Twega

Leo posted on his blog recently, titled "Leftist-Populist Misunderstanding" in which he said: "There is absolutely no way to get rid of elites. This is the Marxist/leftist-populist delusion. What they never understood is that every society on the planet since the dawn of time has been run by elites because elites are superior to the masses. Elites are physically stronger, more physically attractive, more ambitious, more intelligent, more talented, healthier, better educated, more responsible, harder working, and even genetically superior to non-elites. That's why they managed to rise to the top. They are not at the top by luck or accident, they are at the top because they were strong, ambitious, and egotistical enough to push their way to the top like bulls in a stampede." I agree. However, there are some issues with this perspective. I'm interested to know how Leo (and anyone else) reconciles this perspective with the following information: Wealth inequality: Leo made another post on his blog titled "Corruption Of Elite Education" where Daniel Markovits author of The Meritocracy Trap highlighted Our current system, far from being purely meritocratic, operates through self-perpetuating mechanisms that entrench privilege. The supposedly meritocratic system actually perpetuates and amplifies existing inequalities, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of privilege rather than genuine merit-based advancement. Traditional merit-measuring tools, including standardized testing and competitive education, have evolved into sophisticated barriers to entry rather than objective measures of capability. Affluent families can effectively "purchase" advantage through extensive investment in education, extracurricular activities, and social networking, creating an inherited rather than earned elite status. This system generates a widening socioeconomic divide that undermines social cohesion and distorts labor market valuations, favoring a small number of highly paid professionals while leaving many jobs underpaid and undervalued (not for lack of skill, value or complexity). Both realities are true. The masses are ignorant. The elites did not become elites through merit alone, and many are ignorant too. Yes, wealth provides access to better education, healthcare, nutrition, and opportunities, which objectively makes people "better" equipped for success, regardless of whether this advantage is fair. But this raises a crucial question: how many of these elites are genuinely superior in intellect and capability, and how many are simply privileged mediocrity with prestigious degrees? A Harvard Business School diploma doesn't automatically confer wisdom or genuine intelligence. University education tends to create specialized knowledge rather than holistic improvement - it makes you better at specific skills but doesn't necessarily develop broader understanding or judgment. The landscape is littered with well-credentialed individuals who lack basic common sense or deeper insight. Yet we can't ignore that statistically, well-educated people do tend to demonstrate higher cognitive abilities and better life outcomes. Yes, compared to the average person, elites do tend to be smarter, more capable, and more driven. But they're just a tiny slice of society, being compared to the rest. What about that chunk of people - maybe 10-30% - who are genuinely smart, love learning, read tons of books, really get deep into philosophy and big ideas, but never made it to the "elite" level just because the system worked against them? These people have real talent and insight but got locked out, not because they weren't good enough, but because the game was rigged from the start. How do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory truths?

I made a mistake and im not sure how to remove this post from the politics/society sub-topic. Moderators please remove this from here but keep mine in the personal development sub-topic

I’ve done things which I am not proud of. I’ve cheated in relationships, i’ve lied to and manipulated women. I hate the feeling I get after I do these things. I can’t understand how one part of my brain recognizes the evil that I am doing but another reptilian part of my pain ultimately drives my behavior. It seems to have the upper hand. So many things I did wrong. But I also feel that what happened is a gift. I have delved so deep into the evil ways of the mind. I have lied to myself and others, broken hearts and selfishly perused my desires without consideration of future consequences. That is the gift: knowing you are evil. “By recognizing you are evil, you become good. By thinking you are good, you become evil.” Leo’s quote really got me thinking. I’ve improved a lot, and i’m much more honest than I was in the past. But I really want to resolve this issue once and for all. How do I develop and strengthen my integrity? What practices can I do internalize the pain from these experiences and force my brain to avoid them at all cost if not only for the pain they cause me and of course others? I need help ya’ll, thanks

I’ve done things which I am not proud of. I’ve cheated in relationships, i’ve lied to and manipulated women. I hate the feeling I get after I do these things. I can’t understand how one part of my brain recognizes the evil that I am doing but another reptilian part of my pain ultimately drives my behavior. It seems to have the upper hand. So many things I did wrong. But I also feel that what happened is a gift. I have delved so deep into the evil ways of the mind. I have lied to myself and others, broken hearts and selfishly perused my desires without consideration of future consequences. That is the gift: knowing you are evil. “By recognizing you are evil, you become good. By thinking you are good, you become evil.” Leo’s quote really got me thinking. I’ve improved a lot, and i’m much more honest than I was in the past. But I really want to resolve this issue once and for all. How do I develop and strengthen my integrity? What practices can I do internalize the pain from these experiences and force my brain to avoid them at all cost if not only for the pain they cause me and of course others? I need help ya’ll, thanks

Don't you think your content also offers criticisms (not on others, but on mental models, beliefs, behaviors, etc)? We need to make distinctions between types of criticism.

I agree. None of us disagree on scammy courses. But he dismisses anyone selling courses as a scam or, at the very best, as useless. For example, Spencer Cornelia, who himself is a debunker/exposer of scams and somewhat of a colleague of Coffeezilla, made a course on something related to real estate, and Coffeezilla and his community dismissed Spencer. He did not assess the fees or the value of the content. Coffeezilla is also the type of person who only thinks experts (academics or professionals) should speak on topics like health or psychology. He would call your heavy metal detox video as dangerous. I could go on. If Coffeezilla saw some of your videos, he would say you aren't a therapist and, therefore, shouldn't advise people on how to deal with their problems. You are precisely describing what I'm saying; he is correct often but also throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Leo has mentioned previously the allure of becoming a debunker. Something you see a lot on YouTube. I believe we all understand the dangers and limitations posed by becoming attached to being this personality; The debunker, the watchdog; the bullshit caller, the one who lays it out like it is and calls out those evil or stupid shit-talkers. However, I believe that as a society, we definitely need such a personality to permeate the noosphere. The Debunker serves a vital role, but it has been corrupted. Let's take a few real-life examples: Coffeezilla I believe what coffeezilla is doing, overall, is actually good. He serves a vital role, which anyone who watches him can recognize. But he still makes errors. A classic example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which he and his community fall into is by literally demonizing anyone who sells a course, without further analysis of value to price ratio. Just outright rejection and condemnation. Recently, he made a video on a company supposedly selling nitrous oxide for the purposes of using it in whipping cream but is clearly a cover for actually selling it to get high. The analysis is 100% true, but I found it weird when said something like "they're selling something that will kill your brain cells". Would he say the same for alcohol companies? I don't think so. His video presented no nuance or solution, just condemnation and a call for stopping this company. Professor Dave A lot has been said about professor dave. So I won't dig too deep. I know this community hates Prof Dave. I don't agree with his video on Leo at all. But his videos on creationist and the like is spot on. When compared to other debunker, I feel like professor dave offfers the most technical critiques. Leo posted a video on abiogenesis by james clear, and prof dave offered a sound critique. This community is quick to dissmiss prof dave (maybe rightly so), but is quick to accept james tour who is more deluded, technically incorrect, and biased more than prof dave. Prof dave, just like most debunkers has a lot problems, but I consider him still valuable. D'Angelo Wallace Perhaps the most useless of all the debunkers mentioned so far. His debunking (if we can even call it that) is vapid as fuck. It is really just drama content. Moral grandstanding, unnuanced, biased, and useless. I believe we need more Reformed Debunkers, not to do away with them entirely. So here's a fun thing we can contemplate: What makes for a good vs bad debunker?

@Leo Gura so did you change your mind? Because in the past you made it clear the university isn't necessary to learn philosophy. What about this video? I understand the STEM argument, but this is a surprise for me coming from you. I even asked you a question about learning philosophy and if university is neccessary

@Leo Gura,I'm not talking about being an academic philosopher. I'm saying if you seek to become a philosopher (as your LP), not necessarily an academic, how essential is it to study the philosophies of old? Is Hegel's view correct?

A question for @Leo Gura, and others: If one seeks to become a philosopher and to meaningfully contribute to the field, must one study (from a historical perspective) the different philosophies across the ages? A quote from a book I'm reading: "Hegel demonstrated in very strong terms that studying the history of philosophy is a prerequisite for anyone who would make an original contribution to the discipline" Is Leo underestimating the benefit of studying Western philosophy? It reminds me of Tim Ferris's talks about living an un-optimized life now and how that has benefited him. But in my view, he is only able to reach that point after becoming and trancending being optimized. Is the same thing happening with Leo and "moving beyond" classical/western philosophy?

Why is philosophy so important? First lets discuss common misconceptions. Philosophy, like education has transformed into a bastardized version of what it truly is. When I was young, I was reading many books on philosophy, Bertrand Russell mostly, and others. While they were enjoyable and edifying, it was so far from the style of philosophy that I saw as important. When I first discovered actualized.org, I realized what I had been searching for. The seeker finally arrives to the place he was seeking. It felt like I stumbled on a gold mine that I always knew existed. I may have stumbled upon it, but I was no stranger to this land. The simple topics, such as "what is perception" "the counter-intuitive nature of life" "65 core principles to live the good life" is what constitutes as the core of philosophy for me. Current and modern philosophers alike, while their work was still impressive and interesting, they fell into the classic trap of not seeing the forest for the trees. Their work is dense, complicated, rambling, and in the end, leaves one with a feeling of being purely inside one's head. In other words, mental masturbation. After ejaculation, you kinda feel like "that was nice I guess". A funny story I read in a book was that a philosopher was looking into the sky and thinking deeply while walking, and someone tripped him to teach him the lesson not to let thinking distract him for being. Alain de Button, although he has problems, was the first to introduce to Michele de Montaigne, who unlike many other philosophers spoke of the relevant problems of what it means to be human. This is what I was looking for. The conception of what is a philosopher in our culture is the bearded old man, endlessly pontificating on questions which are irrelevant to the "real world". While some of this judgment is misplaced, I can totally understand why. It is somewhat true. Philosophy is not only relevant to the real world, I just don't see any other way you can even understand what the real world is without it. Let alone what isn't or is relevant to it. Philosophy is the antidote to so many of what ails us as a culture. To the most relevant problems of today. Such as not falling for misinformation, of understanding oneself, of living the good life, of what to value, how to find your life purpose, etc. Is it the only thing you need? Of course not. But it is a great foundation to have. In my own life, when I started thinking like a philosopher by questioning things like my religion and trying to understand what truth is, a radical transformation in my psychology ensued. Philosophy changed my psychology more than reading about psychology did. Powerful stuff. I got so many things wrong at first, but that only added to my understanding of what truth IS NOT, hence what truth IS. Not just theoretical understanding, but also experiential understanding of how I thought this was true when it was not. Like I said, it's not the only tool. Philosophy, psychology, self-help and spirituality synergize greatly. Add on top of that understanding health/nutrition, business, and sprinkle some basic understanding of general science, politics, history, etc. You have a potent formula for success. Your mind becomes multi-dimensional, you can feel how different your thought process is now compared to before you embarked on this journey. Night and day. Now it is not simply "philosophy", it is literally how your mind work. Its modus operandi. Philosophy isn't a subject matter but a way of being, thinking, and living.

I love Leo, and I will credit him as one of the most influential people in my life. He is the best teacher I ever encountered. I owe my success to him. But I don't care about meeting him. I have my own life, and he has his. I respect him as a great thinker, and I think it's better to have distance with people you professionally look up to.

Thanks!

What are you interested in learning about? Are you only interested in data science/programming? Do you have other interests like economics, writing, philosophy, spirituality, neuroscience, etc? If you're going to study CS / Data Sci in uni, If I were you I would focus my time on other areas of interest because I know university will not teach me those. But, if you don't other interests then yes I think this is a good plan. Good on you for using your time wisely. When I was your age I wasted this time just fucking around.

@enchanted I agree, MrBeast's business model works. It is undeniable. He is the biggest YT channel. But it is so unattractive and antithetical to what I want. Maybe I can learn from him a few things, but to actually live my LP, I need to find a way to succeed without MrBeast's business model. Success in spite of not being like MrBeast, not because of it, is the goal. But like I said, we can always learn a few things. I also acknowledge he works hard on his video. I'm not denying his work ethic; I just don't like the shallow material, jumpy, frantic editing, attention-seeking methods, etc. MrBeast's strategy is to create content that is designed to get views. Attention is the end-goal, content is the method. I fundementally disagree with that. However, I still want views. But there's distinction between that approach and mine, and even Leo's im sure.