Carl-Richard

I've very clearly laid out my issues with Leo's conduct in this thread and other threads I've linked. If you want to create a dramatized movie romantic tragedy disposition of that, that's your prerogative. By the way, this is more of "the method" ("let's forget about this very core trait associated with narcissism and let's discuss other traits as if that will take us anywhere"), and asking a different question like above in tandem is too. If you had an overall grasp of narcissism or simply an overall position on the matter you would just give us your take. The method is ad-hoc, it's p-hacking, it's theoretically undergrounded fishing for significant results (unrefuted arguments). If Integral feeds your posts to his Integral bot debate analyzer, you will get the same result as Wilhelm, that's my highly plausible hypothesis. That's why I get "flippant". I've been taught by the very "master of psychology" to be highly critical of this.

What do you mean exactly? 🙂

I'm sorry, sometimes the method of forum interaction I described makes your responses go under the radar.

Do it then, you're missing out.

Do the ChatGPT response already, we have been dry on AI slop in this thread for the last half an hour.

As I said, we're not in a psychologist office. Nobody is laying on a chair. We're just shooting the shit. If you can't register grandiosity on your personal non-professional non-on-the-job-psychologist symptom chart, then fine, us others can. This is the Elliot and Wilhelm playbook of forum interactions: enter a thread while having no prior overarching principles on the topic, ask a question about a highly minute point, play logic roulette until the point gets refuted, and move on the next minute point, repeat ad nauseum. I'm being flippant the way an elephant flips its ears with its photographic memory. Perhaps I'm being a bit extra spicy today, yes.

Don't mind me "strawmanning" the classic lost-in-irrelevant-minutia line of argumentation that was titrated out of your initial question "would a narcissist leave a thread like this open?". The answer to that question is "yes". There is no way you can know anything at all in the entire universe, except that Leo is the most awake being the entire universe of course, and that this is the single most obvious sign of grandiosity in the entire universe. But yes, thank you for reminding me that we are not inside a psychologist's office.

Oh, Elliot out here trying to convince us that a guy who literally thinks he is the most conscious being in the entire universe is not a narcissist. Narcissism does not mean not tolerating disagreement. It's more means not tolerating not being superior or dominant. If Leo values open discussion and seeing himself as a reasonable person open to critique (and perhaps like he is not a cult leader, who would close all critical threads), he will do that and it's perfectly consistent with narcissism. The problem would more occur if you were challenge him on any of those things. But then again, if he values people challenging him, then he may allow that, but inside he could believe he is still superior (and he may tell it right to your face). Narcissism becomes tricky at higher levels of cognitive development (like all things do, where things become nuanced and complex). Max Karson (Mr. Girl) is another example. He will come off as extremely reasonable and open. But there is also an extreme grandiosity in how he conducts himself.

There are two levels of dealing with a retard. At level 1, you mistake their retardation for your own, thinking it's your inability to understand them (you think it's on you that you don't understand them so you're the one who feels like a retard). At level 2, you clearly see that they are retarded and that you wouldn't be able to understand them because they are retarded. Level 1 usually means you're a bit retarded yourself (for whatever reason, transient or stable), level 2 means you're less retarded and can view retardation from a greater perspective, not being hypnotized by it as much.

There is therapy, but that also has limited efficiency for that kind of problem.

You guys have just gone with the assumption he has presented that he is not creative. He has not gone into any detail on what he means. Somebody who is catastrophizing like this always need to be asked to investigate their assumptions before you start validating them.

If the psychosis description doesn't seem accurate, remember I said "psychotic tendencies and other concerning behavior". You decided to focus in on psychotic tendencies in particular (a common thing you've done in this thread, focusing in on parts of an argument). That's probably partly why my mind went there. I would concede that if you want to be very strict about definitions of things like "delusional thinking", then the Leo gun scenario need not necessarily be "psychotic" (the exact details around that situation might have involved things that one could likely classify as not "delusional" in the strictest sense, but if you ask any psychiatrist, it's still concerning behavior especially in its seeming abruptness and discontinuity with prior behavior). A more fitting description would be (all assumptions considered) "sudden ungrounded and concerning behavior brought on by psychedelic intoxication". So if not a "psychotic break", perhaps a "concerning and conflicting psychic break". Nevertheless, your attempt at appealing to gradations ("everybody has been suicidal before') doesn't work here because it undermines all traits that can be classified as psychotic. Everybody has had delusional thoughts, everybody has had hallucinatory experiences. And we're not talking about simply threshold experiences. We're talking about serious cases of those experiences. We're not talking about having simply had a thought with the content containing suicide, like anybody probably has had. We're talking about being in a place where you were "so close" to shooting yourself with a gun.

@integral Get off the cocAIne.

@zurew "Actually, people writing a 'defamation piece' is a good thing". 😭 That's some slimy ass narrative control ("mind control"?) right there.

When reading Article 5, it was unclear to me whether I should interpret that last part as "potentially leading to" rather than "necessarily leading to". Here is the wording from the Article 5:

Oh god, leave the fucking place.

Does the AI consider that even if you remove social media scraping but keep the text field function, you can paste text from an online profile of a non-consenting person and thus perform a non-consenting profiling of that person? Thanks for running it by the way.

ChatGPT (Plus membership) Always longer answers.

Especially with the advent of the "cult" of best-selling books, which is less about academic rigor and more about what is most intriguing and disturbing, which is what the anti-cult movement where Leo gets his definition from plays on. Of course cults are associated with "mind control" and "brainwashing" and "sexual/financial exploitation" in this context. That's what sells. Less people want to hear about cults that believe in slightly wacky things, more about evil boogeymen, mass murderers, rapists, psychopathic manipulators.

Yes but it doesn't give definitive answers, and to the extent that it does, I don't trust it (because I've asked it similar questions before and it seemly didn't even know about the EU AI Act, which is maybe understandable since it's new).

We're honestly discussing what a cult is and when people want to steer the discussion towards talking about negatives, that's what happens. That's a function of Leo insisting on defining cult as something negative and his minions constantly begging for any clue that could satisfy that definition. Had this been my forum or had I been having this discussion in one of my earlier university classes, we would probably talk about how weird your beliefs really would have to be to be considered a cult, not the level of "brainwashing" or "mind control" is supposedly required (although that could be a side discussion about those kinds of cults). My professor opened the discussion of cults saying "cults are not necessarily something bad, that's a common misconception" (paraphrasing). Leo has chosen a different route and that is reflected in his discussions. When he wants to project the notion of cult as something negative and something external to him, don't be surprised that when people disagree, that projection lands squarely back at himself.

Notice that a lack of argument is not a virtue. We've seen this false dichotomy before too. I believe lots of things are a cult and I would be happy to be a part of probably many of them. Though I would prefer if the larger society was also on board.

Ghis-laine Max-well 👏 Yaas. Shoulds, more shoulds. Yaas. "But he is not all bad". Yaas. I think we've uncovered the script.

What kind of question is this? There is a difference between pointing out an example and excluding all other possible examples. That's a bit of something you call "epistemology". Let's assume Leo was not suicidal before being seemingly under the influence (which would be a reasonable assumption considering his overall state of mind on the forum and in videos). Then while seemingly under the influence, he suddenly started seriously entertaining suicide. If he did not seriously entertain suicide in his sober state of mind, would it be fair to say he started entertaining some beliefs that were not grounded in his usual wants and desires and thus they were in a sense delusional and not grounded in the usual state of affairs and thus psychotic? "He was not in a right state of mind, he didn't really want to take his life, it was the drugs that made him do it". What does one call that? A drug-induced psychotic episode? Or do you have a different term for that? Suggested* Again, all it takes is one thought, just like a suicidal thought. And as we've seen, that thought could seemingly come out of nowhere given the right conditions. Yet Leo constantly accuses people of "not understanding" and that is not a grounds for banning himself. A standard for thee but not for me. I personally got more value from Nahm's posts than anybody on the forum. Communicating something like non-duality need not always be linear or overly concrete or devoid of poetry (as long as you're consistent with it), it might in fact give a false impression that you can get it by simply reading it. On the other hand, the worst thing you can do is to purport to use clear language and then present logical fallacies (like in solipsism). Signal mixing and double-binds is the worst thing and Leo does that often ("don't trust me, think for yourself" -> "I'm the #1 authority"; "epistemology, be aware of self-deception, self-bias" -> "I'm the most awake person in the universe"). When it happens that often, it starts looking more like a tool for coercion and control (whether conscious or unconscious) rather than an accurate presentation of one's values. More shoulds, more false dichotomies. He can have valueable things to teach and still have things he can improve.

He went for nose surgery. He's cooked. "Michael Jacksonmaxxing 💩"