LordFall

From what I researched, it's 5 floors and the Star Wars exhibit is only 3/4 of one floor. Although a narcissism diagnosis only goes so far until it goes into the realm of fair play positioning! You better damn make sure that in the Museum of Spirituality your work is seen before any mention of Jesus or Buddha otherwise you're not even trying! Jesus told people anybody not listening to his teachings was gonna be tortured forever, how is that for narcissism with some totalitarianism baked in for divine measure I'm gonna learn from the greats that came before me and claim that anyone that doesn't play Legend of the Abyss when it comes out is not only ruining their life by comparison to the fun they could've had but their afterlife is toast too and also their ancestors look down upon them in shame.

@Joshe Taking care of your family, showing up for your friends, and delivering results for paying clients is real, substantial value. That’s not low value in my book at all. It's tangible, calculable utility within your sphere of influence. The crux of my argument isn't that everyone needs to have a global impact to matter. The crux is rejecting the relativistic claim that value is purely subjective and that all uses of a man's time produce equal impact. They don't. An individual who provides for their family and solves problems for clients is objectively generating more functional utility than someone who only provides for themselves or is a dependent. Where I push for more is on scale and leverage. Keeping impact strictly local is a valid choice, but the trade-off is that it leaves us as passive spectators to the decisions made by politicians and massive corporations. We live in an era where social media platforms and AI agents allow a single person to broadcast their message and create abundance for thousands or millions without burning out. I think we should steer conversations along these lines since that solves a lot of the victim mindset I see a lot of people on this forum have. Summarized by the simple adage "Get bitter or get better." Aiming for that level of reach isn't about looking down on local responsibility, it’s about recognizing the unprecedented leverage we have today and challenging ourselves to maximize it.

You're missing massive parts of orange that have to do with mastering the productive tools of society. If someone jumped straight from Stage Blue to Stage Yellow or Green then they would miss the fundamental skills to have an impact in reality. If they ended in green then they would just be the average triggered leftist that just feels a lot of pain and doesn't understand how to fix it, but if they got into yellow they would connect the dots enough to see that their thoughts can only take form in the universe through solving problems of material reality that orange teaches us how to tackle. Having low affiliative needs, high systemizing, and not caring about corporate status games doesn't mean you bypassed Orange to become Yellow—it just means your personality is introverted and non-conformist. The rule of developmental psychology is transcend and include. Yellow isn’t an aloof intellectual sitting on the sidelines analyzing systems from a distance; it's someone who has actually mastered the cause-and-effect competence of Orange and the perspective-taking of Green, and integrates them. You can't transcend tools you never learned how to use. This is precisely the error a lot of users on Actualized.org make. They binge all these advanced intellectual models and theories from Leo, but they never ground them in Orange execution or use them to increase their actual impact on reality. What you end up with isn't Tier 2 development—it's just an apathetic intellectual with an inflated intellectual ego, mistaking an aloof personality and theoretical fluency for real-world mastery.

@Joshe There’s a basic distinction here: I’m not judging anyone's inherent existential worth; I’m looking at functional competence and real-world utility. If we use a stereotypical incel for example, they could argue that they don't need to provide value to society or women to be at peace with their own existence. If that's what someone wants to argue then feel free. You can make this argument to a wall you don't need other humans to validate your opinions on yourself. Perhaps self-esteem is a better concept than value to talk about someone's own value in regards to their own opinion of it. Even then usually self-esteem has been studied and usually has to do with an individual being able to reach their goals in the society that they're based in. I based my argument on the idea of value being defined as the ability to create abundance for others. Abundance being defined as helping people solve their problems and achieve their goals. There's only two main consistent lines of debate can be arguing against that definition or I guess arguing that you fulfill this more than I do, which if that's the case then more power to you, that's amazing. I always seek to learn from people that are more skilled than me at areas that I value. I cannot learn anything from someone unskilled but is delusional enough to think that they do bring value which is my reason for bringing up the subject in the first place. If we are to actualize ourselves then finding the best areas of life to do so and learning from people that are ahead of us in those lanes is self-evident. Calling ambition and high standards a "superiority orientation" is just the usual defense mechanism when people want to avoid accountability and a scorecard. @yetineti You are completely stuck on a question I already answered. By default, human beings are not born with a high-level skillset that allows them to consistently solve other people's problems or create economic abundance. That has to be developed, trained, and proven. Scrutinizing me for applying that basic, universal reality to you—and turning that assumption into the entire pillar of your multi-post victim narrative—is pretty asinine.

The mechanism isn't benevolence or a utopian fairy tale; it's basic alignment of incentives. Paying the masses a baseline UBI check is vastly cheaper and safer for global capital than triggering widespread civil unrest, bread riots, and asset destruction. It solves the core problem for both classes: the public gets their basic cost of living secured, and the asset-owning class protects their capital and keeps the economic engine humming. Why would the ruling class choose systemic collapse, ruined consumer markets, and torches at their gates when cutting a basic stimulus check maintains stability and preserves their wealth?

Bro you're 23 lol Chill out and keep working on marketable skills and you'll be fine. I think you're on the right path.

You should work as hard as you need to until you can support yourself financially and reach your other life goals. Neither too much nor too little.

It's the basis of the human condition! Feels before rationality. It expresses itself differently in conservatives and in liberals but often times what leftists feel is right actually hurts their cause.

@Carl-Richard Because an engineer who treats an ecosystem as a machine to manipulate will inevitably create second-order side effects that break the system. You cannot sustainably govern or optimize a living whole from an attitude of mechanical detachment. That’s why. @Joshe Calling it purely a "personality type" misses how life conditions force worldview evolution. You don't get "Yellow" just because you're born with an analytical mind; you reach systemic thinking when the simplistic dogmas of Blue, the individualist rat race of Orange, and the egalitarian consensus paralysis of Green completely fail to resolve the chaotic, interconnected problems in front of you. Temperament influences how you express a stage, but Tier 2 is fundamentally about cognitive complexity which is the capacity to hold multiple competing paradigms simultaneously without needing to destroy any of them to feel safe.

These are complicated issues with no easy answers. Kraft originally showed a lot of maturity by offering an open sit-down with Macklemore, and when Macklemore challenged him on Instagram by donating his $1M tour salary, Kraft actually put up $2 million for humanitarian aid. Yet people are still trying to burn down Ed Sheeran just for getting caught in the crossfire of venue owners and tour politics. It shows that for a lot of activists, it’s not about resolution, diplomacy, or actual aid dollars—it's about demanding total ideological submission and running public shaming campaigns on anyone who doesn't echo the exact script.

@yetineti Let’s be real about what actually happened on the stream. Within the first ten minutes, I laid out my definition of value—the empirical ability to create abundance and solve real-world problems for others as well as being able to help them achieve their goals. From that point right up until the end, you refused to engage with that framework, refused to share how you provide value in your own life, and refused to offer any contrasting definition of your own. Around the 33 minute mark, you explicitly stated on air that you wouldn't tell us how you're embodying the idea of value in your life and that's not why you wanted to have the talk. It seems like you deliberately ran away from the debate framing beforehand just so you wouldn't have to take a concrete stance and defend it on air. That's what I mean by evasion. One of my biggest critiques of people on this forum is the unhealthy Stage Green attitude so many post from. It manifests as a total avoidance of real-world accountability through spiritual bypassing—this idea that "if I'm part of universal consciousness, then tangible standards of value, competence, and societal utility don't apply to me." You brought that exact posture into our conversation: retreating into abstract meta-philosophy to avoid being measured by any concrete standard whatsoever. It seemed like you wanted to spend four hours endlessly philosophizing about the abstract concept of value and debating why we even need to produce value in the first place. Ironically, I didn't find that conversational loop to be very valuable, and after 90 minutes of it, I had enough and called it. It's a good thing you pivoted to a conversation frame beforehand, because if this were scored as a real debate, I would've clearly won on substance, structure, and clarity.

You're underestimating the infrastructure already in place to push this transition forward. AI fucking up and causing unexpected damages sounds like the perfect use case for the insurance industry to step in. A conglomerate could layoff 10 000 of its staff and replace them with 5000 robots and if 500 of these robots fuckup it's still less expensive than 10 000 wages(made up numbers but you get the idea.) A minimum wage fast food worker in California can be paid as low as $20 USD/hour, that's a $41.6K/yearly base salary. To replace fast food workers with Robots is not yet economically viable but the tilt of the pendulum towards it being so is most likely gonna happen around 2028 and tilt further towards cost reduction indefinitely in favor of AI labor.

If someone’s entire sense of belonging and identity is tied to an employer giving them a 9-to-5 task to survive, they never had sovereign meaning in the first place, they are a wage slave. Throughout history, the leisure classes (philosophers, inventors, artists) didn't have "jobs," yet they produced nearly all our math, science, and literature. When you remove coercive survival, people don't just rot; they form communities around sports, crafts, art, family, and local projects. Confusing a corporate job with existential purpose is a very modern, industrial-era mindset. Human beings are creative animals, we will find things to build and care about whether we're forced to punch a clock or not.

You should make a thread similar to @Olaf and make it your month long quest to get laid. I think 30 days should be enough to find a beautiful lady willing to share your bed. Take my advice and get on dating apps and you should be able to schedule 5-6 dates in a month and one of them is pretty likely to be DTF. Then make songs about getting laid like a lot of rappers do and profit. Setting sail to lose oneself against the warm, sun-drenched silk of her shores.

Why will it cause a massive amount of suffering? The Amish today choose to live without technology and think it's a better way of life. They could be right but I'm not joining them anytime soon. The key concept IMO, is giving people choice. If you raise the floor and provide people food and housing then some of them will choose to live a life of leisure and not provide any value to the state. Some others will spend their life building unthinkable technologies with their free time. If AI and robotics can allow us to support both types of people on a global scale, and I think it will, the next few hundred years of human evolution is looking unbelievably bright.