aurum

Rose-colored glasses, my friend. His anti-mainstream bias is obvious. And it will influence his followers, for better or for worse. I'm not critiquing is talk for not being technical. You can have a legitamite seminar that focuses just on mindset and strategy. I'm critiquing his talk because of how it disparages a more traditional path. Too much of this non-traditional, anti-mainstream mindset is not at all good for you. You are not that smart. The majority of your life should be based on a more traditional path, with a small percentage of non-traditional to keep things progressing and not stagnating. Also, it's obvious that his talks mostly cater to a Stage Orange value system. At some point people who follow him need to mature and outgrow this. You do not need a mansion in LA and two million dollars in leather jackets. You are fueling inequality and dragging down society for your own selfish gain.

Yes that could be a good option. People need a foundation. And a strong formal education + career is a great place to start. It’s worse than that. What business are people possibly going to start in their early 20’s (Owen’s audience) when they have no skills, no capital and no knowledge? You’re not going to be launching some innovative startup or product. You don’t have good business ideas because you don’t understand how anything works. You don’t know what is missing in the marketplace or how you would realistically solve that problem even if you did. All that will happen is people will get sucked into some type of Andrew Tate / internet marketing / coaching / alternative health / crypto / daytrading nonsense. There are endless such trash ways you can attempt to earn money. And speaking of Andrew Tate, Owen’s portrayal of him in this video as “just wanting people to think” is egregious. Tate himself is deeply delusional, under massive amounts of group think and potentially dark triad. He cannot help people because he cannot even help himself.

@Butters @VictorB02 It got through some of it. It's not bad advice for people who are interested in a non-traditional path, but I think he disparages a more traditional path too much. For instance, he gave the example of how he could have become a lawyer or professor, but he would have been capped at $120k a year. That is probably the average. But it's not like you can't niche yourself in these professions either. Or pivot to making more money on the business side of things, e.g opening your own law firm. Also, at least as a lawyer or professor, you'd actually have some real skills and credentials. The alternative is what? Become rich with no skills, no credentials? That's probably where most of Owen's audience is starting from. Good luck with that.

That’s all perfectly fine. When I said leave it to the professionals, I was referring to her actual medical care.

@BlueOak just leave it to the professionals for now. Best thing you can personally do is just be there to support her emotionally.

Often we do shun such people. That's a big part of why shame, ridicule and cancel culture exist. Professor Dave's takedown video of Terrence Howard is a good example of this. However, it's not that simple. The reality is that people will always disagree and have different perspectives. How are we to conclusively determine which perspective is the right one? One person says they are right, and someone else says they are right. Now what? Even in a court of law or in some rigorous scientific context, anything can be disagreed with if someone so chooses. "Bad" logic can never be 100% conclusively proven. If you just try to silence people that you disagree with, someone will eventually silence you back when they disagree. And you won't like it. Thus, we allow for some degree of free speech. Some amount of "bad" opinion must be allowed. How much dissenting opinion we extend grace towards usually depends on the severity of the context, e.g free speech during Covid being more highly restricted. But it is a continuous balancing act and people will always disagree on what should and shouldn't be allowed.

We’re now going in circles with this conversation. To reclarify my original position, I am not denying your personal experience with yoga. Yes, mystical experiences are possible to some degree with yoga. But I am thinking from a broader population perspective and of yoga as a whole. From this perspective, I do not believe you have addressed the specific critiques I have outlined. I do not see restating that yoga works for you and your personal experience as a sufficient answer.

Every asana? For which schools? Are we talking traditional Hatha? Vinyasa? Ashtanga? Iyengar? Bikram? Yin? Power? Kundalini? Kriya? Jivamukti? Sivananda? The list goes on, with new schools popping up all the time and the older ones evolving. They are different and present many different asanas, with proponents claiming similar results. So which ones are the perfect ones? I know that anyone can invent a pose and claim anything they want about it. I know that many such claims made by yogis can be exaggerated, misleading, unsupported by scientific research or just completely false altogether. If yoga is a science, then let’s do science. That means you should be able to make predictable, replicable claims and have your feet held to the fire for the accuracy of those claims. Such as what? I don’t know what specific effects or what asanas you are speaking of.

I’d argue Trump’s social media presence is worse than in 2016 and 2020. He has invested a lot in Truth Social, which is fringe and not taken seriously by anyone outside of the MAGA faithful. No one is denying the possibility of a Trump win. Anyone who cares about politics is taking this very seriously. I am critiquing your post because of the certainty you came out of the gate with. Your post is literally entitled “Trump is going to win the election”. Then you preceded to warn us like it is a foregone conclusion. You do not know this.

“Last time” was technically 2020. And he lost. I’m not saying it’s not possible or that it won’t be close or that people shouldn’t take it seriously. But I think you’ve taken it too far if you are so sure trump will win. It’s easy to get a distorted picture of things by paying attention to social media. But the big picture facts remain: Biden is the incumbent, he has done a good (enough) job for most people to not grab their pitchforks, and trump has done nothing but perpetually get arrested and push away moderates since the last time he lost.

It sounds like you’ve had it for a long time then. What is your plan at this point?

That was my interpretation. He mentioned how in his house, family members are allowed punch each other in the gut at anytime to test for core engagement. That includes just walking by each other in the hallway. There might be good stuff in that book, but that part was too much for me. A good example I think of someone taking their own theories too strongly.

Correct. Although I’m not personally a fan of the Supple Leopard. I closed the book as soon as I read that he wants you to keep your core muscles engaged 24/7. But if it works for people, I suppose go for it.

So there’s a lot to unpack here. Going to do my best to break it down without crossing into giving medical advice. First, if you are not having pain and have always had this pelvic tilt, then it’s probably a low priority outcome to work on. I would be more concerned if you had pain and if it was a recent development, e.g noticing postural change after a car accident or slipping and falling. You also have to be careful about assuming that just because you have a minor postural imbalance, that you MUST have stored emotional trauma that needs to be released. This is not necessarily the case. Some people are just born with a certain kind of posture and it means nothing in terms of trauma. Or there may just be some neuromuscular / fascial dysfunction that needs to be addressed. And if you do in fact have trauma, then your best course of action is probably to seek professional help. What helped me with my trauma was years of therapy, difficult conversations with loved ones, introspection and mindfulness. None of this is to say that posture is irrelevant. If you still want to work on your posterior pelvic tilt, you can. But changing chronic posture can be very challenging. Especially on your own without professional help from someone like a chiropractor or physical therapist. So I’d consider if going after that is really the best use of your time considering your goals are healing emotional trauma / energy / libido.

Anterior pelvic tilt indicates a pelvic rotated forward, not backward. OP implied he has posterior pelvic tilt. I would not do this. Just random stretching is likely to accomplish nothing and will be a massive waste of time.

Is it causing you pain? Any symptoms at all? If all you have is a minor posterior pelvic tilt with no symptoms, it's not the end of the world. You may not need to do anything about it at all. Everyone has slight imbalances.

Omg Dave Asprey. He posted a whole video on urine therapy the other day. I’m sure he knows some things, but he’s so ideologically contrarian at times it’s cringe.

Great points here. It would be one thing if Bryan wanted to be a mega-rich guy quietly experimenting with longevity on himself out of the public eye. But he’s convinced that what he is doing is in service of humanity’s ultimate “Don’t Die” mission. So he wants to start a movement, which is always a potentially dangerous thing. Another big critique I would make is people thinking they can just copy Bryan’s protocol. The whole point behind what he is doing is that it’s supposed to be highly individualized and based in robust data. If you think just purchasing his supplements and will give you the same result, this is wrong. And he knows this, but it seems like he encourages people anyway. Also, are we even prepared as a society for such a massive leap in longevity of people? How are we going to have to restructure things when people are suddenly living almost twice as long? All in all maybe it will turn out for the best. Maybe it would encourage people to take their health more seriously and ultimately advance longevity science. But there is going to be a lot of negative consequences from this.

All good points. I think we are mostly in agreement. The only point of contention I might have is that there is very little that is still “natural” about human life. And it’s only going to keep becoming more “unnatural” in the future as we keep evolving. Even those whole foods are GMO’d and grown by industrial agriculture, which people then pickup by car at a grocery store with money. All of this is completely unnatural by most definitions. The reality of natural is that much of it sucked so bad that we needed to create unnatural.

For sure. The issue is not necessarily having power itself. As you pointed out, all living things need some power. It’s more about distribution, imbalances, self-entrenchment and whether or not you excessively seek to remove power from others for your own gain.

Not sure if you’re disagreeing with me or just adding on. Yes everything you wrote here is correct.

I made it about men for the purposes of historical accuracy. We’ve have several thousand years of patriarchy, not matriarchy. This is a dramatic historical asymmetry. Obviously all genders are capable of potentially abusing power or being abused by it. But just saying that doesn’t accurately reflect why feminism became popular. I took a quick look through the research that has been done on this question with GPT and it seems to mostly suggest you are correct. The asymmetries that do exist are related to sexual harassment, intimate partner violence and the ways in which power is accumulated / abused. At the same time, I think it’s an important question to ask ourselves why we’ve had thousands of years of patriarchy and not matriarchy. Why did society shake out that way? Was it just random? Or are there some real differences here in terms of men and women’s desire to hold power? On this question, the research seems to suggest an asymmetry with men desiring more power than women. If this is the case, then it would be wise for men to more strongly examine their relationship with power. The more you want power, the more you need to be aware of its ability to corrupt you. Otherwise you are dangerous.

We have TRIED these kind of traditional arrangements as a society already. The result is that women have little to no power in the relationship and often end up being abused. This is a large reason why we had feminism. Women needed to be more independent in order to avoid these kind of situations. Because unfortunately men could just not be trusted to not abuse their power. In addition, we want to make sure we do not discount the gifts that women can genuniely bring to the workplace and positions of power. We are in a modern society that needs intelligence, empathy and other forms of pro-social behavior, not just brute manliness. If women truly want to be in a more traditional role, that's ultimately their choice. It can work for some people. But with millions of different women in society, many will not fix into that box. And it's a mistake to try and force them.

But what if measurement shows the opposite? That's obvious the argument Bryan's team is making. Are you so sure about your theory that you will go against what the data is showing? Don't forget that evolution is not interested in optimal human health. Evolutionary, you are set up to have good health for a short time in your youth and then that's pretty much it. After that, everything goes to hell. What if we need to do something "unnatural" in order to create optimal human health? Also, we evolutionarily evolved to do many things. Many of which killed us. If we are going off of history / evolution, how do we know which things that humans used to do we should keep and which can we let go of? But where do you draw the line on what is "natural"? Humans are natural. Humans then created sunscreen. Why is that unnatural? And how do you know that natural is better?

That would be a problem. But also, such an argument can always be made. Because no matter how much you measure, you can always theoretically measure more. In this case, they missed measuring these hypothetical genes or compounds affected by sunlight. Therefore this is potentially an argument in favor of more measurement, not less. Although obviously a line must be drawn somewhere. You could theoretically use measurement to answer that question.