Ulax

@Leo Gura Fun

@Nilsi Thanks

Hey all, I would like help understanding potential life purpose's surrounding systems thinking. I'm really interested in learning deeply about systems theory and pursuing a life purpose surrounding that. However, I want more understanding of the options that are available. If there is a book on the book list, I would like you to recommend that too. For anonymity purposes re the book list, feel free to just say something lik, 'its the third book in the systems theory section'. Thanks in advance.

@Arthogaan Do you think he would be open to a psychotherapy?

@julienw Would you like me to give a recommendation regarding how to make sense of Jones's behaviour?

@PretentiousHuman I'd say I do it somewhat regularly. I'd also say there's a fair amount of variety in terms of how often I do it for during different periods of my life. Sometimes 2 hours a day, sometimes 10 minutes, sometimes none. I want to be more consistent, but I also don't trust that meditation is always an effective thing to do.

@Arthogaan Do you think your dad sees himself as being someone who is effectiveness at achieving goals they set themselves?

@Carl-Richard My understanding is that a person with PTSD has chronically unmet basics needs, i.e. for safety. And, much more readily interpret everyday events as threatening the meeting of basic needs, i.e. safety. So, the meeting of basic needs like safety becomes a major part of one's life, consciously or unconsciously. So, when Peterson is contemplating on his understanding of the world, and, especially when debating, I imagine he is consistently trying to meet basic needs, i.e. safety. So, when he is engaging with view he currently disagrees with, I think he is repeatedly trying to meet his need for safety in his responses. I could imagine that entertaining the idea that his worldview is significantly mistaken would cause his need for safety to be unmet. For example, part of his unconscious strategy for meeting his need for safety may be to maintain the belief that he has a high level understanding of the world. So, I think Peterson would need to meet his basic needs, alternatively to his current strategy. For example, via unconsciously internalising that he isn't under a significant threat of harm during everyday situations. And then he would be able to contemplate and debate issues from a more open place. Hence, to my mind, Peterson would be open enough to the change that is inevitable with spiral development.

Tomorrow morning the sun will rise

Do you feeling a longing to return to that state of consciousness?

Exciting dude! I hope Destiny can inspire Jordan to be a bit more neutral during his debates. I think there could be a lot of insights. I think Peterson could feel more secure in exploring his higher consciousness views, if, as i expect, Destiny doesn't demonise Peterson's stage blue talking points. i think Peterson could really do some cool yellow stuff if he just became more emotionally stable and construct aware. Thing is, to my understanding, he has pretty serious PTSD, which is going to really effect his ability to become emotionally stable enough to become neutral enough to move up the spiral. @Max_V Do you expect the debate will go smoothly between the two of them?

@Rasheed Hey dude, I'd recommend thinking more about how many approaches you do, and the time in between each approach. I think its great to start off with a warm up, i.e. ask 3 people for directions. Then approach 5 girls, with only a minute between each interaction. That way you ease yourself into it, making it more likely you'll stick to it. And then you build state quickly by minimising time between interactions. Also, a thing I liked to do was to find something funny from each interaction after it. My period during game I really enjoyed going out because it was a tonne of fun. Even tho I was often insecure and nervous!

Do you blame the flower for not growing? Or do you try and find out why the flower doesn't grow? You can everyone and every country as being a flower. The 'not growing' bit refers to people's behaviour. In this context, its the following. Essentially do you blame russia for acting as it does? Or do you try and find out why russia acts as it does? In the above sentence, you can swap in any person or country for russia. Make sense to you?

Maybe a need for freedom and a need for significance clashing

@rnd It doesn't strike me as anywhere near systemic thinking. Do you blame the flower for not growing? Or do you try and find out why the flower doesn't grow?

Thanks for your reply. Regarding how to calm my mind, I like noting meditation

@Jacob Morres Imo, it just threatens your survival. What survival need are you meeting by claiming they need respect and manners in the way you do above?

@Tyler Durden I reckon that he's either lying or suffering from severe dissociation when in solitary

Because metaphysics and epistemology is full of politics. These fields exist because of survival needs. People will co-opt anything to meet their survival needs. Metaphysics and epistemology are no different. I'd recommend pondering on the following questions, 'Does the idea of foundationalism help the left or the right's agenda more?'. 'Does the idea that human's have free will help the left or the right's agenda more?'. If your familiar with spiral dynamics, I'd recommend you analyse those questions using green and orange, rather than left and right.

@StarStruck Thanks for your reply. I'm also curious to know where you'd place yourself on the spiral.

@Carl-Richard Hi again, I'd be grateful to hear your perspective once more. Would i be right in thinking that sociology often doesn't take into account that they are only dealing with a sub system which is a part of a larger system? Hence, they are looking for win-win solutions, rather than win-win-win solutions?

The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation

@StarStruck Would you be willing to say what, you believe, were your major developments re professional help and trauma healing?

I'd recommend looking at it through a lens of needs. We all have universal needs, i.e. need for food, need for significance. And meeting needs drives everything anything any us will ever do. This is all how ego works. Attraction occurs purely because certain needs are met. It doesn't make sense to me that women are attracted to men with resources and positions of power. Those may be a strategy women tend to unconsciously choose to meet the needs that attraction corresponds to. No one needs positions of power or resources, instead people need things like significance, safety, security, intimacy etc. By what you've said of Buss, it seems to me like he has conflated a common need meeting strategy with an actual need. So, its not that science disagrees with pickup, instead its that Buss has made an arbitrary interpretation of the data. Here's an analogy of what Buss has done and its effect on you. Its like Buss has seen data which says that a certain community only eat soup. He's then said, 'People from this community want soup'. No! What they actually want is to meet their need for food. If this community was given another type of food, assuming no other need got in the way, they would willingly eat this other type of food to meet their need. Because eating soup was only a strategy for meeting their need, not the need itself. So being with a man in a position of power might be a strategy that many women will unconsciously determine meets certain needs effectively. However, if there exists another strategy that women unconsciously determines meets certain needs effectively, she will choose that one. So, by doing pickup you are just learning a strategy that women unconsciously determine meets certain needs effectively. It just that strategy is different to the power and resource strategy. Except, its exactly the same because its still only about whether women unconsciously determine that certain needs will be met!

@StarStruck Bruh, love these analogies