Carl-Richard

But why? What would be an objective standard for rating music?

Yeah, why?

Interesting example. It brings up an interesting topic, and I'm curious what you think: Tyler1 the streamer recently hit 1960 elo in Chess, and he only started playing under a year ago (infamously at 200 elo lol), which is outright insanity. How do we explain such an amazing feat? Chess is a weird sport in that it's often associated with raw intelligence, but there is also the notion that you only get really good if you started playing when you were really young (implying that experience is crucial), and there is also tons of concrete knowledge involved (openings, remembering games of other players, etc.). That said, these notions might be somewhat outdated due to Chess becoming increasingly digitalized, where you can endlessly play games over and over, practice Chess puzzles, analyze your games, etc. And that is partially what I think Tyler1 has capitalized on: he is a video game streamer who is used to grinding games for multiple hours a day, so when he started fixating on Chess, it's not surprising that he would experience some great results compared to an average person with a job or who came up during the pre-digitalized era. But 1960 elo in 9 months? Surely he must have some intellectual gift, right? So it begs the question: is his incredible 1960 elo in 9 months mostly due to his intelligence, or is it mostly due to his massive grinding schedule and use of clever skill-improving online technology (experience, knowledge)? I don't remember ever hearing Tyler1 being described as an intellectual genius, if anything quite to the contrary. Could anybody else achieve something similar if they put in the same number of hours and ferocious attention?

To the extent that this definition of intelligence is separate from knowledge (which could be described as "searching the problemspace beforehand"; essentially experience), intelligence becomes more related to "mystical" abilities like intuition and generalizable principles like logic, systemic concepts and virtues. These generalizable principles are of course themselves a form of knowledge, but they're elegant and adaptable, so you don't have to "search the entire problemspace" (rely on experience/knowledge) to solve a problem. They transcend mere knowledge. But this generalizability has many flaws (hence why Vervaeke says intelligence makes you prone to self-deception), which is why concrete knowledge is important and why for example there is "wisdom in tradition". And of course, recognizing the need for a balance between generalizable and concrete knowledge is part of what wisdom is. And similar to how a generalizable principle is a type of knowledge, balance is a type of generalizable principle, but it's hyper-generalized, transcending mere generalizability. It's hyper-elegant, adaptable and virtuous; sacred. So it transcends both knowledge and intelligence.

It's maybe more historically correct, but I feel like I've seen it today being used to describe well-meaning people. Besides, the Google definition says conscious manipulation is not a necessary criteria ☺️

You keep going at it. Conscientiousness (industriousness) is what produces results. Intelligence is only a modulator.

Right. Then I was mostly talking about the unintentional type of sophistry where the sophist intends to present their full understanding in an honest way, without any conscious manipulative goals in mind, but their level of understanding simply doesn't match their level of conviction, fluency, etc.

I think for a long time I've had this kind of benchmark for smartness in my head which we can call the "famous youtube PhD guy" benchmark (which is ironically very knowledge-based). Then with this growing frame of mind, I was recently watching an interview with Bryan Johnson, and I thought "does he reach that benchmark?", and I thought "yes, but probably way beyond it as well". When you get more familiar with the knowledge/intelligence distinction, you might notice there are some people that didn't occur to you to label as "smart" who actually end up being close to geniuses. This development might be in part due to me increasingly interacting with actual people with PhDs and realizing how they're not that different from other people 😆

The lens of traps can be a trap 😆

I love it 🤩

Np, and nope. I've never used them personally, but I've also only taken psychedelics a few times. I think PsychedSubstance has some videos on them.

It's almost like the people who make the music I like, resonate with me spiritually as well It's interesting also how both the album artworks include a tree in the middle and a dimly lit, green-yellowish sky in the background (and both band names start with C, which is my first initial ).

Testing kits. But you generally shouldn't be worried about getting fentanyl in your psychedelics. By the way, it's called "lacing cocaine with fentanyl", not "lacing fentanyl with cocaine". Lacing one class of drug with a completely different class of drug is a 0 IQ business move. It only works with cocaine and weed because they're hedonic drugs that produce a dopaminergic high. It's much more likely for psychedelics to be laced with a research chemical that actually works like psychedelics rather than fentanyl.

There have been two times where I distinctly remember brushing my tongue with an unnormal amount of toothpaste (basically covering it full of freshly squeezed toothpaste) and where I felt quite severe brain fog afterwards. Then, in the last couple of weeks, I've decided to decimate my normal fluoride toothpaste usage and change the way I brush my teeth. The point of using fluoride in the first place is to strengthen your tooth enamel, and that's it. The cleaning action of the brush itself is actually sufficient to remove dirt and gunk. So the way I brush my teeth now is I use a tiny amount of toothpaste (maybe half the size of a pea), brush my teeth with it for three quick "rounds" (takes approximately 10 seconds) until my teeth are nicely covered, then I immediately flush my mouth with water while brushing maybe three times, flushing every round. Then, without any toothpaste in my mouth, I clean my tongue with the toothbrush while flushing my mouth with water another three times. The idea is "quick on, quick off", while the brushing does the work of removing the toothpaste while also cleaning the teeth. But why? Among other things, fluoride has been shown to deplete glutamate in the brain, the primary excitatory neurotransmitter, meaning your neurons will be generally less able to fire. Interestingly though, it does this by elevating the activity of the enzyme glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD), which is how your brain produces GABA from glutamate. So fluoride essentially works as a quite generalized tranquilizer drug. That could actually come in handy if you're having anxiety issues and you only have toothpaste available, although fluoride is toxic in other ways which would probably not make that a good idea. Anyways, the poison is in the dosage. It's probably smart to use some amount of fluoride to avoid tooth decay, but you can also be smarter in the ways you use fluoride (and how much you use) to avoid unnecessary side effects.

Getting trapped left and right here 🙉

You beat me to it. I fell right into the trap of being 8 minutes too late onto the thread 🤓

Another BASED individual

I wasn't ganging up on you. I was taking three of you guys on all by myself Using body language analysis in this situation is like trying to linguistically analyze the word "rape". It's making a big ruckus about something that should be quite clear.

It's unironically this level of psychotic mind virus, and of course zero social/emotional awareness. If I were to engage with the absurdity, let's just assess the Bayesian landscape for a moment: It happened in a public place, and an entire media crew was present. This is unusual for "fake rape stories" where there is an incentive for it to happen in a private place and without any corroborating witnesses. One of the crew members were interviewed in the same video corroborating the incident (he reports seeing her without clothes and beaten up just after the incident had occurred). Several military soldiers were allegedly involved, many alleged eyewitnesses. She stayed at the hospital for four days, meaning hospital staff and likely family members are involved. It's been over a decade and no inconsistencies have been revealed (she is a public person and there is no apparent scandal about it). She is a public person with a reputation on the line. She is a reporter, and reporters value accurate and truthful reporting. Presenting a completely fabricated story is the greatest sin of reporting. She has been infront of the camera her whole career, reducing the significance of any additional media attention. Feel free to make a similar list representing "the other side" . Also, this one is just funny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Logan

@Nilsi Hahah. Imagine if we went to a pickup seminar and started talking about toothpaste like it's the key to everything and how everybody always underestimates it, and people would be like "you guys think it's just all about the smile? ". And we're like "naaah, it's all about the INVERSE level of brain cell activity! 🤩🤩" ""

Noo I loved it. You know how Leo says pickup is about turning off your brain? Enough said

I once had severe tinnitus from an middle ear infection where I lost 90% of my hearing for about a month. As I was recovering, I had gotten used to playing music on louder than normal volume on my phone, and I noticed over time that my ears were "squirming" from the loud volume, and I realized that I might've been causing damage to my ears as they had gotten better. I probably reduced my hearing quite a bit only from that alone. But the tinnitus is gone. So if you're ever in that situation, beware to not cause unintended damage by exposing yourself to loud noise. In fact, I tend to get very weak tinnitus when I get passive THC inhalation from the degenerates I hang around . I got a pretty decent chunk of that last week, and I can actually tune into it now, but it's barely even there.

Oh, I must've been mistaken. I thought you were asking for advice. For example, if I believe somebody is lying to me, I can't make myself not believe that. It's an authentic assessment of what I've observed and what I feel inside. Now, I can doubt the accuracy of my observations and what I'm feeling, but nevertheless, it's what I believe. In that case, my doubting becomes what I believe. This goes back to how it's not black-and-white. There is constant uncertainty and nuance, but nevertheless, you still have "that view". It's there. It should be the same for your more abstract ideas as well. In my case, it's my view that you can have multiple ideas but also that you can't choose which of those ideas you find appealing. They either just are or they aren't. So for me, I don't see a big conflict when considering different ideas. I can't make myself see it any other way either. I could imagine how somebody could (or how I could in the future), but it's not the case for me right now. You can create the outside appearance that you believe something that you don't, but that is indeed lying, grifting, or just confusion and lack of introspection. Practicing how to spell out your thoughts plainly and simply is highly relevant to philosophical pursuits, just like any other pursuit in your life (they all fit together anyway), because it allows you to refine that sense of knowing what you truly believe. It's trite, but language is a brilliant tool, but it can be misused to create a lot of noise and to deceive, mostly yourself. What you're referring to is poetry.

This is golden advice and I'm speaking from experience 💯 @Nilsi I can provide some advice about the potential pitfalls of this as well if you decide to try it out.

Sorry for being crass, but your writing style is like @Reciprocality but you actually sort of make sense 😆 I don't see what the conflict is really about. Is it about viewing life through a Hegelian lens vs. a Nietzschian lens? Or is it simply about pursuing two different life paths? Because the former doesn't seem like a real issue. You firstly don't choose how you view something, and it's possible to view something in multiple ways. The latter is a more real issue, but that is just "resolved" by trying something out and seeing where it leads. If it doesn't work out, you can just switch. The problem is looking for an ultimate black-or-white, ride-or-die choice. Life doesn't work like that, and thinking that it works like that is a much bigger conflict. In the words of Sam Hyde (😂), "perfect is the enemy of good". You learn as you go. You might find out that you'll grow as you're trying the first thing out and that the conflict resolves that way, or you'll just be more certain that the other thing is probably what is truly right for you.