Carl-Richard

It's worth not taking looksmaxxing seriously just to avoid viewing somebody's face through some autistic scoreboard rather than the holistic feeling of beauty. I pity somebody like Clav who treats human faces like the way a car nerd treats sports cars when they open up the hood to look at the motor. I had a similar response when I learned about the name of species of trees in botany class in university. What I used to simply enjoy as a green nice tree suddenly became a label, a word, and everytime I would look at a tree, instead of being brought to silence at the ambiance and radiance, my mind vomited (in Norwegian) "Ask", "Osp", "Plantanlønn", etc. I was so annoyed, it ruined trees for me for a solid while. And then I wasn't even analyzing them much in detail. It was just one word usually (or "what tree is this?"). And here you have Clav looking like he is reading a blueprint for an architectural project.

And in that case (assuming "produces" is in any way more illustrative than "causes" and doesn't merely function as a synonym which also needs to be explained, which he didn't explain), the sentence before that was completely dead weight.

So many people got their lives literally destroyed by these things. And we're supposed to trust the doctors, the "experts". Nothing saves you from being diligent and cautious and looking at things thoroughly from many angles before deciding on something that might change your life forever, "doing your own research", no matter how hijacked that notion has become. If you blindly trust a machine that treats incredibly serious side effects as business as usual, you can ultimately only blame yourself and your own ignorance. (NOTE, VERY IMPORTANT: I'm not saying you should stop taking psychiatric medication if you're currently on them or that you should reject them if you're in a truly urgent medical situation. But you should sure as hell think twice about starting them if you have the choice and you're not in a truly urgent medical situation. And if you are currently on them, you should consider looking for legitimate medical options for tapering off them safely).

Ask AI what a circular definition is.

I can see a likely core mechanism, and it's usually involved in understanding responses to trauma, but I didn't draw the connections that it could present as a consistent "syndrome" with various strong symptoms (e.g. akathisia, severe anxiety, suicidality). It's likely the overactivation of the HPA axis leading to a shrinking of the hippocampus, and when the hippocampus gets smaller, the HPA axis gets more overactivated, etc. (it's a feedback loop). That it presents as a strong syndrome like this suggests the hippocampus is severely compromised and the recovery taking years would suggest that's the time it takes to regenerate the hippocampus. And even when the symptoms get better like they did with Jordan initially, it's possible to re-trigger the symptoms such that it spirals out of control again given the right conditions, like has seemed to have happened recently (suggesting not a full recovery). Had the issue simply been about regaining receptor sensitivity (like in normal withdrawal), you would see a normalization after weeks, not years (or at least that's the normal process of regaining receptor sensitivity).

Was he supposed to know that benzodiazepine withdrawal can cause literal brain damage? Because if so, very weird that his GP did not inform him on that, just like it's very weird that my mother who is a GP still didn't know about it 10 years later. He did PhD work on alcoholism. Of course he knows how withdrawal effects from depressants work. What is seemingly not widely known is that withdrawal can lead to serious brain damage and so-called "Benzodiazepine-Induced Neurologic Dysfunction".

Jordan Peterson was prescribed a benzodiazepine from his GP and was on them for 3 years until he asked his GP to increase the dosages due to life circumstances, and that is when the paradoxical reactions started and then he went cold turkey (??) and it all went downhill from there.

Yet they can prescribe them.

And just for reference, I asked my mother who is a general practicioner whether she has heard about benzodiazepine cessation causing severe neurological damage that takes years to heal, and she said "that's new to me".

This is just a low tier move where he equivocates on what he is wrong about. The accusation was never that self deception is not endless or that he explicitly claimed somewhere that self-deception is not endless, the accusation was that he made a claim that there is at least one thing that he cant be wrong about (namely, about him being the most awake). If he seriously wants to imply that anyone who affirms the claim once that "self-deception is endless" can never be wrong about anything from that point on (because if they are wrong about something,then they end up being right about self-deception being endless) - then he can go ahead, but everyone knows that he doesnt take that to be the case and its obvious that it was just a desperate and slimy move on his part. Seems like "narcissist word salad" (but I'll preface that definitions of NPD concepts seem to be often framed as necessarily intentional, conscious, cunning, Machiavellian, while the nature of the ego is that there is a large degree of compulsion and unconscious patterns, and narcissists are essentially stuck in their ego, so it would be unfair to categorize narcissist word salad as always a kind of intentional weapon, it could be just how the narcissist mind defends itself). https://www.ourmental.health/narcissists/decoding-narcissist-word-salad-understanding-manipulative-communication

Bernardo has takes on causality from an idealistic point of view which you might find interesting:

Yeah it's like really odd to even have to frame your "ambition" as "being the #1 in the world" or whatever. If your ambition is truth, that's all it is. If anything, "Being #1" only stands in the way of getting to the truth. And in reality, it most definitely does, because you're most definitely not #1. That's most definitely the truth.

He speaks about both awakening and theory. And to claim to be #1 in either, let alone both, is ludicrous. It is ridiculous beyond parody 100x over in a strangeloop that I have to say this. It's actually beneath anyone that they should even entertain this as a thought for one second.

Numbers can cut through the catastrophizing that a particular mind can gravitate towards given the right predispositions and also allows for a rough average that can apply to a greater group of people. A rock in my shoe might be detrimental for longevity, but do I need to stop walking outside because of it? Maybe if you ask the right person, they will tell you in their experience, you should definitely not walk outside while allowing your shoes to be prone to rocks. Some are also sensitive to loud noises or particular types of noises. Some also claim they cannot walk outside without sunglasses as they are purportedly abnormally sensitive to light. Should we trust some dood that we should tear down our house for the sake of our health, or could we maybe get some numbers and (also) judge that way?

As for "you guys just don't understand ambition", this response is entirely wrong and misleading. It's not ambitious to say "I am the most conscious being in the universe" or "I am the #1 authority on epistemology in the entire world". Those are claims of what you are, not what you are trying to become. If your ambition is finding the most accurate picture of reality in the entire world, that is entirely different than claiming you already have it. And if you think you already have a pretty accurate picture of reality and you're currently not convinced that anyone is providing a better alternative, you say "this is the most accurate picture of reality I have found and I'm currently not convinced of any better alternative". You don't say "I'm the #1 authority on what constitutes an accurate picture of reality". That's a "subtle" nuance of epistemology right there. And notice how sneaky he is in that post "I genuinely believe that I can understand Reality better than any human who has ever lived". As if he hasn't already said that he does understand it better than any human that has ever lived. It's sneaky snaky behavior.

And I'll address the "why don't you leave?" question which is regularly asked and is a serious question. There are obviously pros and cons to being here. But if there is one reason to leave, it's that engaging in an atmosphere where delusions are entertained like this erodes your relationship to truth and that constantly calling it out invokes a certain mental state that is not healthy in the long run (one of incessant cuttingness and antagonism) and if you don't call it out, you also invoke a mental state that is not healthy (one of denial, submission, dissociation). Whichever way you slice it, you erode your relationship to truth and how you relate to other people in a healthy way.

https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/exaggeration-and-hyperbole-in-narcissists/

@zurew You know it's not a substantial engagement and just more persuasion when like with cult, he refuses to engage or go more into definitions than one layer. And in that post, he didn't even define narcissism. And that's why I predict and why you should expect that he will never go into detail on what narcissism is because that will eventually prove he is one. And if he does, he will say "I care about other people" and then he will not engage with the examples brought up that argue against that fact. And then perhaps he will try to wriggle himself out by saying "being an asshole doesn't mean you're a narcissist". Well, actually, if you think you're the best in the world (and you're delusional about that) and you're consistently an asshole (and it's directly tied to that reason, when people challenge you on being the best, you become an asshole), you are probably a narcissist. It's so easy to argue against it because it's arguing against somebody who does not care about truth in this instance but their own ego. And even if he was somehow not an asshole and a saint through all this and people want to say it can't be a cult because everybody is having a good time, consider that being here wasting your time funneling your time and attention to entertain somebody's delusions like this, you're being exploited, treated like a joker at a clown show jigging for a self-proclaimed king for their leisure and pleasure. Consider that as a part of the reason why Leo has 65k posts on his own forum. And as for "I took a self-assessment test and it showed I'm not a narcissist", laughable.

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".

Do you have any numbers?

Billionaires -> AGI -> UBI though 🤔

Do you have numbers on what these things do? Discovering a mechanism is one thing, quantifying its effect is another.

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.

I think once you have enough safeguards in place such that you have to do considerable amount of work to counteract them (and knowing how to counteract them becomes increasingly counterintuitive), that would probably be sufficient. For example, having a text field function where they can just paste text from wherever or use URLs without verification, even if they are told not to do non-consensual profiling, still makes it very easy to do it (basically just as easy as profiling yourself). But only being able to use profiles you've verified to be you, to counteract that, other than e.g. stealing their profile, you would have to post somebody else's posts/information on your profile, and considering how weird that would probably look most of the time, you would probably want to do that on a new profile that nobody knows about, so you would have to create a new one (and one could put restrictions in place like minimum age of an account which makes this harder). That's definitely more work than just profiling yourself (and it's also probably counterintuitive and uncommon to arrive at), and you're doing that work while knowing you shouldn't do it, actively disregarding the guidelines to not do it, again not merely because it's easy, but because you're intending to subvert and abuse the intended features (which places a feeling that they are the ones doing something wrong, not the ones who created the features). And this exists on a spectrum, for example on the very extreme would again be to try to hack people's accounts and steal their information that way and then use that information for the tests. If you really want to abuse something, you can if you try.

Any Eastern European countries into arranged marriages? 🤔