Getting My Covid Vaccine

[Consept]

9 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

Why make an assumption yet again, can’t you just ask? Which strong position have I taken? I’m just saying that I’m not getting vaccinated for now because I’m healthy and I’m not the only one doing so (Elon Musk is taking the same position for example). How is that a strong position? I’m after all here to open myself to different perspectives, haven’t yet heard any convincing arguments.
 

Assuming again here with what makes something shitty, ok.
What makes anything shitty is that it isn’t life affirmative (it doesn’t work and has produced harm, like Pfizer’s criminal history for example) nothing to do with core beliefs.

OK so what do you want out of this thread, what would helpful information look like to you?

[Lyubov]

Fever lasted less than 24 hours for me. Got my second dose yesterday at lunch time. Fever set in at around 4am or so. Started shiver and shaking. Just felt SICK. No specific area. Throat was fine, tummy was fine, it was more an overall fever where everything felt sore and I was shivering. I ordered two big sandwiches at around 8am via Uber eats. Bagels with cream cheese and fish. Ate both and felt much better several hours later. My system needed that heavy meal for energy. Drinking a ton of water to flush everything out. I’m currently writing this in bed close to an early dinner. Still feel sort of crummy and beat up but fever is gone and body feels better. I think I’ll be 100% by tomorrow.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Lyubov

[Mannyb]

28 minutes ago, Consept said:

OK so what do you want out of this thread, what would helpful information look like to you?

All I wanted were good reasons for a healthy individual to get the vaccine. The type of reason that could convince someone like Elon Musk for example.

And no @Forestluv, that doesn't mean that I would just discard what doesn't suit my worldview. Otherwise I wouldn't even bother asking, like many people I know. So let's just start from scratch, you seem to enjoy imagining scenarios, imagine I'm Elon Musk and convince me, that's it

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mannyb

[Space Coyote]

1 hour ago, Mannyb said:

Not mad, just still waiting...

And I'm still waiting for you to admit you've fallen  for the halo effect, its ok it happens to everyone. It is human nature. The bigger sin is refusing to admit it.  You again literally asked how your logic is faulty and I pointed out it is a textbook example of the halo effect.

Your "He is a billionaire...." argument is like saying: "Why are you asking Gordon Ramsey for advice on how to make a Beef Wellgiotion, you should ask Elon Musk he is much richer with much more access to the best ingredients ".I don't care what Elon Musk's opinion is on infectious disease is for the same reasons I don't care. what Anthony Fauci opinion on space exploration is. Elon Musk is swerving wildly out of his lane if he is talking about infectious disease as would Fauci if he started talking about space exploration. It is illogical to care what Elon Musk thinks about a topic outside his domain of mastery. It only seems logical due to the halo effect.

Note I bolded, underlined, and italics illogical (twice now). I never said to you whether I believe Elon or you are wrong; faulty logic (which is what you asked) does not mean your conclusions are wrong nor does perfect logic means your conclusion are right; believing these would also be illogical.  Assuming Elon Musk is a 100% right  "billionaire who put a car in space and has access to a lot of privileged info" is still textbook  halo effect. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Space Coyote

[Mannyb]

11 minutes ago, Space Coyote said:

And I'm still waiting for you to admit you've fallen  for the halo effect, its ok it happens to everyone. It is human nature. The bigger sin is refusing to admit it.  You again literally asked how your logic is faulty and I pointed out it is a textbook example of the halo effect.

Your "He is a billionaire...." argument is like saying: "Why are you asking Gordon Ramsey for advice on how to make a Beef Wellgiotion, you should ask Elon Musk he is much richer with much more access to the best ingredients ".I don't care what Elon Musk's opinion is on infectious disease is for the same reasons I don't care. what Anthony Fauci opinion on space exploration is. Elon Musk is swerving wildly out of his lane if he is talking about infectious disease as would Fauci if he started talking about space exploration. It is illogical to care what Elon Musk thinks about a topic outside his domain of mastery. It only seems logical due to the halo effect.

Note I bolded, underlined, and italics illogical (twice now). I never said to you whether I believe Elon or you are wrong; faulty logic (which is what you asked) does not mean your conclusions are wrong nor does perfect logic means your conclusion are right; believing these would also be illogical.  Assuming Elon Musk is a 100% right  "billionaire who put a car in space and has access to a lot of privileged info" is still a textbook  halo effect. 

You're just assuming that I'm assuming Elon Musk is a 100% right when I never said nor implied anything of the sort. Look my fellow lovely human being, I'm just asking why would someone like him make such a decision. There's nothing faulty in such a question. Tell me, how is it illogical to think that Elon might know something we don't? He has more access to all sorts of professionals in the area of vaccines than almost most people on earth, except perhaps Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Putin (you know, powerful people with the best contacts in most cutting edge fields). 

You want me to admit to something I haven't fallen for. If Elon Musk turns vegan tomorrow, it doesn't mean I'd do it, it just means I'd probably look into it out of curiosity and wonder about what he may know that I don't, knowing that such an individual has access to privileged information we could only dream of as of now. Do you get it now? <3  It's completely fine if you didn't initially understand my point, you don't even have to admit it.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mannyb

[Consept]

20 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

All I wanted were good reasons for a healthy individual to get the vaccine. The type of reason that could convince someone like Elon Musk for example.

And no @Forestluv, that doesn't mean that I would just discard what doesn't suit my worldview. Otherwise I wouldn't even bother asking, like many people I know. So let's just start from scratch, you seem to enjoy imagining scenarios, imagine I'm Elon Musk and convince me, that's it

Well why dont we do it this way, what would you consider good reasons to take a vaccine that helps stop the spread of a contagious disease? 

[Mannyb]

7 minutes ago, Consept said:

Well why dont we do it this way, what would you consider good reasons to take a vaccine that helps stop the spread of a contagious disease? 

I'm asking because I don't have any yet, so you tell me. I have also not found good reasons to take a vaccine that helps stop the spread of a contagious disease called the flu. I'm not here to argue man, I just asked for reasons.

If your reason is to help stop spreading the disease, well, thank you for your contribution although everyone has heard that reason already, and yet many chose not to get vaccinated. Therefore a good reason for some people isn't a good reason for others.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mannyb

[Consept]

1 minute ago, Mannyb said:

I'm asking because I don't have any yet, so you tell me.

Well lets just play a game of perspectives, if you had to make the argument for the vaccine, what would your reasons be? Im asking because there have been several reasons that you havent deemed good enough, so its important to know what could be a good reason. If you yourself cant think of any then its either there arent any, in which case, well done you win, or that youre not open to any, one of the two

[Mannyb]

13 minutes ago, Consept said:

Well lets just play a game of perspectives, if you had to make the argument for the vaccine, what would your reasons be? Im asking because there have been several reasons that you havent deemed good enough, so its important to know what could be a good reason. If you yourself cant think of any then its either there arent any, in which case, well done you win, or that youre not open to any, one of the two

I'm sorry but I don't want to play games, I don't have to make that argument and I don't want to  I hope you can understand, accept, and love that.  I'm just asking for the perspective of those who are taking the vaccine, that's it. It's my right not to deem some reasons good for me, you have the same right. That doesn't mean that I'm not open to other reasons, now does it? A good reason for you might not be one for me and vice versa, yet I'm open to anyone with a reason they deem good for themselves <3

Now I won't judge your attempt at logic. It's true, I can't think of a good reason for myself, yet that doesn't mean there aren't any nor that I'm not open.  I'm open to hearing what you deem a good reason, I'm sure there might be a reason I could deem good myself, hence why I'm asking ^^

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mannyb

[kray]

Got my second vaccine today! Though I heard we (those who took the Pfizer vaccine) have to take another booster in a year. 

[Consept]

20 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

I'm sorry but I don't want to play games, I don't have to make that argument and I don't want to  I hope you can understand, accept, and love that.  I'm just asking for the perspective of those who are taking the vaccine, that's it. It's my right not to deem some reasons good for me, you have the same right. That doesn't mean that I'm not open to other reasons, now does it? A good reason for you might not be one for me and vice versa, yet I'm open to anyone with a reason they deem good for themselves <3

Now I won't judge your attempt at logic. It's true, I can't think of a good reason for myself, yet that doesn't mean there aren't any nor that I'm not open.  I'm open to hearing what you deem a good reason, I'm sure there might be a reason I could deem good myself, hence why I'm asking ^^

OK well my point is that there wont be a reason that you deem good enough, but we can experiment, i found this list online, let me know which you deem good enough, if there arent any then i think it would be pointless extending the thread -

COVID-19 vaccination will help keep you from getting COVID-19

All COVID-19 vaccines currently available in the United States have been shown to be safe and effective at preventing COVID-19. Learn more about the different COVID-19 vaccines.

All COVID-19 vaccines that are in development are being carefully evaluated in clinical trials and will be authorized or approved only if they make it substantially less likely you will get COVID-19. Learn more about how federal partners are ensuring COVID-19 vaccines work.

Based on what we know about vaccines for other diseases and early data from clinical trials, experts believe that getting a COVID-19 vaccine also helps keep you from getting seriously ill even if you do get COVID-19.

Getting vaccinated yourself may also protect people around you, particularly people at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19.

Experts continue to conduct studies to learn more about how COVID-19 vaccination may reduce spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.

Once you are fully vaccinated, you can start doing more

After you are fully vaccinated for COVID-19, you may be able to start doing some things that you stopped doing because of the pandemic. For example, you can gather indoors without masks with other people who are fully vaccinated.

We are still learning how vaccines will affect the spread of COVID-19. Until we know more about how vaccines will affect the spread of COVID-19, people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 should keep taking precautions in public places like wearing a mask, staying 6 feet apart from others, avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces, and washing your hands often.

People are not considered fully vaccinated until two weeks after their second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, or two weeks after a single-dose Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. You should keep using all the tools available to protect yourself and others until you are fully vaccinated.

COVID-19 vaccination is a safer way to help build protection

COVID-19 can have serious, life-threatening complications, and there is no way to know how COVID-19 will affect you. And if you get sick, you could spread the disease to friends, family, and others around you.

Clinical trials for all vaccines must first show they are safe and effective before any vaccine can be authorized or approved for use, including COVID-19 vaccines. The known and potential benefits of a COVID-19 vaccine must outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine before it is used under what is known as an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Watch a video explaining an EUA.

Getting COVID-19 may offer some protection, known as natural immunity. Current evidence suggests that reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19 is uncommon in the months after initial infection, but may increase with time. The risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 far outweighs any benefits of natural immunity. COVID-19 vaccination will help protect you by creating an antibody (immune system) response without having to experience sickness.

Both natural immunity and immunity produced by a vaccine are important parts of COVID-19 disease that experts are trying to learn more about, and CDC will keep the public informed as new evidence becomes available.

COVID-19 vaccination will be an important tool to help stop the pandemic

Wearing masks and staying 6 feet apart from others help reduce your chance of being exposed to the virus or spreading it to others, but these measures are not enough. Vaccines will work with your immune system so it will be ready to fight the virus if you are exposed.

A growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to be infected without showing symptoms (called an asymptomatic infection) and potentially less likely to spread the virus that causes COVID-19 to others. However, further investigation is ongoing.

Stopping a pandemic requires using all the tools we have available. As experts learn more about how COVID-19 vaccination may help reduce spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, CDC will continue to update its recommendations to protect communities using the latest science.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective

We understand that some people may be concerned about getting vaccinated now that COVID-19 vaccines are available in the United States. While more COVID-19 vaccines are being developed as quickly as possible, routine processes and procedures remain in place to ensure the safety of any vaccine that is authorized or approved for use. Safety is a top priority, and there are many reasons to get vaccinated.

None of the COVID-19 vaccines can make you sick with COVID-19

None of the COVID-19 vaccines contain the live virus that causes COVID-19 so a COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19. Learn more 

[Mannyb]

@Consept Lol you're right, none of those I deem good enough. To me it sounds like fearmongering, scary. Guess I'll have to side with Elon on this one...

Obviously a random list you found online won't do it since anyone could find it. Maybe you, the "consensus" and the masses are right on this one, only time will tell.  Namaste

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mannyb

[Consept]

3 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

@Consept Lol you're right, none of those I deem good enough. To me it sounds like fearmongering, scary. Guess I'll have to side with Elon on this one...

Obviously a random list you found online won't do it since anyone could find it. Maybe you, the "consensus" and the masses are right on this one, only time will tell.  Namaste

Yeah i suspected as much, no worries glad we sorted it out. The list was from the CDC btw so i couldnt give you better reasons than that and if you think theyre all wrong I dont think id be able to convince you otherwise. As i said either youre either completely right or youre not open, so im taking it as you consider yourself the former, so well done on that. 

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Mannyb said:

@Forestluv Sure bud. You can rationalize your example all you want it still doesn’t make sense.

It doesn't make sense because you only have one lens in which it doesn't make sense. Through the lens you are wearing, you are 100% correct that the example doesn't make sense. However, notice how the example does make sense to others on the thread. They are wearing a different lens. 

Which lens is "better" depends on context. The lens you are wearing has truth and value, yet if it is the only lens you can wear it will be very limiting. 

As an example, notice how I keep saying that your perspective has some truth and value. That is because I can see through that lens. As I mentioned, I teach a class about unethical aspects of the pharmaceutical industry. I actually teach this. 

You are trying to categorize me as either a "good apple" or "bad apple". Yet I can see both good apples and bad apples. How can you categorize me as a 100% bad apple if I teach pre-med students how corrupt and unethical the pharmaceutical industry is? I speak that language. I've spent over 20 years involved in scientific research and I've seen both the good and bad in it. 

2 hours ago, Mannyb said:

@Forestluv 
Here’s an example like yours, try this: would you board an experimental plane with a new type of engine that is still in testing, has never successfully flown, and that every time they tried it in the past it crashed? That’s what happened with covid vaccines.

I think this is a great metaphor. It is pointing at something different than I did, yet still a great metaphor. Let's break it down. . . 

The most important thing regarding introspection is having a curious exploratory mind. Almost like a childlike mind. This type of mind is fluid and is more interested in extracting insights from multiple perspectives. 

Let's go for it. . . 

Consider each of your components: (1) An experimental plane with a (2) new type of engine that is (3) still in testing, (4) has never been flown and (5) every time they tried it in the past it crashed. Taking those five elements together, I would not fly in that plane. There is high risk and no reward. 

So here comes next level: there is some aspects in this metaphor that can be extended to covid, yet it also has distortion. That distortion is the mind manipulating two forms to be compatible. Again, I am NOT saying the metaphor is 100% wrong and lacks value. As I said above, this lens DOES have value, yet restricting oneself to this lens will create distortion in a larger view. 

To get this what I'm writing, one would need to realize that I am not taking the opposite position as you. Imagine someone that is bilingual and can speak both English and Spanish. They are not English vs. Spanish. They can identify positives and limitations of both English and Spanish. This is a difficult mindstate to enter. It's almost like a flow state of consciousness. Like a musician improvising, it can be difficult to get into this "zone". 

The next level we enter requires that we are more interested in expanding a view than protecting our view. In one conscious state, this is super exciting, in another conscious state it is super threatening. . . 

Back to your metaphor. . . Notice how we will explore both strengths and weaknesses of the metaphor. To see this, one needs to have loose handles. As well, my exploration itself has limits. There are many more angles we could examine. . . 

Parts 1-2 has metaphorical crossover accuracy, yet is also incomplete. The metaphorical strength is that decades of R&D has gone into airplanes and decades of R&D has gone into vaccine design. As well, an engine is a key component of a larger airplane system that drives propulsion of the plane. Similarly mRNA is the engine that drives propulsion of the plane. I think this is a very strong foundation to start with. (Notice how strongly I am highlighting value within your metaphor). To make strengthen the metaphor more, we need to add more elements (you might not like this part). In general, airplanes have value to humans and are relatively safe. On rare occasions, there are plane crashes and people get seriously injured and die. Yet this is infrequent. Similarly, vaccines have value to humans and are relatively safe. On rare occasions, people getting vaccinated can get seriously injured and die. Yet this is infrequent. Now, the metaphor is even stronger. If you only accept the first part and reject the second part, you are not looking at things objectively. 

Parts 3-4 also have some metaphorical strength, yet are not nearly as strong as parts 1-2. Both the new engine technology and mRNA vaccine technology are "new" and "still in testing". Here, the distortion is by ommission. The way it is framed suggests that the engine / mRNA is *brand* new and testing has just begun. However, the mRNA technology has been in development for many many years. The company "Moderna" stands fuses "modern" and "rna". Scientists have been doing R&D on mRNA-based vaccines and therapies for many years. This is super important to add in. Omitting this part creates distortion. 

Part 5 is the weakest part and has no metaphorical value. In fact, it blows up ALL the metaphorical value in parts 1-4. The mRNA technology is been very successful. It is highly effective with extremely low risks so far. Crashes have been very infrequent. It is true that the risk is greater than 0%, yet a gross distortion to say that it has "crashed every time". It would be more fair to say that the plane engine has been tested hundreds of millions of times and is as safe as previous plane engines. 

As well, the metaphor omits the risks of not employing the engine / vaccine. That is super important as well.

From a meta-view, notice how the above exploration does not dismiss your metaphor. The exploration includes both strengths and weaknesses of the metaphor and offers ways to improve it. 

2 hours ago, Mannyb said:

@Forestluv 

Why don’t you start by analyzing your own mind first? Might learn a thing or two, yet your defense mechanisms won’t allow that... You seem to think you’re above all that since you’re in academia, years of experience etc... And yet I should listen to you instead of other scientists in the field for what reason exactly? Specially when they don’t try to assume how certain people’s mind work without knowing...  

Again, this framing has both value and distortion. The value of above is that introspecting one's own mind is very difficult. Every mind has biases and holds handles tightly at times. Every meta level has issues of introspection, biases, handle holding and defenses. If I said I was above these dynamics, my conscious level would actually drop down a level as awareness is lost.  As I mentioned above, entering higher meta levels is not easy. I'd go so as to say that one cannot think there way into it. It's more about letting go and entering into a flow state of form and formless. I 100% agree with you it's super important to have awareness of one's blocks to reach a higher level of cognition.

Yet there is also some distortion in this point. I spend an inordinate amount of time observing my own mind. Hours everyday. Part of developing metacognition skills is practice, practice, practice. One of the key elements is to observe one's own mind and to be open to feedback from others that reflect one's mind. For example, you have reflected back to me components I can improve upon. This is good news, if I want to reach for a higher level of cognition. 

As well, you also make a good point about how academia can create a sense of "being above others". This is something I've noticed in academia and something I've introspected in myself. Arrogance is a huge block to reaching higher levels. If I want to continue to develop to higher levels I have to devote part of my awareness RAM to being aware of the block of arrogance. 

Yet there is also some distortion in this point. Expertise and confidence is a real thing, Things can get super tricky between expertise/confidence and arrogance. Expressing one's skill with expertly and with confidence is not arrogance. Kobe Bryant practiced his craft intensely for years and had expertise and confidence. He knew his skills and limitations. When he did an amazing fade-away off-balance three-pointer, it was not arrogance. Arrogance is an additional element expertise/confidence. 

Notice how your call out of arrogance is related to my statements of being in academia. Yet I did not volunteer that information. Normally, I would not express that since it is usually irrelevant. A piano player doesn't go around boasting about their training and status. The only reason I stated my training and credentials as a scientist / researcher is because you demanded it. You set the standard as being a scientist / researcher. Therefore, it is completely relevant for me to state my training / credentials as a scientist / researcher since that is the standard you set. That is not arrogance. 

2 hours ago, Mannyb said:

@Forestluv

You seem to be the perfect example of the arrogance of academia with your claim of having transcended other perspectives (why do you need to claim it if you’ve done so?, maybe to reinforce that idea and thus your ego). 

Again, it is what it is. I also think it's important to illustrate that the conscious states I'm referring to aren't really "me". There is no ownership to them. That type of personalization and ownership is a block to higher cognitive states because it takes up mental RAM and is contracted.

It is more accurate to say that there are realms in which expansive insights arise. Yet there is no "me" taking ownership of it. If I say something brilliant, I'm the most surprised person. I'm like "where tf did that come from?". 

The reason I say "I" is for convenience of conversation. Without pronouns like "I", "me", and "you", communication can become difficult and awkward. Especially when a mind in contracted within a personal realm. 

Imagine a musician in a flow state of consciousness. It's like the trumpet is playing itself. Let's say it is a masterful level of improvisation. There is no "I" there. There is no "me" thinking things like "I'm so great. I'm the best musician. I'm nailing it. All the women will love me". That stuff actually prevents a mind from entering higher states of cognition. If my mind was in a space of "I'm so transcendent of all perspectives" it would interfere with entering transcendence of perspectives. That type of shit needs to be let go of before crossing over.

2 hours ago, Mannyb said:

@Forestluv 

This is the longest assumption I’ve read on my mind, yet you don’t even know me. Instead of imagining what you could tell me and how I’d (potentially,  in your mind) react, just tell me straight without anticipating my reaction. I’m not offended tho, but your style of response is condescending to a new level I’ve rarely seen.

This is an area in which you are reflecting something I can approve upon. You are interpreting me as being very condescending to you. Regardless of whether it's true or not, your perception that what I communicate is condescending is an issue if the intention is to open up a lane of communication. If you perceive me as condescending, then that lane will be closed. If my goal was to have effective communication with you, I would need to adapt so you are not interpreting me as condescending.

Yet creating a lane of communication between us is not my primary goal here. You've asked me to tell you straight, so I will tell you straight without anticipation of your reaction. 98% of what I'm saying is going over your head and you are unaware of it. Your conscious state lacks the metacognition, openness and interest to catch it. You would need years of practice - just like a musician would need years of practice. The reason I'm aware of this is because I've practiced this for 30 years. It's now become like walking to me. . . The reason I'm engaging with you is not for you, it is for other people reading this on the forum. At an intermediate stage, it is much easier to "spy" on others and have awakenings. This bypasses personalization. There are other forum members reading this that are not personalizing it, because it's not directed at them. Therefore, their mind doesn't need to invest RAM into protecting personal beliefs. This liberates the mind to use that RAM for other things, such as catching new insights. 

Now for the anticipation: based on your responses, I predict you will interpret this as arrogant and condescending. 

2 hours ago, Mannyb said:

@Forestluv

Funny you need to explain yourself in such length ? You could just answer directly but that’s not what you’re interested in doing, wonder why...

No, I cannot answer you directed because of the lens you are wearing - yet the only way you will be able to realize that is removing the lens - which you are unwilling to do. 

And if you want to develop expertise, you will need to put in time and effort practicing. And that means reading, contemplation, introspection. One-liners are not going to bring a person expertise.

2 hours ago, Mannyb said:

@Forestluv
Why can’t we have a normal conversation where you’d simply ask for example: hey man I love you and I see where you seem to be at, and think I can help you in a (non condescending) loving way, what do you consider helpful information my brother? Instead you just start assuming and analyzing how i chose to express myself.

That is a strategy I considered, yet it won't work. The pre-requisite for this to work is that the mind has desire / interest to expand and sees the other person as a resource to expand. You haven't shown either of this. Right out of the gate, you've created simplistic binary constructs of "my view vs your view" and dismissed my words as "ridiculous", "condescending" and "arrogant". I know what it's like when someone is talking over my head. It can suck, yet it is also an amazing opportunity. There are several people in my life right now that are teachers to me. They have expertise I lack. That can be uncomfortable, yet it can also be exciting. They are a great resource for growth!! It's like having a free teacher to learn a new skill!! Then I get super curious and ask things like "What did you mean by abc? Is is kinda like xyz?". For example, tonight I will work with an female shaman that is highly advanced in metaphysics and Divine Feminine. I don't go into it thinking she is my competition over whether who is right or wrong. She is at a higher level which is good news!!! She can help me grow into her area of expertise!!! She points things out to me. Similarly, when I speak with fluent Spanish speakers, I want them to point things out to me so I can better learn Spanish. 

Yet the key is that I recognize their skill and I want to learn it. That is a very different mindset than seeing them as a competitor or arrogant. For example, since I have a desire to learn, I can tell my guitarist friend that I learn better if I can try on my own and he points out my mistakes. They are like "sure, let's go for it". Yet my mindset of recognizing their guitar skill and wanting to learn it is absolutely critical. If my mindset is "Where did you learn guitar? Are you a certified guitar professional? Why don't you look at yourself and your own issues with the guitar. You are so arrogant when you play the guitar. You don't even speak guitar well. I know others that play guitar better". This mindset will not allow for me to tell them how I learn best because I don't see anything I can learn from them. If I say "We both play guitar equally, let's play guitar on my terms" it won't work. He will be playing high level guitar and I'm not even aware of what I don't know about guitar playing like bars, scales etc. I will sit there playing crude guitar under the delusion that I can play guitar. He is not going to be able to say "what you did there was really creative, it's what we call 'abc', yet you need to be careful because it can be a block to more advanced levels". I'd be like "You are so condescending and arrogant!!". And that's totally cool. Yet someone will not learn to play the guitar with that mindset. 

1 hour ago, Mannyb said:

 @Forestluv,

So let's just start from scratch, you seem to enjoy imagining scenarios, imagine I'm Elon Musk and convince me, that's it. 

Imagine I'm Jimi Hendrix and convince me I can't play the guitar.

That is not a mindset for exploration and expansion. The content doesn't matter if the mindset is poor. We could be talking about rock climbing, neuroscience, cooking, ballroom dancing etc. To advance, a mind needs to be aware of it's level of expertise and master basic levels. If a beginner Spanish learner thinks they are fluent, they will not be able to improve their skills. 

You keep trying to elevate your level by associating yourself with others such as "me and Elon Musk", "me and doctors", "me and scientists" etc. You are not a doctor and you are actually communicating with a doctorate scientist!

[Mannyb]

17 minutes ago, Consept said:

Yeah i suspected as much, no worries glad we sorted it out. The list was from the CDC btw so i couldnt give you better reasons than that and if you think theyre all wrong I dont think id be able to convince you otherwise. As i said either youre either completely right or youre not open, so im taking it as you consider yourself the former, so well done on that. 

Why are you saying that because I don't agree with the CDC that means I'm either not open or I am completely right? How does that make sense?  It's fine that you're not able to convince me or Elon otherwise, but why do you have to make such conclusions on what we consider ourselves to be? It's the second time I try to explain how your reasoning doesn't make sense, therefore I guess you won't get it lol So let's just agree to disagree on this one.

PS: although your tone isn't the most loving one (perhaps unintentionally), I want to let you know that I love you anyway <3

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mannyb

[Mannyb]

@Forestluv How do you know a simple conversation won't work? You don't, unless you can predict the future.

It seems that you're quite stuck on making mental models and hypotheses of what your mind interacts with, on this forum at least. That's my guess of your lens, maybe I'm wrong.

To be honest I'm not gonna read all that mentation.

If you wish for me to read what you have to say, you can give me what you deem to be a reason good enough and at the same time complex enough so that someone like Elon might have omitted in his own reasoning, that's what I came for. Otherwise, I'm not interested and that's my right. Sorry for not reading all you wrote (you probably intended for me to read it lol), might interest others tho. 

[Consept]

2 minutes ago, Mannyb said:

Why are you saying that because I don't agree with the CDC that means I'm either not open or I am completely right? How does that make sense? It's fine that you're not able to convince me or Elon otherwise, but why do you have to make such conclusions on what we consider ourselves to be? It's the second time I try to explain how your reasoning doesn't make sense, therefore I guess you won't get it lol So let's just agree to disagree on this one.

No bro im not saying that because you dont agree with the CDC youre not open or youre completely right. I said that if you dont deem any reasons to be valid (which is what you confirmed) then there are only two possibilities, one is that you are completely right and there are no valid reasons or two there are valid reasons but you are not open to them. You rejected the idea that youre not open so therefore the only other option is that youre completely right. The CDC list was used to cover multiple reasons that you would hear or that might be brought up in the thread. 

[Mannyb]

7 minutes ago, Consept said:

No bro im not saying that because you dont agree with the CDC youre not open or youre completely right. I said that if you dont deem any reasons to be valid (which is what you confirmed) then there are only two possibilities, one is that you are completely right and there are no valid reasons or two there are valid reasons but you are not open to them. You rejected the idea that youre not open so therefore the only other option is that youre completely right. The CDC list was used to cover multiple reasons that you would hear or that might be brought up in the thread. 

Listen to yourself, why do you say that? Let me make it simpler for ya (I won't give up on you just yet):

1. I don't deem any of your reasons valid

2. I'm not completely right (who has ever been?)

3. There might be valid reasons and I'm open to them, hence why I'm here.

4. Why do you want to limit my options to be either completely right or not open? Why can't you accept my position?

5. Cmon Biyi  Don't be silly. Why are you being silly? hehe

Edited May 5, 2021 by Mannyb

[Consept]

Just now, Mannyb said:

Listen to yourself, why do you say that? Let me make it simpler for ya (I won't give up on you just yet):

1. I don't deem any of your reasons valid

2. I'm not completely right (who has ever been?)

3. There might be valid reasons and I'm open to them, hence why I'm here.

4. After reading my 3 points above. Why do you want to limit my options to be either completely right or not open? Why can't you accept my position?

OK so what i hear you saying is you havent heard any reasons so far that you deem valid, but if you heard one you would consider it as valid, however you cant currently think of a reason that possibly could be valid. But you accept that youre not completely right. Does this sum it up?

[Mannyb]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

OK so what i hear you saying is you havent heard any reasons so far that you deem valid, but if you heard one you would consider it as valid, however you cant currently think of a reason that possibly could be valid. But you accept that youre not completely right. Does this sum it up?

Yes!!! You got it mate!