Nilsi

I'm not here to moralize or judge - I couldn’t care less. I must admit, though, there’s always a certain delight in seeing people who publicly present themselves as virtuous and prudent often turn out to be the most twisted individuals in their private lives.

I also think there can be a natural progression in many people from one type to another. In my favorite novel, Le Rouge et le Noir by Stendhal, a young provincial cleric who has spent his entire life studying scripture and embodies the traits of an INTJ sets out to achieve success in the "real world." He eventually finds himself in Parisian high society, where he immerses himself in the social and power dynamics of the court, transforming into an ENFJ.

That the idea of God, which he's getting from reading Christian scripture, aligns fully with modern science - essentially the same perspective as Jordan Peterson.

The "hiding part" is pretty significant in this equation, lol. There’s nothing inherently wrong with having lots of sex, and I get how high testosterone levels and social status might naturally incline someone toward this kind of behavior, which I can respect. However, orchestrating something like this over several years is undeniably twisted. It’s straight out of The Rational Male playbook by Rollo Tomassi (though he advises keeping no more than five secret girlfriends at a time - for logistical reasons, lol).

I’ve found it quite challenging to determine where I truly fall on this spectrum, as Jung’s cognitive functions are far more nuanced than the stereotypes often associated with terms like "Thinking" or "Feeling." The simplifications we use tend to obscure their depth. For instance, while I’ve always been deeply intellectually and philosophically inclined, I resonate much more with the Feeling type. It’s not that I disregard logic, facts, or data, but my focus lies more on how ideas connect to the human experience and how they evoke certain aesthetic and emotional dispositions. At the same time, I’m also more extroverted in a fundamental sense: I’m far more attuned to and energized by the exterior world than by introspection. All my intellectual efforts, in one way or another, are oriented toward engaging with and influencing the world around me. This is why online tests always label me as INTJ, likely due to my philosophical leanings and strategic thinking. However, if I were to choose a label that feels truer to my nature, I’d describe myself as ENFJ, not in the stereotypical lovey-feely, agreeable sense, but more in the sense of being very enchanted by desire and the intensity of otherness and multiplicity.

Very interesting. Freud described the Doppelgänger, the perfect double, as the quintessential uncanny experience - likely because, as you noted, a perfect double doesn't occur in nature. Its absence makes it profoundly unsettling, and apparently, with good reason.

It sounds like a textbook rationalization for individuals who fail to properly integrate into society, reveling in their own antisocial tendencies. The video smugly dismissed salespeople as mere manipulators, tricking others into buying things they don't need. This stereotype is as tired as it is reductive. The true art of sales lies in connecting people with products or services that genuinely improve their lives - a skill far more challenging and rewarding than it’s given credit for. Unless you’re peddling outright scams, like Jordan Belfort’s penny stocks, being an effective salesperson demands aligning your actions and values. This is how you truly reach what they referred to as "Level 5." Effectiveness in the real world requires empathy - not some vague abstraction, but the ability to genuinely connect with "normal" people and inspire them to join your cause. Even MLK, who was name-dropped in that video, mastered this. He possessed a profound understanding of human nature, navigating the delicate balance between lofty idealism and practical implementation. That’s how real change happens - not through condescension, but through connection and persuasion.

I rewatched this three-hour conversation between psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist and cognitive scientist John Vervaeke, moderated by systems thinker and activist extraordinaire Daniel Schmachtenberger. The first time, it left me cold; this time, I hoped fresh eyes and experience might reveal something new. And, to an extent, it did. The discussion begins with familiar ground: the psychological drivers of our civilization’s crises - ecological collapse, mental health breakdowns, economic arms races - traced to a loss of connection with the sacred. Both McGilchrist and Vervaeke argue persuasively that the fragmenting tendencies of technological, scientific, and economic “progress” have atomized our worldview and severed our sense of the whole. But when the conversation turns to solutions - how to address these crises - things unravel. Schmachtenberger rightly points out that unchecked game theory conditions individuals, corporations, and nations to act in ways that perpetuate the crises. Yet McGilchrist and Vervaeke dodge the real issue: how to implement a structure that ensures no one defects from this sacred “agreement.” The elephant in the room remains untouched: trust collapses in game-theoretic systems because defection is always incentivized, and catastrophic when it happens. How do you make sacred commitments binding when the stakes - like the U.S. trusting China not to escalate AI development - are existential? Instead of engaging, the discussion retreats back into arcane and convoluted arguments about religion and the sacred as psychological salves. This isn’t just inadequate; it’s naïve. Psychology, as presented here, has nothing to offer. It’s obsessed with ideal psychological states while utterly blind to the economic and sociological realities shaping behavior. Any 14-year-old Marxist understands the material conditions of civilization better than these esteemed gentlemen. Isn’t this precisely Nietzsche’s critique? God is dead, and trying to resurrect him is folly. Nietzsche argued for the Übermensch - humanity maturing to the point of stewarding its own destiny, free from the need for divine intervention or promises of redemption in an afterlife. Yet these scholars, supposedly at the pinnacle of understanding the human mind, offer nothing but a retreat into faith, all while audaciously positioning themselves as Nietzsche’s critics and authorities - much like Jordan Peterson likes to do. It’s shocking, though not surprising, that Nietzsche’s ideas have found fertile ground among social scientists and cultural theorists, not psychologists. If this discussion isn’t outright irony, it might as well be: a piece of performance art on the radical inadequacy of psychology - a field producing little more than abstractions, divine ruptures, and scholars lost in their own detachment.

No offense, but I find your taste in art - especially music - to be really poor. Honestly, it’s almost offensively bad to me. So throwing around claims of "great taste" like that feels a bit flippant, if you ask me.

Just to make sure we’re on the same page: we are talking about the same Catholic Church that once made a fortune selling what were essentially “get-out-of-jail-free cards” (indulgences) to their followers, under the threat that they’d burn in hell for eternity otherwise, right? Just because some 21st-century pope declared that “hell doesn’t exist” doesn’t suddenly absolve the Catholic Church of its past. Let’s not forget that there are Islamic scholars who’ve made similar claims, such as suggesting that “hell might eventually cease to exist.” Moreover, in Islamic theology, hell is not eternal for believers, which arguably makes it more mild than the traditional Catholic view. So, we need to approach this with a lot more nuance, as I can’t help but notice a strong anti-Islam bias in your arguments. Also, Islam is about far more than just "obedience." There’s a significant emphasis on love, compassion, mercy, and the promise of paradise, so that critique is frankly quite reductive and vulgar.

The problem with Islam is that its eschatology is so radical, and the descriptions of paradise and hell so vivid and extreme, that the afterlife becomes the central focus of everything. This fixation leads to paranoiac behaviors, like cloaking women from head to toe to eliminate even the slightest chance of sin’s seductive influence. And as psychoanalysis teaches us, repression always leads to neurosis and often manifests in precisely the most extreme form of what has been repressed, in deeply ironic ways. So, it’s no surprise that some of the most repressive and God-fearing cultures often produce the most godless acts of violence and depravity.

Because you’ve likely only been exposed to bourgeois readings of the story of Jesus that encourage you to defer your authority to the court - be it the church, the state, or any institution claiming to embody the will of God, whether in theological or secular terms. The interpretation I’ve offered isn’t some radical postmodern deconstructionist stance, by the way - it’s already present in Hegel: Slavoj Žižek put it perfectly:

This goes so hard, wtf!

I see your point that not all power is inherently illegitimate, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking China or Russia are engaged in some noble liberation struggle against the West. These are regimes driven by raw, cynical power grabs, with no higher purpose than domination. China’s economic rise is built on espionage, intellectual property theft, and exploitation. Their infrastructure projects in Africa shackle nations with debt, enforcing subservience to serve their own trade ambitions. This is underpinned by a brutal genocide against the Uyghurs and an Orwellian surveillance state designed to crush dissent and maintain absolute control. Russia, meanwhile, functions like a mafia state. Beyond its aggression in Ukraine, it aligns with brutal regimes, escalates proxy wars with the U.S., and brutalizes its own population through oligarchic exploitation. Their state-sponsored Wagner operations in Central Africa enslave locals and strip resources like diamonds to fuel their imperial ambitions. These actions are not rooted in principle or justice - they are deliberate strategies of oppression and exploitation, driven solely by an insatiable hunger for power. None of this is to excuse the West or U.S. hegemony - historically, their exploits have often been even worse. But that’s not the point here.

That’s bullshit. These leaders were undeniably successful, achieving remarkable victories for liberation and leaving lasting positive impacts, but they were systematically undermined and destroyed by the same imperialist forces they fought against. This is textbook bourgeois deflection: inventing vague, abstract "problems" to distract from the real, material issues at hand, all while discouraging meaningful action against the status quo. People like you have always been propped up by the system to make apathy and inaction seem intellectual. Spare me the charade - I’m not buying it.

That's pure fantasy. China's 100-Year Marathon is a meticulously crafted plan to achieve global hegemony by 2049. They are arguably the most strategically sophisticated nation when it comes to projecting an image of cooperation and peacefulness, all while quietly but inexorably consolidating power. Their actions are deeply rooted in the philosophical traditions of Lao Tzu and Confucius - principles of patience, subtlety, deception, and long-term strategy. Their so called "Communism" is just a convenient façade for a far older, more enduring civilizational ambition. And Russia? Let’s not even begin to feign ignorance. Putin has openly published historical treatises outlining his blueprint for annexing Ukraine and reconstituting a neo-imperial Russian order. He doesn’t just dream of empire; he articulates it in cold, calculated prose. To believe otherwise is to indulge in dangerous naivety.

Some crises are too radical to leave any humans behind to learn from them. If you overdose on opiates, you simply suffocate in your sleep - there’s no “you” left to learn the lesson. This is why humans need to grow up and use their reasoning to foresee extreme consequences that are very much on the table. But for that, we need an appropriate psychology - a framework that corresponds to this level of responsibility. That’s why I’ve alluded to Nietzsche and even atheist readings of the New Testament. Anything that makes humans aware of the fact that we’ve reached a point in our evolution where we either figure things out, use our faculties appropriately, or face collapse. At this stage, the idea of divine intervention or some redemptive teleology baked into the universe is no longer acceptable - there’s simply too much at stake.

I did already. But again, there’s no reason to play by the rules of those in power when it’s clear there are multiple factors conspiring against them changing their ways - like their own survival instincts and the perks of great power and wealth, the ideologies they’ve spent decades crafting to justify their actions and positions, and the game-theoretic traps that prevent them from acting differently, even if they wanted to. That leaves the responsibility to those with the proper consciousness and motivation for change - a classic David vs. Goliath situation. Liberation movements and their leaders offer far more valuable lessons for this than something like Lao Tzu’s Art of War, which, frankly, is a very bourgeois text and doesn’t make much sense in such an extreme power imbalance. That said, there’s still a lot of wisdom in it, though often obscure and overly elitist.

Again, I’d go so far as to say the model should be more like guerrilla warfare - think Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Patrice Lumumba, Malcolm X, and the like. Honestly, even Osama Bin Laden had a point, if you ask me. People just need to be mobilized to demand change, by whatever means available to them. Lobbying, by comparison, is tedious and futile. There’s no need to be nice or play by the rules when so much is on the line. I don’t buy into the fantasy of some ultimate resolution in a Game B utopia. Every generation has its conflicts and its liberators - that’s just life. But the world is fragile, and certain measures must be taken to prevent catastrophic collapse.

That’s exactly my point. But those two gentlemen are even more lost in their abstractions than Schmachtenberger. At least Schmachtenberger is asking the right questions, and beyond his podcast appearances, he’s actually doing activist work and influencing lawmakers - so let’s not overdo it with the criticism. The only hippies in this discussion are McGilchrist and Vervaeke. Shit won’t magically fix itself by praying to God or sitting in a drum circle, channeling the Dialogos, or whatever. But I hope we agree that action, grounded in a realistic assessment of human nature, is still necessary? You can’t just expect everything to turn out fine - we could very well wipe ourselves out. There are no guarantees. Unless, of course, you want to invoke some divine will.

I suggest you take a hard look at where you’re deferring your agency to some divine force and seriously consider what it means if we have to fix this shit ourselves.

The problem is that catastrophe is imminent - every day, 20 animal species go extinct, planetary boundaries are shattered, AI creeps closer to runaway superintelligence, and capitalism accelerates relentlessly, dragging us into ever deeper chaos. There’s simply no time for such utopian projects, even if your intuitions are right. Immediate action is non-negotiable. It’s going to be rough, it’s going to be dirty, and neither a psychiatrist nor a divine deity will be there to hold our hands through it. Also, isn’t this precisely the point of Jesus? On the cross, he wasn’t just dying - he was taking God with him. His followers asked, “How do we know you’re there for us when you’re gone?” And he answered, “When there’s love between you, I will be there.” If this isn’t the most profound atheist manifesto ever, I don’t know what is.

Bro, ain’t no way you’re getting Putin to speak your “shared grammar.” Same goes for any CEO whose fiduciary responsibility is next quarter’s bottom line. That’s a pipe dream. This will always be a war, not some utopian shit John Lennon sang about. Nietzsche at least rips away all your comforting illusions and makes you face the reality: there’s no big man in the sky looking out for you. If you want to change shit, you’re on your own. But this doesn’t have to be some lone wolf, individualist endeavor. You could easily align this with Marx’s class consciousness or any “shared grammar” that empowers people to coordinate in ways grounded in material conditions. I’d take Che Guevara over St. Paul any day for precisely this reason. And yes, they’re ultimately deferring their agency to a higher power, which is why they don’t bother doing any rigorous material analysis of the actual conditions shaping the world.

I don’t want to seem rash in dismissing psychology outright. I do believe people like Jordan Peterson are onto something when they draw parallels between scripture and the psychological architecture of individual human beings. If you want to thrive in the sense of living a fulfilling human life - becoming a mature person with a decent job, a stable relationship, kids, someone who generally has their shit together while reducing suffering and not causing too much trouble by being overly ambitious or asking too many questions - that’s fine. You can even come to terms with death and all the rest. You can sleep well, so to speak. But this is precisely not the kind of psychology needed to address unprecedented global catastrophes or to push yourself artistically or philosophically. As Nietzsche perfectly mocked this kind of wisdom, whose ultimate goal is basically just to have you sleep well: