Point Out My Bias

[Leo Gura]

I am interested in hearing what you perceive my biases to be.

This is not an invitation for random criticism and griping. Think before you post. Contemplate what my biases are. And be mindful of your own biases as you do so.

I will seriously consider any thoughtful, serious submission.

Edited 3 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Majed]

@Leo Gura Bias against mainstream religion. 

I feel like you misunderstand religious people's perspective. 

[r0ckyreed]

One thing that stands out is I feel like you tend to do a No True Scotsman fallacy on science. You tend to overgeneralize scientists and science has being one way, when there are scientists who actually are doing the work and will acknowledge the limitations and circularity of science.

It is kind of a double standard to say circularity is a problem with science, but then your own worldview is itself circular; hence, all worldviews end up being circular due to unquestioned assumptions. Science includes ethnography, spirituality, academia, and more. You tend to define science as distinct from contemplation, psychedelics, meditation, and spirituality.

I have always considered meditation and contemplation as a form of self-science. Hence, your tendency to no true Scotsman science. But I will admit, you are mostly right in your critiques of academic science. A lot of academics won’t admit that spirituality and meditation is a form of science. But then those same scientists would have to admit that ethnography then wouldn’t be a scientific process. If studying other cultures is scientific, then why would studying God not be scientific? All science is studying God, but they just aren’t aware of it. 

Of course, you are aware of your arrogance and your over-exaggerated bold claims. You sometimes present your ideas in an absolutist way which gets you into trouble when you later realize you are wrong; hence, your Solipsism vs Infinite Gods videos. Those two videos were the main contradiction I see.

You also use words that laymen don’t associate with. For instance, you say the external world doesn’t exist. In reality though, the external world does exist, you just call it Consciousness or Hallucination. You say science is imaginary, but if everything is imaginary, then saying science is imaginary or external world is imaginary doesn’t mean anything. And is the same as saying science and external world is real.

Edited 4 hours ago by r0ckyreed

[r0ckyreed]

16 minutes ago, Majed said:

@Leo Gura Bias against mainstream religion. 

I feel like you misunderstand religious people's perspective. 

I think Leo is pretty spot on with religion. It’s his view of science that is over-generalized. Religion is mind control. It’s a spiritual circle-jerk. They don’t care about truth. If they did, they would admit dressing up for church is more about community than it is about questioning their assumptions and mythology.

Edited 4 hours ago by r0ckyreed

[Ulax]

Bias against studying law

[Ulax]

1 minute ago, r0ckyreed said:

I think Leo is pretty spot on with religion. It’s his view of science that is over-generalized. Religion is mind control. It’s a spiritual circle-jerk. They don’t care about truth. If they did, they would admit dressing up for church is more about community than it is about questioning their assumptions and mythology.

I agree.

It just seems like bias because religion is so artificially pedestalised in society.

[r0ckyreed]

Just now, Ulax said:

Bias against studying law

Try to expand on this. I’m not sure what you mean. Leo said he only wants thoughtful responses and for you to contemplate before posting.

[enchanted]

I prefer to pick the log out of my eye before taking the spec out of yours. 

Your biases, if any, are way smaller than any of your critics'

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Earnest replies ONLY.

This thread will be moderated under much stricter terms.

[Thought Art]

Short 

 

[something_else]

I think the one I notice the most is a non-conformist or anti-mainstream bias.

The discussions surrounding AI highlighted it the most for me. When everyone else was saying AI was terrible, you were talking about how it was great and smarter than most humans. Then when it became mainstream you were arguing that it was not that smart, and not 'real intelligence' like what humans have.

There are other examples too, but that one jumped out at me the most.

As far as bias goes, it's not that bad IMO. But sometimes things are hyped and popular for a good reason, and an anti-conformist bias can cloud the ability to see that.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, something_else said:

I think the one I notice the most is a non-conformist or anti-mainstream bias.

Yes. This is true. I have been struggling to eliminate this but it runs counter to my personality. I have a very non-conformist personality. But still, I need to work on that because sometimes it leads to falseness.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Ulax]

24 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

Try to expand on this. I’m not sure what you mean. Leo said he only wants thoughtful responses and for you to contemplate before posting.

You're right. No thought at all went into my post. I actually just bashed the keyboard with my head 10 times, and got lucky that there was a sentence that came out of it 

[Jirh]

I notice that in all of your content you almost never talk about shadow work and psychological trauma, even though these are huge parts of the path for many people.

Your bias in this case could be that your path didn't require you to go deep with these topics, because as I recall, you had a pretty good upbringing overall.

Do you hesitate to discuss these topics because you fundamentally don't think they're useful? Or because they don't feel relevant to you? Or something else?

[Rigel]

You are very intellectual. I remember one video of yours about body awareness and one shamanic breathing segment but overall your body of work(pun intended) is not including the body very much. Physical development is mental development is spiritual development. There’s an overlooking of the reality of the form. I think probably stemming from your focus on higher states instead of alignment. It’s trade offs. You have crazy depth and breath but compared to ex. Ralston or even Sadhguru you lack the grace. Or you don’t show it but like why would you do that? That in itself would be out of tune/alignment. Holism has to include the body.

I don’t know how your health problems might play into that it’s a thorny predicament. I do have compassion for you that it might be very difficult to be embodied and might be out of your control.

I know you do kryia which is physical development of breathing mechanics and more but you don’t really talk about it. I assume because it’s already something that exists and not your original work so why teach it when people can read the book?

But you play off your strengths and there’s other perspectives to explore besides yours so I am not complaining.

Edited 4 hours ago by Rigel

[Rigel]

I admire that you made this thread in the first place.

[Xonas Pitfall]

1. I know people have pointed out before that you sometimes claim no one understands you or is as enlightened as you. I agree that you've done more work than most, but when people challenge your claims or point out potential logical errors, you sometimes dismiss them with “you don't understand, you guys are still not understanding, you don't get it, go do the work” instead of actually addressing their arguments. I understand that it can get frustrating, but it comes across as unwilling to engage or explain the perspective. I think a lot of people genuinely want to engage with you, but these responses make the conversation unproductive and more toxic/argumentative than necessary. 
   I can't find the thread at the moment, but I think one of the mods quoted 50+ several instances of you making similarly grandiose statements.
   
   To give a personal example, I remember challenging your claim about “multiple gods awakening” and pointing out that, yes, infinity can be anything without limitation, but if everything is still made out of infinity/God, then it's one, there is no "Other" boundary something can be made of, meaning the gods would still be “relative gods.” Instead of engaging with that argument, you just responded with something like, “YOU GUYS STILL AREN'T GETTING IT. You don't understand the depth of it,” which really isn't productive.

2. I think this also circles back to the first point and what @something_else said. 

   I feel like you sometimes dismiss mainstream scientists, businesses, or billionaires/influencers by immediately framing their efforts as bureaucratic or “egoic.” Bryan Johnson is one example: “This is all pointless and ridiculous. Why are you trying to extend life against what is "natural"? You get 80 years, that's it. Why are we trying to advance?” Yet you're also interested in advancing human consciousness through psychedelics and new technologies. But when he started investigating autoimmune diseases, it suddenly seemed more interesting/acceptable.

   The same applies to AI, where you initially mocked the idea of developing consciousness, but when pressed, acknowledged the possibility of some form of ego emulation, which was what people were asking about in the first place. I think there's often more nuance and potential value in mainstream research than your initial reactions suggest.

3. I know this is one of the more expected criticisms, but I do think it's true. While you've deconstructed other areas, I feel like your views on masculinity and femininity are lacking some depth.

   I previously made a post parodying your arguments on this topic: https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/110076-femininity-truth-parody-of-leos-blogpost/#comment-1662066 

   The arguments you made on the referenced post: https://www.actualized.org/insights/masculinity-and-truth are not that well thought out and show bias. I believe there was also an Actualized.org post where you said, “Women don't think; they just feel with their vaginas,” or the conversation where you said, “OnlyFans is the worst thing; it's worse than heroin, but there's nothing wrong with good old porn.”

   Please note: I'm not arguing that masculine and feminine polarity or differences don't exist. I'm criticizing the quality of the arguments, statements, and the biases underlying them.

However, just to clarify, I respect Leo a lot, so I don't want this to come off as overly critical of him, especially because, had I never discovered Actualized.org / psychedelics / this forum, I'd probably be far more biased. I intend this post more as constructive feedback and an interesting discussion than a personal attack. I'm genuinely grateful for the content Leo has provided. I've experienced much deconstruction of bias and intellectual freedom through it, and I don't want my post to come across as dismissing any of that.

I'd say Leo has far more "non-biases"  than biases, especially considering he's made this his life's work!

[Xonas Pitfall]

21 minutes ago, Rigel said:

I admire that you made this thread in the first place.

Likewise!

[mmKay]

I don't know if this counts as a bias but you don't emphasize enough the impact of surrounding yourself with the right kind of people. Not everyone is built for the solo mode and I'm learning more and more how much I need people in my life, despite my heavy heavy introversion.

For a specific kind or character,  having a tribe or tight knit group is personal development on steroids and the main reason why they're stuck for so long. They insist on going solo when what they need is a high quality peer group

Go build or find your squad folks. 

Edited 3 hours ago by mmKay

[LastThursday]

@Leo Gura the thing that always gets my attention about you, is your defensiveness, there is certainly a bias towards that there. There is a sense in which you're always having to fight against something that is attacking you. I notice this in the argumentation in your videos and I notice this on the forum. I have my pet theories as to why that is, maybe you actually are having to constantly defend yourself, although I suspect it's a deeper issue I'm happy to be wrong. I don't know if you yourself think it's true?