Carl-Richard

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.

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).

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? 🤔

You most likely haven't been the first to think about it but you likely have your own original spin on it and you will be able to create a market for it anyway because there is usually a big customer base. Not revealing it would be about mostly decreasing competitors, not securing a monopoly.

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.