zurew

Good question. I have no clue what the answer is, but I will leave you with a meta-move that you can use (in other domains as well) as an alternative to finding an answer to your current questions. The move is to try to make sense of the relevant concepts (in this case, "forgiveness," "understanding," and "maintaining boundaries") in such a way that you dont necessarily need to make compromises or make a choice between them. It might be the case, that there isn't any contradiction in understanding, forgiving someone, and also maintaining/reinforcing your boundaries. Because if that is possible, then you don't really need to find an answer to some of your questions — your adventure now is to try to make these concepts mutually inclusive.

Yep. And btw, the "don't take my words seriously" reply only happens when you corner him about something and he can't wiggle his way out of it. This is why I label these moves as plausible deniability moves and not serious, sincere, harm- and misunderstanding-reducing, preemptive moves.

@UnbornTao - look what Leo said about how to hold him accountable (related to his alien transformation claim): I guess your main error here was forgetting that we're indefinitely stuck in the "sit tight" period .

Yeah.

Absolutely owned. I'm quite certain that they are only awake and that they aren't AWAKE. (But even granting that they are AWAKE, they definitely aren't AWAKE) -credit goes to Bazooka

Few things: Im skeptical about such an ability, and anyone can claim to have it. Im pretty sure that if we were to ask Razard how he knows he has this ability and how he knows its accurate, he wouldnt have a satisfying answer. Im also pretty sure that he hasn't verified its accuracy using a relatively large sample size. (but I can be wrong). For instance: what do you do if you have two people who claim to have this ability , but they give contradictory answers about Leo's awakening? (For example @Razard86 - do you think Leo is more awake than you and that he is more awake than literally everyone in the Universe?) The other point is that even if I grant that you can determine who has what awakening, that alone still doesn't justify the claim that you are the most awake. That claim presupposes a specific norm by which different awakenings can be ranked and compared. (You could probably have two people with this ability who disagree about how different awakenings should be evaluated and ranked). Another issue is that, depending on how this ability works, there may be constraints on how many people you can evaluate or "tune into". For example, if evaluating someone requires consuming a certain amount of information about them beforehand, that requirement would necessarily limit the number of people you could assess. (You wouldn't be able to read or watch videos about every single person on Earth, let alone every being in the universe) --- The claim that "you shouldnt make definitive statements about other people's awakening" still stands, even if I grant that all of the above has been resolved. As long as this ability is fallible in any way, you shouldnt make definitive statements. But even if I grant, for a moment, that this ability is infallible, that you can actually assess all beings in the universe, and that you've identified the perfect and most accurate standard by which different levels of awakening can be properly ranked, that still wouldn't make asserting the claim fine. (At most, that would address only one small part of the epistemic critique. It would still leave unresolved epistemic issues such as the failure to heal people, the failure to transform into an alien on camera, and several other epistemic problems. [And that is before we even consider the non-epistemic critiques]). There isn't any trivial deduction from "I have this infallible ability, and I am the most awake being in the universe" to "therefore I should frequently assert that fact and use it to bully and or undermine other people." (unless he can provide a credible explanation for why this tactic or rhetoric is necessary, why it is more beneficial than detrimental to the forum's users, and why alternatives would be less effective)

You didnt explicitly say you are tier 2,but you implied it here (where you layed down who would be a good match for you). But in any case, I can grant that there are multiple metrics on which you can score higher than most 25 year old girls. (Although, again, depending on which metrics we use, we can achieve this for almost anyone) The error you make, in my opinion, is picking and emphasizing the metrics on which you might score higher than most 25-year-old women, then creating a relationship standard from that (that's difficult to satisfy based on those metrics) and equating that with some objective development (where development is just mostly defined by having your standards). The reason this is an issue is because if you think most of your relationship standards come from your level of development, then you are in a difficult position unless you believe that reaching a higher level of development will solve the problem. On the other hand, if you acknowledge that your relationship standards are largely shaped by many other factors (not just your level of development) - then you might leave room for questioning and changing some of those standards. If it turns out that your standards cant be changed, then you are in a fucked position -- especially if those standards prevent you from connecting deeply enough with other people. ( But again , that seems to be an issue for most people right now, and its largely related to the meaning crisis)

Depends on what kind of model you want to use for that and depends on how you define development. But on the other hand , if we are talking about why people should be interested in things - im not sure why people here would be interested in you using spiral dynamics and self diagnosing yourself as a tier 2 person (a lot of people on this forum do the same move and it is cringe and meaningless) or you defining "higher" development just simply based on the standard set that you have.

That doesnt respond to what I said. Again that issue is compatible with you having such a standard set that most people on the planet wont be able to satisfy. (but that isnt anything special, a lot of people will tell you the exact same story about them having big issues with connecting with other people and a lot of people also have such a standard set that most people wont be able to satisfy). And probably a good chunk of them also frame it as a "I am miles above most people" issue as well.

The reason why people attacked you about superiority is because you framed the problem as a "im suffering from my own success" issue and you also negatively framed people who engage in or are interested in activities and norms that you aren't interested in. You could have framed it as a "Look, my issue is that, given my standards, I have a very hard time finding friends and finding love." - but you didnt do that. Rather than focusing on changing your standards or adjusting your screening process so that you can find people who meet those standards, you framed yourself as a victim who is suffering because you believe you're miles above everyone else.

I think he is talking about this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/nonduality/comments/1mzkzfw/comment/nz412d8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

If there is an honest disagreement, you would expect people to actually engage with whats being said, rather than speculating about your motivations or about your conviction behind what you said. (because none of that is directly relevant to this topic and to the arguments - even if you can show that all of us are conceptually and emotionally confused - none of that shows that the arguments are false). If a person wants to imply a double bind like that, then that person should make that clear and explicate it in argument form (so that he/she wont be misinterpreted as a bad faith person who is desperately fishing for things to latch onto rather than substantively engaging with the overall case that you made). Or just lay down how that line of questioning is directly relevant to the topic and how that line of questioning can directly undermine the arguments that were given. And also make it clear before the questioning that you dont have any arguments yet and that you are fishing for one (depending on what answers will be given to your questions). People should make themselves vulnerable by being honest about their biases from the outset . The issue is that some people will retrospectively revise their claimed original position depending on whether their line of questioning succeeds, and then pretend that it had been their original position all along.

Thats fair, but I dont think that definition is informative. (Someone who doesnt understand what it means for event A to cause outcome B wont understand what it means for event A to produce outcome B). But I wont be able to provide an exhaustive account of what it means for a definition to be informative.

Not all definitions are circular in the sense Carl was pointing out. If the definiendum (the term that needs to be defined) is inside/part of the definiens (the group of words doing the defining), then thats a circular definition and its uninformative. The point is to provide such a definition for causation, where the definition doesnt include the word "causation" or "cause". And this is compatible with your claim about the overall structure of language (It may be the case that, once you analyze all the terms and concepts that you end up with a circular structure - but there we are talking about 2nd and higher order analysis, not just 1st order definitions)

Bazooka was right, when he made his parody (that post is so fucking good) I think Bazooka was just a really really ambitious guy there.

Yeah and just a quick reminder - the number 1 guy on epistemology failed to deliver on his claims and never really walked back or lowered his credence about being able to turn into an alien on camera and about him being able to heal people (Despite having tried both of those things, and the healing claim was seperate from his claims about what awakening can do to you) [1][2] He ends up stacking and betting everything on an incredibly poorly inferred unverifiable proposition. (on the proposition that he is the most awake) I want to emphasize the inferred part, because that goes against his epistemology about direct experience. His epistemology ends up running on propositional knowledge (which he consistently shits on, by the way ) and not on non-propositional direct experience. You can run through most of his claims using this method - "Leo, is this assertion an inference, or do you know it to be true from direct experience?" I would love to see Leo spell out the difference between what he takes to be a very ambitious guy and what he takes to be an ambitious narcissist. And then I would love to see Leo use that notion and demonstrate how his behavior (described in our detailed posts) doesnt match his "ambitious narcissist" notion. I want people to read these links and then tell us with a straight face that Leo is simply just a very ambitious guy. -- The constant use of hyperbole can be used in multiple different ways for your own advantage - one is what you pointed out, the other is defense. Its good for defense, because you can claim that you didnt really mean the problematic things that you explicitly said, because they were just hyperboles . (again the slimy frame game - where the ontological status of a particular thing can be suddenly and conveniently changed depending on what makes you look better in that specific cornering session) -- Take a look at what interaction I had with Leo here (particularly on that page). Notice the spineless , slimy shifts there and notice the cognition and character undermining rhetoric that he used against me . "I didnt claim that I cant be wrong" when I show him that he did claim that , then he changed his initial claim to "Okay, but just because I claimed that I cant be wrong about that, that doesnt necessarily mean that Im not wrong about it" - which is a seperate issue . (and this is all aside the fact again that he framed me as a hater and never walked it back even though I delivered on my claim with evidence) And then he ended up ulting on me by using a move that protects him from any possible future criticism: This is just a low tier move where he equivocates on what he is wrong about. The accusation was never that self deception is not endless or that he explicitly claimed somewhere that self-deception is not endless, the accusation was that he made a claim that there is at least one thing that he cant be wrong about (namely, about him being the most awake). If he seriously wants to imply that anyone who affirms the claim once that "self-deception is endless" can never be wrong about anything from that point on (because if they are wrong about something,then they end up being right about self-deception being endless) - then he can go ahead, but everyone knows that he doesnt take that to be the case and its obvious that it was just a desperate and slimy move on his part.

The tier 2 inference "Btw I did an objective 5 minute internet psych test that proved that im not a narcissist " The dismissive "Let me only focus on definitions and let me label all disagreers as inexperienced people and as internet trolls. Let me also not address literally any single fucking thing about my posts and about my behavior that were directly outlined in a structured way with a bunch of links". "let me ignore the fact that literally half of my moderators think that my behavior is problematic and let me continue engaging in the exact same dismissive, nonresponsive, and undermining behavior that I've been consistently exhibiting for the past decade or so. ". This is the easy, lazy, coward move. "Let me negatively frame and undermine the cognition and or the morals of all the disagreers so that I dont need to subsantively engage with literally anything". This move might work against a random youtuber who literally doesnt know anything about you and your work, but this wont work against your own moderators.

@Carl-Richard @Joshe @Natasha Tori Maru @Osaid Soo - this is what is supposed to be a thorough , high consciousness , tier 2 response to all the problems that were outlined in detail: https://www.actualized.org/insights/robert-greene-on-self-belief

Just to clarify - this was the debate proposition in that cluster fuck Destiny debate: "Subjectivist/marginalist value theory can explain everything that the LVT can explain and more" Jack argued that the LVT generates 11 distinct predictions (and this is supposed to be in the previously linked doc). He challenged Destiny to produce a single subjectivist or marginalist framework that can account for all 11 of those predictions. ( Jack qualified that various subjectivist models may be able to explain some of the predictions individually, but maintained that no single subjectivist model can successfully explain the entire set at once). So basically the claim isn't just an ideological preference based claim (Jack tried to laser focus only on what is derivable from LVT and tried to distance himself away from other Marxist claims). It supposed to be an inference to the best explanation move, where you try to show using various theoretical virtues (like explanatory power, parsimony,unity etc) why hypothesis/framework 1 wins over hypothesis/framework 2. Now to clarify again: im not in the position to evaluate whether Jack's claim is accurate . Im just giving this clarification so that you can make your own assessment targeting his main claim (if you think such an analysis would be worthwhile) Its perfectly fine if you dont care about addressing this specific claim and or if you give more weight to other theoretical virtues and norms.

Just to make sure im tracking - are you basically saying that you verify internal consistency first, and only then draw on your background knowledge of the world and the topic at hand?

This is that one specific paper/link that he references at the end of that debate. http://digamo.free.fr/moseley95b.pdf By that I think he just means that the theory makes predictions (and that it isn't just a just so story merely constructed to explain the facts on the table) I agree and just to be clear - im not here to defend LTV. I just thought it was interesting to see him destroy Destiny in that debate.

Hash it out with Jack Angstreich.

The only reason why I was saying to look up legal eu ai sites that are similar to yours, is because that could give an indication about the boundary around what is permissible and what isn't . (but the issue is that there is no easy way to check which website is legal and which isn't and basically it gets you back to the issue about how the laws should be interpreted and which set of laws are relevant - so its basically a trash advice in practice). Given my non-professional layman opinion, I think you should be good with the strat that you outlined. There are a few more things that I would add to your safeguard strat (you can add them if you want). When it comes to the registration , you shouldnt allow people to use temporary emails [1,2,3 - and there is a lot more] and temporary mobile numbers[1,2,3]. (One easy way to filter out temp-mail sites is to only permit trusted email providers [by having a list of trusted email providers]) When it comes to the tempnumbers , you can for instance - run a bot once a month or once a week that collects all the tempnumbers from the previously mentioned sites (and then each time the bot runs, it can append any newly discovered numbers to your existing list).

Yeah, I was asking for that (sorry for the ill- defined question) Interesting. In any case, im looking forward to seeing your future posts.

Yeah. Also - It shouldnt matter how the results were produced or what produced the results. (Similar weaponizing risks apply regardless of whether AI is used for the evaluation or for the meta-analysis). Btw, ironically Actualized.org is a good example where people sometimes weapoinze some of the psych tests against other users. (It was more frequent in the past and thats not to say that actualized.org is to be blamed for that, but its an example for how the weaponization can manifest) So going with the assumption that similar GDPR laws apply to non-AI personality sites - it might be useful to check a couple of legal EU non-AI psychology/personality test sites and it might be useful to email them (if you feel that it is necessary or if you think that it could meaningfully change your current strat).