Epistemic Scoundrels Mega-Thread

[Davino]

41 minutes ago, integral said:

Few people have asked the question “What is my epistemology?”

First you'd have to ask: What is my metaphysics?

[Rafael Thundercat]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Ralston is an Epistemic Titan.

This stuff is so obvious to me, so basic, that I don't beat it into you guys enough.

You beat a lot Leo, sometimes I even feelnI need to re-watch some fundamental episodes,because the mind so easily falls into complacency and forget basic things like " your hand is truth and thinking about your hand is fantasy" 

[Consept]

On 17/04/2025 at 3:01 AM, Leo Gura said:

 

Absolute scoundrel 

[Daniel Balan]

5 hours ago, Socrates said:

Anyone who isn't against Israel's genocide is an epistemic scoundrel, point blank period.

Perspective on Israel-Palestine is a better litmus test than opinions on Trump.

More potential has someone to be epistemologically sound from a place of liking Trump than agreeing with Israel's genocide.

The only accurate representation of what happens there is this. Israel since it was founded as a state has been trying with all their might to do to the Palestinians exactly what the Europeans did in America with the native indigenous people of North America. 

[Daniel Balan]

What puzzles me the most is why the double standard? Why isn't the world acknowledging the most evil genocide that mankind has ever done which is the anihilation of an entire race which were the Nativee Americans, yet they support Israel or Palestine so much? 

Because of what happened to the indigenous native people of America, I swear, I will never set foot on that continent. As a sign of respect and recognition for an entire race of people who were exterminaed by people who I deem the scum of humanity. Yet you guys are puzzled that the offspring of those murderers elect Trump and support Israel.

[Yimpa]

@Daniel Balan  What about the continent you are occupying right now? 

[PenguinPablo]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I studied AP Government and AP Psychology in high school.

But of course most people don't. And even those classes were not deep enough to fix the epistemic rot.

Yeah because you have to be smart enough to interpret what they are telling you in those classes. I mean it's kinda in your face but even then people overlook.

Like when they make you read all those 1984s, Brave New World.

Or when they tell you about all those evil imperialistic nations over the centuries. And then the US literally does the same thing but says it's because "terrorism". Being able to see through that stuff. 

Edited April 18 by PenguinPablo

[Daniel Balan]

@Yimpa The continent I was born in is where evil was born. Then it spread its evilness across the globe when the people here invented boats. 

[integral]

😈 Shadow Epistemologies by Type

Archetype - Shadow Epistemic Bias

• The Skeptic Over-attachment to doubt, cynicism as armor against vulnerability
• The Academic Prestige-driven intellectualism, resistant to paradigm shifts
• The Conspiracy Theorist Need for control, pattern recognition addiction, trauma-based distrust
• The Spiritual Hippie Emotional reasoning, confirmation by “vibes,” fear of cognitive dissonance
• The Scammer Instrumental truth — “whatever works to get the result” (truth as utility)
• The Capitalist Exec Beliefs shaped by profit logic, suppressing ethical complexity
• The Guru Echo-chamber insulation, intoxicated by follower validation
• The Victim/Survivor Defensive beliefs structured by trauma protection mechanisms
• The Healer Avoidance of data that contradicts spiritual identity or naturalistic assumptions

Edited April 18 by integral

[Raze]

 

[integral]

Game: identify the epistemic Traps. For each submission.

Edited April 18 by integral

[Nilsi]

2 hours ago, integral said:

Up to the point that you created this thread, no one knew that epistemic self-awareness existed

Pahahaha.

"Nobody ever heard of epistemology before Leo talked about it."

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, Davino said:

First you'd have to ask: What is my metaphysics?

 

2 hours ago, integral said:

Few people have asked the question “What is my epistemology?”

How would you guys approach such questions, to start with? 

Edited April 18 by UnbornTao

[integral]

@Nilsi 😆 I meant, the Forum never talks about the epistemic assumptions everyone is making. It should be as easy to spot in the same way we spot spiral Dynamics. So I think we should develop a colorful model for epistemology. It's easy to know when someone is full of shit but the Nuance behind their bullshit is not 100% obvious, it still takes a "little" cognitive work to break down the game the person is playing.

I would love me a epistemic Dynamics model. GIVE ME NOW

Edited April 18 by integral

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

 

How would you guys approach such questions? 

Something like: What do I consider to be knowledge? What do I think reality is? Is more concrete. 

Such abstract pontification is absurd anyway.

If you spend any time seriously engaging with ideas, you’ll inevitably run into people who are incredibly smart - sometimes intimidatingly so. And when that happens, if you’re honest, it forces you to confront your own "knowledge": Why do I think I know this? How did I arrive at that conclusion? How sure am I, really, that this is all there is to it?

But unfortunately, that kind of thinking gets explicitly dismissed here - as seen in the bizarre bashing of Schmachtenberger on the blog lately.

At some point, you have to ask yourself: who’s more trustworthy? The person who clearly operates at a higher intellectual level but still frames their worldview as a provisional, evolving hypothesis? Or the one shouting that they’ve found the Absolute Truth, are the smartest being alive, and that anyone who disagrees is a misinformation-spewing rat?

This whole thing has gotten so surreal I keep waiting for the hidden camera or the punchline. But neither has shown up yet.

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, integral said:

@Nilsi 😆 I meant, the Forum never talks about the epistemic assumptions everyone is making. It should be as easy to spot in the same way we spot spiral Dynamics. So I think we should develop a colorful model for epistemology. It's easy to know when someone is full of shit but the Nuance behind their bullshit is not 100% obvious, it still takes a "little" cognitive work to break down the game the person is playing.

I would love me a epistemic Dynamics model. GIVE ME NOW

This is my epistemological color:

[integral]

@Nilsi oh God it's already become a gender meme...

🧨 40 Shadow Epistemologies by Type

Unconscious motivations behind how different archetypes distort their sense of truth

1. The Skeptic – Belief is a threat; doubt is used to avoid emotional vulnerability.
2. The Academic – Over-identifies with credentials; avoids paradigm shifts that risk reputation.
3. The Rationalist – Suppresses intuition; filters reality through logic as if it’s the only valid lens.
4. The Empath – Believes what feels good or “resonates”; resists confrontation or critique.
5. The Healer – Rejects data that contradicts spiritual identity or natural methods.
6. The Scientist – Mistakes the scientific method for reality itself; sees anything unmeasurable as invalid.
7. The Conspiracy Theorist – Trauma-rooted distrust; finds patterns to gain control over uncertainty.
8. The Guru – Builds epistemology on adoration and insulation; avoids questioning from followers.
9. The Skeptical Debunker – Emotionally gratified by tearing others down; addicted to “being right.”
10. The Internet Bro – Clings to contrarianism to feel edgy, smart, or “red-pilled.”
11. The Techno-Optimist – Equates progress with truth; belief is shaped by innovation dogma.
12. The Postmodernist – Avoids any commitment to truth; uses relativity to evade responsibility.
13. The Fundamentalist – Anchors truth in scripture; resists inquiry that could unravel worldview.
14. The Capitalist – Truth is what sells; suppresses inconvenient knowledge for economic advantage.
15. The Influencer – Beliefs shaped by audience validation; confuses “resonance” with accuracy.
16. The Politician – Truth is performative; knowledge is weaponized for persuasion or control.
17. The New Age Hippie – Embraces beliefs for aesthetic and emotional resonance; filters out anything "dense" or “low vibe.”
18. The Nihilist – Avoids responsibility by claiming nothing matters or can be known.
19. The Philosopher – Uses endless abstraction to avoid grounding or personal application.
20. The Activist – Belief is emotionally tied to moral outrage; may resist nuance.
21. The Stoic – Suppresses emotion so strongly that emotional data is dismissed.
22. The Trauma Survivor – Beliefs shaped by self-protection; may reject perspectives that feel unsafe, even if true.
23. The Doomer – Sees belief in possibility as delusion; clings to pessimism as identity.
24. The Utopian Idealist – Projects perfection onto systems or ideologies to avoid disillusionment.
25. The Life Coach – Turns knowledge into marketable certainty; may avoid complexity that doesn’t sell.
26. The Rebel – Believes against the mainstream simply to maintain identity as outsider.
27. The Libertarian – Filters all truth through personal freedom; may resist collective truths.
28. The Christian Apologist – Filters all data through scripture; belief system cannot be falsified.
29. The Psychedelic Explorer – Overweights peak experience as ultimate truth; resists grounding in reason or shared reality.
30. The Business Strategist – Prioritizes utility over truth; epistemology shaped by ROI.
31. The AI Ethicist – Paralyzed by future hypotheticals; uses complexity to mask indecision.
32. The Stoic Entrepreneur – Resists emotional data as “irrational”; overweights efficiency.
33. The Law of Attraction Believer – Belief based on emotional confirmation and selective attention.
34. The Occultist – Uses obscurity or esoteric language to avoid falsifiability.
35. The Simulation Theorist – Believes reality is unreal to avoid facing human vulnerability and uncertainty.
36. The Spiritual Narcissist – Believes their intuition is truth; avoids challenge by framing critics as “unawakened.”
37. The Traditionalist – Epistemology rooted in nostalgia; truth = what worked before.
38. The Productivity Hacker – Sees truth as what's efficient; ignores depth, ethics, or long-term implications.
39. The Astrology Believer – Projects internal patterns onto celestial symbols; uses archetypes to explain everything, avoiding accountability or complexity.
40. The Enlightenment Chaser – Seeks nondual states as escape; bypasses emotional, relational, and intellectual shadow work.
41. Let me know if you’d like an extended version with "how to grow beyond" each shadow, or a breakdown by epistemic type.

Edited April 18 by integral

[UnbornTao]

19 hours ago, Nilsi said:

Such abstract pontification is absurd anyway.

If you spend any time seriously engaging with ideas, you’ll inevitably run into people who are incredibly smart - sometimes intimidatingly so. And when that happens, if you’re honest, it forces you to confront your own "knowledge": Why do I think I know this? How did I arrive at that conclusion? How sure am I, really, that this is all there is to it?

But unfortunately, that kind of thinking gets explicitly dismissed here - as seen in the bizarre bashing of Schmachtenberger on the blog lately.

At some point, you have to ask yourself: who’s more trustworthy? The person who clearly operates at a higher intellectual level but still frames their worldview as a provisional, evolving hypothesis? Or the one shouting that they’ve found the Absolute Truth, are the smartest being alive, and that anyone who disagrees is a misinformation-spewing rat?

This whole thing has gotten so surreal I keep waiting for the hidden camera or the punchline. But neither has shown up yet.

Playing devil's advocate: You don't have an epistemology or metaphysics -- you "live them" as your taken-for-granted reality. In this contemplation work, we may think that "figuring out" reality -- by making it into something knowable -- is necessary, or even beneficial. A thought, or thoughts, can't capture the nature of things.

In this context, being abstract can be used to avoid confronting one's experience as it is. But I'm being dense here. The question still stands, though: What is really being asked by such questions? 

Edited April 19 by UnbornTao

[Nilsi]

6 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

A question was asked, and you took it as an attack. I'll elaborate on the initial point: You don't have an "epistemology" or "metaphysics," you live them as a reality.

An assumption that might be operating in the background in this work is that one needs to intellectually piece things together and "figure out" reality by putting it into a knowable form.

Being abstract is generally an easy defense mechanism for the mind to avoid confronting getting into one's experience of things. But I'm being nitpicky/dense here. In any case, the question stands: What is it really being asked with such questions? 

A question was answered - you took it as an attack.

Anyway, I’m not hearing any real engagement here. Just a lot of bla bla.

[Cireeric]

12 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

At some point, you have to ask yourself: who’s more trustworthy? The person who clearly operates at a higher intellectual level but still frames their worldview as a provisional, evolving hypothesis? Or the one shouting that they’ve found the Absolute Truth, are the smartest being alive, and that anyone who disagrees is a misinformation-spewing rat?

 

Totally agree! Im sure Daniel has gone very deep with consciousness too, he just wouldnt talk about it in the same way. Since you can never translate your depth of consciousness to aynone that hasnt been there too anyways I dont see how Infinity/God has more explanatory-power than pointing out that any model can never fully capture reality. Just that the second is the more humble way of describing it that leaves more room for genuine not-knowing. They both point in the same direction.