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

[Joshe]

5 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I know you're very intelligent, by the following I don't mean that you're exhibiting the dunning-kreuger effect, but what you're posting is.

Notice I didn't have a tendency to diminish your intelligence on this topic even though I had to explain to you that narcissism isn't a conscious strategy,  explain to you that it presents differently and in more sophisticated ways as intelligence scales, that perceptive narcissists can easily avoid detection, and that impulse control can't override it. You demonstrated a surface-level understanding at best. 

Again, just because you can't see how it's possible to arrive somewhere, doesn't mean it's not possible. 

[Elliott]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What do you mean exactly? 🙂

My working theory is something like you've come to the realization that Leo is not what you thought he was. Maybe you trusted him and followed him down a bit of a path and now realized he misled you, he was deceitful. You feel betrayed, scared, confused so you're lashing out with hyperbolic accusations to receive somewhat of an apology from Leo.

I just threw that together AD-HOC cowboy style, very intuitive flow sort of drivel, but it's just to illustrate the thought behind my question.

[Elliott]

14 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Notice I didn't have a tendency to diminish your intelligence on this topic even though I had to explain to you that narcissism isn't a conscious strategy,  explain to you that it presents differently and in more sophisticated ways as intelligence scales, that perceptive narcissists can easily avoid detection, and that impulse control can't override it. You demonstrated a surface-level understanding at best. 

Again, just because you can't see how it's possible to arrive somewhere, doesn't mean it's not possible. 

I was being sincere when i said i think you're very intelligent. Even intelligent people fall into dunning-kruger, it's called Expertise Transfer Fallacy. I'm not sure what you're an expert in professionaly, I previously thought it was something in psychology, to be transparent.

I never tried to explain narcissism, i was asking questions to elicit critical thinking in yourself around your ideas that i saw as incoherent. I apologize if this wasn't evident, I was trying to understand your view, not narcissism.

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[Joshe]

7 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I never tried to explain narcissism, i was asking questions to elicit critical thinking in yourself around your ideas that i saw as incoherent.

Bro, how tf can you say my position is incoherent if you don't even understand it? What you think are incongruencies are just gaps in your own understanding. 

[Elliott]

Just now, Joshe said:

Bro, how tf can you say my position is incoherent if you don't even understand it? What you think are incongruencies are just gaps in your own understanding. 

I didn't say that, I said I saw it as incoherent, I was and still am open minded to the possibility that you're correct.

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, Elliott said:

My working theory is something like you've come to the realization that Leo is not what you thought he was. Maybe you trusted him and followed him down a bit of a path and now realized he misled you, he was deceitful. You feel betrayed, scared, confused so you're lashing out with hyperbolic accusations to receive somewhat of an apology from Leo.

I just threw that together AD-HOC cowboy style, very intuitive flow sort of drivel, but it's just to illustrate the thought behind my question.

I've very clearly laid out my issues with Leo's conduct in this thread and other threads I've linked. If you want to create a dramatized movie romantic tragedy disposition of that, that's your prerogative.

 

43 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Grandiosity is not narcissism, especially on the internet......

By the way, this is more of "the method" ("let's forget about this very core trait associated with narcissism and let's discuss other traits as if that will take us anywhere"), and asking a different question like above in tandem is too. If you had an overall grasp of narcissism or simply an overall position on the matter you would just give us your take.

The method is ad-hoc, it's p-hacking, it's theoretically undergrounded fishing for significant results (unrefuted arguments). If Integral feeds your posts to his Integral bot debate analyzer, you will get the same result as Wilhelm, that's my highly plausible hypothesis. That's why I get "flippant". I've been taught by the very "master of psychology" to be highly critical of this.

Edited 4 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

Wow, any critical questioning of either of your theories and you both go off the rails emotionally.

[Elliott]

@Carl-Richard so your complaint with me and Father Wilhelm is that we question a part of an argument? This is counterproductive to you? I don't understand the complaint, by questioning a single part I do not dismiss the other parts.

Do you see a difference between the scientific method and debate?

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Joshe]

35 minutes ago, Elliott said:

We see trump in much more than one online wild forum, we have decades of crime and real life behavior documented.

The dataset we have on Leo is richer than the dataset we have on Trump. I know more about Leo's psychology than I do about Trumps, even though I've paid way more attention to Trump. Trump never put out hundreds of hours of monologue and never engaged in public conversations at length, which is where the real data is.

Also, if after 65k posts and hundreds of hours or videos you still can't be sure who someone is, that implies they're intentionally keeping you from seeing the real them. If you don't know the real Leo by now, maybe that's your sign. 

[Joshe]

18 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I didn't say that, I said I saw it as incoherent, I was and still am open minded to the possibility that you're correct.

Ah, my bad. 

[Elliott]

@Joshe but I no longer believe you're being sincere in your dialogue on this issue,  i don't believe you're being open-minded. Thank you for the effort you put in to explain your view to me though. Ciao

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

@Joshe but I no longer believe you're being sincere in your dialogue on this issue,  i don't believe you're being open-minded. Thank you for the effort you put in to explain your view to me though. Ciao

You're being weird man. Relax the body. 

[Elliott]

5 minutes ago, Joshe said:

You're being weird man. 

Certainly

[Natasha Tori Maru]

 

Maybe the bridge was rebuilt 

 

[Elliott]

Fuck

[Elliott]

You guys are valuing yourselves based off of Leo whom you have an identity attachment with, it's like teenagers acting out against their parents.

You two gotta do therapy for your Leo issues. Im being serious, I'm not downplaying Leo's issues.

Edited 3 hours ago by Elliott

[Joshe]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

 

Maybe the bridge was rebuilt 

 

This place is a shit show. Good luck with it. 

My parting hot take: Natasha lies through her teeth and is a manipulative sadist. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe no thanks 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I'm considering closing this.

Is it going to go anywhere else, at this point?

Any other mods can pitch in with their take.

[zurew]

 

So whats the actual positive case for why he is not a cult leader?

I want to again - redirect some  attention back to the fact that no one has made a non-adhoc positive case for that yet, where you actually lay down your specific theory in length with evidence and with links and where you account for all the problematic data that was pointed out by me  [1 ,2 , 3, 4] and by other people in these threads [1 , 2, 3] and where  you demonstrate that you are informed (that you have  actually read most of these threads and have the necessary  context ,and you dont need to get walked through literally all the info) and where you open up yourself to get defintion and gradience raped by a bunch of users who will use a bunch of rheotrical questions hidden as "im just questioning your theory"  then the moment they finish,  they immediately imply and state a bunch of things about you and your character and make a bunch of implications about you (again ,demonstrating that the questions were never were about your theory, but it was about attacking you and focusing specifically on your character, rather than actually trying to figure out in good faith the merit behind the given case).

 

Give a comprehensive, holistic case, where you account for all the problematic data taken as a whole stack or as a big configuration of facts (and where you dont just account for just little  bits and pieces , while you also pretend and imply  that you managed to make a good positive overall case or that you managed to defend the positive side by simply asking questions).

Edited 51 minutes ago by zurew