Joshe

I haven't explained it, and I don't really think I can. By "all" I meant all the contexts that we have access to, which for me has been sufficient to arrive at my position. I understand it doesn't feel sufficient for most, and I wouldn't be able to convince anyone of my read because the only way is to arrive at it yourself. Maybe the best I can do is ask: what kind of person would wear an overt narcissistic mask consistently for over a decade as a business strategy? Also, it most certainly does exist in his videos, just more sparse and often subtle. He even has a weird face that he makes right after he makes a point about his highness.

The total consistency across all contexts for over ten years is exactly what distinguishes architecture from performance.

If you need a clinical authorization to call a consistent decade long pattern of self-elevation, belittling, hierarchy assertion, and the lot what it is, you got some kinda glitch in your brain bucket. The fact that you want to make sure you put a precise verbal language symbol borrowed from someone else on what appears in reality is its own problem. Who gives a shit about a clinical diagnosis? You don't need a clinical definition to observe and track reality. Just like the whole discussion about "does AO fit the definition of a cult?" Why is that so important? I don't get the relentless desire to attach a verbal symbol to a structure in reality. The structures exist without words folks. Seeing them is more important than the labels you attach to them. Leo belittles people and tells them they're fools, maintains a permanent hierarchy, claims to be the most sophisticated thinker alive, warns people not to outgrow him. These are persistent, observable facts that exist regardless what label you attach. Call it narcissism, call it ego structure, call it persistent hierarchical self-elevation syndrome, call it Bob. lol. The reality doesn't change. Just my 2

Sorry, you're right. "demand" wasn't the right word. I took it as you were implying my position requires clinical backing to hold it as confidently as I do. I don't agree with that. You're entitled to that position and I didn't take personal issue with it, but it was cumulative in my overall interpretation of our engagement. I literally showed up with a settled conclusion I'm confident in. We were discussing it. And in that discussion with me, you drop the opinion that for those with settled conclusions, you think their engagement is bad-faith or point-scoring. Is that not correct? Maybe you didn't intend to direct it at me, but surely you can own that it's the most logical interpretation? Miscommunication/interpretation on both our parts. When you said: That's YOUR purpose, not mine. I read your statement as "awareness is the first step" for LEO. But I can never tell with you because you don't make things explicit. That's why I said: Because my purpose had nothing to do with illuminating patterns such that awareness of them could lead to some sort of solution for Leo. I no longer care about that. My intent was what I said it was. But anyway, my bad. Miscommunication on both our parts.

At the risk of winding up where Zurew warned about, the difference is arrogance doesn't need to reference anyone else. Arrogance can exist without a social hierarchy and without an audience, narcissism can't. For a narcissist, the the hierarchy IS the elevation mechanism. No hierarchy, no elevation. An arrogant person isn't really all that toxic since their elevation doesn't necessarily depend on the lowering of someone else. When your strategy for elevation requires there be someone below you to serve as proof that you're amazing, that has a cost and a toxic effect on everyone around you. If all Leo did was say he was the best thinker or the best X, that would be fine IMO, even if childish and untrue. But he doesn't say "I'm a very, very, very skilled thinker". He says "I'm a better thinker than you and everyone else". He warns his followers to not think they can outgrow him. That's the hierarchy asserting itself, and it's ALL THE TIME. The structure is out in the open. When this exists in a teacher with a community, it creates cult dynamics. Because if the teacher is regularly elevating themselves at the expense of their students, the students only have a few paths of relation to the teacher. 1) Ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist or pretend you're just here for the good stuff and not bothered by the base ego behavior. 2) bow down, defer, surrender autonomy, become a sycophant, or whatever other strategy that lets you exist harmoniously with teacher and community. 3) Point to the behavior in hopes something will change. It's more complicated than this but this is my current working model, compressed. Here's the rule: When arrogance consistently presents with a hierarchy, you're looking at narcissism. When the pattern is stable for a decade, you're looking at architecture, which is extremely difficult to change, if not impossible. I feel like if the folks in camp 3 saw this clearly, they'd come to terms with the reality faster and either accept it or move on. Calling/hoping for a change of architecture isn't going to happen, even if you successfully muzzle it. People saying things like "he's gotten better" makes me laugh. No, he's only dialed the rhetoric down, he still thinks everyone is fools and beneath him.

I thought so too, until you twice-implied I was acting in bad faith. Your first response pointed to what you thought seemed like contradictions in my position. That's fine. Your second response demanded clinical credentials for my observation to be valid. Also fine, even if absurd. Your third response accused me of bad faith drama and point-scoring. Not fine. Your 4th post implied my intent wasn't what it was. Also not fine. It started to seem like you weren't engaging in good-faith. So yeah, when someone's engagement feels like it's oriented around making you wrong rather than understanding what you're saying, it changes how you respond to them.

lol, come on bruh. Don't do dis. I'm not proposing that Leo is a narcissist. I'm telling you flat out that that is the case and is largely the source of the cult accusations. The cult accusations are downstream of his narcissism. But I'm not here to argue with you or anyone else on this. If you go back and read my first post with fresh eyes, see if you can discern my intent since I've now spelled it out for you. It was mostly addressed to Zurew because I can relate to his animosity. And I thought that the main reason he puts this much energy and effort into shining a light on these things is because he's hopeful for this place and would like to see it be better. I wanted to share my perspective and let him and others know that to hold out hope doesn't make sense because it's structural and nothing Leo can likely fix. He'll be the same narcissist he's always been 5 years from now. Will the same people still be here going on about this issue? Maybe. So, I thought I'd offer what I think is a useful and accurate perspective. I'm not like you or whoever you're modeling that cares about scoring points or stirring shit up. See if you can see how the entire point of my initial message communicates my stated intent. Anyway, I've shared my thoughts, take it easy. Good night hot mama

Not everything is about Leo and not everyone is an egotist. My intention was to let the few who can see understand that nothing Leo does will be good enough for them to set aside their animosity because they can't unsee what they've seen, and that holding out hope for an extreme narcissist to rehabilitate is naive, thus my explanation. "Inference and assumptions" as you like to say. Carry on.

Good question, but It's not an easy one to answer because the architecture itself determines how much modification is possible and on which axis. I'll spare us both from me trying to unpack that. It's only composed of accumulated behavior up to a certain point. You seem to be saying the mind is almost fully malleable. What would it take for you to value monster truck racing or competitive sports? Truly value it, not just come to appreciate it, but actually truly care about it? Would your architecture allow for that, or no? If not, how come? Not sure about you, but there's no behavior mod that could make me care about it. Once the architecture is in place, it's in place. Also, there's changing things like state, experience, emotions, relation, etc, but that's different from architecture. The architecture stays largely unchanged regardless of your behavior or experience, i.e, you can't turn an extrovert into an introvert without breaking the mould - they'd become depressed. Same thing happens to narcissists when they experience "narcissistic collapse" when their supply dries up. Narcissism is architecture. It's a deep structure, not a bad behavior that can be changed. It would take an insane amount of effort and intention to uproot it, and even then, the best they could hope for is marginal gains. Think about an AA veteran who is 876 days sober and they carry their chip with them and they orient their entire lives around avoiding a specific behavior. How come they can't stop the maintenance? Because if they do, even after years of behavior modification, they will relapse. The vigilance and maintenance is indefinitely necessary because behavior isn't enough.

If the behavior doesn't fight against load-bearing structure, it's easy. For example, if you ask me to stop interrupting people, I can work on that because it means nothing to my sense of self. If you ask me to say please and thank you more, I can work on that too. But if you ask me to stop analyzing everything I encounter, I can try to do that, but I'd be fighting a very deep load-bearing structure and it would eventually fail. No amount of CBT or behavioral modification will work. It's how I get rewarded. Also, I could attempt to change it, but why would I? It's me! No, I'm saying behavior change is surface level and can't address the root. You do not simply uproot narcissism with behavior habits, and if you try to fight your narcissistic tendency, you will be trying to fight a very deep structure that has been operational and load-bearing since you were an adolescent. They are getting something from the structure, it exists for a reason, it serves a purpose, it's their main source of reward. That's why narcissists are so easy to spot, because they can't help but seek that reward of being superior. Take that away from them, and you take almost everything. Why would they give it up? Of course behavior feeds back into structure, but it only works when the system isn't actively fighting the change. Think of someone with anxiety. They WANT the change, so they can go to therapy and alter those deep structures. The structures that are causing anxiety aren't really load-bearing to the self. They want it gone. A narcissist wants to keep the structure. How can you solve a problem you don't even consider a problem?

By load-bearing structure, I mean a psychological structure that exists for a reason. We all have load-bearing structures. Nothing inherently pathological about them. A narcissistic structure is pathological/unhealthy/toxic. (I know you like precision so I'm trying to cover the field 😝)

When the behavior is trying to change something load-bearing in our psychology, not really. It works when it's something simple like just being nicer in situation X or something like that. Like, if you wanted to not be as reactive in your responses, it's easy to adjust that with practice. But when you're asking someone to change behavior that manifests from deep psychological structures, I don't think you stand much of a chance.

Here for the party. @zurew Would an apology and behavior change really do it for you? If Leo never uttered a single word of his specialness and never put anyone else down, and conversed in good faith from this day forward, do you think that's an acceptable termination of this issue? It would be like if Trump's advisers told him to stop saying he was the best at everything and to stop telling people they're stupid. If Trump took their advice and stopped, we'd still know who he was at his core even if he doesn't say it out loud. The issue is, once patterns like these are seen, they stain the character in ways you can't unsee. And if you're perceptive, you intuit extreme narcissism and high moral character cannot coexist. When an extreme narcissist projects that they care deeply about other people's growth and development, it's incongruent with who they are, even if they themselves believe it's true. In other words, even if Leo adjusts his behavior perfectly, it won't be an acceptable closure for anyone who has seen, because what really bothers the people who can see is not the behavior itself, but what the behavior confirms about the entire structure. Finding it acceptable so long as it's not let out of the cage is some weird shit IMO. "I am above everyone" is as base as ego gets. When you realize Leo is more ego-driven than most people in his community, what do you do with that? Can you just accept it? I don't think you can just be like "as long as he keeps it quiet, we're good", lol. To veil the structure is probably more toxic than it being out in the open, which is why I think asking for behavior change is the wrong idea. --- Also, this isn't something Leo can likely solve since behavior is a symptom of underlying psychology. It's not like Leo has just been rude or something and needs to be nicer. To understand the scope of what it would take to uproot extreme narcissism, we have to understand what it's providing. Narcissism is more rewarding than it is protective. For a narcissist, the reward they get from being special is serving as their primary reason for living. That's WHY they do it. Being special and being above others IS the point and what makes existence feel worthwhile. We can't simply ask a narcissist drop this bullshit, lol. There's likely never going to be any acceptable closure for those who have seen and fathomed the implications. It just is what it is.

This started from a conversation in the blog mega-thread where Leo claimed non-conformity is one in a million and requires decades of epistemic mastery. I challenged that, and Leo did his usual thing of telling me I'm just not capable of understanding. There was a time when I would have taken Leo at his word. Because I thought he was integrous. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt far longer than most would have. Going on 12 years now, with the last 2 years eroding. I've been biting my tongue for a while, with a large part of me waiting to be proven wrong. Waiting for a legit redeeming answer as to why the guy who I put so much stock in years ago wasn't as fucked up as he now seems to be. But I can no longer ignore what continues to persist. Since no answer has materialized and my observations have basically been confirmed, I'm hesitant to even provide feedback because I doubt he'd have the integrity to give a fuck, and he'd just use it to thwart people like me in the future. But as a caring human who would like to believe something other than what reality keeps confirming, I'll give him that benefit of the doubt. Even though I know it's a mistake: Some things you can't hide. Sure, you can hide from 99%. But you can't hide from the people who can see. And even for the ones with high discernment in this community, most of them still apparently cannot see your games. Either they can't see or they haven't found the courage to call you out. They can detect your games here and there, but they can't bring themselves to see your full game. Which is forgivable because even you don't know exactly the full game you're playing. Nonetheless, you unconsciously and consciously exploit their caring and forgiving nature to elevate yourself at their expense (I sat on this for a long ass time. There is no longer any doubt. I know it for a fact, which is why I'm finally speaking out). All your talk of integrity turns to ash when the discerning one confirms with certainty that what you call integrity is 1:1 what the standard ego adores. This pattern emerges time after time, year after year, in higher and higher resolution, without fucking fail, until it is confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. For people who don't ignore reality, nothing Leo says in the interim can nullify this pattern, because there is no way to fake integrity. Leo, you built a community where integrity is supposed to be the highest standard. And you think your transparent ego games will go unnoticed? When I trace back why you think that would work, every possible branch should embarrass you. I don't know if it's more insulting to you or the the community. Wtf man? How can you understand the ego when you haven't spent years analyzing it? You have been so wrapped up in your own upward trajectory that you never stopped to analyze your own fucking ego. You spent years analyzing everyone's ego but your own. Your understanding of your own cognition is that of a 25 year old Christian conformist. How about you give us a 4 hour video on how your own ego operates? Why are you so afraid to go there? Stop thinking about developmental models. Stop relying on Wilber, Ralson, or whoever, and go inward on your own, and look at what's there! That's the only way to see what the fuck everyone has been trying to tell you for the past decade. --- End of feedback Sorry man, this shit has to be said by somebody. To say the least, I'm disappointed. In all fairness, we're all just human. We all need correction. And we can all redeem ourselves. But you have to first see how you have fucked up, and how you continually fuck up. And you Leo, have fucked up massively by letting your ego run amuck. It will not be easy for you to redeem yourself. I can almost guarantee you that if you don't fix this ego problem, and soon, you will be unheard of in the next 10 years. All your lackeys (they know who they are (and will feel compelled to attack me)) will disappear and you'll be speaking to 10 random 20 year olds telling them how foolish they are. And there will be a few old regulars watching anonymously thinking, "jesus, wtf happened?". Burn it down.

😂 Come on man! Don't do this. lol. You can't keep redefining what it means to be a conformist. First it was one in a million. Then only you and Ralston. Then Autonomous mind. Now even Autonomous isn't enough. You don't have to elevate non-conformity to be some unreachable thing that only 5 humans can reach. Come up with another word if necessary, but don't warp perception to suit yourself. Just admit it man. You are cool and unique, but you're not 1 in a million. And you don't have to be for people to love you. You're cool as hell without the inflation. And even if you are 1 in a million, don't let it go to your head such that you start warping reality for everyone else. Don't be a spiritual Trump. 😂

I'm not proposing a model, lol. I'm living proof of it. I've spent decades trying to understand this stuff about myself, with ~70% of that effort being independent observation, not borrowed frameworks. But you're right to not just accept it. I wouldn't either.

I'm talking about plain non-conformity, not Autonomous mind. If by non-conformity you meant Autonomous mind, I don't have any input on that. Your post said non-conformity requires decades of epistemic mastery and is one in a million. Which is what I'm challenging.

There is a small percentage of people for whom this is largely not true. See above or below. It doesn't take conscious effort like that. For some, there is little to no signal to conform in the first place. Rather than spending energy on not conforming, this type more often has to spend energy figuring out how to conform. Non-conformity comes natural in both mind and external social reality. I saw conformity everywhere and largely understood it before I even had a word for it. Why would I have such a heightened sensitivity to it? That's what I've been trying to explain. If you're actually interested, try to imagine being born with this orientation: Some people are actually born this way. Rare, yes, but it's more like 1 out of 100 or 200, not 1 in a million. These people don't need a deliberate epistemic project to reach non-conformity. All they need is increased self-awareness to honor their architecture, which is almost inevitable given their makeup.

I'm not discounting the work you've put in. I'm saying your non-conformity would have emerged regardless, without epistemic mastery.

Right. But some people are naturally put off by it and compelled to uproot it. If your system rejects conformity from the outset, mostly all you need is self-awareness to honor it. That, and a lifestyle mostly detached from social environments. No big epistemic project necessary for this orientation.

You're ignoring the fact that your system has been flagging conformity as a violation since childhood, before you ever did any serious epistemic work. I was sifting through your blog and found the perfect example: Why did this experience register as "wrong"? I myself have been experiencing this same internal friction for most of my life. In high-school, I noticed how conformist everyone was and it came to disgust me. By the time I hit 20, I realized it wasn't just the kids, it was the whole of society. And I realized all of this without any intentional epistemic work. How did I notice it without even trying, and why was my response to it disgust and disdain? The answer is, a very specific cognitive architecture produces exactly this. And that architecture can be understood. The best model I've found so far to explain it is called OPS (Objective Personality), which is built on top of Jung's cognitive functions.

Same here. But that's just a self-awareness milestone. You may have freed yourself of conformity just a few years ago, but I'm betting you've been noticing it within yourself for most of your life. And each time you noticed it, you felt compelled to address it. Right? That's what I mean by "structural non-conformist". Someone who is structurally conformist wouldn't even want to know they were operating on conformity. Much less address it should they be made aware of it. They'd sweep it under the rug because it doesn't register to them as a violation. But for the structural non-conformist, it makes perfect sense why you'd feel compelled to address it: Because your system is built to generate its own models and evaluate by its own standards, so when it discovers it's running on something it can't trust because it didn't verify, that's a violation of one of its top values: self-verified coherence. The main point is that these types naturally reject conformity. Not out of some rebellion or epistemic standard, but as a structural cognitive bias toward self-verified coherence. Conformists don't feel the need to reject it because their cognitive bias is toward social coherence. Neither chooses their bias and neither can escape it. Regarding the autonomous stage, people such as yourself are operating on hardware that makes reaching it almost inevitable. It emerges from self-awareness after decades of running a specific architecture.

@Leo Gura Your cognition is structurally non-conformist. You didn't arrive at it through decades of rigorous epistemics. Nature and nurture gave you 3 traits that all but guaranteed non-conformity. independent perception (builds own models of reality rather than importing from consensus) independent judgment (evaluates by internal standards rather than tribal expectations) behavioral energy directed inward (processes internally rather than engaging in the social field) Combine all 3 and you get someone who can't be a conformist without significant discomfort. I'd say this is roughly 1-2% of the population - far from 1 in a million. Roughly 43% of the population operates on dependent perception AND dependent judgement. Which means about half the population imports their model of reality from consensus and they calibrate their decisions to the tribe. And everyone else is missing one or the other or lack the inward energy orientation to shield them from the social field. So, roughly 95% of the population is missing at least one of the ingredients you need to be a true non-conformist. None of this can be fixed through epistemic labor because if your perception is oriented toward concrete reality, building independent models of reality isn't something you can just decide to prioritize. And if your judgment naturally defers to the tribe, you can't just say fuck the tribe's opinion. The thing that makes someone conformist isn't how they think - it's what their mind prioritizes. Which they have little to no say over. So, you're telling structural non-conformists who didn't undergo your epistemic project that they're actually conformists, and you're telling structural conformists that they can be like you if they try hard enough. lol. Both are wrong.

My favorite feature. If you've always been drawn to whiteboards and infinite canvases, you likely have non-linear cognition. And your preference for these things is your mind recognizing a compatible workspace for your thinking. Infinite canvases let you build and hold entire structures at once, which allows you to zoom into individual parts for analysis, and then zoom back out to see how it coheres with the whole.

What they want the silence to become biases their music choice.