Carl-Richard

Actual numbers.

The more consistent you are, the more sensitive you become to slight changes. You can be the healthiest person in the world and be overwhelmed by something that other people are used to. Take Bryan Johnson's trip to India for example:

@AION @Mannyb How often do you smoke?

Do you actually not have any answers or are you just venting?

Probably the most concerning effect is that it dissociates you from parts of your memory (not just short term memory, but long term memory). It limits your cognitive field of vision, narrows it down, and interferes with your ability to connect new information to existing knowledge, to see and feel parts of yourself that you might be hiding from (often the more uncomfortable parts), and generally to be responsive to inner and outer signals that may help you move in the direction you want to go. It can be a great hindrance for personal development. Other than that (and also connected to that), it interferes with your ability to learn messes with sleep hormones and sleep cycles elevates cortisol which can lower stress tolerance is often smoked which is bad for your overall health and causes cancer makes you numb to certain emotions and might diminish empathy (while also heightening it in some cases) teaches your mind to rely on outside sources for your joy rather than creating it from the inside through meaning, natural presence and good health makes your body and mind dependent on a fluctuating and unstable state (that lasts for a few hours) which destabilizes your mood and general functioning lowers your ability to organize your thoughts and behavior What is the best way to use cannabis (if you don't have a better alternative, which there are many candidates for, e.g. serotonergic psychedelics)? Once in a blue moon. It can increase creativity by a lot, it can help you break with stuck patterns and get a new perspective on things. But beware that even when used infrequently, it has a lasting effect on your system, as it contains lipophilic substances which go into all your cell membranes and all your lipophilic cell organelles and stay there for quite a bit of time longer than the supposed "duration of action" or even biological half-life. As a rule, you will feel the effects for at least a week after consuming it.

@Osaid "We're fucked" 😂

Balance is largely synonymous with holism: you want to not just focus on one thing, but many things, and you want them to exist in proportion to each other so they serve a greater whole. What the balance should be is dictated by the whole. What is a human? What does a human need? What I might add is that humans "need" or are capable of focus, so that some things take more space or serve you more than others. That could for example be what life purpose is, or pursuing your passions. So balance doesn't have to be rigidly egalitarian, but again serving a higher telos, the whole.

I think food video shorts that have quick jump cuts in them make the food look more delicious than it actually is because of the dopamine rush from the high-speed presentation. That's something I noticed when I compared one of his long format videos with his shorts.

"Pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient" - J. B. Peterson

What's this for some recontextualization? 😆:

Please go like my comment suggesting Alex O'Connor to have Bernardo Kastrup on his podcast! (Scroll and look for @razorcarich99 in the comments, I can't link it here). It is currently gaining traction with 73 likes and we need all the likes we can get. This is an important oppurtunity for spreading idealism and non-duality to the masses! I have been leaving a comment about Bernardo Kastrup every time he has had on somebody who touches on the same topics, and now we are finally getting some more attention. And this would be right in the bullseye for both Bernardo and Alex, as both are philosophically minded people and will be able to speak each other's language very fluently. This would be a fantastic talk if it happens:

I trust them on one level but not another. Look, you understand what I mean by "it's naive" in the context of what I said. It's not like "naive" in an absolute sense. This is more Blue 😂 If you want a lesson for "self-identifying" where you are on SD, see how often you interpret things as "either/or", or treat things as absolutes, or say that things must be done just one way and not another, or whether you can hold two different things at the same time, or whether you tend to use one approach for all things or tailor the approach to the specific situation, etc.

Yes, this is what most people do, and it's perfectly ok to have this naive approach to it. But I also like to ask questions about epistemology and criticize the limitations of our assumptions, etc. And they're not mutually exclusive. If you can't carry both, that's on you. I do this with everything: MBTI, SD, Cook-Greuter's 9SEDT, science, spirituality, yet I also partake in all of them. That's very Blue. But I generally don't label someone with a SD stage unless it's as a joke or unless in the abstract while I'm making a point while both are talking about SD. But I will also say that people on this forum are actually more Blue than they think.

Yes, it's hard to evaluate someone's stage. That is my point.

We'll divide this sentence into three sentences and we'll see if you yourself can understand it: Numbers are units representing a generalised idea derived from the real distinction between experienced things. These occur spontaneously due to how the ability to identify things presupposes an agency. The agency holds that identity independently of the thing that bears it. The first sentence is ok but can apply to many things, not just numbers. The last two, what the fuck.

A letter or word corresponding to something you can count (a quantity) which often exists in relationship to a system of letters or words (a number system) that can be used to make "sentences" about quantities (calculations).

It always applies. It's not "likely". It's a constant. The only way it doesn't apply is if you were already solidly Yellow before learning about the model. This is in fact a core assumption of the model, that the individual evolves as a response to societal, and more generally, external conditions. The claim I'm making is that this evolution happens at the level of relatively empty and shallow mimickry as well, as a stereotypical, dumbed-down version. And it's hyper-charged when learning about SD which exposes you to the concepts of the very highest stages. The fact that this mimickry happens is a truism that doesn't have to be elaborated on, but the most funniest example of it is maybe the cargo cult phenomena if you have heard about it. I'm the same age as you. What do you think I would answer to that question? It does not make all self-reflection invalid. Mimickry can help you develop, but it's still not the real thing. You see, "if you were a real Tier 2 thinker", you would not think about this like a black or white thing — that's real gatekeeping. The concept of wisdom is useful even though it's hard to grasp. People chase Enlightenment even though they are not enlightened.

It doesn't tell you much about where you are today in itself, but it tells you a lot about where you were, and you can extrapolate based on that. If you have evolved a lot in the past 5 years, imagine how much you will evolve in the next 10 years. They're garbage, useless. Perhaps you were always in Orange. It's possible to download a simplified version of a stage from the culture also (e.g. Green). That is what I believe teenagers do all the time with leftist ideas or in colleges (and even spiritual ideas), while in reality, they are expressing mostly stage Red and Blue. Did you by any chance exhaust Green before or after learning about SD?

But you will pick "I approach life from a highly aware meta-perspective which sees the value of all perspectives while simultaneously distinguishing between them in a systematic way". When the questions of the "personality test" become highly value-laden, people tend to pick the valueable options even if they might not be fully reflective of their personality. You see this with MBTI and types like INTP and INFJ. You have memories. Maybe it doesn't seem like a very attractive prospect if you are in your early twenties (hint-hint). For example, did you have a concept of "the spiral" or adult developmental stages before you learned about SD?

Not at all. The claim is that when you learn about something valueable, you will mimick it, and you will be unable to know if you are merely mimicking it or if you have the true understanding. Because things can be simplified, things can be co-opted and made into a lower resolution picture, and you cannot verify it by stepping outside your own limited perspective, because that would obviously make it not limited. Studying psychology might help you with identifying and working with your limited perspective, but you never fully overcome it. Because it's a fact of life.

She is married to Sam Harris who gaslights himself into not understanding idealism.

Like literally right this second, I happened to read about 5HT1a's effect on endogenous serotonin release, and it actually reduces endogenous release through its autoreceptor activity. That's probably why it protects against serotonin syndrome (and why SSRIs famously have this 2-3 weeks long gap where they don't really work because the autoreceptors have to desensitize first, or that's one explanation). I remember reading about this one time during my studies.

It seems like cases of serotonin syndrome typically occur when you get a lot of endogenous serotonin in the synaptic cleft. It might be because 1. you might need a rather full serotonergic profile to get the full serotonin syndrome effects. Selective agonists like serotonergic psychedelics usually only affect a couple of sub-receptors and usually at varying degrees. 2. re-uptake inhibition combined with serotonin releasers or metabolic precursors have a multiplicative dose-response relationship (you get a lot from just a little increase). However, some selective serotonergic psychedelics including 5-MeO-DMT similarly seem to be mistaken as serotonin and are affected by re-uptake, but they generally have a lower affinity for the transporter (roughly 1/10th of serotonin). 3. most serotonergic psychedelics are partial agonists (but particularly 5-MeO is in full agonist territory for 5HT1a like you are hinting towards). There have been a couple of case reports of psychedelics like LSD causing symptoms of serotonin syndrome, but these are extreme cases with extreme doses and frequencies. So it's definitely possible that the 5HT1a agonism of 5-MeO could contribute to serotonin syndrome, but I would again point against the serotonin re-uptake inhibition as being a much bigger cause for concern when combined with a serotonin precursor or releaser. SSRIs are barely better than placebo.