1. The attention and adulation is your drug. I think there's no shortage of people who fall into this category.
2. To convert that fame into opportunities you wouldn't otherwise have; and
3. To convert that fame into money.
Obviously if you're just plain rich then (3) is moot. If you fall into (1) then money can buy you fame to a degree.
So that leaves (2). Wealth will give you many opportunities fame will but certainly not all. Or at least the costs to replicate that are truly ludicrous, like being a star in a Marvel movie, spending a year on the ISS, going to the Moon, that sort of thing.
The way I see it the downsides of fame are significant. I've heard tales from people who worked in media years ago that the very stars who now want the media to leave them alone and to respect their privacy would beg them for stories and coverage just a few years earlier.
I don't think I'd want to be ultra-wealthy (as in a billionaire+). At that point you're almost removed from society. I imagine you end up moving in circles with other ultra-wealthy people that are actually quite small. You risk being a target of the desperate, the criminally minded (fraud, kidnapping, blackmail, that sort of thing) and the mentally unstable.
And really what is the practical difference between having $20m and $2b? Sure you'll have nicer houses and more of them. You may well have a super-yacht at that point. But who cares? I know I don't.
You could say "you would if you had $2b" and maybe that's true. I'm sure I'd buy a nicer place but I think I'd still want to keep a relatively low profile.
> And really what is the practical difference between having $20m and $2b? Sure you'll have nicer houses and more of them. You may well have a super-yacht at that point. But who cares? I know I don't.
I found this Reddit comment  insightful on that front. Don't know to its validity but have seen it linked to in a few different places.
> I am going to exclude the $10b+ crowd, because they live a head-of-state life. But at $1b, life changes. You can buy anything. ANYTHING. In broad terms, this is what you can buy:
> Access. You now can just ask your staff to contact anyone and you will get a call back. I have seen this first hand and it is mind-blowing the level of access and respect $1 billion+ gets you. In this case, I wanted to speak with a very well-known billionaire businessman (call him billionaire #1 for a project that interested billionaire #2. I mentioned that it would be good to talk to billionaire #1 and B2 told me that he didn't know him. But he called his assistant in. "Get me the xxxgolf club directory. Call B1 at home and tell him I want to talk to him." Within 60 minutes, we had a call back. I was in B1's home talking to him the next day. B2's opinion commanded that kind of respect from a peer. Mind blowing. The same is true with access to almost any Senator/Governor of a billionaires party (because in most cases, he is a significant donor). You meet on an occassional basis with heads-of-state and have real conversations with them. Which leads to ... influence ... (continued)
 - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2s9u0s/what_do_i...
Obviously that's a pretty nice passive income stream. But it's not really have a couple nice homes in prime locations, hire full-time assistants, fly private jets everywhere, etc. sort of money.
For instance: private air travel in USA. Find some friends with aligned lifestyles and together buy a high performance twin engine propeller passenger plane that seats 8 people for about 5 million.
There are agencies who will take care of all of the complexities of owning and operating this aircraft and renting it out while you’re not using it. With careful decision making you can bring the aircraft to close to net zero steady state operating cost as the revenue flights paying for maintenance, storage, liability etc. You also get access to a stream of excellent pilots on demand.
These agencies can also book you on a larger plane in their portfolio when you want to go further and for some reason aren’t willing/can’t fly first class commercial.
Real estate is much simpler—tons of fabulous rentals all over the world. And an assistant surely could be hired somewhere for 100k or less annually.
There's an 'aviation YouTuber' who owns a private jet (through his medical supply company?) and puts up videos of his travels:
Honestly, I found many of them condescending and unpleasant. Money can absolutely get influence and access, but a good heart? Maybe not
When you're being constantly hounded by people that believe that you being wealthy means they inherently deserves a share of it, that'll probably distort your worldview real quick.
I hope people don’t learn his “work employees to death” and related philosophy ...
“Bezos everything store?” Harder to start. Amazon allowed flexibility. Can’t infer from choice.
Combine that with the split between the Dodge brother investors, and all the Detroit "Big Three" manufacturers can be traced to Henry Ford. 
It’s a great name for a bookstore. But you’d have to change it once it grew. And you’d retain the book brand longer than amazon did.
The Ford motors name worked for generations because Ford stayed in motors.
There is no way to escape the envy and judgement from your "friends" even if you are just a "little" rich. A friend of mine, who is a former Googler, and keeps a "low key" lifestyle just tries to keep all the "triggers" that people use to recognize wealth out of their life because they value their friendships.
What if you just get there quietly through private investment?
Not a billion, but I’ve built up a decent chunk myself and nobody seems to know or even suspect that about me. Nobody begs me for anything more than spare change, no sycophants, nobody trying to impress me. Marketing for luxury goods doesn’t even reach me.
I could easily see myself reaching a billion in a few decades just through private investment, and there must be thousands of people doing the same. I imagine there are many more who have earned millions publicly, then sold their stake and went to a billion privately.
So how does everyone find out about them?
Yes, it's possible to do it quasi-quietly. This optometrist did exactly that.
"Optometrist Herb Wertheim may be the greatest individual investor the world has never heard of, and he has the Fidelity statements to prove it. Leafing through printouts he has brought to a meeting, you can see hundreds of millions of dollars in stocks like Apple and Microsoft, purchased decades ago during their IPOs. An $800 million-plus position in Heico, a $1.8 billion (revenue) airplane-parts manufacturer, dates to 1992. There are dozens of other holdings, ranging from GE and Google to BP and Bank of America."
"The Microsoft shares he bought during the IPO, which have been paying dividends since 2003, are now worth more than $160 million. His 1.25 million shares of Apple, some purchased during its 1980 IPO and some when the stock was languishing at $10 in the 1990s, are worth $195 million."
First off it's hard being a billionaire and people not knowing. You're going to make a splash somehow. But there's still plenty of billionaires, especially in emerging market countries, that have still to be uncovered.
So your plan to "easily" become a billionaire is to "follow Warren Buffet" and make decades worth of out-performing private investments?
Wait until you learn that markets don't go up forever, and that paper profits on out-of-touch valuations aren't cash. As they say, "everyone's a genius in a bull market".
End goal career-wise is to amass as much wealth as possible by giving smart and capable people a path to building new things that benefit everyone, and then direct that amassed wealth toward the betterment of humanity before I die.
I’m not sure exactly how I’ll do that.
I actually think most philanthropic organizations do more harm than good. I think an effective non-profit would probably look like a boring faceless middleman, affecting positive change by influencing capitalistic markets to serve the underserved. By serve I mean serve, not provide goods to.
I also have my own idea of what it means to better humanity. I think there are better ways to feed and shelter people than feeding and sheltering them.
Whatever I do, it’ll probably be really boring, won’t provide for any photo ops, and there’s a good chance it might even seem pointless and ineffective to most people.
https://angel.co/ for example.
For example in the UK Electra and III are PE funds and Witan in the UK as 10 or 15 % in private investments.
And that's not including UK specific things like VCT's where you would need to have a few k to invest
At $20m you can shape your own world, and your family's. But at $2bn you can change society. You can buy a lot of influence both by directly spending the cash to accomplish goals and by bribing politicians to act on your behalf.
$25m @ 10%/year (assuming your actively investing a have no real estate) can afford you a good baller life around US most expensive cities if you are single or just a couple.
That's been the reality of Denmark's richest family (richest ever since CF Møller, head of Mærsk, died a few years ago). They've had numerous run-ins with people after a slice of their wealth. This lead them to keep as far from the public eye as possible (according to one piece I read) until they were the most talked about Danes of the season last year, as they tragically lost 3 of their 4 children in a bombing that was aimed to wipe them out.
It's hard to imagine a worse scenario to survive as a parent or sibling.
All of your remaining friends and family will believe this, and the case will be so bad that your name will become associated around the world for the sheer heinousness and reprehensibility of the things you supposedly did. However the djinn is willing to bind himself to not doing this, but you have to pay him $1 right now.
If "nothing matters after you are gone", then you wouldn't even be willing to pay $1 to avoid this scenario.
You care about the wellbeing of your friends and family after your death, even though you're not "around to observe it". So there are at least some things that you value in life, that you still value after death.
Many people being value being respected in life. There's nothing particularly different about extending that value to being respected after death. At least not if you already assign valence to other values post-death.
Few people really don't care what happens after they're gone. We almost always want something to linger on, be it descendants, a master works, or just the world.
If it's just the feeling of being remembered for something then there are lots of other things you can do to make people remember you. Nobody remembers the rich merchants from 2000 or 3000 years ago but people still remember the conquerors who changed maps and the artists of those days whose works have been immortalized. Whether you like it or not, someone like Hitler or Tolkien will be more likely to be remembered than someone like Gates and no, Hitler won't still be considered as an irredeemable monster then, just like how people don't get offended by the conquests and massacres by Genghis or Napoleon unless for nationalistic/jingoistic reasons.
That's assuming that rich people don't want _more_ riches, which I would guess to be not true in more cases than not.
20M isn't quality of life wise too different from 2B, but if you got the chance to get 2B, legally and even morally, would you not?
Frankly, All people with a annual income of either $1B, $10M, or $100K likely live in closer and better quality of life than some medieval king. I'm thankful for our times.
I was always tempted to do a reality TV show where you get outside and are famous for a few months then forgotten about, for the reason that you could hopefully experience what fame is like and hopefully be forgotten about if you didn't like it.
I love the Bill Murray quote, and I've been living by this, also from the article: "You want everyone to know your name and no one to know your face.” It really seems to affect people that I don't post selfies and pics of myself anywhere....second to requests to be put in contact with the famous person to whom I'm obviously connected, people really want to know what I look like. As someone who is fairly private as well as nothing special in the looks dept, I'm in no rush. I'm googleable because of the absurd name under which I started, but most people can't or won't put in the effort.
I've definitely concluded that in my particular case, some respectable form of following on IG is necessary (I'm a photographer) and I certainly won't get rich, but damn I was utterly not ready for nor was I expecting 5-screen-long tales of woe and death and disease and pleas for help and mercy along with the same kind of "I know what you did and I'll expose you" shit several times a week.
One to Bill Gates, one to Bill Roper, and another to Chris Metzen.
I didn’t send them expecting a response, and didn’t even really consider that. The act of writing it down and throwing it out there just lifted my mood somehow, like throwing coins in a fountain.
I didn’t choose Bill Gates, Bill Roper and Chris Metzen because I was expecting anything from them. I chose them because they were significant to me, and connecting what I was going through to them somehow provided relief and made things feel surmountable.
Not saying that’s how a perfectly healthy brain thinks, but that’s how teenage me felt at the time.
The people writing you might be the same way?
Next time you get one of these letters, just think of yourself as the fountain they’re throwing the coins into.
Reading stories like this just makes me that more determined to never be well-known. Not that I'm in any particular danger of that, mind you, but still...
Ironically, being relatively faceless has burned me as well. I have a fairly common name, so when someone else with the same name made a shitty comment on some board on Facebook, I had days of being attacked, getting DMd to kill myself, brutal comments on all my posts...it was hours and days of cleanup and banning people.
I went to school with someone who shared a name with an individual who is in a high-profile public legal spat in NY involving another high-profile NY personality. (Not going to say who or you can figure out the name with modest Google-fu.) My classmate got various death threats etc.
I remember reading one of Forbes' annual listings of the world's billionaires in which they tried to include a photo of everyone in the top couple hundred. Astonishingly a few had no photos -- Forbes said that they couldn't find a photo. According to Wikipedia, "Forbes employs a team of more than 50 reporters from a variety of countries to track the activity of the world's wealthiest individuals." So you can absolutely be among the richest people on Earth and not have a publicly available photo.
On the current Forbes list the following have no photos: #23, #36, #61, #122, #153, #167, #191, #198, #215, #233, #244, #272 (two people at this rank), #290 (also two), #343, #355, #365, #379 (two again), #394, #413, #452 (two again), #504 (four people), etc.
That means that 5% of the richest people in the world (24 of the richest 500) are so anonymous that there isn't a photo that even a dedicated team of reporters can find.
Current list: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/
> That means that 5% of the richest people in the world (24 of the richest 500) are so anonymous that there isn't a photo that even a dedicated team of reporters can find.
Either they can't find it or they were asked not to put it up? They have lawyers after all and might prefer to be anonymous.
Thankfully it’s a relatively benign case, but man, it’s real. There’s a kid who, for the past ~10 years, calls him Every. Single. Day. Without fail. For 10 years (that’s 3600+ phone calls). He leaves a voicemail and just talks about his day - what video games he’s playing, etc. I think his mom once called and apologized (although she doesn’t seem to try and stop the behavior, which is also odd, but who knows).
Now imagine the same kind of obsessive behavior, but...less benign. Scary.
A friend of mine is a famous musician and there is a women who somehow pops up on most public events he visits. He's often too nice and hugs her before telling her that she should leave him alone because he's there in private with his friends.
He's always "yes, stalkers bother me a bit, but they aren't that bad"
Well, yes, if it's a small cute woman bothering you now and then it's not that bad, but who has the luck to only get such harmless stalkers?
I knew a guy who dated some crazy woman, because "what's the worst that could happen, she's a small woman, haha". Well, he gravely underestimated her abilities...
Turns out some poor fellow had an issue with mental health, not sure the specifics - but every day like clockwork he'd fill in one of our 20 page forms, submit his identification and apply for something. We had records for this same fellow going back 20 years when he first attempted to get involved with our organisation. The team responsible for actioning those forms are familiar with him, and have manually built in steps to ignore his submissions from reporting and extraction..
Whilst debugging this issue I found notes from each new manager that came and went over the years who encountered this fellow. Each had different opinions on what should be done, thankfully humanity reigned and nobody wanting to seek legal measures won.
When debugging this, I noticed the submissions stopped 4 months prior. I looked him up online, lo-and-behold an obituary.
Fragile people act out in unpredictable ways. After 10 years, this isn’t a kid anymore.
Someone like Bansky or Daft Punk, for example. Everyone knows your artist name and your work, but virtually no one recognizes you on the street and you can check into hotels or use your real name without most people noticing.
Kevin Hart was known as Lil’ Kev the Bastard until one of his early mentor told him to drop that nickname.
This is also just a monumentally bad name. In comedy alone, there are plenty of people with nicknames or not-their-actual name:
- Louis C.K. (Louis Székely)
- Jon Stewart (Jon Leibowitz)
- Larry the Cable Guy (Daniel Lawrence Whitney)
- Mel Brooks (Melvyn Kaminsky)
- Gene Wilder (Jerome Silberman)
- Tim Allen (Timothy Alan Dick)
- Rodney Dangerfield (Jacob Cohen)
- Jamie Foxx (Eric Bishop)
Stewart says the name change has still invited criticism from people who think he made the switch to mask his Jewish background. "People always view it through the prism of ethnic identity," he said. "I hate myself for a lot of reasons, but not because I'm Jewish."
There are simpler explanations at hand for stage names, such as being easier to spell, remember and pronounce. In the case of Louis, "C.K." is approximately the English pronunciation of his last name.
And there tend to be specific motivations. Tim Allen's case is apparent enough. Larry and Rodney wanted stage names to reflect a character. Dangerfield for a guy that never gets a break.
In the case of Jon, he wanted to distance himself from his father.
Mel Brooks: "During his teens, Melvyn Kaminsky officially changed his name to Mel Brooks, influenced by his mother's maiden name Brookman, after being confused with the trumpeter Max Kaminsky."
Jamie Foxx: "When he found that female comedians were often called first to perform, he changed his name to Jamie Foxx, feeling that it was a name ambiguous enough to disallow any biases. He chose his surname as a tribute to the black comedian Redd Foxx."
Up until fairly recently, I had no idea Charlie Sheen's birth name was Ramon Estevez.
Employers are probably biased towards hiring a "John Watson" over a "John Adeyemi" or even a "John Kaminski", all other things being equal. So people change their names. It's pretty common. I doubt show business is any different.
Who says they started with very different assumptions?
Order of preference:
1. White non-jew
2. White jew
He changed his name so he could get by more easily as the top-ranked preference. For her, a non-jew white name would be hard to distinguish from black. She chose the name that more affirmatively promoted her above the lowest ranked spot.
I doubt either of them would disagree with the above ranking order, though.
Black Jew is rare and intriguing in a way that Black or Jew alone is not.
It's rather rich considering Trump's grandfather changed the family name from Drumpf to Trump.
Reminds me of a recent "Hidden Brain" episode - about "Secret Friends" - people of whom others believe to be friends but aren't. The show implied it's fairly easy for the Human Brain to develop a belief those whom are seen or heard often are friends, even if not known personally.
Tim mentions feeling that he is a tribal leader of millions of people. And, he definitely has the attention of those people. People who trust him. And, from an anthropological (and perhaps biological) perspective, I wonder if people stalk him because they really believe him to be their tribal leader Maybe those people really do look at him like he's a friend.
I know our Westernized cultures cherish individuality and independence, but I also wonder if people who decide to enter (and stay within) the limelight have a Human responsibility to be a leader and friend. I know, that's a crazy thought.
However, if a famous person behaves in a way that doesn't seem to be fulfilling that responsibility I think the best we can do is ignore them - trying to enforce our idea of responsibility in this area seems unlikely to be a net positive.
Feels weird to realize this.
And on the other side, this looks utterly bizzarro to the celebrity, because not only don't they know the fan, but it should be obvious to the fan they know absolutely nothing fundamental (or very little) about the celebrity as a human being.
It is a really crazy set of circumstances. The culture of celebrity is completely crazy.
Jobs that demand "fame" of some sorts will always take an emotional toll on personalities that are never comfortable with fame, limelight and podiums.
I have been an introvert my whole life but only recently realised this about myself at the tender age of 40! It was a cold slap for me to accept it. I have always imagined myself gregarious and outgoing and friendly - wanting to speak to strangers, breaking silence in a lift - but these have never really sat comfortably with me afterwards. I'll be chewing and ruminating about the imagined mistimed comments or miscued lines for ages. I have bruised myself emotionally believing that I needed to be an extrovert to be successful when in fact I was only demanding too much of myself. Fame, and outrageous fame will likely kill me too.
I was sold a dream that become financially well off and affluent and women will flock to you - it never happened!
I stayed a non smoker, non drinker because I consider these uncessary risks. I don't see any upside
Aced the classes, did good in sports but still become Mr. Noone.
But lately, I got into body building and started using steroids (I know they are harmful) but I've decided that with all the money - I don't wanna live a long life, just wanna be famous and be desired by opposite sex and if it comes at a price of dying after few years - it meets my risk profile.
So, yes validation, being desired and getting sexual opportunities and so people feel intimidated in my presence is all I want.
Money helps you buy expert supervision, time and quality drugs and outfits and also being able to afford a nice car all helps. But money can't directly help you buy the attraction.
I've been getting lots of attention lately from opposite sex since I've got Greek physique dialed in, so anyone who thinks it doesn't matter and all you need is money - I am just a millionaire, there are many like me. I don't want to become a huge man, I just do minimum required to build a physique that opposite sex finds attractive.
So, if your main reason for using steroids is to attract women - seriously reconsider, as your premises are wrong.
I've done enough research to know women find huge body a turn off.
I trained 6 years in a local gym without ever achieving that fight club look and within 3 months after steroid use, I reached there and surpassed my expectations.
When I started - I had patchy beard and face with no well defined jaw. After steroid use - I've now full beard and square jaw (I chew chewing in gym which I copied from Arnold) but not sure if chewing made my jaw bigger or steroid.
Achieving low body fat without losing your muscle on calorie restricted diet is hard as you end up losing some muscles and some fat - steroid makes it easier to put on muscles and get low body fat.
Ofc, there are side effects but imho they are worth it for me.
My HDL levels went down and LDL went up and arterial plaque might build up and I might die from stroke. My heart might become large and weak. But there is also a chance that I might not have any problem at all - here I am gambling with my life. Skin have got thinner but no difference in hair, not gone bald so far others might not be this lucky but who knows.
Also, there are things I am curious about, if you guys know please answer:
If steroid mimicks testosterone. How is using steroid different than a man having naturally high testosterone level which produces androgenic and anabolic effects?
I started doing Karate and my weight went down quick and I notice my face gets leaner and now I have a defined jaw line. I’m not sure maybe just my genetics but maybe you got your jawline from losing weight.
3 years ago met a girl online, dated her and she is my wife now. When saw my previous photos she was quite shocked at the difference.
Fast forward now, I don’t have a body builder physique or male mode physique but I do have physique that most contact martial artist have, still have some belly fat but my chest, arm, thigh and belly muscles are thicker without using steroids.
I’m 33 now so I already past my growth rate as a man even 5 years ago, but still managed to change drastically.
I was skinny and atheletic type with super low body fat then I didn't have visible square jaw.
After that I started eating lot more and training hard, so I did gain some muscle (early newbie gains) but gained fat also. So now my muscles while I could feel them, got burried under layer of fat.
People in my tribe don't have strong jaw. It's hard to find them even in the village I hail from, you can find strong built bulky men and women but no strong jaws.
You mentioned chewing gum. I saw these videos about mewing but don’t actually believe that would work.
Do the steroids you take include HGH (human growth hormone)?
I take Testosterone Enthante 600mg and primobolone 250mg per week, injections and I cycle them on and off.
HGH doesn't work some guys told me but I never tested it.
Hopefully you are getting regular monitoring and testing because big health problems can sneak up on you over time.
If your body perceives that there is too much testosterone, it stops producing its own testosterone. Your testicles will shrink. It may not take a very high dosage for this to start to happen. That won't be happening in a man with naturally high T who isn't supplementing.
By the way, how are your estrogen levels? Be sure that your doctor is keeping an eye on that. A number of things can cause your body to convert testosterone into estrogen, and you don't want high estrogen (for reasons of appearance as well as behavior). Conversely, there was at least one study some years ago which linked an increased risk of heart disease to men with both high testosterone and low estrogen. After supplementing with testosterone for about seven weeks or so, make sure your ratio of testosterone to estrogen is in check.
Another difference might be in how well you mimic the body's natural daily cycle of testosterone. A male's testosterone level is usually highest around 8am, declining throughout the day and at its lowest just before bedtime. (As it turns out, low levels of testosterone will help you fall asleep faster and sleep more soundly. Never supplement right before bedtime.) Those with low-T using patches, gels, and creams will generally apply them each morning and that does a great job of replicating the natural cycle. Additionally, their testosterone peak and lows are going to be more stable from day-to-day. That's exactly how it should be for a man with naturally high testosterone.
My understanding is that injections will give you a quick initial peak that will steadily decline (and when you're about ready to take your next injection, your testosterone levels may have fallen even further below what you started with). I don't believe that injections will preserve the natural daily cycle of testosterone (high in the morning, low at bedtime). I'm also wondering if the ratio between testosterone and estrogen remains stable throughout the peak and the decline. (My strong assumption: no.) If you're injecting, you'll want to research that and/or check with an expert. If you're already injecting, find an outside resource to confirm what the risks are and what your level of concern should be.
You didn't sound like you're cycling on/off your testosterone. But if you were, that would be another huge difference between yourself and a naturally high-T male.
I'm sure you're already aware that in both cases, high testosterone can have other unwanted effects like back hair, baldness / receding hairline, increased risk (or growth) of prostate cancer, increased anger, etc. You're likely to see at least one or more side-effect, especially when matching the level of a high-T male. Do not rely entirely on your own observations and opinions when monitoring for behavioral changes. Your best choice will be to rely on someone who you spend time with on a regular basis.
You seem to be aware that supplementation for low-T by a primary care physician is going to be substantially different than supplementing for bodybuilding. If you're going to a male health-and-wellness facility which intentionally tries to bring you to a high-T level, the advice which best applies to you is going to be somewhere in the middle of the other two groups. For more answers, you might want to find yourself a good subreddit. You'd be surprised by some of the high-quality answers you're going to be able to get over there. Still, I hope that all of this helps you in some way.
Disclaimer: I and most people here are not medical doctors, but I'm sure you knew that.
I've been lean 165lbs / 5'10" (75kg, 178cm) since 15 till like 21. I've had a sixpack, but nobody knew about it because I don't usually go to the high school and university shirtless. When I got to 187lbs (85kg) I actually started to look like I lift even when dressed. At 200-210lbs (90-95kg) I actually look strong even in sweater. At my height to get the grotesque "bodybuilding big" I'd have to weigh ~120kg (260lbs).
Getting big has had a dramatic positive effect on my attractiveness.
Please don't think that. Pitt was underweight when playing that role, and he's a Hollywood superstar with the best personal trainers and nutritionists and chefs at his beck and call. That is not realistic for the majority of people.
If you're not in your very early 20s, that level of lean ripped-ness is not sustainable 12 months of the year.
That isn't how steroids work. In fact, it's almost the opposite - they optimize the body's natural process of repairing muscles. They also reduce inflammation, which allows you to train more with less recovery time. The idea that taking steroids automatically gives you muscles is false. You still have to work out hard and often.
The "Fight Club" physique is attainable mostly by cutting body fat (and of course with working out.) Pitt's BF was 8%, which is really low compared to the average fit person.
No, that is incorrect: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101
A relevant quote from here (which examines the above study): https://www.strongerbyscience.com/the-science-of-steroids/
The group that took testosterone without exercise gained just as much, if not more, muscle mass than the people taking a placebo and actually working out.
Keep in mind, the dose for this study was 600mg/week of testosterone with nothing else added in. This wasn’t a several-grams-per-week pro bodybuilder steroid stack. This was a fairly low dose that might represent someone sticking their pinky toe into the world of steroids.
So for people who say, “oh, steroids don’t make you bigger and stronger. They just let you work harder,” I’m sad to inform you that such a statement is patently false. They may help with recovery and let you work harder, but I guarantee you that you could stick with the exact training routine you have now, start taking steroids, and gain more size and strength from it – no extra work required. And an untrained person might (would probably) gain more muscle from just taking steroids than they would if they actually worked out.
In any case, whatever your desired physique, even if it is the one without too much muscle mass but with very low fat, steroids will make it easier to get there.
In any case, I was more referring to the common perception that taking steroids will make you jacked without doing anything.
I was saying that most physiques are easier to reach with steroids; and some are only achievable with steroids, ie achievable at all.
(The 'at all' wasn't about effort, but achievability.)
For an untrained person, getting to the Fight Club look takes quite a bit of training, and then cutting. Just cutting without any muscles won't give you that look.
Sure, this is somewhat true, but the difference isn't enough to be worth the side effects, unless you're going for the huge bodybuilder physique. Diet, exercise and time will get you results that 99% of people find impressive.
> and some are only achievable with steroids, ie achievable at all.
True, but these sort of physiques are definitely not the kind that are perceived as desirable. So, if your reason for working out is to attract the opposite sex (which is a bad reason IMO, but that's a different discussion), steroids are absolutely not worth the side effects - especially if you're a millionaire and can afford a personal trainer and meal-planner.
Born to immigrant parents I was always taught to work hard so I ended up with good work ethics and strong willpower - I never skipped training and I was mostly self driven, do not need external encouragement to walk towards my goal.
Yes, now people ask how did you achieve this physique? I never tell them it's steroid because who would give any respect to a guy who just injects some drug? Who will desire him?
I just tell them it's genetics and I spend 2 hours in gym. They look at my well built parents and they believe it. Actually I only spend less than 40 minutes 3 days a week.
>Diet, exercise and time will get you results that 99% of people find impressive.
42 tonnes of illicit anabolic steroids into the uk
If many men aren't using steroid to look good, where is all that steroid in the world going? Why is so much steroid caught by Scandinavia customs every year? Specially when Scandinavia is seen as "good genetic stock" and "healthy population" in all metrics.
If other guys around you set expectations of physique not naturally achievable there is not much you can do.
I find this thread fascinating because it's almost common knowledge that this is true for women in contemporary society. It should come as no surprise that this is also the case for men. The looks arms race continues.
Do you mean physiques like those of Chris Hemsworth, Dwayne Johnson, Henry Cavill, Jason Momoa?
Whether steroids are worth it is a question of trade-offs. I assume that the effects and side-effects vary with dosage. And most of the bad side-effects come at higher doses. So there's probably some low enough dose that's useful.
For attracting your desired sex: make sure you exercise not just the portions of the body that you can see in the mirror (for guys: arms, shoulders mostly), but your whole body, including your legs and butt.
Do also keep in mind that different people have different preferences; and some do like being huge or looking at huge people.
The trick is you do not tell them its a result of steroids.
He has a good face, and is famous, so that makes him look a lot better at a given size. The lighting is done to accentuate how big he is + he has some sort of film over his skin to make himself shinier. And he's also very lean which is not pleasant to maintain for long periods of time for most men. It's comparable to what a smaller person would look like if they were competing at a bodybuilding competition.
Henry Cavill spoke up that his scenes for the Witcher had him drink IIRC only 2 liters of water over the 4 days before shooting.
Rob McElhenney spoke up how "easy" it is to have a Hollywood-tier body: https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a21285961/its-alway...
The word you're looking for is athletic.
But I've had girls tell me that Arnold during his peak in bodybuilding was all natural and that he has superior genetics than everyone else on the planet which helped them achieve that size.
A lot of the learning was due to the need to communicate at work (e.g. giving complex presentations / demonstrations to challenging audiences) and also exposure to life situations that helped me realise that a presentation going wrong really isn't the worst thing that could happen to you.
I’ve tried to express this a few times online and fallen foul of offended introverts - my observation is that some people like to use the label of being an introvert as a shield or justification of (their dissatisfaction with?) their shy or antisocial behavioural traits.
If we replace people with ice cream, I think it works out something like:
* Social anxiety: I'm afraid I will choke on the ice cream.
* Introversion: Ice cream is fine but I don't really enjoy the flavor.
* Anti-social: Ice cream tastes gross.
These all manifest in the same visible way — avoiding ice cream — but the causes are distinct.
From my perspective (as an introvert) I would replace the "Introvert" line with:
* Introversion: I may or may not enjoy ice cream, but eating very much makes me exhausted. (Or "I feel full after eating just a bit".)
From my perspective, your analogy makes the very mistake that the grandparent comment brought up: conflating introversion with not liking social interaction.
Well yes and no. Socially, that's nobody's business indeed. Professionally, that can be a problem or at the very least a weakness. Social relationship are a skill, being bad at it isn't neutral.
Sure you can be wanting to avoid social relationships while being good at it, but I doubt this is any sort of common.
This resonates very strongly with me. I will throw a party, have a great time, and then lay in bed replaying scenes and focusing on every slightly awkward thing I could have done differently.
> I have bruised myself emotionally believing that I needed to be an extrovert to be successful when in fact I was only demanding too much of myself.
For me, I think don't it is the extroversion part of the equation that's wrong, it's the negative obsessing afterwards. Sure, being less social avoids that, but it feels like a crutch and not a cure. The cure I am pursuing is learning to care for myself enough including all of my flaws such that I don't beat myself up afterwards for not having every social interaction go perfectly.
But I don't think that's a particularly useful generalization in most cases. Unless a person has general problems controlling their attention, then the likely culprit for negative thoughts is not attention control in general, but something related to why those thoughts in particular are prevalent.
In other words, if you eat rocks, the most likely explanation is pica, not gluttony.
You can use fame to get money. If you're poor and famous, you can become rich off of your fame. But obviously, if you're poor and not rich, you can't become rich by using the money you don't have.
I mean, sure, since I started blogging and wrote a book, I'm seen a bit more "famous" than the average developer, and this got me a bunch of projects.
But I know a bunch of really famous people who struggle.
They sell their face for ads or go to reality shows. Don't onow if they would do this if they had something better to do to get money.
Reaching a larger audience.
> Reaching a larger audience.
Money alone can do that; all fame does is make it more likely than someone else (or multiple people) substitutes their money so you don't need your own.
But then, money can also buy fame pretty easily, so if fame did allow something directly that money did not directly, money would still be sufficient.
Just throw a ton of money at a thing and it will become popular? You mean like some sort of blanket advertising?
Experiencing the dynamics of social proof was quite the eye opener.
They don't know you, so they're actually after some imaginary you that's perfect for them. Combining desirable known properties of you with a truck load of imaginary properties that they think you have.
You're talking about personality. That's one aspect of who you are. Hell, I'm a bit of a shithead. Anyone who likes me for my personality is wrong. I'm certainly not going to get caught up on needing people to like me for it.
Being even slightly famous is shit. I quite enjoy writing and would take it to the next level, but I'd rather not be any more famous. The culture of narcissism which encourages people to seek fame is ridiculous: it's all the downsides of being surveilled except its eyes the size of your audience instead of a couple of creepy (but probably mostly law abiding) policeman at a terminal.
Surely a fake passport is far too risky for legal reasons? Yet it would solve a lot of their problems when combined with sunglasses and a cap...
I guess what I'm asking is, what would be the "riskiest" country that you would actually entertain the possibility of visiting without serious precautions?
Airport is more difficult, but I assume the information is harder to get at (at least in developed nations). Otherwise, don’t fly commercial airlines? Charter a jet?
What of the modestly famous and not that rich? There ought to be an agency where one could outsource this sort of work for a fraction of the in-house cost. The agency would accumulate experience and might even keep the database of known crazies which gives it economy of scale.
Tim, if you're reading this: please consider a different approach. You're rich and famous, you don't need the extra $$ of a slightly better conversion rate.
> I always want to say to people who want to be rich and famous: ‘try being rich first.’ See if that doesn’t cover most of it. There’s not much downside to being rich, other than paying taxes and having your relatives ask you for money. But when you become famous, you end up with a 24-hour job. . . . The only good thing about fame is that I’ve gotten out of a couple of speeding tickets. I’ve gotten into a restaurant when I didn’t have a suit and tie on. That’s really about it.
And there is also a certain asymmetry, because popularity at least can be bought to some degree but converting pure fame into lasting wealth is hard work if, depending on the circumstances, possible at all.
 My preferred definition is actually the ability to do what you want, when you want, and with whom you want, which is a little broader than simply money.
That's because it used to be true and was for quite a while. Fame means lots of people know who you are, which requires widely amplifying and broadcasting your identity and work. For most of modern human history, technilogical limitations made that broadcasting very expensive. You had to spend some money for each reached human. Think printing pamphlets in Dickens' era.
This meant that, generally, only the rich could afford to become famous. Fame following money and the direction was very rarely reversed aside from occasional cases of infamy like mass murderers.
Broadcast TV made that much cheaper. A single show could reach millions. But production was very expensive so even though the marginal cost per viewer was low, the barrier to entry was still very high. That meant few got in and those were mostly otherwise well connected or part of an established privileged class.
You do start to see an increasing number of "marginally famous" people here who got recognition from being guests or contestants on shows. Think "Jerry Springer" famous. These people tend to be quickly forgotten but have the misfortune of experiencing everything about fame with almost none of the money.
Then the Internet and video streaming happened. Now the barrier of entry is virtually zero — everyone has a smart phone that can shoot video. The marginal cost is zero — ads pay for distribution so the producer fronts nothing. Some money comes in, but its very little. So now there is a larger and larger group of people for whom fame came first and wealth came later or never.
I don't think our culture has caught up to that reality yet. There's still a presumption that anyone famous always has enough money to deal with the downsides but that's sadly not true. I honestly feel bad for people like mid-level YouTubers who have stalkers and death threats but are effectively making minimum wage.
Generally speaking, to me being rich (disclaimer: I'm not) means having that kind of money today and the confidence that, no matter what happens (barring large scale events like wars or asteroids) I will still have it for the rest of my life.
The moment you have money there is people out there that want to take it. It has always been, there is this part on the Bible that says that when you have money, there will be robbers making holes in your walls to take it. That was thousands of years ago.
It is human nature.
For me, being really rich is that you know the way to make wealth(not money) when you need it. This knowledge is more useful than the outcome of it.
There are many rich people who live ordinary lives.
You should also not be investing more than 25% of your assets into a single asset class, so you need to have $6-12MM of assets (range depending on considerations) in the first place.
I think having even $3MM is a reasonably called 'rich', but others may disagree.
Also, if you’re going to posit funds in other asset classes, you should also include the worst-case returns of those funds in the analysis.
sure, but "great" is not easily defined. A new car or a jet? A $500K home or a $15M one to host parties with rich and famous. But people usually like to show off, one way or another.
If you hit it big with a company, and have, say, $10 Million you can live extremely stress free everywhere in the world. And very few would know, at least no one in your town or extended family. But quite a few hint at their wealth, political donations, charity (announce it publicly) etc etc. It's tempting, but once you hit the news is over.
In USA people might sue you for one thing or another, but in banana republic countries you can "taxed" by criminals: Give us $1 Million or your child is...
What additional benefits are you imagining in which having more money would not "resign your children to mere comfort"?
The difference in stress of needing to hold onto a job, versus of being their voluntarily, is huge. And it's not binary. If you have a few years cushion saved up, it's a huge decrease in stress. If you have a mortgage paid off and enough to retire off of, most people in the world would call that 'rich.'
But yeah, living without money-related stress is how I'd define it. That doesn't even have to be a lot of money :)
Because there is an unlimited number of things you can do with it. You're limited only by time and your imagination.
I've never understood the premise I'm responding to, it doesn't make sense, unless a person has zero ambition and zero creativity - and I don't think that's true of anyone.
I could never have enough money. I could never run out of good things to use it on. Give me $100 trillion and a thousand years, please.
You could spend $100 billion and 60 years of your life on just going after Malaria and you might not manage to vanquish it. You could spend tens of millions of dollars and decades on trying to eliminate homelessness in a small city and still not eliminate it (swap out homelessness for any number of problems that need fixing in most any nation, or city). There is what might as well be an infinite number of good uses for money, at every possible scale. I'd run out of time long before I'd run out of positive uses for large amounts of money.
If someone says they don't want $30k because they live comfortably, even though they could immediately donate it to GiveWell, it's like saying they don't value saving other lives because their life is fine.
Substitute in anything else you value. You could sponsor modern art competitions, or film preservation, or buy land for ecological preservation, or help fund policy research on key issues from think tanks...
People reflexively associate money with consumptive hedonism, so it can seem like a negative, but it can also support almost any value you have.
Money can build you and tacky gold lined apartment and buy you a loud sports car, but money can also cure the sick, feed the hungry, and house the homeless.
My point is that you will probably never be rich. The concept of rich people is to be more healthy than most people. So you should probably not have a shitty lifestyle because you want to be one of them but you aren't succedding. If you enjoy trying, good for you.
Ambition and creativity is different than wanting to be rich. A researcher usually does not care about money but would love the frontpage of Nature or a Nobel price. A musician is usually more thinking about its art and the people than the sales. A politician wants power. Lots of examples.
Saving the world and making the society better with a lot of money is good, but thankfully rich people are not the only solution.
How do you know this?
If you mean without having to continue working, that is indeed what many would consider being rich.
Quite a few commenters on this forum live in parts of the world where that is not the case. It's certainly not the case for the majority of the world's population.
And welfare, even where it is available, is usually severely capped both in amount and duration. You may not die of hunger but losing your place to live is entirely realistic.
Most people want to be in a financial situation where they can support more than just themselves.
Also immigrating to a country with good social benefits does not solve the need to take care of elders and relatives , which would not benefit from the social system of the country to which you would immigrate
It's that, or people's "needs" (wants really) just got inflated over time.
Some people enjoy making money regardless how much wealth they already have.
In the end, learn who you are and what's comfortable for you, before listening to anyone else's advice.
But I think it goes the other way when you become super famous.