I like the this guy. He is very much NOT annoying like many other interviewers that try their hand at keeping up with you. Please do more interviews with him.
49:24 I think that a robust explanation of a "healthy" macro-socioeconomic is so hard, because what satisfies as "thriving" on an individual level is, ultimately, idiosyncratic. How that scales up can't be judged in a plurality of individual wants and prederencea and customs. At best, one can have a method to structure and constitute a population; and, I think a discuasion of a "healthy" society, is about identifying what incentives that a present on the individual/local space and how that scales up as a majority. There needs to be some new set of fundamental principles (and, presumably updated ones) and the governing structures and laws that incenticize the realization of those principles. And, that's not enough. This new narrative of civilizational principles has to, also account for the current state of things as well as awareness to the ultimate "winners" and "loosers" in the transition. At the moment, things like the WEF are incentivizing radical depopulation; and, between the geopolitical conflicts, net zero incentives, ecological upheaval, energy budgets (fuel) ... I, personally, think that by the time all is said and done -- the species "wakes up" -- there will be roughly 3bn people on the planet after a breif spike to 10bn. It's not a happy vision. It's just that all manner of lines -- points no return -- have been crossed, and what makes sense is to adapt -- survival as an interem narrative, deferring said healthy civilization to a undefined future.
1:14:27 Again, a description of an ethos of survival and collapse makes narcissism a useful adaptation; doing the right thing and it satisfying/sublimating narcissism just depends on the individual's recognition of their ecology and how much of it directly relates to their needs and wants.
I find the “Woke” discussion quite confusing. I spent time in a masters in counseling and learned about how societal dysfunctions are imparted to individuals informing our subconscious assumptions. I also learned how these assumptions inform systems and policy. It was a wonderful and challenging experience for me to examine my mind and see ways my conditioning was at odds with my values. I can admit that I have unfair assumptions that need to be consciously noted and corrected. I learned this before the “Woke” movement and understood it to be the same thing. I have trouble comprehending why everyone is so upset and hates it. It’s really okay to admit being flawed and trying to do better and to fix systems that are unbalanced and reinforce demographic hierarchies.
Let me help you then, Julietta 👍❤. It will be a little long but I do my best to keep it short. 1. The picture CST paints is that those undetected inaccuracies are THE reason for inequality. 2. CST sees the interactions between people as a power struggle between different collective groups. A. It doesn't even try to recognise other reasons for inequality that obviously exist. It does it on purpose ➡️ If it recognised the other reasons for inequality (like nature nurture) it would have to estimate what percentage of inequality it causes. It's evidence is solely assumptions that *the assumed collectively shared inaccuracies of perception in given groups create that inequality.* Which in itself is not wrong but it's simply one factor and simply a mechanism meaning every case would have to be analysed separately. B. It focuses on power as the main impulse of human-human interactions and makes no effort to balance it with other impulses. The world view is very sociopathic and highly tribal. It's created by people who understand how political discourse works. It's not about truth but ideological competition of how world should be defined and they decided truth doesn't matter as long as the momentum towards "moral end goal" is created. The motion is dissatisfaction towards system. You can get into a quite a 🐰 🕳️ when you figure out CST is actually reshaped socialism from the 1950s when the socialist thinkers understood "free market system acts as a power 🛡️ against socialist revolution". They literally decided to make something that doesn't have to be descriptive of reality but to simply serves a purpose.
Where is gender, sexism and feminism in all of this as in the same way that people are discriminated against based on sex, they are ALSO discriminated against based on race? In present times.
i know you say we hate long videos but i personally love them:)
Sam is on a roll these days!👍🏼
I like the this guy. He is very much NOT annoying like many other interviewers that try their hand at keeping up with you. Please do more interviews with him.
Loved Petersons questions etc.I got to hear about narcissism from Vaknin like never before
49:24 I think that a robust explanation of a "healthy" macro-socioeconomic is so hard, because what satisfies as "thriving" on an individual level is, ultimately, idiosyncratic. How that scales up can't be judged in a plurality of individual wants and prederencea and customs.
At best, one can have a method to structure and constitute a population; and, I think a discuasion of a "healthy" society, is about identifying what incentives that a present on the individual/local space and how that scales up as a majority.
There needs to be some new set of fundamental principles (and, presumably updated ones) and the governing structures and laws that incenticize the realization of those principles.
And, that's not enough. This new narrative of civilizational principles has to, also account for the current state of things as well as awareness to the ultimate "winners" and "loosers" in the transition.
At the moment, things like the WEF are incentivizing radical depopulation; and, between the geopolitical conflicts, net zero incentives, ecological upheaval, energy budgets (fuel) ... I, personally, think that by the time all is said and done -- the species "wakes up" -- there will be roughly 3bn people on the planet after a breif spike to 10bn.
It's not a happy vision. It's just that all manner of lines -- points no return -- have been crossed, and what makes sense is to adapt -- survival as an interem narrative, deferring said healthy civilization to a undefined future.
1:14:27 Again, a description of an ethos of survival and collapse makes narcissism a useful adaptation; doing the right thing and it satisfying/sublimating narcissism just depends on the individual's recognition of their ecology and how much of it directly relates to their needs and wants.
I find the “Woke” discussion quite confusing. I spent time in a masters in counseling and learned about how societal dysfunctions are imparted to individuals informing our subconscious assumptions. I also learned how these assumptions inform systems and policy. It was a wonderful and challenging experience for me to examine my mind and see ways my conditioning was at odds with my values. I can admit that I have unfair assumptions that need to be consciously noted and corrected. I learned this before the “Woke” movement and understood it to be the same thing. I have trouble comprehending why everyone is so upset and hates it. It’s really okay to admit being flawed and trying to do better and to fix systems that are unbalanced and reinforce demographic hierarchies.
Let me help you then, Julietta 👍❤. It will be a little long but I do my best to keep it short.
1. The picture CST paints is that those undetected inaccuracies are THE reason for inequality.
2. CST sees the interactions between people as a power struggle between different collective groups.
A. It doesn't even try to recognise other reasons for inequality that obviously exist. It does it on purpose ➡️ If it recognised the other reasons for inequality (like nature nurture) it would have to estimate what percentage of inequality it causes. It's evidence is solely assumptions that *the assumed collectively shared inaccuracies of perception in given groups create that inequality.* Which in itself is not wrong but it's simply one factor and simply a mechanism meaning every case would have to be analysed separately.
B. It focuses on power as the main impulse of human-human interactions and makes no effort to balance it with other impulses. The world view is very sociopathic and highly tribal.
It's created by people who understand how political discourse works. It's not about truth but ideological competition of how world should be defined and they decided truth doesn't matter as long as the momentum towards "moral end goal" is created. The motion is dissatisfaction towards system. You can get into a quite a 🐰 🕳️ when you figure out CST is actually reshaped socialism from the 1950s when the socialist thinkers understood "free market system acts as a power 🛡️ against socialist revolution". They literally decided to make something that doesn't have to be descriptive of reality but to simply serves a purpose.
Very well said! Bravo
Donald Trump was voted in as the 47th President of the USA.
Awesome to see Sam promoted by Michael....
Complicated, I stayed for the entire production. Please don't. Sam. Give the USA a chance.
@@JimmyT-zw2cb don’t what?
@@JimmyT-zw2cb dont what?
Sad that you published along with Peterson - unfortunately that will keep a lot of people from your material.
Not me.. I like him.
Twaddle.
IF they don't know SAM Vaknin, they don't know narcissism!
Where is gender, sexism and feminism in all of this as in the same way that people are discriminated against based on sex, they are ALSO discriminated against based on race? In present times.