zurew

This is unresponsive to a good chunk of my things ,but if you want to engage or if you just want to share your opinion in greater detail about Leo and actualized.org then come to the other thread so that we dont derail @Consilience's MAPLE targeted thread.

What a weird and strange piece to write: https://tales.monasticacademy.org/tales/she-is-still-a-community-member/ The idea that the writer there thinks that they look good there even given their description of the events is insane to me. Also btw: https://tales.monasticacademy.org/tales/mad-when-they-fail/

@Consilience Look what ive found: Your video was shared on reddit along with a link to this thread, and one of the MAPLE organizers/members appears to have offered a short and vague "response" to your arguments. https://www.reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/comments/1t1t0op/comment/ojo6fpt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button https://www.reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/comments/1rnm6om/system_lost_credibility_join_our_cult/ This is also an interesting justification from him/her Lol - You have to join bro, otherwise you dont understand https://www.reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/comments/1t1t0op/comment/ojjswjl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Thats fine, will check

I dont think that follows from what I said. My whole case is precisely to show that having potential psychotic tendencies is not enough to get you to such a conclusion, because of the underdetermination issue. The recognition of the underdetermination will motivate you to do further investigation, but does not automatically disqualify someone from being a leader under my view.

Sure, given the underdetermination issue - the answer to that question is yes, they potentially do. I had, yeah. Not sure whats the argument from here.

I disagree - again I dont think that the fact that a data point can be expected under multiple mutually exclusive hypotheses at the same time (someone going through a spiritual journey, someone actually being psychotic etc) would make it so that that data point should therefore be excluded from being probability raising on both mutually exclusive hypotheses. By considering suicidal moments there isn't any entailment of wrong categorization of spiritual people and gurus, because only considering that data point leaves you with an underdetermination issue (meaning, just from the fact that you consider that data point from that alone you cant know which hypothesis is actually the true - there isn't any clean inference from the insta point where you can get to either hypotheses being true - therefore, in order to find a symmetry breaker, you will need to explore additional facts about the person). One reason why I personally dont think that underdetermined data should be ignored (and why it should be recognized that it raises the probability of both hypotheses at the same time), is because in some cases you won't be motivated to go on a symmetry breaker finding journey and wont be sensitive to recognize and to consider and to filter for additional data and to do an investigation about a person, when you probably should. (for instance, you could see the insta data and then immediately and automatically conclude that thats just a person having a suicidial low on a spiritual journey and then not even be motivated to explore additional data).

Here is what Claude Sonnet 4.6 on max effort had to say (after it double checked everything)

Do you think the possibility of telepathy would have altered his view of language? Like I sometimes wonder just as a thought experiment which theory of language would and could survive under the hypothesis where we assume that telepathy is real and actual.

Fell free to take your time - but im asking for papers, links that you take to be the best evidence for making your case about per capita increase in crime. You can also give other papers related to other negative effects if you have those as well.

But why be this strangely obsessive on that particular one when you have a bunch of more predictive ones like age , prior offending history, socioeconomic status,sex ? Can you show me papers that supports your claim about there being an inevitable and necessary increase in crime ? (im asking for showing a per capita increase in crime -related to most European countries that are targeted by immigration) The thing you are responding to there wasnt a reply in light of immigration that was specifically for answering what I would do about crime irrespective of immigration. But look, when it comes to immigration - you can be against immigration without obsessing over race and ethnicity. My bad, I inferred that. Yeah, which again is a strange thing to pick out and to focus on when you have a bunch of other more predictive alternative variables. You would rather say non-whites over a much more predictive configuration of facts like - poor, uneducated, past offending , young man.

Take a look at studies and data on what policies can most effectively reduce crime and can change criminals and then implement and advocate for those. This is generally speaking false,especially if you have a lot of resources to help with. You can put people in a different environment with different people, with new job and education opportunities etcetc. What you should rather say is that you dont think given your values and the avalaible resources that its worth it to spend x amount of resources to help and target y group of people. Yeah but if you are interested in reducing crime , you would spend resources in trying to figure out what explains that disproportional representation and again when it comes to immigration and non-immigration policies you would target the most directly relevant set of variables and not ethnicity and race. The very idea that you want to categorize criminals based on race and ethnicity when you look at crime seems a strange move in and of itself. If race and ethnicity are not best predictive of criminal behavior then whats the reasoning behind categorizing data based on those variables? Even if I granted you that you have no control over the things you listed earlier and only over immigration policy , that still doesnt explain the reason why you dont want to filter immigrants based on the most relevant set of variables and why you want to target ethnicity and race.

The difference is that you are presumably interested in creating policies that directly targets the most relevant variables that can filter and reduce crime while you can also maintain all the good that you care about and maintain a state of affair that is also aligned with your moral character. For instance, it would be strange for you to care about not importing crime and reducing crime, and at the same time not care about white criminals or about criminals who has the exact same ethnicity as what you prefer.

It is, and I could show you and walk you through my reasoning why I said what I said there at that particular moment (but also feel free to disagree whether the accusation there was appropriate or not), but also I would rather not do that, because we seem to have settled things with him and we seem to be on good terms right now and I would rather not re-open the convo about character talk (that has to do with someone other than Leo) if it is not necessary.

Ralston's cup is a far-right politician. Btw to actually engage a little bit and to not just troll - I often times see this claim made about caring about ethnicity , but I almost exclusively see that issue be brought up in light of illegal immigration and not in light of legal immigration. Whats the strongest paper or papers you can point to that shows that those crimes that you point to mainly has to do with having a different ethnicity and not with other variables ? Also why is ethnic replacement is fundamentally wrong/bad under your view?

If you add to that that he wont impose a false dichotomy on people who disagree with him on things he cares about (meaning giving room for people to disagree with him on things without them having to be self-deceived or dumb or not understanding etc) ,then that would significantly lower down things for me and that would be sufficient for me.

I think I gave Leo a couple of very easily implementable and actionable steps in how he can reduce cult accusations and how he can reduce cult dynamics more. I dont think you did this , but I dont like the general sentiment that some kind of giant or impossible thing is being asked from Leo here by me or by other people.

I understand the feeling when you are being unfairly psychoanalized, especially when vulnerable moments of yours are weaponized against you, but I think that in this case it is directly relevant to the question at hand (about whether he has psychotic tendencies or not).

I dont have any that Im sure of, because im not sure exactly what was the time when that insta post happened, but we can consider the other bullet points that were mentioned by Carl and decide under which hypothesis all of those facts are more expected. The Leo having a random suicidal low on a spiritual path or the Leo having psychotic symptoms one. (or people can provide additional hypotheses or you can also claim that you dont want to explain those other facts yet you only want to claim that the insta fact is explained by him being on a spiritual journey) We can extend the timeline and see that Leo has been claiming to be the most conscious on the planet for years now , claimed to be the standard of epistemology (3-4 years after the insta procedure) and he still demonize and undermines everyone who disagrees with him on the stuff he cares about , and he still havent backed off from claiming to be able to turn into an alien on camera (desptie never being able to show proof of that despite trying), previous to the insta stuff he had to be extremely pushed to slightly walk back his claim about awakenign being able to heal you completely and solve all of your problems (im pretty sure that in that video , he mentioned that he will try to heal humanity and stuff like that, because he thought he will be able to do that). And note again about the healing and problem solving claims that the main issue isn't even necessarily that he is agnostic on those claims (because he is not), the main issue is the absolute/extremely high certainty that he outplayed during the times he made those claims and then being reluctant to walk back the claims or to significantly lower his credence about those claims when he is pushed on them. The same goes for him making claims about how conscious other people are and how he must be more conscious than everyone else - you can look through the links of just this post and think about how much of this is easily explainable on your hypothesis about him just having a spiritual low - and also im curious about how long you want to extend the timeline for that hypothesis. I think this was also during or close to the insta period, where he banned a bunch of people and threatened one of the banned person that he will kill him if he wants to corrupt his teachings which in practice just meant disagreeing with Leo on spirituality and disagreeing with Leo being the most conscious person on the planet.

Its not a mute point, because its not granted that the insta fact is explained by your spiritual path point. It might be that the insta stuff happened because Leo was going through the spiritual path and that he hit a necessarily low that comes with a spiritual path, but the fact that thats a possible explanation, doesnt mean that that is the actual explanation (and you know , this is where it becomes relevant again to consider additional facts in order to find which hypothesis is a more probable explanation for the insta fact). Pretending again as if I have a hard time acknowledging points and its not you, who squirm around everything and only respond highly selectively to things. Already addressed your stupid accusation:

This is why you should read through the additional facts so that you can see in light of all the facts which hypothesis is more probable. But also, you can disagree with the cult label and the operating definition and still descriptively recognize the bad behavior and the manipulative tactics. I provided a bunch of links in my post there, you can read through all the relevant links and the relevant threads in detail and you can get to you own conclusion.

That still doesnt answer my question. Notice that you deliberately dodged directly giving an answer to my question multiple times now. (again this raises the probability of you being a dishonest and bad faith actor under my radar once again).

I dont know, but I still dont know whats your direct anwer to this question: