YIDIRYIDIR

I get what you are saying, but the framing "stages" applies to something big and complicated like spiral dynamics for example, or any other complicated concept that explains an aspect of reality. You can't just either get it or not.

Is there a book or somebody that mapped stages of understanding? I can see patterns but i can't put them to words myself, for example, whenever i stumble upon some new topic, i first don't know nothing and curious and absorb as much as possible then i start interpreting what i consumed with the mental tools i already have, with the understanding i already have, which is not accurate of course, then i start observing that in real life, and then somewhere along the way i start having insights upon insights and things start to connect and i actually know i understand. anyone know something about this that can help? I watched the video "Comprehension Has Many Degrees", but it isn't detailed enough in my opinion. but it is a great video that validated what i noticed.

i don't get how this example fits in this context, can you explain what are you trying to get across?

great distinction. relying on beliefs is strategic if one is conscious and can deal with the risk that comes with that. sometimes you even have no choice, you just can't afford to not believe in something.

actually, a coconut is a nut, and coco milk is the semen inside it. ever wonder why the coco tree is strait as an arrow? it's a because it's a backwards dick, the coconuts are its nuts, the leafs/fronds are its pubic hair. also wonder why coconuts are hairy? because nuts are fucking hairy it's obvious.

I know some things, a lot of things, but do you know somethings that aren't on my "some things i already know" list ? i doubt you know such kind of some things.

He talked about "pure philosophy" in the "An Intro to Serious Philosophy - Top Advice for Philosophers." video. which is the same as what you are asking for.

I'm rewatching the video "The Sneaky Psychology Behind Conspiracy Theories" now, and Leo also does compare systems thinking and conspiracy thinking. but in a different way.

An insight just penetrated my fucking skull, and i want to know what are your thoughts on it. Conspiracy theory thinking is 2 things, pre-mature systems thinking, and rookie level pattern recognition. let me explain: That type of thinking is a result of being skeptic without a developmental foundation, which shows as weak introspection skills, lack of psychological awareness of self deception, bias, low tolerance for uncertainty, egoic defense mechanisms self centeredness, projection, and most importantly, lack of holistic big picture thinking. (we can call all this lack of epistemic discipline, or skill) In spiral dynamics terms, the person is usually blue stage, and is being pulled toward orange's analytical skepticism and yellow's systemic awareness, but lacking the developmental foundation, they snap back into Blue's need for a unified, morally clear narrative. Instead of "God and tradition explain everything," and "the devil is behind everything" it becomes "a hidden agent with some big mission explains everything." Same cognitive structure, different content. Both a system's thinker and a conspiracy theorist observe the same things, corruption, manipulation, hidden incentives, traps, selfishness, agendas, suspicious things... but a systems thinker sees the big picture and tries to understand how everything is tied together, while the conspiracy theorist tries to fit all those observations to his worldview and structure of thinking that's the result of low development. a systems thinker does pattern recognition, a conspiracy theorist does pattern projection. To clarify, I'm talking about the type of thinking, the structure, not conspiracy theories themselves, which is content. this doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are wrong.

Yeah, i knew that because i wasn't surprised when i read it, you basically didn't teach me anything new. so basically it was in my subconscious data base, i just have never been put in a context where i had to put it into words. also, every living being is genetically related to other living beings, so that's not something new. also, all that is an illusion, everything is one. i should've been a lawyer.

In your opinion, is this idea true @Leo Gura? : "the more you develop vertically, while constantly working on your epistemic attitude and responsibility, the more you access/allow higher levels of intelligence" (developmental models) if not, what can be considered a rule or a litmus test?

@Yimpa Thanks

Holy motherfucking shit, i just discovered that there are so many long ass videos of Leo in his blog, dozens, really fucking actually good ones. how's no body told me this?

kinda got my answer on this reel: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYwjYlXO30I/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

-

After watching the reel on "Spirituality is hyper sobriety", i got curious whether creativity and creative insight is dependent on level of sobriety, and what does that mean?. Does creativity get better the more sober you are? Just like we get the juiciest creative insights and solutions while taking a walk, or taking a shower, while meditating, while on a bus waiting... there's also when you're half asleep, it happens to me personally.

— Arthur Schopenhauer After i saw Leo's blog post on "How Intelligent People Deal With Idiots", i saw this quote above on the video and i actually wrote something similar. If we observe this from a meta level, from spiral dynamic's lens, we see that independent thinking is only seen on individuals at late green stage and yellow stage, and everyone bellow that use "authority" in more and more sophisticated ways the higher they are on the spiral, to a point where sometimes it can look like independent thinking, but it's actually just believing in authority. It happens like this: Lower blue stage: Truth is received, not discovered. Believes thinking isn't available to them, and that Knowledge is hierarchical, and they see themselves in the bottom, that's why they feel like imposters when trying to think about something independently. Rely on authority, common and trendy social knowledge and behavior. All intellectual activity comprise memorization of given knowledge within the major framework they've been indoctrinated with. Higher stage blue: The individual begins comparing authorities within the major authority framework, rather than blindly obeying one. (example: people here will never question religion for example, but only sub-frameworks or branches) Thinking becomes a tool for selecting the “correct” framework, not transcending frameworks. (that's why it looks like independent thinking, but it's just "true authority vs false authority" type of thinking) High degree of rationalizations, cognitive errors, biases, logical fallacies and self-deception. (result of trying to think for the first time) Intellectual effort is spent defending and refining inherited and believed truths. Independent thought is tolerated only if it leads back to the major established framework. Lower Orange stage: Authority shifts from religion/tradition/inherited truth to experts, science, and measurable success. Rational stuff, proven stuff, tangible stuff. same "true authority vs false authority" type of thinking, but selection here relies on results, competence, virality, social proof. very biased rationality that lack first principles thinking and epistemic investigation. Selecting different authorities using biased rationality is what looks like independent thinking Higher Orange Stage: The individual starts comparing major competing frameworks. different scientists, different philosophies... (which looks like independent thinking, but that's still authority, just at a higher level) originality exists here, but only as as recombination of external ideas. High trust in external proven truths that "make sense" VS low trust in internal first person investigation. Lower Green stage: Trust in Turning inwards starts to increase, but only through belief (ironic ik), turning outwards is kinda integrated. High trust in intuition, emotions, the immaterial, but only as a result of believing in that, belief here is mistaken for intuition. High trust in social consensus, it becomes a major authority High degree of abstraction, theorization, using esoteric language, believing in all sorts of crazy spiritual immaterial theories merely through belief that's mistaken for intuition. Relying on emotional resonance, collective lived experience, questioning conventional truths and then replacing them with new chosen unconventional ones is what looks like independent thinking. The individual is still inside a paradigm, but is unconscious of that fact Higher Green stage: The individual recognizes multiple truths and contextual perspectives. Starts to step out of the paradigm of thinking that ruled their worldview and starts to become aware of existence of paradigms. Thinking becomes more self-reflective and aware of bias. Ambiguity tolerance increases significantly. The start of independent, unbiased, detached thinking. driven merely by desire for understanding with nothing to gain, with no agenda or nothing to prove or defend, that is done with radical open-mindedness. The person starts seeing all ideologies, including their own, as partial constructions. Second tier thinking - yellow stage: Thinking becomes systemic rather than ideological. The individual sees every framework as a tool rather than absolute truth. Authority and belief are used as tools while being conscious of the risk that comes with that. they're used strategically and consciously. Epistemology and first principles thinking become non negotiable. Holistic thinking emerges. Tolerance for contradictions and paradoxes. Epistemic humility is high. Original thought emerges through deep synthesis and first-principles observation. High trust in direct observation. constant study of self-deception High reliance on direct experience and trail and error (there is probably more to say about this stage but that's all i got, for now) Stage Turquoise: wait, you expect me to simply break down this stage? who the fuck do you think i am? (just kidding) anyway, this post took almost 2 hours to put together, so you better engage with it or i will come for you. also feel free to point out the gaps and things you think are wrong.

0 seconds, I'm currently typing with my right hand and fapping with my left on your profile picture.

Thank you for your answers guys

@Leo Gura Can you add a bit more nuance? For example what's the difference between "talkers" and actualized.org content? because you do rely on it for a living to a certain degree. Would we be able to say "you talk for a living" ?

i will take any answer

I'm actually gay so no

tell em bro 😂😂

It's all or nothing for me man.

jeesus 😆