Why Daniel is a genius

[zurew]

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

None of those fancy, sophistry fake systems thinkers can't do

Where is the sophistry?

I have never ever seen from literally anyone before making as deep and as coherent of an analysis of our structural and systemic problems before as Daniel and as other game B people did. Never seen anyone laying out the concept of moloch and the multipular trap problem etc, all I have seen is certain people and experts giving incredibly naive and reductive solutions to problems that they don't even understand in depth and breadth themselves.

I have also never seen anyone as passionate about trying to understand and solve these problems as Daniel is. He is paying a lot of money hiring teachers that can help him understand certain facets and aspects of the problems, he is hiring people for certain positions , he is networking incredibly hard to connect to as many relevant people as possible to elevate his understanding and to make the collective intelligence network constantly bigger which also entails connecting the right people to each other.

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Where is the sophistry?

I have never ever seen from literally anyone before making as deep and as coherent of an analysis of our structural and systemic problems before as Daniel and as other game B people did. Never seen anyone laying out the concept of moloch and the multipular trap problem etc, all I have seen is certain people and experts giving incredibly naive and reductive solutions to problems that they don't even understand in depth and breadth themselves.

I have also never seen anyone as passionate about trying to understand and solve these problems as Daniel is. He is paying a lot of money hiring teachers that can help him understand certain facets and aspects of the problems, he is hiring people for certain positions , he is networking incredibly hard to connect to as many relevant people as possible to elevate his understanding and to make the collective intelligence network constantly bigger which also entails connecting the right people to each other.

   I'm reacting to @Razard86's over generalization of genius. I'm just concerned that most people look at these few brilliant thinkers, and just blindly believe them without also doing their own contemplation, meditation, independent thinking and so on to verify. It's a more subtle form of armchair philosophy of just fantasizing Game B without attempting to try to embody Game B. If Daniel did all that networking and action, that's fine, just recognize he's in the minority while the majority will take the complacency and mediocrity over pursuing Game B and some complicated Utopia. Thinking that everyone's a genius, and everyone can be just like Daniel Schmachtenberger, devalues Daniel's uniqueness as a genius, don't you see?

   It's like this logic puzzle problem of taking a value hierarchy, any hierarchy you want to insert here as a constant factor, then if all else equals we flatten your chosen hierarchy, what happens? What just happens is that we severely devalue your chosen hierarchy, for the sake of example your hierarchy is doujinshi drawings, and you have a ranking and metric that says you like doujinshi with big boobies versus big booties, and feet are definitely more lower in ranking. Maybe another hierarchy of best to least favorite hairstyles in drawing, or another hierarchy of best to least erotica. well if all else equal and we flatten your ranking down, you literally cannot distinguish, differentiate, and make distinctions between which one is more your favorite versus a least favorite, or a greater versus a lesser than. SO...coming back the genius, if we did all that to geniuses you have, from most favorite to least favorite, flatten this hierarchy you have, well, it equalizes the rankings to equal zero, as you'll treat your favorite geniuses as one value with no distinguishable differences.

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't think these people call themselves geniuses, nor do they not recognize the geniuses of history. So what is disrespectful here according to you is me calling Daniel a genius but not mentioning every other possible example of a genius?

   My beef isn't with your parse, it's with @Razard86 flattening the beef of importance of what a genius really is, because a genius cannot by definition be the majority otherwise it looses it's rarity and uniqueness, just like if everyone has filet mignon then filet mignon won't be that special. What made Jesus Christ the son of God is his god gifted powers of healing, and other supernatural powers. If everyone's Jesus Christ, who'd care about the one that can super heal and walk on water? If @Razard86 is right, then nobody has a favorite porno, there'd be no more best porn to worst porn. That's why I'm picking on him for, making the language muddy. That's the part that's disrespectful, just flatten everything and equalize values till all is zero worth.

   However, it's cool you have Danial as a role model or at least follow him, I do like him. the crowds a different story.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

 I'm reacting to @Razard86's over generalization of genius.

Ohh okay, then thats makes it much more clear.

[Bobby_2021]

• When we identify as evolutionary, we obsolete the need for paid as a driver. Emergence through emergency is a low-quality, and slow way for growth.
• We can contemplate how we are participating in the evolutionary process and even work to boost the evolutionary process.
• Universe is selecting for more diversity and differences at the same time.
• We develop capacity for abstraction so that we can think of the future as good or bad. Abstraction is a newer set of emergent properties.

Incredible.

 

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

I'm reacting to @Razard86's over generalization of genius.

I struggle to see that. When did Razard mention anything about "Game B, Daniel Schmachtenberger, John Vervaeke, Jamie Wheel, and other systemic thinkers?"

Edited November 24, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I struggle to see that. When did Razard mention anything about "Game B, Daniel Schmachtenberger, John Vervaeke, Jamie Wheel, and other systemic thinkers?"

   I'm reacting to @Razard86's claim that everyone's a genius, and everyone can be a genius. If we go by what genius is defined by, that's not possible. It's not possible that everyone can have supernatural/paranormal experiences like me, can see ghosts and interact with imaginary constructs. It's not possible that everyone has photographic memory and knows every little detail in a date. Genius as defined conventionally, means that there's a small percentage of the population that is god gifted, talented, and genetically hardwired for a specific task everyone will struggle. That rarity and uniqueness gives meaning to genius. When @Razard86 attempts to flatten and destroy that meaning, it devalues genius and makes all equal 0.

   I can't post the definition of genius here as I got a warning for copy and pasting definitions and increasing post length, so I have to short hand define genius, as I use it, as very rare and very unique traits and skills very few people have from birth and from training, that most of the population doesn't have nor the time/energy/attention to develop. For example psychics and mediums are geniuses, as it's both nature and spiritual training that allows them to perceive what isn't obvious for the majority. The majority haven't got the time/energy/attention nor the potential genes for psychic and medium paranormal experiences. Another example is Nikola Tesla, born and with massive time/energy/attention spent mental constructions of objects in great detail, so much so he created the alternating current that is used everywhere today. Majority simply can't visualize every machine part, nor have the extra time/energy/attention to develop that skillset and capacity. @Razard86 refuses to admit this because he thinks he's the next @Nahm, and just wants to talk neo-Advaita without being clear himself. 

[Danioover9000]

On 2023-11-24 at 0:02 PM, Danioover9000 said:

@Carl-Richard

   I'm reacting to @Razard86's claim that everyone's a genius, and everyone can be a genius. If we go by what genius is defined by, that's not possible. It's not possible that everyone can have supernatural/paranormal experiences like me, can see ghosts and interact with imaginary constructs. It's not possible that everyone has photographic memory and knows every little detail in a date. Genius as defined conventionally, means that there's a small percentage of the population that is god gifted, talented, and genetically hardwired for a specific task everyone will struggle. That rarity and uniqueness gives meaning to genius. When @Razard86 attempts to flatten and destroy that meaning, it devalues genius and makes all equal 0.

   I can't post the definition of genius here as I got a warning for copy and pasting definitions and increasing post length, so I have to short hand define genius, as I use it, as very rare and very unique traits and skills very few people have from birth and from training, that most of the population doesn't have nor the time/energy/attention to develop. For example psychics and mediums are geniuses, as it's both nature and spiritual training that allows them to perceive what isn't obvious for the majority. The majority haven't got the time/energy/attention nor the potential genes for psychic and medium paranormal experiences. Another example is Nikola Tesla, born and with massive time/energy/attention spent mental constructions of objects in great detail, so much so he created the alternating current that is used everywhere today. Majority simply can't visualize every machine part, nor have the extra time/energy/attention to develop that skillset and capacity. @Razard86 refuses to admit this because he thinks he's the next @Nahm, and just wants to talk neo-Advaita without being clear himself. 

   Speak of the devil, this episode 8 of fate extra encore, saber tells the protag and the viewers what a genius is, at the 7 minute mark:

https://www.netflix.com/title/80185145?trackId=14170286&trackIdJaw=14170287&trackIdEpisode=14170289&trackIdTrailer=14170288&dpRightClick=1

   Seems like Saber and I are pretty consistent with my definition of a genius. Ironically a fictional character agrees with me way more than @Razard86 or others like him trying to erode the meaning of genius to everyone, as everyone's a genius, which flatlines genius into normalcy, devaluing genius, so what's the point of genius then?

Edited December 1, 2023 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

   Update, Daniel Schmachtenberger the genius has a YouTube Channel!

   Like and sub, and comment nice things!

[Carl-Richard]

@Danioover9000 That's a pretty cool discussion. I'm 44 minutes into it.

[zurew]

@Danioover9000 John and Daniel collab is really cool , good share!

I hope they will collab more in the future, because these topics are extremely valuable. The more they get to know each other and each of their frameworks and works and word usage, the better and more deeply they can engage and converse with each other in the future.

[UnbornTao]

@Danioover9000 @Carl-Richard @zurew In short, what are they talking about?

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

@Danioover9000 @Carl-Richard @zurew In short, what are they talking about?

The overlap between their worldviews and their ways of conceptualizing "the crisis" ("the meta-crisis", "the meaning crisis", "the master and the emissary"). Daniel has a social/economic/game-theoretic focus, John has a psychological and philosophical focus, and Ian has a psychological, philosophical and neuroscientific focus. They talk about meaning and how it is not reducible to purpose (you also have coherence, flow and mattering), how the modern/post-modern world developed a reductionist materialist worldview and moved away from the sacred, how it can be understood by looking at hemispheric lateralization in the brain (left vs. right), the need to steward catastrophic technologies and the power games related to that, and many other variations on those questions. They seem to be converging on the need to create an updated form of religion.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The overlap between their worldviews and their ways of conceptualizing the "crisis" (the metacrisis, the meaning crisis, the master and the emissary). Daniel has a social/economic/game theoretic focus, John has a psychological and philosophical focus, and Ian has a psychological, philosophical and neuroscientific focus. They talk about meaning and how it is not reducible to purpose (you also have coherence, flow and mattering), how the modern/post-modern world developed a reductionist materialist worldview and moved away from the sacred, how it can be understood by looking at hemispheric lateralization in the brain (left vs. right), the need to steward catastrophic technologies and the power games related to that, and many other variations on those questions. They seem to be converging on the need to create an updated form of religion.

Ok, thank you.

[Yimpa]

Damn, Daniel.

 

[Danioover9000]

@Yimpa

On 2023-12-09 at 6:46 PM, Yimpa said:

Damn, Daniel.

 

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

On 2023-12-09 at 2:50 PM, Carl-Richard said:

The overlap between their worldviews and their ways of conceptualizing "the crisis" ("the meta-crisis", "the meaning crisis", "the master and the emissary"). Daniel has a social/economic/game-theoretic focus, John has a psychological and philosophical focus, and Ian has a psychological, philosophical and neuroscientific focus. They talk about meaning and how it is not reducible to purpose (you also have coherence, flow and mattering), how the modern/post-modern world developed a reductionist materialist worldview and moved away from the sacred, how it can be understood by looking at hemispheric lateralization in the brain (left vs. right), the need to steward catastrophic technologies and the power games related to that, and many other variations on those questions. They seem to be converging on the need to create an updated form of religion.

   It's still interesting how they're able to communicate in good faith and maintain good body language, with a few moments when John Vervaeke looked a bit bored and a few overt illustrations, especially pointy fingers, a big no-no in the body language community if you want to build rapport as pointy fingers are like spears to the subconscious mind. Just rewashing this video is very interesting, Iain McGilchrist slower in pacing while Daniel is much faster.

   But I'm still confident I can battle rap each person there, and draw better than them.