Natasha Tori Maru

@Jirh Transhumanism is beginning... How do you think this will project into the future? Do you think there will be a split between humans who embrace more and more information, and those who reject and opt for more disconnection and more thorough critical thinking? I view the information overload as far surpassing our ability to filter it, leading to beliefs, bias and fallacious logic structures that weaken us as humans. With possibly terrible implications. Others have a much more optimistic outlook. Bit if a sidetrack on the topic, more me rubbing your brainz for juice lol

100% In some ways, I really enjoyed the slower pace of the lockdowns that rolled through during the pandemic. I went through a huge amount of spiritual learning and personal growth \ wisdom during that time. It also bolstered my closest relationships. Now everything has to be instant. No delay, no excuse. Emails, texts, messages, WhatsApp - on tap and connected 24 / 7 action, expedience as a basic expectation...

What are you basing that on?

@Joshe cool - and no you didn't state that overtly. I actually wanted to know if that was your claim. Otherwise I may have made an incorrect inference. Either I didn't see you state it earlier, or you didn't state it until now. Never said that. My questions were to make out your thoughts. You never asked if I thought there were some structures that were more immutable. There are. But claiming outright you think Leo is a narcissist works with the argument his structure is more rigid - so it's part of what you base your original statement on. My only thought there is that we cannot be certain of that point, although it's a reasonable one to make given evidence others have supplied. Therein lies the assumption (which I do not contest is a strong one or not, I merely was seeking clarity) See below. Not sure why the sarcasm either? I thought we were having a good discussion. Also I've made wrong assumptions about what you state in the past, I didn't want to make that mistake again ... Which is why the questions.

@Butters you haven't heard the term - all publicity is good publicity? Think about it. They get their name out there. Which is worth more than gold - the economy of attention is the biggest one there is. Think about Trump etc Even the news, as another example. All the negative stuff makes the headlines. And to really double down - the news is GOOD for anthropic. It sends the message "this is so powerful, we had to put on the breaks" you can infer that power is now going to be diverted to be used for good (which is why it was withdrawn and stopped, to revise guardrails etc). Huge positive spin/implication.

@Joshe so you are proposing Leo is a narcissist of some type? The arguments you present continually revert back to making a claim around this structure. If you want to claim this isn't about Leo, sure. Go ahead. But it's the context of this discussion. I perceive it strange to revert to this sort of rewind, like suddenly totally changing context. But hey, it's your statement. And again, it just might not be clear to me exactly where you are going with the above.

Trying to understand the language used and meaning: First, you’re drawing a strong split between “surface-level behaviour change” and “root system change” .... then immediately conceding a loop exists: behaviour feeds back into structure. Then you say behaviour change cannot address the root but then add a condition where it does work when the system isn't resisting. Aren't you then implying behaviour change CAN shift the system? "Can't" but then you describe conditions where it can? So can behaviour change the system in your view? Or it can't? You also presuppose a relatively fixed system with it's own inertia patterns, but if behaviour feeds back into structure, then isn't the system by definition composed of accumulated behaviour? You could look at the entire purpose of this discussion as a method to illuminate patterns / the problem. Awareness is the first step. However, many seem to treat the conclusion as already settled. If that's the case, then I see continued engagement less as an honest inquiry and more as bad-faith drama or point-scoring.

Right, gotcha. I am trying to make out how easily you think people can change behaviour given earnestly intended alterations. Are you saying you believe, in Leo's case, there would be an attempted behaviour change not in earnest? Which would imply reversion to the previous structure. I know people can change significantly due to behaviour, internally. My claim would be behaviour isn't just an output of personality, but it feeds back into it. The system runs both ways. A change in behaviour alters the internal structure, sometimes whether we want it to, or not. The reverse can be true. Maybe then the question is - which side of the feedback system (behaviour vs structure) has the bigger 'permanence' or harder to move the dial on. I wish I had a rotary switch tacked onto me for this, a fleshy rotary dial lol - ultimate life hack.

By load bearing (if you could clarify) do you mean to point toward a personality disorder as opposed to a disorder? We would have to make a case to support the claim that Leo has a personality disorder or 'load bearing' issue. Or something more permanent than a simple disorder that have better prognosis. Which, without a clinician assisting, would be difficult. Public facing content - do we think this is sufficient to establish a construct like a personality disorder? Without clinical assessment any strong attribution is speculation. Which is fine, if that's the basis of the claim.

@Joshe Do you think that behaviour change does not influence structure of personality or psychology?

'Suicidal thoughts' is a bit unclear anyway - suicidal thoughts can be a form of intrusive thought we never intend to take action on. You could argue a case almost everyone has thoughts such as these. Suicidal thoughts can be simply intrusive / totally unwanted - or passive suicidal ideation types (I wish I could disappear, I wouldn't mind not waking up) - right into active suicidal ideation. Intent is a big factor. The term is ill defined.

I dunno. I don't think you can ever know someone. You can, at best, have an idea. And be able to predict some behaviours and choices around what you predict. But in the end people will surprise you. They will do things you can never expect. I agree that online interaction is a false sense of intimacy. A compartmentalization and avatar of the human. A simulacrum.

@tsuki you have a very deep understanding of how we allow things to affect us. It's hard for others to hear and reconcile responsibility without falling into the traps of shame and guilt. People conflate responsibilty with blame. Increasing agency without self condemnation is the essential contemplative piece many miss.

Engaging in the myriad logical fallacies people make - especially ones perpetuated via social media; ie false dichotomies, false dilemmas, hasty generalisations, strawmanning, equivocation and red herrings. This could be one of the larger ones that actualized.org is guilty of, and endures to stamp out.

Wealth and status, and the questions surrounding them - can be a proxy for 'Does he have his shit together enough to look after himself, and potentially us + 1 in the event of children?" The question and status, can act as a proxy to broadcast responsibility and maturity. But looked at as a singular metric in total isolation is defective reasoning to come to that conclusion. The whole person needs to be considered.