Lews Therin

I just saw the news that Henry Cavil might be threatening to leave thee WH 40K show over lore retconning, and that got me thinking. I've considered myslef a progressive person for at least half a decade now, and have been in countless internet discussions defending progressive values and trying to get conservatives to see that many times the hate they show for progressive values for "ruining x or y tv show" is unjustified. That bad writing precedes "wokeness" and not the other way around. Also many times went on to defend that the goal of these large studios is not to "push woke or lgbtq agenda" but simply to maximize profits, and in a world of inequality, equality and social justice just sells well. But today as i started writing my typical answers on the youtube comments, it felt phony, so i stopped. i just couldn't write that Amazon's sole goal in making female individuals in one specific, previously male-only faction was just profits. The odds of if causing backlash as we have seen happen with so many shows was, to my eyes, far greater than any potential of soeone loving that specific piece of lore change. Now, the memetic theory lens can't be discarded, the green meme inhabits everyone, including the hollywood execs, but is it possible that is to the point they would risk sacrificing earnings, just to feel they are doing their part in moving us towards a more equalitarian future? Or are they just that disconnected from the real world that they see one show after the other crash and burn due to reactionary backlash and yet just keep on believing that theirs is the one that will succeed? Today for the first time i was made to consider that maybe for influence that goes beyond the one that money can buy, in the sense that if any company made a "woke" show that hit like game of thrones, they could tie themselves to the "green meme" and thus have their future secure as long as these memes keep expanding. What is this about?, i feel really kind of clueless. Is it just capitalists making bad calls in the pursuit of short term profits? Is this a result of progressive values and the "green meme" starting to take the reing from the Orange/modern values that have ruled us so far? Is it something else?

So, as the title poses, is there any truth to it? My standard response would be that no, but there is a quote by Ken Wilber that i love that says "no one is smart enough to be wrong 100% of the time", so it seems that this system probably has at least some truth in it. Now, the next question would be, what is that truth? It could be something related to developmental psychology, and Spiral Dynamics, as in, they saw people in different stages and assumed those stages were hereditary traits since the child of a butcher had a higher likellyhood of being a butcher than a warrior's son. But is there anything beyond that? are there people who are born to be spiritual teachers while other will focus on making or trading things? If so, are these things set in stone? could someone rise or fall from a specific course? Anyways, just spitballing, would like to hear everyone else's opinion on this.

Tell me you can't undertand nuance without telling me you can't undertand nuance. Oops, my bad, you essentially spelled it out that you can't undertand it.

What now? Vtubers aren't any worse than any other category of content creators.

Hi, I had a strange experience backduring christmass, that i had initially attributed to depersonalization, but recently have started considering alternative explanation upon reading an excerpt on kundalini energy from a kriya book. I didn't know wheter to post it here or on the mental health subforum, but decided on here since i will see a psyquiatrist anyway just to be sure, and therefore came here in search of answer more related to the spiritual, energetic side of things. So, a little background. I've been on the spiritual path for almost 6 years now, practiced zazen at first and then kriya for a while, though i stopped doing kriya to try Sayadaw u Tejaniya's method of constant awareness in July (i know i could do both, but confess i have been somewhat lacking in willpower lately). I also smoked weed a lot during my lifetime, though have been mostly doing so around the new years for the past two years. After a long period of not smoking, i started doing it again in december as the holidays arrived, and had been doing it almost daily for some 3 weeks to a month when christmas came. That's when it happened, i went to visit my cousin and he was smoking, so he passed it to me and i accepted it. After smoking it was mostly a normal high, until i had what felt like a visualization of what seemed like a rope circle opening itself in one spot. Like if that spot had either burst or been released. I instantly felt fear wash over me, for the idea of something coming loose in my head, something that shouldn't have, was pretty scary. I also noticed i instantly became more reactive in the conversation with my cousin, as if i suddenly felt a much stronger need to not annoy him, or be "approved" or "validated" by him, which is pretty weird, because he is a very chill dude and our relationship has been that of mutual respect for a while now. After we came back to the city 2 days later (that had been at our family's small farm) i began taking notice more clearly of the differeces in my mind (also stopped weed again), the main differences where: 1. Felt as if "me" (or whatever i was identifying with) felt a little bit more distanced from my thoughts, like when i remembered to be aware, it seemed to be a brief delay between the thought appearing and awareness "showing up". This has mostly gone away by now, if it remains a little bit it is at a level that i have a hard time comparing it to before. 2. Felt a pressure in my head, this seems to have lessened a little, but it is still very clearly there. Almost as if there is something ocuppying space in it, also gives off a feeling of being almost heavier when i turn my head or move it in different ways. It doesn hurt, not most of the time at least, but the pressure is constant. 3. My thought and my mind seems to have a pressure in them as well, this is different from the head pressure, and doesn't hurt or anything, but is very weird. It's like a can feel the different thought moving inside my head as i think about different subjects. This one is probably the weirdest. 3b. At the beggining it felt as if the thoughts had all come loose from the places where they used to stay and where all floating in my head, clouding it. But as i thought about these things again they slowly sliding back into place. As if when i think about something or have an insight about a subject, that part of my thoughts stabilize themselves again. As this proccess goes on, my mind seems less and less bloated. 4. Lastly, the one that scared me the most at the beggining, my mind seemed to have lost depth, almost as if it had lost a dimension. Suddenly i couldn't be aware of a thought while having a thought, like there was no space for the mind to turn back and look at itself. it went from something spatial to something linear, as if i had regressed to a lower cognitive developmental state. This one, albeit the most scary, has gone away by now, so i am not worried about it anymore. So, at this point, essentially all i feel is this pressure inside my head, and maybe a very very slight delay in the time it takes for my mind to return to awareness after it catches itself from distraction. SO, I had been thinking about common psychological problems for a while, but my research didn't come up with anything that matched it. Up until a few days ago i read about how people called kundalini "the coiled serpent" and how people have describes head pressure as a sympton of it. The initial thing i saw could be described as an uncoiling, or a orobors releasing it's tail. The main counterargument would be that as far as i remember it wasn't in the lower body region, but felt more like somewhere in the head, so i don't think it is kundalini, though i don't know much about, but have started wondering it is not some energy thing maybe? has anyone ever experienced anything similar?

Has anyone here ever looked at the research behind these famous developmental models we see around here and in the authors books? I love developmental psychology, and hold Spiral Dynamics dearly in my heart, but to this day i haven't had any success in finding the research behind, and that drives me nuts. How am i supposed to show something to people when i have no research to back it up? Yes, it maps very well to my life, but that is very anecdotal. I like to consider myself as someone who thinks things through, but how can i trully understand this models if i can't see the research they were based off of? i remember reading somewhere that SD was based in research conducted in over 100 different countries and possibly in over 10.000 people. WHERE IS THAT DATA?? i know science has limits, but if we don't use data and evidence to base our decision making out of, we are not being post-scientific, we are being pre-scientific. I admit i mostly searched about SD and a little bit about ego development, but if anyone can point me to some solid developmental model that has made it's data publicly available i would love you sooo much. Anyway, thanks for reading this so far!

@An young being Yes, but these concepts you mentioned all existed long before the scientific method became the golden standard, Spiral Dynamics didn't. Also, most of these things are entirely internal to an individual, so they are really hard to be measured. SD, on the other hand, deals with memes that are common amongst many people, and you can know which memes are present in someone's mind by asking them simple questions. That means that with some effort and personnel to conduct lots of interviews, it wouldn't be that hard to get substantial data that pointed to the SD model being accurate.

Thanks, if i manage to get an answer i will be sure to post it here. Have you ever tried talking to some of these developmental researchers?

i didn't say i want to go post-scientific, i just pointed out i didn't want to go pre-scientific. And even if it has it's limits, proving stuff with data and studies is definetely helpful in MANY cases. And i will trust a model that has enough data to back it up MUCH more than one that doesn't. Third person knowledge is an essential part of humanity, and for that, the scientific method tends to be the most advanced tool we have. And this is surely one of these cases.

I still don't see it, i've watched him for many hours through the years, and he seems to be pretty consistent. Can you show me examples of him being inconsistent?

I didn't know tagging was common courtesy, sorry about that. But you did write almost a full paragraph of different psychological models with essentially no elaboration other than a link to a 5 page long body language mega thread. And no, i can't count that as language because i don't know your credentials on body-laguage reading nor do i understand body language well enough to judge if what you are saying makes sense or not. Also, i don't consider bodily cues to be informative enough to deduce as much information as you seem to have. Yeah, maybe the body can tell you if the person is nervous, but is it because they are lying or is it because they of a miriad of other possible reasons? So, what about stages of cognitive development makes you think he is untrustworthy? What about ego development (by Jane's model) makes you think he is untrustworthy? What about Myers Brigs personality types makes you think he is untrustworthy? What about life experiences (his or yours?) makes you think negatively of him? What about "other lines of development from life to societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated" gives you that opinion about him? Or any of the other stuff you mentioned? You can't just come in here, drop the name of a dozen different models and not elaborate on any. Also, a body-language thread is not "elaboration" since i doubt anyone in this world can tell someone's stage at different developmental lines just from looking at how they move and how they sit.

"I agree that Destiny is a skilled debater, but due to various developmental factors like stages of development, cognitive and moral development, personality types and traits(Big five personality traits and Myers Briggs personality types modal), ego development(by Jane Loevinger),life experiences and other lines of development from life to societal domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated, and self biases and preferences I feel that Destiny is dangerous and should not be trusted or blindly believed. Success, charisma, persuasion /=/ personal growth or moral character." Damn, i got so tired in the middle of this i almos gave up on reading, you literally cited every single psychology related thing you of in order to character assassinate an youtube streamer, and of of the few that does a good work for society.

Prime quality content from Dr. K, video that could have been straight from here. Although i have to say the video itself was too edited to feel comfortable to watch, but i guess it makes sense for him to try different formats from time to time.

No, he is very clearly not pedophilic, his content, it seems, is going way over your head. That's not why he was banned, inform yourself before making claims about people, you clearly don't know enough about the subject to be going around making a topic to "expose" him. He was banned because a video he posted long ago and that was already age restricted had excerpts of nudity from a film, that video was flagged during the mass-flagging by nick fuentes, a literal white nationalist. If his thoughts make YOU feel disturbed, perhaps it is you who should be looking inside to find out why some part of feels that way.

"Notice how you erroneously assume the default position is environmental factors." No i am not. I am not assuming anything, i am explaining to you how to make a case for what you are defending. That is not even my position. At no point i assumed there was a "default" position, i don't have to make assumptions because i am not the one making claims, other than "we can't know for sure" You are the one making a claim "Black people are genuinely intellectually inferior". Therefore, in order to substantiate your claim, you need something more than what you have so far offered which was: "It would follow that..." "would it not be extraordinarily obvious..." and "But I don't' believe that accounts..." Essentially the problem is that, as you said you don't BELIEVE the environmental factor explain this question, but you also can't seem to provide any evidence, all you have is this belief.

You said you wanted a productive and scientific discussion, if that is the case, stop repeating over and over that there is a genetic difference between races IN GENERAL and find some evidence that points that the specific gap in IQ between black and white people is genetic, or that it can't for some specific reason be attributed entirely to environmental factors IN THIS CASE.

Let's dissect what you are saying so we get to where our gap in understanding lies. Propositions: p1: there is a genetic component to inteligence - I believe most people here agree on this. p2: Different races have different levels of inteligence - I prefer to say ethnicities, as race is not a scientific concept, and you claim to want to have a scientific conversation. As someone mentioned before, there is more genetic difference between different groups of "black people" than between most people of different "races". That said, there PROBABLY are differences in inteligence. p3: Black people tend to score lower on IQ tests and other inteligence related tests - This is true and has been observed in a variety of studies. p4: The gap in IQ or general inteligence between races (p3) can't be solely due to historical, social and cultural factors and probably has to do with genes (p1 and p2) - Here you need to provide some evidence. Accepting p1 and p2 as truth doens't mean they have any connection to p3. As Leo said, it may very well be that after we equalize social and cultural factors black people start scoring higher than both white people and east asians on these tests. This conversation is essentially worthless untill you provide some evidence that can connect p1 and p2 to p3. As of right now, we KNOW that historical, social, and cultural factors have a GREAT DEAL of influence on black people scoring lower on these tests (and also their countries having lower GDP), and we have NO REASON to believe that these factor aren't responsible for 100% or more of the difference in IQ. As the person who made the initial claim, now it falls on you to provide evidence on that missing link and demonstrating WHY social factors can't explain the gap in inteligence.

Yeah, i am too sometimes, i feel completely powerless, as of right now, even if Lula wins there is a chance this ultra-conservative congress will actually control the country if Lula can get the "big-center" on his side. And it's crazy, my best friend (who is the personification of Stage Orange), seems to be changing his mind to vote blank in the second round, even after spending the last 2 years saying if the second round was Bolsonaro vs The Literal Devil, he would vote for the Devil since he believed Bolsonaro was to blame for the death of his uncle who had covid right before the vaccines arrived. I ended up voting for Lula in the first round (though very dissapointed with myself), since i didn't want another month of Auxilio Brasil to go through before the final decision is made. Now, if Lula wins, we need to start to think on who is going to be the Left's candidate in the next election, cause Lula is getting older and weaker by the day.

you really think it would go like that? i have more hope than you then... I was thinking about doing it with a focus less on people, and more on ideas, so though not completely avoiding mentioning politicians, option to avoid mention when possible.

as much as i like Ciro i don't think he is tier 2 either... But regardless, i think it would be cool to form a group to discuss brazilian politics and brazilian problems, if you guys are also interested in it.

@Recursoinominado resentment, inflexibility and excessive pride i can agre on, but lack of wisdom seems overreaching and dishonest discourse is more something that could be said about PT acting all lefty and then siding with the banks than anything that could be ever said about Ciro the bottom line is, is it better to have someone with a plan, but questionable capacity to execute said plan, or someone has shown to have sway over th system, but has no plan and has consistently shown to have no intention of having a plan at all?

@Leo Palhano "I understand this is a biased view, based upon overindulgence and trust in brazilian journalism which, again, is controlled by five bourgeoisie families" - This is the vibe i get from watching uncut interviews of him, nothing to do with media manipulation "It is undeniable that he was the most successful brazilian leader in history for 99% of the population" - Not even close to Getúlio Vargas. The very fact that the coup managed to reverse most of what he did shows that. Neolibs are to this day trying to undo the works GV did 70 years ago. "This is yet another result of 2016's coup d'etat." - Not true, it was a proccess that acceleretated due to the coup, but that was in progress waaaay before that with the loss of industrial capacity. If the industry shrinks, no labour laws in the world can keep a healthy level of employment. "Not Lula's or PT's fault, but our bourgeoisie, military and USA's. Again, no President, including Ciro if he ever was, has the power to go against our status quo. And the status quo wants Brazil as a big, colonial farm which poses no threat, technologically and industrially, to the global north. The status quo wants a passive middle and lower class so that they can keep secretly ruling and indulging their stolen riches through generations in the second most unequal country of the world. Lula tried to do the best he could within the limits of 1988's Constitution and how our politics really work." - While i agree that some powerfull sector of our economy try tu push that, i find it very weird to say Lula has no fault when he didn't make ANY effort to push back on that and instead allied himself with those very sectors that seek to loot the country. "But right now, considering the numbers of voters' intentions and the complexity of the current elections because of Bolsonaro's fascism and power over the institutions, if you're not voting for Lula in the first round, you're effectively helping Bolsonaro to have a chance in the second round." - If the only way of keeping Bolsonaro away from the power is sacrificing my integrity, then perhaps he really was chosen by the universe for some weird reason. Lula's government is a regressive government as well, not to the same extent as bolsonaro, but he is also giving up on our sovereignty in exchange for having cheap products in our markets for a temporary ammount of time. All in all my view is this. Lula wants the poor to be able to buy stuff, but he is either incapable of seeing or simply does not care that as long as we have to buy those things from foreigners, those conquests will never be secure and these other countries will be able to make us beg and crawl for it whenever they want. He had a approval raiting as high as any leader could hope to have and did nothing to build an industry that ccould give actual security to those in need. The bottom line is that anyone who isn't Bolsonaro will buy us some time relative to how fast our country's collapse would be with him on power. That said, they both propose the same path, the path of dependency, a path that leads only to enslavement or collapse. Who wins, Lula or Bolsonaro, is completely irrelevant if a new project doesn't start gaining momentum for the long term. Therefore, giving support and attention to anyone who talks about that (only candidate who does is Ciro), is the only course of action that has any hope of keeping our people and our forests in any semblance of healthyness till capitalism ends.

@Leo Palhano For the life of me i can't see Lula engaging with anyone from a "tier 2 perspective" he screams stage Blue louder than anyone i have ever seen. He is essentially the personification of stage Blue for that matter. And yes, i do know all the numbers you quoted, and i think he had many good numbers in different areas, and was probably above the average brazilian president. That said, a country is in many ways defined by it's productive structure, there is a reason marx would never say russia was ready for socialism/communism. The mode of production of a country is what defines how far conscience can rise in said country. You will not see stage Orange flourish in a tribal environment, much less stage green or yellow. The same can be said for tier 2 in a feudalistic society. Don't get me wrong, having black people go to uni as much as white people is great, but it doesn't mean nearly as much as it seems if both of them are going to work as uber drivers after getting their engineering degree. And During Lula's government it wasn't that our productive matrix didn't advance, it objectively regressed, and regressed a lot. That means that even if there are more people with enough study to manifest higher levels of consciousness, they won't manifest it because the environment is not conductive for it. Industry is the basis for stages Orange and higher to flourish, when Lula sacrificed our industry to get support from the financial and extractivist sectors, our society lost the capcity to shine in ways that had taken decades to emerge, and i won't even talk about the hit to our sovereignty in this post. Without Industry there is no room for growth, that's why our only hope would be to have a president that is 100% bought in to the idea of developing the national industry. because withou that solid base, stage blue will never be able to mature and give rise to the higher emerging aspects of humanity. I think Ciro is by far the best choice we have, do i think he has a chance? hell no, maybe not even if both Bolsonaro and Lula died, but he certainly has my vote on the first round. And let's hope you are right and Lula wins in the end, i'm not very optimistic as of right now.

This. Styling yourself as a "conservative" means having an ego about it, identifying yourself with the idea of conservating something. Being against some stuff that most progressives say doesn't make you a conservative, only your own attachment to a label can do that.

@Leo Palhano I agree with you analysis of the events, 90%, but disagree with your comparison between Lula and Ciro. I agree that Ciro is very resentfull of Lula, but i can easily see why that happened. Lula parades as a hero of the country's poor people, but in truth he just FHC with a beard. True national sovereignty comes from a country being able to produce what it needs and not being forced to buy it from others that will set outrageous prices for it. Here is a graph of Brazil's industry representation to the GDP, : (Look at image) Lula's government butchered our industry in favour of the agro-business, environmental destructive practices like strong extractivism (Vale for example) and banking. The numbers are there for anyone to see. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, Bolsa-família was great, but anyone who says Lula brought Structural changes (@Recursoinominado ) to the country is delusional, during his government most of our capacity to exist as an independent country dissipated. And that's one of the main reasons Ciro get's so angry when people act like Lula is a hero for our country. Ciro is not by any means perfect, but he at least proposes to bring changes to our productive structure, something Lula didn't even attempt when he had an approval rating of 80%. Lula thought if he played the game the elites wanted him to play, they would let him do it, begginers mistake, got sidesteped and is now going to very likely lose to Bolsonaro. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, @Leo Palhano What's your basis to say "Lula is way higher in the spiral compared to Ciro"?? To me it seems pretty clear our election is as follows: Bolsonaro - Solid Red Lua - Solid Blue Ciro - blue/Orange Unfortunatelly, despite @Hugo Oliveira's claims, there is no Green of any relevance in our system as of now, Dilma maybe had a little of it, and so did Haddad, and that's why none of them had real chances of bonding with the general poppulace. Lula is as popular as he is because he is as Blue as they come, and so is most of the country. That's why loads of people who voted for Lula in the past ended up voting for Bolsonaro in 2018, he was the next closest thing spiral-wise, just one stage bellow.