Carl-Richard

@Danioover9000 I generally dislike definitions. Definitions often don't capture the complexity of the categories they try to describe, certainly not when it comes to human behavior. People also don't fall neatly into categories. There is an anti-vaxxer inside all of us.

In other words, not very much more likely: 15/(10^6) = 0.0015% for vaccine vs. 10/(10^6) = 0.0010% for infection. That's also just for myocarditis. Notice the differences for pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmia (0% for vaccine vs. 0.0006% for infection, and ~ 0.0010% vs. ~ 0.25%). The statistic I gave for all age groups is also still valid.

When I was little, I wanted to make videos. I never pursued it seriously. When I was a little older, I wanted to make music. I never pursued it seriously. I think both of those things are more in line with my strengths than what I'm currently pursuing (I'm more artistic than intellectual), and maybe my life would've been more fulfilled in that sense, but I also think that I wouldn't have discovered spirituality at the crucial time that I did, which considering my mental state prior to that, right now I would most likely still be addicted to drugs and have contracted a psychotic illness, and just generally exist in deep existential despair. I used to regret these things more before, fearing that I've wasted my talents, but I like to think that this timeline has much more in store for me.

Let's keep this to politics.

Notice how he didn't say that we should also transcend our worldcentric values

Enlightenment is existence.

Link. How much more likely?

Is there a common thread that unites self-actualization, emotional mastery, physical health and spirituality? What is the basis of integrity? Which mechanisms underlie healthy emotion regulation? What is the opposite of being dependent or addicted? What is the goal of all therapy, all psychedelic drugs and all meditation? One answer to that is vitality and resilience. At the most basic level, vitality is the ability to exert force, and resilience is the ability to withstand stress. To be vital is to be full of life, energy and strength, and to be resilient is to be able to tackle various challenges that life throws at you. They're two sides of the same coin, and you can refer to both as "internal regulatory capacity": the ability to control your internal and external environment. I will probably make multiple threads on this topic and how it relates to everything from cognition, emotions, neuropharmacology, addiction, therapy, psychedelics and meditation, but as an introduction, I will start with emotions. Firstly, why are these concepts useful? In psychology, vitality and resilience are part of an overarching approach in psychology called "salutogenesis", which essentially tries to answer the question "what causes health?" This contrasts with the more common approach of "pathogenesis": "what causes illness?" This might initially seem like a weird distinction to make. "Isn't the mechanisms of health simply to eliminate the mechanisms of illness?" Here is the central point: the way you define a problem (epistemology) dictates the way you solve it (methodology). This creates crucial differences between the two approaches: salutogenesis tends to be holistic and bottom-up (multiple, organic solutions), while pathogenesis tends to be reductionistic and top-down (singular solutions, symptomatic relief). Pathogenesis tries to assess and correct negative symptomatic deviations from the norm while salutogenesis tries to identify and facilitate the underlying principles and basic requirements for health. For those interested in self-help and optimizing one's life, especially those without chronic illnesses, salutogenesis is in many ways a project description. Now, on to the main point: how does one maximize vitality and resilience with respect to emotions? The concepts of vitality and resilience are taken directly from the multi-disciplinary paradigm of "Attention Control and Cognitive Emotion Regulation", and therefore I'll simply give a presentation of that here: Attention Control and Cognitive Emotion Regulation This paradigm unites aspects of developmental psychology, clinical practice and neuroscience research on emotions and cognition. It's primarily used in clinical work with children, but it's nevertheless a crucial framework for understanding basic emotional and cognitive functioning. In this paradigm, emotions are understood from a functionalistic perspective, in the sense that emotions exist to serve a purpose, generally a survival function, but more specifically as a means to direct attention and exert force towards a challenge in the external environment. The emotion creates a level of physiological activation (sympathetic nervous system; power) and initiates a set of appropriate behavioral patterns (e.g. direction of attention towards a threat), which when performed, eventually reduces the physiological activation, and the emotional state subsides. Self-regulation is not an ability that is built-in from birth and is strongly dependent on age-specific conditioning, which is why early childhood neglect is so extremely damaging. Young children notoriously rely on the care and comfort of their parents to reduce their physiological activation. As the child grows up, it internalizes the external regulation patterns of the parents and gets increasingly more able to self-regulate its emotional state. Even as the child becomes an adult, it may utilize various non-vital coping strategies that rely on the external environment, and these may overshadow some underlying issues that the child needs to address. The different factors of external emotional dependence can be described as "non-essential external regulators", e.g. cyclical behavior of drug-taking, over-eating or social neediness, which can potentially lead to addiction. Development and coping strategies aside, the core of emotion regulation has to do with how emotions are actually processed and expressed (the "dynamics" of emotional energy), and we can view this through a general dichotomy of expression vs. repression: Vital emotion regulation The dynamics of a vital/healthy emotion regulation pattern is one where the person engages in so-called expressing/externalizing patterns (again, not to be confused with coping strategies), i.e. focusing the power of the emotion outwards towards the environment in a structured and goal-oriented manner. Let's say somebody insults you and you start to feel angry at this person. The key here is "at this person", because what the emotion wants you to do is to deal with this person somehow, and an appropriate response could be to confront them and tell them how you would like to be treated (with respect). If this doesn't somehow lead to an escalation of the situation, the emotion will quickly reside and you'll regain a state of relaxation: the emotion served its purpose as you were able to express the physiological energy in the type of meaningful and goal-oriented manner that the emotion intended. Non-vital emotion regulation A less vital dynamic pattern is where the person favors an internalizing style, i.e. one of repression and rumination (shying away and retreating into your own head). Instead of focusing the attention and energy out towards the environment, the focus goes inward, into the mind and towards the subjective feelings caused by the physiological activation, which remains unresolved. Circular patterns of thought arise (fear; what-if scenarios, feelings of inadequacy, insecurity), which in turn causes the physiological activation to be reignited, which results in a state classically referred to as anxiety. Internalizing people tend to use various non-vital coping strategies to reduce activation, most commonly avoidance of said anxiety-provoking situations (as well as drugs, over-eating and social neediness), which can lead to social isolation, loneliness and other cascading emotional effects (depression, pent up anger and violent outbursts etc.). All in all, there is an obvious lack of vitality and resilience here, and to simply become aware of these patterns within your own life (excessive internalizing and subsequent non-vital coping strategies) can start to unwind various neuroses and evil spirals. The goal would be to maximize the ability to externalize emotions and facilitate a meaningful pattern of activation and relaxation. With that said, there are situations where an internalizing style is preferable with respect to various social and cultural norms. For example, it's probably not such a good idea to openly express anger during a church sermon. It's probably a better idea to wait until later before you potentially confront the person about it. Here is where the cognition aspect of emotion regulation becomes more pronounced, because merely externalizing an emotion when you feel like it is a rather intuitive and straightforward process, but on the other hand, to be able to know when it's socially appropriate to externalize vs. internalize requires more cognitive finesse and is nevertheless an important part of healthy emotion regulation. There are also other positive cognitive patterns like reappraisal and refocusing that contrast with generally non-vital cognitive patterns like rumination (CERS = Cognitive Emotional Regulation Strategy): https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-The-hypothesized-model-CERS-cognitive-emotion-regulation-strategies_fig1_299415064 I touched briefly on how problems with emotional regulation can make you dependent on so-called "non-essential external regulators". When (or if) I'm writing more on vitality and resilience in the future, it will probably be about how the reliance on hedonic drugs is a reflection of underlying problems with one's general internal regulation capacity, and also how things like therapy, psychedelic drugs and meditation all go about addressing this in their own way. Until then, I'll leave you with a prescription: try to become aware of the ways in which you deal with emotions in your daily life and maybe consider changing some of them. Do you carry a lot of emotional baggage from moment to moment? Do you mainly express/externalize or repress/internalize your emotions? (or vice versa) etc. Things like that

I've only watched the first 30 minutes, but I was absolutely blown away by how perfectly this conversation encapsulates the distinction between Tier 1 Green inclusivity and Tier 2 Yellow inclusivity: "we should categorically hate and exclude nazis etc." vs. "we should generally include and empathize with all views to some extent." Where has this Mr. Girl guy been hiding all these years? One possible flaw might be if he doesn't have a sufficient evolutionary lens (e.g. "Green > Orange"), because that would just make him a radical relativist. In any case, this is what Vaush interprets him as (which is expected from a Green), also partly because he is an especially honest Yellow who doesn't excessively cloak himself in Spiral Wizardry. Nevertheless, the principled and undifferentiated inclusivity sentiment is a quintessential feature of Tier 2. EDIT: omg what an ending ??

Let's use the emotion regulation paradigm for a moment: how do emotions work? It diverts 1. attention and 2. physical energy towards an object. Emotion is the essence of motivation and movement (it's in the word). Ok, so the raw emotion in itself has both a direction and an energy. What about a higher purpose or goal? That's a larger form of attention. How do you harness the potential of this attention? Align it with your emotion, your deepest desire, your passion. You harvest the energy in the emotion and direct it in the direction of higher purpose. Why is this important? Because your internal power and invest it into future growth. The act of expressing emotions in itself is a sign of vitality, but to express it in a direction that enhances your vitality over time, that makes you unstoppable. If there is anything you can find inherently motivating about your work, find that thing, tap into it and see how it moves you in the direction prompted by your higher goal. Work ethic is simply the attention or the structure of how you will pursue that goal. The driving force is the energy, the primal seat of desire, the deepest parts of your physicality. This energy can be trained in various ways, through things like meditation or physical exercise, to the point where it will effortlessly begin to align with vital patterns of attention. Meditation especially is about cultivating the alignment of energy and attention – desire and purpose. With enough practice, you can't help but to stay focused on your goal.

Made it a bit more concise, removed a paragraph.

It will be a part of my series on vitality and resilience

People who fear getting myocarditis from the vaccine when you're 5x more likely to get it from the virus

Ok good luck!

I don't think it's just about smartphones either . The general point is that there are certain things we want to avoid (e.g. bad concentration ability, procrastination etc.). It's not so much about exactly what causes them, because that's a complex equation. What if the smartphone is just a symptom of an underlying problem? What if it's possible to have a smartphone and also be a functional human being? The question you can ask is: what is the source of concentration ability and work ethic? Can this be tapped into and optimized despite peripheral factors?

Wtf why the fuck would you need to do nofap then?

"Live in the now", "achievement is ego" *gets stoned 24 hours a day 7 days a week, skips class, gives up on all future ambitions, lies to friends and family, steals money and drugs from friends and family, blocks out any thought resembling a conscience* True story

The real question is: what do we do about procrastination?

It's fine to be passionate about these issues, but let's keep it civil.

May I ask how often you usually fap?

What is the difference?

The danger is lessened when, like you said, one is authentic about wanting change. We're not stagnant. We want to expand. It's only human. Self-acceptance and self-honesty mostly works to eliminate noise. Most of Tier 1 discourse is just noise: virtue signalling, optics, misinformation, bad faith, smear tactics, power games. Acceptance, honesty, understanding and empathy is the path towards mutual growth. Green is half-way there, but gets stuck on "why should we empathize with the least empathetic of us?", not understanding how this is the most crucial hurdle. It's like a parent who refuses to empathize with their child for simply being a child. It shows a lack of understanding and denies the child's right to growth, and in a way, it makes them into a child as well.

Surely there is a reason why he wanted to speak to us

Why speak?