Carl-Richard

The self-deception.

For being a self-help-oriented psychologist-guru, JP sure makes a hell of a good job creating customers in sore need of his advice. Firstly, Jordan Peterson has done zero studies on whether IQ can be increased or not. He has merely purported to have read the literature. Secondly, the studies on brain training like N-Back training are underestimated because they practically speaking inevitably use unmotivated and unknowledgeable /untrained /uncoached individuals (but even then, they show non-negligible increases). You also have to understand that JP is very pessimistic because he is essentially looking for a miracle cure for mentally disabled people. But if you're looking for going from say a standard college graduate in terms of IQ (115 IQ) to a stellar one (125 IQ or above), you have much better odds than what JP has made you to believe. If you are highly motivated to train and you get somebody to teach the techniques (or you're simply motivated to teach yourself the techniques well), you will see great results. There are tons of testimonials on this. Sprint and HIIT training (and also resistance training) also has shown clear increases in IQ-adjacent cognitive metrics (>10% increases). Also something as simple as filling a nutritional hole (calcium is for example one often completely neglected example for cognitive functioning) can take you from debilitating brain fog to pristine mental clarity. Something like a food allergy/sensitivity the same.

@StaraX The alternative is to 1. do what you feel called to do, 2. try more things. Have you tried brain training for instance? High-intensity cardiovascular training / speed/power training? Dietary optimization? These all factor in heavily to academic/cognitive performance. "Genetics" is essentially a placeholder for "people who are different than me". Of course people are different than you, that's life. You're supposed to do you. And statements like "80-90%" are highly generalized, vague and tentative estimates. You don't know whether it is even true, or how much it is true or for which things. So don't let your life hinge on such a thing. Also, if somebody scores higher than you on a metric associated with a thing, that doesn't mean you can't do that thing. And any metric is just a part of the story anyway. In the real world, real results matter, and you're an unique individual who can contribute uniquely.

I think my answer to this ethical altruism conundrum is that we don't just value the sheer quantity of human life or even alleviating human suffering, but we value things like music, art, and we need different people to do different things to make society go around. We need air traffic controllers, train station workers, nurses, physicians, academics, politicians, etc. Even people who suffer, value music, art; they might go to those things to alleviate their suffering, and if you take that away from them but you assure their life through Malaria prevention, you might have made their life less worth living. So what to do?: Do what you feel called to do. A person who feels called to do something, who feels motivated to do it, will do it better than somebody else who does not feel as motivated. And that way you will contribute greater to that part of the world you choose to contribute to. If you feel very called to donate money to Malaria prevention programs, do that. If you feel very called to find a cure for cancer, do that. Charity is a way of using your time on something you think is valueable. So use your time on something you think is valueable. "But can't you donate like 5% of your savings to Malaria prevention and save a big chunk of lives that way and still do what you feel called to do?" Well, yes, but what about other programs like water sanitation, cancer prevention, other disease prevention? "Just choose one that has a high life-saving conversion rate". Well, why do you ought to use 5% of your savings on initiatives with high immediate life-saving conversion rates and not say finding a cure for cancer or just landing a recording contract?

No it was not. I still don't know what you meant by "them" in your sentence.

Did you know that if you scroll up on the same page, you'll see that hate speech is against the guidelines and you might realize that statements like "muslims are dangerous" count as hate speech and thus you should be given a warning point for that (and eventually be banned if you continue)? "Yes, the statement "Muslims are dangerous" is considered hate speech because it attacks an entire religious group with a broad and harmful stereotype" — Gemini.

How do you know that?

Do you know what the maximum amount of warning points is before you get banned?

You can now exit the thread since you don't want to add anything of value. Or you could just, you know, clarify what your spontaneously aborted fetus of a sentence actually meant.

You can't threaten me with a slap 😏😏 Sry 🙏😌

You can try to wipe the floor with say a Rupert Sheldrake or David Bentley Hart, see how that goes. You consciously mock Muslim women when you say that Muslims are dangerous. I don't know, there is a trend that people with racist/bigoted tendencies and high amounts of warning points are more likely to get banned than the opposite.

🤔🤔🤔🤔🌝

Leiv Eiriksson discovered America before Columbus. Checkmate buddy.

There is this general tendency (probably born out of the New Atheist movement) to think of religion as fundamentally low IQ, low education, regressive, etc. You see even Leo engage in this with his "Christians are stupid", "New Agers are stupid" and "fake spirituality" rhetoric. Meanwhile, the reality is that low IQ is low IQ, low education is low education, regressive is regressive, and that certain forms of religion express these things, just like simply certain forms of human express these things. And of course the irony is that Leo and essentially everyone on here talking about God, consciousness, Love, Truth, etc. are religious. It's like they forget Spiral Dynamics is a thing, that pre-trans fallacy is a thing, and that religion is not intrinsically tied to just one portion of those stages or things. There are self-described Christians that dwarf every person on this forum in IQ and cognitive sophistication, probably same for Muslims. This forum has ironically a form of dogmatic New Age supremacy and prejudice, that all other forms of religion are intrinsically dumb and that their religiosity is high IQ, meanwhile you get literal racists typing out slogans like "muslims are dangerous".

😭😭😭

I recently learned top scientists are proposing experiments to test whether DMT entities are real. If those experiments give positive results, it has so many implications: for the state of metaphysical materialism in society, also for competing frameworks like analytical idealism (it could in fact open up for basically full-on theistic frameworks being more plausible, although I haven't thought about this much explicitly).

Hei, jeg heter Jan Fredrik, jeg er homofil.

@Scholar You tend to make this same argument in other threads, that humans are emotional, illogical and are only driven by an irrational and ultimately arbitrary attachment to an identity. That might certainly be true to some level for all people, and for some people more than others, and perhaps for yourself since you like to project it so much (your cognition seems very much Fi, so you will view things through values people have that they don't feel like grounding in anything but feeling itself and simply "identification"). However, it's still possible to have a discussion where we try to come to things through logic. Some people think that is a reasonable way to interact with the world. Through logic (and simply thinking clearly and explictly about things), you can start to map out relationships between different things you purport to value (and your actions), and if there is a discrepancy between any of them, you can start to fix them so that it becomes more consistent. For example, it took me quite a lot of thinking and deliberate attention to find out why I was dissatisfied with researching the bulk of "mindfulness" as it is often conceived in academia and why I was more specifically aligned with what I found out is called the "3rd wave of meditation research". I could of course have gone purely by feeling and have said "I don't like this but I like this", but I wouldn't have known how to clearly point out the difference (and perhaps I would have gotten stuck in the former without knowing why I felt dissatisfied and whether there existed any alternatives). In short, logic is good for explicating your values and helping you act consistently with your values (because there are many values and many actions that can be consistent or inconsistent, and logic can map out those relationships).

For the same reason you think taking a life is beyond the pale, having the state be able to wrongfully take somebody's life, could be enough justification to not have the death penalty. One wrongfully executed individual could cancel out any perceived justice other executions invoke. "At least 190 people who were sentenced to death in the United States have been exonerated and released since 1973, with official misconduct and perjury/false accusation the leading causes of their wrongful convictions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

You're just learning that it's a relative statement, not absolute. Will you do maths at the level of Terrence Tao if you just try hard enough? Probably not. But if you try hard enough, you'll do the best you can. That's the only point. Doing the best you can.

It's that you're at an advanced level of awakening where you start integrating it into your baseline state and its nature becomes abundantly clear to you. Many people simply have short glimpses and their egos react very strongly with perhaps a short glimpse of fear and then "ahhh how profound, how magnificent, I have awoken to truth, I am so awake". Their state might be affected for a while after that as well, but their ego is still strongly intact, just relatively less. When the baseline state starts to become increasingly more non-dual, you eventually have to truly face that fear, you can't retreat and marvel at how profound it is/was from the perspective of your ego. If it's a true awakening (a proper dose of ego dissolution), there is always an element of fear and amazement. It's just many people are good at repressing the fact that they experienced fear, retracting back to the ego and focusing on the amazement. And of course, there are some that surrender and start going down the road of proper enlightenment. And there might even be people who think they have surrendered but they just suppress the fact that they haven't, because they are in a relatively heightened state (which can be experienced as very profound) from the awakening. Nevertheless, the fact that you're experiencing fear is not something unnormal or something that is only happening to you. It can be quite integral part of the experience (or of the transition rather). Rupert Spira also talked about the moth and the flame analogy. He said that eventually you get tired of going back and forth and then you just surrender. You have to find out what that point is for you and whether you think there is anything in the way for you getting there. Simply ask yourself: "What do I want?". Pursue that. If you want to come to a place where you want to surrender, you should pursue what you want.

@StaraX But have you tried brain training?

The way I predict the next OpenAI model names: astra -> nova -> black hole (singularity; i.e. we've reached AI singularity, probably not under the LLM moniker). Might as well add in neutron star there somewhere.