aurum

@Burntouted Step 1: Stop consuming manosphere content that is filling your head with this garbage Step 2: Realize that healthy relationships are indeed possible and that there are great women out there Step 3: Make a commitment to growing yourself as a man and to take responsibility for your end of said relationships Step 4: Go meet women in real life Step 5: Forget that you ever even worried about this kind of stuff

Interesting. I think a potential hole in your theory is that you are suggesting a physiological unifying factor, when in fact there may not be one. Especially when it comes to something complex and holistic like chronic inflammation. But nonetheless I am intrigued and will do some more digging on this. Also very interesting. People in the biohacking / carnivore / keto / animal-based community talk about their issues with seed oils / linoleic acid all the time, but almost all those same people are proponents of ghee. I think you've convinced me to at least test switching out ghee for some grass-fed butter and to see what happens with my labs. It's a pretty simple swap to make.

Of course. What I said implies a basic foundation of self-respect as well. If someone reading this feels like they don't have that that basic foundation, then you should make it a top priority to steadily move in that direction. At the same time, be aware that "I don't want to come across as too needy" can also turn into its own excuse / trap. You end up depriving yourself of expressing love, and by extension, receiving it. No healthy relationships can be formed this way. At some point you have to be willing to transcend / include that. Yes that's true. I would argue that I'm not suggesting a "fake it till you make it" approach. I'm talking about genuinely making an effort to shift your focus based on conscious intention. Yes, this will feel awkward and maybe "inauthentic" for a while. That's growth.

It's a good first step. One of the things misogynistic thinking does is change your selective focus so that you only see the negatives about women. So something like this where you are deliberately attempting to find the positive can help break that habit of negative selective focus. You'll also start to see that people don't treat you like a simp simply because you *gasp* said positive things about women. Actually you will likely find a lot of the opposite. Women will treat you with more respect and appreciation because fundamentally you respect and appreciate women. They will reflect back the energy you put out, just like a mirror.

@Jason Actualization Appreciate the thorough response on this. It's certainly got me thinking about my diet, especially since I do consume ghee. I think you are mostly correct, but I'm going to push back on you on a couple of points: 1) The 2017 Lipids study you provided does not draw a causative link from oxysterols to atherosclerosis, only a correlation. You acknowledge this when it comes for LDL and ApoB, but not oxysterols 2) If you are that concerned about oxysterols, what about meat? I'm assuming you are not eating raw. Therefore you must accept that some level of oxysterols are non-problematic, or that they are simply a worthwhile tradeoff due to the other benefits of meat. Looking forward to your response if you have one you'd like to share.

A fantastic example of Green (David Pakman) doing a takedown of Blue religiosity. Key Memes: Secularism, Moral / Ethical Relativism, Scientific Progress, Rationality You could argue this is Tier 2 thinking from Joe Rogan, but I'm not so sure. For me, it lacks the true Spiral Wizardly of a solidly Tier 2 take. But he does correctly identify some of the issues with Green / Orange rationalism. Regardless, Pakman's take is essentially textbook Rational Green / Orange. He describes how secularism can work, religion is quaint and people can generate their own moral compass in life.

Do you have a source? I’m not seen any human studies claiming that oxysterols are directly atherogenic, only correlated.

I see your point. He is straw-manning both sides and making them seem ridiculous, then proposing what he sees as a more reasonable, middle of the road perspective. This could lead to false equivalencies between both sides, rather than seeing how one could be more correct than the other. That’s a valid insight. At the same time, to always take the side of progressives or conservatives is also incorrect. We need to be able to see how both sides may be getting it wrong, while simultaneously holding the bigger picture of how modern progressives tend to be more evolved than conservatives. This is not some kind of false centrism, this is deeply necessary for intelligent Tier 2 politics. I am also not speaking about just moral relativism, although of course that is part of it. I am speaking about the operating system of the Green psyche and its tendency to relativize everything. Spiral Dynamics speaks on emotional maturity in the sense that it models ego development, which includes emotional maturity to a degree. People lower down the Spiral often act less emotionally mature than those higher up the Spiral, although not always. Belief systems often reflect someone’s emotional maturity. Also, Lex being able to talk to all sides of the political spectrum does not necessitate solidly Yellow development. One of the hallmarks of Green is Pluralism and seeking new perspectives. Lex may have some Yellow, but I’m not sure he is solidly there. I could be wrong. I have not done a thorough investigation of his work so I don’t have a strong opinion on this. I am just going off the few videos I have seen of him.

@martins name You may be conflating excessive relativism that often happens at SD Green with Yellow meta, multi-perspectivalism. Remember, it’s really post-modern deconstruction that seeks to argue that there is no objective truth and that therefore nothing can be said to be better or worse than anything else. Your grievances therefore really seem to be with Green postmodernism more than anything else. Part of what breaks you out of excessive relativism and brings you into Tier 2 is understanding deeply the trap you are talking about, while also not demonizing relativism. Also, remember that very few people are genuinely solid in Tier 2. If you think you are listening to someone who is solidly Tier 2, the likelyhood is they are not. Personally, I see Lex Friedman as more Green than Yellow.

@Carl-Richard You’re definitely on the right track. Unless your actual goal is to be a competitive marathon runner, forget standard cardio. Waste of time. I prefer to get my cardio via activities like variable resistance training, walking, sauna or cold exposure. If someone insists on during more traditional cardio like biking / swimming / running, than the tier list goes like this: 1) REHIT 2) HIIT 3) Zone 2 The challenge with REHIT is that it tends to be difficult to actually correctly implement. Thus HIIT becomes the pragmatic winner. But I still prefer REHIT if I can get it.

Sounds like Photoreading. Did you have success with this method?

It’s not contradictory at all. Life is what God imagines it to be. God (you) imagines a brain, chelators, heavy metals, symptoms, atoms, Leo’s advice, a forum, etc. And so it is.

Except that's not what the long term research says about veganism. Nor are you likely to get "almost all" your nutrients. So your binary choice is false.

Correct. It is vegan strictly in the sense that it is not an animal-product. If you have another definition of vegan, okay. But this is the most commonly used definition. We don’t know exactly because it hasn’t been invented yet. But we can imagine that with sufficient research, humans will eventually synthesize something in a laboratory that is far superior for human health than anything we are eating now, including meat. That’s only because no one has GMO’d something well enough to be considered “food”. Yet. It should be obvious that what we consider “food” is completely relative and not objective at all. When the day comes that a company lab grows something that is superior for your health than traditional food, we will start to consider it “food”. Or we just will discard the idea of food altogether.

Yes, my decision to go vegan. My point wasn’t that theoretically you couldn’t be optimally healthy and vegan. It’s possible that in the far distant future we will GMO perfect lab food and all be vegan. But the reality for 99% people right now is that they will fail to do so. Even if they happen to be the minority that is extremely diligent. Optimal health is hard enough to achieve even when you do everything right, let alone when you handicap yourself with an inherently nutrient deficient diet like veganism.

@ZenAlex I’m an ex-vegan. It was a trash diet healthwise and did not work for me at all. Some people may be able to make it work with supplements if they’re very good about it, but I still wouldn’t recommend it. Going back to meat has been glorious.

@MarkKol stop prioritizing RDAs and just get bloodwork done. Bloodwork with a competent functional medicine practitioner will answer the majority of questions you have about what to eat. RDAs are just basic guidelines at best. Key indicators to check as far as saturated fat: LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and ApoB. Get a lipro(a) test too, although that one is more just genetic luck.

Up to you really. You could go to a functional / integrative medicine practitioner or a naturopath and they would most likely do it. A standard General Practitioner might as well. You could probably get that covered under health insurance. You could also go a more non-traditional route like using InsideTracker or a LifeForce physician. Not going to be covered by insurance though. Do your research, figure out the pros and cons and then make a choice.

@Insightful27 Don’t really know. I feel that multivitamins are mostly a waste of money anyway, they overload the body with too many vitamins it can’t absorb. Better strategy would be to get blood work and supplement individually for what you need, or just eat a better diet.

@Insightful27 Best best is to hunt for the highest quality sources you can find and then test your own levels. If some ambitious entrepreneur on this forum wants to invent an at home testing kit for heavy metals in your supplements, that be rad.

In the long-term, sure. More community living is probably a good thing so people are less lonely. But that transition is going to take decades to accomplish, if at all. In the mean time, people still need to date.

She makes some good points but it’s a bit lacking as far as practical solutions. The reality is that society is not structured around tribal living and will probably not be in our lifetime. It’s not clear how that would even work given the complexity of the modern world. Unless you’re going to be a Green hippie living in an intentional community, you’re going to have to continue living in a non-tribal society. Which means you need modern, non-tribal solutions for your dating / social needs. The best approach is to figure out what your needs are and delegate them to all different kinds of people in your life. Don’t just rely on your partner for everything. Teal has another video on resourcing people that would be relevant here.

You should be so lucky to have a career successful enough in politics that you even become governor or mayor. You are worrying about something that you are not even remotely close to achieving. This is an irrational fear. Then why can’t you apply that same logic to this scenario? And if you really can’t see yourself being able to handle such a situation, maybe you shouldn’t be governor or a mayor. Leave it to someone else who has the guts for it. Maybe you can clean their office instead and let that be your career in politics, sounds promising. Then you will have made an honest mistake. No one is going to fault you for advocating for victims of mass shootings. And if you’re really still scared, then resolve to continually sharpen your judgment overtime. Work and work and work on discerning truth. That is the best safeguard against what you are describing. Not running away.

I think you are psyching yourself out here. The kind of situations you are describing are pretty rare. In most cases, the most that will be asked of you will be to vote on a criminal justice bill. In which case you will weigh the pros and cons and come to the best decision you can, just like everyone else. Do you really think you can’t handle doing that? Do you really not trust your future judgment? Do you really think it’s worth throwing away a fruitful career you are passionate about and can make a difference in because of some potential vague “what if” scenario? What are you really afraid of here?

@NightHawkBuzz why would this be required of you to work in politics? Politicians are not responsible for dealing with crime and punishment.