Carl-Richard

It's basically done. I'll give a little background first. So again, the idea was to find a suitable definition of the term "religion" based on the free text answers provided by some of the students from the survey (12.6% to be exact), which may not be representative of the other students in the sample or the larger population. Also, remember that this is Norwegian psychology students, studying to become clinicians (not say a research oriented masters). The method used was thematic analysis, which is used for analyzing text material (you create "codes" based on the content, then you group the codes into categories, and optionally you can group those into higher-order categories). You use the categories to answer the research question, drawing on theories and other research, and in my case, I had to figure out how each category would contribute to the definition of the term. I ended up with 64 codes and 9 categories: «organized community», «vague term», «dichotomous term», «agnostics and atheists», «religious upbringing and church membership», «spirituality», « «something else» », «faith/belief», and «Christian, christian and believer». As a side note, I saw that there was a general dissatisfaction with the religion term, and that the alternative terms provided by the students (e.g. "spiritual" or "believer") may be better alternatives for describing their identity. The definition goes something like this (I've not given my final formulation of it yet, but that's more about specific phrasing than content), and I'll qualify each sentence by certainty: an organized community providing a traditionally defined framework of beliefs and practices (pretty certain). an active and involved engagement with religious matters in the present (as opposed to merely having a religious upbringing, or merely being listed as a member of a church) (pretty certain). the term "Christian" (pretty certain). a belief in a higher power or holy figure (e.g. God, Jesus) (less certain). The contenders that were excluded based on how the students described the terms and related them to religion were: spirituality agnosticism and atheism The answer to the research question isn't really surprising, but it was very interesting how only 2 students mentioned the term "atheist", compared to 22 who mentioned agnosticism, 32 who mentioned spirituality overtly, 11 who referred to "something else" (i.e. something beyond our ordinary lives), 15 who mentioned belief in a higher power, and only 3 Christians (and 1 Mormon lol).

I don't get it. Video illustration plz

The point is that you're spending a lot of time on a bunch of nothing.

Let's say my observations are more reasonable than yours (more likely to be true). Does it bother you that something I pulled out of my ass in 2 minutes seems more reasonable than what you've presented?

Is it more reasonable than your observations about Leo, or is it less?

@StormLight Are my observations specifically about the ice cream company reasonable?

But specifically this ice cream business, based on the connections I just made: is that reasonable?

@StormLight "Pedophile symbols": Multi-national ice cream company operating in 27 countries: Surely they must be a secret global network of satanic pedophiles, right? Cmon, ice cream truck drivers? THE biggest pedophiles! And who likes ice cream the most? Kids! Besides, they would obviously use the ice cream trucks to smuggle the children, just like in Breaking Bad! Of course!

You would just say they're pedophiles.

It looks like the A in "Actualized", it's shaped like the Maslow's hierarchy of needs (the originator of the term "Self-Actualization"), there is a spiral inside of it (Spiral Dynamics?), and blue is a great color

?

I think you're just wasting everybody's time.

What exactly are you doing here?

Somewhere before or around the 1 hr mark. I don't remember.

I was watching the ToE discussion with John Vervaeke and Donald Hoffman, and I heard John mention he was doing work on the "autism-psychosis continuum", and I was like "what?! Was Jreg actually not trolling with his autizmophrenia video?", and apparently yes, there does exist serious scientific research establishing diametrically opposite relationships between certain autism and psychosis symptoms. Here is a table from one such study: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21571/1/Psychosis and autism as diametrical disorders of the social brain (LSERO).pdf Does that mean they are mutually exclusive? No. There is still a high comorbidity rate between autism and schizophrenia (up to 34%). Still, I've always been fascinated by the potential connections between these two conditions, and I found this very interesting. I couldn't find Vervaeke's study on it, and he was only slightly alluding to it, but I'm pretty sure it involved explaining the autism-psychosis continuum as a continuum of relevance realization. And for you MBTI freaks out there: https://jeffwarren.org/articles/twotribes/ (it talks about the study above). ...meaning that autism tilts towards sensor type cognition while psychosis tilts towards intuitive type cognition. This is of course evident in how autistics are more literal and only go with the information explicitly provided while psychotics can construct elaborate narratives out of thin air. The evolutionary background for this is also interesting: I certainly feel that I tilt towards the psychotic end, especially when I think back to the time I felt like one of my teachers (who I know without a doubt is a narcissist) was bullshitting an answer in front of the class with the fear of looking dumb if she couldn't answer. So there you can obviously see the connection between sensitivity to social cues and the abstract inferences based on those, and how it creates a more "mentalizing" style. "Mentalizing" is also a term used in attachment theory, and it's been shown that mothers who score high on mentalizing correlate with having children with secure attachment styles (i.e. successful parenting), which also ties to the idea that femininity is more "psychotic" (given that parenting is mostly a maternal thing) . In that vein, I've heard autism being referred to as a form of "hyper-masculinity". Also, if mentalizing is associated with social perspective-taking and abstract inferences, then you can say that holistic big-picture thinkers (e.g. most of the Tier 2's in today's world) are essentially sub-clinical psychotics (which I've also heard about through the concept of decreased latent inhibition). Ahhh it's all coming together

It generally just helps to be absolutely obsessed by something. The thing about autism is that the obsessions tend to be very fixed, while say a psychotic person could be equally as obsessed but more flailing.

That's what learning is. You internalize some pattern. In this case, the child internalizes the patterns of the parent. This happens at all stages, from crib to adulthood. That is why active engagement is needed.

I remember watching The Amazing Atheist as one of my first regular YouTubers back in the early 2010s. With the recent debacles of Ye, Milo Yiannopoulos, Nick Fuentes and Trump in mind, this video gives a very insightful retrospective on that time and how it actually shaped the world we see today: a lesson on influence, context and power. It thrills me to see a mature TJ Kirk speaking with clarity about his past and his place in the world today. And of course, I have to mention Destiny in all of this: he too has started to have the realization of "the world is so small". In one moment he is having dinner with Nick Fuentes, then a falling out with MrGirl, then he sits on a podcast with Dick Masterson and a co-host who went to high school with MrGirl, reacting to a video of Ye walking off Tim Pool with Milo and Nick in his heels. Imagine if he too had taken the lessons of influence, context and power that indeed MrGirl had levied against him a little earlier. Not just through the butterfly effect, but real causal agency, maybe he could've subverted the anti-semitist insurgency we see in the headlines.

I don't know how to change the settings to English, but here are mine ?: I got the "deep dive" personality, which is exactly how I've described myself since forever ?

@Tahuti Are you smoking DMT while posting on the forum? ?

Good manipulation is: "what is the appropriate norm relative to their developmental stage, and what techniques can you employ to manifest that in your child?" Bad manipulation is to set too low or too high standards and use the wrong techniques at the wrong times.

Then hell yes, you want to manipulate the hell out of your children. As a parent, your first job is to be source of love and safety, but you also want to be a source of growth and character. So you want to shape them to become something like you: a responsible adult. But that is a gradual process, and you want to use the right strategies at the right time. I think all parents would benefit from learning about the circle of security. This will almost guarantee your child having a secure attachment style: Avoid traditional techniques like time-outs or ignoring emotional outbursts. You always want to be in an active and responsive relationship with your child. You don't teach independence through absence. Let them socialize early, expose them to new things, encourage their interests. Then as they grow, gradually raise your expectations for appropriate behavior relative to their developmental stage.

First of all, give me a definition or description of what you think manipulation is.

Yes.

Such a nostalgic song for me. Made me emotional. I used to download BFMV songs on my phone manually like 12 years ago.