Leo's biggest hater?

[sgn]

This "unSpirituality" guy is back at it again. This time criticising Leo's latest video.

Thoughts? 

 

[sgn]

@Joseph Maynor Haha maybe wrong choice of word. But he seems to get pretty triggered

[Dumb Enlightened]

17 minutes ago, sgn said:

This "unSpirituality" guy is back at it again. This time criticising Leo's latest video.

Thoughts? 

 

This guy's channel appeared on my youtube suggestions, I checked it out, and he just basically talk about other people, there's nothing useful on his channel whatsoever, is a joke

[Dumb Enlightened]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I assume you've watched some of his videos to come to this kind of conclusion?  Let's not demonize people ourselves.

Yeah man, I'm talking about the channel, not the person, the channel indeed sucks, zero content

I dare you to watch 10 minutes of the video that was posted above

Edited April 2, 2019 by Dumb Enlightened

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, sgn said:

Thoughts? 

Don’t make the same mistake yourself. 

[Shin]

Is it funny ? ?

[sgn]

1 minute ago, Shin said:

Is it funny ? ?

Mostly sad

[Shin]

19 minutes ago, sgn said:

Mostly sad

Yeah it is ?

Perfect depiction of an ego who gets triggered about its belief system ??

Edited April 2, 2019 by Shin

[Forestluv]

@10min. is a good example of the "pre/trans" fallacy. He is contextualizing "nothing", "everything" and "god" into more basic constructs such as irrational religious beliefs. This is a hallmark of a being that lacks direct experience and awareness of "higher" conscious states. I did this a lot earlier in my development. For many years.

[Truth Addict]

@sgn

To me, he seems to be coming from a loving place.

He loves humanity and cares about the world too much, that he is against what he considers evil religious dogma, and is not open to it at all.

He claims that he'd spent 10 years practising spiritually, I don't believe him, maybe he's lying out of love, but who really knows?

Edited April 2, 2019 by Truth Addict

[Forestluv]

32 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

How big of a sample do you need to make such a judgment in your scientific work as a professor?  My guess is you look carefully at things thoroughly before coming to over-hasty, dismissive conclusions.  Why wouldn't the same attitude apply here?  You're inclined to want to dismiss -- that's a clear and obvious bias.  Scientists are supposed to correct for biases like that.  Weird.  I was a philosophy major and I try to correct for my biases all the time and be fair to opinions even when they're hostile to my Ego or other Egos that I have a vested interest in protecting.

I said @10min. and did not specify a length of time or amount of content. You asked me how long of a time period and then seemed to assume this was an insufficient time period / content and that my impression was dismissive and biased. . . To me, that indicates that the original question you asked was based on an underlying assumption and was not genuine. . . 

Notice how you first asked the question, then shifted to "my guess is" and then shifted to the assumption. . . in which there is no longer a question or "a guess". This is a common psychological dynamic a mind plays to conceal underlying assumptions. Yet, when one has played that game before, it's really obvious. . . . 

When that surface-level dynamic is revealed, one can then explore a level deeper. In this case, notice the use of "your scientific work as a professor" and then "Scientists are supposed to. . . " then "I was a philosophy major and. . . ". Notice the underlying personality dynamic. The next level deeper would explore the subconscious "energy" fueling that dynamic. Yet a mind would need to become aware of the more surface level dynamics before digging deeper. If the first two dynamics are subconscious and avoided, then it is not possible to dig deeper.

Thank you for this. This dynamic is much more interesting to me that the original comment I made about the video. That one was fairly generic. There is a little more "juice" to this one.

 

[Nahm]

He has yet to face his sensations. Likely due (unfortunately) to pretty severe childhood traumas. 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

No need to get so defensive friend.  I’m only saying that scientists are renowned for making careful conclusions and for examining all the evidence before arriving at conclusions, including but not limited to carefully examining any self biases.  I was just a little taken aback by your initial response, but maybe I have an over-idealic view of how good scientists behave in my own head.

I welcome this dynamic. As I said, your comments and the underlying psychological dynamic is much more interesting to me than the video I originally commented on. I think it is helpful for others to learn about this psychological dynamic.

So let's observe. . . Notice in the original statement there was a question "How big of a sample do you need to make such a judgment in your scientific work as a professor?" Do you think this is a question in which the questioner is genuinely curious about how much time the other person thinks they need to make a judgement?. Well, we will need to examine the next statements. . . The questioner next makes "a guess" on how the other person would behave. "My guess is you look carefully at things thoroughly before coming to over-hasty, dismissive conclusions." Notice the shift right here. The questioner adds in a "guess" that the other person (being a science professor) would look carefully at things before making over-hasty, dismissive conclusions. Where on earth did "over-hasty, dismissive" conclusions come in? This is where the assumption of an over-hasty, dismissive conclusion is introduced.

The following sentence "You're inclined to want to dismiss -- that's a clear and obvious bias.  " clearly indicates the previous question was not "a guess". The questioner solidifies the assumption and now speaks of it as fact - the other person is inclined to want to dismiss and goes even further by calling it "a clear and obvious bias". This is so incredibly clear cut. It is right in front of you. An "uncertain guess" has now become a fact. The other person is inclined to dismiss and is biased. 

The questioner goes on to say "Scientists are supposed to correct for biases like that.  ". Again, is an obvious assumption that a the other person has mad a over-hasty dismissive conclusion. Notice how the questioner no longer treats it as an "uncertain guess". I can't see how anyone could interpret this differently. The questioner has no idea how much time, effort and thought the other person put into the statement. The questioner is making this conclusion on an assumption.

When this is revealed to the questioner, he doubles-down on his position with "I was just a little taken aback by your initial response, but maybe I have an over-idealic view of how good scientists behave in my own head." Again, can't you see this ENTIRE position is based on an assumption? Without the initial assumption that the other person made an overly-hastily dismissive judgement, the ENTIRE position of the questioner crumbles. The statement "of how good scientists behave" is based on an assumption a scientists has behaved badly. There is clear is day. 

In fact, your assumption is sooo strong that you have zero interest in the answer to your initial question. Why? Because you have already answered it with the assumption. How could you be taken aback without the assumption? Why were you taken aback? Because you are assuming a scientist has made an overly hasty judgement. Without that assumption, what is there to be taken aback about?

This is a super common egoic dynamic, especially in hyper intellectuals. But for those that have worked through it, it is sooo obvious. You are not fooling anyone. I can see you! 

 

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Oh Jesus.  ?

It seems you are not open to looking at this dynamic and have retreated by sarcastically labeling the observer as an angel. This sarcasm is yet another egoic dynamic to avoid looking at the first dynamic. I've played this games before Joe, I know them well and it is fine. What I wrote may be helpful to others. As I said, this is a very common tactic. I would consider it a moderately manipulative egoic dynamic to control a narrative. You get zero from me, because I know exactly how it works.

[Rilles]

Why do you care about someone criticizing Leo? Do you have something invested in him? Be careful not to make Leo your guru and placing him on a pedestal. Just do the work. 

[zambize]

I like when Leo gets criticism, its healthy for him and the community.  I also wish he would be a bit less snappy at those who do criticize him as to not scare people away from doing it in the future 

[Aakash]

14 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

college professor

this makes so much sense now, 

however, its like i said joseph, your arguments are always a mixing of both worlds together, 

whilst other people are here to completely eradicate their sense of self, they are too seperate issues altogether, 

where you wouldn't take your sarcassm or the fact you wrote the issue in a way that basically the only answer was yes as an issue but others do

but seriously, as literally everyone does lol 

i guess its a defense mechanism but thats something every human being in the world does, especially when they get info bombed and can't be bothered to reply appriopriately, they break it down into smaller chunks of understanding 

@Serotoninluv thats actually crazy wording for sarcasm lol 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Aakash

[Aakash]

@Joseph Maynor lol neither of you did, you are both just expressing your points of view , but if i had to choose one it was obviously seratonin ahaha! 

cya joseph

[Forestluv]

@Joseph Maynor

How big of a sample do you need to make such a judgment in your scientific work as a professor?  

What was your intention of this question? Are you genuinely asking how much of a sample I need to make in my scientific work as a science professor? Were you really curious and open-minded about this? Or did you already have a pre-conceived belief that I made an overly-hasty judgement?

My guess is you look carefully at things thoroughly before coming to over-hasty, dismissive conclusions.  Why wouldn't the same attitude apply here? 

Is this an honest "guess"? If this was an honest guess, you would not make the next statement. The second statement is dependent on the first. 

You're inclined to want to dismiss -- that's a clear and obvious bias. 

Here you actually state I am inclined to want to dismiss. The original "question" and "guess" was not a question or guess. The underlying assumption and agenda is that you believe I wanted to dismiss. You are now indirectly saying that I want to dismiss and that I am biased.  Just say that Joe. Don't play manipulative games. If you think I was making overly-hasty judgements based on biases - just be honest and upfront and say so. 

I was a philosophy major and I try to correct for my biases all the time and be fair to opinions even when they're hostile to my Ego or other Egos that I have a vested interest in protecting.

What does this have to do with anything? If you think I am being biased and unable to see that because it is hostile to my Ego or other Egos that I want to protect - then say that. Don't play these passive-aggressive games. They are very manipulative.

 I was just a little taken aback by your initial response, but maybe I have an over-idealic view of how good scientists behave in my own head.

Again, you stated earlier that I was a scientists and how good science is performed. You are indirectly saying I am a bad scientist. I couldn't care less about that. But if you want to say that, say it to me directly. Don't play manipulative passive-aggressive games Joe.

I know how this game is played and you get ZERO, Joe. Sorry, you cannot bully me with passive aggressive tactics. If you want to accuse me of making overly-hasty judgements, say that I am biased and cannot see this because of my Ego and Egos I want to protect, then tell me that directly. Have the courage to stand up to me face to face and say it to me directly. Don't cower behind passive aggressive tactics. And when I call you out on it, don't wiggle around and sarcastically call me an angel and that I am over-complicating things. 

 

[DrewNows]

15 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@Serotoninluv thats actually crazy wording for sarcasm lol

To me he appears to be breaking down Joe's assuming judgement response to his post, which was quite impressive. These are the kind of things very challenging to see in ourselves(or should i say our persona), and the more stubborn or hard-nosed it is the less reluctant we are to want to change. I don't know Joseph's intent so i am not calling him out but this sort of call out seems warranted and is beneficial to anyone open 

Ive actually been working on some of these habits personally and in my relationship with others. It takes dedication to say the least 

Thanks Serotonin