aurum

This is still a grossly biased interpretation. Islam has close to 2 billion followers, obviously they don't see it that way. You can make any major religion look evil or like an angel if you narrow your perspective enough.

@Quest yeah it's tough. I've been in a similar situation before. I made the choice to end things, and honestly I'm still not sure that was the best decision. It did give me freedom but at the cost of a great relationship. I think if you really want kids, I would go for it. You don't need fancy retreats and seminars for personal development. And raising kids can definitely be its own kind of personal growth. But you're going to have to decide what's most important to you, since something is going to get sacrificed here. You're definitely not going to get it all.

This is old news ya'll. Huberman is definitely more of a shady character than I first realized. He comes off very polished.

This is an extremely biased perspective. You could easily argue that every major religion has those three elements.

Tai Lopez is obvious cringe. But also, that takedown by penguinz0 was poorly done. He critiqued him a 100 different ways without saying almost anything of real substance. It was mostly just ridicule.

Only mild?

Perhaps not integral, but certainly higher than where we are now. Leaders and the people they lead are one system. You cannot just bring in exceptionally conscious leaders and expect that to work. You're going to be frustrated a lot if you have progressive expectations of the world. I'd recommend letting it go. Greed, ego, falsehood, survival and unconsciousness are going to rule humanity for the foreseeable future.

They are all impossible with where humanity is at. This is what I mean by Game B fantasies. You say Game B is not a utopian project and is about incremental change, but you just listed a bunch of ideas that cannot be implemented. Work towards them if you want. I do think bold visioning is important. But I predict you will not live to see the day where they are realized. As long as you understand that, I think we are on the same page.

Actually it does help. Chasing Game B fantasies has a cost in terms of time, resources, mental energy and ego backlash / cultural blowback. You could waste your entire life on this stuff. Acknowledging that Game B can't work keeps you grounded in reality and on actual solutions.

I enjoyed chess as a kid. I had some natural talent and played in tournaments. But I never did any sort of formal study, which makes me wonder how good I would have been if I had. You guys are inspiring me, maybe I'll pick it back up.

It's the opposite. Government has proof of concept. What doesn't have proof of concept is anarchism. Anarchism has never been shown to work.

Any attempt to currently implement Game B will turn into Game A.

Leo is one of the few who can do a proper critique. There's not much I would add beyond what he has already said. Being "out of touch with survival needs" is certainly the core of it. But just understanding that is not enough. You have to properly assess all the ways in which that does or doesn't play out in real world politics. Otherwise your critique will still be off and / or unbalanced.

Some early morning contemplation on the question of why insanity exists within Consciousness: Consciousness is absolutely infinite. It must have the potential for all forms / states of mind. As a human existing within a "sane" state of mind, we might naturally assume that most states of consciousness are like this. After all, this is what we know. It's difficult or perhaps even impossible to imagine what an "insane" state of consciousness would actually be like from a "sane" one. But this belief that most states of consciousness must be "sane" could be a wrong assumption. Why? Because sanity is a subset of insanity. Insanity is default. You constrain insanity in order to get sanity. Most states of consciousness are incompatible with structured life as we know it.

No. You overplayed your hand. This is exactly the kind of shoddy critique I'm talking about.

Almost no one I've seen can do a proper critique of wokeness. It all devolves into right-wing or horseshoe theory nonsense.

They are the same. Human species going extinct is why it is considered immoral. There is no morality separate from collective survival. Moral code = human survival. I'm saying it reflects the survival demands of the people, appropriate or not.

Why does God tell everyone homosexuality is an abomination in the Bible?

All religions reflect the survival demands and development of their followers.

@everyone We have been going in circles, debating this same question about female attraction for years now. It's really time to start working towards some sort of resolution.

Be careful about using what I said to reinforce a misogynistic worldview. That would be a trap. Emotional intelligence and kindness can provide survival advantage in certain contexts.

Sounds like you're having a tough time. I'm sorry about that.

If character was required for sexual attraction, humanity would have gone extinct a long time ago. What generates attraction is survival advantage. Which is NOT equivalent to character. In fact, it can be very much the opposite.

You lost me here. There is no significant injustice being dealt to men in obtaining these things by “wokeness ”.

That's a good sign. BOLT is a test: The science is not all that rigorous, but it's an easy enough way to check your general nasal breathing capacity / CO2 tolerance. If you have breathing dysfunction during the day, it's going to carry over into the night.