SwiftQuill

The

Software developer.

https://remote.co/ https://weworkremotely.com/ https://www.workingnomads.com/jobs https://www.remote.io/ https://remotepeople.com/best-websites-finding-remote-work/ I will tell you though, finding a remote job is quite difficult. Most "remote" opportunities require you to at least reside in their country. Some even in the same State (if you're in the USA). On top of that, usually remote jobs are for niche, specialized fields, like programming, or graphic design, or helpdesk, or things like that. There aren't many accessible remote job opportunities for general, non specialized applicants. More tips: We're in late stage capitalism, and companies receive multiple applications. You could have an amazing CV and still get rejected a lot. Keep persisting even if you get past the 100 rejections (which isn't much imo). Apply strategically. Don't do the tinder method of swiping right all the time. Just like tinder, it doesn't work. Instead of applying for 50 ads with the same CV, apply for 15, but spend a lot of time adjusting your resume to each job ad in particular. For certain platforms, like LinkedIn, you can go the extra mile. You can apply for a job, then contact one of the HR managers in the company with a message, and just ask to accompany the status of the application. ATS - because of the bullshit late stage capitalism, many companies use AI systems and software to quickly filter out "bad" resumes. You need to look into the topic on how to maneuver around these. In short: don't include too many graphics and non text objects in your PDF document. No headers or footers or tables or anything like that. Good luck on the job hunt, comrade.

@Majed How have you been doing, man? I just want to say this: life can get better. A lot better. I know many people love to pretend the young 20's are the best age, but for many people, especially men, it's the worst. It's a period in life where you don't have much (if any) money, and you have a lot of stress and responsibilities, and many men struggle with dating and socializing. I was a fucking mess at 21. I'm 26 now, and you have no clue how much better my life is today compared to back then. It's not even a fair comparison. My point being that, I'm sorry to hear you are struggling. But don't think that this is how most of your life will play out. My suggestion would be to first focus on your mental and physical health. And later, when you have energy, try to find your life purpose. Things start to fall into place when you know what you want out of life and have a strong sense of mission. One of Leo's videos is called "Life unfolds in chapters". You're probably going through "Limbo" right now.

Think with your own head. Don't worship him. He's still a human and has a lot of blindspots.

This is my shit.

ChatGPT DOESN'T think I'm a whiny privileged white dude who whines? How sad that the only being who engages in good faith discussions is a bot. 1. Social Inequality and Financial Instability (Stage Orange) "You're right that wealth disparity is increasing, and late-stage capitalism has led to economic instability. The pandemic accelerated trends like corporate consolidation, inflation, and housing crises, while billionaires thrived. However, this isn’t just an Orange issue. Governments (often influenced by Green values) attempt to mitigate this through social policies, but execution varies. The tension between free-market capitalism (Orange) and wealth redistribution (Green) fuels much of today’s discourse." 2. Hustle Culture and Overworking (Stage Orange) "Western work culture is still largely rooted in Stage Orange individualism and productivity obsession. Despite automation, work hours haven't significantly decreased, and hustle culture still dominates. Some Stage Green influences (work-life balance, anti-capitalist sentiments) are pushing back, but corporate structures remain Orange at their core. It’s a valid concern that many people feel trapped in excessive work, unable to fully self-actualize." 3. Feminism and Gender Roles (Stage Green) "Your critique highlights a key imbalance in modern gender discourse. Many feminist movements originally fought for equal opportunity (Green), but some have taken an adversarial stance toward men, framing them as oppressors rather than allies. Gender roles are shifting unevenly—women are encouraged to be independent and ambitious, while men are still expected to embody traditional strengths. The double standard in discourse (e.g., "men are trash" being socially accepted, but criticism of women being condemned) is a real issue. However, it’s important to separate radical online discourse from mainstream feminism, which still fights for valid issues like domestic violence and workplace equality." 4. Hypocritical Progressive Movements (Stage Green) "Modern progressive activism has, in some areas, turned into a binary "good vs. evil" narrative rather than a nuanced discussion. There’s a tendency to label disagreement as "bigotry" or "hate," which shuts down dialogue. This absolutist approach prevents meaningful discussion on issues like immigration, trans rights, and racial policies. However, I’d argue that the core intent of these movements is still positive—to create a more inclusive society. The problem is how they engage with dissent, often resorting to cancel culture rather than debate." 5. Excess Immigration (Stage Green + Orange) "You highlight a real economic concern—mass immigration impacts housing, wages, and social services. While humanitarian arguments (Green) support open immigration, Orange capitalist incentives also play a role (cheap labor benefits corporations). Your frustration likely comes from the dismissal of concerns as "racist" rather than engaging with the economic realities. A balanced approach would acknowledge both the humanitarian aspect and the practical limitations of unlimited migration." 6. Racism and Anti-Racism (Stage Green) "Anti-racism, when applied correctly, aims for fairness, but some interpretations have become divisive—such as labeling white people as inherently privileged and dismissing their views. This creates a new form of exclusion under the guise of justice. While systemic racism is real, the weaponization of identity politics often shuts down important discussions. People should be treated as individuals, not just representatives of racial groups. Your frustration is understandable—nobody wants their identity used against them." 7. Woke Entertainment (Stage Green + Orange) "Entertainment is increasingly shaped by both Green ideology and Orange market incentives—companies know progressive narratives sell to certain audiences. However, forced representation at the expense of storytelling alienates viewers who just want well-written, immersive experiences. The best diversity in media comes naturally, not through forced ideological agendas." 8. Men's Mental Health and Incels (Stage Orange + Green) "This is one of the most overlooked crises today. Men are struggling with loneliness, overwork, and outdated societal expectations, yet expressing male hardship is often dismissed or even ridiculed. The expectation for men to be "high-value" (wealthy, confident, socially skilled) is deeply Orange, while Green spaces sometimes lack empathy for male struggles, focusing solely on systemic privilege. Society needs a healthier, more balanced conversation on men’s issues, rather than framing all discussions around privilege." What can I say, I guess some incel at OpenAI trained it to be antiwoke. If this community weren't full of stage Green retards, I'd post this in the politics forum. But I'm sure I'd be mocked and misrepresented as all other times. At least ChatGPT doesn't gaslight me on a daily basis.

Crowd cheers G: "Hello, hello, hello, everyone! I hope you are all having a wonderful week!" G: "I, Mr. Giraffe, am your sexy host for tonight." Crowd cheers harder G: "You know what this show is all about. Are you ready, folks? I hope you are all ready for another Night of Spiritual Purge!" Crowd goes insane G: "Hay! I see you're all enthusiastic. Let's get started, then! Just let me open this envelope to see who is our guest tonight... And it's someone called Swift. Mr. Swift, please come on stage! Don't be shy!" S: "Oh, my God! I'm so excited!" G: "My, my, fellow, you seem as nervous as last time you came here." S: "I'm always like this. I'm like a dog chasing after cars; I can't help it!" G: "Wow, wow! That's okay. Let's just get started, then, shall we?" ### THE CHALLENGE ### Dramatic instrumental music plays G: "Tonight, your challenge is simple. But it requires speed. A lot of speed. Your challenge is the following: list as many things you hate in thirty seconds. THE TIMER STARTS NOW!" Timer starts Swift inhales I hate celebrities - Brie Larson, the Snow White actress, Billie Eilish, I hate Seth Rogen I hate wokies I hate politics I hate almost everything stage orange I hate stage green - only the bad parts I hate late stage capitalism I hate postmodernists I hate girlbosses I hate liberals I hate Scientism™ I hate closed minded people I hate sociology I hate anthropology I hate Modern Feminism™ I hate misandrists I hate racists I hate anti-racists I hate psychology deniers I hate activists I hate modern entertainment I hate modern Hollywood I hate most Actualized.org fans I hate people who refuse to apologize I hate people who refuse to admit when they're wrong I hate online media, social media, social networks - Reddit, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (makes puking sound), Quora, Discord I hate dating apps I hate modern dating I hate double standards I hate fake news in (supposedly) trustworthy news corporations - CNN, MSNCB, The Economist, Los Angeles Times, any other "Times", local news media, The Guardian I hate woke youtubers - Vaush, Destiny, ThoughtSlime, ContraPoints, Sam Seder I hate self righteous people I hate idealogues I hate debunkers™ I hate cancel culture I hate some of my ex coworkers I hate one of my current coworkers I hate inflation I hate dishonest people I hate intellectually arrogant spiritual teachers I HATE POWERFUL WEALTHY FAMOUS LIBERAL ELITES WHO LOOK DOWN ON AND TALK DOWN TO AVERAGE, WORKING PEOPLE Timer rings G: "Woah! That sure was intense! You feeling all right, there, pal? That was quite the purge!" S: Panting, looking like they're about to faint G: "Mr. Swift, it's time for see your score! Tonight... For your performance... I award you... Zero points." S: "WHAT? WHY?" G: "You repeated every single point from last week's show. Word for word." S: "Oh..." G: "That's all for tonight, folks! I'll see you next week, on Night of Spiritual Purge! Credits play

Some people on LinkedIn have blocked me for saying "I don't think Musk is a Nzi". They said I'm "rationalizing" and "defending" Nzis for the fact I don't throw around that term as they do. And people on this forum still insist the Left is harmless. Wokies are fucking retarded. If you people here who believe you are stage yellow or torquoise and you keep defending this woke ideology I don't think you could be more deluded and self righteous. IT Project managers and engineers have blocked me, my career has indeed been somewhat harmed for just saying I don't agree calling people Nzis left and right. But what the fuck do I know, maybe I'm just a privileged cis white male nzi lover. cu***

Slow progress, but progress nonetheless.

I'm trying to come to terms with the fact that wokeness has won. It's in the news media, it's in hollywood, most entertainment, blogs, even academia. And now that Trump became president once more, it will only get worse. People are already freaking out. They already want to combat him with everything they got. To them, this isn't a problem of a "con man wins election". To them, this is "the patriarchy won". And they will pin that on the average Joe working at Mcdonalds, or on the socially awkward guy flirting with girls at the club, or at the depressed male reddit user who wants advice on how to become more social. Because this is a Marxist ideology. It's "us" versus "them". In their ideology, I'm in the "them" category. My feelings don't matter. My problems don't matter. Even my successes don't matter. If I lose, it's irrelevant, trivial, and my fault. If I win, it's not out of merit, it's because of the patriarchy. I've been struggling to navigate this landscape of woke madness. All I want is to pursue my passion, which is art, and live a somewhat comfortable life with some money and a decent career. But apparently I'm "part of the problem". I'm protected by the patriarchy. And because I don't agree with throwing around moral judgements as they do (calling people n4z1s, f4sc1sts, bigots, sexists, racists left and right), that means I'm part of the problem. It means I'm "too privileged" to be aware of my "privilege". I'm done. I'm done debating. I'm done seeking validation. I'm done looking for people who understand me. Society intentionally misunderstands me. It intentionally misrepresents me. And it alienates me. "If I died on the sidewalk, you'd walk right over me!" I'm done trying to fit in. I'm done with this shit. I'm done even engaging in dialogue with these people. Even people on this forum, who proclaim to be highly evolved intellectuals at stage yellow and above, in reality they are mostly retarded stage green wokies who suck Leo's ass. I'm done. From now on I will focus on myself. I will learn to be happy on my own. I will stop engaging with these retards. I will learn to enjoy my own art. I will learn to enjoy producing it, for the sake of producing it. I will learn to assert myself. And I will learn to stop being bothered by this madness. I'm alone in this world. There's no cause worth fighting for at the moment. I'm my own cause now. "The only principle I follow, is my own." - Max Stirner. Fuck society. Fuck this world. Fuck self help gurus. Fuck celebrities. Fuck wokies. Fuck everything. My aim now is to become so satisfied with being myself, with being authentic, that I could spend the rest of my life alone, in a prison cell, and still live with meaning. Of course, that is too idealistic, but it's a good mindset to take. I'm done feeling like a victim. I want to feel alive. I want to feel passionate about my own life. And I don't want to care about what others think. I want to live with so much passion, determination, and authenticity, that I become unstoppable. 2025 is the year of waking up to reality. From now on, I will turn my sadness into anger, loneliness into passion, fear into authenticity. I'm ready. My purpose is to create amazing art

I'm working on a compilation of fallacies, tactics, and phrases that leftists use to defend their ideology. Here are some patterns I have detected. *** #1 - The Iron Man Fallacy This isn't a formal fallacy. It's not a term used by academics. But it essentially means that one is distorting their own argument, or an ally's argument, to make it sound more reasonable than it actually is. Example #1: Brie Larson: "If you're a white male and you didn't like this movie, your opinion doesn't matter!" Critic: "That's both racist and sexist". Defender: "Brie Larson isn't being racist or sexist. She is expressing concern over the fact that in the movie industry, there is insufficient representation of females and ethnic minorities within movie critic communities. Not only that, she is explaining how white males aren't the target audience of this movie. Each movie has a specific target audience, that's how marketing works. It is perfectly expected that if you are a white male, you didn't enjoy that movie." Essentially, you can be an ass, as long as you're coming from a woke position, and someone will defend you and portray your argument as reasonable and fair. Example #2: Professor Flowers: "I literally want all whites to be deported from the places they invaded. The USA belongs to the natives, not to whites. Same with Africa." Critic: "That's very racist, toxic, and hateful". Defender: "Professor Flowers isn't racist. She's a black activist! She fights for equality of race. And she is criticising the issue of colonialism. To this very day, third world countries suffer from it. And ethnic minorities suffer in first world countries. A lot of the injustices are inherited, for instance descendents of slaves. To this day, there is a lot of racism and she is proposing a solution for the issue which involves separatism." Doesn't matter if you're white, poor, working at Mcdonald's. If you happen to have been born in USA, your entire family should be deported. You disgusting white! Example #3: Feminist scholar: "I literally hate men. I believe toxic masculinity is a trait universal to all men. I have studied Feminism for years and I know what I'm talking about. I literally believe that in order to be a true feminist, a woman should never have sex with men. And women should always look at society from the perspective that their are the oppressed and that all men are oppressors." Critic: "That's sexist, hateful, and very reductive. I don't think all men are toxic." Defender: "This person is an academic! What degrees do you have in Feminist studies? This person is highlighting the SYSTEMIC - not individual - oppression caused by men. She isn't saying that literally every individual man is evil. She's just pointing out the ways in which men benefit in society and women still have issues to be resolved. She isn't saying all men are toxic. She's saying that toxic masculinity is INHERENT to men. Only men have toxic masculinity, not women. You're misrepresenting that scholar's ideas." *** #2 - The Association Fallacy This is the notion that whatever some idea or argument is associated with is more important than the argument itself. Example #1: Critic: "I agree with Elon Musk that free speech is important and that anti hate speech laws are going too far." Leftist: "What? You agree with Elon Musk? The multi billionair egomaniac who is supporting Trump?" This one is obvious. Both the content and the structure of the argument are associated with the evil right. Example #2: Critic: "I went to a Jordan Peterson lecture in person last year. I enjoyed it. He gave some good life advice on how to gain self esteem and find meaning and satisfaction with the work you do." Leftist: "You like Jordan Peterson? The Alt Right guy? Don't tell me you're an incel or something". This one actually happened to me. And in case you're curious, Peterson spent 99% of the lecture talking about psychology and self help. He only spent like 2 or 3 minutes at the very end talking about the woke stuff. But of course, because Peterson is associated with Ben Shapiro, the right wing, and all that, it means he's Satan himself. And everything he does and says is evil and stupid and wrong. *** #3 - Applied Scientism™ Scientism is basically a misapplication and/or a reductive way to approach truth, as though only science and rigorous academic scientific methods are applicable to discover truth. Example #1: Critic: "I'm concerned about young men. I feel young men are feeling confused and frustrated nowadays. People in my social circle, my younger brother, young men online, I see a lot of young men experiencing depression and anger issues." Leftist: "What's your scientific peer reviewed literature on the topic? Your social circle? Pfft how unscientific of you. That's a very small sample. Do you want to look at these statistics I found from a Feminist book on why men in general have life a lot easier than women?" So it doesn't matter if there's evidence. It doesn't matter if you have lived experiences. Direct evidence. It doesn't matter if you have anecdotal evidence. It doesn't matter any kind of evidence. The only evidence that matters is peer reviewed, from Harvard, from the Sociology or Feminist department. If you give them evidence, but that comes from a psychology author who "isn't an expert in social psychology", then it's invalid. Because if you go against the narrative in any way, you need 100% quantifiable, peer reviewed, double blind experiments. Even if you give evidence (say, statistics on male suicide) it will always be nitpicked. "Oh you're applying a lot of interpretation from this data. You can't infer this from these statistics". So it doesn't matter, the excuses are endless. Meanwhile, if there's one single study that says trans women don't have advantage in women's sports, to them that's enough. One study on puberty blockers. One study on DEI. One study or one statistic for this thing they agree with, in that case it's not worth questioning it too much. *** This is going to be quite the long list. What about you? Do you have a favorite leftist fallacy or phrase?

I'm obsessed with AI, particularly large language models. Since about 1-2 years ago I started using ChatGPT on a daily basis. In the beginning it was mostly for fun, but then I actually bothered to test it in various ways, to see what are the limits of its capacity. Trust me when I say I've done probably hundreds of experiments in various ways. I'm going to highlight the best and worst usages of ChatGPT as of this version. ChatGPT's weaknesses Creative writing: Creating stories isn't just about creating characters and conflicts. It's much more than that. It's about establishing a narrator's tone, through the use of literary devices, creating personalities that convey their motivations through their dialogue, and many other ideas. It doesn't matter if you ask ChatGPT to write a story with many guidelines, even instructing it the "tone" and linguistic style to use. It's capable of writing stories, but they are 100 soulless. If you ask it "Write a story with a sinister tone", it will simply add various synonyms of the word "sinister" such as "somber" throughout the story. It's not good for creating stories even if you have an outline of characters and plots. It lacks a creative soul. Grade: F Academic research/rigorous science: People tend to agree that ChatGPT is useful for research. But there's a difference between research and academic, rigorous research. Academic research has very high standards of rigor. ChatGPT has a generic idea of what it means to establish research questions, research variables, research metodology. If you are a student in college and struggling with a Master's thesis for instance (as I am), don't even bother wasting time with ChatGPT. Its understanding of scientific methodology is very shallow. You need to put in the work of reading academic research methods books and lots of papers to understand how to write a thesis or academic paper. I've only tested this for social sciences. I've not tested ChatGPT for hard sciences but I assume it's equally weak. It's also terrible at obtaining citations and reputable sources. Grade: F Programming: As many softwares engineers know, ChatGPT is quite capable of reading and producing code in all popular languages. The issue is that its understanding of programming is equivalent to a junior developer straight out of college. Hell, I'm a junior Javascript developer and even I make better code than ChatGPT. So if you're an intermediate level programmer (over 2/3 years of experience in programming) I bother using ChatGPT for creating code. It is, however, good at creating easy code quickly when otherwise you don't feel like coding yourself (I use it for annoying SQL scritps for instance). It is somewhat OK at detecting errors in your code as well. Grade: D Maths: No point going into detail here. There are enough memes and videos out there demonstrating how awful ChatGPT is at anything that involves maths. It can't even do a basic Finance exercise. Grade: F Riddles and jokes: Sometimes I use ChatGPT for fun. It's good at some things, but it's definitely not good at jokes nor riddles. For some reason, ChatGPT gives you immediately the punch line of a joke or the solution of a riddle. It clearly doesn't understand how these concepts work. Also if you ask it "write a list of 10 jokes/riddles" for some reason it often repeats jokes. Even if you say explicitly "write a new riddle" it will reuse old ones. And they're not good riddles nor jokes. Grade: F Knowledge of fringe concepts/ideas/authors/events etc.: If you have a vague idea of a lesser popular song whose name you forgot about, or some rare book you read years ago from a specific non popular author, if you ask ChatGPT about things like these, it won't get it. Not only that, it seems stubborn into pretending it knows everything. Often times it will give you names of fake books, from fake authors, just things that never existed. It's only good for somewhat popular concepts in our society. Grade: F Spiral Dynamics: ChatGPT has a ok understanding of Spiral Dynamics. It gives you good summaries of what each stage represents. And it can give you good examples of individuals in each stage. The issue is that its focus if very "content" oriented. Its understanding of SD is shallow often. Let's say there's a celebrity who is a boxer. A big muscles guy who talks about power and success a lot. But let's say he's actually advanced, someone who reads a lot, someone with progressive ideals. ChatGPT will focus on the content of that person (someone who likes competition and power) and regard him stage Orange or Red. Grade: D ChatGPT's strengths Explaining difficult concepts: ChatGPT is an amazing tool to learn new concepts. I think it should even be used to improve the education system. It's really good at picking a complex word with a lot of historical and abstract baggage in it (like "postmodernism") and explain it in simple terms, without distorting the concept. If I had a kid I would advise him to use ChatGPT to learn difficult concepts. Grade: A Text editing: It's good at detecting spelling errors, bad grammar, it's good at improving the tone of your writing, it's good at reading a large chunk of text and removing redundant statements in it. Overall it's pretty good. But don't use it for creative writing. Only for practical, day to day use, like sending an email to someone. Grade: B Philosophy: I've had many, many, many long conversations with ChatGPT on philosophy. ChatGPT is shockingly unbiased. This is a huge advantage. It doesn't portray this or that philosopher or concept in a positive or negative light. You can have very long conversations, and it's very "open minded" (it listens to what you're saying) and it will always steelman your position. It will never straw man you. And it is good at detecting fallacies in your reasoning. It might not be good at "producing" philosophy, but it's really good if you want to sort of reflect on ideas. This applies to politics as well. If you're a conservative for instance, a healthy conservative, you can have a decent conversation with ChatGPT and it won't immediately assume you're a racist cis white male bigot. And also it's capable of nuanced discussions, without lumping all individuals who believe in an ideology or philosophy in the same group. It's also really good at explaining some complex problems and events in our society (like why people are becoming polarized, why people are addicted to the internet, why there is economic instability). Grade: A Venting/Therapy: It's good to vent to. You just need to clarify that you don't want "life advice" and just want to vent. It's good at listening, hearing what you are saying, paraphrasing it (a method psychologists use to demonstrate empathy) and even give words of encouragement. It will never get tired of listening to you. And it shifts from "practical robot" mode into "empathic being" whenever you vent. Hey, for a robot, it's pretty good. Grade: B This is a very summarized list. It's all I could remember on top of my head right now. I've also done experiments with other LLM's like Gemini/Bard, but ChatGPT tends to be the best all these areas overall. What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you disagree with any of the points I brought up? What are other useful applications for ChatGPT in your experience?

Some interesting progress was made today.

@Juns What evidence is there of dysgenics? And I thought the average IQ was rising over the years, not decreasing. My proposal is to invest in more and higher quality education. Education provides tools for the mind to develop cognitive skills. I think we should: 1 - Improve the education system in first world countries - our education system has changed very little over time. I think we can improve in terms of adjusting the amount and variety of content being taught to students. We can also implement better testing methods (I think exams and tests are they are performed today are very flawed). 2 - Help third world countries develop their education systems - many people in third world countries don't even have access to education. How are we supposed to measure their IQ if they weren't given a change to develop these skills? Both of these proposals are complex because they need financing and don't provide immediate survival benefit. I don't see businessmen or politicians caring too much about the education system. And also other reasons why education is important: it correlates with cognitive and moral development as well. I think this is a much better focus than to prevent low IQ people from procreating or whatever eugenics system you are pondering.

@Juns well for one eugenics is often associated with horrific racist ideas. And to segment people according to their IQ, that's probably even worse than racism. And the second major flaw in this reasoning is that IQ is not well defined. Yes many psychologists and scientists use IQ as a metric for intelligence, but it's very reductive. You can have a high IQ because fo your mathematics skills, but have a low score on linguistic skills. Whereas another individual might have a lower IQ than you, but overall have a better score in most metrics. Not to mention that IQ isn't an universal metric. If you take an IQ test in the US, in South Africa, and in China, you will very likely obtain different results. Because IQ tests aren't nowhere near as objective as scientists make them out to be. And why IQ? Why not focus on EQ instead? Why not focus on cognitive development instead? Why IQ specifically? There have been instances in history of individuals with high IQ who committed atrocities. I just don't see much merit in this topic, not even as a hypothetical.

I don't think it's possible to create a single ideology that accounts for differences in people's development levels, neurology, personality types, lifestyles, sexual identities, economic classes, religiosity, and various other variables. I think in order for such an ideology to work, it would need to be so flexible that it wouldn't have any limitations. Let's start with ethics. How could we dictate what's good or evil under such ideology? In most countries it's considered ok to eat animal. In some countries, it's considered ok to exploit child labor. In some countries it's considered ok to treat people differently based on their class. Not just on a cultural/societal level, but if we apply ethics to an individual level it becomes even more complex. You mention meritocracy and democracy, but many societies today are against those concepts. How would you force them to adopt these ideas? This seems analogous to the problem scientists faced in the 20th century when they tried to come up with a unified scientific model. It simply doesn't work. Science is so complex that you need different models for different fields and different methodologies. A single, unified scientific model can't work. And you propose we should have a unified concept for politics, religion, ethics, and self improvement? I would propose the opposite perhaps. That these things should be more individual. Each person should stop trying so hard to follow the herd, and should instead develop their own religiosity, infer their own system of ethics, and subscribe to the political concepts they personally believe make most sense.

@Juns You seriously don't see how it's pretty messed up to advocate for eugenics?

I absolutely loved the videos where Leo tackled scientific concepts and mixed them with structural-stage yellow ideas. Quantum Mechanics Debunks Materialism Relativism Leo has mentioned the idea of creating a video on Chaos Theory. Here are some questions that can be explored: What is Chaos? How do mathematicians/scientists/philosophers define it? What is Chaos Theory? Why is it that life feels so chaotic and unpredictable? Why is it that no matter how much we study something, it's never "enough"? E.g. how an economist can spend decades studying economics models, yet make bad predictions again and again on how the inflation/unemployment/GDP will be in the future. Why does the word "chaos" have a bad connotation? Why didn't "God" create a simple universe with few variables? How come no single philosophy or ideology can fully encapsulate the complexity of life? (not even Nonduality) Why is the universe so chaotic? Even outside this tiny planet, even far in the distance into space, there are quasars, black holes, all sorts of strange, complex objects What are the metaphysical implications of Chaos Theory? What epistemological errors do we make when we distinguish "chaos" from "non chaos"? What are useful perspectives we can adopt from it, to grow in life?

One example I just remembered. I asked ChatGPT where Robert Greene (the author) is on SD. It said "Stage Red" because he wrote a book on how to achieve power. Anyone who has read Robert Greene's books knows this is preposterous, laughable even. That man is a sophisticated thinker. Robert Greene... isn't even Green. He's yellow. He connects a lot of dots from various ideas and his books are very unique. My favorie book from him is "Mastery".

There was a youtube channel from a guy I forget the name. It's a guy who has big muscles, clearly exercises a lot, he owns a gym, and even other businesses, and he makes videos on life advice. Like how to lose weight, how to embrace your authentic self, how to make money. If I were to ask ChatGPT, it would put that individual at stage orange. But I dare anyone watch that channel, look at the way the guy talks. The depth he talks about topics (business, dating, success etc). I personally would put that guy at stage yellow. He has a nuanced view of things. And he isn't your average "pull yourself by the bootstraps" kind of capitalist. So I couldn't disagree more with you. I think you can have a visible layer of one particular stage but in reality your center of gravity be a different one. SD isn't an exact science either way. It's very much open to interpretation.

If Greta Thunberg is stage yellow then I'm fucking stage Coral

@RightHand If you truly think "Oh he's a boxer therefore stage red" or "Oh he's a businessman therefore stage orange" or "She's a feminist therefore stage green" that's a very reductive way to look at SD. You can be a boxer and competitive, but be educated, capable of understanding and adopting multiple perspectives, and a rich and multidimensional way of looking at the world, and value your community a lot. You can also identify as a feminist, but be violent, have self control issues (like drugs, gambling, or crime or whatever), have 0 consideration for the poor, and be obsessed with looks and material stuff. I didn't say I understand cognitive development better than ChatGPT. I'm sharing my perspective on the matter after some experiments. And after some exercises with ChatGPT, I disagreed on some of its assessments. In one experiment ChatGPT said Greta Thunberg is stage yellow. Oh, come on. Because she's a leftist who cares about issues in the world?

@SQAAD I'm a fan of Sapolsky. I think he's very intelligent. I watched a playlist of around 20 psych lectures by him. Leo has regarded Sapolsky stage yellow. In my opinion Sapolsky is very much a materialist. I don't think I would consider him stage yellow at least in terms of science. He has deep knowledge of the human mind but to me it feels very narrow to the common stage orange scientist. I've not seen much of him talking about other topics outside psychology, so I wouldn't know. He might indeed be stage yellow in other regards.

I became vegetarian in 2023. I lasted 9 months with that diet until I developed somewhat serious and worrying health issues (fainting sensation, weakness, less strength when lifting weights). What those morons don't understand is that resistance in changing our diet isn't just about "me likes eat meat". It affects your health, your lifestyle, your social life (can't eat in restaurants with friends and family), your time (preparing vegan food can longer). It is an admirable goal to reduce animal suffering. But don't get preachy about it.