Lucasxp64

😂 Even his daughter was concerned about him becoming a deranged twitter addict.

I'm giving the old man the benefit of the doubt. 😂

I think he's probably left with some brain damage affecting his emotional control as well due to the meds that almost killed him. The doctor in the video calls it Benzodiazepine-Induced Neurological Dysfunction (BIND).

Look at this weirdness. This is why most people just lie about their true sexual inclinations right away, because it becomes this complex game dynamics, a lot of times those people just get heart broken and jealous. Of course this has nothing to do with what a woman is, but their romantic/sexual role.

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sex-sexuality-venn.png

A woman is a different thing depending on context. To an alien, they might not even have concept of biological sex. So they wouldn't even make such distinction, or it's very unimportant to their goals. What is a woman to a marketer? Well, it's just a psycho-social persona of what is likely most of the times a biological female person that could be a mother, a young insecure teenager girl, a buyer that would buy woman related stuff, likely prefers pink over blue color, and "feminine" brand style works best for them, likely buys makeup, etc. What is a woman to me when looking for a partner? Well, I'm looking for a persona that a marketer likely wouldn't specify that much. Such as specific facial features, bust size and shape, hip to waist ratio, hair color, eyebrow shape, eye area anatomy shape, vocal profile. Then idiosyncrasies, mannerisms, language, location, age range, personal beliefs, etc. What is a woman for the government? Has female checked in the ID. What is a woman for the government when it comes to reproduction? Is a biological female within reproductive age range. What is a woman for sexual pleasure of a partner? A homo sapiens of the biological gender male or female that looks plausibly like a female and doesn't have a physical dick and has a vagina or a surgically made "vagina" from a biological dick, that passes visually and sexually functionally (from the perspective of a sexual partner) for non-reproductive reasons as a vagina. Well actually... A woman for sexual pleasure is the tactile, visual and auditory patterns that triggers whatever internally turns them on and they assign it as a female in their heads in the case for most male heterosexual or bisexual homo sapiens or female homosexuals or bisexuals. A woman for psychological pleasure includes obviously elements beyond sexual trigger, such as interactive elements, inner mental fantasies, etc.: i.e. Why do people have AI girlfriend/boyfriends even though it's a non-biological entity? Is a AI GF not a woman in someone's fantasy? What about character of a woman in a fictional history? Isn't that a woman to the reader? There are many ways to explain this. A woman is definitely more complicated than let's say a "cube" because it's part of this psycho-social-biological domain, as with anything else within that domain, it's complex as heck. "Physically" if you want to get materialistic there is technically no such thing as a dog, a cube, a nuclear reactor, a planet, a woman or air. Those are just higher-order concepts for different physical patterns. A "woman" is just the ANSI or Unicode characters "W", "O", "M", "A", "N" that forms the English word "Woman". Do you get the idea here? We can go on and on with this ridiculous mental exercise on what is a woman and it's literally infinite. Most of the times when we say what a woman is, we mean the pragmatic common sense definition. She has social roles, she may have biological roles, etc. Socially, if someone looks like a woman, I'll call her "her", or even if he/she looks androgynous or ambiguous I'd refrain from using a pronoun just to not make myself a stupid fool in front of them and because I don't wanna be an asshole. If they tell me to use he or she even though common sense would tell otherwise, I'd call them whatever they please. Just to clear out the pronoun bullshit going around. Also I don't think there should be a law mandating use of the right pronoun within social settings, govt should not stick their greasy hands on people's social lives, excluding when it comes to child support. I think it complicates too much all of the other weird made-up social/sexual genders they are trying to make, like I saw a list with hundreds of them, it's not even practical even for dating apps to put that up. We probably have very little actual variations, it starts mixing up abstractions (See the image below on the next image on that venn diagram, we have 15 base gender/orientation definitions). Nobody should give a shit about your sexual orientation unless they wanna fuck you or they are your friend or whatever. Or some other serious reason. Biologically even the concept of sex/gender has weird edge-cases even for homo sapiens.

He's becoming worst over time after he went on this entire crusade, also probably his medical problems worsened his mental health even further. He was on the blink of death with a serious legal drug addiction (ironically prescribed drugs that he didn't check were addictive, biggest mistake of his whole life), and his wife was battling against cancer. He got really bitter as a person after that. He obviously already had egotistical tendency even before that, but he's really unstable now. He began saying dumb angry shit on twitter to random commenters, and he treats people talking to him differently, like on that video it's pretty obvious he gets angry for no serious reason, the difference between that and that interview on the UK that the interviewer was trying to frame him is massive, he lost self-control and charisma. I think this is one of the results of having beliefs that are so moralistic, it leads people to break down like that when they break. All of his intellectualizing didn't really bring him closer to god, he's full of suffering. If he actually did spiritual practices he wouldn't be this sad person. This shows the average Christian spiritual practices are too focused on abstract moral concepts, not on actual spirituality.

It was glaringly obvious to me that's the case when he got interviewed here: At 35:00 Jordan Peterson goes full clown mode 🤡 by saying he would never lie even if it meant saving his life or of a loved one, or that thought experiment of lying to save life of Jews in nazi Germany, he said he would not lie even in that situation, because "I would do everything I could to not be in that situation, be bloody well sure I'd never put myself in that situation, and by the point you find yourself in that situation, you already committed plenty of sins". Then he backs off from answering further the question, and says he would NOT EVEN BE IN THAT SCENARIO. So disingenuous. Well I guess with his verbal bullshitting skills he could get his way around not needing to technically lie to the Nazi guards to save the Jews, technically not really "lying". He can get away with supporting trump and at the same time not technically "not have really supported" once it hits the history books. He's a sophist at heart.

THE SECULAR APOLOGIST: UNPACKING THE PARADOX OF JORDAN PETERSON’S GOD Ask Jordan Peterson if he believes in God, and instead of a simple "yes" or "no," you get a maze of psychology, biology, and philosophy. Yet somehow, he has become modern Christianity’s biggest poster boy. How does a secular psychologist become the great defender of the faith? Through a masterful rhetorical architecture that bridges rationalism and spiritual myth, giving him structural plausible deniability. To resolve this paradox, one must deconstruct his functional theology. Peterson’s God is not an ontologically distinct, supernatural creator in the classical theistic sense; rather, his conceptualization of the divine is synthesized from four specific intellectual pillars: JORDAN PETERSON'S DEFINITIONS OF GOD 1. THE HIGHEST PRINCIPLE OF VALUE (TELEOLOGY) Because human beings cannot act without a hierarchy of values, God is the ultimate ideal at the top of that psychological pyramid. Whatever sits at the absolute peak of your value system—the goal that dictates all your other behaviors—is FUNCTIONALLY your God. 2. THE LOGOS (THE MECHANISM OF ORDER) God represents the active principle of human consciousness, truthful speech, and courageous attention. It is the behavioral pattern used to confront the unknown (CHAOS) and transform it into habitable reality (ORDER). 3. THE META-HERO (JUNGIAN ARCHETYPE) God is the psychological distillation of all human heroes. Over millennia, humanity abstracted the "greatness" from individual heroes into myths, eventually synthesizing them into a single, ultimate projection of our highest possible potential. 4. EVOLUTIONARY PRAGMATIC TRUTH (DARWINIAN EPISTEMOLOGY) God is an evolutionary adaptation. Religious narratives are considered "true" in a pragmatic sense because cultures that act AS IF God exists tend to survive, out-compete, and flourish better than those that do not. --- Peterson’s theology identifies God as the PERSONIFIED, ABSTRACTED REPRESENTATION OF THE HIGHEST MORAL GOOD. Because this framework is biologically and psychologically grounded, he can use it as an intellectual anchor to justify traditional normative structures. --- This definition is brilliant—almost impossible for a rationalist to dismiss. But Peterson leverages it for a massive philosophical pivot. It functions as a classic MOTTE-AND-BAILEY dynamic. When challenged by secular critics, he retreats to his bulletproof fortress: GOD IS JUST THE HIGHEST VALUE EMBEDDED IN HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY. Rationalists concede the point because it makes structural scientific sense. But once that ground is ceded, he steps right back out to defend orthodox Christian ethics, biologically grounded gender dynamics, and natural social hierarchies. However, the catch is that Peterson himself does not see this as a trick or a retreat. To his pragmatic mind, the psychological mechanism IS the divine mechanism; the material and the spiritual are indistinguishable at the bottom. If he gets heat for defending the dogma, he can legitimately claim he is speaking strictly as an evolutionary behavioral scientist, not a preacher. So why defend the dogma so fiercely? Because to Peterson, it isn't literally true in a material sense; it is META-TRUE. He believes Western civilization survived because it acted out the Judeo-Christian narrative. To him, these ancient stories are highly evolved behavioral guardrails, and discarding them invites psychological and cultural collapse. This is exactly why orthodox Christians love him. They do not care HOW he reached his conclusions; they are just thrilled a secular-facing academic is defending their traditions using the very weapons of the secular academy: evolutionary biology and psychology. Ironically, they are so eager for a cultural champion that they entirely overlook the fact that he has stripped their God of His supernatural, independent existence. Ultimately, Peterson looks and acts like a traditional Christian, but he operates as a secular apologist. He defends faith as a Darwinian survival necessity, which means, at the end of the day, he sidesteps the metaphysical existence of a literal God entirely. He is not an agnostic; he is a radical pragmatist. To Peterson, TRUE belief is not intellectual assent, but embodied action. In his own words, he ACTS AS IF GOD EXISTS—meaning that if you live a moral, courageous life, you DO believe in God, whether your rational brain admits it or not. --- His definition of BELIEF: Jordan Peterson defines belief fundamentally as embodied action (something you would die for) rather than mere cognitive assent to a set of facts. Drawing from clinical psychology, he argues that humans are highly prone to self-deception and often state they hold values that completely contradict their actual lifestyles. Therefore, for Peterson, the only reliable metric for determining what someone truly believes is observing their behavior. In his framework, you do not believe what you say you believe; you believe what you act out in the world. Consequently, Peterson dismisses the idea that intellectually affirming a concept as "true" adds anything meaningful to the definition of belief. Rooted in the philosophical tradition of pragmatism, he views truth as that which allows a person to navigate the world functionally and morally. Merely stating you think something is a factual truth is empty if it doesn't manifest in your physical choices. This is why he argues that an atheist who acts highly morally actually "believes" in God—because their ethical behavior embodies a meaningful, functional framework, proving to Peterson that true belief is lived, not just spoken.

I find that absurd as heck. You're paying, and still have to do work for them? Wow. What a great business model. I'm writing that down. Imagine, your employees PAY YOU! Fucking awesome business model.

I'm reaching out for LLMs too much, and it's atrophying my own ability to think deeply for hours. It's an enabler of getting mentally fried further by technology if you don't inter-space its use with alone time. I noticed I began dumbing down to its own level. I'm not calling myself a genius, what I mean is that, the AI is full of knowledge, but it doesn't have embodied wisdom/knowledge at all. It loses coherence in long contexts, with too many variables, for great spans of time that our actual embodied lives have. Just look at how they struggle at computer coding the "agentic" capabilities are laughable, it becomes rotten due to holes in its logic and knowledge that even a human child wouldn't have issues with. The only rules LLM needs to follow are the rules of language itself, they were trained on language, and only bound by language, it has no stakes, it can bullshit us all day with half-baked sort-of-relevant knowledge that might or might not work, or might or might not be the deepest, or most relevant truths. Those LLMs have a tendency to make your mind float around like a leaf, sure it's better than a 1 minute video, but it has little concept of relevancy, and it can just work as a landslide of information. It has a lot of broadness but not enough depth, unless you know how to prompt for it, which needs deep inner reflection. The problem we face today isn't knowledge, it's relevancy. We are drowning in knowledge. Your mind has more context about yourself than any external entity could ever have. I love them, but like anything else, it has its toxic uses.

But its modern's biology greatest mystery the News Man says, and the Science Man says they were looking for it for decades! 🔬

This is basically how scientists are looking at the world. It's like they have never seen two dogs fornicating, because they don't have enough data or a way to "falsify" it.

Is it worth abandoning introspecting/intellectual career or life purpose just to hyper-optimize for sociability, like going into sales instead? Just for the sake of getting a 8/10 girlfriend? I don't prioritize an absurdly high lay count, just high quality (I know I need to lower standards at first)... Just doing it as a phase, and once I'm satisfied I drop it. However, it's a big concern I'd lose those skills due to high introspection/intellectual work due to career/life purpose... And if I lost that one girlfriend, I'd have been rusty due to not having a hyper-social career/life purpose. I prioritize being in high touch to my intuition and emotions, but not on being social. I'm not social, but I do prioritize being in high emotional touch one-to-one to a specific girl, that brings me immense joy like nothing else. But I have very little social experience to strangers. I go to high emotional depth which also translates into high sexual acuity to what turns them on, and that seems a flaw in game? Do I need to be more caveman?

I think people see all of those variables within social dynamics, those data points, and then they start making absolutist strategies to navigate it. Humans tend to get pretty extreme when some topic is highly emotional to them. We are all intellectually obese. Read carefully those two sentences: "I am starving because I am unworthy of food." vs "I am suffering because there is no food on my plate right now." We mistake the pain of unworthiness for the pain of hunger. One man thinks, 'I'm starving because I'm unworthy of food.' All the information he consumes about nutrition, status, and competition only deepens his shame. Another man thinks, 'I'm suffering because there's no food on my plate.' His problem is situational. The first man, if he ever gets food, can't be nourished by it. The meal only feeds his anxiety. The second man simply eats and is satisfied. Nobody fears that a fat guy will mog their food. Food and sex is abundant given the right circumstances, it's pointless once you have it and feels satisfied unless you're also feeding the hole of unworthiness with more and more. My point is: Our primal brains modulate our feelings of abundance (social, sexual, safety, power, etc) through various mechanisms such as hunger, loneliness, access to high quality sexual partners. However, since it's biased towards not being satisfied due to hedonistic treadmill, people fall into the trap of death by indigestion of too much abundance, their souls are obese and they still can't get enough. Meanwhile others are beating themselves up for not being obese, for being "unworthy" of food or whatever they want to focus at. Nobody needs to look like a 10 to cook their brains out with sexual desire. Just their hand and porn. Nobody needs to be a billionaire to eat to death. Again, the point is... To which point do you actually need to maximize: Looks, Money & Social Capital to be enough to satisfy your cravings? It doesn't fucking matter to know to be born a billionaire, or attractive gets it better, any idiot knows that. Don't turn it into an obsession that eats you up like acid, this is exactly what is happening with our society, this stupid internet environment is inflating everything: "YOUR DESIRES MUST BE BIGGER. YOUR HUNGER MUST BE MORE INSATIABLE." vs "Here are the optimal techniques to satisfy your desires through using those tools: Looks, Money and Social Capital". Do you focus on getting feed, or on the anxiety of not having food, and how much some have a lot of food, and how someday you will be a fat valueless slob that shoves food up his ass by installing surgically a food-sucking rectal device, so you can get food through both holes, because that insatiable hunger for feeling worthy of food can't be filled?