Drama Alert! Another YTber is calling us a cult! 😈☦️

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

So can behaviour change the system in your view? Or it can't?

Good question, but It's not an easy one to answer because the architecture itself determines how much modification is possible and on which axis. I'll spare us both from me trying to unpack that. 

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You also presuppose a relatively fixed system with it's own inertia patterns, but if behaviour feeds back into structure, then isn't the system by definition composed of accumulated behaviour?

It's only composed of accumulated behavior up to a certain point. You seem to be saying the mind is almost fully malleable.

What would it take for you to value monster truck racing or competitive sports? Truly value it, not just come to appreciate it, but actually truly care about it? Would your architecture allow for that, or no? If not, how come? Not sure about you, but there's no behavior mod that could make me care about it. Once the architecture is in place, it's in place. 

Also, there's changing things like state, experience, emotions, relation, etc, but that's different from architecture. The architecture stays largely unchanged regardless of your behavior or experience, i.e, you can't turn an extrovert into an introvert without breaking the mould - they'd become depressed. Same thing happens to narcissists when they experience "narcissistic collapse" when their supply dries up.

Narcissism is architecture. It's a deep structure, not a bad behavior that can be changed. It would take an insane amount of effort and intention to uproot it, and even then, the best they could hope for is marginal gains. 

Think about an AA veteran who is 876 days sober and they carry their chip with them and they orient their entire lives around avoiding a specific behavior. How come they can't stop the maintenance? Because if they do, even after years of behavior modification, they will relapse. The vigilance and maintenance is indefinitely necessary because behavior isn't enough.

[zurew]

4 hours ago, Joshe said:

Would an apology and behavior change really do it for you? 

If Leo never uttered a single word of his specialness and never put anyone else down, and conversed in good faith from this day forward, do you think that's an acceptable termination of this issue?

I dont know what you mean by "acceptable" there.   What I meant  is that I gave 3 actionable  steps  (that i think) could significantly lower down cult dynamics here (once they are consistently and systematically applied).  The reason why I focused on those "surface" things is because we interact online, so when it comes to the issues related to cult dynamics - online interactions -  are the things  that necessarily need to be changed. Now, if that change can be achieved multiple different ways (for instance, without him necessarily needing to resolve psychological trauma or without him needing to go to a psychologist or to a psychiatrist) then I would rather not delay potential behavior change and would rather not constrain down the solution space to only such options.

Now, If you try to attack that and say "okay, but what you are asking for seems easy on the surface, but realistically cant be done, because Leo has deeply rooted psychological issues and he needs to heal those first" Okay, then if you are right about your trauma diagnosis, and if you are also right about what has to be done first before online interactions can be changed, then Leo needs to do that if he wants to lower down cult dynamics here.

5 hours ago, Joshe said:

Also, this isn't something Leo can likely solve since behavior is a symptom of underlying psychology. It's not like Leo has just been rude or something and needs to be nicer.

I also argued for some of the things you said related to psychology and deeper issues - but again, this is what I can do - outline issues with behavior , give my opinion about probably why he behaved the way he did (largely agree with you here about potential psychological issues and with psychotic tendencies) and then outline what I think should be changed with respect to online interactions (because again, online interactions are the most relevant to the cult dynamic issue, because we only interact online). I have no way to compel Leo to consult a psychologist or psychiatrist,and my interpretation of his situation could be incorrect.

 

[Joshe]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You could look at the entire purpose of this discussion as a method to illuminate patterns /  the problem. Awareness is the first step. However, many seem to treat the conclusion as already settled. If that's the case, then I see continued engagement less as an honest inquiry and more as bad-faith drama or point-scoring.

Not everything is about Leo and not everyone is an egotist.

My intention was to let the few who can see understand that nothing Leo does will be good enough for them to set aside their animosity because they can't unsee what they've seen, and that holding out hope for an extreme narcissist to rehabilitate is naive, thus my explanation.

"Inference and assumptions" as you like to say.

Carry on. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

11 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Not everything is about Leo and not everyone is an egotist.

My intention was to let the few who can see understand that nothing Leo does will be good enough for them to set aside their animosity because they can't unsee what they've seen, and that holding out hope for an extreme narcissist to rehabilitate is naive, thus my explanation.

"Inference and assumptions" as you like to say.

Carry on. 

@Joshe so you are proposing Leo is a narcissist of some type? The arguments you present continually revert back to making a claim around this structure. 

If you want to claim this isn't about Leo, sure. Go ahead. But it's the context of this discussion. I perceive it strange to revert to this sort of rewind, like suddenly totally changing context. But hey, it's your statement. And again, it just might not be clear to me exactly where you are going with the above.

Edited 13 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Joshe]

19 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Joshe so you are proposing Leo is a narcissist of some type? The arguments you present continually revert back to making a claim around this structure. 

If you want to claim this isn't about Leo, sure. Go ahead. But it's the context of this discussion. I perceive it strange to revert to this sort of rewind, like suddenly totally changing context. But hey, it's your statement.

lol, come on bruh. Don't do dis. 

I'm not proposing that Leo is a narcissist. I'm telling you flat out that that is the case and is largely the source of the cult accusations. The cult accusations are downstream of his narcissism. But I'm not here to argue with you or anyone else on this. 

If you go back and read my first post with fresh eyes, see if you can discern my intent since I've now spelled it out for you. 

It was mostly addressed to Zurew because I can relate to his animosity. And I thought that the main reason he puts this much energy and effort into shining a light on these things is because he's hopeful for this place and would like to see it be better. I wanted to share my perspective and let him and others know that to hold out hope doesn't make sense because it's structural and nothing Leo can likely fix. He'll be the same narcissist he's always been 5 years from now. Will the same people still be here going on about this issue? Maybe. So, I thought I'd offer what I think is a useful and accurate perspective. I'm not like you or whoever you're modeling that cares about scoring points or stirring shit up. See if you can see how the entire point of my initial message communicates my stated intent. 

Anyway, I've shared my thoughts, take it easy. Good night hot mama 

Edited 13 hours ago by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe cool - and no you didn't state that overtly. I actually wanted to know if that was your claim. Otherwise I may have made an incorrect inference.

Either I didn't see you state it earlier, or you didn't state it until now. 

Quote

 You seem to be saying the mind is almost fully malleable.

Never said that. My questions were to make out your thoughts. You never asked if I thought there were some structures that were more immutable. There are. But claiming outright you think Leo is a narcissist works with the argument his structure is more rigid - so it's part of what you base your original statement on. My only thought there is that we cannot be certain of that point, although it's a reasonable one to make given evidence others have supplied. Therein lies the assumption (which I do not contest is a strong one or not, I merely was seeking clarity) See below.

Not sure why the sarcasm either? I thought we were having a good discussion. Also I've made wrong assumptions about what you state in the past, I didn't want to make that mistake again ... Which is why the questions.

Edited 13 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

lol, come on bruh. Don't do dis. 

I'm not proposing that Leo is a narcissist. I'm telling you flat out that that is the case and is largely the source of the cult accusations. The cult accusations are downstream of his narcissism. But I'm not here to argue with you or anyone else on this. 

If you go back and read my first post with fresh eyes, see if you can discern my intent since I've now spelled it out for you. 

It was mostly addressed to Zurew because I can relate to his animosity. And I thought that the main reason he puts this much energy and effort into shining a light on these things is because he's hopeful for this place and would like to see it be better. I wanted to share my perspective and let him and others know that to hold out hope doesn't make sense because it's structural and nothing Leo can likely fix. He'll be the same narcissist he's always been 5 years from now. Will the same people still be here going on about this issue? Maybe. So, I thought I'd offer what I think is a useful and accurate perspective. I'm not like you or whoever you're modeling that cares about scoring points or stirring shit up. See if you can see how the entire point of my initial message communicates my stated intent. 

Anyway, I've shared my thoughts, take it easy. Good night hot mama 

I tend to agree with you but lets explore narcissism vs arrogance.  What qualities of narcissism do you believe he has that makes him more in that category than just someone who is arrogant, and believes they are superior.  Also note that a lot of people who want to portray tbey are superior are actually insecure.   But anyway I find this ironic since he criticizes Trump so much for being a narcissist.  

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Inliytened1

[zurew]

7 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I tend to agree with you but lets explore narcissism vs arrogance.  What qualities of narcissism do you believe he has that makes him more in that category than just someone who is arrogant, and believes they are superior.  Also note that a lot of people who want to portray tbey are superior are actually insecure.   But anyway I find this ironic since he criticizes Trump so much for being a narcissist

I think its worth it to point out the difference and to explore the difference there, but I want to point out that we might end up doing the same thing as what happened with other concepts like "cult"  - where we end up largely agreeing on all the descriptive facts, we will just put a different label on those facts.

I think one aspect is around control and around putting down others . Its one thing to say that you think you are better than others, its another to say that you are better than literally everyone else on Earth and its another to consistently and in an emotionally charged way compulsively and frequently put down everyone  who dare to disagree with you on the fact that you are better than everyone else on Earth.

Before anyone object here to the word "better" - by that I mean Leo meaning to be more conscious and with that more intelligent than everyone else on Earth (because btw he largely defines intelligence as something very closely related to level of consciousness).

Another difference might be gaslighting and generally refusing to take responsibility.

Another aspect might be that given some evidence to the contrary doesnt update credence about beliefs . There is a difference between being arrogant (believing that you are better than others without adequate evidence) and then between being a narcissist where the previously mentioned condition applies to you, while you also maintain a 100% or an unshakeable credence about beliefs where you have been shown some evidence to the contrary (or at the least, you have been shown some reason to doubt) - so for instance  , beliefs such as 'being capable of transforming into an alien on camera' and 'being capable to heal all humanity' weren't updated and his credence about them werent lowered even though, he tried to do them and he failed.

Edited 5 hours ago by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, Joshe said:

Also, this isn't something Leo can likely solve since behavior is a symptom of underlying psychology. It's not like Leo has just been rude or something and needs to be nicer. To understand the scope of what it would take to uproot extreme narcissism, we have to understand what it's providing.

Narcissism is more rewarding than it is protective. For a narcissist, the reward they get from being special is serving as their primary reason for living. That's WHY they do it. Being special and being above others IS the point and what makes existence feel worthwhile. We can't simply ask a narcissist drop this bullshit, lol. 

There's likely never going to be any acceptable closure for those who have seen and fathomed the implications. It just is what it is. 

There is therapy, but that also has limited efficiency for that kind of problem.

[Joshe]

8 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Not sure why the sarcasm either? I thought we were having a good discussion.

I thought so too, until you twice-implied I was acting in bad faith. Your first response pointed to what you thought seemed like contradictions in my position. That's fine. Your second response demanded clinical credentials for my observation to be valid. Also fine, even if absurd. Your third response accused me of bad faith drama and point-scoring. Not fine. Your 4th post implied my intent wasn't what it was. Also not fine. It started to seem like you weren't engaging in good-faith. So yeah, when someone's engagement feels like it's oriented around making you wrong rather than understanding what you're saying, it changes how you respond to them. 

[Joshe]

9 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I tend to agree with you but lets explore narcissism vs arrogance.  What qualities of narcissism do you believe he has that makes him more in that category than just someone who is arrogant, and believes they are superior. 

At the risk of winding up where Zurew warned about, the difference is arrogance doesn't need to reference anyone else. Arrogance can exist without a social hierarchy and without an audience, narcissism can't. For a narcissist, the the hierarchy IS the elevation mechanism. No hierarchy, no elevation. 

An arrogant person isn't really all that toxic since their elevation doesn't necessarily depend on the lowering of someone else. When your strategy for elevation requires there be someone below you to serve as proof that you're amazing, that has a cost and a toxic effect on everyone around you. 

If all Leo did was say he was the best thinker or the best X, that would be fine IMO, even if childish and untrue. But he doesn't say "I'm a very, very, very skilled thinker". He says "I'm a better thinker than you and everyone else". He warns his followers to not think they can outgrow him. That's the hierarchy asserting itself, and it's ALL THE TIME. The structure is out in the open.

When this exists in a teacher with a community, it creates cult dynamics. Because if the teacher is regularly elevating themselves at the expense of their students, the students only have a few paths of relation to the teacher. 1) Ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist or pretend you're just here for the good stuff and not bothered by the base ego behavior. 2) bow down, defer, surrender autonomy, become a sycophant, or whatever other strategy that lets you exist harmoniously with teacher and community. 3) Point to the behavior in hopes something will change. It's more complicated than this but this is my current working model, compressed. 

Here's the rule: When arrogance consistently presents with a hierarchy, you're looking at narcissism.

When the pattern is stable for a decade, you're looking at architecture, which is extremely difficult to change, if not impossible. I feel like if the folks in camp 3 saw this clearly, they'd come to terms with the reality faster and either accept it or move on. Calling/hoping for a change of architecture isn't going to happen, even if you successfully muzzle it. 

People saying things like "he's gotten better" makes me laugh. No, he's only dialed the rhetoric down, he still thinks everyone is fools and beneath him.

Edited 3 hours ago by Joshe

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe

Did I l demand credentials? This is a factor that needs to be considered in diagnosis (if we were going to strengthen the claim to steelman). I may have phrased it otherwise - can you quote me please so I can check, that way I can avoid whatever offensive language was present?

The second point regarding drama, I cannot find where I accused you of that, it was more a contemplative offshoot. Can you quote where I accused you of that directly, or if you thought it was indirect, how? I intentionally worded it so it wasn't directed at you, and I consciously recall that. Tons of users have thrown this discussion under the bus claiming it was drama, and the discussion with you promoted my insight into what constitutes drama as it applies here (vs actually trying to work out of this is a cult or not, or isolate real dynamics that contribute).

[Joshe]

25 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Joshe

Did I l demand credentials? This is a factor that needs to be considered in diagnosis (if we were going to strengthen the claim to steelman). I may have phrased it otherwise - can you quote me please so I can check, that way I can avoid whatever offensive language was present?

Sorry, you're right. "demand" wasn't the right word. I took it as you were implying my position requires clinical backing to hold it as confidently as I do. I don't agree with that. You're entitled to that position and I didn't take personal issue with it, but it was cumulative in my overall interpretation of our engagement. 

47 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

The second point regarding drama, I cannot find where I accused you of that, it was more a contemplative offshoot. Can you quote where I accused you of that directly, or if you thought it was indirect, how?

Quote

However, many seem to treat the conclusion as already settled. If that's the case, then I see continued engagement less as an honest inquiry and more as bad-faith drama or point-scoring.

I literally showed up with a settled conclusion I'm confident in. We were discussing it. And in that discussion with me, you drop the opinion that for those with settled conclusions, you think their engagement is bad-faith or point-scoring. Is that not correct? Maybe you didn't intend to direct it at me, but surely you can own that it's the most logical interpretation? 

Quote

If you want to claim this isn't about Leo, sure. Go ahead. But it's the context of this discussion. I perceive it strange to revert to this sort of rewind, like suddenly totally changing context. But hey, it's your statement. And again, it just might not be clear to me exactly where you are going with the above.

Miscommunication/interpretation on both our parts.

When you said:

Quote

You could look at the entire purpose of this discussion as a method to illuminate patterns /  the problem. Awareness is the first step.

That's YOUR purpose, not mine. I read your statement as "awareness is the first step" for LEO. But I can never tell with you because you don't make things explicit. That's why I said:

Quote

Not everything is about Leo

Because my purpose had nothing to do with illuminating patterns such that awareness of them could lead to some sort of solution for Leo. I no longer care about that. My intent was what I said it was. 

But anyway, my bad. Miscommunication on both our parts. 

[Joseph Maynor]

I think we should be careful of diagnosing people of NPD.  None of us are authorized to do that.  It is easy to do though, but it is a clinical diagnosis.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe yep, thats why I really dove into asking you questions to make out what you were saying. Instead of jumping to conclusions - I asked you. I reread all my posts and what you quoted - can you really tell me you saw a clear accusation? 

Jumping to conclusions was the pattern I engaged in previously with you on the forum (historically), so I tried to alter that dynamic by going hard listening, providing alternate thoughts and then riffing off what you said. But centring in your perspective.

You can just ask me next time! 

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I think we should be careful of diagnosing people of NPD.  None of us are authorized to do that.  It is easy to do though, but it is a clinical diagnosis.

I'm naturally very hesitate to use that label - I don't want to be an armchair psychologist (unless someone asks my opinion). At most I would claim someone fits a pattern.

I think many people are overconfident in their understanding of pathologies and how they qualify for a diagnosis. On the internet at large. Reddit is so bad in particular.

[Elliott]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

At the risk of winding up where Zurew warned about, the difference is arrogance doesn't need to reference anyone else. Arrogance can exist without a social hierarchy and without an audience, narcissism can't. For a narcissist, the the hierarchy IS the elevation mechanism. No hierarchy, no elevation. 

An arrogant person isn't really all that toxic since their elevation doesn't necessarily depend on the lowering of someone else. When your strategy for elevation requires there be someone below you to serve as proof that you're amazing, that has a cost and a toxic effect on everyone around you. 

If all Leo did was say he was the best thinker or the best X, that would be fine IMO, even if childish and untrue. But he doesn't say "I'm a very, very, very skilled thinker". He says "I'm a better thinker than you and everyone else". He warns his followers to not think they can outgrow him. That's the hierarchy asserting itself, and it's ALL THE TIME. The structure is out in the open.

When this exists in a teacher with a community, it creates cult dynamics. Because if the teacher is regularly elevating themselves at the expense of their students, the students only have a few paths of relation to the teacher. 1) Ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist or pretend you're just here for the good stuff and not bothered by the base ego behavior. 2) bow down, defer, surrender autonomy, become a sycophant, or whatever other strategy that lets you exist harmoniously with teacher and community. 3) Point to the behavior in hopes something will change. It's more complicated than this but this is my current working model, compressed. 

Here's the rule: When arrogance consistently presents with a hierarchy, you're looking at narcissism.

When the pattern is stable for a decade, you're looking at architecture, which is extremely difficult to change, if not impossible. I feel like if the folks in camp 3 saw this clearly, they'd come to terms with the reality faster and either accept it or move on. Calling/hoping for a change of architecture isn't going to happen, even if you successfully muzzle it. 

People saying things like "he's gotten better" makes me laugh. No, he's only dialed the rhetoric down, he still thinks everyone is fools and beneath him.

But, this is his forum: if he said these things in a private friend group, I would agree. Most people put on a performative mask in dynamics like this, think of a manager at a job. Could it not just be insecurity of someone in a position of power?

[Joshe]

If you need a clinical authorization to call a consistent decade long pattern of self-elevation, belittling, hierarchy assertion, and the lot what it is, you got some kinda glitch in your brain bucket. The fact that you want to make sure you put a precise verbal language symbol borrowed from someone else on what appears in reality is its own problem. 

Who gives a shit about a clinical diagnosis? You don't need a clinical definition to observe and track reality.

Just like the whole discussion about "does AO fit the definition of a cult?" Why is that so important? I don't get the relentless desire to attach a verbal symbol to a structure in reality. The structures exist without words folks. Seeing them is more important than the labels you attach to them. 

Leo belittles people and tells them they're fools, maintains a permanent hierarchy, claims to be the most sophisticated thinker alive, warns people not to outgrow him. These are persistent, observable facts that exist regardless what label you attach. Call it narcissism, call it ego structure, call it persistent hierarchical self-elevation syndrome, call it Bob. lol. The reality doesn't change. Just my 2

Edited 57 minutes ago by Joshe

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

But, this is his forum: if he said these things in a private friend group, I would agree. Most people put on a performative mask in dynamics like this, think of a manager at a job. Could it not just be insecurity of someone in a position of power?

The total consistency across all contexts for over ten years is exactly what distinguishes architecture from performance.

[Elliott]

9 minutes ago, Joshe said:

The total consistency across all contexts for over ten years is exactly what distinguishes architecture from performance.

I'm sorry if you already explained this, but by all contexts you obviously don't mean outside of this time he spends on this forum, even in his videos he's not like that. We don't know how he is in daily life, you don't believe he could be different outside the forum because of the consistency over ten years? Most people behave differently 1.) Online and 2.) In a role of authority, you don't believe this could be the case because it's been 10 years?