Joshe

I'm not a fan of light vs dark. That is going on but if you've ever known an evil/dark person and saw they cannot help it, then you realize no one can help it and that it's no one's fault. You can try to trace it back to their parents but then you have to trace it back to their grandparents, on and on and on. It can't be traced back. No one is to blame. Sufficient contemplation on this point helped me a good bit.

I'd call it just regular chess, although I think a better analogy is poker. In poker, when your opponent realizes that you're aware of their tactics, they adapt and patch the exploit, necessitating the development of new exploits. Over time, the deceptions become increasingly sophisticated. Now, apply this dynamic to society and those who seek to exploit/manipulate it. Marketers do their tricks and when those tricks become well-known—like many have become in recent years, thanks to the internet—marketers have to devise even trickier tactics. Just as in poker, once these new exploits are identified, they prompt an even deeper layer of deception. If you want to manipulate society, you have to update your methods. Lex Fridman comes to mind. haha I'm pretty sure Kamala's campaign is also engaging in similar trickery, which seems necessary. The whole point of every campaign is influence, which doesn't work if people know they're being manipulated, so the influence has to be hidden. But no doubt, the right is far less integrous in their pursuit of influence.

I think I figured out the deal with this Haitian cat stuff. I knew it was a part of their strategy but I couldn’t figure out why they would do something so stupid. Turns out, it might not be so stupid. Springfield actually is overburdened by Haitian immigrants. The cats are irrelevant. What they wanted was to get everybody to look at the ridiculousness of the claims so the press would take cameras into Springfield and show the American people a real-world example of what danger is coming their way if Kamala wins. Has nothing to do with animals. They played it well.

Betting markets have Kamala up 5 points within 22 hours after debate. I feel like that's significant.

Ahh yes, I didn't think about that. Also, I think some of it is "I'm a careful thinker... I don't just make decisions for no reason".

This isn't just the ideological right either. Have you seen random people in the swing states being asked how the debate shaped their view? It's pathetic that they answer with things like "I think Kamala won but she needs to earn my vote". 😂 WHAT? The fact that half the country is looking at Kamala and Trump and waiting on Kamala to earn their vote is so... something.

"How" meaning? I wonder if it's more "what", than "how". The what directs the how. You think like(how) this because of what? The what seems more fundamental, but maybe I'm just mental! To me, it seems the cause is a change in values. Endlessly stuffing random knowledge and non-stop contemplation into your psyche seems to be let go at a certain point, in favor of something else.

haha, I can tell!

@Keryo Koffa you didn't have to do much work here 😂

Something tells me they knew what they were doing. I assume they were tracking public sentiment and were well aware of perceptions that sprang from the last debate and they planned accordingly. They did a very nice job! 😂

1. Output more important than attributes. Good is irrelevant if the output is bad. If bad produces overall good, which it doesn't tend to, let's go! 2. My chosen paradigm dispenses with useless concepts 3. One has to play a game. 4. Don't go there! 😂 5. I like that! Here's another: Always fascinated by your analysis!

I think ABC was biased but that doesn't necessarily mean their bias made things unfair. If ABC feels it's their responsibility to not be a conduit of blatant, verifiable propaganda and misinformation, that's their prerogative and IMO, it was the responsible thing to do. Had Harris attempted to spread overt falsehoods, I do believe they would have fact checked her as well. Did you notice they let Trump get away with lots of lies but only pushed back on the most blatant ones? If you cross a certain threshold of deception, you get called out... so it seems to me.

Have you ever watched people slowly accept a new idea, which is usually how new ideas are accepted? It doesn’t happen in an instant. It takes around 20 or so times of hearing a Spotify ad before it really starts to work on you. What are normies doing right now? They’re not making up their minds. They’re being influenced. Little by little. It’s near impossible for this debate to not boost Kamala because her campaign is objectively on point. No need to wait on a poll.

The poll ain’t gonna answer how normies were swayed. The psychological impact is subtle and cannot be measured by their polls. This was undoubtedly in Kamala’s favor.

True, but I’ll take my own sentiment analysis over some poll. The poll is useful data, so it gets included, but you can use google trends, track social media influencers, msm, cope levels, etc. all sorts of stuff you can do to get data to inform your opinion. @Hardkill 😂😂😂 damn man, you cracked me up with the Meg Kelly thing.

@Shodburrito I went through similar feelings. I wanted others to come along with me in my development but they weren’t interested and it bothered me deeply, and even more so because I thought they needed my advice to end their suffering and to solve their problems, but no one cared about solving the problems. They just wanted instant gratification and not to have to think too much. Why did that anger me and fill me with resentment and cynicism? I told myself it was because I cared about them and it hurt me to see them suffer… and that was true, but later I found another reason: I was all alone on the path. No one would come into my beautiful world and be with me there. I was heart-broken and couldn’t admit it. I wasn’t willing to live in their shitty worlds and they didn’t want anything to do with mine and so that’s just the way it was. But trust me, you should keep on your radar that you will some day need to surrender these resentments. If you want to be healthy, there is no other way. You will have to forgive them and yourself. You might not be ready now, but just keep it in your mind that one day, this will need to be done. I remember the day I saw what an asshole I had been my whole life. I never cried so hard in my life and I literally felt a stream of shit beaming out of my chest. Years of resentment I guess. It felt really good.

My purpose is not to shit on Musk. It's to point out what seems like epistemic error or just simple bias/inertia/refusal to re-assess. People ask the yellows if Musk belongs in the yellow cat and their answer should be "no", because that's accurate, but because prior sense-making said "yes", there is resistance to the truth. It's possible my understanding of SD is flawed because I didn't study it deep. But like I said, if Musk is yellow, I'm coral and you're iridescent. Congrats! Many things are serious but I only need to invoke their seriousness if recognizing it would be beneficial. The seriousness things deserve depends upon what you're doing. From my POV, you don't just have these deep insights into the nature of the mind and then forget them. They never go away, or at least, they didn't for me, so I don't have to try to take it seriously. It's a background process that can't not be ran. Reality itself is the reminder. It would be like me reciting "the sky is blue" so I never forget it. Of course I'd be less likely to make an error if I were to hyper-fixate the way you like, but time / energy / life are finite, so I'd rather move faster and trust myself to self-correct as needed rather than go slow.

Sadhguru offers a relevant parable in one of his books: https://recorder.google.com/8354bf2d-236b-4562-b3dd-0b0d12a5f700

Yes, and the sky is blue. How might one get around that? 🤔 When you recognize it, you can correct it, hence, self-correct, hence, it's possible to accurately assess in spite of biases. Just a quick and effective heuristic: If someone has a long-standing pattern of various types of failure to self-correct, it's highly suggestive they're simply not "advanced". (Please do not point to how bias can undermine this heuristic. I've already dealt with that) Patterns indicate things. If all you do with your patterns is say "maybe", I recommend trying to make use of them. It's the only way to get good at discernment. Go be wrong but try like hell not to be. Refine and self-correct! Not tricky. Just takes some courage and getting used to. Couple of notes: Bias seems to be most tricky in the choosing of criteria, metrics, and methodologies, so look there if you want to obliterate your biases. Logical fallacies/inconsistencies are often easier to spot. Don't be afraid to be wrong. Welcome it. It's ok to not be a big-brained genius. I'm sure not. (see my humble brag there? I'm trying to be more like Lex. I love you all!) If people have sufficient courage, then objective, unbiased thinking is a totally achievable goal. IMO, it shouldn't be overly idealized and placed on a pedestal. It should just be advocated for. That would allow peeps to reach it faster. Food for thought. I love you all!

The only metric I care about is who was "most effective" at changing public opinion in their favor. Using this metric, I bet she might be in the running for the best presidential debate of all time.

Not sure what OP means but my interpretation is a never-ending string of connections of which can be observed, analyzed, mined for insights, and manipulated, forever. Do this for long enough and it gets old.

Once this was exhausted for me and the novelty fell away, which took a couple decades, there was the question of "why?" Why was I doing all this understanding? I think the answers to that question is what leads to the surrender of all the thinking. You can miss it if you're not paying attention. Maybe you saw the games you were playing or the reasons why you were doing it and that led to some surrender. I hesitate to use SD labels because I don't like to imply superiority. If you're turquoise, you're better off not adopting the label, IMO. @Lila Great explanation!

My stage blue mother is also capable of self-correction. I always thought a self-corrective mechanism was a defining feature of yellow cognition, not merely something it is capable of from time to time.

Look beyond "tonight". By the end of this week, will there be a victor? C'mon yellow. What's gonna happen with this dynamic system? Will there be equal damage? Will the there be no damage? How will the clips and sound bites impact public opinion? What clips and soundbites will be available? How much money will the Harris campaign use to shove those sound bites into the eyes and ears of Americans? How many more questions can I pull out of my ass? Lots, but no need. You don't need 100% accurate information. The Harris campaign has executed very well and capitalized on every opportunity thus far. Do you think they might capitalize on this situation too? Bet your ass they will. Also, it was no mistake Taylor Swift executed after the victory. Put it all together man! Mark these words: By the end of this week, honest sense-makers will know Kamala was the victor of this debate.