aurum

Nothing is going to rival Vegas except maybe Miami. But LA is still a good choice. If you’ve already been married, then I’d put an extra emphasis on living a lifestyle you want. Pick a city that matches your larger goals and that encourages success based on your personality. For instance, if you really love the outdoors, you might do really well in a place like the Pacific NW. Ultimately, a lot of your success does not come down to your cold approach skills. It comes down logistics, convenience, motivation and your ability to network in that particular city. If you think LA matches up better in those areas, then I’d go with LA.

Unless that city is West Palm Beach or Fort Lauderdale, no way. It's way too small if you're seriously going to be learning cold approach. You need to be thinking Vegas, Miami, New York, LA, San Diego, Austin, Dallas etc. Vegas and Miami are probably the best choices.

It’s interesting that Leo has been talking about logic in his recent posts. There does appear to be a kind of logical necessity God, and yet explaining how that can be when God is not beholden to logic is tough. Perhaps we need a new term: God Logic

Disgusting and embarrassing. JD Vance is such a smug prick.

In practice, I'd argue their worldview tends to be some combination of both. 1) Leftist tend to have this post-modern, tabula rasa, "everything is conditioning" POV. 2) Leftists tend to see people as inherently good These characterizations are not just a straw-man, although of course they can be used that way. It's basically how you described. For leftists, everyone is good BUT such and such thing (probably society) conditioned you to be bad. This is the source of a lot progressive policies like restorative justice. After all, if that criminal is inherently good but just had some bad conditioning, why not try to rehabilitate them? And you should treat them softly too, because their "badness" isn't real. Try to connect to their heart. Maybe if you show them love first, that will do it. Economic redistribution also makes sense. "Poverty is a policy choice" because people are inherently good and capable, therefore it must just be elite corruption that is keeping poverty alive. There is certainly some truth to that POV. That could be a critique of the conservative worldview. But still somewhat implies that conservatism is only relevant to the past or near future. A more interesting question: what is evergreen about conservatism? What will humanity not outgrow?

High: steelman case for capitalism

Yes, all of that is exactly what is being questioned by the conservative worldview. I know you got many of these insights from your medicine journeys. But it's still deeply interwoven with your liberal, progressive worldview.

Fair enough.

Is that not indicative of a lower perspective?

There's your tabula rasa.

The concept is likely just foreign for people. You don't really see much brain-training in the mainstream. After doing a dive on this, it seems like Dual-n-back games actually could legitimately be effective. I am going to experiment and see what happens.

I don't want to dilute this example threads with discussion. Otherwise people will have to continually scroll to find the next exmaple. But to keep it short, categorizing these perspectives as high or low is not simple. A high perspective could always be higher, and a low perspective could always be lower. So I am trying to add as much context as possible to my examples. Specifically, I called that zen master's perspective low because his explanation of enlightenment was deeply human-based and devoid of God-realization. I also felt it had a strong group-think influence, which automatically correlates to a lower perspective. It could be considered "high" in many other contexts.

The other guy I mentioned, Leo Strauss, also had his work corrupted by the Bush-era neoconservatism movement. In practice I've noticed all these political philosophies get corrupted. Which exacerbates the challenges of sense-making, since you're not even dealing with the pure version of that worldview. This creates all kinds of confusion, overreactions and polarization. Many liberals will never be open to conservatism simply because all they know are corrupted forms of it. Same thing with conservatives not being open to liberalism. Finding a relatively pure source for a political philosophy is a gem.

I just looked up his account. It feels quite shallow in terms of his ambitions, but there may be something to his training. The question is whether or not his claimed results are repeatable.

People have totally lost balance on this issue. You criticize media now, but you have no idea how bad media will get the more Trump gets his hands on it. It will become rampant propaganda and disinformation, more closely resembling North Korean or Russian media. And the more you subscribe to this "fake news" worldview, the more it will give permission for Trump to do exactly that. What we have now is an oasis of free press in comparison. Legacy media needs to be defended right now, not mindlessly trashed.

That's an interesting distinction. So what's the bodybuilder version of brain training?

I think this is a deeper discussion we should have elsewhere on the forum. I don't want to dilute an example thread with us going back and forth on this.

A beat-poem ripping new age spirituality and espousing the benefits of rationalism, empiricism and modernism. His music is filled with these kind of Stage Blue, premodern takedowns.

@Ulax Awesome! What are your biggest takeaways?

High: Steelman case for the modernist perspective and the flaws of relativism.

Relative to what this answer could be, I will call this low. But it could be deemed high in many other contexts. Conflating being at peace with enlightenment, buddhist / zen group think, lack of God-realization

Your perspective is also just an interpretation. But the difference is that my interpretation includes yours, and yours doesn't include mine.

Your understanding should also include that it’s still toxic.

Talladega Spirituality reminded me of this genius song:

1) If people are so over it, then why did the majority vote for Republicans who would love nothing more than to privatize all healthcare? 2) You can have rage at the healthcare system without making Luigi into some kind of hero Expected behavior or not, it’s still toxic. Shooting CEOs is not a solution. But people just want to see blood.