Forestluv

@Andreas I’m not pointing at personalities. Although personalities is fuel for the fire. I am pointing more toward ideas, attachments and identifications. A mind can be oriented toward binary objectivist thinking. Nothing wrong with that, yet it is a contracted mind state and more expansive mind states are possible. It is part of the awakening and development process.

I like that way of looking at it. I'm seeing empathy as more of a spectrum on a left-right axis, and development on a low-high axis. Just as some people have a natural aptitude for cognition, some people seem to have a natural aptitude for empathy. And just as one can develop their cognition up the SD scale, one can develop their empathic sense up the SD scale. I.e. there is yellow-level cognition and yellow-level empathy. Just as one can be highly intellectual, one can be highly empathic.

@Andreas Observe what arises in your mind without attachment. It seems like your mind is putting people into categories "He is cultish", "That is bullshit", "She is close-minded". These are all very "either / or" perspectives. A person is cultish or non-cultish. They are full of bullshit or non-bullshit. They are either close-minded or open-minded. This is binary thinking. For me, a good way to expand thinking skills to the next level is to become aware of mixtures and spectrums. Go back to those views that are "total bullshit". Are they really total bullshit? Can you find something of value within the bullshit? To those that your mind categorizes as "close-minded" are they completely "close-minded"? Are could they be close-minded in certain respects and fairly open-minded in other respects. For those ideas that you see as being bullshit, can you see that that is a perspective and from the other person's perspective it's not bullshit. Just because an idea may seem true to you, does that mean it is true for everyone else?

@Andreas Based on this thread and the thread about genetics - it seems like your mind has a binary orientation. I.e. it sees things as two different sides, opposed to each other. For example, this idea vs that idea. This person is "x" against that person who is "y". It is much more nuanced than this. There are spectrum, partial truths, relativism, nonlinear understandings, integration of various perspectives, paradoxes etc.

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.