Joshe

Yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong with camp 1 either. I think your position is pretty good, and I appreciate the good-faith interaction, which is hard to come by around here. Some have assumed the reason why a few of us care about this whole toxic Leo thing is because there was some negative interpersonal issue we experienced. There were 4 or 5 times Leo insulted me and put me down when I was just trying to have a conversation, and of course no one is gonna like that, but I'm not a child who holds grudges because I have a Leo wound, lol. I can give you a very rough sketch of why I'm in camp 3. I care about this topic for the same reason I want people to see how Christianity/religion is toxic. For the same reason I want people to see what Trump is. For the same reason I want people to see that buying an ATV for their 4 year old is dangerous. For the same reason I care that old people swerving all over the road need to have their licenses taken away before they wipe out an entire family. For some, they might look at a parent buying their 4 year old an ATV and think it's cute and the kid is going to have so much fun. But I look at it and recall that article I read that said ATVs are one of the leading causes of child deaths, and I can feel the weight of those consequences in the abstract. For me, the consequences are attached to suffering, which is felt to some degree. That's just how I am. I'm aware that me trying to make others see what I see is selfish, but I don't care. I want more clarity, less deception, less toxicity - a better world. So when I see some toxic idea or thing proliferating, I want others to see it too. This is so foreign to most people that when I express myself, they assume things like I'm trying to push my views on them(probably guilty here), I'm trying to appear intelligent or some other ego agenda, I'm worrying too much, and all sorts of other shit that just isn't true. I want reality to be the best that it can be and I know that happens by seeing clearly and not letting toxic shit proliferate. That's one way a person might wind up in camp 3.

This place is a shit show. Good luck with it. My parting hot take: Natasha lies through her teeth and is a manipulative sadist.

You're being weird man. Relax the body.

Ah, my bad.

The dataset we have on Leo is richer than the dataset we have on Trump. I know more about Leo's psychology than I do about Trumps, even though I've paid way more attention to Trump. Trump never put out hundreds of hours of monologue and never engaged in public conversations at length, which is where the real data is. Also, if after 65k posts and hundreds of hours or videos you still can't be sure who someone is, that implies they're intentionally keeping you from seeing the real them. If you don't know the real Leo by now, maybe that's your sign.

Bro, how tf can you say my position is incoherent if you don't even understand it? What you think are incongruencies are just gaps in your own understanding.

Notice I didn't have a tendency to diminish your intelligence on this topic even though I had to explain to you that narcissism isn't a conscious strategy, explain to you that it presents differently and in more sophisticated ways as intelligence scales, that perceptive narcissists can easily avoid detection, and that impulse control can't override it. You demonstrated a surface-level understanding at best. Again, just because you can't see how it's possible to arrive somewhere, doesn't mean it's not possible.

@Elliott Just to clarify, when I use "overt narcissism", I don't mean it's always visible. What I mean is that it's there and his behavioral patterns spell it out clearly. If you don't bother to see the patterns, then it won't be obvious to you. If you look objectively, and if you have a mediocre understanding of psychology, and if you know how to put 2 and 2 together, it seems to me you should see it clearly. Maybe that's a bar too high for some, IDK, but to me, it's so obviously true it feels weird to even explain that it is. I feel like you're looking at narcissism like it generally presents the same way without much variation. What do you think narcissism looks like in an intelligent person? Take 10 different narcs, each with a different level of intelligence. They'll all have different tactics. The more sophisticated ones will have far more advanced tactics than your run-of-the-mill crude narcissist, obviously. I've already explained what I think is the likely explanation for why this is allowed. Just because you can't know if someone you've watched for 10 years over the internet is a narc, doesn't mean others can't. The same way you know that Trump is a narc is the same way I know Leo is a narc.

No problem at all! The part where I mentioned he asked God why he was a narc, that's not a thing in my model of Leo. I was just highlighting it to show there have at least been moments of recognition. I don't know to what extent he recognizes it and I don't have any real data aside from that one admission. It would be interested to dive into this though because he publicly states that he's not a narc. So that would be interesting to explore. I intuit he knows it and realizes there's nothing he can do about it, and he knows that it's not something he can publicly own up to. "Yeah, I'm a narc" from the a guy who teaches consciousness and ego transcendence doesn't go over well. Also, when I say Leo is aware of it, I don't mean he's fully aware of it. I mean that he knows it's there. If I had to guess, he probably hasn't dissected it very much. But it's possible he has dissected it and is just something he lives with. Narcissism is not a selected conscious strategy. It's an operative one outside one's control. It would be like recognizing you're an introvert and not being able to do anything about it. You know you're an introvert, and you can't change it. That's what it is like to be a perceptive narcissist. It's just who and how you are and you live with it and don't experience it as a bad thing because it's what rewards you. It's native. He's not consciously seeking validation or superiority. He's not intentionally alienating people. The seeking is unconscious but the expression is granted. When a structure is that deep in you, it operates without you. When Leo's narcissism slips, it's not intentional, it's reactive. He NEEDS to elevate himself and the only way to do it is by putting someone else down. This is the main thing hiding behind his constant bashing of scientists. They're in his domain of "exploring reality" and they claim to be intellectually sophisticated, and that's Leo's turf. Regarding why the overt narcissism doesn't destroy the supply: because Leo is intelligent enough to say things like "look, when I tell you I'm the most advanced, I'm just telling you what I've observed and found to be true, it has nothing to do with any ego drive, that's absurd. You guys take me for a fool." That and several other tactics are used to give plausible deniability. And it works because almost everyone here respects and trusts Leo as an intelligent thought leader. And yes, putting this information out makes it so he can adapt. But here's the thing: he can dial it down but he won't be able to stop, because it's his nature. He's not going to starve himself of that reward indefinitely. Hopefully that clears it up, but lmk.

Anyway, I'm not liking having to continue to put Leo down to prove points, so I'm out for now.

@Elliott Also, notice a non-narcissist would never even ask the question. It would never occur to me to ask God that. Only a narc would ask it. lol

Not typically. But perceptive narcissists do. And they'd be much more likely to if they were being intimate with God.

A large part of his self-image is that he doesn't get bothered and isn't affected by "petty human bullshit". Because, he's "above" all that. He's so above it, it doesn't even register to him, or so he portrays and wishes. Being affected by some fools on a forum running their mouths about him is beneath him. It's commonly thought that he allows it to stave off cult accusations or that he's lenient, but the real reason is to project the self-image of being above the petty human bullshit. Duh!

Maybe y'all don't remember when Leo was having his conversations with God, Neale Walsch style. He shared his conversations. He asked God "Why am I a narcissist?" and God responded "Because you are". Anyone else remember this? I mean, this has had no bearing on my position, but when Leo was channelling God, this is one the questions he was curious about.

Typically, no. But Leo isn't the typical narcissist, obviously.

Interesting. Never heard of the Peter principle before. But no, I've never had a superior tell me he's superior to me intellectually, even if he was. Yes, narcissism emerges to solve insecurity, and that's the sad part. The hurt child deserves empathy. We can hold compassion for how/why it started and still recognize what it became. It's hard to really hate anyone when you see this. But I still have a responsibility to honor reality by acknowledging what is in front of me.

I haven't explained it, and I don't really think I can. By "all" I meant all the contexts that we have access to, which for me has been sufficient to arrive at my position. I understand it doesn't feel sufficient for most, and I wouldn't be able to convince anyone of my read because the only way is to arrive at it yourself. Maybe the best I can do is ask: what kind of person would wear an overt narcissistic mask consistently for over a decade as a business strategy? Also, it most certainly does exist in his videos, just more sparse and often subtle. He even has a weird face that he makes right after he makes a point about his highness.

The total consistency across all contexts for over ten years is exactly what distinguishes architecture from performance.

If you need a clinical authorization to call a consistent decade long pattern of self-elevation, belittling, hierarchy assertion, and the lot what it is, you got some kinda glitch in your brain bucket. The fact that you want to make sure you put a precise verbal language symbol borrowed from someone else on what appears in reality is its own problem. Who gives a shit about a clinical diagnosis? You don't need a clinical definition to observe and track reality. Just like the whole discussion about "does AO fit the definition of a cult?" Why is that so important? I don't get the relentless desire to attach a verbal symbol to a structure in reality. The structures exist without words folks. Seeing them is more important than the labels you attach to them. Leo belittles people and tells them they're fools, maintains a permanent hierarchy, claims to be the most sophisticated thinker alive, warns people not to outgrow him. These are persistent, observable facts that exist regardless what label you attach. Call it narcissism, call it ego structure, call it persistent hierarchical self-elevation syndrome, call it Bob. lol. The reality doesn't change. Just my 2

Sorry, you're right. "demand" wasn't the right word. I took it as you were implying my position requires clinical backing to hold it as confidently as I do. I don't agree with that. You're entitled to that position and I didn't take personal issue with it, but it was cumulative in my overall interpretation of our engagement. I literally showed up with a settled conclusion I'm confident in. We were discussing it. And in that discussion with me, you drop the opinion that for those with settled conclusions, you think their engagement is bad-faith or point-scoring. Is that not correct? Maybe you didn't intend to direct it at me, but surely you can own that it's the most logical interpretation? Miscommunication/interpretation on both our parts. When you said: That's YOUR purpose, not mine. I read your statement as "awareness is the first step" for LEO. But I can never tell with you because you don't make things explicit. That's why I said: Because my purpose had nothing to do with illuminating patterns such that awareness of them could lead to some sort of solution for Leo. I no longer care about that. My intent was what I said it was. But anyway, my bad. Miscommunication on both our parts.

At the risk of winding up where Zurew warned about, the difference is arrogance doesn't need to reference anyone else. Arrogance can exist without a social hierarchy and without an audience, narcissism can't. For a narcissist, the the hierarchy IS the elevation mechanism. No hierarchy, no elevation. An arrogant person isn't really all that toxic since their elevation doesn't necessarily depend on the lowering of someone else. When your strategy for elevation requires there be someone below you to serve as proof that you're amazing, that has a cost and a toxic effect on everyone around you. If all Leo did was say he was the best thinker or the best X, that would be fine IMO, even if childish and untrue. But he doesn't say "I'm a very, very, very skilled thinker". He says "I'm a better thinker than you and everyone else". He warns his followers to not think they can outgrow him. That's the hierarchy asserting itself, and it's ALL THE TIME. The structure is out in the open. When this exists in a teacher with a community, it creates cult dynamics. Because if the teacher is regularly elevating themselves at the expense of their students, the students only have a few paths of relation to the teacher. 1) Ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist or pretend you're just here for the good stuff and not bothered by the base ego behavior. 2) bow down, defer, surrender autonomy, become a sycophant, or whatever other strategy that lets you exist harmoniously with teacher and community. 3) Point to the behavior in hopes something will change. It's more complicated than this but this is my current working model, compressed. Here's the rule: When arrogance consistently presents with a hierarchy, you're looking at narcissism. When the pattern is stable for a decade, you're looking at architecture, which is extremely difficult to change, if not impossible. I feel like if the folks in camp 3 saw this clearly, they'd come to terms with the reality faster and either accept it or move on. Calling/hoping for a change of architecture isn't going to happen, even if you successfully muzzle it. People saying things like "he's gotten better" makes me laugh. No, he's only dialed the rhetoric down, he still thinks everyone is fools and beneath him.

I thought so too, until you twice-implied I was acting in bad faith. Your first response pointed to what you thought seemed like contradictions in my position. That's fine. Your second response demanded clinical credentials for my observation to be valid. Also fine, even if absurd. Your third response accused me of bad faith drama and point-scoring. Not fine. Your 4th post implied my intent wasn't what it was. Also not fine. It started to seem like you weren't engaging in good-faith. So yeah, when someone's engagement feels like it's oriented around making you wrong rather than understanding what you're saying, it changes how you respond to them.

lol, come on bruh. Don't do dis. I'm not proposing that Leo is a narcissist. I'm telling you flat out that that is the case and is largely the source of the cult accusations. The cult accusations are downstream of his narcissism. But I'm not here to argue with you or anyone else on this. If you go back and read my first post with fresh eyes, see if you can discern my intent since I've now spelled it out for you. It was mostly addressed to Zurew because I can relate to his animosity. And I thought that the main reason he puts this much energy and effort into shining a light on these things is because he's hopeful for this place and would like to see it be better. I wanted to share my perspective and let him and others know that to hold out hope doesn't make sense because it's structural and nothing Leo can likely fix. He'll be the same narcissist he's always been 5 years from now. Will the same people still be here going on about this issue? Maybe. So, I thought I'd offer what I think is a useful and accurate perspective. I'm not like you or whoever you're modeling that cares about scoring points or stirring shit up. See if you can see how the entire point of my initial message communicates my stated intent. Anyway, I've shared my thoughts, take it easy. Good night hot mama

Not everything is about Leo and not everyone is an egotist. My intention was to let the few who can see understand that nothing Leo does will be good enough for them to set aside their animosity because they can't unsee what they've seen, and that holding out hope for an extreme narcissist to rehabilitate is naive, thus my explanation. "Inference and assumptions" as you like to say. Carry on.