Lews Therin

Each type of measure is useful in a certain context to help with a certain issue. The problem is when people turn said measure into an ideology and try to apply it to everything else. Argentina’s problem was public debt and lack of trust in the currency. he is cutting expenses, less expenses mean more money to pay the debt, less debt makes the currency more trustworthy. There is a cost of course, less money is flowing from the government and so the economy is cooling. That doesn’t affect their capacity to make money as much because they are an exporter of food and other basic products. But it does affect the population, as agrobusiness’s money usually doesn’t circle around a lot. So he is fixing the problem, the question is if his political capital will last long enough for the debt to be paid, since an increase in poverty can make the people angry.

Dude, you are talking like a propagandist of some sort. The media? It isn't the media who is telling us this, it is the rebel leader himself, all you have to do is look at the speach he gave, that was not a secularist speach, i could easily see the ayatolah saying those exact same words when he came to power in Iran. That it is not to say it will allign with Iran, stage blue can hate stage blue just as well as any other stage, but that guy is pushing for orange values. Also, saying that a country is unique is meaningless. Afghanistan was unique, so was Iraq, so was Brazil in 1964 and germany in the 1930s. Uniqueness doesn't mean much, every person is unique, and yet the illness one can suffer, so can the rest of them.

Just to register my view, i also, as everyone else here, hope the best for the Syrian population, but i find it very hard to believe there will be any sort of democratic government there in the near future. This is not a stage orange world, it is a blue world with a few orange great powers in it, and even they aren't free of blue. Brazil had a coup attempt not even 2 years ago. Trump tried that in the US and may try again soon. Democratic institution are very hard to build and maintain, and syria would have to build them from the ground up. We saw movements that carried the banner of democracy fail time and time again to build those, so i see no reason to be very hopefull the a self-proclaimed islamist leader, who did his first official speech in a mosque filled with took great care to shove as many blue memes he could within said speech will be very devoted or even capable of building those orange, democratic institutions. But i disagree that the west wants a "weak syria", as a weak blue syriamay go back to being friends with stage blue iran. I think Israel and the US are much more worried about making sure the new rulers are west-aligned than that they get cheap oil. The iraq war happened in an era were lots of people thought "history had ended" and stage orange had won, so it was all about cheap prices. Now people are aware that stage blue is far from trancended, and so, to the measure it doesn't hinder the west's capacity to function economically, i believe most would choose to pay a price a little bit higher in order to secure allies against iran, russia and china.

@Vercingetorix What skin in the game? what did these people feel? What did they experience that would suggest trump is a better choice? Policy wise trump makes no sense, he claims he will simulataneously end inflation and create tariffs which are inflationary as well as deport immigrants, which is also inflationary. He claims he wants to stop immigrants from taking people's jobs, but he convinced republicans to vote gainst a bill that created restrictions on asylum seeking. He claim he will bring about peace, but his proposal for ukraine involves having them ceed land to an aggressive invader, what will send a message to the world that invading to take land is back on the menu. He has no cohesion of thought or strategy, when asked about his plans for healthcare, all he could say was that he had the "concepts of a plan", but said nothing more on it. ANd how the fuck can you say others don't have skin in the game? are you claiming we live in another world? that we are aliens that can't comprehend life on earth? It is the billionaire who inherited his wealth who has "experienced first hand what is going on"?? give me a break

Man, i was about to right a post just like this one, but of a person a personally admired a lot, Liv Boeree. She wrote this on her Substack: https://livboeree.substack.com/p/reflections-on-the-election This tilted me so much when i read it, she was one of the people that got me interested in systems thinking, she has a whole damn podcast about it where she has interviewed Schmacktenberger and other great thinkers. I almost lost my apetite, and it is seriously making me rethink lots of what i believe. She based her arguments on the idea that the Dems wanted the country to be humble, whereas Trump represented pride and boldness. She further elaborates that she considers humbleness to be associated with shame, which is supposedly one of the lowest emotions and can lead to envy and attempts to bash on those who actually try to improve the world. (i don't particularly disagree with shame being a horrible thing to feel, though i think that the model she presented is BS, as it places anger way above shame, and anger can very well just be a cover up, and therefore can be "lesser" than shame) How could someone who clearly has a lot of tier 2 in her claim that being narcisistically pridefull is better than being humble? It almost smells like accelerationism to me This made me question if i am just morally lucky? The Dems clearly have a clearer big picture view, but how can someone who knows so much about "big pictures" like Liv fall for it? Shouldn't i have also fallen then? Did i resist just because my mind was already colonized by the other side?

is this a movie or do you have any credible sources for that?

having an impulse isn't enough to classify a religion A religion is a a survival oriented ideology that claims to base it's premises of of spiritual truth. So if God is a word you use to describe the fundamental nature of reality, and you use "God's will" to say that you can't eat pork, drink alcohol, have abortions, be gay or whatever else, that's religion. You are trying to ascribe you personal values to reality itself. Leo says that if you do this or that you may end up unhappy, and those are based on his personal view, but i haven't seen him those values he has to be based on the will of something higher. So not a religion.

What did you do as a volunteer? can you go more in depth about how was the experience and what insights you got from it?

I just saw the news that Henry Cavil might be threatening to leave thee WH 40K show over lore retconning, and that got me thinking. I've considered myslef a progressive person for at least half a decade now, and have been in countless internet discussions defending progressive values and trying to get conservatives to see that many times the hate they show for progressive values for "ruining x or y tv show" is unjustified. That bad writing precedes "wokeness" and not the other way around. Also many times went on to defend that the goal of these large studios is not to "push woke or lgbtq agenda" but simply to maximize profits, and in a world of inequality, equality and social justice just sells well. But today as i started writing my typical answers on the youtube comments, it felt phony, so i stopped. i just couldn't write that Amazon's sole goal in making female individuals in one specific, previously male-only faction was just profits. The odds of if causing backlash as we have seen happen with so many shows was, to my eyes, far greater than any potential of soeone loving that specific piece of lore change. Now, the memetic theory lens can't be discarded, the green meme inhabits everyone, including the hollywood execs, but is it possible that is to the point they would risk sacrificing earnings, just to feel they are doing their part in moving us towards a more equalitarian future? Or are they just that disconnected from the real world that they see one show after the other crash and burn due to reactionary backlash and yet just keep on believing that theirs is the one that will succeed? Today for the first time i was made to consider that maybe for influence that goes beyond the one that money can buy, in the sense that if any company made a "woke" show that hit like game of thrones, they could tie themselves to the "green meme" and thus have their future secure as long as these memes keep expanding. What is this about?, i feel really kind of clueless. Is it just capitalists making bad calls in the pursuit of short term profits? Is this a result of progressive values and the "green meme" starting to take the reing from the Orange/modern values that have ruled us so far? Is it something else?

So, as the title poses, is there any truth to it? My standard response would be that no, but there is a quote by Ken Wilber that i love that says "no one is smart enough to be wrong 100% of the time", so it seems that this system probably has at least some truth in it. Now, the next question would be, what is that truth? It could be something related to developmental psychology, and Spiral Dynamics, as in, they saw people in different stages and assumed those stages were hereditary traits since the child of a butcher had a higher likellyhood of being a butcher than a warrior's son. But is there anything beyond that? are there people who are born to be spiritual teachers while other will focus on making or trading things? If so, are these things set in stone? could someone rise or fall from a specific course? Anyways, just spitballing, would like to hear everyone else's opinion on this.

Tell me you can't undertand nuance without telling me you can't undertand nuance. Oops, my bad, you essentially spelled it out that you can't undertand it.

What now? Vtubers aren't any worse than any other category of content creators.

Hi, I had a strange experience backduring christmass, that i had initially attributed to depersonalization, but recently have started considering alternative explanation upon reading an excerpt on kundalini energy from a kriya book. I didn't know wheter to post it here or on the mental health subforum, but decided on here since i will see a psyquiatrist anyway just to be sure, and therefore came here in search of answer more related to the spiritual, energetic side of things. So, a little background. I've been on the spiritual path for almost 6 years now, practiced zazen at first and then kriya for a while, though i stopped doing kriya to try Sayadaw u Tejaniya's method of constant awareness in July (i know i could do both, but confess i have been somewhat lacking in willpower lately). I also smoked weed a lot during my lifetime, though have been mostly doing so around the new years for the past two years. After a long period of not smoking, i started doing it again in december as the holidays arrived, and had been doing it almost daily for some 3 weeks to a month when christmas came. That's when it happened, i went to visit my cousin and he was smoking, so he passed it to me and i accepted it. After smoking it was mostly a normal high, until i had what felt like a visualization of what seemed like a rope circle opening itself in one spot. Like if that spot had either burst or been released. I instantly felt fear wash over me, for the idea of something coming loose in my head, something that shouldn't have, was pretty scary. I also noticed i instantly became more reactive in the conversation with my cousin, as if i suddenly felt a much stronger need to not annoy him, or be "approved" or "validated" by him, which is pretty weird, because he is a very chill dude and our relationship has been that of mutual respect for a while now. After we came back to the city 2 days later (that had been at our family's small farm) i began taking notice more clearly of the differeces in my mind (also stopped weed again), the main differences where: 1. Felt as if "me" (or whatever i was identifying with) felt a little bit more distanced from my thoughts, like when i remembered to be aware, it seemed to be a brief delay between the thought appearing and awareness "showing up". This has mostly gone away by now, if it remains a little bit it is at a level that i have a hard time comparing it to before. 2. Felt a pressure in my head, this seems to have lessened a little, but it is still very clearly there. Almost as if there is something ocuppying space in it, also gives off a feeling of being almost heavier when i turn my head or move it in different ways. It doesn hurt, not most of the time at least, but the pressure is constant. 3. My thought and my mind seems to have a pressure in them as well, this is different from the head pressure, and doesn't hurt or anything, but is very weird. It's like a can feel the different thought moving inside my head as i think about different subjects. This one is probably the weirdest. 3b. At the beggining it felt as if the thoughts had all come loose from the places where they used to stay and where all floating in my head, clouding it. But as i thought about these things again they slowly sliding back into place. As if when i think about something or have an insight about a subject, that part of my thoughts stabilize themselves again. As this proccess goes on, my mind seems less and less bloated. 4. Lastly, the one that scared me the most at the beggining, my mind seemed to have lost depth, almost as if it had lost a dimension. Suddenly i couldn't be aware of a thought while having a thought, like there was no space for the mind to turn back and look at itself. it went from something spatial to something linear, as if i had regressed to a lower cognitive developmental state. This one, albeit the most scary, has gone away by now, so i am not worried about it anymore. So, at this point, essentially all i feel is this pressure inside my head, and maybe a very very slight delay in the time it takes for my mind to return to awareness after it catches itself from distraction. SO, I had been thinking about common psychological problems for a while, but my research didn't come up with anything that matched it. Up until a few days ago i read about how people called kundalini "the coiled serpent" and how people have describes head pressure as a sympton of it. The initial thing i saw could be described as an uncoiling, or a orobors releasing it's tail. The main counterargument would be that as far as i remember it wasn't in the lower body region, but felt more like somewhere in the head, so i don't think it is kundalini, though i don't know much about, but have started wondering it is not some energy thing maybe? has anyone ever experienced anything similar?

Has anyone here ever looked at the research behind these famous developmental models we see around here and in the authors books? I love developmental psychology, and hold Spiral Dynamics dearly in my heart, but to this day i haven't had any success in finding the research behind, and that drives me nuts. How am i supposed to show something to people when i have no research to back it up? Yes, it maps very well to my life, but that is very anecdotal. I like to consider myself as someone who thinks things through, but how can i trully understand this models if i can't see the research they were based off of? i remember reading somewhere that SD was based in research conducted in over 100 different countries and possibly in over 10.000 people. WHERE IS THAT DATA?? i know science has limits, but if we don't use data and evidence to base our decision making out of, we are not being post-scientific, we are being pre-scientific. I admit i mostly searched about SD and a little bit about ego development, but if anyone can point me to some solid developmental model that has made it's data publicly available i would love you sooo much. Anyway, thanks for reading this so far!

@An young being Yes, but these concepts you mentioned all existed long before the scientific method became the golden standard, Spiral Dynamics didn't. Also, most of these things are entirely internal to an individual, so they are really hard to be measured. SD, on the other hand, deals with memes that are common amongst many people, and you can know which memes are present in someone's mind by asking them simple questions. That means that with some effort and personnel to conduct lots of interviews, it wouldn't be that hard to get substantial data that pointed to the SD model being accurate.

Thanks, if i manage to get an answer i will be sure to post it here. Have you ever tried talking to some of these developmental researchers?

i didn't say i want to go post-scientific, i just pointed out i didn't want to go pre-scientific. And even if it has it's limits, proving stuff with data and studies is definetely helpful in MANY cases. And i will trust a model that has enough data to back it up MUCH more than one that doesn't. Third person knowledge is an essential part of humanity, and for that, the scientific method tends to be the most advanced tool we have. And this is surely one of these cases.

I still don't see it, i've watched him for many hours through the years, and he seems to be pretty consistent. Can you show me examples of him being inconsistent?

I didn't know tagging was common courtesy, sorry about that. But you did write almost a full paragraph of different psychological models with essentially no elaboration other than a link to a 5 page long body language mega thread. And no, i can't count that as language because i don't know your credentials on body-laguage reading nor do i understand body language well enough to judge if what you are saying makes sense or not. Also, i don't consider bodily cues to be informative enough to deduce as much information as you seem to have. Yeah, maybe the body can tell you if the person is nervous, but is it because they are lying or is it because they of a miriad of other possible reasons? So, what about stages of cognitive development makes you think he is untrustworthy? What about ego development (by Jane's model) makes you think he is untrustworthy? What about Myers Brigs personality types makes you think he is untrustworthy? What about life experiences (his or yours?) makes you think negatively of him? What about "other lines of development from life to societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated" gives you that opinion about him? Or any of the other stuff you mentioned? You can't just come in here, drop the name of a dozen different models and not elaborate on any. Also, a body-language thread is not "elaboration" since i doubt anyone in this world can tell someone's stage at different developmental lines just from looking at how they move and how they sit.

"I agree that Destiny is a skilled debater, but due to various developmental factors like stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types and traits(Big five personality traits and Myers Briggs personality types modal), ego development(by Jane Loevinger),life experiences and other lines of development from life to societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated, and self biases and preferences I feel that Destiny is dangerous and should not be trusted or blindly believed. Success, charisma, persuasion /=/ personal growth or moral character." Damn, i got so tired in the middle of this i almos gave up on reading, you literally cited every single psychology related thing you of in order to character assassinate an youtube streamer, and of of the few that does a good work for society.

Prime quality content from Dr. K, video that could have been straight from here. Although i have to say the video itself was too edited to feel comfortable to watch, but i guess it makes sense for him to try different formats from time to time.

No, he is very clearly not pedophilic, his content, it seems, is going way over your head. That's not why he was banned, inform yourself before making claims about people, you clearly don't know enough about the subject to be going around making a topic to "expose" him. He was banned because a video he posted long ago and that was already age restricted had excerpts of nudity from a film, that video was flagged during the mass-flagging by nick fuentes, a literal white nationalist. If his thoughts make YOU feel disturbed, perhaps it is you who should be looking inside to find out why some part of feels that way.

"Notice how you erroneously assume the default position is environmental factors." No i am not. I am not assuming anything, i am explaining to you how to make a case for what you are defending. That is not even my position. At no point i assumed there was a "default" position, i don't have to make assumptions because i am not the one making claims, other than "we can't know for sure" You are the one making a claim "Black people are genuinely intellectually inferior". Therefore, in order to substantiate your claim, you need something more than what you have so far offered which was: "It would follow that..." "would it not be extraordinarily obvious..." and "But I don't' believe that accounts..." Essentially the problem is that, as you said you don't BELIEVE the environmental factor explain this question, but you also can't seem to provide any evidence, all you have is this belief.

You said you wanted a productive and scientific discussion, if that is the case, stop repeating over and over that there is a genetic difference between races IN GENERAL and find some evidence that points that the specific gap in IQ between black and white people is genetic, or that it can't for some specific reason be attributed entirely to environmental factors IN THIS CASE.

Let's dissect what you are saying so we get to where our gap in understanding lies. Propositions: p1: there is a genetic component to inteligence - I believe most people here agree on this. p2: Different races have different levels of inteligence - I prefer to say ethnicities, as race is not a scientific concept, and you claim to want to have a scientific conversation. As someone mentioned before, there is more genetic difference between different groups of "black people" than between most people of different "races". That said, there PROBABLY are differences in inteligence. p3: Black people tend to score lower on IQ tests and other inteligence related tests - This is true and has been observed in a variety of studies. p4: The gap in IQ or general inteligence between races (p3) can't be solely due to historical, social and cultural factors and probably has to do with genes (p1 and p2) - Here you need to provide some evidence. Accepting p1 and p2 as truth doens't mean they have any connection to p3. As Leo said, it may very well be that after we equalize social and cultural factors black people start scoring higher than both white people and east asians on these tests. This conversation is essentially worthless untill you provide some evidence that can connect p1 and p2 to p3. As of right now, we KNOW that historical, social, and cultural factors have a GREAT DEAL of influence on black people scoring lower on these tests (and also their countries having lower GDP), and we have NO REASON to believe that these factor aren't responsible for 100% or more of the difference in IQ. As the person who made the initial claim, now it falls on you to provide evidence on that missing link and demonstrating WHY social factors can't explain the gap in inteligence.