Carl-Richard

It's quite funny to think about but probably even most Purple societies except maybe the very very beginnings of (proto-)human history have Red in them, it's just it gets shunned and civilized by the community before it can fully take root. It took technological and resource expansion through the agricultural revolution ~10k years ago before the desire for power could be expressed (externally towards "other" tribes). The cognitive machinery was already well-established, it just needed a catalyst to become the new cultural meme.

Again, throwing a party and "having fun" is not Orange. The Orange aesthetic is besides the point. What is the driver for letting loose and living for the moment? "Uhhh uhhh the weekend which is a way that we give ourselves a break from the daily grind of capitalism". And what does that break consist of? Letting loose some impulsiveness. Even just standard social gatherings outside work, it's a time where you lay down the "discipline" and let loose a bit. The impulsive egocentrism is the core of Red that all individuals go through. It's more when it becomes the main cultural code in the society (or the person is truly thoroughly Red) that the more interpersonal interaction styles like dominance, power, pride, etc. become more pervasive or "visible" in these stereotypically bombastic ways (because that is how society gets "enforced" at that level). A stoner teenager who has ultimately no concern for anybody else than themselves and their next high, and who might engage in theft, lying, cheating just to serve those needs, that's a less stereotypical and visible kind of Red.

I knew this was the equivocation that could be happening but denial got me again. "Throwing a party" was what was intended. 1. Let's not go down the rabbithole of defining pop music (although I agree the mass produced stuff you hear on the radio today is a product of Orange). 2. Again, partying and having "fun fun fun, looking forward to the weekend" is not.

No, those are the extremes of Red, the extremes of impulsive egocentrism. If partying and drinking is quintessentially Orange, I guess the entire world is Orange (give or take muslims and some Christian denominations).

Everybody, unless they're severely mentally retarded, passes through the cognitive equivalents of Stage Red (impulsive egocentered awareness) which comes with its own personal cultural code even if it's not prevalent in the larger society (and you'll glean it from your peers, i.e. age-specific subcultures). It comes online around age 3 or so. My claim is it doesn't actually calm down significantly before you pass your teenage years and your prefrontal cortex is "fully developed" (which tends to be put at 25 for males, 20 for females). And if you didn't update your cultural code to reflect that change (like in the "27-club" phenomena), you either die or end up a career criminal or you're simply a psychopath (i.e. the extreme end of impulsive egocentrism). In the modern world, "growing up" means transcending Red as a primary driver and entering Blue and later beyond. Being actually cognitively compatible with higher stages than that either takes time, or it's simply not in the cards for you (there are definitely closeminded simpleminded people in Orange societies and above that you would label as regressive or prejudiced or old-fashioned or simply simpleminded people. These are Blue, if not Red of course). People also underestimate how much practice rational thinking takes to get even somewhat right (which is where the scientific and entrepreneurial [Orange] mindset is born). I believe it was Jordan Peterson who said that first-year undergraduates regularly make plain logical errors in essays. Forget about getting to relativistic or systemic stages of thinking (where you can truly exercise it independently and producing original thoughts at that level and not simply role-playing it based on some few terms you learned one year ago or just one obscure psychological framework), that comes way later, maybe after becoming thoroughly familar with graduate or post-graduate levels of knowledge. Certainly forget about "transcending rationality" before you've barely learned to use it.

The core of red is impulsivity and short-term focus, present-moment concerns, which is what drives the egocentrism ("me and my concerns right now over anyone elses or me in the future or the larger social good or the superego or societal expectations). Drinking, partying, having promiscuous sex, doing wild challenges ("russeknuter"), and of course illegal drug use is common, and violent crime is elevated (violent crime in general peaks at around 18-25 and drops afterwards). Mhm, and in what way is it less mature? Perhaps that's what I've been describing with the concepts I presented (downward-assimilation, the distinction between cultural code and cognitive complexity)? In other words, a 3 year old has the cognitive complexity of yes a 3 year old while the cultural code (the language, the terms, the words) of Green was created by individuals with much higher cognitive complexity and our children are fed (or assimilate) dumbed-down versions of those concepts. Just because you have "gender fluidity" in your vocabulary does not mean you have the cognitive complexity at meta-systematic (level 13 in the MHC) where you genuinely see large systemic connections and you can produce original ideas in that domain. The distinction between cultural code and cognitive complexity is essentially the distinction between semantics and syntax. Just because you can adopt a word or concept does not necessarily mean you see a high level of connections to that concept. A 1-year-old mouthing "mama" does not betray a 80-year-old great grandmother's understanding of "mama". Even in the most simplistic societies, the understanding is miles apart.

Hahahah

Yes, largely because of downward-assimilation (but yes also "upward-assimilation" which is where you're genuinely pulled up in development by your society; it helps to think of these things and stages in general as statistics and gradients rather than dichotomies). Ever heard of the phenomena of "Russ" in Scandinavia? How is it that these teenagers essentially party and drink themselves to death over a period of a few months? Your parents might drink a couple of more drinks than usual on New Years Eve, but they're most likely highly controlled; nothing to the same extent as Russ. More generally, what is the "27-club" about do you think? I have a theory even from my own life which I'll hint towards: I know 3 people who died around that age and all of them were heavily into drugs, one of them into violence and serious crime. I myself was severely into drugs until the year I was turning 21, and later I started seriously investing in future-oriented actions by legimately studying in school/university (something I had only done casually and half-assedly before), something changed. Even as a 3-year-old? Ever heard of the phenomena of a "dogmatic", racist or prejudiced socialist, social justice warrior, feminist? Are these usually teenagers or early adults, and if so, why is that? Let's use a very stark example: does teaching kindergarters (3-year-olds) about gender fluidity and the socioeconomic virtues of equity and diversity, make them Green?

Reminds me of this video I watched a few days ago where the #1 PvP streamer on OSRS found out some new tech while testing out a new weapon (or shield) in PvP. This guy is a sensor for sure by the way: 18:14-20:16 If you have no idea what is happening, he found out a new weapon has an indicator that coincidentally can help you predict the next hit you take from the opponent 0.6 seconds before it happens (because the indicator processes the same time the hit is calculated and for some spans of time the hit shows up 0.6 seconds later because that is simply how the game is designed for PvP, it's called PID - Player IDs). And that allows you to get an edge with respect to "vengeance" which is a spell that returns some of the damage that you take. Essentially he can now predict when vengeance will deal damage to the opponent so he can use special attacks and go for the K0 at that moment which drastically improves the chances of winning a fight. When you said sensors see the world in slow motion, that's what I thought of (being aware of details and contingencies that happen in just 0.6 seconds). What also struck me about this guy is he has always been very aware of who has "PID" in a fight ("not having PID" means your hit shows up 0.6 seconds later if both players hit each other simultaneously). I've done PvP for many many years and I've never been as aware of PID as him (I never really payed attention to it meanwhile he has whole strategies based on who has PID; it's probably because I always PvPed more casually and didn't do risk fights like he did where you're heavily incentivized to get any edge you can get).

Meaning and purpose creates your very perception. To say they are "human concepts" like they're something you can just disregard and live without is a bit mistaken. They are more like human mechanisms. Meaning and purpose was required for you to write your sentence.

3:00-3:32 That guitar stuff in the background and the ambient atmosphere is brain-meltingly psychedelic: Perhaps even more powerful if you listen to it in context of the entire song (if you dare).

It's not supposed to be anything. It's literally what you get if you fit x out y symptoms on a diagnostic chart given by your psychiatrist. The fact that it has to have been a problem since early childhood could pull it in the direction of genes, but don't forget that childhood or development didn't start at 3 years old. There is a whole field that studies early parent-child interactions (e.g. attachment theory) and ADHD is linked to insecure attachment styles which can be driven by the environment and the parent-child interactions. There is also the concept of "relational trauma" in this context where the parent fails to give proper care and support for the child's emotional regulation (within a Western and scientific frame of course). Arguably most people think of trauma in an older "veteran PTSD" type of frame (usually involving life-threatening, violent, life-shattering events) but people like Gabor Mate think of them also within a relational frame. Chronic PTSD (C-PTSD) is for example a new diagnosis that tends to be associated with interpersonal trauma (perhaps more in the direction of domestic and verbal violence and abuse than simple lack of emotion regulation support from the parent). ADHD and C-PTSD are strongly linked.

I don't think they are actually, it's such a wide term even if you want to be rigorous about it. That it becomes even more wide colloquially is just a symptom of that. I think the way you described your idea of bias (involving judgment, which seems to imply "thinking" rather than more implicit mechanisms) is strictly limited to "cognitive bias", but feel free to expand on that. By the way, just a general PSA, I've noticed when you ask AI to compare two things (like a person has done in this thread) and it makes a chart where it compares similar and different traits in the two things, it tends to produce something you'll likely interpret through false dichotomies (it will say "usually/generally" but the table format conflicts with this). That's actually an example of cognitive bias: when things are presented in firm dichotomizing formats like tables, it will promote a dichotomizing understanding of the things. Since AI has trouble understanding context, it will often put things that require nuance in dichotomizing formats leading to a misleading picture.

Please watch, the madness starts at 3:00 (current timestamp is for lead-up) and ends at 4:39 (not really but that's the moment). I started howling "noooooooooooo" when I realized it.

Usually when you reference the brain in a non-casual intellectual way like this, you're referencing science and not your personal feelings.

Preference is a synonym for "I like". "I like strawberry ice cream" means you will deviate from other forms of ice cream in favor of that one; i.e., you're not neutral with respect to what ice cream you would like to have. The narrowing of perception towards one source of information over another is called focus, attention or attentional bias. It's a kind of perceptual bias and a driving component of many kinds of perceptual biases. Now, if I focus on one thing over and another and that thing happens to be more relevant to focus on than anything else, is that a pure con? Obviously no. If you weren't attentionally biased towards a very small selection of things that are highly relevant to your survival, you wouldn't be able to wake up and walk to the toilet. Attentional bias of course makes you ignore potentially relevant things which is a con, but it's also a pro because you can get to the point without requiring an infinite amount of information to get to the point. Trying to magically grasp the meaning of words by "contemplating" about them (with or without AI, although AI certainly adds fuel to the fire) is often meaningless or certainly inefficient (like having to process infinite information instead of just focusing on what is relevant). Just look up some definitions and take it from there. Pros of bias right there.

Definitely your taste for strawberry ice cream, that shit's wack. I don't know, up to you. I already put forth some of the "cons" of insularity. Whether you care enough about that to act on it is again up to you.

I remember I sat in a car once on an excursion trip with our biology class at uni with three other people and the driver put on Cannibal Corpse - "Make Them Suffer", which he put on ironically and said "it sounds entirely fucked haha, imagine listening to this as if it's normal". And that was before I had started listening to like really heavy metal, and I was thinking "yeah it does sound fucked, but I'll probably listen to it in a few years seeing the trend of listening to heavier stuff over time". And wouldn't you know it, I've listened to some Cannibal Corpse more than a few times the last years. And there was of course things about the music I didn't get back then that I get now, both from a more purely aesthetic and feelings-based level (resonating with the sounds) but also just from reading through the music history and the evolution of metal as a genre. And that is constantly evolving: even just as recently as a week or so ago, I started to understand where CC's sound (and more generally "brutal death metal") really originated from (which is the band Suffocation). And it was if some jigsaw puzzle rearranged itself in my head after that and I started to "get" the sound in yet another new way. All in all, tons of added perspective changed how I perceive the music.

Which words are you talking about? It's clear that "cognitive bias" involves bias in judgment, "perceptual bias" involves bias in perception, etc. So what is bias then? A distortion. What does the distortion fundamentally come from? Partiality. Where can we expect distortions due to partiality? Preferences, likes vs dislikes, making a judgment, forming an opinion, seeing things from a perspective over another. And it's not just "expect" as it's a potential: it's a constant, only about degrees and types. Seeing something from one perspective literally limits you from seeing it from the other perspective (unless you take the other perspective at another point in time). Seeing the front of your hand means you cannot see the back of your hand. You can't see them both at the same time. And while that is a perceptual example, abstract cognition is an abstraction of, you guessed it, perception. Taking on a perspective cognitively can involve seeing say the concept of child labor from the perspective of biology or from the perspective of 21st century societal norms. You will see that thing from quite different perspectives, and what you see will be quite different. You can't see them both at the same time (unless you're say some systems biologist that integrates the two fields). They give you a limited, a partial, picture of reality.

Ask it what a perceptual bias is and if all perception is at some level inherently biased. And then ask it whether preferences influence perception and thus bias. Also, the fact that I prefer food and not shit for breakfast is not really something I choose.

Not gonna lie, that "coincidence" (I was watching so much Sadhguru and other spiritual teachers at the time) made me think like it was some kind of plan.

My definition includes yours, it's just a gradient. What we call a highly biased person is just an extreme version of ourselves. Mental illness is an extreme version of normal behavior. We make things illegal that offends most people. "Everything is illusion, hallucination, bias, survival". I'm biased towards Leo's way of unifying everything, and gradation/statistics. Many people might think of biases as "cognitive biases" as in biases of judgment like you're pointing out, but "perceptual bias" is also an entire field in psychology (how our perceptual faculties by virtue of being limited distort our perception of the world).

I was gifted Sadhguru's Inner Engineering by a guy in university first year. He just happened to buy it because he was interested in engineering and thought "inner engineering" sounded cool. I read it a bit, until I had to put it down because I was getting insta-awakenings just reading it.

Mhm. Why is "word" a separate word if it can be used to describe multiple words? The distortion is a result of the partiality. The fact that my perception is limited distorts my perception of reality. The fact that my preference is for one thing over another distorts my relationship to those things. The fact that I hold an opinion over another distorts my relationship to either opinion. Bias just tends to be used more often in cases where the distortion is so obvious or normative that it becomes seen as negative. But bias in itself is ubiquitous and part of our limited existence. Saw this before I came on here: Merely having the thing and being excited for it can distort someone's perception to the point where they think they could be biased.

Holy shit he got absolutely blasted right there.