Forestluv

Ime, the direct experience is key. Orange would much rather stay in a debate intellectualizing within a left vs. right frame. That is much more comfortable to them than gaining direct experience of Green. Consider attachment and identification to ideas.

@Pouya You seem to be comparing religious Blue to secular Orange. In that case, I’d say Orange is an upgrade. When you say “spiritual” are you referring to religious fundamentalism? “spiritual” at stage Green and higher is very different than religious fundamentalism.

The sound of an awakening clapping.

It seems like parenting would contribute an enormous amount of growth along that parenting life. Others take a non-parenting path and parenting has no growth impact. I never had kids, and my my pov, parenting has a strong conditioning effect on the mind-body.

Masturbating to a single nude image can be really intense when the imagination is highly active and focused.

I would agree with the underlying sentiment, yet I think he is framing it in a slightly biased way. I would estimate 99% of the increase in childhood obesity in the last 50 years in the U.S. is environmental. So I agree with the fundamental sentiment.

@Andreas I’m not saying all those claims. You are seeing this as two “sides”. It is not binary like that. A lot of what those doctors are saying is accurate and I agree with them. Yet some of the claims are extrapolated into falsehoods. For example, imagine a detective investigating a murder seen. He discovers a bloody knife at the scene and says “There is a 99% chance the murder weapon is a knife and less than a 1% chance of a gun being the weapon”. That is a totally reasonable statement. Yet he the goes on and says “99% of murders are due to knife stabbings, and less than 1% is due to gun shots”. Well. . wait a minute. . . that’s kinda twisted and not quite true. That is what the guy in the video is doing. I would agree with his basic premise. I would say that over 99% of obesity increases in the U.S. is environmental and less than 1% is due to changes in allelic gene frequencies at the population level. That’s all that dude in the video wanted and needed to say. But then he extrapolates too far and makes partially false statements. He goes on some anti-genetic crusade which is unneeded and becomes misleading on some points. Fundamentally, I think you are seeing this as binary. As two sides. That is making it difficult to see nuances at deeper levels.

He is a chiropractor and has a surface level understanding of genetics

J@whoareyou Is it possible there is something you are not aware of?

@Andreas He speaks a lot of truth, especially regarding environmental impacts on childhood obesity. Yet he is not a geneticist and does a poor job integrating genetics, environment, the cellular level, the organismal level, short time frames and long time frames. This takes a lot of expertise and can be difficult to communicate in layman’s terms. I think he has a basic understanding of the underlying genetics, yet my sense is his understanding Is rudimentary. Quite often a scientist will try to simplify complex underlying mechanisms in explanations to laymen. It would take hours or days to describe it thoroughly. Yet my sense is he does not have strong understanding of the underlying genetics and he is making some misinterpretations. His claim that genetics is only related to less than 1% of all human illness is laughable. I’m not sure of his schtick or agenda, yet he is steering people in a way that isn’t quite tight. He is a mixture of true and not-quite true. Is he associated with some type of product line of health foods, diet or supplements. If so, that would explain the character he is playing. Don’t let the “Dr.” title mislead you. In certain areas he has surface level understanding and makes some fallacious claims. Again, he makes some good points as well.

And that “fact” would be incorrect. It is true in a certain context, yet you are extrapolating it into a falsehood. Your assumptions are inhibiting learning from taking place. As well, you are seeking affirmations from dubious sources to validate and reinforce those assumptions. A double-whammy. Yet you seem to be enjoying this storyline you have created for some reason. Have fun. (btw, I teach genetics at a University level ?)

@LastThursday Yea, it’s a fascinating interplay between “Now” and a construct of the past based on memories - yet is occurring “Now”

@Joseph Maynor I’m not using the term in that context. That view is Orange looking at Green. Not where I’m coming from.

@ardacigin Fascinating mental condition that brings into focus the “storyline” most human minds create and have little awareness how deep it goes. . . Thanks for linking us ?

Imo, you are contracted within a storyline and seeking affirmations of that storyline. That will keep you contracted. And I am not saying you are wrong. This isn’t a binary thing. I am not saying the opposite of your view is correct. I am saying you have a contracted view and cannot see the bigger picture. When you extrapolate your view into a bigger picture, misconceptions arise.

So you haven’t read the original research paper and you say you do not have an idea what you are talking about - and then run off and create this elaborate story about the genetic and environmental basis of weight and size. The links you provided are non-geneticists trying to interpret scientific results and create a story. These articles are notorious for misinterpretations, misleading statements and conflicts of interest. Often the authors have good intentions and the problem is due to both author and scientist miscommunicating. It can be very difficult to communicate. As is evident when I try to communicate underlying scientific concepts. It’s hard to do. As a geneticist I’m much more interested in the primary research article and the geneticist researchers. Imagine you speak Japanese fluently and someone gave you a transcript of a translation by a high school student with little knowledge of Japanese. Wouldn’t you prefer to read the original Japanese article, prior to the translation?

@Enlightenment I’ve went temporarily blind on a breakthrough, yet I’ve never had a “white out” of white light like you’ve described.

@Nivsch @Andreas Identical twins share 100% nuclear DNA similarity - they both started out as the same cell. However, there will be slight differences that arise due to spontaneous mutations. And there will be epigenetic differences that will arise over time. Regular siblings have, on average, 50% DNA sequence similarity. @Andreas you have an over-emphasis on environment impact which is muddying the waters such that you cannot see genetic impacts. For example, some cases of cancer have a predominantly environmental cause, some cancers have a predominantly genetic cause and some are more of an even mix between genetics and environment

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions- some of which are misconceptions. Regarding the above assumption, we would need to read the primary article and examine the results, would we not? For example, how did they define “weight”? Did they consider both fat composition and physical body structure? How did they perform their genome-wide association screen? Did the screen the entire genome? Did they simply screen through metabolic genes? Such as genes functioning within insulin pathways and cellular respiration? Did they include psychological genes like those involved in dopamine reward pathways? There are a lot of nuances here that you have no idea exists. And I am not taking an opposite opinion, in my view your concepts have fundamentally errors, so the opposite concept would also be flawed.

It’s both genetics and environment. And again, you are not making the distinction between body structure and fat composition. If you put a baby Andre the Giant and a baby “mini me” in the exact same environment and diet, you would still end up with a giant and a dwarf. The difference in their body types was due to a difference in one single gene. I am using an extreme example to highlight this distinction.

@Andreas Why can’t it be both? The difference between “mini-me” and Andre the Giant shows genetics can have a big impact. Their body difference is due to one single gene. We can turn a future nba basketball player into a dwarf by changing two nucleotides in the zygotes DNA. You are not making the distinction between body structure and weight. There are fat dwarfs and skinny dwarfs as well as fat giants and skinny giants.

It's an interplay between genetics and environment. There are clearly genes that will alter a body type and there are clearly environmental factors as well. An individual with a defect in the growth hormone gene WILL be small. It doesn't matter what that person eats or how much they exercise. And the composition of microbes in your gut is an extremely strong predictor of obesity. It is one of the major influencers. It's not just weight. Genetics has a big influence on body structure. In Leo's example the difference between a greyhound and pitbull. Genetics plays a huge role in that. There can still be fat pit bulls and fat greyhounds - they will still have different body types. For example, an individual with genetic alterations leading to hypo activity of the anterior pituitary gland - will have a small body. In extreme cases, they will be a dwarf. We could still have a fat dwarf or a skinny dwarf - yet that is very different than a person will hyper activity of the pituitary gland - Andre the Giant had this condition. His body type was very different than the "munchkins" in the Wizard of Oz. They had the opposite genetic condition.

@SFRL That guy is highly in tune and skilled with dynamics within a certain area of dating.

The victim and victim-caller game is a different dynamic than the underlying systemic inequality. They are related, yet also distinct. The victim vs victim caller dynamic is an expression of the underlying systemic inequality. If the underlying systemic inequality dissolved, the victim vs. victim-caller dynamic would also gradually dissolve (in this area). Yet of course, this would involve a lot of resistance and victim vs. victim-caller dynamics would arise in other areas. Those with the advantages will want to control the narrative within the victim - not victim narrative. That allows the underlying systemic inequalities to remain unaddressed. That control is a privilege/power of the advantaged.

@Paul92 It sounds like your mind still wants to control the narrative. There seems to be a storytelling dynamic occurring in which your mind is very immersed into. It is a highly repetitive and cyclical story. Psychedelics would temporarily dissolve the storyteller in you. It doesn't need to be DMT, there are other substances.