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.

I've never thought about this. "So you think pop music and rock does not hold the same standards as classical music? Well, guess what? The classical music you revere so much is pop music." Quick and succint as usual. People thought this guy had 170 IQ (not that it would be accurate or anything). "Genius is seeing things nobody else sees".

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.

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

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.

I have a business question (or several) I would like some input on. Say "yes" and I'll dump it either in here or in PM maybe depending on if several people answer. Or I'll write it out in full in this post soon.

@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.