Carl-Richard

Lmao are you serious? This is basic virology. Highly lethal = many people die. Yet you can't understand basic virology.

This is only true if the host is killed before it's able to spread to the next host. We're not just talking about any lethal virus here. We're talking about a lethal COVID-19 strain, which means it will likely have many of the same characteristics as previous strains, meaning that it will be highly contagious AND able to infect many people before they show any symptoms. If we got a highly lethal COVID strain that follows the same timeline of infection to hospitalization, you will have about the same level of viral replication and same level of people infected. You have no idea what you're talking about. Your understanding of viruses is childlike.

This is the best thing I've ever seen:

?

You can either externalize the problem ("it's their fault") or take responsibility for it ("I will work on myself"). The former is obviously not a solution. It's only a coping mechanism. You can't change the world. Change yourself.

I can't remember last week ?

I'm still waiting to grasp what the heck you're trying to communicate to me ?

@ItsNick Remember that JP is talking within a strict academic definition of "existence". From that perspective, he is right. Psychometrics is very dry stuff and psychologists are very self-critical when it comes to evaluating construct validity, mostly because of the methodological spite from adjacent STEM fields. However, today's academia is not the end all be all of truth. Innovation exists tomorrow.

Yes. However, the key with the bigger picture is that it's not "just" an additive summation of the smaller parts. The "links" so to speak between each part can be conceptualized like this: Each part exist in an environment where they influence eachother and their environment in a non-linear, non-reducible fashion (interactively and transactionally). You can't just look at each part individually to determine the nature of the entire system, because each part is tightly interconnected with each other part. This is the basic idea behind complex systems theory which is tightly connected to big picture thinking: it's that synthesis is not immediately reducible to analysis and vice versa. There is a dialectical relationship between the two: from lower-order phenomena emerges higher-order phenomena. In other words, emergence is the piece of the equation that is not accounted for by the additive summation of each part. It's like when hydrogen and oxygen bond to form water. H2O is not simply a mix of the chemical properties of H and O. H2O has its own chemical properties. There is something "new" there that is created, and that is emergence. You cannot reduce the explanation of a whole (water) to its parts in isolation (H and O), and this is true for all of reality on all scales (hence why you need holism to understand reality as a whole).

Being aware of recontextualization is one example of big picture thinking, so you're already doing it. The more you zoom out to the bigger picture, the more complex things become, and the less black-and-white it becomes. Thinking big picture is about having the courage to detach yourself from the safe, simplistic, tried-and-tested models and accept uncertainty. It's about going from analysis to synthesis, fragmentation to integration, singular to plural, dichotomy to gradation. Why it is important is because it can solve the problem of getting stuck in one way of seeing things, making you able to see outside of that perspective and seek correspondance with adjacent perspectives. It's about being flexible and being able to jump between different modes of thinking, cross-test different solutions, create hybrids or innovate completely new methods. It's highly linked to the Big 5 trait of Openness, creativity, low latent inhibition, thought connectivity etc. Basically all the revolutionary thinkers and theorists from history were gifted big picture thinkers.

+1 This is what is meant by the importance of integrating Blue when doing spiritual work, ie. not staying a teenage stoner trapped in hedonistic/chaotic/aimless Red. I'm also speaking directly from experience as you are.

Uh yes

No.

True, but stating that changes nothing. To expect that it does is just a form of absolute-relative conflation (which is nothing new on this forum). There is no reason to invoke The Absolute perspective in a conversation about relative matters (unless it's actually warranted) and expect that it changes anything or that it is in any way relevant to what humans ought to do in any given situation. The Absolute doesn't negate the relative.

But you are a starfish, so I bet you wouldn't like being killed off by pollution of the seabed.

Humanity is the only disease humans aren't vaccinating for

Ok. What is that?

If your idea of average is 1.16% of the population, then sure.

...wha??

Letting a hyper-contagious virus spread freely in the population and allowing it the possibility to mutate into a hyper-lethal variant is more analogous to removing breaks from all cars.

Solution: get a dog.

Jordan Peterson isn't the main attraction here btw. Reality is ridiculous.

Try quitting THC for a year and see if you still call yourself awake.

Smear of Cringekad.

Yes