mostly harmless

Hey Leo, I didn't rely get why the proof for anything is supposed to be requiring further proof. Could you clarify this? What I do understand is when reasoning, you always need premises to base upon. And these premises need to be agreed upon to be valid. Someone could always refuse to accept your premises as legit or proven and require proof for them. Is that what you meant?* *If premises for reasoning are accepted, the logic of the reasoning could still be contested. You are ultimately dependent on people agreeing with you, that your reasoning is sound. If they don't then you can do nothing, no matter how silly their opposition may seem. Example: (1) All humans are mortal. (2) All philosophers are humans. Conclusion: (3) All philosophers are mortal. If someone would say: 'No. That's not true,' That would be silly, but the question is, how could you proof your logic? I am not asking about the content of the reasoning. You could then make a list of all philosophers and wait until they all died... That's accounting. Not a proof of your logic. And it's also not practical having to start big studies for any conclusion you come up with in a conversation. So again: How could you proof that another person has to agree with your reasoning? You can't. I am not sure though, that this is what you are talking about in this video. For anyone who didn't watch the video, yet:

By the way I find it to be a general principle in life that you can have everything you want, after you give up needing it. Exmaple: You want a supermodel girlfriend while you are average looking and have an average job with average income. Say one day you meet a girl that you would want to have as a girlfriend. Now since this is so important to you, you get nervous. You are also mostly interested in her, because she looks great. That's why in conversation you don't ask her much about her life, dreams, nothing about finding out if she is smart or not. As a result she gets that you are only superficially interested. And you being nervous makes it obvious to her, that you are not used to talking to girls of her caliber. You kicked yourself out of the game. If you would instead find her very attractive, but would be OK to be alone, or with a partner who is attractive but not one-in-10,000-attractive, and not impressed by looks alone unless there's an interesting, intelligent person behind the face, then you would probably have a chance. I think it is similar with career goals or sports... Being too invested makes things seem so important that it can be paralyzing.

You can always drink vegetable juice in between meals. Basically like cold tomato soup. No calories. If you are dehydrated because you don't drink enough, then you body will crave food (for the water in it).

Years before the Holocaust, the Nazis separated children. They made sure, that jewish children went to different schools. It is a lot more easy to demonize people who are not friends with those you intend to indoctrinate. My advice would be for you to volunteer in assisting refugees with organizing their life and burocratic necessities and teaching them your language. I am pretty sure that will affect your attitude more than any theoretic consideration.

Could there be people who benefit from an miseducated, unhappy population who are good consumers and don't get in the way of bigger political agendas? What would those people do, if these things appeared to be changing? Have there been people who promised a change for the better, like more democracy, more rights for people etc.. What happened to them and their promises?

Yes, used this for school.

Wife left him for a hippie?

Google 'toastmasters'. There are TMs-groups around the world for people to practice public speaking. Youtube: search 'present like Steve Jobs'. Several very good tips will come up. My personal thoughts: Think how you would explain something to a friend or a group of friends. Can you let go of the idea that you have to show how eloquent you are and amaze people with sentences like you would find in a book, and instead focus on making people understand the topic no matter if you look like a fool? I would ask myself: What is interesting about this for the people listening? What do I have to make them understand and take away from the presentation? A good way to increase engagement, interest and the chance that people get the information is to make it interactive. That means asking questions. That would be on one hand, before giving away some findings of a study for example, to ask the audience what they assume the outcome of the study was. And on the other hand you can ask people to describe what you just told them in their own words. Then you know if you have to clarify this point further or if you can move on. You can also ask what aspects they would like to hear more details about. This is by no means complete or systematically thought through. Just some suggestions off the top of my head. Good luck.

I don't know wether you're a person who does a lot of sports. Let's imagine you are. My question to you would be: Do you do sports for the sake of doing it, or do you want to achieve a goal. If it is the latter, then you are not doing, you are producing. You are producing for example fitness, or a fit and attractive body. The need to be productive is a paradigm learned from society. Once you see that this is a learned perspective, you can ask wether it is supposed to be that way and if there could possibly be alternatives. When you apply the paradigm of producing an end result to life, is that compatible? A product (wether some thing you buy in a shop or as in my example some state like fitness) is a static thing. Is life also static? Life is a process. You do not reach a final state before your body's death. The idea of becoming rich for instance is that once you reach that goal, everything remains that way forever (obviously it ends with death but we live with the feeling that we live forever, otherwise how would achievements make sense?). That's obviously naive. It is the logic of novels and movies. Life is not a product which is to be optimized. I would still propose to work on yourself. If you can see it as a challenge you choose instead of an obligation, then it could be fun. I have similar issues myself, despite knowing better. So, these are a few thoughts about this.

Ironically, despite claiming to have such an amazing memory, I have to make a correction: The alleged 2x value sleep time is supposed to be 22:00 (10 pm) to 02:00 (2 am). Dr. Allison Siebern said in an interview with Time magazine, that the window for the most recreative sleep is 20:00 (8 pm) to 00:00 (12 pm). http://time.com/3183183/best-time-to-sleep/ So that information is similar but not the same.

I am from Europe as well. People are different and it's probably not scientifically proven. But you don't need proof, just try it and see how you feel.

What do you want to achieve? What do you have to work on to get there?

There's obviously people who are either afraid to leave their home, live in remote areas, live abroad where they have no psychologist who natively speaks their language. You could also do coaching (goal setting, weekly plans, checking up if people have been sticking to their plans...). You would need to find these people.

I would say this is exactly what Frankl means with self-actualization. When I hear people saying (on youtube for example) that their goal is to be their best self, then this appears empty to me. I would suggest to anyone expressing this goal, to examine, where the motivation for this truly comes from. We live in times where the religion of the western world is neo-liberal 'capitalism' with its dogma of optimization and maximization. This way of thinking is a paradigm and I would suggest that people apply this paradigm to self-optimize and maximize their performance in whatever area in life –it could even be spiritual growth. If the assumption is correct, then this ambition is extrinsic (it came from outside, was imposed), and it is hollow, as it is the end in itself. No true purpose can be derived from it. ps: sorry

The more you learn, the more you can connect new information to what you already know. That's sort of like a web of knowledge. The negative side-effect is resistance to change what we learned is incompatible to new information. You need to sleep for your brain to consolidate what you've learned. Stored information is literary transferred from one part of the brain to another. Sleep is essential for that. By the way: Allegedly, sleep between 22:00 a.m. and 4 a.m. is twice as efficient as sleep in a different time of day. Check the books by Richard Thompson - The Brain: A Neuroscience Primer 3rd Edition 2001. Among other things, Thompson explains how memory works. Peanut butter and coconut oil do, I think, serve as resources for the brain to build Myelin. Myelin is used to insulate connections between nerve cells. This makes data transmission a lot faster. I have been eating lots of Peanut butter daily for years. Many people are actually nothing less than shocked when I tell them details about situations and conversations that happened 30 years ago. So it seems to work for me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin For your psychology studies, check Spiral Dynamics, Logotherapy, Mindfulness (very helpful for therapy, taken from Buddhism). Check Thomas Frank's youtube channel:

The short answer is: A personality type is about the personality of your ego. That's not who you are. It is useful if you need to hire people and have either no awareness of anything beyond the ego or expect the people you hire to stay in ego-land for the foreseeable future or forever. For yourself, it enforces the belief in your ego being real. I wouldn't recommend it.