Carl-Richard

🤣🤩

What are some of the highest things you know about and how do you go about sharing it to most people?

Significance, purpose, coherence, mattering. I might add some examples of significance because it was a bit abstract: the taste of ice cream, the feeling of wind across your skin, the feeling of love and warmth from your lover's touch, the experience of fun, laughter, contentment, sadness, etc.

I was about to say.

If somebody struggles with talking to women, I would ask how often do they talk to women. Talking to another person lies well within your skillset. It's literally what humans do, it's what makes us human. Yeah, sit down and actually talk to people. It's so brilliantly banal, but that's how you get good at talking to people. People might be doing it less nowadays for various reasons and you can have various excuses for why it's so hard and you need help and you need the best cheat codes etc., but that doesn't change the basic fact of the matter. We've been talking to each other for hundreds of thousands maybe millions of years. We didn't suddenly need pickup theory to talk to women whenever it arose 40-50 years ago or whatever (unless Plato was a pickup artist or whatever). The reason I bring up music and walking as examples is that they are highly intuitive. Theory might be very important for theoretical stuff like perhaps writing a scientific article or philosophical treatus or starting a business. But for essentially basic human functions like talking, walking, making sounds, connecting with other people, you just need to do it. Get off the screen, get off your ass and walk/sing/talk. And if you have problems connecting to people (which is sort of the point of communicating), work on that. It's as simple as listening, talking with them, being with them. Consider the example of the creepy pickup artist. They might be applying some theory to the perfect extent, but there is just something off. They lack connection, their theory just simply doesn't resonate with the basics of connection, or they lack the intuitive antennas for it somehow (which again, can be trained). What do people tell those people? "Relax, go with the flow, don't be in your head so much, don't try so hard, act like you're dumb and your brain is shut off", etc. These are essentially saying "stop with the theory, go connect". But then of course you could say "but that is theory". Well, if theory is about dropping theory, then fine, theory it is all the way down. But you probably see the distinction between "theory, more theory will save me" and "drop theory, go connect with people".

You have a very "reducing" temperament, I could've expected this response. Then I guess I'm saying being very serious about theory is not necessarily the answer and it might even be detrimental if you're not already somewhat intuitively well-adjusted (and maybe even if you are). It's like if you want to be serious about walking on your two feet, do you have to be very serious about the theory of walking on your two feet or should you perhaps simply proceed to walk on your two feet and see if it works just doing that? Maybe if you want to add a couple of percentages of efficiency on your walking, you will engage in some theory and perhaps slightly tweak your walking patterns, but you might also end up ruining your natural gait and become less efficient.

People learning pickup theory to be successful with women reminds me of people learning music theory to be good musicians. That's like at most a bonus, if it's not a detriment (which it very often can be). Playing music (or making it, be it only in thought) is what makes you a good musician. And emphasis on "playing" and not necessarily "practice". Some of the best musical virtuosos in the world have said they have never actually "practiced" but simply played what they enjoy. So maybe the question is do you genuinely enjoy (or can you get yourself to enjoy) talking to women? Then maybe they will enjoy talking to you too (many women are like pristine mirrors, they reflect yourself right back at you). And as for "I can enjoy talking about things I like but then women won't like me", that's not what I mean. That's literally defined as "autistic thinking", talking only about your own interests while not communicating with the other person. And it's not only women who won't like you then. If you can't tune into the other person and establish a shared space and connection, that's a larger issue of how you relate to people, and that can be trained, and you can get to like that over time, genuinely listening to people and riffing off of them. The trick is to get to talk about your own interests "through" them. You lead, you ask, you probe, you listen, then find a connection and go from there. Or you simply learn to like observing and engaging with different perspectives which then feeds into your interests that way. If there is no connection, get it out then leave it, you are talking to yourself. You want to enjoy talking "to" or "with" them, not "at" them. Shallow gimmicks do not beat genuine connection. When it comes to playing, drop the theory and engage with the music.

Yes, and it lead me to that the brain is more complicated than that. There are 5ht1a receptors in your spleen. Their effect depends a lot on where they are expressed. They just happen to be densely expressed in key cortical regions and the Default Mode Network and largely reduce firing in there. And other compounds can induce proclaimed glimpses into pure consciousness (cannabis/THC, salvia) which act on different receptor systems.

Visualizations of the statistical worldview (mediation models; one variable affecting another through one or more variables): For the uninitiated, C' is the effect that remains when you account for / control for all the other effects in the model, C is the total effect (all the effects combined). Bigger number means bigger effect, negative number means negative effect (but how to interpret that depends on how the variables are conceptualized/measured/operationalized). The more stars the more significant the effect (the more we trust the results to be accurate); complete lack of stars means the effect is not significant (considered not worthy of consideration in this data set). The numbers in the parentheses are related to the stars (if it's too high relative to the effect, it means lack of stars).

When you're in the statistical worldview, - you are acutely aware that many things can influence one thing, and their relationship is statistical (quantitative). Some things can have a strong influence, other things less of a strong influence, and some things only a weak influence (e.g. the butterfly effect). In reality, there is a huge web of influences, where each influence is a particular node or string on the web, and each node is weighted with a certain strength of influence or statistical value. For example, ADHD can be influenced by beliefs, experiences, genetics, etc. Even if you think one of these things have a stronger influence, it doesn't mean it can only be reduced to that thing, and talking as if it can be reduced to that thing can lead to problems with accurately talking about and perceiving reality. Words like "partially", "mostly", "some of", "many", are often used. - you often say things are "probably so", "most likely", "less likely", "probably not". It does not preclude you from making firm and exclusive analytical statements (e.g. "given x and y, z is true or false, coherent or inconsistent"). But you are very acutely aware when something is statistical and probabilistic so you don't overstep or overgeneralize or oversimplify. - you realize a thing can be many things at the same time. There is often not just one way to do things, or one thing you can do at any one time. "Should I meditate every day or should I do retreats where I meditate more deeply?" Why not both? "That's the placebo effect". Why can't it be a real effect and placebo at the same time? "Trans is social contagion". Why can't some of it be real trans and some of it be social contagion (both within and across individuals)? "Yes — both" is very often realized to be the answer. The statistical worldview is a way to conceptualize nuance and holism, as opposed to black-and-white thinking and naive reductionism. It's also related to the modern scientific framework of putting numbers and quantities to these relationships. Modern science, especially human-oriented science (e.g. medicine, psychology), primes this kind of statistical thinking where everything is viewed through statistical associations (mediation, moderation, correlation) and ways of quantifying them (effect sizes, correlation coefficients, measures of statistical significance). If you do enough scientific thinking, in the right fields of science, you will eventually end up viewing a large chunk of the world this way.

There's like a 2007-2010s haircut, and that's it.

@Natasha Tori Maru What about size? Steve Vai has giant hands. By the way, the most seductive song that has ever been written.

I won't try, but I will try through a story: I one time went with some from uni to a bar, and I was with one girl, and then we met some other people (guys) and they were like "your eyes are so amazing, oh my god!" (and they were right to be fair; I even said kinda lowkey "I'm mean it's not wrong..." which was kinda not the best move to be fair but anyway). I've later imagined in that moment that after they left (which was quickly), I could be like "don't you think it's sometimes better that not everything has to be spelled out?" and she would ask "yeah, what do you mean?". And then I would just look her straight into the eyes like a horny predator (and kiss her???).

But do you promote pursuing spirituality/awakening knowing it might increase the chances of a spontaneous kundalini awakening (and dissolution of self which is arguably just as dramatic as kundalini energy)?

Systems thinking is thinking with emphasis on relationships and challenging simple analytical thinking (naive reductionism: "a -> b"), often dealing with notions like complexity, circularity, context. I'm not necessarily invoking systems thinking as much as multiplistic thinking, simply acknowledging there are multiple things, and these things are related in degrees. "Multiple" is statistical, "degrees" also. Probabilistic thinking acknowledges degrees of probability of multiple outcomes; that's also statistical. Bayesian thinking is a very specific framework. The probabilistic aspect I'm talking about is simply about acknowledging probabilities. It's very simple. Everybody should be familar with the concepts I'm talking about. It's just some are maybe less deeply practiced in it or less able to spot the common errors our mind makes. Especially the last paragraph about spotting how things can be two or more things at the same time. For example about the Placebo effect. People often seem to have an idea that once "placebo" is invoked, every other effect is somehow irrelevant. But it doesn't have to be that way, and it most probably isn't that way in most cases.

God is like: Who cares about Leo's argument? Leo's not God.

You're alright, don't worry.

@Never_give_up Also, beware that it's not "you" that reincarnates (you as the ego-mind-body complex, what you think you are). "You" will die, "you" will disintegrate, "you" will become nothing. That is ultimately what you are. And then what reincarnates is a seeming husk of whatever carries the life-force that births the ego-mind-body complex. And then this husk is what connects you to prior ego-body-mind complexes associated with it (but as far as you are concerned, basically only retroactively were you to recall a past-life memory). If you are heavily identified with your current mind and body, physical death will feel like true death to you. You will feel like you're disappearing forever. The experience of death can be quite real for definitely most people. So using reincarnation as some insurance against whatever fears and desires you have, that's ultimately futile, because you will have to face all of it, and the nature of the thing you think you are right now will vanish, relinquished to the memory of nature.

What does taking your life to try to advance in a next life signify? It's an earthworm digging itself into the ground, or a mosquito trying to suck the blood of reality. It's probably not meant to be taken literally, but the trend is that stuck patterns perpetuate themselves, and the way out is "through". If you decide your life is not worth living, that's a pattern you probably will have to work through in your next life, unless you work it out in this life.

Thing is, 90% of the comments you see under that video are the people who watched the Shorts (like I did before I found the full episodes) and maybe a bit of the first episode. The Shorts are clipped to make the women look like absolute babies while the men look like superheroes. But if you watch the rest of the episodes (I've watched three now, I think I misspoke earlier), it becomes increasingly clear that the struggle is not that one-sided.

14 men and 14 women each live on their own deserted island in the tropics and have to survive for 5 weeks. WhO hAs wHat it tAkes to sUrviVe? I've watched three episodes so far and it's pretty fun. I can't be asked to join the "haha lol women" thing before I've watched the entire thing. But there are some differences of course, as you would expect. If I was stranded on a deserted island, I would take @Natasha Tori Maru as medical grade shelter builder and @integral as contamination specialist I would be the jungle shaman or whatever; let me spend some time meditating and I'll maybe give some intuition-based navigation tips or just some wacked-out shit. When watching episode 3, I randomly came up with a possible hunting technique for sting rays that were swimming in the shallows on the beach and some of them tried to catch (if you're interested and you're ever on a deserted island without food ):

I'm so sane I vomit instinctively when I read AI "x, not y" sentence structures.

Haha it's fucken huge now. But it's going off tomorrow or before 17th of May (Constitution Day in Norway). It's getting more and more ratty as we go. Shaman mode can be on a rotation. I figure everything is doable anyways, building a shelter in the jungle has always seemed like a breeze to me (but who knows, I have only assisted in building a shed, a greenhouse, a wooden enclosure for trash cans, a concrete wall and the grounding for a patio and other minor stuff before lol). I also built kind of a hut before when I was little (a horizontal tree was used as the main ceiling beam), not really much of a shelter that though (maybe for one tiny human). Actually, true survivors do group meditations and shamanic rituals together 😆

Lol. I asked about the cowshit part because I recently walked across a field that was newly fertilized and my clothes smelled like shit afterwards and I couldn't concentrate (I got distracted or whatever). Even when walking on the road next to the field, the smell was just as bad if not worse at times. I think you could've caught the same amount of shit smell from just that. Farmers can just fling shit everywhere and it's totally acceptable 💩 Imagine going to a job interview smelling like shit because you walked next to a field. They should put up signs like "⚠️ Shit ⚠️".