zurew

The idea would be to make a system where the independent participants are holding each other accountable. This can only be done if they are incentivised to do so, and this is sort of built in the current system already. Example: Different institutions are making different vaccines to cure covid19. All independent institutions have an incentive to point out the flaws in other vaccines because that way they can dominate the market with their vaccines and they can make more money. Whats your alternative system/solution though? Both of your points have so much worse alternatives compared to science and the scientific process, and thats the problem. Funding in and of itself is not a bad thing. Without funding, research cannot happen. Why would anyone do science if their return on invesment is negative? Why would anyone do any science for free, if they need to invenst in millions and millions of dollars to do research? Of course, the funding aspect could sometimes make the whole process more flawed, but other institutions are incentivised to point out the flaws in those studies (especially, if the market is competitive). Also, this is why the peer review process exist, this is why institutions with biased, shit studies can't pass through the peer review grinder without notice (but even if they could, the chances are really really low).

I don't disagree with this, i just don't think that pointing out other people's self bias is a practical way to approach this problem. I think this could be framed in a more friendlier way, so that people won't get triggered or hostile by sentences like "you are not conscious enough" or "you are too self biased". The first thing you need to do is to frame the problem well. Most of these people don't even recognise, and don't agree that there is a problem here. That is the first step you need to do (This would be the "why should you care about this" part). ---> at this stage you need to ask first, in what world they want to live in and why, and then you need to show them, that your approach is better to achieve those goals. The second step would be to point out, how the problem could be solved, and what are the potential consequences if the problem won't be solved. That being said, i still think that the incentivisation method is more effective, compared to the "making the less conscious more conscious" method (especially, because we are talking about a relatively short time period). This doesn't mean, that we shouldn't even try, but change can't be achieved, if the method is not effective enough. We can do both method at the same time, but we have to decide, where to spend most of our resources, time, attention and money. That is the meta lesson here.

Okay, understood. Yeah i understand. But imo, the responsibility is on the conscious people to change these stuff, especially because people who are not conscious of their self bias, and their selfishness, won't change on their own, unless we elevate their level of consciousness radically (and that is not realistic if we are talking about a short period of time). So practically speaking, people who are conscious, intelligent and smart enough and have enough resources should do the heavywork, because others won't do shit and we shouldn't even expect from them to do anything (unless we can make a systemic solution where we can incentivise them to do more conscious things). I think its not even worth talking about "these people are so biased" or that "these people are not conscious enough" because that won't really change the situtation, but i understand that this thread wasn't about speaking about the solutions , but pointing out how radical self bias works.

The philosophical side of the conversation: Where do you draw your line, when it comes to your morality? I assume this is your foundation --> Anything that could be considered sovereign is ought to be respected. So the questions is this: What do you consider sovereign ? Practical side of the conversation: They were not incentivised to do so. When your livelihood is depended on farming, they can't just easily transition especially, if they live from day to day.

Its not likely, but even if they could , Leo would still have this website. If they can't show any evidence how Leo violates youtube's TOS, then they won't have much of a chance to silence him.

Joey Diaz is the best

This is a good idea, this way he could make his videos more relatable and they would be even more informative. The only thing i would add, is that don't only focus on the objections, but he could collect normal questions too. Asking questions before a video about a particular topic is released is a win-win. Its a win for us, because we get most of our questions answered, and its a win for Leo, because he can get his message and thoughts more well across. This way he doesn't have to come up with objections and questions on his own.

If i understand it correctly, if there is a video you like, you want to know in which playlists you could find that particular video. If thats what you are looking for, then here is what you can do: Copy and paste this string into google: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:" " ---> here the only thing you need to do, is to write that particular videos exact title between the quotation marks So for example, if you wanted to see in what playlist you could find the video titled: What Is Death? - How Immortality Works then your google string should look like this: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:"What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" <---- This search result will show all the video playlists (not just playlists that was made by Leo) that contain the video titled: "What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" . If you only want to focus on actualized.org and you don't care about other creator playlists, then you could add this to your string: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:"What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" intext:"channel name" so in practice it would look like this: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:"What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" intext:"actualized.org" <----- this search result will mostly show actualized.org playlists (playlists created by Leo) that contain the video titled "What Is Death? - How Immortality Works"

Yeah, i can resonate with this 100%. I think its almost always harder to motivate yourself to go back to the roots, rather than trying to go forward on the foundation you already have.

True. The same knowledge could be taught and talked about in a different light, based on who is doing the teaching/talking. Also, you can arrive at the same conclusion starting from a different position than others, so because of that, there will be some people who can resonate with you more, because they can relate to your story and life experiences more. And not just that they can relate to your story more, but they can see what steps you had to take in order to reach the goal you wanted to reach. So there could be a thousand different paths that can lead to the same conclusion, and different paths can give different lessons and guidances to different people. I also agree with @Carl-Richard that we have to integrate our shadows. On this forum, most of us haven't really integrated the healthy aspects of stage red and stage orange enough, especially the younger audience (including me). I think some questions could be asked to test how much we have integrated the healthy aspects of stage red and orange: Do you have financial problems? Do you know what you are good at ? Do you know how you could provide massive value? Do you consider yourself successful (whatever success means to you) Do you have the capability to stand up for yourself and for your values? Do you have a job/business that you are passionate about / that you like Do you have a hard time expressing yourself authentically? Do you have the capability to take a leading role if its necessary / if its needed? Do you have a strong charisma? Do you have a healthy self esteem? Do you have your relationship goals met? Do you have a good sex life? How much can you sacrifice to reach your desires/goals? Can you consciously motivate yourself? Can you set tangible goals? Do you have a plan where your life is going or you are just living aimlessly in life? Do you have the capability to be highly rational if its needed / if its necessary?

I think if they would have that much money, they would know exactly where to put it, and they wouldn't sit on that money, but i might be wrong. Yeah, i don't want to get caught up on debating this subject either. We just disagree, but thats fine. I won't push you, and i also don't intend to derail this thread.

I see, but i could imagine a tier 2 person with a conscious business earning a lot of money. Not because that business would be aimed for to earn a fuckton, but because helping people and providing a ton of value comes back at some point, although not always. But its easy to see why a conscious business couldn't thrive as much as a stage orange one. The whole economy is best suited for stage orange companies.

Yeah you might be able to earn fuckton of money being a tier 2 person , but even those people are spending that money consciously, i assume.

I agree with this, but i think that shadow don't have to be there to not engage in that luxurious lifestyle. When you have a hierarchy of values, you will spend your resources based on that hierarchy structure. There are rare exceptions, but generally speaking, if you have 4-5 different things above having super cars or mansions or a luxurious lifestyle , then chances are really low, that you will end up having that luxurious lifestyle.

Yeah this true, but i would be suprised if i could find one. Also, tier 2 people are capable to earn a lot of money, because they are intelligent enough to learn how to make a lot of money , but they don't do it, because they don't value money nowhere near as much as stage orange people do. I don't see why a tier 2 person wouldn't be able to get rich if he/she really wanted to (earning money is much easier if you don't have a backbone and integrity). To me this shows that those people are using their time and capabilities and resources to do and to invest in other things.

I don't think how that works, i agree with scholar on this one. You have a hierarchy of values, and when you have so much money, that you don't need to worry or think about money anymore, then you will automatically use that money, to try to invest in things that are on the top of your value hierarchy. Can we think of one tier 2 person, who has multiple mansions or expensive cars or a luxurious lifestyle?

@Razard86 The question in what case or cases you could be considered a racist when it comes to dating. I think i showed a tangible line between being racist and not being racist. Too much simplification can cause more confusion too. In order to make sense of things we need to be able to distinguish between them. So in the context of this convo we need to be able to differentiate between being racist and not being racist. This is not always true, this is only true when unnecessary complexity is added. Even Leo has a video on learning, where he is talking about making distinctions = learning. Leo also has a video where he explains that not everything can be dumbed down and explained easily. I agree with this statement in the vast majority of the cases, but there are instances where this is not applicable. I think my thought process on this dating topic is nowhere near complex, i also think blurrying the lines in this case would cause more confusion than clarity, but it seems we don't agree, but thats fine. The only relevant question here is that, when it comes to dating how do you differentiate between being racist and not being racist?

@Razard86 I didn't intend to make things unnecessarily more complicated. I didn't even attacked your position, my intention was to make it more clear why people sometimes say you are racist in the context of sexuality. I think the nuance what i've made is useful, and maybe it will clear things up, especially for the OP.

His point was, that thats not advantegous to create a fragile society, the goal should be to create a society where people are tough and can handle stress and events that are not expected. Now, how we can achieve that is a different question, but generally speaking, if you don't have much to do and you don't get exposed to a certain level of stress periodically, then you become more fragile and paradoxically it will make your life more miserable and you become more weaker.

The difference is the reasoning behind your position. There are two things here: are you basing your stance on generalisation (not liking an entire race of people) or you can point to tangible things that you don't like/don't prefer. For instance, if you don't prefer traits that asian people usually have and you have that set of traits lets be it inner or outer traits, then you have a set of tangible things you can point to and you can say you don't prefer those things when it comes to dating. But even in that case, you could most likely find a few asian people who don't have those traits, so you could date them. So hypothetically, if there would be an asian person who don't have the traits that you don't prefer, then you could date that person, but if you use this reasoning "i don't date him/her just because she/he is asian" , that would be racist, because at that point, you don't even care about traits, but only care about race. But if your stance is relying only on the big generalisation that i won't date this person only because she/he is asian, that could be called racist, not because of what you prefer or don't prefer, but because of your line of reasoning. Now, OP wouldn't be called racist in this case, because he is not saying that he wouldn't date other people just because they are not asian.

Doesn't seem like a rational move on his part, especially if you look at his picture, where he is holding his gun in his hand. As @something_else said, he is destroying his business and reputation with these pictures. He wouldn't do that, if he would be sober. Being super high and holding a gun in your hand is a dangerous combo.

Broo, the picture with his gun is really frightening.

I agree with this statement, I just didn't agree with the justification you used to strengthen that point, but ultimately i agree with physics is not being invented, but discovered.

In theory, you could. Math is a language/tool that describes reality, it has its own rules and axioms. Without inventing those axioms, math couldn't really exist as we know it. Now, that doesn't mean, that those axioms are completely abritrary, but on the otherhand, they had to be invented. But this could strengthen your position, because you could say that you don't necessarily have to use math to recognize those patterns, because in theory you could use other tools or languages to recognize the underlying patterns. This is not a good argument. Just because something is an invention, that wouldn't automatically mean, that you could easily invent new forms of it every day. Could Apple invent a new iphone every day? If it can't, would that mean that iphone is not an invention? But ultimately, i think i agree with your poisition. There is an underlying fact of the matter that is described, using math. Math is a tool to help us to recognize certain patterns in reality. Math as a language is invented, but what its describing is not invented.

There is value in discussing stuff like this, of course. But its really hard to argue, when all empirical data is pointing in one direction. Its a factual disagreement, so it can only be settled by using outside sources. I had my own views on this topic, but i had to change my mind, because my views were hinging upon a lot of assumpsions, that were not backed up by any data or studies. When i read these studies i was like: "fuck it, i have different views on this, but if it works, then it works". When it comes to social issues, the most valuable thing you can do is to collect a lot of data and try to make sense of these issues using that data.