Leo is Wrong About Trump - Accountability Predictions

[Forestluv]

@GenuinePerspectiveXC

You keep quoting from the abstract. You need to read the entire article and critically analyze the data and descriptions to put it in proper context. Not using terms in the proper context leads to misunderstanding. 

It seems like you are trying to recontextualize terms and statements to support a pre-conceived view that you hold. 

A mind which observes and explores data to see what it reveals is very different than a mind that seeks evidence to re-enforce and promote a pre-existing view. 

[Aakash]

@Serotoninluv Lol it was actually a poor understanding of genetics. I have an interesting thesis about genetics. untested but my hypothesis is that repeated gene expression within the DNA stores up a form of "non-physical" energy. This "non-physical" energy raises the probability of that specific genetic coding being passed onto the offspring. Due to the fact that its "survival" based. This is why specific genetic sequences is passed on and allele pairing is maximised for randomisation and survival itself during meiosis. its only a hypothesis that i got from seeing a documentary about a cow that gets electrified by the electric wire when it's being herded. This fear gets passed onto the offspring and for seven generations, they don't go near the fence. DM me if you wanna talk about it. I would love to get your opinion on it. 

@GenuinePerspectiveXC I had a few points to say about IQ 

IQ in its realistic sense is .... understanding of reality. The greater understanding of reality you have the greater your IQ should theoretically be. 

However, you american's have it backwards because you base intellectual understanding on how much you know about a specific subject and reward someone with a higher IQ when they are able to manipulate knowledge for personal benefit. Real IQ is connectivity between inter-subject, not intra-subject. So comparing standard IQ between people who have different capabilities intra-subject, is subjective to their standard of answers, which is as it should be. However, to go further and use that subjective IQ as a universal standard across different intra-subjects dilutes the accuracy of the measurement even more. By these standards , a history mojor with a 150 IQ is actually less smart than a quantum physicist with a 110 IQ. Logically you would say that quantum physics is a harder subject. So this is actually accurate. This is not the case, the person with 150 IQ is seen as smarter. The same relativity applies to real IQ. Lets say Leo's IQ was 80 officially and you look his body of work at actualise.org you would actually say he is smarter than both the 150 IQ and 110 IQ students. This is if you have viewed his work and deemed him reliable. 

If you then told everyone else who believed in standard IQ they would say your nuts, leo is actually stupid. To conclude, IQ exists. It just doesn't represents intellect accurately. Given the right conditions and right circumstances, ANY person who believes they have a 2.2 GPA or 60 IQ if they are given the right help, can be a genius with a 4.0 GPA and 150 IQ. if IQ was referenced correctly about understanding of reality. This is because they would be able to make the CORRECT inferences in their fields and therefore the basis on which the IQ is established for ALL different subjects would be the same. Thus solving the problem of IQ and making it representational. 

I'm not trying to be racist, but its actually statistically probable that white people in america must be smarter than people of colour and that is because the quality of education within the family has gathered and refined over time. This is why they are able to take the moral high ground.  They aren't 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants. IQ always increases across generations, because the quality of education improves. So its actually ridiculous to compare lets say a 1st generation immigrant to a 8th generation USA citizen. This is by traditional standards of comparing in the certain subject. If it was about reality, the ironic thing is the 1st generation immigrant would have a higher IQ. 

I hear that its actually reversing now and the 3rd and 4th generations are becoming more intelligent via standard IQ measurements, than the average american citizens. it would be quite bad, if this was to happen and immigrants actually overtook over all structures in your country because they become smart. it would be better to put them in wage slavery and slow down their educational process. 

Disclaimer: I don't particularly like the white entitlement claims. As well as i don't feel its right that the average white person is blamed for the white supremacy of historical past and present. but It is what it is. You pay or benefit off the backs of your own cultures history and then you demonize others for not being as good or worst off as you.  

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by Aakash

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

11 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

A mind which observes and explores data to see what it reveals is very different than a mind that seeks evidence to re-enforce and promote a pre-existing view. 

First of all, we could take that really far, like never referring to a study unless I conducted all of the research myself first hand.  They showed 65 sources.  I can't read all of them so it would be smart to read the abstract.

Second, what makes you think this is my preexisting view?  I just learned 2 weeks ago about these studies and the Central Six from a total progressive who wrote a book on consumer spending.  Of course, his research and the research he studies shocked him, kinda like how I got shocked out of being a progressive myself. 

You want to hear something even more non-conforming than 'intelligence matters?'  Then read Miller's book on the booklist and hear what his post-modernist viewpoint has to say on diversity.  I might have to put you on suicide watch.

Edited July 29, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Forestluv]

@GenuinePerspectiveXC I didn’t say to read all the references cited in the article (no one would does that - that would be insane)., I recommended you read the article you linked. It’s only a few pages.

To me, you don’t seem interested in exploring what the data reveals. You won’t even read and critique the article you yourself linked. You have taken a couple statements from the abstract and contextualized it into a particular narrative and refuse to examine this (even when the authors of the paper you linked warn against the contextualization you are using).

Scientific abstracts are not a substitute for the article. Similar to how movie-trailers are not a substitute for the movie. 

Also, I would recommend reading the article with a critical mind. At times, science authors over-state their conclusions or describe it in a way that is not clear to their target audience. There is a peer-review system, yet stuff can slip through, especially for review articles. And lower tier journals often have a weaker peer-review system. If I was reviewing the article you linked for publication, there are a few critiques I would have for the authors to increase clarity. Don’t assume scientists are authorities on every matter. Many scientists are poor technical writers and some have pet theories they are attached to. I’ve been to science meetings that turned into blood-baths of debate . . .So read critically and evaluate.

If you evolved beyond progressive, as you suggest, you would be at stage yellow. To me, you don’t seem to be expressing a yellow mindset.

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

You have taken a couple statements from the abstract and contextualized it into a particular narrative

I didn't craft a particular narrative.  I literally quoted the first paragraph!  And yes, I re-read the article again.  Almost 100% of it is backing the abstract.  

 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

To me, you don’t seem to be expressing a yellow mindset.

You seem to be of the opinion that Asperger's is a prerequisite.  There's a million ways to be in stage orange, and there's a million ways to be in stage yellow.  One way to evolve out of Green is to investigate the crap out of Green ideals and try to implement them in the real world. 

I suggest that's where you start.  And no, I don't mean a university campus where everything is provided by orange parents or on bought time from banking institutions.

Edited July 29, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Forestluv]

A core component of Yellow is an understanding of relativism. Based on your responses of the article, you don’t seem to have developed this understanding. I view this as the major limiting factor in my discourse with you. You seem to primarily use a blue-level binary mode, are unstable with orange-level continuums and are unaware of yellow-level relativism. In particular, you seem locked into a binary perspective of “same vs different” within a single context. Within this context, I didn’t disagree with most of what you said. The problem was being restricted to a single binary context and being unable to see meaning within multiple relative contexts. Each time I asked you consider degrees and contexts, you remained anchored in a binary mode. I’m unable to discuss the results and conclusions of the article with you in a restricted binary mode since I believe your relative interpretation is partially inaccurate.

For those that would like to watch relevant yellow-level videos, I think these are good: “Sameness and difference”, “ recontextualization “ and “what is relativism”. This is one of the most important aspects of yellow level thinking. Green has a basic understanding of moral relativism. Yellow’s understanding of relativism is much broader and deeper.

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

This is what happened.  You saw something that went against your idealism and tried to fit your argument to support your beliefs.  The craziest part is when you go and accuse me of doing this, multiple times! 

You must have said to yourself, "I need to go into stage orange, and fight him using stage orange methods."  I have literally seen you openly brag about this in the past after a thread got locked so the other party couldn't respond.  Everything you have said has been in order to push your ideology, not the other way around.  You need to learn things first, then alter your idealism.

The most telling part is that you seem to think that people can't use a combination of purple, red, blue, orange, green, and yellow solutions as they please.

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

The most telling part is that you seem to think that people can't use a combination of purple, red, blue, orange, green, and yellow solutions as they please.

Not at all. Yellow can use various modes including blue binary, orange logic and yellow relativism. As an analogy, a carpenter can use a screwdriver, hammer or saw as needed. They can use whichever tool is appropriate for a given situation.. One mode is not “superior” to another. Rather, it is a course of development. People learn algebra before calculus, yet they don’t stop using algebra when using calculus. Similarly, people learn binary thinking before logical thinking, yet they don’t stop using binary thinking when using logical thinking. However, someone centered in blue will struggle with orange level logical thinking. This is obvious to someone proficient in logical thinking. It would be like If a handyman was trying to cut a board of wood with a screwdriver - it would be pretty obvious he didn’t know how to use a saw.

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

Finally, we have common ground.  This is what I have been saying the whole time. 

The big difference is that I have been saying that the lower stages are usually much more useful and important than the higher stages.  I don't think most of you have thought about this yet. 

For example - red's goal - which is often to establish a monopoly of force, is more important than blue's goal which is to establish laws and rules.

Edited July 29, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Aakash]

@GenuinePerspectiveXC I don't mean to be rude. However, what is your justification for such a statement, 

"Good" is still relative to the time period in history 

Right now "red" is only good for those in poverty or struggling to survive, 

They would hate those above them, which is blue 

Which sounds to be exactly what your doing ? 

 

[tenta]

On 7/21/2019 at 1:42 PM, Geromekevin said:

I just read "How Nazis Win Elections" by Leo in his blog. I'm German, I watched parts of both videos

 

As someone who doesn't speak german I don't really see what I was supposed to see from both videos

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

15 hours ago, Aakash said:

@GenuinePerspectiveXC I don't mean to be rude. However, what is your justification for such a statement, 

"Good" is still relative to the time period in history 

Right now "red" is only good for those in poverty or struggling to survive, 

They would hate those above them, which is blue 

Which sounds to be exactly what your doing ? 

 

The only reason why the law (blue) is enforceable in the first place is if the police in a country have a monopoly on force (red).  It's a prerequisite for law.  It's literally more important that police maintain this monopoly than it is for them to follow the law, even if lack of accountability (i.e. police brutality) sucks.  Thankfully, this monopoly is rarely threatened in countries without mafias.

In countries like Mexico though, where there is violent conflict between police and cartels, it's more important than one group establishes control.  In 2017, 113 politicians were assassinated in Mexico because the police don't have control of the country. Those are the people that are supposed to make the laws.

In some places, like Vietnam, the police and mafia work together in certain parts of the country.  I'm not sure how it works out for them, but I hear a lot of bad shit.

Anyway, you'll see police doing red behaviors all the time, like training to shoot people and learning how to establish physical force.

Also, I'm assuming your comment about me hating people comes - first of all - off the assumption that I'm in level orange.  Orange doesn't really hate green.  They think green is naïve, lazy, and moralizes on everyone else while they're being propped up in a privileged situation by the orange people that they despise so much.  But they don't usually hate stage green.  That's your naïvety acting up again.

Green, on the other hand, seems to actually hate evangelicals, the United States, working 9-5, competition, Wall Street capitalism, individualism, free speech, and sovereignty.  Personally, I've transcended most of those issues so it doesn't threaten me anymore, nor am I on a crusade to stop any of it.  

Edited July 29, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Apparition of Jack]

@GenuinePerspectiveXC Just because Green has problems, doesn't mean it's not a necessary part of the evolution of any individual or society. Also, those are only examples of an unhealthy version of Green. Healthy Green is actually quite beautiful and liberating.

 

[Extreme Z7]

5 hours ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

The only reason why the law (blue) is enforceable in the first place is if the police in a country have a monopoly on force (red).  It's a prerequisite for law.  It's literally more important that police maintain this monopoly than it is for them to follow the law, even if lack of accountability (i.e. police brutality) sucks.  Thankfully, this monopoly is rarely threatened in countries without mafias.

In countries like Mexico though, where there is violent conflict between police and cartels, it's more important than one group establishes control.  In 2017, 113 politicians were assassinated in Mexico because the police don't have control of the country. Those are the people that are supposed to make the laws.

In some places, like Vietnam, the police and mafia work together in certain parts of the country.  I'm not sure how it works out for them, but I hear a lot of bad shit.

Anyway, you'll see police doing red behaviors all the time, like training to shoot people and learning how to establish physical force.

Stop using the phrase "more important".

Judging by your explanations, a more apt term would be "more fundamental".

This is actually a very important distinction to make to avoid confusion.

Lower stages are required to support higher stages but the does not make them "more important".

5 hours ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

Also, I'm assuming your comment about me hating people comes - first of all - off the assumption that I'm in level orange.  Orange doesn't really hate green.  They think green is naïve, lazy, and moralizes on everyone else while they're being propped up in a privileged situation by the orange people that they despise so much.  But they don't usually hate stage green.  That's your naïvety acting up again.

Green, on the other hand, seems to actually hate evangelicals, the United States, working 9-5, competition, Wall Street capitalism, individualism, free speech, and sovereignty.

Funnily enough, this shows that you don't actually understand Stage Green and are judging it from a position of Stage Orange.
 

Quote

  Personally, I've transcended most of those issues so it doesn't threaten me anymore, nor am I on a crusade to stop any of it.  

Or rather you haven't yet fully realized the significance of these problems.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Extreme Z7

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

59 minutes ago, Apparation of Jack said:

@GenuinePerspectiveXC Just because Green has problems, doesn't mean it's not a necessary part of the evolution of any individual or society. Also, those are only examples of an unhealthy version of Green. Healthy Green is actually quite beautiful and liberating.

 

I didn't say it wasn't.  A lot of the concerns and interests addressed by Green, lead to yellow.  For example, let's say you want to be culturally tolerant so you hang out and immerse yourself in the LGBTQ community. 

First of all, you're going to learn that lack of life-meaning and party drugs have done more damage to the gay community than intolerant evangelicals ever did or ever will.  This may take a few years to discover.  You're also going to learn that transgender people are often walking contradictions and have extreme hormonal issues that can't just be solved with tolerance. Also, there's definitely a horny gay man trapped inside every m2f transgender woman, and sexually, he thinks with his dick and openly goes for quantity over quality.  Obviously, there's no concern of getting pregnant so she thinks like man when it comes to promiscuity and openness bout it.  That goes for both pre-op and post-op.  Oftentimes, these people switch back as well, especially F2M transgender men.  Why? because the challenge for men in life is a billion times greater it turns out!

You would never know this from hanging out in a green safespace, a blue cathedral, or from the cocky distance that orange likes to keep itself at.  What lessons are learned from that immersion alone?  Well first of all, it's apparent that lack of purpose is devastating and destructive.  You need to develop real meaning in your life somehow. A nuclear family is the most common way people do this, so pay your respects to purple and blue.

Also, we can learn a lot from transgenders. First of all, gender roles are more than socially constructed.  They are mostly biological and hardwired.  Not only that, but you may get sick if you don't follow what your hormones are telling you to do.  Even in countries where 3rd gender is accepted, like Thailand and the Philippines, this class has a very high suicide rate due to the nihilistic and hedonistic natures of their existence.

There is also a massive behavioral difference between a transgender woman whose taken estrogen pills and one who is coming off of them.  Not only is their behavior different when they take estrogen pills, but the way other people behave around them is a difference of night and day.

... I'm not even gonna get into what I found out by exploring the Mexican-American, Buddhist, or a multitude of other communities over many years, but you may be quite astounded with the discoveries.  Let's just say, I've lost a lot respect towards a lot of groups and gained a lot of valuable insights.

Edited July 30, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Apparition of Jack]

@GenuinePerspectiveXC I see a lot of claims, but no empirical evidence to back them up. Please provide us with some sources to prove what you're saying is an accurate portrayal of reality, and not just your own sentiments.

Edited July 30, 2019 by Apparation of Jack

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

53 minutes ago, Apparation of Jack said:

@GenuinePerspectiveXC I see a lot of claims, but no empirical evidence to back them up. Please provide us with some sources to prove what you're saying is an accurate portrayal of reality, and not just your own sentiments.

First of all, I'm telling a story, so it's anecdotal observations we're talking about.  My goal isn't to persuade you of anything, except for that I have gone deeply into the depths of tolerance.  I'm not gonna provide you my past flight tickets, old paystubs, and FB account so that you can tell I'm really being truthful about my stories. 

Second, could you imagine the flak a university researcher would get for spreading this information?   A researcher from the University of Toronto was staying in my apartment complex in Thailand before, and the questions he was asking to study transgender people were designed to confirm bias.  Not behaving in such a manner would be a good way to lose funding.  This guy was next to clueless about a whole number of issues.  Yet, he's in Canada right now teaching university students about his confirmed-biases.

Edited July 30, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[Apparition of Jack]

8 minutes ago, GenuinePerspectiveXC said:

First of all, I'm telling a story, so it's anecdotal observations we're talking about.  My goal isn't to persuade you of anything, except for that I have gone deeply into the depths of tolerance.  I'm not gonna provide you my past flight tickets, old paystubs, and FB account so that you can tell I'm really being truthful about my stories.

So your evidence is your own experience? That's fair enough, but have you considered that your personal experience has been clouded by your own unconsciousness / biases? When you say "trans people are nihilistic and hedonistic", are you sure that's not just your own projections onto them? Remember, this whole self-actualisation endeavour is about expanding your sense of self to the point where you care about and feel compassion for all beings as literally being part of yourself. If you feel resistance to trans people or gay people - that's not the fault of them, it's the fault of your own unconsciousness and biases.

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

1 hour ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Lower stages are required to support higher stages but the does not make them "more important".

Uh.  Yes it does.  Laws, which are blue, don't need capitalism, but capitalism needs laws, no matter how much they bitch about it.    One is more important to maintain than the other.

 

1 hour ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Funnily enough, this shows that you don't actually understand Stage Green and are judging it from a position of Stage Orange.
 

Oh yeah.  How so?  I get that you don't like what I said, but that's just you getting mad.  That has nothing to do with me.

 

1 hour ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Or rather you haven't yet fully realized the significance of these problems.

What do you mean?  I literally don't have to work 9-5 anymore, I spend most of my time internationally, and I have a really interesting story to tell about my experiences in the depths of tolerance that I'm only allowed to talk about because of free speech.  And if you don't like religious people, like baptists, evangelicals, and catholics, don't hang out with them!  

Edited July 30, 2019 by GenuinePerspectiveXC

[GenuinePerspectiveXC]

2 minutes ago, Apparation of Jack said:

When you say "trans people are nihilistic and hedonistic", are you sure that's not just your own projections onto them? 

  

Find out for yourself. I can't do the work for you.  Besides, I was actually referring to the GLBTQ community in general, especially gay men and M2F transgenders. 

While a lot of the lesbians I know are extremely hedonistic and nihilistic, a lot of them are really just bisexual and want to get fucked by men, just not the men that pay attention to them. Many of them do leave their experiment after a few years though.  One of the books on the booklist even explained how much more common it is for women to go straight again than it is for gay men. It said they often do get pregnant, and do start families with men later on. That, of course, would eliminate the nihilism.