Carl-Richard

Jan Esmann? I felt like Sadhguru didn't know who Dr. K was or what he was about, as if he was being interviewed by a journalist from CNN. And there have been many times he has come off as brash in earlier "in-depth" interviews, like the DiaryOfACEO one, really in most interviews that ask directed questions. That's seemingly just his style, of not giving people too much charity and just steamrolling them with his message, even if it involves cutting them off. People will get triggered by that, but it also seems to me to be a method to the madness. He is very particular with how he interrupts people, often answering what they were about to ask anyway before they got more than a few words out, and often saving time in some way. There is a sense where you getting triggered by Sadhguru is more him breaking a social convention of conversation than him being some kind of egomaniac (like, idk, Trump) that just spins bullshit or slings shit at other people. He's always focused on the message, always focused on the cause. And that's what you expect from people in these states (if I may say neuroscientifically; shutting down the default mode network means that what is active is the "doing" network). He is relentlessly doing, constantly, and it can be intense and sometimes triggering.

@Beans I'm so relaxed I could sing an opera naked. But my mind is also like a snail in a pool of glue.

Could you have predicted that the ultra-depressed person that Eckhart was, would've turned into the guru he is today? If you had told him "awakening is simply not in the cards for you, bud, some people were just born to be like that", do you see how dangerous that is? (not dangerous with respect to suicidality, but the likelihood that they will believe in it and the loss of potential).

Eckhart Tolle could've killed himself.

@everyone, I'm curious, who here feels energy when watching/listening to Sadhguru?

He is a smaller teacher. Why does that matter? It's ok to disbelieve stories, you don't need to justify it other than you just don't believe it. I one time read a note on the wall at my gym that said "we had to close the sauna because people are urinating on the heater". I said "I don't believe it" (but then over time, I actually could see it being a possibility).

You know, some people are just in the wrong situation so to speak and becoming aware of the right teachings can absolutely revolutionize their entire life, and this kind of non-self-efficacious thinking is not helping. Just in general, non-self-efficacious thinking is a self-imposed mental limitation that keeps you safely rooted in not trying. If trying and failing was extremely dangerous, you would have more of a point.

Your impression was exaggerated? There are wilder stories out there. Try for example Jan Esmann's Enlightenment story.

Crypto-materialist detected 📡🗼

Gurus talk at you most of the time. That's the default. Doing a new interview is looping. Presenting your views to a new audience means looping. That you expect Sadhguru should be talking directly to you personally through a random interview, that's to go mad.

Something tells me the extreme levels of fumbling of finding it within yourself to change the story two times (or more?) and having your friend make a response video instead of yourself (which ended up being flawed because you misinformed them), is because this happened in the weekend and he was high as fuck and completely mentally incapacitated.

Ideal depending on what juice you want. There are few sports where you pass out from lifting 2.25x your bodyweight that is done better than in a gym.

What's next is keep entering that state. And maybe systematically let go of whatever you are clinging onto in your mind and in the world whenever you get the opportunity.

Please don't do this ridiculous stuff.

Guys guys guys this guy is 1000% more charismatic than Mike Israetel, the great lifting replacement is underway. Get in on the action while it's still rare: 0:55

There is intent as in having an aim (claimed or otherwise) and then there is intent as in knowingly taking actions that lead to said outcome. They are intentionally running a war which leads to those outcomes, and they are perfectly aware of the outcomes of their intentional actions. If you say you intend to kill the weeds in your garden using pesticides but you notice that "oops, now literally all my flowers are dying", and then you continue killing the weeds and all your flowers die. Did you intentionally kill all your flowers? Yes. Did you aim to kill your flowers? Maybe not, but you're surely stupid if your aim was not to kill the flowers.

I was talking about the extermination of Hamas. But reducing the city to rubble so it's unliveable, of course means that the people who live there, cannot live there.

When I typed myself with my ChatGPT-5 prompt, INTJ was among the top contenders. I generally land in INTP and INFP/ENFP land, which if you take them as a group and we're being reductionistic MBTI fiends, they do resemble INTJ in some places (Nx > Te, Fi). But really, all introverted intuitives can probably become very similar if they have similar interests (philosophy, science, spirituality), similiar background (e.g. some form of STEM) and similar experiences (meditation, health focus, meaning from work). I also thought maybe our work specifically can be a contributing factor (but I don't know how much): you're managing high-tech construction projects (often in the medical field), I'm managing "high-tech" behavioral science (using neuroscientific methods, which also overlaps with the medical field). You have to not just deal with technical challenges but also people. I had to recruit 77 participants all on my own and run mental health screening meetings, teach them how to use the behavioral interventions in the RCT, and then measure their brain before and after the study. So while we're working in quite different "fields", we're really working with the same things. We're kinda both in the "construction field", just slightly different things are being made 😆

I once held a presentation about a study I found that looked at people who had an addiction to cigarettes and happened to get brain damage and their addiction disappeared. The study collected a bunch of these people and determined which parts of the brain seemed to cause the remission of the addiction. Then they did follow-up studies testing out treatments using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to target those brain areas, aiming to decrease the activity of those areas and simulating the lesions of the brain damaged patients. I think that's pretty interesting. Also, I know people who have done research on music treating Parkinson's symptoms. There are many videos out there of Parkinson's patients trying to walk with music and without, and the difference is quite remarkable.

Meanwhile, those who ironically get accused of "ego lifting" and are critical of the "science-based" self-torture training Mike does (e.g. Sam Sulek and Eric Bugenhagen), say they love working out. And they don't exactly have worse physiques either. Funny how that works. What's more ego-based than "you gotta drop the weight bro, you just want to stimulate the muscle, that's how you get big, if you hurt yourself you lose muscle, it's not good for hypertrophy bro" vs "I just like lifting heavy ass weight"?

Man man, as if I should have written it myself. It's turning into a meme at this point, but I read that and I got that "ooh that's familiar" feeling again, because it's something I've thought about so much before and yes as if I should have written it myself. I can't remember this having happened before with other forum users My critique is from above, come at me brah. I'm Tier 2 in hypertrophy (I'm only half-joking): I'll stay with my earlier critiques of Mike Israetel and his ilk and say that the hard-hitting critiques of current sports science, and especially when trying to use it to claim "this is the optimal way to train", is not that it's substanceless bullshit, but that there is a severe lack of ecological validity in the research designs. Working out with one arm using one technique and the other arm using another technique, is absolutely a ridiculous basis for making claims for what is optimal training, because none of that is optimal. That's just one example. I could speak about it for days, faster and with more fervor than Mike talks about his totally non-ironic ironic homoerotic intrusive thoughts.

Firstly, what a shitshow. Secondly, "I responded too early, I did not double check". Sounds like it fits the bill. Now I guess we wait and see for the final version to be uploaded to the university websites?

Probably one of his "not so good" weekendly weed thoughts escaped the peer review of his sober mind 😆

I've made the case that if there are lot of formatting errors and statistical mistakes in the thesis document ("clerical mistakes"), that could indicate there could be a lot of mistakes in the preprocessing and data analysis, as that requires (often) arguably even more diligence to get right. So it's possible that the entire conclusion of his PhD is flawed (but maybe it's less likely if he simply did correlations of relatively minimally processed data). And then, how does that reflect on his reading of the scientific literature (which is his whole shtick)? What if he does that with the same rigor as his PhD, should we then take that as "good advice"?