Emerald

Yes

Sorry. I thought you were just being disrespectful. And I was matching that energy. But if it's genuinely difficult for you to read it because of a language barrier or something like that, the long and short of it is that humanity goes through phases where there's a strong group identity and phases where that group identity breaks down.

I'm sorry that it was too complex for you. You can copy paste it into ChatGPT if you want to simplify it for your reading level.

I'm going to need some actual statistics on the heightened crime rate through immigration. Here in the states, immigrants (legal and illegal) commit crimes at a lower rate to that of US born citizens.

First off, you didn't explain what was illogical about my point. You just made another point. So, tell me what I said specifically that seems illogical to you. Now, I don't know the statistics on this from anywhere but here in America. But in terms of people who immigrate to America (legally or illegally), they tend to commit crimes at a lower rate than people who were born and raised in the US. I don't know what it's like in Poland specifically, but I'm imagining it would be similar. Immigrants mostly want to stay off the radar of the police to avoid losing their ability to stay in the country. So, they tend to break laws at lower rates. But if your claim is that the border police need to be brutal to be effective, I'm going to need some actual evidence of that claim... and not just your assumptions.

The way that society develops is between catabolic and anabolic phases. And these go back and forth until humanity is untied as one. It the anabolic phases, the collective coalesces and a strong collective identity is forged. And in the catabolic phases that collective identity is dissolved and broken down. In early human times, small nomadic groups coalesced together under a strong identity (the anabolic phase). Then, the catabolic phase hits... and those identities faded. And in the following anabolic phase, they were absorbed into larger and more developed tribes with an ever greater stronger collective identity. Then, the catabolic phase hit again... and the tribal identities were broken down. And the anabolic phase comes again where those tribes are absorbed into a greater empire and nation state with a greater national identity that unites far more people than the tribal and nomadic identities before it. And now, we're on the cusp of a catabolic phase once again... where national identities fade and are coming into an anabolic coalescence with a global identity... which will have a greater collective identity than nomadic, tribal, and national identities of times past and present. And those who are attached to the old ways and keeping strong national identities are in a collective death knell where they're trying to keep a grip on what is dying. And so, there is currently a resurgence of hyper-tribalism... and an attempt to go backwards in time. But it is just fighting nature... and nature will eventually win out.

Explain what I said that isn't rational.

It's not like entering someone's personal home. It's more like... one of that little yappy dogs who is operating under the delusion that the street they live on belongs to them personally. And then, when someone walks on that street the yappy dog takes it personally and believes that the random person walking on the street is a territory invader that means harm to them and their family.

@NewKidOnTheBlock If you don't support Poland shooting immigrants on sight... then it's not you that I'm talking about. These violent ways are obviously backwards and unnecessary to manage immigration concerns in Poland. And it's not a good sign for the state of the world if a European 2nd world country is regressing backwards in this way. And it's especially a sign of tribalism with all the guys on this post that are cheering on the shooting... and acting like territorial little yappy dogs that get up in arms when someone is walking on "their street". I feel like that should be obvious that shooting immigrants on sight is not a skillful or well-developed way to run a society. It's the type of thing you expect from 3rd world countries... not 2nd world countries. So, it's probably a sign that Poland is degenerating into a 3rd world country... and maybe other nations will follow suit. But maybe that's just my more emotionally conscious Feminine sensibilities.... like you said. It's just very obvious to me that all of this is bad news for humanity. It's like being a mother and watching your child be violent towards their younger sibling... and it's very sad. And it's clear from the mother's point of view that the dispute is a silly one... as most children's conflicts often are. But the children are still too underdeveloped to share the ball... so the mother must find ways to deter them. And eventually the mother will get fed up and take away the ball... just like Mother Nature will take away the Earth from us if we keep up these shenanigans. But I always hope for a better, more conscious, and Feminine principled future. It's difficult though, when there's so much propaganda that normalizes disconnection and anti-social tendencies. But if anyone who's cheering on other human beings getting killed, should not complain when they too are killed in the violent world they advocated for. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. And you have no right to complain when you're the one on the chopping block. I personally tend to side with Jesus on this one when he spoke about the tale of the Good Samaritan and "love thy neighbor."

100% A bunch of guys lacking in heart-wisdom and empathy and believing that they're highly conscious human beings.

I get that you're using this as a metaphor. But I think your grandfathers were telling you an exaggerated tale. And you definitely shouldn't take that as gospel regarding how to raise a baby... nor suggest that to anyone else. I'm sure you wouldn't feel very good if someone drowns their baby because of your suggestion. These notions of "back in the good ol' days we used to _____. But now we're too soft and spoiled." are things that you can find every generation of older people saying about every generation of younger people. And you find older people idealizing and embellishing stories about how they used to face with all manner of exaggerated dynamics. You can even find accounts from ancient times of older people talking about how the younger generations are too soft, disrespectful, stupid, etc. And you're not going to save society from "softness" by throwing babies in a river. Whoever does that would just go to prison.. and rightly so. You teach babies to swim by getting them to feel safe and comfortable in the water as they develop the skill. Babies have a reflex called the "Moro Reflex" where a startled scared baby will automatically throw their arms out and their head back. And a baby who is drowning would just be doing the Moro Reflex in response to being thrown int he river and wouldn't be able to swim. Plus, swimming is a learned skill... not an instinct. You just traumatize them and make them feel powerless by dropping them in the water without an adult to help them get used to the situation... especially throwing them in the river that way because the river would just take them further and further away. And the adults wouldn't even be able to save them. I worked with a client whose mom did that to her as an infant with the same logic. She dropped her in a swimming pool as a baby thinking she would eventually swim... and a man nearby had to save her from drowning. And even though that happened to her as an infant, she still has trauma patterns around that experience.

@Leo Gura Serendipitously enough, I just watched Teal Swan's most recent video. And she's sharing a lot of the same perspectives that I was discussing with you earlier. So, I decided to share the video. Here's the link...

To be clear, I'm saying this because I get concerned about you. You seem to put up a lot of walls and use your paradigmatic tricks to rationalize why those walls are correct and even superior. And perhaps trying to rationalize you out of them isn't going to be an effective approach because there are likely deep-seated reasons why you might be blocking connection and intimacy. But in this context it's all that I have at my disposal, so I will try. Evolutionarily, men and women have both relied on being part of a collective to survive. So, everyone's survival depends and has always depended on socialization. It's wired into us on a biological level... like other herd and pack animals. We can just live in denial of that fact now because of how well-resourced our society is... so our collective is more spread out and antisocial. But this is just an illusion of independence/solitude that enables this denial of basic human needs. And there is no such pattern in all of human history where it's common that men as a gender group go out into the wilderness to live alone for an extended period of time. So, even if you'd like to think so, men haven't evolved biologically to be independent of a collective. And there was a study that was done that showed that older men tend to respond much worse to isolation than older women. So, there's zero evolutionary scientific basis to your claim that women need to be social to survive and that men don't. Also, I am and have always been introverted but I don't find socializing inherently vapid. So, that isn't something that all introverts agree upon. Every person is like a tapestry of experiences and perspectives. And when you interact with people, with adequate sensitization, you can feel these currents flowing through them. Overall, I'm saying that you would be wise to consider whether you're post-rationalizing your social avoidance through different intellectual paradigms. The intelligent mind can trick itself with all manner of self-lies.... and can even use truth to lie to itself.

Not sure this is directed towards me. But to be clear, I'm quite familiar with Jungian Cognitive Functions. And Myers-Briggs-wise I'm an INFJ myself... with a strong sway in the direction of introversion. I do get a lot from solitary contemplation, and I'm a very internally-oriented person.. always have been. But I still stand by what I said to you before about considering if your disenchantment with socializing comes more from avoidant tendencies.

I just don't buy that Leo or anyone else is so different from any other human being when it comes to basic human needs like connection. So, I see it as far more likely that there's a resistance to connection and a repression of connection drives... rather than a true transcendence of the need for connection. I feel the same way about Breatharians who claim to not need food because they're 'so spiritually developed'. What's more likely? That someone transcended the basic human need for food? Or is that someone is secretly eating? What's more likely? That someone transcended the basic human need for connection? Or is that someone "secretly" spending hours per day socializing on a forum? In a medicine journey that I did several years ago, the medicine brought me between two states.. back and forth. And one state, I was polarized into divergence and extraordinariness... and I was like a puzzle piece that had come out from the rest of the puzzle and all the pressure in existence weighed down on my head, neck, and shoulders. Then, it would reintegrate me with ordinariness... and I felt very connected to humanity, nature, and the universe at large. And it kept toggling me back between these two points. And even though my tendency was always to seek divergence from other people, and I had a resistance to sameness and ordinariness... it was only in the embrace of ordinariness that things felt so profound. And I see in Leo and others on this forum... people who are in the same patterns of polarization into divergence and extraordinariness. And this leads to feeling alone... even when with people. That's what I meant by what I said.

You'd be wise to consider what I said. Certainly, there are monks. There are people who specifically choose that game. But it doesn't appear to my perception that you are choosing that game. It's a very unpopular game... and for good reason. You seem to spend a lot of time socializing. Just be honest with yourself.

Even though I don't agree with the tone of the OP because there's no need to get angry... I do think it's wise to contemplate deeper into whether your viewpoint that 'socializing is shallow' is actually true or just a means of perpetuating self-isolation and Avoidant Attachment behaviors. My experience has been that it's the small and simple things that are the most profound. And being able to live my life with other people brings a lot of meaning and joy to my life. I enjoy solitude also... but it's only good as a contrast to the status quo of connection. When I was 20 and went through a period where I was truly alone in the world, I couldn't actually enjoy my solitude. But it appears to my perception, that you actually value socializing quite a lot because you spend a great deal of time on this forum. Though you may consciously think differently about why you're engaging on here, which could obscure from your conscious awareness how much you do actually prioritize connection. Plus, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (which your channel is named for) even states that you must meet your Connection needs to fully focus on Esteem needs and Self-Actualization needs. But there is a pattern that I notice with a lot of intellectual men who go into this "too deep to socialize" mode. And they end up in the unspoken competition with others to be the "most developed" and feeling intellectually/spiritually elevated over others and isolating themselves. Quite a few guys on this forum fit into that category. There's this sense of trying to differentiate one's self. But any type of polarization into extraordinariness, specialness, superiority, divergence to the exclusion of ordinariness will create intense levels of disconnection and isolation... from humanity, nature, and the universe at large. And it will give the sense of being deeply alone, even when we are with people. But true connection and intimacy on an ordinary eye-to-eye level is incredibly profound. It's hard to experience it through the insulation of devaluing ordinary humanness.

I've told him that. It caused him to pause a bit and think about it... as within that tendency, there is an assumption that men are inherently emotionally stronger and more resilient and that women are inherently powerless in relation to men. He gets it in the abstract, but would often tend to default to the assumption of "man = bad aggressor" and "woman = good victim" with himself and others. And his tendency would be to always sympathize with the woman, even if she's in the wrong. He reminds me of me when I was a kid and going through my "not like the other girls" phase where I was always assuming that everyone thought girls/women were cruel and vapid... and that I was always trying to be an exception to the rule. In recent years, he's been a lot more even-handed... in part because of our friendship. But previously, I was always having to get onto him about his radical Feminist takes where he would always see men as the aggressors and the negative ones and women as the victims and the positive ones. This tendency came from him being raised in a very patriarchal high control religious sect and having a bad relationship with his dad. So, he had a lot of internalized misandry from those dynamics. And when he deconstructed from his religious background about a decade ago, he polarized over into the polar opposite ideology of rad fem (though he doesn't actually believe men can be true Feminists... in true rad fem fashion). So, it makes sense why he would have gravitated towards those perspectives.

Aye Aye Captain Kangaroo!

No, identity of any kind (including gender identity) comes from someone's beliefs about themselves. So, it is independent of physical features. That said, a person might feel a deeper sense of embodiment of their identity if they feel like they look the part.

If someone did identify as a banana... why would you even care in the first place?

There was a video I watched some years ago where a woman was verbally abusing a man, and people were laughing at him like "Haha. You're letting a woman dominate and berate you." That's really how toxic gender roles and expectations are, where people will see a man being abused and think he's the laughable one for having a woman dominating him... as opposed to realizing that he's a victim of the situation. But in this video, it does seem like the couple people who are laughing are laughing at her and not him. She's acting like a totally unhinged crazy person. But I do think people would intervene if it were a man having that kind of crazy unhinged rage response. I suspect that her antics aren't viewed as dangerous because she is female and won't be able to create serious physical harm to the people around here. So, her rage is viewed more as futile craziness that's stressful but harmless to the other people at the airport. But if a man were screaming like that, people in the airport would feel more threatened because of the greater level of physical strength. And people would probably cater to a female partner's vulnerability. So, there are a lot of double standards where men are expected to be the strong ones who can handle it. But this leads to a situation where female to male abuse in relationships gets overlooked... even by the victim. Like I have a close friend who was in a very abusive relationships before I met him. And while he recognizes that a guy would be terrible to treat a woman the way his ex treated him, he still has a tendency to think it's differently despite holding a lot of Feminist and gender equality attitudes otherwise. I've also worked with a male client who didn't realize he was in a very abusive relationship because he was taking all the responsibility for everything she was doing. So, it's a real problem where people overlook male vulnerabilities and think "they can handle it" as their partner abuses them.

Honestly, if you believe that political winter is coming enough to give people a mass warning, you should be sharing some concrete actionable advice to go along with that warning. You can't just be like "this terrible thing is about to happen!" and then be like "but figure it out yourselves". I live in Florida... so it's be like the Weather Channel being like "A category 6 hurricane is going to come at some point in the not too distant future." (the highest it goes is category 5) And then, when people ask what to do to prepare for a category 6 hurricane the weather channel is just like "Figure it out yourselves idiots!"

One comment that I would make is that it feels like the vibe of Psych-to-Go and even has a similar voice. But what you would need is to have a short breakdown of Spiral Dynamics to preface what you're teaching. Most people don't know what Spiral Dynamics is and haven't heard of it. So, you'll need to take some time to explain that in every video. So, I would prepare a 20-30 second blurb at the beginning of each video... including "and we'll you can use this model to understand how to find a compatible partner." I do the same thing in each of my videos about Shadow Work where I explain what Shadow Work is in about 30 seconds for people who've never heard of Shadow Work before. And it's a good practice to always define all the terms you're going to be using in the video in the first part of the video before you get into the meat of things. That gives people a sense of what the video is going to be about and clue them into what kind of vocabulary you'll be using. I like to organize my videos this way... Intro - ie "Hi I'm ____ and this video is about how to use Spiral Dynamics to find a compatible partner." Define all words and phrases people aren't generally familiar with The main points Action steps Outro And I would do some work to make your sound and sharing style a bit different from Psych-to-Go. It's important to find your own voice and to find your personal edge that makes you different from everyone else.. Those are my main notes. Keep up the great work!

There can be several reasons why this arises. And it's case specific to the individual. But one practice you can use is to ask yourself "How am I trying to protect or serve myself by holding onto the belief that I'm unworthy?" Sometimes we hold onto that belief to give ourselves the illusion of power over powerless situations because we can tell ourself "If I would have just been better, then it wouldn't have happened." In this case, the belief in unworthiness serves a protective purpose of keeping you from facing with the powerlessness of a situation (usually a childhood situation). Another reason we can hold onto this belief is to police ourselves before other people can judge us or ridicule us. And the belief in unworthiness acts as a gag to keep us from expressing ourselves and being judged. Yet another reason we can hold that belief is that we have a loved one that hates us... and we begin hating ourselves to ally ourselves with that loved on. And the belief in unworthiness can just be an extension of that self-hate that we adopted to keep connection to loved one (usually a parent). These are the main three that come to mind. But there may be others as well. But just keep contemplating into the question, "How am I trying to protect or serve myself by holding onto the belief that I'm unworthy?" And eventually the answer will reveal itself. And at that point you have spotted the root cause and you can work directly on the root cause of the problem as opposed to trying to change the symptom (aka the belief in unworthiness).