Carl-Richard

The virtue of balance again ? Fun fact: the model has a cultural East-West split in two places ("Being"-"Meaning" and the two "wings" on the abstract bubble). All wisdom traditions are equally represented (balanced). Also, the concrete domains look visually like a brick wall, and the abstract principles and virtues look like connecting thoughts. I did put some thought into it

The concrete domains (bio-psycho-social) should be thought of as the core domains you need to engage in to achieve things like well-regulated emotions. In a way, emotions skew towards the "lower" bio-social domains (reptile-limbic), but really all of it goes into developing your emotions (which goes back to the virtues of balance, integration, etc.). You could model it in a different way of course, but I like the bio-psycho-social split because it seems to pop up everywhere; from the Ancient Greeks, to modern psychology, to neurobiology.

My IQ just decreased 13 points by reading this

@Yimpa I also think you're trolling a bit much in this thread.

@Buck Edwards Telling someone to get psychiatric help without much elaboration and when they didn't introduce the topic themselves, can be viewed as an insult.

Not music related but some quotes I came up with:

Let's be nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism Here are some of my virtues:

What are your virtues?

Masochism is not stoicism.

I don't do any substances because I like the mental fortitude that comes with extreme stability. How is that for stoicism? Your take on stoicism sounds more like "YOLO" than anything the Ancient Greeks would've come up with https://www.dictionary.com/browse/yolo

Activating a receptor system is not inherently damaging. That is not really why smoking is damaging (nicotine is actually quite an innocuous substance on its own). Smoking is mainly damaging because you're inhaling burnt vegetable matter with hundreds of carcinogenic chemicals in it. Smoking any type of plant is most likely not good for you. As I said, it's not the good type of resilience. You can define resilience in the broadest sense as the ability to withstand some stimuli. You can also define it in a narrow sense like I did in the beginning of my previous post by tying it to increased general functioning and health. If you smoke regularly, you can handle more of the psychoactive effects of smoking, meaning you'll be more resilient in the broadest sense, but not in the narrow sense in this case.

Then quit smoking. On a serious note, the right kinds of stress, in the right doses, will make you more resilient, in the sense that it will increase your general functioning and health. Smoking is not that (and I've actually thought about this point specifically). As far as I'm aware, the only thing that smoking makes you more resilient against is the pharmacological effects of smoking itself (i.e. nicotine and other substances in tobacco), through downregulation and dependence. So you'll need to smoke more for the same effect, which isn't actually a good thing if you think about it. Maybe you'll also be more resilient towards certain harsh sensations in the throat and lungs through dulling of the sensory systems. But again, these are not "good" or useful types of resilience. The only thing that I can think of that is worse is than smoking is radioactive radiation, because I'm not sure if you can adapt to it in any way (or if you can, it will most likely be of the useless kind). Actually, you'll be more resistant to certain cholinergic chemical weapons if you're a smoker. That's one benefit of smoking.

Not caring about IQ is like not caring about money.

Nope. I thought about it while reading the last article in my scientific methodology course. I think my mind was getting tired of being in left-brain mode all the time and needed a break.

Non-duality has existed since the dawn of humanity, at the very beginning of Purple if you want to say that.

If you guys are concerned about scientific validity (assuming that Spiral Dynamics has some, which is dubious in itself), Coral essentially has none.

You could argue it's nothing but memory: memory and associations.

I just thought of an interesting analogy: if your mind is the act of walking, your working memory is the soles of your feet (I have no idea how accurate this is lol; my mind is very tired, it's walking slowly).

Well, fortunately for academics, the paper above mentions a little bit less scary solutions than that ? One proposal is mandatory replication before publishing (and a lack of successful replication would mean no publishing of the original study). One problem with this (out of several) is that it can negatively impact innovation. For example, a researcher who likes to pursue wild ideas could eventually strike gold and produce a lot of scientific progress, but it's generally high-risk with respect to replicability, as most wild ideas fail. So if he is forced to replicate before publishing, he will be incentivized to pursue safer and less innovative ideas that are more likely to replicate (because publishing is how you survive as a scientist). So there is a constant struggle between innovation, replication and publishability; scientific progress, truth and survival of the scientist. Also, some studies are not possible to replicate in principle (e.g. studies on the election).

I'm reading probably the most comprehensive paper on the topic right now, and it presents some alarming statistics regarding the lack of replicability in fields like medicine: Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691612459058

I agree that you generally shouldn't speak about God to random people, because it's most likely a waste of time and they will think you're weird. I think this is actually your rational mind trying to speak to you (in a bit of a roundabout way). You can call it a lesson from God, but in any case, the lesson is clear.

Did the soul choose what it wants to choose?

@Optimized Life You could have a point. On a second thought, meditation doesn't seem comparable at all. N-Back feels like it actually requires a lot of effort. Meditation is the complete opposite for me. I'm just sitting and doing nothing, relaxing, untightening knots, doing an internal message. N-Back is staring intensely into a screen while running a marathon in my working memory. Meditation leaves me energized, N-Back leaves me a bit drained.

You can't debate most people on it. They won't even know what you're talking about.