The Profound Stupidity of Psychologists

[Nivsch]

What if humanity can only learn through crises?

For example people who get harmed by pharmaceuticals, learn to discover their body's intelligence and trust themselves in deeper levels in a way all of their surroundings cannot understand.

I think that you can't convince anyone to do anything until they learn their lessons themselves.

Edited Saturday at 02:36 PM by Nivsch

[Nilsi]

8 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

This is interesting. Could you expand on this?

I did already.

But again, there’s no reason to play by the rules of those in power when it’s clear there are multiple factors conspiring against them changing their ways - like their own survival instincts and the perks of great power and wealth, the ideologies they’ve spent decades crafting to justify their actions and positions, and the game-theoretic traps that prevent them from acting differently, even if they wanted to.

That leaves the responsibility to those with the proper consciousness and motivation for change - a classic David vs. Goliath situation. Liberation movements and their leaders offer far more valuable lessons for this than something like Lao Tzu’s Art of War, which, frankly, is a very bourgeois text and doesn’t make much sense in such an extreme power imbalance. That said, there’s still a lot of wisdom in it, though often obscure and overly elitist.

Edited Friday at 11:32 PM by Nilsi

[Shane Hanlon]

11 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

What if humanity can only learn through crises?

 

Have you only learned through crises? Probably not. Crises can be catalysts for growth, but be careful what you wish for........
 

[Cireeric]

Sounds like we need some radical revolutionary activism on a global scale. Maybe launched by some strategic genius visionary leader via mass-capturing of state of the art information-technology. 

[Nilsi]

17 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

What if humanity can only learn through crises?

For example people who get harmed by parmaceuticals, learn to discover their body's intelligence and trust themselves in deeper levels in a way all of their surroindings cannot understand.

I think that you can't convince anyone to do anything until they learn their lessons themselves.

Some crises are too radical to leave any humans behind to learn from them.

If you overdose on opiates, you simply suffocate in your sleep - there’s no “you” left to learn the lesson. This is why humans need to grow up and use their reasoning to foresee extreme consequences that are very much on the table.

But for that, we need an appropriate psychology - a framework that corresponds to this level of responsibility. That’s why I’ve alluded to Nietzsche and even atheist readings of the New Testament. Anything that makes humans aware of the fact that we’ve reached a point in our evolution where we either figure things out, use our faculties appropriately, or face collapse.

At this stage, the idea of divine intervention or some redemptive teleology baked into the universe is no longer acceptable - there’s simply too much at stake.

Edited Friday at 11:44 PM by Nilsi

[Nivsch]

14 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Have you only learned through crises? Probably not. Crises can be catalysts for growth, but be careful what you wish for........

This isn't 0 or 100 you know. Crises most of the time are gradual and a scale. The reason you and me are doing this conversation is crises.

Edited Friday at 11:53 PM by Nivsch

[The Crocodile]

Because the supernatural exists progress can be accelerated greatly.

Basically there are two or three main paths to positive human unity:

1. Earthquakes erupt at the subduction zones, megatsunamis, billions killed--humans come together out of necessity.

2. America goes down route of social democracy through AOC election + the East like Iran, China, etc. care about human rights through internal dynamics. Both blocs get over their fears and can trade and culturally merge.

Once this happens the government can be spiritualized by putting awakened people in positions of high power or organization, and a world order can be established where children in school are taught healing, visualizing, meditation, trataka, compassion / loving-kindness, contemplation, God, philosophy, etc.

3. Slow, slow, slow progress.

Other negative paths:

1. Unabated destruction (destruction as power-value). World ends, or becomes warrior culture.

2. Unabated manipulation (manipulation as power-value). Fascist demagoguery, world descends into deception and darkness, as if the nazis won.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Shane Hanlon said:

When continuing game A means the collapse of civilization and the biosphere, game B becomes imperative.

There's not going to be a collapse.

And if there is, that is still a more realistic path than Game B.

If you think humanity needs Game B to survive, then we're already dead.

Game B will not save mankind because no one is capable of it. You might as well say that unicorns will save mankind from extinction.

Edited Saturday at 12:14 AM by Leo Gura

[Shane Hanlon]

35 minutes ago, Cireeric said:

Sounds like we need some radical revolutionary activism on a global scale.

Yes.
 

21 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

This isn't 0 or 100 you know. Crises most of the time are gradual and a scale. The reason you and me are doing this conversation is crises.

There is indeed a spectrum. However, if it is a 5 on the 0 to 100 scale it probably shouldn't be labeled a crisis. We don't want a crisis. That should never be the goal.

 

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

If you think humanity needs Game B to survive, then we're already dead.

Now you are starting to understand.

[Nivsch]

46 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

But for that, we need an appropriate psychology - a framework that corresponds to this level of responsibility.

For example lectures or videos that will make people more aware?

But in a second thought, this is already happening and many activists use this strategy.

Edited Saturday at 12:29 AM by Nivsch

[Shane Hanlon]

@Emerald

 

[gengar]

@Leo Gura why do you think intelligent people like Schmachtenberger do not understand the gruesome exploitative, competitive and zero-sum nature of society? It's a pretty obvious realisation if you look at the game theory of it all, and not only that, but the kicking and screaming ego that is always afraid of the underlying reality that society might collapse, that stage beige reptile brain is obviously present for everyone. Hasn't Schmachtenberger contemplated how afraid and selfish his ego would be if it would be confronted with dire survival situations? 

Edited Saturday at 01:29 AM by gengar

[aurum]

Any attempt to currently implement Game B will turn into Game A.

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, gengar said:

@Leo Gura why do you think intelligent people like Schmachtenberger do not understand the gruesome exploitative, competitive and zero-sum nature of society? It's a pretty obvious realisation if you look at the game theory of it all, and not only that, but the kicking and screaming ego that is always afraid of the underlying reality that society might collapse, that stage beige reptile brain is obviously present for everyone. Hasn't Schmachtenberger contemplated how afraid and selfish his ego would be if it would be confronted with dire survival situations? 

Gifted people almost always take their gifts for granted. It's hard for someone as advanced as Schmach to appreciate how average people live -- like animals.

Schmach was raised in a hippie household with hippie values.

Edited Saturday at 02:34 AM by Leo Gura

[Ero]

@Nilsi  Your analysis in this thread has been a worthwhile read. Epistemically grounded and brutally honest. Thank you for sharing.

I think the bottom line is that survival of our species will depend on the emergence of semi-stable trajectories from Game A dynamics. You correctly point out that neither Putin nor Xi care about cooperative platitudes. Not even the US and it’s national security apparatus for that matter. Species will continue to die, genocides will continue to happen.

However, this is not a call to nihilism. Those of us that find ourselves at the “flash points”  do not have the luxury of despair.

The silver lining is that when a complex system approaches a phase transition (as we do in both geopolitical and technological terms) even microscopic nudges can result in macroscopic cascades. As such, deep study of social, geopolitical and technological systems is not a waste, for targeted and strategic incisions can result in steering the system to desirable attractors.

 

Edited Saturday at 02:38 AM by Ero

[Shane Hanlon]

1 hour ago, gengar said:

why do you think intelligent people like Schmachtenberger do not understand the gruesome exploitative, competitive and zero-sum nature of society?

He does. So much so that he realizes it can no longer continue with exponential tech. Exponentially increasing weapons capacity in the hands of chimps is game over.
 

30 minutes ago, aurum said:

Any attempt to currently implement Game B will turn into Game A.

 

It’s unlikely to work perfectly right now, but dismissing the possibility altogether doesn’t help. Instead of predicting failure, focus on how we can improve the odds of success. It’s like a firefighter sitting back and saying, ‘This place is going to burn down,’ instead of helping to put out the fire.

 

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Gifted people almost always take their gifts for granted. It's hard for someone as advanced as Schmach to appreciate how average people live -- like animals.

You underestimate humanity's potential. You talk down to people and assume you know better. You've admitted this yourself. You focus too narrowly on a part of humanity. Humans are also beautiful and care about doing good and want a better life for themselves and others. Having faith in someone can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Open your heart brother.

 

25 minutes ago, Ero said:

However, this is not a call to nihilism. Those of us that find ourselves at the “flash points”  do not have the luxury of despair.

This is so important.

[aurum]

29 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

It’s unlikely to work perfectly right now, but dismissing the possibility altogether doesn’t help.

Actually it does help.

Chasing Game B fantasies has a cost in terms of time, resources, mental energy and ego backlash / cultural blowback.

You could waste your entire life on this stuff.

Acknowledging that Game B can't work keeps you grounded in reality and on actual solutions.

[Tristan12]

@Leo Gura Can you or someone else here explain what epistemology means? I have a rough idea of what it means but I don't understand it as well as I'd like to. My current understanding is that it refers to how you know something is true, how you can prove the validity of something.

I have this section in the note I took on your video "the psychology of being wrong". You used this word, and I don't know if I fully understand what you're saying.

"Ask yourself “how did I fall into this self-deception?” because most likely, that’s what you’re dealing with here. Think about what the epistemic gaps in your sense-making are that led to you getting this wrong. 

This is important because if you don’t do this, you will likely fall into a similar trap again. For example, if you were an atheist, it’s not enough to realize that atheism is wrong, you have to inspect the epistemic assumptions that led you there, because otherwise, you will fall into a similar trap, like religion or new age spirituality. You’re not going to see the problem with that because you’re not examining the structure. This is what it means to examine your self-deception, and this is how you will come to really understand self-deception. There’s a big difference between understanding self-deception as a concept, and seeing where you’re self-deceived."

In regard to the quote above, does investigating your epistemic assumptions mean investigating how you decided your religious beliefs, what logic and rationalizations led to you deciding to become an atheist? Then questioning if those reasonings are really valid or not?

1 hour ago, Ero said:

Your analysis in this thread has been a worthwhile read. Epistemically grounded and brutally honest. Thank you for sharing.

Reading this is what made me think to ask about the word epistemology. When you say "epistemically grounded", does that basically mean it was thought through and contemplated effectively, it is based in truth and isn't clouded in self-deception, bias, etc?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Shane Hanlon said:

Humans are also beautiful and care about doing good and want a better life for themselves and others.

Tell that to Putin, Jinping, or Trump. See how far you get.

I'm tired of progressives trying to convince everyone that mankind is good. Mankind is not good. Mankind is evil and stupid. Which why progressives keep failing. Progressives themselves are evil and stupid.

Edited Saturday at 04:29 AM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Tristan12 said:

...does investigating your epistemic assumptions mean investigating how you decided your religious beliefs, what logic and rationalizations led to you deciding to become an atheist? Then questioning if those reasonings are really valid or not?

Epistemology is the process by which you come to know anything.

How do you know that Leo is real and not just an AI?

What do you really know? And how?

If you inspect all of your knowledge and worldview you will see that it's built out of all sorts of ungrounded assumptions, beliefs, hearsay, and fantasy. All of that needs to be questioned to death until you reach a profound sense of not-knowing. Because most of the stuff you think you know is just BS. It isn't grounded in anything real. It's ideas that you heard someone else say and you bought it. But that kind of epistemology is prone to lots of error and delusion.

See this video for more:

 

Edited Saturday at 05:35 AM by Leo Gura