Daniel Schmachtenberger Start making sense for me in this one

[Rafael Thundercat]

I feel in this video I start to see yes that Daniel is touching on something, little fearmongering but interessting

the necessary Allingment of Intelligence and Wisdom 

 

[Rafael Thundercat]

The core question I think is around  1:31:10 ( He start with a IF Question

[Danioover9000]

@Rafael Thundercat

2 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

I feel in this video I start to see yes that Daniel is touching on something, little fearmongering but interessting

the necessary Allingment of Intelligence and Wisdom 

 

   It's  a nice video, everything in theory is nice. The main problem is that it's so complex, and stage yelow thinkers also suffer from inaction and armchair philosophy, or mental masturbation that I just feel like his or her argument just goes nowhere but chase it's own tail. I really wish at the end of talks Daniel Schmachtenberger has, or John Vervaeke, or Jamie Wheel, or Iain McGilchrist. offered some list of concrete solutions to bring down to planet earth what actually do with these highly advanced talks, not Just some 4D hyper dimension Neptuna spacetime bending wisdom talks LOL!🤣

Edited January 7 by Danioover9000

[Rafael Thundercat]

I dont take any video like this as absolute truth, my aim in watching is to Study Mind, Their minds and my mind, how I react with the things said, to I fear, do I lose my mind, whatever, for me this videos are just training the thougth process and I actually just like to understand how is the way they operate. Imagine you are interacting with a super inteligent AI able to generate narratives by itself, generating its own question or prompts and giving its own answers, Well is not exactly what is happening when you listen two people in a conversartion like this , inputs, outputs, inputs, outputs... some reflection... more outputs,,

[Rafael Thundercat]

For example, I was on a iternal Bet that you @Danioover9000 would be the very first one to comment. blinggg 1 point to my prediction skills. Not difficult since you a very predictable

[Danioover9000]

@Rafael Thundercat

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

I dont take any video like this as absolute truth, my aim in watching is to Study Mind, Their minds and my mind, how I react with the things said, to I fear, do I lose my mind, whatever, for me this videos are just training the thougth process and I actually just like to understand how is the way they operate. Imagine you are interacting with a super inteligent AI able to generate narratives by itself, generating its own question or prompts and giving its own answers, Well is not exactly what is happening when you listen two people in a conversartion like this , inputs, outputs, inputs, outputs... some reflection... more outputs,,

   Systems thinking or high philosophy videos are just porn to me if there's no viable or concrete list of solutions we could start implementing, I wish for example Daniel Schmachtenberger did this at the end of his talks, makes things seem more feasible and hopeful to do, not these UFO levels of ideas, might as well be mind porn.

[Danioover9000]

@Rafael Thundercat

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

For example, I was on a iternal Bet that you @Danioover9000 would be the very first one to comment. blinggg 1 point to my prediction skills. Not difficult since you a very predictable

   I edited my post earlier, sorry for the incomplete post.

   Also, *internal bet. Also, thank @Leo Gura and mods that they haven't hidden this thread because I was just browsing this forum. Count yourself lucky.😛

[Carl-Richard]

Liv Boeree is 🥰

[Rafael Thundercat]

8 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Rafael Thundercat

   I edited my post earlier, sorry for the incomplete post.

   Also, *internal bet. Also, thank @Leo Gura and mods that they haven't hidden this thread because I was just browsing this forum. Count yourself lucky.😛

Lol

[Rafael Thundercat]

@Carl-Richard true, try to check her face language while listening. I almost think that in some point she start getting excited or horny with the talk. Dont know, maybe projection from my side but I see she bitting her lips and other signs I normaly get when I am expressing inteligently with a girl. My assumption, for some women inteligence is sexy.

[Danioover9000]

@Rafael Thundercat

7 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

@Carl-Richard true, try to check her face language while listening. I almost think that in some point she start getting excited or horny with the talk. Dont know, maybe projection from my side but I see she bitting her lips and other signs I normaly get when I am expressing inteligently with a girl. My assumption, for some women inteligence is sexy.

   Hey, I'm the body language guy of Actualized.org, so I'm assuming this is directed at me, not at @Carl-Richard. Don't bug him too much because he recently is now a scientist/doctor or something.

   And yes, her feeling 'horny' or some attraction/stimulation from talking to someone who can match her intellect, it's possible. Maybe it's mental stimulation here, but I'd be careful to jump to a decisive conclusion from just body language alone because her background was a poker player, and they're trained somewhat to mask or fake expressions to a degree. Also facial expressions/micro expressions, and not 'face language'.😁

[destroyx6]

20 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Rafael Thundercat

   It's  a nice video, everything in theory is nice. The main problem is that it's so complex, and stage yelow thinkers also suffer from inaction and armchair philosophy, or mental masturbation that I just feel like his or her argument just goes nowhere but chase it's own tail. I really wish at the end of talks Daniel Schmachtenberger has, or John Vervaeke, or Jamie Wheel, or Iain McGilchrist. offered some list of concrete solutions to bring down to planet earth what actually do with these highly advanced talks, not Just some 4D hyper dimension Neptuna spacetime bending wisdom talks LOL!🤣

Very true; however, in the case of Daniel, simply bringing awareness to the magnitude of some of the world's challenges and offering insights on how people can change their relationship to the world is the beginning of something much larger than himself. He offers a psychological perspective and framework as to how we can start to navigate an infinitely complex world, but these people alone cannot offer concrete solutions that are applicable outside of this type of domain; only through their work and these talks can they inspire other people to shift their attention and focus on what actually matters. Garnering attention on these issues among enough people will lead to increased awareness and the potential for cognitive and behavioral change within the population. This is only when real change can begin.

Of course, the type of behavioral change that is needed will not happen anytime soon. Probably not even within most of our lifetimes, unfortunately.

[Rafael Thundercat]

@destroyx6 true, sometimes we have visionaries and they are not exactly the ones who will implement the change, they come just to be prophets of a new vision, and this ready take a lot energy, they bring the voice and others bring the hands, we cant be everything. 

I strangely was listening this song while writing these

https://open.spotify.com/intl-pt/track/1az81rJLzs4sRx0aFcweoo?si=986bec76e58f44f2

 

Edited January 7 by Rafael Thundercat

[Israfil]

On 06/01/2024 at 7:45 PM, Danioover9000 said:

   It's  a nice video, everything in theory is nice. The main problem is that it's so complex, and stage yelow thinkers also suffer from inaction and armchair philosophy, or mental masturbation that I just feel like his or her argument just goes nowhere but chase it's own tail. I really wish at the end of talks Daniel Schmachtenberger has, or John Vervaeke, or Jamie Wheel, or Iain McGilchrist. offered some list of concrete solutions to bring down to planet earth what actually do with these highly advanced talks, not Just some 4D hyper dimension Neptuna spacetime bending wisdom talks LOL!🤣

The problem is that it is a systemic issue. No one person will be able to create a comprehensive list of steps or actions to solve this completely.

I didn't give too much thought to this, but my intuition tells me it is completely tied to more people in the Yellow stage simply existing. We need enough system thinkers with enough voices to eventually coordinate them all to make a systemic change toward alignment. It goes from the way we raise children to the way we treat the elderly. It involves changing the entire incentive structure of the economy and how we produce things. It requires global coordination and new ways to include more cultures into consideration and promote their growth in consciousness too. I'd say the first work is the one he's doing, that is, propagating the intellectual understanding of the problem and, naturally, people that are up-to-par to understand it, will frame their life purpose around work that promotes that consciousness work that is desperately needed.

I, for example, want to promote that growth in consciousness in the realm of culture, music in particular. I hope to be successful enough to promote that growth since it is rare to find people who can think systemically. The job is not to coordinate these people, that's the second part of the job. The first part is actually to create system thinkers and I think that's what Daniel is focusing on. 

[Nilsi]

On 7.1.2024 at 4:07 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Liv Boeree is 🥰

W

I raise you Neri Oxman though, shes a real A+++:

 

[Danioover9000]

@Israfil

31 minutes ago, Israfil said:

The problem is that it is a systemic issue. No one person will be able to create a comprehensive list of steps or actions to solve this completely.

I didn't give too much thought to this, but my intuition tells me it is completely tied to more people in the Yellow stage simply existing. We need enough system thinkers with enough voices to eventually coordinate them all to make a systemic change toward alignment. It goes from the way we raise children to the way we treat the elderly. It involves changing the entire incentive structure of the economy and how we produce things. It requires global coordination and new ways to include more cultures into consideration and promote their growth in consciousness too. I'd say the first work is the one he's doing, that is, propagating the intellectual understanding of the problem and, naturally, people that are up-to-par to understand it, will frame their life purpose around work that promotes that consciousness work that is desperately needed.

I, for example, want to promote that growth in consciousness in the realm of culture, music in particular. I hope to be successful enough to promote that growth since it is rare to find people who can think systemically. The job is not to coordinate these people, that's the second part of the job. The first part is actually to create system thinkers and I think that's what Daniel is focusing on. 

   Let me clarify my position. The real issue is that most of Daniel Schmachtenberger's talks are too abstract and out there that most viewers and general public won't follow him in those levels. The real issue isn't that this is just a systemic issue, the real issue is his rhetoric and persuasion and convincing ability is low if he doesn't provide a short list of steps to make his abstractions concrete, to show some real world application and implementation of solutions rather than circle jerk and philosophy and sophistry talk about the problem/solution space. The real issue isn't that you're intuition is saying this is an exclusive stage yellow, but the real issue is that these problems have concrete solutions and problems, and talking too abstractly looses the audience in those abstractions.

   Arguably the deeper real issue is the great bystander effect that Daniel  Schmachtenberger and intellectuals like him have to overcome, and unfortunately he's so out there that as an argumentation, this lacks. His arguments lacks urgency and concrete examples, his arguments lacks  even in some concrete explanations of resolving some issues. Differing to that this needs 'global coordination' when globally there's this bystander effect of each nation/country for itself, is the real problem. The real issue is that Daniel Schmachtenberger is not persuasive enough, and people like Jamie Wheel, Iain McGilchrist, and John Vervaeke are not persuasive to shock the world enough from it's bystander effect it has for itself. Expecting to shock the world with boring abstraction and intellectualization isn't realistic at all. How can you persuade the world and global systems and other cultures, other economies to coordinate with each other from pure abstract philosophizing? 

Edited January 9 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

@Nilsi

19 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

W

I raise you Neri Oxman though, shes a real A+++:

 

   I will watch the whole video when I have time, but to ask you a few questions of her:

   Is she basically arguing for more novelty thinking for any given field?

   IMO, I feel like her arguments fall short as if she's just flexing and appealing to pathos and ethos and some logos as well. I think she's also biased to whatever her science interests are. Intuitively I feel like it's incomplete and simplifies creativity and actual production of things, IMO.

[Danioover9000]

@destroyx6

On 2024-01-07 at 8:13 PM, destroyx6 said:

Very true; however, in the case of Daniel, simply bringing awareness to the magnitude of some of the world's challenges and offering insights on how people can change their relationship to the world is the beginning of something much larger than himself. He offers a psychological perspective and framework as to how we can start to navigate an infinitely complex world, but these people alone cannot offer concrete solutions that are applicable outside of this type of domain; only through their work and these talks can they inspire other people to shift their attention and focus on what actually matters. Garnering attention on these issues among enough people will lead to increased awareness and the potential for cognitive and behavioral change within the population. This is only when real change can begin.

Of course, the type of behavioral change that is needed will not happen anytime soon. Probably not even within most of our lifetimes, unfortunately.

   Of curse, as the idiom goes: Rome is not built in one day.

   My specific issue of his talks is that he doesn't change his argumentation, sticks to same talking points, and is too abstract and philosophical for the general public. I think sophistry of this sort, lacking in concrete follow ups, negatively effects persuasion and charisma.

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Nilsi

   I will watch the whole video when I have time, but to ask you a few questions of her:

   Is she basically arguing for more novelty thinking for any given field?

   IMO, I feel like her arguments fall short as if she's just flexing and appealing to pathos and ethos and some logos as well. I think she's also biased to whatever her science interests are. Intuitively I feel like it's incomplete and simplifies creativity and actual production of things, IMO.

Shes an artist, shes not really arguing for anything. She was a professor at MIT though and is super smart and educated.

[Israfil]

18 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Israfil

   Let me clarify my position. The real issue is that most of Daniel Schmachtenberger's talks are too abstract and out there that most viewers and general public won't follow him in those levels. The real issue isn't that this is just a systemic issue, the real issue is his rhetoric and persuasion and convincing ability is low if he doesn't provide a short list of steps to make his abstractions concrete, to show some real world application and implementation of solutions rather than circle jerk and philosophy and sophistry talk about the problem/solution space. The real issue isn't that you're intuition is saying this is an exclusive stage yellow, but the real issue is that these problems have concrete solutions and problems, and talking too abstractly looses the audience in those abstractions.

   Arguably the deeper real issue is the great bystander effect that Daniel  Schmachtenberger and intellectuals like him have to overcome, and unfortunately he's so out there that as an argumentation, this lacks. His arguments lacks urgency and concrete examples, his arguments lacks  even in some concrete explanations of resolving some issues. Differing to that this needs 'global coordination' when globally there's this bystander effect of each nation/country for itself, is the real problem. The real issue is that Daniel Schmachtenberger is not persuasive enough, and people like Jamie Wheel, Iain McGilchrist, and John Vervaeke are not persuasive to shock the world enough from it's bystander effect it has for itself. Expecting to shock the world with boring abstraction and intellectualization isn't realistic at all. How can you persuade the world and global systems and other cultures, other economies to coordinate with each other from pure abstract philosophizing? 

This talk specifically is about the prisoner's dilemma and game theory, which are math theories. That's why it's abstract.

I saw a podcast of him that's more solution-defined. I think he enjoys the abstractions, but someone doesn't become that intelligent without knowing how to solve problems or advocate solutions. 

Your point still stands both for Daniel and anyone else. You I do reckon that conceptual understanding must be accompanied by practical application. I just hope you don't dismiss the value of educating people. Being able to convey complex concepts like this is the fundament to improve the quality of action of people in general.