brianman3

I would like to make a very basic case for conservatism, and I invite all to point out inconsistancies in my pitch. In the past month or so, Leo has made a very good case for collectivism, but nary mentions the cost of it. Namely, how is the collective funded? The answer, which seems to go completely ignored, is by violent force. Contribute or die. I'm not even saying that's wrong, but I am suspicious of why it wasn't mentioned. Was it self-bias or it was simply not considered? If one is against enforcing contribution to the collective with force, as I am, then I suppose that makes me a conservative. Because I am unwilling to take on the cost of collectivism for moral reasons, I favor individual rights and responsibility. A balance between indivualism and collectivism must be found, but we must honestly and openly address the sacrifices of both. To say that all conservatives have lower mental cognizance is really rude and offensive, and the only reaons you would speak such prejudice (in my best estimation) is because you presume all conservatives to be religious idealogues and blind followers of their leaders - issues that I, too, have with conservatives. I guess my point is that it is possible to favor individuality over collectivism and also be an honest thinker (stage yellow). You, Leo, can definitely be liberal based on your values, but to disregard people with differing values is unwise, IMO. It hurts your own understanding, and when you teach from that space, it hurts your students as well.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tLR-VeHefNE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe

I would also like a video on this topic. And seriously, people, why the negativity? Just because you think it's a stupid topic doesn't mean it holds no value to the community. Jeez. It's funny how once someone gets the answer in their lives, and they think "It's so obvious!", they can't figure out that other people haven't figured it out yet. It really comes across as demeaning. Many in this forum would benefit from putting themselves in the novice's shoes before commenting. Good video suggestion, GEB.

Awww. I got so excited about this topic, and am disappointed that I'm the first responder, because I am currently working on becoming a social badass, but am far from actually being one. Of all areas of self development, this is my main weakness, and receives the main focus of my efforts. How am I doing it? Inner game work, psychology, sociology, sales & marketing books, actualized.org vids, and perhaps more than anything: PUA books/vids. Of course, this all leads to hours of practice per week. Studying only provides so much. Maybe it is because I consider my major weakness in social situations to be with the opposite sex, but I find PUA materials to provide the best advice on social badassery. Looking forward to more responses in this thread.

Also interested, if there's room on your schedule.

OK. I feel like we're getting somewhere now. Perhaps it was my fault for not defining my problems/goals well enough. These later answers seem to have honed in a little better to what I am asking, and I am going to try to zoom in a little more right now. "How to stop caring what others think of you" is a great video, and I've watched in at least three times. Yet, I am not generally worried about what others think of me. This topic relates more to the real consequences beyond thoughts. People can think whatever they want, and they can say whatever they want, and I'll live my life empowered and unaffected. You (collectively) state "you shouldn't care if people think poorly of you", as if that's the worst that can happen. If all I feared was poor opinions, I would have no struggle, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. When you state that we should be free of the negative opinions of others, is this an umbrella statement to include physical threats, job loss, break-ups, lawsuits, and legal charges as well? And, if not, what should we care about (in consideration to our actions), and what should we not?

I was watching Leo's vid of Challenges of Making Bold LIfe Changes, in which he indirectly insulted Tony Robbins a few times. T-robs seems to me like a total bad-ass, an utter master of life. He inspires me, he has helped me become who I am, and his lessons greatly influence my daily decisions for the better. I could say the same about Leo, btw. Tony Robbins is a fascinating character, and it would be amazing to see Leo's take on him, and maybe some other life-gurus, because I bet in Leo's advanced stages (compared to lil' ol' me) he can see how their phony in ways that I can't see.

No, in fact. In the past, perhaps. This particular topic is a sticking point. Self-expression is tough when the self is culturally unwelcome. Can I ask about this without being labeled as a monkey-mind? I'm not suggesting I'm not a monkey-mind, but it's no replacement for addressing the topic at hand. Honestly, I am disappointed with this discussion. Nobody is really addressing the conflict. Suggesting I'm overthinking it is good advice, but it still does not address the conflict. I don't understand the answers and ask for clarification, but instead of clarification I'm told I'm overthinking it. That's what my parents and priests told me when I started asking questions about our religion, and had I heeded your advice, I'd still be a Christian in church every Sunday. (not that there's anything wrong with that) I think many of you have the wrong idea about me, like I'm some lost over-thinker wandering through this world blind to reality. In reality, I'm actively self-actualizing, but see congruency as my major sticking point. The advice I'm getting here is much too vague. I know how to slow my mind, meditate, be present, follow instincts, etc. What I don't get is when to accommodate society, and when to express yourself purely, which is better for us, and where lines are drawn. At the very least, an explanation as to why this topic is undeserving of an answer would be appreciated.

This is becoming clearer, but I still have questions. (Get used to that from me ) @ayokolomo Internal desires... not part of identity? Identity or not, we must address these issues, no? I mean, we can choose to identify with them, but we can't choose our desires. And we can choose to fulfill the desires or not, but we can't pretend that everyone is fine with it. I suppose we could choose to fear the repercussions or not, but we can't choose society's reaction thereto. Please define the choice you speak of. @Truth For B, we are not in control of what the world thinks of us, yet we are in control of getting killed or living a fulfilling life. Are you saying that society's response of oppression/acceptance does not lead to murder/fulfillment, or that our actions do not dictate the response of oppression/acceptance? Either way, what DOES lead to murder/fulfillment, or oppression/acceptance? Can you be more detailed on this answer? And for C, I'm not so sure. I kind of get it, but it really feels like a conflict between my inner self and society, with my outer self torn. I feel quite ok with who I am as an Adult Baby. So, in order for your answer to be true, my fear of societal repercussions is actually a manifestation (law of attraction, again) of my own deep subconscious uneasiness with Adult-babyhood, which may be true. Yet, there must be some level of societal pressure that everyone here seems to dismiss. Does a nudist have complete freedom to live in this world nude? And if he were to be arrested, is this his poor expectations/attitude fulfilling the law of attraction? I'm not a homosexual in the 60s, and I'm not a modern nudist, but come on. There has to be a line where society suppresses one's freedom to express oneself fully, yet posters here seem to insist it's in my imagination. Either admit there's a line, and then we can discuss my position in relation to it, OR explain to me that there is absolutely no societal pressure to keep weird people from expressing themselves, and how I have been convinced that a nudist shopping at Best Buy will be punished for his individuality with jail time. (I just realized I'm forcing a black/white answer. If there is a line and also no line, please, explain that, too.)

My head hurts. Maybe it's true that the true self is nothingness, but on a practical level, we live in this world. I do have drives and desires to live in a certain way, and they are faced with real consequences. I'm not even talking about being labeled as weird, which I can handle, but flat out ostracized, arrested, attacked or killed. Consider homosexuals from the less accepting 1960s. They had internal drives to live a certain lifestyle. These people were hated, physically assaulted, arrested, and killed. So far what I'm getting from this conversation is that a: people that pretended to be straight and hid their homosexual desires were catering solely to their ego's social desires to be admired; b: nothing bad can really happen if they were truly gay and lived as such; and c: they're not really gay, as that was just an identity illusion - their real problem is that they were not aligned with reality. Is reality the true self? Society? Or a third yet unnamed thing? I respect all of these answers you've given, and I feel like there's truth in them, but I am as of yet completely confused. Consider this post a plea for clarification.

I would like to start the topic of Congruency. To summarize, it's what I'd call the difference between your true inner self and your portrayed outer self. Or, put another way, who you feel like you are, vs who you show to the world. What you want to do/say/be, vs, what you end up doing/saying/being. It seems to me that the closer these two selves are aligned, the happier (and more at peace and more empowered and more etc.) a person becomes. It's difficult to be yourself particularly when society exerts extreme pressure to be a certain way, defining what is right and good and normal. If your true inner self aligns perfectly to what society expects of you, then you should have no struggle with congruency. But that's not most of us, is it? (Seriously, is it?) This topic is endless. First, how do you align the inner and outer self, bravely portraying your true self to a world you're sure will reject and judge you? Second, how can you be your true self when you're particularly "weird" by societal standards (like, as in my case, I'm an adult baby)? and Third, how does this "inner self" become aligned with the "outer-self" when, in reality, there is no self? If there is no self, it seems we benefit from aligning with society, while if there is a self, we benefit from going against society. Congruency is rarely discussed, but is definitely my major sticking point in my own self-development.

I think this is my current major sticking point in my self-development. Who I feel like I am on the inside, and how it does or does not match up to who I portray myself to be in the world. I get the idea that the closer these two personalities get to aligning, the happier one becomes. Yet, it's not easy, particularly when your true inner self is not aligned with what society expects us to be as normal and good people. If your true inner self aligns to societal expectations, you don't need this video. To complicate matters, I am certain that this topic of Congruency is closely related to the imaginary/non-existent "self" Leo has been alluding to, but I am not sure how it all works in our practical and seemingly real lives. So, if you're up for the challenge, Leo....

I was at a Tony Robbins lecture once, and he said that you can control the amount of energy you have based on your physiology. He had us slouch and pretend to yawn (for example) and we all became tired. Then he played loud music and we all danced and ran around, and we all became energized. Perhaps this physiological control of energy levels is something Leo would want to explore and discuss in this video, should he ever decide to make it.

NLP is a fascinating subject many coaches swear by, and which I have not studied with any depth. I would love to hear what Leo has to say on this subject.