Xonas Pitfall

My condolences. May she rest in Peace 💗😥

What niche are you in? To be honest, a lot of YouTube is about finding what has gone viral recently. Look for outliers. Find channels where one video or title massively outperformed the rest. For example, if a channel usually gets around 1,000 views but one video gets 50,000, that's worth studying. Then recreate that idea or make a better version of it, and do the same with the thumbnail; copy the title/topic. VIDIq is a cool extension for finding these "outlier" videos. You can see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CvaITrXKwQ Editing is also worth investing in, whether that's learning the style yourself by recreating these kinds of videos or hiring a good editor. Retention is huge, especially the hook. That said, it heavily depends on your goals. If you're trying to sell something, for example, it's often better to have a smaller audience that's highly aligned with your niche than to go viral just for the sake of going viral.

I think Teal herself... although I don't know how much I can trust the documentary about her (since it was obviously framed in a way that portrayed her as a narcissistic cult leader). But if some of the things shown were accurate, then she definitely seems to have a blind spot when it comes to giving up autonomy and accepting reciprocity in relationships. If I remember correctly, one of her closest relationships was with her ex-husband. They married, divorced, and she seemed to keep him around for quite a while as part of her community, where he continued taking care of her. Then, when he found a new partner, she did her best to ostracize that woman from the community and persuade or seduce him into admitting he still had feelings for her. Very much, "I won't commit to you, but I love knowing that I'm still desired; I don't want to let you move on." If that's an accurate portrayal, then it would make sense why someone with that blind spot might find the idea of polyamory appealing without having fully integrated the responsibility and reciprocity it requires. That said, I really don't know how much of the documentary is trustworthy. Just food for thought.

I feel like a lot of people might love the idea of polyamory as it pertains to their ego, but they haven't really thought about what it means when that same freedom equally applies to their partner. I think a lot of relationship structures can work, but the more complicated they become, the more honesty, openness, and communication they require, with even fewer ego games or power struggles. Usually, people who want to pursue a genuine, healthy polyamorous relationship have already mastered monogamy. They have deep trust in each other that they can introduce more variables and navigate more difficult emotions together, not the other way around. Polyamory would require even deeper trust and an even stronger sense of security than monogamy. If you already have trouble finding one person, thinking you can manage multiple is a pretty silly leap.

Vulnerability is very much like flirting or sharing secrets. The process is surprisingly similar. With flirting, you don't immediately jump into fucking or confessing your feelings. Instead, both people engage in this gradual "testing the waters" process. You're constantly gauging whether the interest is mutual because neither person wants to be flat-out rejected, seem too needy, desperate, or come on too strong. "Plausible deniability". You might hold eye contact a little longer, lightly touch them, notice whether they pull away or lean in, or slowly decrease the physical distance between you. Each small interaction is a way of checking whether the other person is receptive. The same thing happens with sharing secrets. You don't tell a complete stranger your deepest personal information. Instead, you reveal little bits here and there. You watch how they're received. Are they judgmental? Do they gossip? Do they speak poorly about other people behind their backs? Share their secrets? All of those small cues tell you whether this is someone you can trust with something bigger. The exact same principle applies to vulnerability. What I've personally found in relationships is that if you come across as having very strong opinions, seeming judgmental, inflexible, or overly self-focused, people slowly become less willing to open up. Likewise, when someone shares something emotional, sensitive, or even just a little silly, and they're met with defensiveness, subtle ridicule, dismissal, or the feeling that it might later be used against them, those experiences gradually build a mental model of how safe it is to be vulnerable with you. Again, the key thing to understand is that all of this happens through subtle, gradual social cues that people unconsciously learn to recognize over time. It's rarely about one specific incident that you can point to and say, "This is why they stopped opening up." Instead, it's the accumulation of dozens or even hundreds of tiny interactions that slowly shape a person's internal sense of, "How much do I trust this person?" If you want someone to share deeply with you, you first have to recognize and cherish the small moments of vulnerability. If you want big vulnerability, you need to respond gently to small vulnerabilities. If you want someone to trust you with their biggest secrets, you first have to prove that you can protect their smaller ones. If you want someone to eventually say "I love you," you first have to create safety around the smaller expressions of affection, flirting, touch, and emotional closeness. So I think the first thing to become aware of is your own receptiveness. Try paying more attention when someone is being vulnerable, even if it's something small or something you wouldn't normally recognize as vulnerability. Ask yourself: do you perhaps come across, even in subtle ways, as dismissive, overly critical, or difficult to open up to? I remember, for example, in a previous relationship, if I ever expressed even a little jealousy, it was often subtly treated as "insecurity." It wasn't always said outright, but you could feel that atmosphere of annoyance, almost like, "Ugh, really?" Sometimes it even felt like my jealousy was appreciated only because it made them feel desired, rather than because they wanted to reassure or care for me. Experiences like that naturally teach someone to stop expressing those feelings. - Another important factor is simple incompatibility. This might actually be even more fundamental. If I think someone is likely to judge my lifestyle negatively, I often don't even bother sharing it because I expect it to turn into a debate. As a result, I come across as more closed off than I actually am. An obvious example would be meeting someone who is extremely judgmental, like a very conservative church lady who views any alternative lifestyle as morally wrong. You probably wouldn't want to share those parts of yourself because you'd expect to be misunderstood or condemned. The easiest solution is often to surround yourself with people who are naturally compatible with the kind of life you want to live. But that raises another question: do you even know what kind of lifestyle you want? If not, it might be worth figuring that out first and then placing yourself in circles where people are more likely to share similar values. - There's also the classic ego trap of "vulnerability for me, but not for thee." Sometimes the ego isn't actually certain what it wants. Does it want commitment? Does it want commitment with this specific person? Is it ready to embrace this particular lifestyle? Commitment always involves giving something up, and the ego naturally resists that. The ego loves receiving vulnerability because it feels validating, special, and desired. Yet it often avoids being vulnerable because it isn't fully sure it wants to commit, reveal difficult truths, or risk rejection. Some parts of yourself have to be surrendered in exchange for genuine commitment. Other parts may simply be too important to compromise, even if that means risking the relationship. - Another question worth asking is: what are you actually attracted to? The classic meme of wanting an angel while constantly being attracted to a succubus. What kinds of people and environments are you repeatedly choosing? Which circles do you keep placing yourself in? Beliefs like, "It is shocking and heartbreaking to know how unconscious humanity is," can be defense mechanisms. They allow the ego to maintain a sense of superiority: I'm the honest, vulnerable, authentic one, while everyone else is unconscious...which your ego naturally loves to feel. It's especially gratifying if you can feel "superior" to the other person within the relationship. Of course, you probably aren't doing this consciously, but it's still worth examining. Why are you choosing the people you're choosing? Are you drawn to relationships where you can maintain a sense of being more emotionally aware, wiser, or more mature than the other person? - Another important question is: what are you actually being vulnerable about? I've heard people say they couldn't be vulnerable with their partner, but when I asked what they meant, they said they wanted to admit they still had feelings for an ex, had a crush on a coworker, or wanted to tell their partner they found them unattractive. Some things aren't healthy vulnerability. They're simply inconsiderate or insensitive, even if they're framed as "I'm just being honest." - Lastly, there's the numbers game. At the end of the day, finding a genuine life partner can simply take time. The more specific your values, lifestyle, and aspirations are, the smaller your pool of compatible people becomes. This is especially true if you're highly self-aware or ambitious, since you're likely to keep growing and expect both yourself and your partner to grow as well. That naturally makes compatibility harder to find. There's nothing wrong with that, but it comes with a cost. Couples with more conventional "normie" lifestyles may find it easier to stay together simply because they have fewer competing aspirations. That said, be careful that your "ambition" isn't just another way for the ego to avoid commitment. If those aspirations are genuinely important to you, then the best approach is often to treat it as a numbers game: meet more people, put yourself in situations where you're likely to find compatible partners, stay receptive, and keep vetting until you find someone who truly fits. - To find "True" Love is about overcoming the ego's games, both within yourself and in your relationships with others. Since other people are the trickier variable, and ultimately outside of your control, it's generally better to focus on examining yourself first.

Absolutely!

Orion 🤣

I genuinely think play is one of the most underrated pillars of self-improvement – it's deeply tied to happiness. I wanted to create this thread for any fun personal tips or little hacks you guys might have. Let's play together!

Happy Birthday! 🎈🥳🥳🥳🥳

Sorry! To clarify, I don't believe this at all. These are just some of the observations and contrasts I've seen expressed, or common biases that seem to arise. You see men looking down on the very same traits they wish to see in women, or shaming the very traits they actually desire. A healthy mind thinks like you do. I was just commenting on the possible biases and ego constructs that might arise, and exploring why or how they might develop.

I'd actually be incredibly curious to see why this happens and what the whole "ego construct" behind this phenomenon is. From my observation, men seem to have this weird duality where, on one end, they see women as "other": beautiful, pure, open, expressive, emotionally fluid, a need, almost like this thing that has control over them, which annoys them yet also entrances them because of the beauty. Yet, on the other end, there is this huge side who seem to genuinely feel that, compared to them, women are simply more childish, emotional, misguided, or not smart enough to be regarded on the same level. Or, even if they don't outright believe or say that, there often seems to be this underlying dynamic where "masculine traits" are viewed as being above "feminine traits." It can subtly and subconsciously creep into the way they think or perceive women. I don't know, but it can be quite a confusing construct.

Amazing product! ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Philosophy + psychedelics is needed. (or some sort of deliberate consciousness practice), then you'll be sticking your head in cow shit, experiencing interdimensional alien love feasts, inhabiting the mind of a brutalistic caveman ready to rip a gazelle's neck off, tearing into raw flesh like a starving predator, standing knee-deep, reliving your own birth, mourning the death of the universe, and so much more...

The issue is that you think you're being objective, but you're using your biased perspective to claim it's the truth. That's what people have an issue with. You can like/prefer whatever you want, but you're claiming a lot of things that aren't correct or truthful, and that's what people are calling you out on. That's the issue.

You can have any bias. However, where people are arguing is that you take a bias and claim it as the truth. What you're saying isn't "the truth." It's just your preference. The problem is that you mask it, present it as the truth, and then claim you're being demonized for "speaking the truth." But that's not what's happening. You're presenting your bias as if it's the truth. That's the fundamental flaw (issue).

But the issue here isn't that people are refraining from or blocking you from saying the "truth." It's that what you're saying is either overly simplistic, poorly argued, not nuanced enough, and at the very least, up for debate. No one is telling you that you can't say the "truth", but you aren't actually saying the truth. That's why people have an issue with it. The same goes for Leo, as people pointed out above. He can definitely make incredibly simplistic, low-quality arguments and black-and-white binaries around what it means to be a man, a woman, feminine, or masculine. It's not that you're being blocked from saying the "truth." It's that you're in a forum that wants to understand bias, truth, and develop a more refined, complex understanding. We're studying Leo's videos about this. So expecting no debate, no questioning of your beliefs, or no one correcting them would be silly. I've been wrong myself, and as a result of discussions in this forum, I've corrected my own thoughts. It feels good. A lot of people genuinely want to help and push all of us closer to the truth. That should be the goal.

It's sometimes just very simplistic, basic "red-pill/pickup" rhetoric on what masculinity vs. femininity is. Take this post as an example: https://www.actualized.org/insights/masculinity-and-truth It's more disappointing how poor the arguments can be, from someone who's spent years deconstructing biases, self-bias, spirituality, duality/non-duality, etc. A lot of the claims in this post I don't think are accurate or even well-studied/scientifically supported. I think a lot of women on here get tired of how low-quality the arguments are. I think the topic of masculinity vs. femininity is a very interesting one, and plenty of fruitful conversations can arise from it, but we'll get nowhere if this is the level of argumentation...

I think it's also so tricky with old scriptures and philosophies in general to truly know what they all meant. You can easily imagine that if you only had a few videos of Leo left after hundreds of years, many people would also conclude, "Well, Leo said to transcend suffering and that it's possible, because he had that one trip where he said, 'Someone could shoot me through the head, I'm immortal, and I wouldn't feel a thing!!! Death is Imaginary! Pain is Imaginary!!!'" But obviously, if you had the full context, this entire forum, his replies, and all of his videos, you'd see the actual message. It's probably similar with many of these philosophies/religions too. It's always way easier for someone to "appear" like a God when they're dead, haha.

This sounds amazing. Would 100% watch! +1

Customers. As long as you have cash flow, you have a living business. You get customers by getting their attention: social media, paid ads, local paid ads, cold outreach, and other channels. This should always be your primary focus.

@Phil King Where are the 30+ Minute ones? Perhaps I missed them?

Since when have you been feeling this way? Why is it coming up now? Eight years is a long time to suddenly realize that someone makes you uncomfortable. It feels like there's a lot more going on than what's in the post. What are you actually imagining life would look like instead? What are you comparing your relationship to? It's normal for people to drift apart over time, but that's not really what I'm getting from what you've written. It sounds more like you're uncertain, but you haven't really explained why. I think you need to be more honest with yourself about what feels missing, and what you're hoping you'll find on the other side if you decide to leave.

@Pure Do you feel like a Glitch? W̶̹͉̋͝ḩ̸̡̯̄͊͘a̸͇̥͕̒͑͗t̷̫̱̼̰̀͒͆͘ ̴̨̻̌̓ͅḵ̶͒ï̷̹̎̊̚ͅn̵̨͖̙͉͒͆͆̆d̴̠͑̐ ̸̛͇͍̳o̵̢̙̮͜͝f̴̛̞͋͛̈́ ̷̧͔̞͉̉̆E̴͍̞͌̽͆̚n̴̟͙̕e̸͉͔̪͂͆̐̕ṛ̷͛͠g̴͚̒̊͝͠y̸̦͋́ ̴̝̣̘̽͒̽ȧ̷̞̂r̷̞̬̳͔̔͆e̵̞͖͍͇̽ ̶̨̣̔̐̂͘ý̸̧̢̠̫̄͠o̸̤̒͋̎̔ů̸̫̟̹̩̑͒̓ ̴̱̌̌g̵̳̞͖̈́͘e̵̡̯̠͍̓͐̔̍t̵̜͈́̕t̵͓̗̲̽i̵̯̖̻͎̎n̵͖̰͑̿͊̆ĝ̶̰̲͇͜ ̷̳̳͛ͅf̷̜̓͛r̷̢̺̟͉͐̽́ó̵̠͖̈̂ṃ̵̝͂̿ ̶̼̺̎m̴̝̂ȇ̴̞̝?̵͍̯̊͌̇̉

Like any Ego does!

Just some gentle criticism/advice: I don't think most people have an issue with you getting things "wrong" or the specific percentages of how many things you get correct/wrong (10%, 90%, etc.). I think the bigger issue is the level of confidence and sensationalism that often accompany many of the claims. Statements can sometimes come across as very absolute, almost as if there is no room for debate and anyone who disagrees simply isn't conscious enough to understand. I just don't see what benefit that adds. If a person is wrong, you can often disprove many arguments about God through logic alone. There's a huge difference between a scientist making a claim based on a particular research protocol, later revising it, and allowing it to be challenged through peer review, versus a scientist constantly presenting themselves as "I AM the greatest researcher ever! No one ELSE DOES SCIENCE BETTER THAN ME!". If that scientist later makes a mistake, people will naturally be much more eager to point it out and use it against them. Imagine a scientist like this. How eager do you think people would be to point out flaws in his methods and question his credibility? How confident or willing do you think people would be to engage with his methods? I think that's one of the main issues. When someone presents themselves in such an absolute and self-aggrandizing way, people naturally become much more motivated to scrutinize their claims and look for mistakes. Just a suggestion!