The Profound Stupidity of Psychologists

[Nivsch]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm tired of progressives trying to convince everyone that mankind is good. Mankind is not good. Mankind is evil and stupid.

Do you mean in general to most people or that the essence of the individual person is evilness?

And if so, is it in the full meaning of the word (with negative emotions towards it) or in the cold meaning of it - Selfish, but not bad per se?

Edited Saturday at 03:35 PM by Nivsch

[zazen]

4 hours ago, Scholar said:

This will not work fundamentally, because like you describe yourself the incentives do not align. None of these individuals had a positive impact, because the system from which they operate does not appeal to reasonable and developed individuals, and it actively decivilizes individuals.

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

That’s bullshit. These leaders were undeniably successful, achieving remarkable victories for liberation and leaving lasting positive impacts, but they were systematically undermined and destroyed by the same imperialist forces they fought against.

This is textbook bourgeois deflection: inventing vague, abstract "problems" to distract from the real, material issues at hand, all while discouraging meaningful action against the status quo. People like you have always been propped up by the system to make apathy and inaction seem intellectual. Spare me the charade - I’m not buying it.

From the video below which I highly recommend ''Violence is the resort of those who have no other resort''. Luigi Mangione is a case of someone who felt no other way out and resorted to what he did in revolutionary rage. Now is he deploying a Game A tactic or is his ethos and way of life that of a Game A predator? Does he live and breath domination? Did the other revolutionaries?

Both of you are making valid points. Nilsi is right that sometimes chaos and disruption feel like the only way to make change happen when everything is broken and stacked against you. And Scholar is also right that this kind of approach can spiral into something destructive that ends up doing more harm than good. But I think what’s missing here is the understanding that there’s a massive difference between someone using Game A tactics and someone actually living by a Game A ethos.

Game A - the imperialist, exploitative, zero-sum mindset - isn’t just a set of tactics but a whole way of thinking or operating from. It’s about domination for the sake of domination. But that’s not what’s happening with everyone who acts in a Game A way. A lot of the time, people or nations resort to those tactics because they feel like they don’t have a choice. Violence and desperation aren’t their ethos - they’re a last resort when everything else has failed.

This can be applied on the macro to nations and geopolitics as I've outlined in my previous post with Russia, or on the micro with individual revolutionaries like Malcom X or Fidel Castro.  These weren’t people looking for a fight because they loved chaos. They were fighting because the systems around them left seemingly no other way. When you corner people, they lash out. That’s just human nature. Sometimes that fight changes the course of history but that doesn’t mean it’s ideal or the way things should be.

The real issue is that we keep mixing up who’s forcing the violence and who’s responding to it. We look at Russia and say “Imperialist'' or look at Malcolm X and say “radical.” Meanwhile, the actual Game A players - the ones running the systems that push others to this point - get overlooked. 

Ideally, we wouldn’t need chaos and violence to make change. And people / nations would have outlets to resolve issues cooperatively before things ever get to that point. But as long as Game A players keep slamming every other door shut, they’re the ones dragging everyone else down into that chaos. The worst part is we misplace the blame because of an elaborate and sophisticated propaganda machine the empire has running 24/7 into the meat jelly in our heads.

Perhaps the bigger issue isn’t the people or nations using Game A tactics in desperation - it’s the ones who operate from a Game A ethos, creating the conditions that make those tactics necessary in the first place for others to use - which keeps us locked in a dangerous cycle.

On 15/12/2024 at 8:19 PM, zazen said:

Corporations and imperialism differ in their mechanisms but share the same ethos of exploitation and domination. Corporatism is an evolved form of imperialism that operates in systemic silence. The invisible hand of the market as the capitalists say - but it’s more like the invisible jaws of a hungry beast. Imperialism wears a suit today. It’s a trans-national empire with no flag that expands endlessly, unmoored from the soil that birthed it.

Corporations begin as seeds of economic growth, promising prosperity to the lands they emerged from. But they’ve since outgrown those lands. They’ve transcended the nations that gave them life, severing any ties of loyalty in their quest for endless expansion. Their purpose isn’t to serve but to conquer - to expand markets, exploit labor, privatise commons, and monopolise resources. They’re now global juggernauts leeching off the global South with ruthlessness.

That imperial reach has turned inward, preying on their own people. The same extractive mindset that drains other nations also hollows out the domestic working class. Corporations see no distinction between the factory worker in Bangladesh and the single mother in Ohio drowning in credit card debt. Both are resources to be extracted, exploited, and discarded. They close factories, outsource labor, and inflate urban centres into unlivable nightmares.

Luigi Mangione & the American System Meltdown

Quotes from the above video:

“The killer (Luigi Mangione) and the killed (Unitedhealth CEO) in this case are both men from the same class and economic strata.

A lot of the working class are justifying Mangione’s actions, which should terrify the ruling class.

I do not believe that non-violent means of communication and peaceful protest, economic protest, is useless. And I don't believe they are ignored, in fact. I think that the idea that these types of efforts are futile is propagated precisely because power does not want people to engage in them, because they are useful and can be useful and effective.

In theory, his privileged position in the society puts him within the power structure, but he took the action of someone who's outside the power structure, beneath the power structure, which means that even he has been made to believe that the power structure is invincible, and he's not the only one.

Being from the Tik Tok generation, he has grown up on a less controlled narrative and he's been exposed to the perspectives of people outside his class strata, and perspectives about his class strata, meaning people subject to the power structure that he's a part of. So he's exposed to the experiences and the views and the attitudes and opinions of the people that he's never supposed to be exposed to, while also growing up within the power structure. That amounts to an infiltration. Because you can no longer control the narrative that the children of the elite consume, you can no longer ensure that they will have been successfully educated and indoctrinated to carry on with the preservation of your system. This is a very serious problem for the system.

The system has to deny the effectiveness of what is effective. They never want people to think that they have a viable option of resistance and change because the fact is almost every single successful social movement in America has actually improved the lives of people and has been achieved through non-violent methods, through patient long-term strategies.

Because the system has an uncivilised predatory mentality, because the power structure is tyrannical, they need everyone to feel overpowered and to feel helpless. But when you have such an adversarial relationship with your own people, and at the same time have implanted in them a Darwinian concept of human animals into their heads, eventually with no other options being regarded as plausible, you make violence inevitable. It's not inevitable because it has to be. It's not inevitable because there really are no other options in reality, but because you have insisted to make people believe that there are no other options. And you've done that because you would rather turn your society into a bloody conflict zone than accept changing or accept power being held accountable.

Luigi Mangione is from that demographic group that's supposed to be invested in the system he's from, that class that's supposed to protect the system because they benefit from it, but you're losing control even of the stakeholders of your own power structure. I don't think you can even comprehend how dangerous that is for you, because Luigi Mangione is also from that demographic and class in your society that was raised to feel entitled to take matters into their own hands. Furthermore, he's from the class and demographic in your society that, as I said, is a part of the power structure, which means that he also comes from the most ruthless, calculating, and most capable demographic in America for efficient and targeted violence. That's the class he comes from and he has the qualities of that class, the predatory class, the dominating class, and he's just one of many from that class who are turning on their own.”

 

Edited Saturday at 03:49 PM by zazen

[Leo Gura]

Watch police cam videos to see how evil and stupid mankind is.

[Shane Hanlon]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Watch police cam videos to see how evil and stupid mankind is.

That’s like watching videos of road rage incidents and concluding that all drivers are reckless maniacs. While there’s value in understanding the behaviors captured in those moments, they represent a specific subset of human behavior under stressful circumstances. They’re not reflective of humanity as a whole, nor even most people’s interactions with police.

[sholomar]

9 minutes ago, Shane Hanlon said:

That’s like watching videos of road rage incidents and concluding that all drivers are reckless maniacs. While there’s value in understanding the behaviors captured in those moments, they represent a specific subset of human behavior under stressful circumstances. They’re not reflective of humanity as a whole, nor even most people’s interactions with police.

Social media is creating not only echo chambers but sensationalizing life so people see extremism everywhere, and not the boring 95% in the middle that is average daily life. It's mostly done because of the algorithm, because it makes money and nets subscribers. It also can create resentment as people show off the most lavish aspects of life that are out of reach to most. Proper perspective is important in this regard.   Life is not Reed Timmer screaming his head off as he drives the dominator into an F4 tornado. (If you haven't seen his Cole, OK footage it's really good)

 

Edited Saturday at 04:26 PM by sholomar

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Shane Hanlon said:

That’s like watching videos of road rage incidents

Progressives should be forced to watch 50 hours of road rage incidents to show them how the bottom half of mankind lives.

Edited Saturday at 07:52 PM by Leo Gura

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Shane Hanlon said:

However, we don't need everyone to be at an integral stage of development in order to implement these things. We need those who are capable of heralding this change to lead others.

Perhaps not integral, but certainly higher than where we are now.

Leaders and the people they lead are one system. You cannot just bring in exceptionally conscious leaders and expect that to work.

2 hours ago, Shane Hanlon said:

So it is frustrating when I see people capable of leading others into a more loving world decide they've got better things to do.

You're going to be frustrated a lot if you have progressive expectations of the world.

I'd recommend letting it go. Greed, ego, falsehood, survival and unconsciousness are going to rule humanity for the foreseeable future.

[sholomar]

This is what it looks like when you stumble through life blindly ignorant and just get lucky by the way. Ever since I saw this footage I saved it.... not to derail the thread or anything.

 

[AION]

Psychologist are like those nurses who clean diapers of clients and can’t do anything more than just cleaning (emotional) diapers. They are good at what they do but if you ask them any medical advice they will just be useless most of the time. A good psychologist is very rare. 

[aurum]

10 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

@aurum I get a mild shot of dopamine whenever reading your posts. You always keep it real

Only mild? 

[Nivsch]

6 minutes ago, AION said:

Psychologist are like those nurses who clean diapers of clients and can’t do anything more than just cleaning (emotional) diapers. They are good at what they do but if you ask them any medical advice they will just be useless most of the time. A good psychologist is very rare. 

Which medical advice for example?

[Shane Hanlon]

15 minutes ago, aurum said:

I'd recommend letting it go. Greed, ego, falsehood, survival and unconsciousness are going to rule humanity for the foreseeable future.

I understand why you might feel that way, and I can't deny that greed, ego, and unconsciousness have a strong grip on humanity. But I think there's value in holding progressive expectations. Not as rigid demands, but as guiding stars. They remind us of what we can strive for, even if the path is long and filled with setbacks.

Letting go of attachment to outcomes can bring peace, but letting go of hope entirely is apathetic. I’d rather engage with the world as it is, while still nurturing the seeds of what it could be. Even small acts of awareness and care ripple outward. That might not overturn the tides in my lifetime, but it’s worth the effort to me.

For me, that’s what it means to live in alignment with Love.

 

[AION]

5 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Which medical advice for example?

Why do people go to psychologists for? It is very varying. Psychologists are not there to solve your problems.

 

[Nivsch]

26 minutes ago, AION said:

Psychologists are not there to solve your problems.

Nor Psychiatrists. A good therapist will help you connect with your thoughts and emotions effectively, such that you can become autonomous in this sense and be above the matrix of labels and "illnesses", and yes good ones are indeed rare.

Edited Saturday at 05:23 PM by Nivsch

[Ero]

11 hours ago, Tristan12 said:

because ultimately you can’t know anything 100% and you will always end up reaching a state of not knowing? …I think?

What do you do if you can’t ever know anything? In that quote from my previous post, talking about atheism and religious beliefs, how could you even make a decision about what to believe in? How can you recognize errors in your epistemic process if you can’t know anything for sure at all?

Exactly. Any picture or model you can have will always be limited because it can never capture the full complexity of reality. We deal with many levels of abstraction - for example, no matter how much you know of quantum physics and all the wave functions of the queen piece’s particles on a chess board, that will in no way help you play better.

When you realise you don’t know anything is when the real epistemological work starts. You open yourself to many methods and approaches, carefully studying the strengths and limitations of each. In the physics and chess example, you can see how this plays out - the conclusion is not that physics is useless but that chess is not its domain of expertise. 

This level of epistemological openness is a Tier 2 feature of relativity and systems thinking. You first need to transcend religious, materialistic and new-age belief systems. Each of these is a subject on its own, which Leo has covered in his stage blue, orange and green videos on SD. I suggest you start there.

[Ero]

1 hour ago, Shane Hanlon said:

That’s like watching videos of road rage incidents and concluding that all drivers are reckless maniacs. While there’s value in understanding the behaviors captured in those moments, they represent a specific subset of human behavior under stressful circumstances. They’re not reflective of humanity as a whole, nor even most people’s interactions with police.

In cybersecurity there is something called worst-case complexity. In engineering it’s called FMEA/ stress testing. Bottom line is your system is only as good as its weakest point. So Leo’s point is not that everyone is a road raging maniac. It is that your idealistic solutions will not work because they do not handle such cases. 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

This thread is a good read. A lot of both well thought out and thought provoking posts. Need to brush up on my understanding of geopolitics

[Tristan12]

1 hour ago, Ero said:

Exactly. Any picture or model you can have will always be limited because it can never capture the full complexity of reality. We deal with many levels of abstraction - for example, no matter how much you know of quantum physics and all the wave functions of the queen piece’s particles on a chess board, that will in no way help you play better.

When you realise you don’t know anything is when the real epistemological work starts. You open yourself to many methods and approaches, carefully studying the strengths and limitations of each. In the physics and chess example, you can see how this plays out - the conclusion is not that physics is useless but that chess is not its domain of expertise. 

This level of epistemological openness is a Tier 2 feature of relativity and systems thinking. You first need to transcend religious, materialistic and new-age belief systems. Each of these is a subject on its own, which Leo has covered in his stage blue, orange and green videos on SD. I suggest you start there.

So when you realize you never know anything 100%, you try to make sense of things to the best of your ability, but you are always open to other ideas and perspectives, and you never cling to one perspective too tightly, because you realize you can never know anything for sure? Also, reality is so big and complex that one single, narrow perspective would never be the whole truth of something

[JTL]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Watch police cam videos to see how evil and stupid mankind is.

American culture* 

[Ero]

53 minutes ago, Tristan12 said:

So when you realize you never know anything 100%, you try to make sense of things to the best of your ability, but you are always open to other ideas and perspectives, and you never cling to one perspective too tightly, because you realize you can never know anything for sure? Also, reality is so big and complex that one single, narrow perspective would never be the whole truth of something

Pretty much. Observe that this goes beyond a post-modernist stance that everything is relative. Clearly models, such as flat earth or a universe made in 7 days are not on the same level of QFT and GR.