Forestluv

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.

Yes That is a good question and it may be different for different people. This is just how I would conceptualize it based on my own experience. I see empathy as a spectrum - on one extreme are people unable to empathize with others. Most people have so-so levels of empathizing with others. At the other extreme are so-called "empaths" - they are so highly in tune with certain energetics that it's almost like a different sense. Similar to how people talk about Kundalini and Chakra energetics. Some people are more in tune with it. I would also say there is a degree of maturity and skill with it. An empath could very immature, ungrounded and unskill - yet still be on the extreme of empathy. Your question for me opens up some interesting dynamics within this energetic sphere. In particular, when we add in the other extreme - a person skilled at manipulating and controlling energy dynamics. Ime, awareness for the empath is prior establishing "boundaries". As an example, a couple years ago one of my students was trying to schedule a make-up exam with me. She seemed like a student trying to get her way and asking for extra accomadations - like having a private room with a door that closes. I just didn't want to deal with her hassle and gave her the room she wanted. During her make-up exam, I checked in on her and caught her using her smartwatch. This is clearly against course policy and is grounds for failing her on the exam. Buuuut. . . she has this very distraught sense about her. She pauses to collect herself. She apologizes and tells me her dad just texted her that they are getting divorced. She says she doesn't know how to handle this and can't think straight. She shows me she had only completed a few questions. She tells me she has had anxiety and panic disorders in the past and doesn't want to spiral into that again. I was experiencing high anxiety and a very strong desire to relieve this anxiety (both for myself and her). I told her she needed to take care of herself first and I will work with her on this. I will come up with a way for her to retake it. . . In an effort to help further, I call psychological services to ask for some advice about the best way to help her through this difficult situation. The psychologist asked me with a confused voice "What's the student' name again?" I tell her. A few minutes later she returns and says "That student's parents got divorced two years ago". At that moment, there was awareness and the energetic dynamics completely changed. Since I had a somewhat mature base at that time, I was able to get re-centered and grounded. I was now "immune" to this energetic type of manipulation. I began observing her and notice very subtle ways that she used femininity, emotions and vulnerability to manipulate. In particular certain men - men that lean toward empathy on the spectrum. And she was very very good at it. One of an empaths orientations is to help others and make things better - in particular when others are vulnerable, hurting and in need. There are some people on the opposite side that want to personally gain from that. So ime, an ungrounded immature empath could absorb energy and not be able to differentiate the nature of the energy. It takes maturity to sit centered and grounded while experiences energetic dynamics and to see the energetic dynamics clearly.

It goes deeper than that as well, What you wrote assumes the empath can distinguish between their own self and another person. It assumes the empath can distinguish between their own energy and another’s energy. Knowing this distinction is really important for an empath to mature. The empath is actually experiencing another’s energy and it can easily be mistaken as being one’s own energy. An empath can experience another’s experience as if it were their own. It can get really intense and an empath’s attempt to relieve this energy dynamic is yo seek harmony - seeking to please other’s, seeking validation, seeking resolution, working through an issue together, avoidance, escape, withdrawal. . . There is a “six sense” aspect involving a type of sensitivity to a different “energy”, “frequency” or “feel”. I’m not quite sure how to describe it’s essence with words.

I saw them live. They rotated band members and played nonstop for five hours. It was amazing. And George Clinton has an awesome vibe.

You missed the point: the idea is that empaths are not simply kind people that were punished for having boundaries. Rather, they can “feel” others energy - like a sixth sense. This aspect has nothing to do with being kind and setting up boundaries - and saying “NO” - so others won’t take advantage of you. Rather, the empathic boundaries are important so an empath doesn’t absorb and take responsibility for others’ negative energy. It is a very different dynamic. Learning how to say “No” so people don’t walk all over a person is a healthy skill. Yet that is not what is being pointed at here regarding empathic traits and boundaries. It’s as if we are discussing the aroma of a scent and you are talking about the volume of a radio.

I think general social equality is important as well. Evening social equality through wealth redistribution is one aspect of that. Yet there are other aspects such as power redistribution.

I think it would be common for abused individuals and abused social groups to be resentful toward their abusers. I would be.

I read a study on this a couple years ago. They asked if poor people in wealthy countries have higher wellness than poor people in poor countries. I forget the main conclusion tho. I don’t understand what you mean about how to justify if a poor person is unhappy in a wealthy country. I haven’t made these types of distinctions. They may have relevance in increasing the overall subjective wellness of the world. Yet on this issue, I’m much more human-centered. I see the human before nationalities, politics, public policy etc.

Sure, if someone went in with money with egoic intentions, desires for control, power, influence, personal gain etc. problems will arise. I’m talking about genuine intentions. Yet, I’m oriented toward altruism and empathy and human experience. I’m not as oriented toward politics and public policy. I’m fairly naive in this area. If I was a manager of a large grant to help an impoverished area, the first thing I would do is hire experts in the areas I have deficiencies. I would lack technical knowledge in these areas, yet I think I could hire experts that have a genuine character.

I don’t see it as Honduran suffering, American suffering or German suffering. It is human suffering. Yet there are also political and cultural dynamics at play. I’m not much interested in that. I tend to go to tge human aspect.

I don’t understand your question. I would imagine the U.S. is probably ranked in the top 15 wealthiest - yet I don’t understand the relevance here.

On one level I agree with that. On another level I disagree. I’m not talking about people trying to keep up with the Jone’s. That is very far away from what was going on in the impoverished towns of Honduras I lived in. I’m unable to communicate the essence of that direct experience. In my view, there is a dynamic you are not considering. Yet I also acknowledge that my experience is limited and I am also unaware of many dynamics.

One thing about psychedelics is they can take a mind-body into insanity zones. I’ve never wanted to eat or kill people while tripping, yet I’ve been to other insanity zones and that experience has given me a better understanding why people may want to do things that appear to be insane.

We were discussing my town and you seemed to flip the script to an entirely different dynamic. Of course that would be a different dynamic and I would approach that situation differently. In general, I think offering resources to abused communities is helpful. Yet implementing those resources effectively requires skill. The implementation might be challenging and there might be growing pains. There may be political and dependency issues to address. Yet I think that is a better path than depriving an abused community of resources. That would mean they continue to live the abuse and suffer in poverty

Imo, incompetency on how to implement grants is a separate issue than whether the donation was given based on love or guilt. If competency was an issue, I would spend 10 million of the 100 million dollars to hire the most skilled community organizers in the world to help us. Imagine someone telling our town that we could receive a 100 million grant - enough to totally re-structure and vitalize our town, yet it’s better if we don’t get it because the donation was based in guilt and we would just screw it up anyway. Best to just stay impoverished. . .

I live in an impoverished community with 50% unemployment, high crime and few resources. I think love and money would be great for my town. Yet if our town received 100 million dollars anonymously with no love attached, I think we could put it to good use to build a healthier community. Would it solve our of our problems? No. Yet I think we could create a much healthier and loving community with those resources. If we had the opportunity to receive a 100 million dollar donation and somebody told us it won’t help because the donation is based on guilt, not love - I would disagree. And I think many of the impoverished people in my town that are living in shacks, malnourished and struggling to feed their kids would also disagree.

Based on my experience living in both poverty-stricken and affluent communities, I would say both money and love would be helpful. They are not mutually exclusive.

I would also predict that outcome. Your description of social abuse rings true to me as well ??

@Identity Some people are good at making flimsy arguments sound sturdy. Here, let’s say that there is a correlation between race and IQ. That does not mean genetics has anything to do with it. That is an assumption. The correlation could be spurious or there could be an underlying cause. Perhaps genetics, environment or a combination of both. To show genetic causation - one would need to show an association of actual genes. For example, if a cluster of specific gene alleles are associated with low IQ AND blacks have a higher frequency of processing that gene cluster, THEN one could make a genetic-based argument of genetically/relevant racial differences. Yet no one has showed that. It’s easy to spot when others are making “rational” arguments that are actually irrational. Are they providing evidence of specific gene differences or not? If not it is just speculation. For example, imagine there is a correlation that Canadians consume less gelato than Italians. I then said it was due to genetic differences. Wouldn’t that seem irrational to you? It could also be because Italy is a much warmer climate and gelato is a big part of Italian culture. To show a genetic component, we would need to show actual genetic differences between Canadians and Italians that alter their gelato consuming behavior.

From a genetics POV: this is not a simple single gene trait like cystic fibrosis in which 25% of siblings will inherit the condition. It is a complex trait in which many genes and environment plays a role. In these situations, we expect a low association between siblings sharing the trait, since there are many variables. It is more like schizophrenia. There are about 40 genes associated with schizophrenia and many environmental inputs - yet no one gene or environment event causes schizophrenia. Multiple inputs need to synergize for the manifestation of schizophrenia - for this reason, a person with a schizophrenic sibling is only mildly more at risk - even if they lived in the exact same environment. Looking at whether two siblings both become enlightened is not very helpful in complex traits. Regarding family studies, what you would want to look at is whether identical twins tend to both become enlightened. If there was no association between identical twins and enlightenment - that would argue against a genetic component - yet the same argument cannot be made with regular siblings - that data is much weaker due to the extensive genetic differences between regular siblings

And what evidence is that? I’m not aware of any evidence that shows a significant causal relationship between intelligence-associated genes and race. Many algorithms have been developed to examine this and I am unaware of evidence of a causal link. I would be very interested in that evidence. If you are referring to a correlation between melanin producing genes and IQ, that is very different. First, corollary evidence is the weakest evidence in science. There are many spurious correlations - such as margarine consumption is highly correlated with divorce. Yet there is no evidence that margarine consumption causes divorce. Similarly, even if there was a correlation with race and intelligence, that does not provide any evidence whatsoever that there is a genetic component associated with race causing IQ differences. My understanding is that scientists have analyzed genome-wide association screens and no significant associations between particular alleles of intelligence genes and race have been found. That is the key genetic evidence. Without that, it is speculation, not evidence. It is easy to argue against that belief system since that belief system is based on speculation, not on relevant genetic data.

Haha, yes. That is a great metaphor. . . Isn’t a house of mirrors a form of illusion?