Carl-Richard

He mentioned something very interesting in his talk with Destiny that might be relevant to this. He took some kind of in-depth, 400 questions personality test while he he was in therapy, and he said he scored very high on "naivety", i.e. he generally thinks that other people have his best interests in mind. This was a general theme in both discussions (more explicitly with Destiny) which can explain his willingness to say exactly what he feels without being too apologetic and of course to use the most provocative hypotheticals and sarcastic jokes, because surely, nobody will take what he says and use it against him ?

Pretty sure he never said that.

It's not that simple. The constructs in Big 5 are based on something called the Lexical hypothesis and a strict empirical methodology of factor analysis. MBTI is based on an idea.

His talk with Lawrence Krauss is the best I've seen. It changed how I understand his idea of "meaning." It's actually a meta-theoretical concept for understanding the relationships between subjectivity, objectivity, models, narratives, perception, cognition and higher-order meaning.

It's still good to know the specifics so you can distinguish good tests/models from bad ones. For example, there are more problems with MBTI than Big 5.

50 minutes ? Can I have tl;dr plz?

@Danioover9000 Yup. Destiny also talked with Mr. Girl on the same issues and had a much more productive discussion. I only posted the Vaush discussion in order to illustrate the contrast between Tier 1 and Tier 2. I think Destiny has an edge up on Vaush in this respect, because he is more of a centrist and therefore doesn't have the same strong normative/activist slant which can be used to stifle more abstract discussions.

This is something that really messed with my mind when I first listened to the conversation, because I've gotten so used to capitulating to the Tier 1 perspective when watching all these mainstream political youtubers, that when somebody suddenly presents a Tier 2 perspective out of nowhere, it completely throws me off. Like, my first thoughts were: "Where the hell is he going with this?", "Is he out of his mind?", "Is he trolling?" Now, you guys probably didn't have this experience, because I already planted the idea in your mind that that he is Tier 2 , but only after watching the entire Destiny discussion and 30 minutes of the Vaush discussion, it finally clicked: "wait, maybe he is actually Yellow? " It's like something switched in my mind. It's such a different mode of thinking that when you become accustomed to conceding to especially the normative aspects of Tier 1, a rawly presented Tier 2 meta-theoretical view just looks so pale and feeble in comparison. This is again without a doubt why Spiral Wizardry is very important when conversing in a Tier 1 environment, because it explicitly tries to make a bridge between these two modes that is more easy to follow and more tailored for the specific person (there is more focus on the meta-communicative aspects of the conversation). I'm not saying that he was completely lacking it, but if he had spent more time on it from the start, maybe he could've gotten more people on board (and maybe I wouldn'tve spent so much time trying to gain traction).

Destiny also talked with Mr. Girl on the same issues and had a much more productive discussion. I only posted the Vaush discussion in order to illustrate the contrast between Tier 1 and Tier 2. I think Destiny has an edge up on Vaush in this respect, because he is more of a centrist and therefore doesn't have the same strong normative/activist slant which can be used to stifle more abstract discussions.

Now we at least have a practical example of why spiral wizardry is important and how presenting a raw version of a radically inclusive value system makes people question your intentions (and sanity). The way he was coming off as a bit of a troll in the end I actually interpreted as a genius meta-point: by appearing to take the honest position of the people in the hypothetical ("I think it's 15..."), he further proves that he actually believes in what he says about inclusivity (as if that wasn't abundantly clear already). This is because whatever you think about "pedophilies" now also applies to him, and if you followed his reasoning, it strengthens the idea that you shouldn't categorically hate these people as they can be fully reasonable and honest people like him. Only problem is that most people in the chat probably didn't follow his reasoning, or they don't see the point (like Vaush), or they believe that his now revealed "pedophilic" intentions undermines his reasoning ("you're just a pedophile who wants to normalize it").

Jan Esmann

If that is so, why are you making this specifically about vaccines? "There is no consensus in science" is not a vaccine thing. You already said that yourself. In either case, it's not an excuse to lay down and die with respect to pandemics or generally lose trust in the scientific process. It feels very cheesy to quote Elon Musk like this, but "fuck that, we're gonna get it done." In other words, we gotta act.

Have you tried meditation by any chance?

I checked out the demo test for the survey they used in the study: "OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC)": https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/onlineassessment/demo/ It's pretty basic stuff.

Both deep and broad knowledge requires knowing some facts, but simply knowing facts outside the context of some greater understanding is indeed an impoverished approach to knowledge.

Listen to @mandyjw

The sure way to zap dopamine and ruin meditation is worry itself. Your mind is doing a lot of work. Don't forget your heart ?

I'm talking about the religious concept of faith based on St. Augustine. It explicitly places doctrine over experience (dogmatism over mysticism): https://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/invention-faith-pistis-and-fides-early-churches-and-later-roman-empire

Faith is a concept that some Christian theologians made up when they moved God up into the sky and away from direct experience.

It was maybe a bit sloppily worded. It's nevertheless the case that the particular type of questioning that is going on is generally filled with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Based on all the COVID-19 threads we've had, the general trend is that the same people end up repeating the same 3 points from 1 year ago, bringing up basic statistics like vaccinations rates while failing to control for age, bringing up studies that compare death rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations while failing to control for age or other variables not directly specified, obsessing over verified but low probability threats or unverified long-term threats about vaccination side effects while ignoring similar unverified AND verified threats from viral infections and consequential societal destabilization. Taking this into account, and maybe in a sort of roundabout way, it's true that questioning vaccinations doesn't make you intelligent

These conservatives make a strong case for why the ability to abstract across classes is not fully developed before Orange. You draw the simplest comparison and they think you're switching topics. Forget about systems thinking – this is a lack of analytical thinking. It's a common thread in the discussion, but here is a few highlights: 13:00, 39:20. Blue correlates with Concrete Operational, and Orange correlates with Formal Operational. Bonus material of Destiny displaying basic systems thinking i.e. context awareness (which flies over everyone's heads): 58:57

He also talks about the importance of trauma in understanding people's actions, the importance of empathy, love, takes psychedelics etc. He has definitely some Green.

#Knawlegde ?

Bumping because I added some thoughts

Lawrence Krauss does a good job bringing out his ideas. You might get to see a side of him that you didn't know about, and most of you might have underestimated how holistic of a thinker he is. It's much more interesting to see a discussion between two people on the same level who can challenge each other in good faith compared to interviews with journalists. I think I understand more now what his book Maps of Meaning is about, and a lot of it lies in the title. His definition of meaning goes far beyond the traditionalist Christian sense of meaning, and it must be understood in relation to making maps. It's a deeply metaphysical concept that ties together real systems (the objective) and abstract systems (the subjective). It's a concept that refers to the structure of relative reality and how the mind is constructing it ("the architecture of belief"). From the objective lens, meaning is the way that organisms orient themselves in the survival game (evolution), and we do this by molding our behavior according to survival-salient information (sensory input). At the most basic level, this manifests itself as movement through the environment in search of pleasant stimuli (pro-survival markers) and avoidance of noxious stimuli (anti-survival markers). An organism that is engaging in meaningful behavior would for example gather nutrition when it's hungry and mate when it's sexually mature. From the subjective lens, this sensory input is represented within our minds as internal experiences (perceptions). At the most basic level, these experiences are simple, direct and concrete (e.g. sense of touch, smell, hearing etc.). They may be reconstructed independently of live sensory input in the form of mental images (cognition and imagination), and virtually all animals are thought to be capable of this to some extent. Humans have an elevated sense of meaning, which comes from the ability to abstract out symbolic/iconic representations from a set of concrete experiences. At an even higher level, this ability is expressed through an internal narrative structure, i.e. representing icons linearly across different contextual frames (situations and time frames; story-telling). This is what distinguishes humans from animals: we create narratives that try to explain ourselves and our environment. From here, complex language, culture and an individual identity is born (self-awareness). Further on, narratives of a higher-order of complexity like the Christian dogmas likewise reflect the underlying survival-drives of our species. The point that JP is trying to make, which Lawrence Krauss is struggling to understand (even granted good faith), is that on the most fundamental level, even science is a narrative that humans are constructing, and that by recognizing how narratives are at the base of "reality" so to speak, he claims that studying narratives of all types and abstracting out meta-narratives is a very useful way (in fact the only way) of understanding how reality is structured, not just in a descriptive sense ("how things are"), but in a normative sense ("how should we act?"). The thing that Krauss gets stuck on is his materialistic worldview (which is not surprising coming from a theoretical physicist), and consequently he holds science and the objective realm in higher favor than the subjective and normative realm. The reason I think JP is at a level above Krauss in this respect is that he reconciles both worlds by conceding that some narratives like science are better as descriptive tools than other, and that other narratives are better as normative tools. His theory of meaning is therefore in my estimation an attempt at going beyond materialistic science, not by contradicting it, but by integrating it, and in that sense, he is a Tier 2 thinker (construct aware, theory pluralist, "transcend and include" etc.). Does that mean he has fully extended this understanding into other domains like society and politics? Not necessarily, but maybe he could surprise us there as well.