Forestluv

If you want to call me a bad scientist that makes overly hasty judgements, is biased and that I cannot see that due to my own Ego and wanting to protect other Egos, that is totally fine. Just say that. I don't care. Don't play these manipulate passive aggressive games. This is not about moderation. This is about honesty and being upfront. Passive aggressiveness is really unhealthy and causes harm. I personally don't care about what you think about me. I'm calling you out on this. If you want to say it. Then say it to me straight up.

You know what you were doing. I am standing up to you. I doubt many people have. If you want to call me a bad scientist that makes overly hasty judgements, is biased and that I cannot see that due to my own Ego and wanting to protect other Egos, that is totally fine. Just say that. I don't care. Don't play these manipulate passive aggressive games. Have the courage to say it directly to me. Passive aggressiveness is for cowards.

@Joseph Maynor How big of a sample do you need to make such a judgment in your scientific work as a professor? What was your intention of this question? Are you genuinely asking how much of a sample I need to make in my scientific work as a science professor? Were you really curious and open-minded about this? Or did you already have a pre-conceived belief that I made an overly-hasty judgement? My guess is you look carefully at things thoroughly before coming to over-hasty, dismissive conclusions. Why wouldn't the same attitude apply here? Is this an honest "guess"? If this was an honest guess, you would not make the next statement. The second statement is dependent on the first. You're inclined to want to dismiss -- that's a clear and obvious bias. Here you actually state I am inclined to want to dismiss. The original "question" and "guess" was not a question or guess. The underlying assumption and agenda is that you believe I wanted to dismiss. You are now indirectly saying that I want to dismiss and that I am biased. Just say that Joe. Don't play manipulative games. If you think I was making overly-hasty judgements based on biases - just be honest and upfront and say so. I was a philosophy major and I try to correct for my biases all the time and be fair to opinions even when they're hostile to my Ego or other Egos that I have a vested interest in protecting. What does this have to do with anything? If you think I am being biased and unable to see that because it is hostile to my Ego or other Egos that I want to protect - then say that. Don't play these passive-aggressive games. They are very manipulative. I was just a little taken aback by your initial response, but maybe I have an over-idealic view of how good scientists behave in my own head. Again, you stated earlier that I was a scientists and how good science is performed. You are indirectly saying I am a bad scientist. I couldn't care less about that. But if you want to say that, say it to me directly. Don't play manipulative passive-aggressive games Joe. I know how this game is played and you get ZERO, Joe. Sorry, you cannot bully me with passive aggressive tactics. If you want to accuse me of making overly-hasty judgements, say that I am biased and cannot see this because of my Ego and Egos I want to protect, then tell me that directly. Have the courage to stand up to me face to face and say it to me directly. Don't cower behind passive aggressive tactics. And when I call you out on it, don't wiggle around and sarcastically call me an angel and that I am over-complicating things.

It seems you are not open to looking at this dynamic and have retreated by sarcastically labeling the observer as an angel. This sarcasm is yet another egoic dynamic to avoid looking at the first dynamic. I've played this games before Joe, I know them well and it is fine. What I wrote may be helpful to others. As I said, this is a very common tactic. I would consider it a moderately manipulative egoic dynamic to control a narrative. You get zero from me, because I know exactly how it works.

I welcome this dynamic. As I said, your comments and the underlying psychological dynamic is much more interesting to me than the video I originally commented on. I think it is helpful for others to learn about this psychological dynamic. So let's observe. . . Notice in the original statement there was a question "How big of a sample do you need to make such a judgment in your scientific work as a professor?" Do you think this is a question in which the questioner is genuinely curious about how much time the other person thinks they need to make a judgement?. Well, we will need to examine the next statements. . . The questioner next makes "a guess" on how the other person would behave. "My guess is you look carefully at things thoroughly before coming to over-hasty, dismissive conclusions." Notice the shift right here. The questioner adds in a "guess" that the other person (being a science professor) would look carefully at things before making over-hasty, dismissive conclusions. Where on earth did "over-hasty, dismissive" conclusions come in? This is where the assumption of an over-hasty, dismissive conclusion is introduced. The following sentence "You're inclined to want to dismiss -- that's a clear and obvious bias. " clearly indicates the previous question was not "a guess". The questioner solidifies the assumption and now speaks of it as fact - the other person is inclined to want to dismiss and goes even further by calling it "a clear and obvious bias". This is so incredibly clear cut. It is right in front of you. An "uncertain guess" has now become a fact. The other person is inclined to dismiss and is biased. The questioner goes on to say "Scientists are supposed to correct for biases like that. ". Again, is an obvious assumption that a the other person has mad a over-hasty dismissive conclusion. Notice how the questioner no longer treats it as an "uncertain guess". I can't see how anyone could interpret this differently. The questioner has no idea how much time, effort and thought the other person put into the statement. The questioner is making this conclusion on an assumption. When this is revealed to the questioner, he doubles-down on his position with "I was just a little taken aback by your initial response, but maybe I have an over-idealic view of how good scientists behave in my own head." Again, can't you see this ENTIRE position is based on an assumption? Without the initial assumption that the other person made an overly-hastily dismissive judgement, the ENTIRE position of the questioner crumbles. The statement "of how good scientists behave" is based on an assumption a scientists has behaved badly. There is clear is day. In fact, your assumption is sooo strong that you have zero interest in the answer to your initial question. Why? Because you have already answered it with the assumption. How could you be taken aback without the assumption? Why were you taken aback? Because you are assuming a scientist has made an overly hasty judgement. Without that assumption, what is there to be taken aback about? This is a super common egoic dynamic, especially in hyper intellectuals. But for those that have worked through it, it is sooo obvious. You are not fooling anyone. I can see you!

I said @10min. and did not specify a length of time or amount of content. You asked me how long of a time period and then seemed to assume this was an insufficient time period / content and that my impression was dismissive and biased. . . To me, that indicates that the original question you asked was based on an underlying assumption and was not genuine. . . Notice how you first asked the question, then shifted to "my guess is" and then shifted to the assumption. . . in which there is no longer a question or "a guess". This is a common psychological dynamic a mind plays to conceal underlying assumptions. Yet, when one has played that game before, it's really obvious. . . . When that surface-level dynamic is revealed, one can then explore a level deeper. In this case, notice the use of "your scientific work as a professor" and then "Scientists are supposed to. . . " then "I was a philosophy major and. . . ". Notice the underlying personality dynamic. The next level deeper would explore the subconscious "energy" fueling that dynamic. Yet a mind would need to become aware of the more surface level dynamics before digging deeper. If the first two dynamics are subconscious and avoided, then it is not possible to dig deeper. Thank you for this. This dynamic is much more interesting to me that the original comment I made about the video. That one was fairly generic. There is a little more "juice" to this one.

For me, thought is one aspect/layer. When attention is no longer on thought, attention is put on XXX. Thought is merely one of many "things" attention can be placed on. For me, I spent many years of my life paying attention to thought. When I became aware of that, I thought that was it. Yet then I would start having a minute or so without thought. Then 10min. without a thought. Then I realized this doesn't stop at thoughts. Thought is merely one player. For me it's like putting all attention on the trumpet player in a jazz band. When I stop doing that, I realize there are other musicians in the band. Attention can be placed on another jazz player. Each has their own niche and they are all integrated together to make the song.

@Harikrishnan It's hard to be a successful basketball player if you a 5'3''. Only one man was able to do it.

@Mu_ Thank you. I haven't seen her before. She seems mature and grounded (with understanding/emobodiment of groundless). To me, she isn't overly-intellectual or frothy emotional. A nice balance and very direct. A similar teacher in this "dimension" is Amoda Maa

@10min. is a good example of the "pre/trans" fallacy. He is contextualizing "nothing", "everything" and "god" into more basic constructs such as irrational religious beliefs. This is a hallmark of a being that lacks direct experience and awareness of "higher" conscious states. I did this a lot earlier in my development. For many years.

Ime, that is a key issue at the "deeper" levels. It goes deeper than the intellect and trying to figure it out. For me, it can get really uncomfortable, yet also liberating.

I have noticed that as well. Thank you for your suggestion - I think that could be helpful to those in that type of need. I think it is a challenging issue to address. Yet for another user to post an inaccurate inflammatory narrative and accusations about it isn't helpful.

I know how difficult it is. My first experience in this area was really uncomfortable and I still experience it from time to time.

No, it's not the truth and that is why you were called out on it. The narrative you created is blatantly false and can be highly disruptive to the community. Twisting yourself into a pretzel to rationalize it to yourself and others on the forum is not helpful to anyone. And as you've been told, if you continue to try and spread nasty inflammatory falsehoods on the forum you will be receiving serious warning points. This is an absolute no-brainier. You aren't even close to being in a grey area.

You can work through this. I'm sending positive vibes your way

It's not about making someone happy. You created an absurd, inaccurate and ridiculous narrative that could be disruptive to the environment. Take a look at yourself and your behavior. If you can't do that, you won't grow. This is a really short put to see. . .

For me it depends on the degree and intensity of Orange. There is a lot of orange where I work, yet there is flexibility and space for me to express green and yellow. I could not work in a hardcore orange environment in which green/yellow was repressed, attacked and not tolerated. Some of my favorite parts of green is the warmth, love, communication, teamwork, mutual support etc. I need at least some level of this at a workplace.

You could see a psychologist and there are tests you can do. I found that somewhat helpful. For me, I dated a psychologist and she spotted it. I've had symptoms since I was a child and developed many coping mechanisms over my life. I don't have the hyperactivity part though. Everyone has symptoms of ADHD from time to time. They are just more common and severe in some people. Here are a few of my personal examples: --Inability to read more than a page or two of a book. --Mis-placing things A LOT. Everyone does this from time to time - yet this was an ongoing theme in my life. I spent a very large portion of my life looking for misplaced things. Misplacing keys, glasses, wallet, drivers licence etc. I probably averaged at least an hour a day looking for something I misplaced. --Forgetting stuff a lot- sometimes important stuff - forgetting meetings, my passport, dates, times. I often forgot to shut things off, and lock things. I developed mild OCD about shutting things off and locking things. For example, I had a hard time leaving my house each morning because I thought I left something on in the house or forgot to lock the doors. Many times, I had to return home to make sure everything was shut off and locked. People often saw me as scatter-brained, irresponsible and not caring. I was often told it was all in my head and I could change it with some effort. --An inability to stay engaged in a movie, talk or conversation. Everyone has issues with this to an extent. Yet for me it was extreme. For example as hard as I could, I could not follow a storyline in a movie, a talk or a conversation. I was a highly motivated undergraduate, yet could not maintain attention through a class - and not because I was disinterested. I would go off on tangents. I had to audio record every lecture and re-listen to it over and over. I couldn't even re-listen to it all the way through. I kept getting distracted and would have to rewind every few minutes. It took me hours to get through a one hour lecture. --All sorts of random weird stuff. Like I would set up the coffee maker to make some coffee. I would go into another room and then wonder why I was in that room. I would return for some coffee. Several times, the coffee was all over the counter and floor because I forgot to put the pot in the coffee maker. Another time, I was looking all over for a notebook and finally gave up. The next morning I found it in my refrigerator. . . I often found stuff I had lost in weird places.

I've had ADD symptoms since I was a child. The above statement made me lol. I totally get that I had a similar experience with Adderall. Yet I think acclimation with Modafinil may be an issue as well. Currently, I am taking 200mg of Modafinil twice a week, a low dose of Adderall (10mg) twice a week, LSD microdose (10ug) once a week and two days off. Within this cycle, I have not felt any type of dependency or addiction. Some days I forget to take one of them in the morning and just skip that day (if I take any of them after 9am I will have trouble sleeping that night). I feel ok on days I forget, which is a good sign for me. When I was on Adderall 20ug five days a week, the two off days were really hard to get through. Yet now my off days are fine. Also, I find meditation/yoga/concentration practice to be really helpful.

I agree with this sentiment. After going through my direct experience, I've been able to draw a distinction within compassion. Before I had my severe anxiety/panic episodes, I would say I had compassion for my students with those disorders. I really tried to imagine what they were going through. I really wanted to help them. I spent extra hours tutoring them. I allowed them to take exams alone in a quiet room. I tried to be supported. I would say I was truly compassionate. They really appreciated my efforts. Sometimes they gave me heart-felt "thank you" cards or gifts. Yet once I experienced it myself, the compassion dynamic shifted. It was a different type of connection. I knew what it was like and the students knew this. They started telling me things they said they have never told anyone else. For a couple students, I was the only person in the world they could talk to about certain elements of anxiety/panic. I think this was because I just knew. I was them and they were me. It's a beautiful connection, yet it's different than the compassion I described above. So, I use different terms. I would call what I described above as "true compassion" and I would call what I describe in this paragraph as "true empathy". I've found both to be helpful to form human connections. I've found that sometimes a person is trying to communicate through a compassion channel and the other person through an empathy channel. Sometimes, compassion is helpful, other times empathy, other times a combination of both. . . Yet sometimes these two channels aren't "clear" because egoic "noise" can enter. For me, something like wanting to "be right" can be interfering noise. People use these terms in different ways. This is a good example of using terms in a different context. I would say true compassion exists as a form human connection between two people. I would say that true empathy is when that separation dissolves and there is simply the shared experience and humanness. With these descriptions, consider a friend I have that has suffered through post-partum disorder. I am a male and have no children. I would say I have very strong compassion with her, yet just a little bit of empathy is present - since I don't have the direct experience and that direct experience is not shared when we are together. In contrast, my sister died in a tragic accident. My gf also lost her sibling in a tragic accident. My gf and I have very strong empathy together, yet just a little bit of compassion is present. I think both are beautiful.

I’ve actually done this quite a bit in my life. For example, I would discuss anxiety and panic disorders within a place of personal comfort. Often with good intentions. Fir example, I would genuinely try to help my students with their anxiety/panic disorders. A couple years ago, I started having extreme anxiety/panic attacks that were unbearable. I had never experienced this degree of intensity and didn’t understand what the experience was *really* like. After this, I related very differently with people that have anxiety/panic disorders. Our communication and connection is very different. We still discuss the psychological dynamics from headspace, but there is now something more present. Yet I think both are important and useful. The headspace and heartspace of human connection are more integrated.

@Key Elements Your detective analogy was helpful for me. Thank you.

Consider your cellular level. Independent cells are functioning in your body. Individual neurons interact with individual muscle cells. Collectively, all these cells give rise to the next level up - your body. You. Now imagine you were 100% obsessed with the functioning of each of these independent cells in your body. That would cause problems within the next level up. It would be problematic in your social and work life. Consider the other extreme. Being 100% obsessed with your social and work life. This will cause problems at the cellular level and inhibit the cells in your body from interacting well with each other. For me, it’s an integrated whole. Focusing too much on one leads to imbalances. I often see people gain trans-personal awareness of collective consciousness and then reject personal consciousness. This was problematic ime. This is just one way of looking at things I find helpful.

Sure. It’s just what’s arising in my mind right now based on my experience. It may have value for some and may lack value for some.

I would consider this one “level” of consciousness and I find it problematic getting stuck in any one level of consciousness. When I was contracted within the personal level of consciousness, it was problematic. Then I realized the social level of consciousness and tried to rehect the personal level of consciousness. This became priblematic as well. I’ve found there are various levels of consciousness, similiar to various levels of maps. There is a map if Los Angeles. a map of California, a map of the U.S. and a map of the World. They are are inter-related and each has truth and is useful. Getting stuck in any one map is problematic - at the cellular, organismal and community levels.