Here is another example.

There is no difference in action between the following scenario.

marriage is when a woman takes 50% of his income for a contract of reproduction with a man for the term of the marriage.

Something else is when a woman takes money for a contract of reproduction with a man for the term of the transaction.

Something else is when a woman takes money for a chance of reproduction with a man for the term of the transaction.

Something else is when a woman engages in reproduction with a man for the chance of money.

Something else is when a woman engages in reproduction with a man for the same reasons (e.g., reproduction, money) as the man.

You can describe the intention of each person as different, but the actions are the same.

So, did you get what you wanted?

What are you thinking about right now?

What do you want?

You get what you want or you don't.

Money is a tool.

Money is a tool you can use to get what you want.

• Money is social favor.
• You rely on those with social favor to give you social favor when you depend on social favor to get what you want.
• so, you will always submit to (someone) when you want money; and ideally you are doing so in a dominant position.

You don't need money to get what you want. Then, you are using other resources like energy or power.

Using Your Money.

People argue you shouldn't use money to get what you want because then others will stop caring about you as soon as the money disappears.

Certain circumstances give you emotions where the feeling of being used for resources is a negative emotion which implies being used for resources is not beneficial to reproduction according to your worldview.

So, this negative emotion would be a valid reason to not use money to get what you want.

However, you won't experience a negative emotion when you use money to get what you want with an understanding it is your only option without consequence. This circumstance occurs when you can either

• get what you want with money (tool) or
• you don't get what you want, or not without consequences you want to avoid.

What is your intention?

Your intentions help you understand your objectives and the objectives of others.

However, you are uncertain whether considering the intentions of others is necessary when you get what you want.

Someone can have bad intentions and benefit you with their actions or vice versa. So, avoiding relationships with people where there is a fear of their intentions is not logical when you want to maximize your opportunities.

Asking questions to people (including yourself) like "why" and "what" may help you understand a person's objective or save them the cost of an unrequired lower objective. However, these questions are also requests for justification and justification is a submissive activity.

A person who is dominant may provide enough information so people can help them without wasting time asking for justification.

So, a person who is dominant in this scenario is either receiving these questions for

• justification which is a submissive activity.
• an increase in potential opportunities.

There are situations where asking "why" and "what" to other people increases your and their opportunities which is a mutually beneficial arrangement when you are optimizing for opportunity.

Here is an example.

I can ask, "Who wants to be in a music video?"

You may answer, "Me".

Then, I can ask "Why ..."

You may answer, "I am creating a music video."

Then, I have the opportunity to either

• create you a music video
• ask you to be in another music video.

Here is an example when asking why or what is used for justification.

I can ask, "Who wants to be in a music video?"

You may answer, "Why do you want to know?"

Your answer does not increase our opportunities mutually and requires an energy cost for me to answer "why do I ask people whether they want to be in a music video".

I can respond to you saying, "I am either creating music videos for people or letting you be in a music video."

Then, the exchange is converted back to the non-justification example.

I could also respond to you saying, "cause I feel like I want to know".

Then, no information has been exchanged beyond what I feel and now I am asking for your submission to my emotion when you answer my question.

Your submission is also dominance when your objective was to execute this feeling and then it is a mutually dominant scenario with submissive conducts.

What did you intend?

Sales as an occupation is selling things by presenting the information with appeals to intent, and the action of the result is also presented with an appeal to this intent, but the intent never changes what happens.

Suppose you give me $100 for a product.

You could explain this scenario as

• My energy received social favor and your energy received product.
• I took $100 from you and you took a product.
• you gave me $100 in exchange for a product.
• i convinced you to give me $100, then gave you a product as a gift.
• you conviced me to to you a product, then I took $100.
• so on and so forth.

However, the energy balance in this action does not actually change whenever you change the underlying intention.

Here is another example.

There is no difference in action between the following scenario.

marriage is when a woman takes 50% of his income for a contract of reproduction with a man for the term of the marriage.

Something else is when a woman takes money for a contract of reproduction with a man for the term of the transaction.

Something else is when a woman takes money for a chance of reproduction with a man for the term of the transaction.

Something else is when a woman engages in reproduction with a man for the chance of money.

Something else is when a woman engages in reproduction with a man for the same reasons (e.g., reproduction, money) as the man.

You can describe the intention of each person as different, but the actions are the same.

So, did you get what you wanted?

What do you want?