Lila9

Age of Alone: New Normal

21 posts in this topic

This person says that choosing to be alone is a rational choice because the world sucks. He says that we aren't as a social species as we think we are and that we were collectively brainwashed to believe that we need people in our life to be happy and content.

For the entire human history we needed each other to survive but with the progression of technology the truth about our probably schizoid nature reveals itself.

This person is a narcissist and a big lover of science, he bases his claims on scientific data and statistics a lot. 

What do you think about it?

Do you agree with him or do you think that he's mainly talking from a place of bias and projection? I wonder wether he would speak in the same way if he wasn't a narcissist. I agree with many of what he's saying but I have the feeling that he's missing something. Do you think he's missing something and if so what he's missing?

 

 

 

 


Let Love In

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people can SORT OF be alone, but most are not wired that way and need other people to have any sort of happiness and not die of depression. 

if you have chronic loneliness you can become depressed and it can dramatically shorten your life, even if you cover it up.

If there is a major financial crisis, as some people predict, he may find it harder to order what he needs off amazon, or to meet all his needs without any community interaction.

Yeah, I'd rather have other people around. If you are happy with yourself and not yourself insane, you can smile on others and appreciate being around them even if you think they are insane. 


A Call to Live Differently: https://angeloderosa.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is scientifically correct. I like the point he makes about conspiracism being a way to relate and belong. And that the new way of living very isolated gives rise to mass conspiracy following.

For personal growth alone time is very important I find.

On the other hand if you want to learn how to socialise and be charismatic it's better to get out and meet people.

He definitely has a bias towards logic and against experience.

Typical science bias you see in most scholars who are stuck at the level of reason.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lila9 I like some of Vaknin's work but he seems to me to not infrequently lose sight of his own projections. I think this is one of such projections.

Having the narcissistic personality structure he has makes his the way he perceives the world very, very different to a psychologically integrated persons, despite the healthy coping mechanisms he employs, imo.

Sometimes he just goes a bit off the rails and into the land of conspiracy theories, imo.


Be-Do-Have

Made it out the inner hood

There is no failure, only feedback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have very recently started to really enjoy solitude. Barely socialize anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

What do you think about it?

Most people are alone not because of choice, but because they don't have any friends or any romantic partner, and these people are depressed and sad in the vast majority of the cases.

The idea that everyone should just be totally isolated from everyone is bad, because most people don't want to live that way and most people don't feel well that way. He conveniently left some variables out, that we know can contribute in great measures in terms of happiness to the vast majority of society for example: building a family, having friends or someone you can talk to etc.

The other idea that most people can deal with all of their problem alone (because this idea is implied by him saying just be isolated from everyone), is just simply not true. There are very few people who can actually deal with all of their problems without any help from their family, friends or partner.

The other idea, that people can be more successful when it comes to their careers by being extremely isolated from people is not true in the vast majority of the cases. There are very very few people who can work totally alone, without anyone contributing anything to their work. In most cases you can 10x or 100x the productivity of your work if you have the right team and the right people around you and most people don't even want to have a life, where all their time goes to their career.

There are more to be said on this topic, but I think in overall his advice on this is flawed and bad for most people.

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop caring what is normal and find what suits you.

If you like being alone then be alone and stop caring what anyone else thinks or does.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zurew

4 hours ago, zurew said:

Most people are alone not because of choice, but because they don't have any friends or any romantic partner, and these people are depressed and sad in the vast majority of the cases.

The idea that everyone should just be totally isolated from everyone is bad, because most people don't want to live that way and most people don't feel well that way. He conveniently left some variables out, that we know can contribute in great measures in terms of happiness to the vast majority of society for example: building a family, having friends or someone you can talk to etc.

The other idea that most people can deal with all of their problem alone (because this idea is implied by him saying just be isolated from everyone), is just simply not true. There are very few people who can actually deal with all of their problems without any help from their family, friends or partner.

The other idea, that people can be more successful when it comes to their careers by being extremely isolated from people is not true in the vast majority of the cases. There are very very few people who can work totally alone, without anyone contributing anything to their work. In most cases you can 10x or 100x the productivity of your work if you have the right team and the right people around you and most people don't even want to have a life, where all their time goes to their career.

There are more to be said on this topic, but I think in overall his advice on this is flawed and bad for most people.

   All of that is relative and based on your stage of development, cognitive and moral development, psychology, ego development, states of consciousness and emotional ranges, life experiences and other lines of development in areas of life, ideologies, beliefs and biases growing up and indoctrinated into you by culture and upbringing. If he made that statement that everyone would be happier living more alone, that statement is both likely true for him, based on developmental factors again, and based on that person's preferences and biases. If this is his perspective and lived experiences, that works for him, great for him, this is his normal and how his genetics and mind composition is. Of course, when you take his statement and try to blanket apply to 8 billion people and counting, of course you'll find differences because uniqueness and social indoctrination of any kind, all the way down to having a deep need for intimacy and community belonging to others.

   Ultimately, if this rings true for you, good. If not, then find your normal and your uniqueness, and stop caring what other people think about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lila9

6 hours ago, Lila9 said:

This person says that choosing to be alone is a rational choice because the world sucks. He says that we aren't as a social species as we think we are and that we were collectively brainwashed to believe that we need people in our life to be happy and content.

For the entire human history we needed each other to survive but with the progression of technology the truth about our probably schizoid nature reveals itself.

This person is a narcissist and a big lover of science, he bases his claims on scientific data and statistics a lot. 

What do you think about it?

Do you agree with him or do you think that he's mainly talking from a place of bias and projection? I wonder wether he would speak in the same way if he wasn't a narcissist. I agree with many of what he's saying but I have the feeling that he's missing something. Do you think he's missing something and if so what he's missing?

 

 

 

 

   It's an interesting view of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

 All of that is relative and based on your stage of development, cognitive and moral development, psychology, ego development, states of consciousness and emotional ranges, life experiences and other lines of development in areas of life, ideologies, beliefs and biases growing up and indoctrinated into you by culture and upbringing. 

This part is totally not necessary to bring up every time, because this is obvious.

46 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Ultimately, if this rings true for you, good. If not, then find your normal and your uniqueness, and stop caring what other people think about you.

Except if you are a content creator its good to be responsible with your advice and message and think about how the vast majority of people will interpret your message and how applicaple your advice is to them. This video wasn't presented as a niche video to a niche set of people, it was presented as a general advice that everyone should follow, and thats my problem with it. 

When it comes to how should a random individual engage with the video, of course I agree, - take what you want, apply to your life how you see fit etc, but again my criticism was mostly aimed at the creator of the video and how the video's message comes off as a general advice to average people ,even thought its not applicable to most people(imo).

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be alone at all and I don't think I have been brainwashed into it. I believe we need connection and love. 

At least I need love. 


♡✸♡.

 Be careful being too demanding in relationships. Relate to the person at the level they are at, not where you need them to be.

You have to get out of the kitchen where Tate's energy exists ~ Tyler Robinson 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Introverts and extroverts have likely always existed in human societies. Both are adaptations to social life in a tribe. 

Introverts = few connections but deeper 

Extroverts = many connections but not as deep

Both have innate needs for connection and socialization coded in. The extrovert's strategy just requires more active socializing to ensure there are enough bonds and support in the tribe, whereas the introvert will cultivate a few stronger bonds and chill for the rest of the time. 

Extroverts like Teal Swan overly promote the socialization side and dismiss the lone wolf types, and the lone wolfers overly emphasize independence and non-reliance on others. 

Currently the "war" between the two perspectives is causing both sides to become more defensive and as a result more extreme, starting to border on dysfunction. The solution is not to promote either total lone wolfing or total social dependence, but to recognize the difference in strategy and the different needs between the introvert and the extrovert. This way both can give space for the other to get their needs fulfilled instead of arguing about what is a healthy or the "right" amount of socialization and connection. 

So lets not shame introverts for wanting to be alone at times, and lets not shame extroverts for wanting to connect and socialize more. Extroverts that fully get their needs for socialization met won't come across as so "needy" for introverts, and the introverts who get their needs for space and alone time met won't come across as so distant and closed off to extroverts. So both respecting each others needs will be a win win for everyone, the intoverts can get along with the extroverts and collective life can function more harmoniously :)

Edited by TheAlchemist

"Only that which can change can continue."

-James P. Carse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bob Seeker

@universe 

@KH2

@Ulax

@Spiral

@zurew

@Danioover9000

@Tyler Robinson

@TheAlchemist

Thank you for sharing your opinions everybody, I appriciate your input.

@Leo Gura

This post isn't about me as an individual. My personal preference isn't relevent here. This person made bold and generalizing claims about human nature and people in current society. I try to figure out how much truth those claims hold. Have you watched the video?

Edited by Lila9

Let Love In

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be alone until the bliss radiates off you every time you leave the house, then see what happens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lila9 You're welcome


Be-Do-Have

Made it out the inner hood

There is no failure, only feedback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zurew

On 2023-01-12 at 10:31 PM, zurew said:

This part is totally not necessary to bring up every time, because this is obvious.

Except if you are a content creator its good to be responsible with your advice and message and think about how the vast majority of people will interpret your message and how applicaple your advice is to them. This video wasn't presented as a niche video to a niche set of people, it was presented as a general advice that everyone should follow, and thats my problem with it. 

When it comes to how should a random individual engage with the video, of course I agree, - take what you want, apply to your life how you see fit etc, but again my criticism was mostly aimed at the creator of the video and how the video's message comes off as a general advice to average people ,even thought its not applicable to most people(imo).

   No, that part is necessary to bring, up especially when it's not that obvious, and treated as if it's self evident.

   I was referring to people's opinions of you being irrelevant, not the other way around of being a content creator, because you are you and you have your own uniqueness. Of course, when all the other developmental factors are includes and address the potential collective ramifications, yes a creative content maker should think about what kind of impact and contribution to the world or their society they want to make, with a certain demographic and psychographic of a group you want to provide value to. However, even this in the grand scheme of things may even be irrelevant, because the original inventors, artists, designers and pioneers of a technology may have an intended design, but after decades and centuries later, after generations go by, the other people can use that technology for another purpose. Some people discovered video games accidentally, and it developed with mixed intentions, not knowing the full consequences of just what video games can do to humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

However, even this in the grand scheme of things may even be irrelevant, because the original inventors, artists, designers and pioneers of a technology may have an intended design, but after decades and centuries later, after generations go by, the other people can use that technology for another purpose. Some people discovered video games accidentally, and it developed with mixed intentions, not knowing the full consequences of just what video games can do to humanity.

Yes, but in this case the problem we are talking about isn't a delayed causal effect or the weaponization of it, we are talking about the advice being wrong or flawed from the get-go. Also intentions doesn't really matter in this context, what matters is the caused effect.

 All I said was that an atypical person gave an atypical adivce to normal people, when imo, that advice only or mostly works for atypical people, thats it.

Edited by zurew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zurew

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Yes, but in this case the problem we are talking about isn't a delayed causal effect or the weaponization of it, we are talking about the advice being wrong or flawed from the get-go. Also intentions doesn't really matter in this context, what matters is the caused effect.

 All I said was that an atypical person gave an atypical adivce to normal people, when imo, that advice only or mostly works for atypical people, thats it.

   Intentions do matter from the start of making an advice or deciding to take a series of actions, along the the ranges of short term to long term effects that can follow, which also can potentially be weaponized and have delayed effects. Leonardo Da Vinci was a talented artist and thinker, and also inventor of some designs, he intended to create a contraption that could fly, but didn't know what was missing, nor the rippling consequences of the technological evolution he kick started from that design, to it eventually becoming the helicopter, which changed significant parts of society and how some people traveled, transported or even did warfare or surveys, not even the potential benefits and risks involved with helicopters. He may have discovered and created cryptography and cartography, which had many ramifications for future generations and how they navigate and orientate themselves to the world around them.

   With that argument, I might as well claim that since Leo is atypical, he has no standing to create his LP course and give free videos of various topics, because since he's atypical, he should be serving atypical people instead of serving typical people helping them find their LP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

Intentions do matter from the start of making an advice or deciding to take a series of actions, along the the ranges of short term to long term effects that can follow, which also can potentially be weaponized and have delayed effects

All of this part is totally irrelevant to the criticism I made.

5 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

With that argument, I might as well claim that since Leo is atypical, he has no standing to create his LP course and give free videos of various topics, because since he's atypical, he should be serving atypical people instead of serving typical people helping them find their LP. 

I don't see what or why you are arguing. What you are proposing here is not the same, I explicitly said,that the problem is not just being atypical, but specifically giving advice in a specific field (in this case regarding to relationships) that is only applicaple to a very small set of people, while presenting it as if it would be applicaple to the vast majority of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to be able to distinguish between two types of ethical systems ('ethics' in its literal sense of "how does one live a good life?".)

Those which rationalize and enable the ethicist's psychopathology and those that challenge it.

Same really goes for metaphysical systems (e.g. solipsism = enabling narcissism.)

But back to ethics: the proof is in the pudding.  The burden of proof is on the ethicist to demonstrate that his path leads one to a good life, otherwise you simply conclude that it's another ego protection strategy that favors safety over meaning and fulfillment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now