Emerald

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).

Women who are overtly flexible just tend to be women who don't really know who they are and who don't have a very high self-esteem. And women with this tendency tend to compromise and settle for less in relationships and don't get "beloved" treatment like they really want. The thing is that, if a woman isn't clear on her boundaries. And she trades 'WHAT she wants in a relationship' for 'WHO she wants in a relationship', she's not going to be happy with that relationship because her boundaries alarm bells will be constantly going off. So, if a woman stays with a guy because she likes him despite glaring incompatibilities (in this case, the guy wants to be poly), she probably has some self-love issues she needs to work through. But a lot of men tend to bank on women liking them so much that they'll compromise those boundaries. So, it's common that the man will try to get the woman to fall in love with them first before springing ethical non-monogamy onto them. That's why I think that conversation should happen way before any feelings arise and before any major relationship bonding happens.

Thank you It helps me keep my sword sharp.

I tend to be kind of on and off on here over the years, and just come back when it resonates. So, I don't really want any responsibilities on here. I just come here to get into little intellectual debates for fun.

Thank you for the nomination, but no thank you. I just like to come here every in my off times to goof around.

There's a transactional element to relationships. But that's not all there is to a relationship. And if you don't see that, your ideology is clouding you and holding you back from making deep connections with people.

I see. I didn't know it was a Blackpill thing.

That's true. There's a great video that Innuendo Studios came out with 5 or so years ago called "How to Radicalize a Normie." And it goes into the process that a lot of people who end up as Nazis end up going through.

The term normie has been around a long time before Blackpill. I probably first heard it in high school or college. (early 2000s) But I think it came from much earlier than that, like 60s and 70s... hippie times.

Didn't you know that fruitcakes that wear make-up, dyed hair, and shiny ostentatious suits are the alpha-ist of males? Example one... Example two...

Do you mean that the word "normie" is often used in the Blackpill online spaces? Or are you just saying that my use of the word "normie" is blackpilling you about life?

My favorite qualities in men.... and favorite Masculine qualities in general are encouragement and the desire to help. My experience has been that a lot of men will go out of their way to support you and help you do what you're trying to do. There's also this really "into it" kind of way that a lot of men are with their passions. And this is one is one that I've always aspired to. Like, when my son gets into something... he get WAY into it and wants to know everything about it. I see the same kind of quality with my dad and my husband with their respective interests. And there's this specific orientation to it that's hard to put into words. It's got frenzied mad scientist energy to it.

They've actually been really effective at convincing their target audience. And they were under the radar of most people for the longest time. Neo-Nazis have been rising in popularity since around 2015. That's when I started to learn about them. But back then, if you called them out on it, the average person would be like "You're a crazy paranoid SJW. They're obviously not Nazis." And you'd get accused of crying wolf if you tried to tell people about it. It's only in recent years that people are starting to wake up to it. So, unfortunately, their games have been quite effective.

To the average person definitely. But it becomes easier to spot when you know what the common dog whistles and symbols are... and the way that they talk about things. Secret Nazis are always using symbols to communicate with one another and signal that they're also Nazis. The main difficulty is that Neo-Nazis are pretty effective at spreading their talking points. So, normies can also pick up on those and start using them.

It's more like 10% of them are serious about White Nationalism and Neo-Nazism from the start... and those 10% radicalize the other 90%. But that 10% "hide their power level" from normies, which is what Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists call strategically hiding the fact that they're secret Nazis in order to maximize their impact on normies. And then these secret Nazis start making "ironic" edgy jokes about women, minorities, immigrants, gay, and trans people in a way that has plausible deniability. Like, "Come on guys. He's obviously joking. Why do you have to be such a woke scold? Everyone gets canceled for everything now-a-days. Comedy is under attack." And because the Nazi rhetoric is couched in a joke, the normies don't think the people who started them are really Nazis and will assume they're joking... and they begin joking along with them. Then, you have a bunch of Nazis and non-Nazis telling the same jokes. And it muddies the waters further because it is ACTUALLY true that some of them are joking. And over time, these online space just become Neo-Nazi spaces... and the veneer of the jokes are only there to pull in unsuspecting normies.