zurew

Joey Diaz is the best

This is a good idea, this way he could make his videos more relatable and they would be even more informative. The only thing i would add, is that don't only focus on the objections, but he could collect normal questions too. Asking questions before a video about a particular topic is released is a win-win. Its a win for us, because we get most of our questions answered, and its a win for Leo, because he can get his message and thoughts more well across. This way he doesn't have to come up with objections and questions on his own.

If i understand it correctly, if there is a video you like, you want to know in which playlists you could find that particular video. If thats what you are looking for, then here is what you can do: Copy and paste this string into google: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:" " ---> here the only thing you need to do, is to write that particular videos exact title between the quotation marks So for example, if you wanted to see in what playlist you could find the video titled: What Is Death? - How Immortality Works then your google string should look like this: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:"What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" <---- This search result will show all the video playlists (not just playlists that was made by Leo) that contain the video titled: "What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" . If you only want to focus on actualized.org and you don't care about other creator playlists, then you could add this to your string: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:"What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" intext:"channel name" so in practice it would look like this: site:https://www.youtube.com/ inurl:playlist intext:"What Is Death? - How Immortality Works" intext:"actualized.org" <----- this search result will mostly show actualized.org playlists (playlists created by Leo) that contain the video titled "What Is Death? - How Immortality Works"

Yeah, i can resonate with this 100%. I think its almost always harder to motivate yourself to go back to the roots, rather than trying to go forward on the foundation you already have.

True. The same knowledge could be taught and talked about in a different light, based on who is doing the teaching/talking. Also, you can arrive at the same conclusion starting from a different position than others, so because of that, there will be some people who can resonate with you more, because they can relate to your story and life experiences more. And not just that they can relate to your story more, but they can see what steps you had to take in order to reach the goal you wanted to reach. So there could be a thousand different paths that can lead to the same conclusion, and different paths can give different lessons and guidances to different people. I also agree with @Carl-Richard that we have to integrate our shadows. On this forum, most of us haven't really integrated the healthy aspects of stage red and stage orange enough, especially the younger audience (including me). I think some questions could be asked to test how much we have integrated the healthy aspects of stage red and orange: Do you have financial problems? Do you know what you are good at ? Do you know how you could provide massive value? Do you consider yourself successful (whatever success means to you) Do you have the capability to stand up for yourself and for your values? Do you have a job/business that you are passionate about / that you like Do you have a hard time expressing yourself authentically? Do you have the capability to take a leading role if its necessary / if its needed? Do you have a strong charisma? Do you have a healthy self esteem? Do you have your relationship goals met? Do you have a good sex life? How much can you sacrifice to reach your desires/goals? Can you consciously motivate yourself? Can you set tangible goals? Do you have a plan where your life is going or you are just living aimlessly in life? Do you have the capability to be highly rational if its needed / if its necessary?

I think if they would have that much money, they would know exactly where to put it, and they wouldn't sit on that money, but i might be wrong. Yeah, i don't want to get caught up on debating this subject either. We just disagree, but thats fine. I won't push you, and i also don't intend to derail this thread.

I see, but i could imagine a tier 2 person with a conscious business earning a lot of money. Not because that business would be aimed for to earn a fuckton, but because helping people and providing a ton of value comes back at some point, although not always. But its easy to see why a conscious business couldn't thrive as much as a stage orange one. The whole economy is best suited for stage orange companies.

Yeah you might be able to earn fuckton of money being a tier 2 person , but even those people are spending that money consciously, i assume.

I agree with this, but i think that shadow don't have to be there to not engage in that luxurious lifestyle. When you have a hierarchy of values, you will spend your resources based on that hierarchy structure. There are rare exceptions, but generally speaking, if you have 4-5 different things above having super cars or mansions or a luxurious lifestyle , then chances are really low, that you will end up having that luxurious lifestyle.

Yeah this true, but i would be suprised if i could find one. Also, tier 2 people are capable to earn a lot of money, because they are intelligent enough to learn how to make a lot of money , but they don't do it, because they don't value money nowhere near as much as stage orange people do. I don't see why a tier 2 person wouldn't be able to get rich if he/she really wanted to (earning money is much easier if you don't have a backbone and integrity). To me this shows that those people are using their time and capabilities and resources to do and to invest in other things.

I don't think how that works, i agree with scholar on this one. You have a hierarchy of values, and when you have so much money, that you don't need to worry or think about money anymore, then you will automatically use that money, to try to invest in things that are on the top of your value hierarchy. Can we think of one tier 2 person, who has multiple mansions or expensive cars or a luxurious lifestyle?

@Razard86 The question in what case or cases you could be considered a racist when it comes to dating. I think i showed a tangible line between being racist and not being racist. Too much simplification can cause more confusion too. In order to make sense of things we need to be able to distinguish between them. So in the context of this convo we need to be able to differentiate between being racist and not being racist. This is not always true, this is only true when unnecessary complexity is added. Even Leo has a video on learning, where he is talking about making distinctions = learning. Leo also has a video where he explains that not everything can be dumbed down and explained easily. I agree with this statement in the vast majority of the cases, but there are instances where this is not applicable. I think my thought process on this dating topic is nowhere near complex, i also think blurrying the lines in this case would cause more confusion than clarity, but it seems we don't agree, but thats fine. The only relevant question here is that, when it comes to dating how do you differentiate between being racist and not being racist?

@Razard86 I didn't intend to make things unnecessarily more complicated. I didn't even attacked your position, my intention was to make it more clear why people sometimes say you are racist in the context of sexuality. I think the nuance what i've made is useful, and maybe it will clear things up, especially for the OP.

His point was, that thats not advantegous to create a fragile society, the goal should be to create a society where people are tough and can handle stress and events that are not expected. Now, how we can achieve that is a different question, but generally speaking, if you don't have much to do and you don't get exposed to a certain level of stress periodically, then you become more fragile and paradoxically it will make your life more miserable and you become more weaker.

The difference is the reasoning behind your position. There are two things here: are you basing your stance on generalisation (not liking an entire race of people) or you can point to tangible things that you don't like/don't prefer. For instance, if you don't prefer traits that asian people usually have and you have that set of traits lets be it inner or outer traits, then you have a set of tangible things you can point to and you can say you don't prefer those things when it comes to dating. But even in that case, you could most likely find a few asian people who don't have those traits, so you could date them. So hypothetically, if there would be an asian person who don't have the traits that you don't prefer, then you could date that person, but if you use this reasoning "i don't date him/her just because she/he is asian" , that would be racist, because at that point, you don't even care about traits, but only care about race. But if your stance is relying only on the big generalisation that i won't date this person only because she/he is asian, that could be called racist, not because of what you prefer or don't prefer, but because of your line of reasoning. Now, OP wouldn't be called racist in this case, because he is not saying that he wouldn't date other people just because they are not asian.

Doesn't seem like a rational move on his part, especially if you look at his picture, where he is holding his gun in his hand. As @something_else said, he is destroying his business and reputation with these pictures. He wouldn't do that, if he would be sober. Being super high and holding a gun in your hand is a dangerous combo.

Broo, the picture with his gun is really frightening.

I agree with this statement, I just didn't agree with the justification you used to strengthen that point, but ultimately i agree with physics is not being invented, but discovered.

In theory, you could. Math is a language/tool that describes reality, it has its own rules and axioms. Without inventing those axioms, math couldn't really exist as we know it. Now, that doesn't mean, that those axioms are completely abritrary, but on the otherhand, they had to be invented. But this could strengthen your position, because you could say that you don't necessarily have to use math to recognize those patterns, because in theory you could use other tools or languages to recognize the underlying patterns. This is not a good argument. Just because something is an invention, that wouldn't automatically mean, that you could easily invent new forms of it every day. Could Apple invent a new iphone every day? If it can't, would that mean that iphone is not an invention? But ultimately, i think i agree with your poisition. There is an underlying fact of the matter that is described, using math. Math is a tool to help us to recognize certain patterns in reality. Math as a language is invented, but what its describing is not invented.

There is value in discussing stuff like this, of course. But its really hard to argue, when all empirical data is pointing in one direction. Its a factual disagreement, so it can only be settled by using outside sources. I had my own views on this topic, but i had to change my mind, because my views were hinging upon a lot of assumpsions, that were not backed up by any data or studies. When i read these studies i was like: "fuck it, i have different views on this, but if it works, then it works". When it comes to social issues, the most valuable thing you can do is to collect a lot of data and try to make sense of these issues using that data.

You don't know if they translate to everywhere or not. The most you could say, is that we need to collect more stats about this topic.They were specific circumstances, but on the other hand, i have yet to see something that would justify to be strongly against the decriminalization of drugs. There are arguments, but those arguments are not backed up by any data (as far as i know). Empirical data always trumps hypotheticals and assumptions.

This guy is amazing.

Here is an article on this issue :https://drugpolicy.org/issues/drug-decriminalization Overall there are strong arguments in favour of decriminalization. Here is a different article on this topic: https://www.tpoftampa.com/latest-on-the-decriminalization-of-drugs/ Three Lessons the Netherlands Learned After Decades of Evolving Its Drug Policy: https://drugpolicy.org/blog/america-take-note-three-lessons-holland-learned-after-decades-evolving-its-drug-policy

Yeah,I agree. I think he was trying to point out a dynamic on youtube, where being entertaining has much much more weight on your profits compared to being factually correct and dry. Its almost like you have to play into this dynamic , because if you don't , then you won't get that much traction on your videos. I have to add here, that i have thought about this dynamic, and i think that youtube is becoming less and less reliable to gather knowledge about anything (especially heavier topics). Youtube still has a lot of good educational channels, but because they have to play the entertainment game, their message sometimes get distorted a little bit. Of course, further research is always needed after watching a video, but it would be great if we could see a dynamic where you are rewarded for being factually correct . Thanks for pointing out the disagreements that you had with the link i posted here. I was lazy to write a proper analysis of the video , but this way our collective sensemaking of this topic may become better and hopefully less and less misinformation will be digested. .

That video is a little bit misleading. Here is a video that clear things up about blackrock: