Carl-Richard

ChatGPT is its own kind of stupid, and you have more ways to tell when humans lie.

ChatGPT is a stupid liar not to be trusted. Change my mind.

Well, things like being highly time efficient in what you're doing can actually be conducive to a flow state. The flow state also requires some kind of feminine finesse or sensitivity, so that could be an example of a synergy of the two modes. If you're too focused on efficiency and trying to push the gas pedal through the floor, that is where you'll lose some of that finesse and you're more prone to making mistakes (and get injuries lol). Masculinity in its purest form is high risk, unrefined, raw, thunderous rage. Flow is a state of perfect balance. So what I see in my mom's fiance is a lot of masculinity and maybe a lack of balance. Now, what happens if you're overly feminine is that you become a bit of a slug: smooth but low energy movements. I think I've been a bit of a slug in some places more than what is optimal.

Imagine that you're an archer trying to hit a target. You're trying to stand as still as possible to get a good aim, because a moving target is harder to hit. Now, apply this same principle to everyday life and your state of consciousness. If your state of consciousness is constantly changing; for example when recovering from a spike in blood sugar from drinking a glass of orange juice, or taking a stimulant like caffeine that slowly loses its effects over a couple of hours; all the targets you're trying to hit in everyday life will become harder to hit in some way, because the targets are moving. This applies to everything; from basic bodily movements, to following a line of thought, to your intuition; everything is impacted by these changes in state. Your ability to engage in various activities depends on your attunement to them, and changing your state will make you constantly recalibrate your attunement rather than refine it. This is probably partially why meditation increases functioning at virtually all levels, because you're removing yourself from the ever-changing nature of daily life and focusing on something that is constant (the ever-present field of consciousness), effectively practicing the act of attunement itself, making all the targets of everyday life more still and easier to hit. So if you want to experience what I'm talking about, try to eliminate all these things that cause excess fluctuation in your state: keep your blood sugar stable by avoiding fast sugars, avoid stimulants like caffeine or just all psychoactive substances that are not essential for your health. See if your experience of reality becomes more clear, more stable, more coherent.

That makes me think about this idea that tying the concept of universality to culture or societal context is actually an incomplete version of universality. For example, we know that things like genes or personality traits also impact behavior and thus development (it's obviously not just culture/society that does that). So why are we not concerned about controlling for specific genes or personality traits ("cross-genetic research")? And why stop there? There are probably millions of such biological or psychological factors that we can control for. Have we truly found an universal model before we have ruled out the variation produced by these factors? This also ties into another idea I've had about the future of developmental psychology, which uses heavy computer models to create highly detailed simulated realities where you can tweak each factor (biological, psychological, cultural, etc.) and see the possible developmental paths that arise for each individual (or each culture for that sake). Now, we're of course nowhere near creating these highly specific models, and even when we get there, we're inevitably stuck with some limits on specificity (because there are limits on which inputs we're bothered to plug into the computer and investigate). It's kinda like how the AI chatbots are limited by the prompts that the humans feed them. So again, we probably shouldn't care too much about finding a truly universal model for development, not just because it's virtually impossible, but because you can still use existing models in their limited contexts. There is nothing wrong with using SD or Piaget as long as you have some decent knowledge about where the model applies and where it doesn't.

I think body language experts(?) are more likely to bullshit you than Mr. Grusch ☺️

If you're so weird or out of control that people think you need serious help.

I try to avoid killing things.

??

If you say so.

I completely agree that it depends on your goals if this is something you would want to pursue. There are pros to having a spike that changes your functioning for a while, even if you're a scholar (it can open you up to new insights — "disruptive practices"). I've just presented one con to having that spike. And I can definitely see that having a "sensitive" approach can actually be a detriment in a highly competitive environment. My mom just got engaged to this super-efficient business CEO guy. He is highly energetic, just inherently (drinks caffeine too, of course), and he literally cannot sit still and just relax (it's like he is in constant pain if he is not actively doing something that demands full effort and attention). He often gets these dumb injuries from not being mindful enough, is really impatient with waiters, etc., and he is of course highly successful at his job. There are definitely aspects of him that I want to integrate in some areas of my life, but I'm again also very aware of the cons to that mode of being.

Do they? ?

I'm sorry, I forgot that MHC is a Neo-Piagetian model. It's not really value-independent at all ? Let's forget I ever said that. Back to the idea of an universal ladder of human complexity: We should clarify what we mean by "universality" in this discussion. So far (if we're following what the academics are saying), we've been talking about the development of individuals, and "universality" refers to the kind of development of individuals that exists irrespective of any culture. In other words, it's the type of development that is shared between an uncontacted Amazonian tribes person and a kid scrolling TikTok. Now, it's a different thing to talk about the development of the cultures themselves: what if all cultures, given enough time, eventually end up going through these higher levels of complexity postulated by Piaget, SD and Neo-Piagetian models? Maybe that is the question you should be asking.

Model of Hierarchical Complexity comes to mind, but it's considered a Neo-Piagetian model, so I don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity

Yes, and Bronfenbrenner maps out the arena where these different challenges and oppurtunities occur, in different concentric layers (like an onion). The layers are defined in an almost mathematical way, so it's hard to make a case that it doesn't apply in some way to all cultures. Although you could actually problematize the universality of the third layer ("exosystem"), as it describes pressures from people or structures that the individual is not directly involved with (e.g. politicians, judicial systems), which could be a problem for sub-Dunbar number tribes where you're technically able to be directly involved with everybody in the society.

Caffeine, L-theanine and all the other major psychoactive components of green tea, contribute to a short-term boom and bust effect on your consciousness. Whether it's a stimulant or a depressant is really beside the point.

"Life's a bitch and then you die". Jking. Models that map "developmental contexts" (e.g. Bronfenbrenner) seem to be better off in terms universality, as they don't assume one shared "developmental path", and the different "levels" have extremely generalized systemic definitions. Contextual models only need to articulate the developmental pressures that exist around an individual at all times, which is much simpler than laying out a step-by-step path of changing pressures. Of course, the problem is that you lose some specificity. If you want to use more specific models, just use them in the contexts where they apply and don't try to force some expectation of universality onto them (e.g. let SD and Piaget be eurocentric/WEIRD models).

Maybe. Some of the context for why I made this topic is that I went to the gym like I usually do, but I forgot my orange (or the equivalent amount of sweet fruit that I've been accustomed to eating at the tail end of my workout ?). The only thing that I could buy at the nearby store was a small 250 ml carton of orange juice. I drank maybe half of it at the usual point of the workout and planned to drink the other half later, and man, I felt like a wreck 20-30 minutes later. Maybe it was too small of an amount to do anything but fuck with my metabolism, but it was drastically different from eating an actual orange. Now, the tail end of a workout is of course an extreme situation where you're maybe extra sensitive to these things (and you should be careful with judging things based on one-time subjective reports), but I still notice the same effects when consuming other sources of fast carbs without an adequate balance of fibre or other foods. There is also a video that comes to mind of Tom Campell (an experienced 1st person consciousness researcher, author or "My Big TOE") echoing the same findings: fast sugar fogs up your consciousness.

Is memory confined to thoughts (mental chatter or imagery), or do you extend it to other things as well (e.g. sensory experiences, feelings, emotions)?

Psychedelics are illegal because some hippies essentially tried to destroy society with it in the 60s (said in the tone of Nixon, but still has some truth to it).

Does it not feel like other people are a bit like you? Then why should you not act like they are?

This is so good that it deserves its own thread (if you know both bands/songs, you know what I mean). Just wow. Most other mashups like this that I've seen are always a bit funny or weird, but this is almost seemless (except for the very end, of course, but that too shows the beauty of Opeth and what makes them so special). Here is also a more funny mashup that most of you will probably appreciate:

Welcome back. How would you define "direct experience"?

Give up the illusory control of your life and become the universe that is actually controlling your life.

Yeah, so what? Just share your songs, god damn it ?