Carl-Richard

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.

You have it the other way around: L-tryptophan is a precursor to 5-HTP and serotonin: L-tyrosine is a precursor to L-dopa, dopamine, noradrenaline and adrenaline: It's easy to remember it when you remember that Tryptamines (psilocybin, DMT, 5-MeO-DMT; also LSD has a tryptamine component) are the classic serotonergic psychedelics. Phenylethylamines, which have the same structure as the L-tyrosine and the monoamines, are your amphetamines (including MDMA), mescaline, 2CB, etc.

I would be careful as 5-MeO-DMT is a weak serotonin re-uptake inhibitor which in combination with 5-HTP could drastically elevate synaptic serotonin levels and pose a risk for serotonin syndrome. Definitely never take 5-MeO-DMT in combination with a MAOI (that has actually lead to serotonin syndrome and death).

So chill 😂

Body and mind are two sides of the same coin 😆 Idk, Actualized.org has a thing for balding European men with beards 🧔

Well, it seems like you can't link YouTube comments without adding a timestamp to the comment, but I cba. But yes, the name is @razorcarich99 (or just do a text search in your browser window for "Bernardo Kastrup"). My profile picture is me 10 years ago when I had a hairline But thanks 😂

My god why does it not link the comment when I tried to link it? 2 sec

Granpa tried learning a new solo today (it's true, I never learned Master of puppets until today, but it took me only 30 minutes lol when I've dreaded it for 10 years): Let's say I need to play more than once every three months lol And yes, I look like a literal grandpa right now 👴

I just thought about a way to describe Leo to someone I know who follows Dr. K, and I would say he is like the mad scientist version of Dr. K 😂

Can you go point by point and directly address the statistics?

Ok, let's do that for one of your answers: ChatGPT-o3 with internet sources: https://chatgpt.com/share/68178e30-ead4-8004-8d99-a1a32e59cb3d

Idk.

How long are your workouts? How many exercises?

I mainly tried to trap you into conceding that doctors are more holistic than you make them out to be, but you instead only wrote what was the first two sentences on the Wikipedia, so I had to spoon-feed it to you. You talk in these obviously exaggerated terms that are obviously not true. Why? Every doctor knows sleep disturbances are often comorbid with other illnesses and general poor health. You don't have to be a renegade holistic health scientist to know that. When they teach you sleep hygiene, that's again because it's one of the most obvious thing to start with. And again, because treatment is a recursive process, if that doesn't work, they move over to the next thing. Knowledge about problems that you personally haven't had. You don't become on expert on sleep problems by fixing your own. You become an expert (if that) on your own sleeping problems.