Carl-Richard

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.

Actually it might be more marketable to choose the self-assessment route, because once you put a cap on AI tests to only your own online profiles, you get stuck with essentially Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and not much else, and you don't get the wild endless re-testing of new persons/celebrities/characters like I intended (even though again I intuited it was shady and probably not possible). So after a while, you essentially run out of new things to test (but I could boost it by making options for exactly which posts to test, or the time range, but even then you will eventually run out) and you would have to wait until you post more which would take some time, by which time some will probably lose interest. While with self-assessment, you get a steady supply of new tests for perpetuity (I planned one new test every 6 days for each test type, and each test type lands on its own day, so you always get approx one new test a day as I have approx 6 or so test types). And of course with meta-analysis AI tests and ability to re-do archived tests as much as you like, you retain that self-directed nature of the AI testing so it doesn't feel like you're fully boxed into a rigid schedule with no freedom to do what you want. I might end up doing both, as I always come up with new ideas that seem to make the AI testing more attractive.

Men are attracted to femininity which is quality (e.g. the quality of physical beauty, or feminine energy, depth, groundedness, feeling). Females are attracted to masculinity which is quantity (going from A to B, gathering x and y, structure, logos, behavior rather than looks). Quantities are relational (one thing vs another thing, that amount of things vs another amount of things). Of course a quality can be compared, that's quantity (there is no quantity without quality). But the more you go in the masculine direction, the more quantity, the more feminine, the more quality.

@zurew I just found a website that is doing essentially the same thing (except saving to profiles): TypeMyVibe.ai. I checked some of its features and it seems to allow non-consensual profiling by simply linking an URL or online profile name handle and then running an analysis. Considering how this seems to break with GDPR profiling laws, I sent an e-mail to the guy running the website asking him about it (and the fact that OpenAI, which he uses, seems to not allow any form of personality profiling, consensual or not; and also that he uses a trademarked name for one of his tests, MBTI). Something tells me this guy might have screwed something up, he is only 26 years old and from India. As for him being based in India, it doesn't matter if he processes data from EU citizens, then GDPR (and EU AI Act, which doesn't seem relevant here) applies. It also made me think whether if I add a verification function where you can only use online profiles you own for an analysis, that could fix the non-consensual profiling issue, however, you could circumvent this by posting somebody else's post on your online profile and do non-consensual profiling that way. So it seems like maybe the only way I could use AI for my website is if I do self-assessments for the main tests and then AI meta-analyses of those tests (using another AI than OpenAI's models, for example Gemini or Claude, who do not have all all-out ban on personality profiling using their models). There is a loophole though where you can take somebody's existing answers to the test, fill them in yourself, and then do AI analysis of those. However, assuming all such answers would have to come from my website (and they're not "make-shifting" answers from other similar tests that exist), within the ecosystem of my own website, unless there is a data breach, the only reasonable way that would happen is if somebody willfully shared their answers online, or somebody stole it, or they willfully gave it to somebody else. So either consent was involved, or a data breach, or a crime was involved. If I make sure to have secure data systems, then every part of that should be considered "lawful" (or "protected" by law). At the end of the day though, it's about having appropriate safeguards in place that minimize risk (and risk is basically always there, that's the nature of risk and complexity). So perhaps you could argue that verification of online profiles could be an appropriate safeguard. But then I would have to look into the issue of sending tons of textual data to AI companies and the data processing and privacy concerns involved there (the TypeMyVibe guy circumvented this by running GPT-oss-120B on a local server; still could be in breach with OpenAI's guidelines, but it still removes that data processing and privacy issue; of course you still are saving it on your servers, but that's a different issue).

Yes. "Chunking" is actually a term used, mostly for chunking together new information (e.g. numbers from a telephone number you haven't learned before) live in working memory. The long-term memory is technically a big chunking mechanism (memories are stored and linked to other memories; that's why learning through "depth processing", i.e. actively creating associations with existing memories, increases recall). That's how you can give a lecture from your mind where each concept is linked to tons of other concepts, without keeping them all in mind at once (and rather you go through them sequentially at the rate that your working memory allows). (And intuition or insight can give a low resolution glimpse of the structure, that can guide where you want to go before you have explicated all of it. I touched on this in my thread on feeling vs thinking). Nevertheless, when you compare a past moment to now, you're bringing it into working memory, and those would be two chunks you're comparing (your memory of the past moment and your experience or memory of the "now"). We usually do this compulsively every time we think (which is usually very often, every second or so), and it creates a persistent sense of past becoming a present. When you stop thinking, no space, no time. Or to quote a sample of a spoken word from a child in a song I know (said in Swedish): "When you stop thinking, then you become dead". "You" — the long-term memory self fed through the 7±2 rule working memory tube, dies.

The original Redbull.

The consistency, notions like time and space, is accessed through a tiny tube called the 7±2 rule working memory. It divides things into "tiny" pieces so you can fit them through the tube. In reality, it's all just a big blob of immense complexity, and even the distinction between one moment and the next does not capture its immensity, then you're already passing it through the tube.

We say the association is causation when A occurs before B and we have a very compelling reason ("->") for why the association exists. "A -> B". The reason is referred to as a causal mechanism. Why does water vapor eventually fall down as rain after rising to the sky? Usually because the temperature drops and it initiates condensation. If you lower the temperature of water vapor in the sky, you would usually expect it to fall as rain. If it didn't, you would have to have a causal mechanism that could explain that discrepancy. For example, if the air pressure decreases faster than the temperature drops (which is unusual. as you would expect them to be roughly linearly correlated), then you would have the water vapor remain as vapor despite lowering the temperature (as air pressure is also involved in condensation). Temperature is how much the particles are moving in the medium, air pressure is how many particles or the mass of the particles you have (and also their temperature). So perhaps a more comprehensive causal mechanism would be the total "velocity minus mass" of the particles in the air decreases (which we can coin the "condensation capacity"; I made that up, the analogue in the literature is called the Psychrometric ratio). "Rain falls because of the decrease in the Psychrometric ratio 🤓" But yes, David Hume's critiques still apply in that any causal explanation relies on past observations and that we can't be certain that they hold in the future.

@zurew This is @Elliott manipulating you to not engage with him after you've provided a substantial response which he has too low IQ to refute. Never expect to engage with this person sincerely on the forum. He grouped everybody using the cult concept and narcissism concept as being manipulative. Then he conveniently changes the criteria post-hoc when it suits him, for no stated reason.

I think if you go back to me describing the Manson situation I was in with my "dungeons and dragons group", you would see why I think a group that does not reasonably engage in any explicit manipulation or exploitation but has highly deviant beliefs compared to society could still be a concerning situation (and that even if Leo displayed zero manipulation or exploitation — which he doesn't — could still harbor potential detriment to people following him). But again, that discussion is largely drowned out by Leo's unidimensional narrative casting its spell on the thread. Can you see how telling someone the best thing to do in a situation can be read as a suggestion? Can you see how making such a distinction is completely irrelevant to anything else but making that distinction and being a knitpicking loser who only wants to one-up the other person at every opportunity they get? If not, tell me what the fuck I was supposed to learn from that. Tell me why I should engage with you one more second on this forum.

Leo is the one riling people up by enforcing a single-sided narrative on the issue, insisting to call "cult" a bad thing, and then that concept being applied to him is his own creation, because his minions beg you to point out those features in him (and they happen to fit in some places). Had Leo been open to a more pluralistic narrative (or if he had insisted that cult was not necessarily a bad thing), you would probably not think we would be riling people up, because people are so obedient to Leo that when the cult concept is (as a baseline) removed all controversy, that is most likely what will permeate the discussion. That you suggest we not use words because they are controversial, yet Leo is here using words like manipulation and mind control, heck solipsism (and also "cult"; that's a word he uses), as if he is trying to keep discourse civil over his desire to call something for what it is, that's the kind of double standard you would expect a cult member to enforce on his fellow members. Words are useful, they have meaning, and if we decide to use them, that may belie their usefulness more than an attempt to "rile people up". Except if you view all discussion as a means to rile people up, which if you do, all power to you. I have actually been pointing out the narcissism without explictly invoking the term for quite a while, but it's because it's so obvious that is what it is, I didn't feel like I had to or that it added much value (as it would "rile up" people like you, add more noise than signal), but when other people start using the term, I won't deny that is what it is. Again, narcissists can be cognitively open and complex in a multitude of ways in ways that can be consistent with and even feed into their narcissism. Anything that can be seen as virtuous a narcissist can identify with and use to feed their need for feeling superior. It's hard for me to remember if I've ever seen a person online say "I'm the most awake person in the entire world". So this is called a "double standard". That's a controversial word that can rile people up, but it also carries meaning.

It's based seemingly entirely on the anti-cult movement, in large part an outrage and money-making machine. Go to literally any other source, academic ones. Most of them will take a huge dump on the anti-cult movement (and the cult concept itself) and use terms like "new religious movement". It's a farce considering his purported status as epistemic God numero uno that he doesn't make clear the underlying assumptions of his chosen view or present alternative views. That's epistemology 101. It would've been yet more evidence of ulterior motives / motivated reasoning if it weren't for the fact that it's actually fairly common for Leo and not limited to these series of videos. I'm trying to limit my cynicism here but it makes you want to ask more questions. Nevertheless, it underlies the one-sided engagement with the issue by his followers, and that anything else would be a result of self-education or other education.

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".

I would guess the non-doership could deepen more until you get truly terrified that you are literally not moving or creating a single thing in your experience, just floating like an empty void passing through space, like something else is moving your body entirely. That would coincide with having to let go of yourself, being confronted with your non-existence.

@Joseph Maynor I listened to Uncle Meat and One Size Fits All for the first time when I was 17 and I had brought two weed joints to this farmhouse in the country in the summer. Sparked one of them in the woods during midday, got super paranoid, went inside and laid down on the couch lights off in the living room and put on the music on my earsbuds. Truly out of body experience. The experimental and jammy music and weird off-the-wall samples of peculiar conversations, and of course the compositions, was like tapping into a new dimension of experience, like unlocking a new part of musical experience.

Well, then it's insane to say that I'm schizotypal for exactly the same reason. I said (to myself, at that time before testing myself) I'm schizotypal essentially for believing in 90% of the shit that is entertained here (and sprinkle some psychic phenomena in there too which is a bit more fringe). Remember, I'm psychologically educated, I have to keep the normie mindset in mind when making such judgements. For normies, you guys are wacked out crazy crackpots (unless perhaps you're exclusively hanging out in the society and politics sub-forum or you're literally always disagreeing about everything in the other sub-forums). But again, I might be misdefining what is meant by odd beliefs/thinking, it might be referring to something more specific, in which case I would (probably?) not be within that symptom either (if it's like "I was a car once, and it smelled fantastic"). EDIT: let's have an expert weigh in on the question (a transcript of a Robert Sapolsky lecture): And interestingly:

😂 The reason I thought it was the odd beliefs/thinking part. I didn't think about the other symptoms, and according to the probably shit internet test, those symptoms do not match as much. And it's funny, again depending on how you define odd beliefs/thinking, all of us here are schizotypal in that sense (compared to the rest of society). And that's the reason for calling it a cult in my definition. Cults are schizotypal in that sense. And by the way, if you think you just scored some points by thinking you landed a DSM-5 category on me (which you probably didn't), I think virtually all these things are spectrums. We're all on the schizophrenia, autism, OCD, anxiety, etc., spectrum. And if you have an actual diagnosis from a professional, there is a spectrum within that as well, and depending on the diagnosis and the severity, I couldn't give a fuck if you have it (especially ADHD, you can "buy" one of those if you really want).

That's such a weird thing to do, and weird thing to assume is impacting this thread in particular (maybe you're the schizotypal one), and I don't quite see the point, as you maybe have intuited. Anyways, I admired him for the intuitive impact his posts had (especially when directly addressing me), how it seemed to hit something deep inside me, not always knowing exactly how. Truly mystical. Fun fact: I once thought I was schizotypal/schizoid, then I took an online (probably shit) DSM-5 personality test, and I scored close to zero on those but I maxed out hypomaniac and obsessive-compulsive. That actually recontextualized a lot of things for me. As for the symptoms, I probably score most on "odd thinking" (depending on how it's defined), but I wouldn't say I talk weird. The other symptoms do not really fit, at most marginally.

Exactly the sociopathic engagement I would expect. No, because as I said earlier, I have given posts upon posts of detail on the exact topic (definitions, examples, comparisons), as the one you quoted just now. Again, I was not simply bitching about giving individual points. I was bitching about giving nothing but individual points; individual points not grounded in the context of a detailed fleshed out position. Yeah, hyperbolically put "equivalent" in structure (the right word is "analogous"), but they were two different events (they happened years apart). Why do you mention it?

I had a feeling this weird apologizing and backtracking were just rhetorical quips (as they made no sense), maybe I was right. Nevertheless, I find your conversation/debate style sociopathic and not worth my time, but I will engage with you one last time before I put you on my ignore list. I mean, if you want to call the fact that the leader was entertaining thoughts of a Manson situation "dramatic", sure, it was kinda dramatic. Not sure how you think it's "exploitative" though. Anyways, if one of the members had taken the thoughts seriously and harmed the person in question, would it be a cult then? Good you finally started taking some stances. Is a doomsday cult a cult if there is no exceptional amount of manipulation and control over its members? Why do you mention Nahm? You think it was him who led the Discord?

Lol. Let's try recapping: I think it's a cult, Leo doesn't, and you seemed to initially be skeptical it was a cult (because you were seemingly pulling rope for Leo's definition), but then you seemed to start calling it a cult after I explained more in-depth the "ills" of the cult (as if that is relevant; it's not, in my definition). Then you just recently mistook me and Elliott talking about Actualized.org while we were actually talking about the Discord and I had to correct you on that (you said "I don't think it's a cult by the way", mistakenly thinking we were referring to Actualized.org). Or you were just suddenly jumping out of that discussion and you wanted to talk about Actualized.org without qualifying what "it" means or without finding a relevant to quote to quote and instead you just @-ed me.

I forgot, but also, you did seem to talk to the whole thread at one point: But you will maybe backtrack and say "I said I was maybe asking rude questions; I did not ask a question there", as if there is a salient difference between asking questions and addressing someone in that way with respect to the potential rudeness of being inconsiderate of their personal cult experience. I don't think you quite managed to a roll a six with this one just yet (but you can always find more poison fish in the sea, for example "I was specifically referring to some questions I asked, not the act of asking questions"). That's a convenient poison tuna assertion for you that I can't be asked challenging. Anyways, I got baited again. As if asking questions to someone who is discussing that very thing at length with others is rude. Suggesting that just comes off like rhetorical waffling.

Nooo the Discord cult, you called that a cult. You said I was in a cult. "Personal cult history may colour his readiness to see cult history here." Elliot: "he was in a cult?". You: "Yes, it was discussed a bit earlier in this thread. (p14)" Here I emphasize the "religious" aspect of the definition (and depending on how you define religion, many social groups with deviant beliefs would fall under that perhaps in a way that would be less obvious to most people). Nevertheless, it's definitionally safer and more straightforward to say "social group with deviant beliefs compared surrounding society, often religious in nature".

Bruh what even. No, because if we're all in a cult here (which I think according to my definition, which by the way does not involve exploitation or harm as a necessary criteria, which is also not to say this place is harmless either), you're being "rude" to everyone you've been talking to in this thread, not just me. And even if you were just being "rude" to me, you leaving the thread just for me would be weird anyway.

But you said 'I' was in a cult 🤪 That's what we were talking about. I gave a "one-line definition" after a multi-page thread of going into detail (I started off with long posts), and I also elaborated when you asked about it. The issue wasn't that you gave one line in itself, it was that you didn't go into detail on it, at as far as I can remember any point. I asked you to elaborate on it and you said "I'm not an expert on cults. You asked Leo for his definition of mind control. This is what google says about mind control in cults :" and then it was back to talking about us purportedly accusing Actualized of being a cult.