Truth Discussion Time - Page 60

On January 26 2018 08:06 Baalim wrote: Of course it is an instinct, most mammals have hierarchical structures and primates are no exeption, but actually its not that important to agree on that because I say you CAN overcome that instinct, you say you can learn a different way, which in the end is the same result,

It's factually not an instinct and it might seem to be mere semantics to you but it is actually very important to understand that and be precise with one's language (here I agree with Peterson!). It’s true that we can overcome our instincts, e.g. die from going on a hunger strike, but to suggest that one’s need for dominance (and its overcoming) is on the same level shows a profound misunderstanding of how the nervous system works.

When we think about domination being instinctual, we immediately think about aggression and the notion of property (or territory) associated with it, but that’s not an instinct either. This belief has been conditioned in human minds for so long most people will never doubt it. The belief is used to justify the notion (and the genetic inevitability) of the 'naturalness' of violence, of private property and one's 'homeland', in other words to maintain hierarchical structures of dominance.

We haven't found any evidence for it in the hypothalamus or elsewhere, there's no group of cells or nervous pathways in relation with the notion of territory and with the behavior that's associated with its defense. What there is is a "bubble" or a ‘vital space’ that an animal inhabits and seeks to gratify himself in. Or we should say spaces because around the corporal schema there is a visual space, an auditory and osmic space and they don’t all have the same limits; they’ll vary between the sensorial acuity of a species and its possibilities of movement.

Once there is a body schema (in humans it’s around 8 to 10 months), there is a clear distinction between 'oneself’ and the environment, where the animal starts learning how to gratify itself. An animal quickly learns to become aggressive if its desire for gratification (and thereby survival) is threatened. So, there is no need for an instinct. We observe in animals aggressive behaviors because of immediate survival needs; we observe an aggression that is without hate or malevolence, which only seeks to meet fundamental needs. There is no prejudice, no killing for something other than survival other than in rather rare unintentional situations (but this happens more often in certain species like cats).

Actually let's take the example of a cat. Hypothetically I'd have two kittens from the same mother who are twins, and I put one outside and keep the other. I live with this one cat in my apartment which has no other animals. The cat always has food, water, toys, and gets plenty of attention from me, but I never exhibit any aggression towards the cat. The cat will never exhibit aggressiveness. The cat I put outside which has to fend for itself will become aggressive out of survival. It might become the most dominant cat in the area.

Even though there is no intrinsic aggressiveness in animals, as humans we will use our belief in this “inherited aggressiveness” as a justification for harmful behaviors that do not exist in animals. When it comes to anything that is sex related, this attitude changes. We will not engage in free love and incest because we are not going to diminish ourselves to the level of other beasts. It's clear that the reference to a behavior's 'naturalness' is just an alibi to defend the dominant ideology.

This bubble I referred to earlier has changed significantly in humans since the Neolithic period. There has been an increase in the interdependence of individual subjects with the specialization of work which has made our bubbles mix with others' to the point where they became community bubbles. Family, corporatism, regionalism, patriotism, should have led to humanism, not the rosy kind, but the planetary niche kind. Inversely, with the growing numbers of people which characterizes modern cities, the individual bubble has shrunk considerably. Residential premises are overpopulated and there is an auditory invasion which considerably limits the space within which one can gratify oneself. There's no where left to go. Social determinisms and the economic machine grind us down and we don't have the ability to resist-- to defend ourselves-- since the opponent is so abstract and impersonal. But if we can't fight and we can't flee physically, we can still do so mentally; this is why I am stressing the importance of knowledge and the imagination. We can't be well in our own skin without them unless we are one of the rare individuals who is always the dominant and never the dominated.

however your system requires that pretty much everyone is beyond that, that humans no longer seek personal gain, that selfishness is a thing of the past and that is well naive to say the least if we humans werent selfish, it wouldnt matter if we were capitalistm or communist there would be no unnecesary suffering but we are selfish and we will at least for the foreseable future, and capitalism is the best system so far that works with human selfishness, because communism and selfishness quickly generates death in mass scale.

I am not arguing for communism, I have explicitly argued against communism. My position is that a move towards a classless society will be necessary for humanity’s survival, but it cannot happen in a top-down manner, most people's nervous systems are not adapted to this way of living, but we are not inevitably stuck as a species as essentialists like Peterson argue. It can happen through gradual changes if the nervous system is no longer imprinted to value dominant social organizations above the individual and the species. It has to happen through education.

On January 27 2018 14:02 RiKD wrote: There was a scene in Mad Men where Roger Sterling (big time executive conservative traditional type) is at this hippie community with his daughter and she is saying how great everything is and there aren't any hierarchies and he simply says "there are always hierarchies." I thought it was brilliant because of course he would say that and maybe he is right. I think the only way Loco has found a way around it is to truly immerse oneself in poetry or philosophy or other art. I also think one has to be open to being a bit of a recluse. It is hard to avoid hierarchies going out into much of the world and I don't see how hierarchies to some extent would form even in "utopian" communities.

I remember that scene, and Sterlin is right, the most hippy and anti hierrarchy community ever will have its own hierarchies based on who is the "wisest", the most attractive, the coolest, the mere act of choosing a couple or sexual partners or just a friend is discriminatory to others.

You can remove money and social classes as loco wants and we will draw lines in different ways.


Can you trascend these "traps" yes, can you build a society based on the fact that everybody else does? no.

On January 28 2018 00:43 Loco wrote: Actually let's take the example of a cat. Hypothetically I'd have two kittens from the same mother who are twins, and I put one outside and keep the other. I live with this one cat in my apartment which has no other animals. The cat always has food, water, toys, and gets plenty of attention from me, but I never exhibit any aggression towards the cat. The cat will never exhibit aggressiveness. The cat I put outside which has to fend for itself will become aggressive out of survival. It might become the most dominant cat in the area.

Actually I had two cats, one of them was very calm and as emotionally "needy" as a dog and we had to chase away a stray that bullied him when it got into our backyard, the other cat was vicious, it would attack your feet from under furniture and it would bring dead animals in the house that he killed for sport.


But sure the enviroment is the biggest determinator on tolerance to violence, 1,000 years ago rape was like scraping a knee and teens killed people gruesomly and slept like babies after and nowadays both acts traumatize us for life, however, the fault of collectivism is that it requires everyone to behave like that, or you need massive coheretion and gulags or it breaks down, and im not just talking about violence or "easy" things to get rid of, but any form of hierarchy and selfishness, that is a tall tall order

On January 27 2018 13:32 Santafairy wrote:

best post ever

any technological advanced industrial society has to have a good deal of orginization to function properly, if you look at anarchism in practice, such as in spain 1936, those societies did have a sort of heirachy, it was just a democratic one, and jusifiable (imo) because of that democratic element. Even the military was democratic. That kind of society wanted to give the highest amount of freedom to workers rather than force them to be cogs in a machine, as wage slavery does. Corporations have no democratic element, you can get fired from google for sending memo's around if the administrators don't like what you say. There is no democracy there.

The quote in that pic that communism has never been tried is basically true . Lenin was not a communist, he just called himself one and murdered people who said otherwise. I'd advocate real communism, it's more fair than the current system.
The current system isn't really real capitalism either. we don't live a society where we let the market decide anything, the state has a signicant role and is interlocked with concentrated private power. So there are some market elements to our society, but the state plays a big role as well.

On January 28 2018 00:43 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On January 26 2018 08:06 Baalim wrote: Of course it is an instinct, most mammals have hierarchical structures and primates are no exeption, but actually its not that important to agree on that because I say you CAN overcome that instinct, you say you can learn a different way, which in the end is the same result, It's factually not an instinct and it might seem to be mere semantics to you but it is actually very important to understand that and be precise with one's language (here I agree with Peterson!). It’s true that we can overcome our instincts, e.g. die from going on a hunger strike, but to suggest that one’s need for dominance (and its overcoming) is on the same level shows a profound misunderstanding of how the nervous system works. When we think about domination being instinctual, we immediately think about aggression and the notion of property (or territory) associated with it, but that’s not an instinct either. This belief has been conditioned in human minds for so long most people will never doubt it. The belief is used to justify the notion (and the genetic inevitability) of the 'naturalness' of violence, of private property and one's 'homeland', in other words to maintain hierarchical structures of dominance. We haven't found any evidence for it in the hypothalamus or elsewhere, there's no group of cells or nervous pathways in relation with the notion of territory and with the behavior that's associated with its defense. What there is is a "bubble" or a ‘vital space’ that an animal inhabits and seeks to gratify himself in. Or we should say spaces because around the corporal schema there is a visual space, an auditory and osmic space and they don’t all have the same limits; they’ll vary between the sensorial acuity of a species and its possibilities of movement. Once there is a body schema (in humans it’s around 8 to 10 months), there is a clear distinction between 'oneself’ and the environment, where the animal starts learning how to gratify itself. An animal quickly learns to become aggressive if its desire for gratification (and thereby survival) is threatened. So, there is no need for an instinct. We observe in animals aggressive behaviors because of immediate survival needs; we observe an aggression that is without hate or malevolence, which only seeks to meet fundamental needs. There is no prejudice, no killing for something other than survival other than in rather rare unintentional situations (but this happens more often in certain species like cats). Actually let's take the example of a cat. Hypothetically I'd have two kittens from the same mother who are twins, and I put one outside and keep the other. I live with this one cat in my apartment which has no other animals. The cat always has food, water, toys, and gets plenty of attention from me, but I never exhibit any aggression towards the cat. The cat will never exhibit aggressiveness. The cat I put outside which has to fend for itself will become aggressive out of survival. It might become the most dominant cat in the area. Even though there is no intrinsic aggressiveness in animals, as humans we will use our belief in this “inherited aggressiveness” as a justification for harmful behaviors that do not exist in animals. When it comes to anything that is sex related, this attitude changes. We will not engage in free love and incest because we are not going to diminish ourselves to the level of other beasts. It's clear that the reference to a behavior's 'naturalness' is just an alibi to defend the dominant ideology. This bubble I referred to earlier has changed significantly in humans since the Neolithic period. There has been an increase in the interdependence of individual subjects with the specialization of work which has made our bubbles mix with others' to the point where they became community bubbles. Family, corporatism, regionalism, patriotism, should have led to humanism, not the rosy kind, but the planetary niche kind. Inversely, with the growing numbers of people which characterizes modern cities, the individual bubble has shrunk considerably. Residential premises are overpopulated and there is an auditory invasion which considerably limits the space within which one can gratify oneself. There's no where left to go. Social determinisms and the economic machine grind us down and we don't have the ability to resist-- to defend ourselves-- since the opponent is so abstract and impersonal. But if we can't fight and we can't flee physically, we can still do so mentally; this is why I am stressing the importance of knowledge and the imagination. We can't be well in our own skin without them unless we are one of the rare individuals who is always the dominant and never the dominated.   however your system requires that pretty much everyone is beyond that, that humans no longer seek personal gain, that selfishness is a thing of the past and that is well naive to say the least if we humans werent selfish, it wouldnt matter if we were capitalistm or communist there would be no unnecesary suffering but we are selfish and we will at least for the foreseable future, and capitalism is the best system so far that works with human selfishness, because communism and selfishness quickly generates death in mass scale. I am not arguing for communism, I have explicitly argued against communism. My position is that a move towards a classless society will be necessary for humanity’s survival, but it cannot happen in a top-down manner, most people's nervous systems are not adapted to this way of living, but we are not inevitably stuck as a species as essentialists like Peterson argue. It can happen through gradual changes if the nervous system is no longer imprinted to value dominant social organizations above the individual and the species. It has to happen through education.

I agree that knowledge and imagination can work. Jiu jitsu can also work. I suppose there is an explicit dominance hierarchy in jiu jitsu in that whoever taps whoever is higher on the list but I am thinking more of that experiment in My American Uncle where the 2 rats get shocked and then fight for a bit and then they don't get sick. There is also the rat study that Peterson loves in that rats love to wrestle and that the larger, stronger rat will sometimes let the smaller rat win for the meta game. The larger rat wants to wrestle and the smaller rat wants to wrestle but the smaller rat will not want to lose all the time and then the larger rat will be out of a training partner. I have rolled with some purple and brown belts but it turns more into a private lesson. Even if I am getting my ass completely handed to me by better blue belts there will still be some white belts that are more evenly matched. I think a similar effect can be reached with strength training and of course boxing, wrestling, muay thai but the intensity and sustainability of the fighting is greatest in jiu jitsu.

I was traveling today listening to a Jocko podcast and they were talking about the importance of 3 things:

- Intellectualism/Knowledge
- Physical Strength
- Comfort in being able to handle oneself

It was an interesting topic. It was a question from an intellectual type that felt he was physically frail and not comfortable in his own skin. That he was lacking masculinity. I don't think Rimbaud or Hendricks or Johnny Depp gave a shit if they can even bench their own weight or not have the ability to pull guard and triangle someone that is getting out of line I just thought it was an interesting topic. There is more to it than that in regards to dominating in a dominance hierarchy. I don't have a problem with calling it competence hierarchies but there is always more to it then that. In a past job a rival salesmen was more "competent" then me because he bribed the right people. Now, he eventually got thrown out of the place so if we are playing the long game or the meta game it gets more complicated. It certainly caused a lot of stress and drinking and is one of the main reasons I am no longer at that job.

I would say the 3 skills from above are not necessarily what would qualify as rising the ladder type of skills. I think they are pretty good skills as far as being comfortable in ones' own skin and being ok in varied social spheres. I think the main ones to stay out of are the multinational corporation ladder, the political ladder and the yuppy ladder and anything similar to it. There will always be people that people are drawn to and attracted to. There will always be the guy with the prettiest girl but you know that doesn't really matter. It's a compatibility thing. It's all based on how people judge things and what people value. Some monk in a cave meditating on his 30th hour may have what everyone in the world actually wants and the monk is not giving a shit about any of that. I would say it's the same for me when I have "Flying Whales" on 1,000 pulling my last 3 reps on the deadlift, taking someone's back and sinking in a rear naked strangle, or just getting lost in Madame Bovary, or just getting lost in a Madam Bovary archetype named Jennifer.

On January 28 2018 01:39 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 27 2018 14:02 RiKD wrote: There was a scene in Mad Men where Roger Sterling (big time executive conservative traditional type) is at this hippie community with his daughter and she is saying how great everything is and there aren't any hierarchies and he simply says "there are always hierarchies." I thought it was brilliant because of course he would say that and maybe he is right. I think the only way Loco has found a way around it is to truly immerse oneself in poetry or philosophy or other art. I also think one has to be open to being a bit of a recluse. It is hard to avoid hierarchies going out into much of the world and I don't see how hierarchies to some extent would form even in "utopian" communities. I remember that scene, and Sterlin is right, the most hippy and anti hierrarchy community ever will have its own hierarchies based on who is the "wisest", the most attractive, the coolest, the mere act of choosing a couple or sexual partners or just a friend is discriminatory to others. You can remove money and social classes as loco wants and we will draw lines in different ways. Can you trascend these "traps" yes, can you build a society based on the fact that everybody else does? no.

It comes down to the ego though. I am thinking of times when someone has been better friends with someone that I really like and want to be a better friend. It was jealousy and ego. It's the same with women I have liked that have gone with other guys. It goes into the category of hierarchies and selfishness. I am more with you on this one. How do we actually rid the world of hierarchies, selfishness, and ego? That is a tall order. I do realize it starts with education but THAT is a tall order as well. I strongly believe that I can get to a point where I can maneuver hierarchies successfully when I need to, keep selfishness under control with out becoming a default meek pussy, and getting better at keeping the ego in check and I guess that is all I can really do and all that matters.

Loco,

How do we actually implement the type of education that Morin and probably others are talking about?

A martial arts class in its purest form would be a competence hierarchy. This assumes that everyone starts off equally and the teacher never discriminates. Everyone is free to be themselves and co-evolve. There's no similarity to an actual dominance hierarchy in modern industrial society.

I'm not in a position to comment about implementation. There are many options and also many obstacles. The first step is having more people making the case for an interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary education system and starting with themselves. We all have access to the resources for it at the individual level and we have free communication technologies as well to complement our studies. If it's not happening it's not because we don't have the information it's because we are not seeking it/acting upon it for various reasons. If things stay much like they are right now there won't be any big changes unless there's a Musk or a Gates who gets behind such a project.

There will always be hierarchy. Just from people being different. Even if you created a society with no contact to current society, it would develop its own meta hierarchy immediately

There will always be a hierarchy of functions (levels of organization) in a system, from the biosphere to a social system to an individual biological system and all the way down to the atom. Functions are different, yes, but since their finality is the same (to maintain the structure of the system concurrently) they are not better or more dignified than other functions. It's the hierarchies of values (which are almost always unconscious/inherited from our our socio-cultural milieu) that gets us into trouble and introduces the dominant/dominated dynamic, not that of functions.

We are only justified in believing in the permanence of functions, not in the arbitrary value judgments that we place on them. In a classless society the bread maker isn't better than the taxi driver, the rich isn't better than the poor, the poor isn't more dignified than the rich, etc. Or rather than being classless, social classes would become as numerous as there are functions and people could easily belong to multiple classes at the same time, in different institutions, with different activities...

But yes, I think we all agree that if we stay as unconscious as we are now about what motivates us, a revolution would quickly result in the reformation of dominance hierarchies. That's not the same thing as believing in an 'essence' of domination -- something that is inherent to the human species (or indeed to all species). That's ideological.

I just got to watch the Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman and honestly, how can a journalist even hint at anything else having a higher value than freedom of speech. You know she's not gonna bring any substantial point once she does that, its kind of over....

On January 28 2018 12:02 Spitfiree wrote: I just got to watch the Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman and honestly, how can a journalist even hint at anything else having a higher value than freedom of speech. You know she's not gonna bring any substantial point once she does that, its kind of over....

If interested, heres a followup 2hour interview where he gets to talk about the Cathy Newman interview and his take on it. Thought it was a good listen!

On January 28 2018 10:34 Loco wrote: A martial arts class in its purest form would be a competence hierarchy. This assumes that everyone starts off equally and the teacher never discriminates. Everyone is free to be themselves and co-evolve. There's no similarity to an actual dominance hierarchy in modern industrial society.

Yeah, it is good to distinguish the differences between a competence hierarchy and a dominance hierarchy. The thing is even in modern industrial society it will be a hybrid. Competence will always serve someone well but there will also always be to some extent the micro oppressions and definitely the power and influence over others. I remember one specific case where my manager and I were at a bar and he was telling me how the key to everything is manipulating people. He was giving me this lesson in an attempt to manipulate me to manipulate people! I always received advice that I needed to have my customers by the balls. It gets kind of intricate. When negotiating when asking for what you want it is similar to poker in that you just stare at them and don't say anything. The first person to say something gives. I found that to be 100% true. This might be getting a little off topic but these are the types of things that I found that really allowed people to climb a hierarchy. Being tall and good looking. Being aggressive. Being lucid and articulate. Obviously, being intelligent and conscientious but there are some "dark arts" to all of that. We have identified a fair jiu jitsu academy as being an example of a pure competence hierarchy. I don't know if any pure dominance hierarchies exist. Even the mob requires competence even if that competence may be in lying, bullying, and murdering.

I'm not in a position to comment about implementation. There are many options and also many obstacles. The first step is having more people making the case for an interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary education system and starting with themselves. We all have access to the resources for it at the individual level and we have free communication technologies as well to complement our studies. If it's not happening it's not because we don't have the information it's because we are not seeking it/acting upon it for various reasons. If things stay much like they are right now there won't be any big changes unless there's a Musk or a Gates who gets behind such a project.

Yeah, I don't know, I think education for the masses is something that has been pretty traditional up unto this point for this large epoch of say modernity. The education was spurned from modern industrial society and it is for modern industrial society. Education as it currently stands benefits the corporations more than the individual and more than the collective. I don't think I have to write too much on this we are on the same page.

On January 28 2018 11:05 Loco wrote: There will always be a hierarchy of functions (levels of organization) in a system, from the biosphere to a social system to an individual biological system and all the way down to the atom. Functions are different, yes, but since their finality is the same (to maintain the structure of the system concurrently) they are not better or more dignified than other functions. It's the hierarchies of values (which are almost always unconscious/inherited from our our socio-cultural milieu) that gets us into trouble and introduces the dominant/dominated dynamic, not that of functions. We are only justified in believing in the permanence of functions, not in the arbitrary value judgments that we place on them. In a classless society the bread maker isn't better than the taxi driver, the rich isn't better than the poor, the poor isn't more dignified than the rich, etc. Or rather than being classless, social classes would become as numerous as there are functions and people could easily belong to multiple classes at the same time, in different institutions, with different activities... But yes, I think we all agree that if we stay as unconscious as we are now about what motivates us, a revolution would quickly result in the reformation of dominance hierarchies. That's not the same thing as believing in an 'essence' of domination -- something that is inherent to the human species (or indeed to all species). That's ideological.

I will quickly bring in AA and jiu jitsu again because those two areas are pretty classless. Lawyers next to doctors next to accountants next to engineers next to prep cooks next to security guards. In AA what matters is quality of sobriety in BJJ what matters is the belt or more importantly skill. I think one can situate themselves in a position to be comfortable in any sphere. It is currently impossible to avoid power and influence but we can respond better to it. We can make movies like "American Psycho" that are hilarious but it has to go deeper. Bernie Madoff and the bail out money fiasco will continue. That is the problem. For every Bernie Madoff there are a hundred others who got off scot free and a young black male with a little weed in his car is going to jail now carrying a record. Corrupt cops, corrupt politicians, corrupt business practices are the problem. Miniature or full on tyrants and demagogues are what is bringing the potential for a better world down.

On what society vales: It's funny because as I said I roll in more or less classless spheres. Being a prep cook within those spheres does not seem to matter but living with my parents still gets a bit of a reaction. Maybe it is in my head because I am more insecure about living with my parents than being a prep cook. Some people assume I am taking care of them and that would be a very noble endeavour but to just live there and be a mooch is borderline deplorable. I feel the urge to rationalize. I am a bad drunk, I am badly bipolar but I don't really need to say those things now because I don't drink and I take my medications. So, it is just the after effects of these things.

I have an $1,000 coat I barely wear. One day I wore it into a detox facility and felt uncomfortable. I also don't like the fact that if I occasionally eat out at a nice restaurant for a family affair I have to get dressed up in a monkey suit. Weddings are the same way BUT the monkey suit can feel good. It brings a level of power and influence. Anytime I have worn a tux the pleb servants were more attentive, the women were all over me, I could walk up to the bar and take a firm stance and make eye contact like a jedi mind trick "serve me" and I was served. The only thing more powerful would be if the server was a friend of mine. I think that is part of the problem. Power and influence are intoxicating. Someone is dominating at work and they are dominating in their social life and it is synergistic. That is a game that someone can play. It is probably the game that modern industrial society sets up for us and wants us to play. Donald Trump is a poster boy for this game and it makes it even better that he started off with $100 million, his dad's mentorship, and a Wharton business school education. Anways, I am doing too many things at once at the moment and I don't remember my train of thought if there even was one so I will pass for now.

On January 28 2018 12:02 Spitfiree wrote: I just got to watch the Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman and honestly, how can a journalist even hint at anything else having a higher value than freedom of speech. You know she's not gonna bring any substantial point once she does that, its kind of over....

You realize most of the mainstream media want Wikileaks shutdown and Assange imprisoned right?

She's not an independent journalist, she works for a corporation. Corporations aren't in the business of protecting fundamental freedoms. Even if she was, there's no reason to believe that it's a fundamental principle for an independent journalist to believe that free speech is an absolute value trumping even the harm principle. That's an extreme position that very few people hold and the debate is centered around what constitutes harm rather than the principle itself.

On January 29 2018 03:12 Loco wrote: She's not an independent journalist, she works for a corporation. Corporations aren't in the business of protecting fundamental freedoms. Even if she was, there's no reason to believe that it's a fundamental principle for an independent journalist to believe that free speech is an absolute value trumping even the harm principle. That's an extreme position that very few people hold and the debate is centered around what constitutes harm rather than the principle itself.

and only morons believe that to not be offended is more important than freedom of speech

On January 29 2018 02:30 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 28 2018 12:02 Spitfiree wrote: I just got to watch the Jordan Peterson interview with Cathy Newman and honestly, how can a journalist even hint at anything else having a higher value than freedom of speech. You know she's not gonna bring any substantial point once she does that, its kind of over.... You realize most of the mainstream media want Wikileaks shutdown and Assange imprisoned right?

I get that but they can get behind political or safety reasons or whatever else the government tells them to do behind those subjects, going out directly comparing freedom of speech to people's feelings getting hurt is something quite different

Thanks for the tip about Jordan Peterson. Never heard about him before, found a lot of gold on youtube