xXguitarsenXx

You can check out my Animated Summary here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sVAIe8qtLo Billions of dollars have been invested to make us addicted to technology. So what can we do about it? Well in the book Digital Minimalism by Cal newport, we are given the following notion: Digital Minimalism: "A philosophy of Technology use in which you focus your online time on a small number of carefully selected and optimized activites that strongly support things you value, and then happily miss out on everything else" - Cal Newport Cal Newport then goes on to provide Step by step instructions for the decluttering process: Step 1: Identify high quality activities after initiating the decluttering process, you'll find yourself with more time on your hands. as such, you should clarify what activities you'll spend your time on. Instead of scrolling Facebook mindlessly for an hour, you can spend that time learning to play the guitar. Step 2: Identify optional technologies. Cal Newport says: "consider the technology optional unless its temporary removal would harm or significantly disrupt the daily operation of your professional or personal life." But if you can't remove it, then make rules about how to use it, to minimize its impact. For example you could make a rule about only using social media for one hour in the evening. Step 3: Do the 30-day declutter Put your plan to work by eliminating the optional technologies and fill the remaining time with the high quality activites you've identified. Soon you'll discover the benefits of living in alignment with your values instead of consuming compulsively. Step 4: Reintroduce technologies that support your deep values. And to do this, you should ask yourself the following 3 questions about the technology: 1 Does this technology support something I truly value? 2 Is this technology the BEST way to support that value? And if the answer was yes to both of these questions. Then ask yourself: 3 How am I going to use the technology optimally? Together these steps should put you on the right path to a better relationship with technology. You can check out my Animated Summary here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sVAIe8qtLo

You could make a video about finding the balance between thinking too much about yourself and too much about others

I also believe that it's about talent + working hard.

But that doesn't make sense. You are both saying that we can become equally good at anything, but you also say that we should do something we are good at, because you read "So good they can't ignore you". If it is true we can become equally good at anything and we have 5 year skill in something and we have a 40 year career in front of us, then the only difference will be 40 for new career choice or 45 for the thing where we have 5 years skill. So in that case it is 5 years better? Is that what you mean? Because in that case it could make sense to switch if you like the other job more. Because it's only 5 years less skill, because all other factors like how it suits your strenghts doesn't matter.

So you say that things like IQ, Our brain wiring and other personality traits doesn't affect our ability to learn something? So everybody is 100% able to master the same level of expertise in a given field? What about high responders to running? What about runners who don't have legs, can they reach the same mastery as people with legs? Can someone with lung disease and really small lungs become a opera singer? And can she sing as good as people with healthy big lungs? And how would you then explain that he includes a "strenght assessment"? Why would he do that if our current strenghts doesn't matter?

Just to be sure that we are talking about the same thing: I think that almost anyone can become good at all skills. For example i believe that almost anyone can become a good mathematician, if they just want it enough and practice correctly. But i still think that if two people were given the same amount of correct effective practice, then one of them would become better. Because there is other factors involved such as Working memory, IQ, Past knowledge and how their brain is wired. Not everyone's brain is wired the same way. Leo also said in a video that everybody's brain is wired differently. So if people are so different, why then assume that they reach the same level of expertice with a given amount of correct effective practice? I think everyone can become great, but some people can become greater.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/practice-alone-does-not-make-perfect-studies-find/ But science also says that deliberate practice isn't everything. I also know a girl from school who just can't think in logic, no matter how much she tries. But for me it has always been easy. People are different, So wouldn't it make sense that they can become better at different things? I mean we aren't all the same. Some people have a higher IQ, wouldn't it then be easier for them to become a Neuroscientist, than for someone with a low IQ? I think the one with the low IQ has to work harder.

I just saw "Talent is a myth", from the life purpose course. It says that you can become world class at anything if you want it enough. But is talent really a myth? I'm not doubting that practice is really important and that you can't thrive on talent alone. But aren't we supposed to choose our career based on both our passsions and our strenghts? Why else does the life purpose course have an entire section called "Strenghts assessment"? So shouldn't I try to find a life purpose that involves anatlytical thinking and organization, if that's what i'm good at? So basically i'm assuming that some people could become world class musicians, while other people could become world class teachers, and if they tried each others fields then they wouldn't get as much success. Off course they still need their 10000 hours deliberate practice, but some would benefit more from it if it alligns with their unique gifts. Am i wrong?

Yes i like it so far most of it.

I know he said that, but it just seems like he would be an INTJ or maybe ENTJ Often people get a wrong result with the test. It's usually better to read the 16 personalites, learn about function stack and the 8 cognitive function and from then decide

He took a test as an INTP, but me and many others suspect that he is an INTJ. What do you guys think he is? INTP, INTJ or something else? To those who don't know what i'm talking about, it's MBTI (myers briggs type indicator)

I have some questions about 5-meo-dmt. I often have a hard time completely surrendering to ego death. Therefore i thought about smoking a high dose of 5-meo-DMT. If the dose is high enough, and it hits you in a few seconds, won't you almost be ¨forced¨ to surrender and experience ego death? Which things can you do to prepare for the trip, so you are more likely to surrender? Has anyone tried snorting and smoking? What do you think about the two experiences compared to each other?

@Leo Gura . I just become confused, because sometimes you say that psychedelics isn't a shortcut, but now you say that they can create ¨genuine enlightenment-like insights¨. For me it seems like psychedelics can be a catalyst for the enlightenment journey/work, but only if you already are doing some enlightenment work. For example in a psychedelic session i saw that my whole ego structure just is ¨my¨ mind saying that their is a ego and connecting that ego to everything that i think i am. Hard to explain, but it was so obvious. It didn't make me enlightened, because i again identify with the ego, but now i know that it isn't a waste of my time to do enlightenment work, because i actually have seen that their is some real insights to have. I know that psychedelics can't take you all the way, and that you need to do alot of work yourself, but can't psychedelics be like a catalyst? Making the spiritual journey shorter?

@Leo Gura What is the role of these direct experiences of conciousness or the absolute nature of reality? And are they just as good if you get them with psychedelics? And are they just motivation for enlightenment work, or do they have another purpose such as the insights you gain from them, or is it something completely different? And another question. When you say ¨after enlightenment¨what exactly do you mean? Is it after such a direct experience of conciousness, or is it after such a direct experience when you no longer identify with the body or mind, or something different altogether?

I would like a video about the complete enlightenment path, because I exactly want to know things like: -You talk about ¨after enlightenment¨. Is there really, what we conventionally call a point a time, where we are enlightened or is it only a process? -How do you know exactly what stage on the path you are at, if there is stages? And what are these stages? -Some people describe that you first see that you are the nothingness that you talk about, and that you then afterwards see that everything is this nothingness, is this true? Catchy titles: 1 The enlightenment path - the full journey before and after enlightenment explained. 2 The enlightenment path - The different stages explained 3 The enlightenment path - Complete explanation of the different stages