Natasha Tori Maru

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?

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.

Do you think this discussion necessitates some form of action, conclusion or acknowledgement? Because if this is the reason for the extensive engagement on your behalf, you might be up for disappointment. Not sure if anyone feels a compulsion for any sort of formality. We can all agree to disagree and nothing can come of it, as one potentiality.

It's like mutton dressed as lamb only between generations X -> Z

I can see what you are pointing to here, but I have to ask - does this claim hold up or is it based on some large assumptions that can act to strengthen flaws in the argument? The assumptions I see (not an exhaustive list) : intelligence protects against cult involvement the person is honestly attempting to learn exposure to multiple sources automatically reduces the risk of undue influence a cult and independent enquiry are mutually exclusive direct experience is a reliable corrective probability of cult-ic attachment is "highly unlikely" - no evidence supplied for this at all leo is not functioning as a central authority and intellectual sophistication protects people from influence None of the above are guaranteed - and again I am just objectively looking at the argument presented. Teaching critical thinking and epistemology doesn't automatically prevent cult-like dynamics. The question is whether those tools are applied consistently, including to the teacher and the community itself.

@Thought Art Heh heh it's okay, I'm a fan. I like em' a bit twisted, touch of the maverick 😈 I fuckup just as much TBH If contrition is shown. And a real attempt to correct behaviour, coupled with receiving critical feedback in a constructive, forward focussed manner - I will always have someone's back. If you're in it to fight and change I got ya. I care less about who a person has been and more about whether they are capable of honest self-correction. I tend to view lack of responsibility, integrity and bigotry as large factors for my own personal low investment and good opinion. The worst is when behaviour does not change but verbal apologies are abundant. Even then, people can remain stubborn for years and then pivot to changing when I least expect it. I am not married to my own judgements. I am pretty comfortable with ambiguity.

@Thought Art *here she comes, slowly, up behind you. Brandishing 4 needles of 100 units of BoNT-A in 2ml of saline to inject precisely into the corona, 1 inch distal to pubo-penile junction & cavernosa (right and left) of your penis* Do you opt out of the algorithm? Same same

The invitation is open to engage with the argument presented, base on receipts. Or you can bring receipts for a new premise. A good case can be argued for the craziest things and respect is due. The trouble is, some users will have an emotional investment and attachment that prevents engaging in an unbiased and unemotional way (not that emotions invalidate an argument, but they can steer us into fallacy). @Thought Art Accepted. You bad, bad boy