Carl-Richard

Along with the "proper definition created by cult researcher and cult deprogramming expert Steven Hassan".

May I politely offer an Earth-sized facepalm for me and the rest of the thread sir. You can disagree about what scholars think cults mean without throwing all of scholars (but one, conveniently) under the bus regarding all of epistemology.

That definition seems to fall under the definition of "destructive cult". Yeah yeah, I don't understand understand anything, only your perspective is right, not a cult.

No, that's your cult definition of a cult. But I will agree the word "cult" is garbage, it's mostly used to sling poo at people you disagree with, and not all cults are super destructive and exploitative. And I'm not co-signing the garbage video above either.

I think nobody here has even read the Wikipedia page on cults and are just having an emotional freakout to being called a cult. When I learned about cults in uni, it was defined in contrast to sects in that sects create their own version of (and claim to be the "true version" of) some existing mainstream religious denomination, while cults essentially create their own kind of religion. Their beliefs are not tied to just one single religious denomination. They may synthesize many of them or simply create "their own beliefs" (if that's possible), often through the personal machinations of the leader. And as a result, they end up being at odds with the surrounding society in some way. And that increases group cohesion, and especially when the leader is very charismatic and has self-proclaimed superiority over not just the members but perhaps the rest of the surrounding culture and society, that is where the psychological and group dynamics commonly associated with cults start to take form. And before your mind goes to "but Actualized.org is not a religion", feel free to read the Wikipedia page on that too.

"To call us a cult, you must join". 🤔

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.

Phuack wymyn - Norwegian Institute of Public Health (and the literature they're basing it on 🧐).

@TruthFreedom What about sharing love just because you're that loving?

My stepdad gets so angry when I start talking about environmental toxins in fish and he's like "I simply follow the recommendations from the institute of public health and they say we can eat fish; instead of doing my own research, I just trust the 1000s of scientists who have already done the research and have done it better than I could ever do on my own". (It's not that simple by the way; he has probably not read any of the more specific recommendations that deal with contamination of e.g. self-caught fish and fish organ meats, avoiding certain species of fish during pregnancy). Meanwhile I'm like "hey, I just use it as a hypothesis for why I feel tired after eating cod and not salmon, and the institute of public health doesn't have a specific answer for that, so then I have to do my own research". He's like computing me talking about contaminants in the food he likes as "do not eat fish". He is really sharp and quick in a certain way, but he lacks any and all finesse and nuance sometimes. Businessman, super concerned about being pragmatic and forward-moving, getting results, not so much about getting to the bottom of things. It's like a complete clash, my entire being threatens his entire existence lol. Also, the way the institutes settle on a recommendation depends on cut-off values for what they consider to be safe, and those rely mostly on studies on developmental deficits (neurological and behavioral) in children (and sperm quality lol). There is probably no way they would capture the issues I'm concerned about like acute post-meal effects on cognition and performance and general energy levels (in adults, let alone children). Yeah ok, if you don't eat more than two portions of fatty fish per week, you won't be "brain damaged" per the definition of the institute, but what about say a 10%-30% acute drop in working memory performance?

There is like a spectrum of the alleged authority of the leader: At the very top-end, nobody is like the leader and nobody will ever be like them. That's like the peak Heaven's Gate type cult (not sure how accurate this is, but you get the point). Then under that you have where nobody is like the leader currently but that may change or is promised as a possibility. That's where Actualized is at. Then you have where the leader does not treat themselves as supreme and there are other examples of the same level of realization or teachings (but they still claim to be pointing to an Absolute truth). That would be perhaps some contemporary non-duality communities (maybe Sadhguru, Spira, Tolle). Then you simply have leaders or communities that claim special knowledge that is not necessarily absolute (or the leader is just charismatic) and they draw people in and exist on the margins of society. Perhaps Charles Manson's cult. Regardless of this, the point is that the more power is given to the leader, deliberately or not, the more cultish the dynamics become. The siloing from the larger society and the various psychological dynamics become stronger. And it doesn't matter that the concrete teachings are about independence of thought or becoming aware of self-bias or whatever clever and virtuous teachings that make the members feel like they're in control. The fact that the leader proclaims to be in that position of power, creates conflict with such teachings, and it will play on the members' psyches in pernicious ways. And such teachings will be used to protect the teacher. "You're just not openminded enough". "Be aware of your projections and biases". "You're too attached to your survival story". You can watch the Bentinho testimonies for all this. Cult dynamics are notoriously tricky and shifty and may play in large part under the surface in line with ego defense mechanisms of the members (suppress, deny, accommodate) and systemic effects across members (scapegoating, keeping the peace, maintaining group harmony, etc.). And again, the concrete teachings can create a false sense of security and even perpetuate the very cult dynamics they are purported to prevent.

One of the funniest videos on YouTube. Absolutely unhinged genius comedy.

Who said perfect?

Alien Anti-Biotics™

The only serious thing Actualized.org has going for it regarding the cult accusation is that the "leader" claims to have knowledge that exceeds anybody else in (as far as he claims to know) the entire world (and that this is the highest knowledge you can seek). This is different from merely claiming you have access to some Absolute truth.

The goal is to talk to women or "have success" with women (talk, connect, sleep with them, simply be with them, whatever you consider success), which is what I was commenting on pickup in relation to. All of that lies well within your skillset as a human being. Walking and music and other intuitive activities are good analogies. Pickup other than a few books from the 70s and 80s is terminally online / antisocial people trying to find a way to not be terminally online by consuming more terminally online content. And because they're terminally online, talking to women is framed as you're this soldier in Vietnam who ventures deep into the jungle on a mission encountering dangerous creatures and daunting tasks. Meanwhile in the real world, people simply talk to each other and hang out and then things develop from there. Pickup essentially does not exist in the real world. The real world equivalent is "dating". Pickup is in large part a vehicle for invading a social circle or space. And when you're not a part of the social circle, you're just an invader, you are generally not able to establish lasting meaningful connections, and the whole game usually becomes about being fast in and out, clinical, transactional, maximizing numbers, not real depth. It's the intersection of antisocial behavior, modern social spaces and capitalist mentality. It's understandable given the times, but sometimes one should question the solutions that are available. It's also seemingly a strategy for people who genuinely are on the spectrum to learn socialization. They seem to need rules, need concrete techniques, or they just prefer that mode of approaching problems. If you are that, sure, go for it. But if you are simply not talking to women, interacting with them, and you wonder why you feel awkward, anxious or incapable of talking to them, maybe it's a problem of practice; just like trying to walk after lying in a hospital bed for 6 months. EDIT: It is almost a tangent at this point, but you earlier discarded what I said about learning music theory being at most a bonus if not a detriment to being a good musician, and I think it's still relevant, as talking to women and whatever proceeds is still super intuitive: Aurora Aksnes, musical genius, said she was self-taught on the piano with no music theory knowledge when she wrote "Runaway" at 11 years old. That song has 1.25 billion streams on Spotify. I have more examples in that vein.

The statistical worldview is largely confined to observations or empiricism (what science is primarily concerned with; how reality behaves dynamically in the world, moment to moment; factual things, things you can measure; essentially gathering and making conclusions about data). That's why I said it does not preclude you from making analytical statements that have clear-cut Yes- and No-answers (which is more general, more philosophical, less tied to on-the-ground facts, more tied to logical contigencies, pure structure). Theorizing, hypothesizing, the thing you do before measuring, before putting a number to things. "Try meditation", or "try this in your meditation". Suggesting something does not require absolutistic statements of fact. Then I will say "why not both?". Deconstructing rationality does not preclude you from engaging in rationality. I did not describe the statistical worldview as an exclusive one (and perhaps that would be antithetical to the idea). I also thought about calling it "statistical thinking" instead but I feel it encapsulates a larger way of viewing the world than simply a way of thinking, it (ironically) encapsulates "many" ways of thinking (about structure in space, time, of how to use language and approach problems). But of course it's not an all-encapsulating thing or worldview, at least for me. It's just seemingly a large part of how my thinking mind works. Not everything, only some things.

I mean the known laws of physics is just the known laws of physics. If something appears to break those, that doesn't give much of a sign that it broke "the" laws of physics. And if the laws of physics is just reality and not some conceptual model or constraint we have defined, then I would say it was in line with the laws of physics. Everything would be in line with the laws of physics. But this is a categorical issue, not about probabilities. You would have to define more what you mean about the laws of physics if I were to start going into probabilities.

I actually have a hard time imagining an example of something breaking the known laws of physics in a way that relates to the listed hypotheses. Can you give me a concrete example?

The solo from Scar Symmetry's Neuromancers is one of the best solos (if not the best) in modern metal: 3:11 It's very interestingly similar to probably the greatest metal solo of all time (Megadeth - Tornado Of Souls). It starts on the same "intro note" (a single sustained root note with a vibrato) and has a similar backing track with high tempo and a melodic chord progression (it even starts at a similar time in the song hahaha 3:09-3:11): 3:09 It seems like the backing track is a huge factor in what makes a solo great. And it makes sense. It sets the tempo, the energy levels and the melodic/harmonic framework the solo gets to work in. And if you're able to actually work in communication with the backing track, especially playing within or at least acknowledging the melodic changes (which Per Nilsson from Scar Symmetry has said he likes to do and has shown in an interview that he is very adept at), you get the best sides of music.

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).

Pukety puke.

🤣🤩

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.