coffee, and hang out.

If you're interested in joining, drop a comment below or send me a message. Let me know what neighborhoods or days of the week work best for you, and we can figure out a spot with high enough ceilings to accommodate us or probably something outdoor given the weather.

Hey everyone!

I originally posted this in the r/tall subreddit, but since it's a bit niche, I figured I'd cast a wider net here to reach my fellow locals.

I'm looking to see if there's any interest in getting a group of us tall folks together for a casual meetup in the city. It would be great to grab some drinks/coffee, and hang out.

If you're interested in joining, drop a comment below or send me a message. Let me know what neighborhoods or days of the week work best for you, and we can figure out a spot with high enough ceilings to accommodate us or probably something outdoor given the weather.

Hey everyone! I’m a young adult located in the Toronto area and was wondering how many of us are in the area.

I think I saw a similar post recently about this but I don’t remember if it was inviting for a meet up.

I’d love to organize a casual, low pressure meetup if there's enough interest. It's always great to meet new people (and nice to not have to bend down to hear them in a loud bar for once).

I was thinking something simple like grabbing drinks at a brewery downtown, hitting an arcade/board game cafe, or just grabbing coffee.

If you're in the area and interested, let me know in the comments! If we get a few people, I can set up a quick Discord server or group chat so we can figure out a date and a venue that works for everyone.

I haven’t read extensively on political philosophy or epistemology, but the current political, economical and my own personal reality got me thinking about the tension between cognitive capacities, moral accountability, and democratic systems. I'm looking for literature or frameworks that address a few interconnected problems.

1. The Epistocratic Trap vs. Accountability
   We know mandatory education has limits, and some individuals simply do not have the interest to educate themselves beyond a baseline. How do we hold people to higher intellectual and moral standards without coercion? I often think about modern democracies where universal suffrage allows everyone to vote, regardless of their understanding of economics, policy, or even if their motives are morally questionable.

If we were to implement a threshold like a test on the issues we inevitably restrict freedom and form an elite subgroup (an epistocracy), because passing that test would likely correlate with having the socioeconomic resources to get a better education. Is there a philosophical framework for elevating standards and accountability without creating this elite class?

2. The Problem of "Intellectual Forgiveness" and Agency
   My second question relates to the ethics of how the intellectually gifted (not saying I’m one) should treat the average person. Are intellectuals supposed to be more forgiving of the moral and political oversights of those who are less intelligent or educated?

We generally extend a level of forgiveness to someone who is clinically disabled because we recognize a hard limit on their capacities. If an intellectual views an average person’s lack of engagement as a limit on their capacity (or perhaps an expression of rational ignorance), does treating them with that same "forgiveness" violate their moral agency? Does it cross the line into moral paternalism? Or is the said intellectually gifted person under no obligation to accommodate past a certain point.

Hey everyone,

My first season of planting I remember sitting around the campfire with some of my camp mates, talking about how the Canadian job market was going. Someone said that as long as you're willing to go anywhere or do anything, there's always work in Canada. Being a recent immigrant who immigrated with his family to the greater Toronto area, I don’t think I fully agreed back then but getting out of my small bubble and working in the middle of nowhere taught me there’s much to Canada that I don’t understand yet.

I stayed in the city (GTA) this season to knock out some heavy summer classes, and honestly, the entry level job market here is completely dead right now. It's got me thinking a lot about what happens after I graduate, and part of me really misses working outdoors.

I’m currently studying physical and mathematical sciences
I’m curious about the reality on the ground from people actually in the industry:

Are Canadian logging companies or government ministries actually hiring data/stats people to do this stuff, or is it mostly outsourced/experimental?
For those who have stayed in forestry after planting, do you see this tech being used on the blocks?
Has anyone here transitioned from planting into the mapping, GIS, or logistics side of forestry?

I know I'm more academically inclined, and unfortunately not the best planter but I'd love to find a way to merge the math/logistics side of my brain with the forestry sector. Any insight is appreciated!

P.S. If any crews out there need a mid season filler, or any bush related job let me know. The city job market is so dead I'm honestly thinking about dropping my summer classes to head back to the bush for the cash.

Hello everyone,

I’m a yellow belt who did judo for a bit at my uni club. My commute to campus is pushing 2 hours each way, so due to that and a few other reasons, I had to stop doing judo for a while.

Instead, I decided to sign up for the BJJ classes offered at my Muay Thai gym. Yesterday was my first class, and obviously, I was pretty helpless on the ground. It was just rolling, so no standing. I could defend here and there because I have a size advantage over most people, but generally, I could tell they could get me whenever they wanted.

The only thing I could do that was effective was Kesa-gatame. However, because it was a no gi class, they could eventually escape since I didn't have the gi to get a solid grip.

I prefer a simple style perfecting a few moves rather than learning a lot and not being good at them. I decided my strategy will be to focus on just 5-7 ne-waza techniques to hold my own, and then expand from there once I have a good grasp of them.

My questions are: Would this be a good strategy? And for those with experience, what ne-waza worked best for you against BJJ guys? Thanks!

Also I’m about 6’3 (190cm) and 235lbs(107kg) right now so maybe I could use my size too (safely ofc).