Krisena

Maybe practice saying "no" to people you trust, and then expand from there. As a really disagreeable person, maybe I could recommend you to take some time to speculate on all the possible dishonest motives someone could have for acting the way they do. Maybe you could spend time with disagreeable people and let some of their attitude rub off on you. Maybe set a schedule for a day and tell yourself to stick to it no matter what. No waiting for others. Though I'm disagreeable, I've had a lot of difficulty setting boundaries with people and expressing anger. Practice it on people you trust (warn them beforehand). When you get to express that aggression, it can feel really good. Also, and this can rub a lot of people the wrong way, when you get angry at people from time to time, they respect you more, because you remind them that you value yourself and that you have the means to protect yourself. To be a bit sensationalist: they love you more if you abuse them a little. The real question though is what you do with your life when you are high in openness and low in industriousness.

As for how to cope with the situation - because I don't mean to say that you don't suffer, just that it doesn't sound like OCD - you didn't mention why you feel the need to replay the emails in your head, but I'll suggest some examples based on personal experience: Could it be for example a stressful work environment where no mistakes are allowed? Do you feel the need to uphold some kind of facade for the people you mail with? Is it based in your personality, for example an above average need for perfection? Are you too concerned with how you come across to others? Are you afraid of having a lapse in reason because people attack you when there are openings in your logic? Are you afraid of being misunderstood and need to make sure what you said was said in the clearest manner? Are you artistic and get a sense of pleasure (in addition to the headaches) from reading your own well-formed sentences? Are there needs in your life that aren't met and the email-reading is a sublimation of deeper anxiety (maybe you don't have friends you trust, or maybe you struggle putting food on the table)? My primary suggestion would be to reduce the amount of emails you send and read, since they seem to be doing you a lot of harm, but if you can further specify the problem like this, then maybe you could work on those parts on yourself. As for how I removed my own compulsions: I avoided putting myself in situations where I knew people would scrutinize me and found a healthier community where people read between the lines and were more interested in what I actually mean than trying to find loopholes in my words. So for me it was a change of environment that calmed me down and allowed me to take a more carefree approach.

To be fair, CreamCat, what you're describing doesn't sound like OCD. The requirements that must be met to be diagnosed with a disorder like that are a lot more severe. I'm like you and whenever I engage in serious debate, my brain will intensely scrutinize everything I said for hours upon hours afterwards. I have come to terms with the fact that this is just how I am and that this scrutiny serves a function: it increases the chances that my arguments and sense of logic is water-tight. When we refer to mild compulsions like this as OCD, it diminishes the suffering of the people who actually have it. It's not like it's useless rumination, superstitious belief or actions that hinder you in living a normal life - which is what OCD does. OCD is absolutely an illness. It's not a gift in any way, shape or form. Most people do not actually understand what OCD is, and therefore think it's just about being worried or meticulous. It's not glamorous and it's not spritual, it's a disease that stops you from being able to live a healthy life. If you want to learn more about what OCD really is, I recommend this podcast:

Hyper-seconded. The Tree of Life is my favorite movie of all time. Another good Malick movie is The Thin Red Line. In turn, I'll recommend Wong-Kar Wai's Ashes of Time.

They doubted their ability to measure Turquoise with questionnaires, while also mentioning that turquoise doesn't play enough of a role in present-day organizations and society.

The 2nd picture shows all the statements in the test that described me the best. The 3rd picture shows all the statements in the test that described me the least. The color of the statements shows how they are loaded in regard to the spriral. In other words I resonate with "All opinions matter & live in harmony" while "conventional, narrow-minded" doesn't describe me (in fact, it's something that has caused me a lot of frustration in life). The evaluation consists of 17 questions, each with 6 choices that you get to weight to your preference with 15 points that you distribute among them. I questioned the test in the beginning, thinking that 17 questions would surely not be enough to capture anything meaningful, but they are quite comprehensive and you will spend a lot of time thinking about the way you distribute your points. In the end I did feel the test was somewhat exhaustive, however, yes, that's all there's to it.

I bought it and wanted to show you some of the results! As you can see, I resonated the most with Yellow and Green. This came as a big surprise to me, as I'm actually in a big gamma upheaval in my life where I, as I interpret it, am transitioning from Orange to Green. Leo did mention that he always had a Yellow streak to him from when he was young. Possibly that's the case with me as well. I would also maybe say that my Yellow streak has been more intellectual, and absent ethically and interpersonally, which would mean that the majority of my self is now moving toward Green. Rejecting Blue did not come as a surprise, and yes, I have developed a big distaste for peak Orange. That I score so high in Purple is interesting. I think there's an amount of Red in my interpersonal relationships that this test didn't catch. You can also see the statements I resonated with the most (in the first word picture) and the ones I rejected the most (second word picture). Finally, there are two graphs that show the distribution between the aspirational and values under pressure. Funny that it seems like I rely on Yellow when it counts, but actually aspire to value systems lower on the spiral. As for whether or not I think it was worth it... I actually think it's really nice to get such a clear outside perspective on myself. The report could have been more personalized for how much it cost, but I don't regret it.

I don't really have a solution, just want to say I empathize.

As a composer, I find this model to be very accurate. Combined with the Dunning-Kruger effect you have a really accurate representation of how you're going to progress in skill. At first you try a new craft and flail about, but have some successes as well because your mind is sharpened by the fact that this is completely new to you. Then you feel like you've gotten the hang of it, and become cocky. The cockiness leads you down into the valley of despair as you face problems that you're unable to solve, but if you're made of the right stuff, you will start studying the topic thoroughly to add depth to your superficial understanding until the skill becomes second nature. A master craftsperson is both humble and confident at the same time. It's really beautiful.

To use the opening post example: When you straight out dismiss something a person is excited about, they will feel unsafe, because they're afraid that you think less of them for bringing it up and that in ultimate consequence you will stop being their friend and leave them. However, because they feel unsafe they will hide their hurt with anger and frustration and be annoyed with you instead of showing you that vulnerability. Humans are more group-oriented than they are rational thinkers, and maintaining rapport with your friends is really important. Instead of explaining to them why they're wrong, you could take the position as "a cool friend who tells them the secret about how popular science works" and tell them that you appreciate them for always sharing interesting ideas with you.

I can totally understand how you would feel betrayed if she uploaded the photo after asking her not to do it. That's very disrespectful. However it could also be an oversight, or maybe you didn't make yourself clear enough to her. Instead of moving on, how about you tell her how you feel about using the picture that way? I'm sure that if you explicitly told her that using the picture makes you uncomfortable and asked her if she would take the picture down, she would have empathy for you and take it down at your request. When people step over my boundaries, I find that it helps talking to them about it - letting them know what they did and how it made me feel in a non-confrontational manner. It's understandable that if you are a distrustful person by nature that this would be difficult, but it's worth a shot. I do not agree that you should only focus on your own reactions. People have different needs and it's important that they are met so that everyone can be as healthy as possible. People will often be more than happy to accommodate you if you let them know what effect their behavior has on you. On the other hand, certain needs can be very unique to you, and you may have difficulty attaining an understanding from others. As a self-identified HSP (highly sensitive person) I know how painful this is. If you don't recieve the understanding you need, I would consider taking other measures, like finding friends that actually respect you. When you're 14, none of this will be easy to put forth, however I think it's imporant that you don't compromise on your values. Unless you are hurting other people, you are not the problem. You are simply different, which can be both a gift and a curse.

Hiya! I'm Krisena. Nice to meet you! I was inspired by the newest video on Spiral Dynamics and Leo's advice to find mentors to reach higher stages. What if we could also compile a list of art that roughly corresponds to the various stages to help us understand as well? Indeed, maybe art is the best way to inspire you to take steps forward into higher stages? Film, literature, music, painting, architecture, poetry, video games... All is allowed. I will analyze some pieces of art that are very dear to me in high detail, as well as add some easy entries into the lists to get us started. So when suggesting art for the different colors, I would like you to ask yourself some questions about the work: Consider the whole work of art. A piece of art may use ideas from one stage to demonstrate another stage. The main character can start out materialistic, but change into a person that values their fellow man - in which case it's green, not orange. If there's a narrative, what kind of value does the protagonist use to win over the antagonist? The power of friendship (green)? The power of maturity (probably yellow)? The power of non-violence (yellow/turquoise)? Pure power (red or orange)? Is mythic imagery invoked? Mythic stories tend to convey archetypal truth and in general be closer to archetypes. This may or may not mean that the story in question jumps to stage yellow and above, under the right circumstances. Stories about "good and evil" can either be on a really low stage, where "evil" is demonization of the other (tier 1), or really high one, where "evil" is presented as a large-scale pattern or "ocean current" that emerges from countless small acts of malice (yellow). You really have to judge on a case by case basis without generalizing one way or the other. Argue as well as you can. Please keep in mind that there can be value dissonance between the surface and subtext of the story. The Wolf of Wall Street lets the indulgent protagonist off the hook, but this may or may not, depending on your interpretation, be a critique of a society that lets people like this have their way. Could be orange, could be green. Please clue us in on the interpretation you choose. As for music without lyrics, I would like to make some observations: Romanticism in classical music is not unambiguous. Both intense expressions love (green) and "worship of the genius" (orange) are part of it - so don't generalize based on genre. Try your best to put into words what the particular piece in question is conveying. If you think these guidelines are flawed or you have a unique interpretation, go for it! I'm here to expand my horizon so I would like that. You can argue whether the stage you're personally at hinders you in seeing the truth in certain works of art. Leo did say that you can only see two stages up. Maybe that's a limitation we should be conscious of. Turquoise: Tree of Life - Terrence Malick (film) Yellow: Romance of the Three Kingdoms - Luo Guanzhong (novel) Sophie's World - Jostein Gaarder (novel) The Ring of the Nibelung - Richard Wagner (music drama) Green: Wuthering Heights - Emily Brontë (novel) Before Sunrise / Before Sunset / Before Midnight - Richard Linklater (film) Birdman - Alejandro Iñárritu (film) Wild Strawberries - Ingmar Bergman (film) Avatar - James Cameron (film) Interstellar - Christopher Nolan (film) Symphony No. 9 - Ludwig van Beethoven (music) Orange: Advertisements (film/visual arts) Blue: National anthems (music) Propaganda movies (film) Red: War marches (music) Purple: Totem poles (sculpture) Beige: ...yeah, good luck finding lower than green fine art. I have some questions for you that I hope you can help me with as well: Where does art that only has the purpose of stimulating the senses belong? If any of you are familiar with the impressionists in music or painting... Where do you think they belong? What about modernistic psychological dramas that show the dangers of subconscious drives and urges? Finally, here's my elaboration on one of my entries: Romance of the Three Kingdoms: The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been. The story of an empire that falls apart and the warlords that strategize and fight for power in the ensuing chaos. The main characters are Liu Bei "I will restore the rightful order and hierarchy" (blue), Cao Cao "I am destined for great things and will rule the world" (orange) and Sun Quan "When others gain power, we become an easy target, so we too must expand to survive" (???), who eventually establish three minor kingdoms that all try to conquer the others. On the local level, the story is about power and ambition (orange) as the different warlords try to get the upper hand on each other. On the large scale however, the picture that is painted is one of "cycles of nature". In the end, as it seems like one of the warlords are about to triumph, one of said warlord's own generals overthrow him and put their own clan on the throne. In the next years, they conquer the other two kingdoms - restoring stability to the land after 50 years of war. The ending is shocking, but powerful, as it reveals to the audience the futility of the main characters' struggles. The story starts with order, descends into chaos and in the end, returns to order, with a final remark of the narrator: All down the ages rings the note of change, For fate so rules it; none escapes its sway. The kingdoms three have vanished as a dream, The useless misery is ours to grieve. I experience the story as a meditation on the laws of cause and effect (the string of constantly shifting alliances and battles that follow logically from one another) and the patterns that emerge from them (the rise and fall of social structures). In the end, the impression I'm left with is that the actions of humans are just a part of the larger system of nature, that is impossible to transcend. Clearly a yellow piece of art, and truly one of the greatest stories I've ever read. With that I hope I can stimulate some discussion. I'm happy to answer any questions, and I don't mind feedback either. I posted a lot of fine art, but that's because I'm just into that. Please talk about the art you care about!

That's the reaction that follows whenever anyone criticizes JP. From JP's fans of course, not the Actualized.org community.

As someone who's a big fan of Jordan Peterson and swallowed all his knowledge with great apetite, I also haven't been able to embrace him completely. He's a wonderful person and does so much good for the world, but when Leo and others type him as orange, I whole-heartedly agree with that. I took me a while to put the finger on what I found lacking, but I realized it when someone started talking about Harry Potter in the comment section on one of his videos, talking about the importance of love, and the contrast was stark. Jordan Peterson emphasizes individualism and personal responsibility to a dysfunctional degree. It's the feeling you get when you listen to him that you are always completely alone in the world, fighting to fend off all the dangers. Not once have I heard Peterson talk about the importance showing love to your fellow man, even though recieving love and confidence from other people is a much deeper prerequisite for being able to handle life than taking on responsibility and working hard. To some degree, I think this is justified. Peterson realizing that a big part of his audience are people who haven't really recieved that love and confidence in their lives, and therefore won't really be able to take that kind of message. Peterson also has a clear axe to grind any sort of collectivist emotion. There's no nuance allowed in discussions that are even remotely related to his agenda against the marxism, even when they're not really about marxism. Where there's a lack of nuance, I always reserve judgement, and I feel like that's justified here as well. And I find this baffling, as he's clearly a very empathetic person who cares deeply for other people. What's the nature of this paradox? I haven't been able to understand it. It's that feeling you get when you listen to someone for a very, very long time and while nothing they say is particularily wrong, you start to intuit the worldview and emotions those thoughts are kept together by, and it is not pleasant. While pleasantness is certainly not a goal, coming from a less cutthroat society than him, I can't help to think that his worldview lacks that "equally powerful antagonist" that he always talks about when it comes to the literature of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. He knows the importance of experiencing love for human well-being - he's a psychologist after all - yet he acts as if it's less important than all the other things he's dedicated his life to. You know... Many people take his messages to heart, and if we imagine the extreme version of these messages blossoming into parents in 20 years, I think we'll see a lot of mothers and father who work tirelessly to cover the needs of their family and society, yet forget to hug their kids.

I actually just made a thread for covering art of the different stages. I have posted some yellow music, and so have others as well. Turquoise remains to be seen, but I'm sure we'll get there:

Ohh, that's a good question. With their intelligence and mastery of their craft, I'd be tempted to put them both at stage yellow, supporting their tier 1 lords. Sima Yi is very ambiguous. Was he legitimately scatter-brained, or did he fake it for his ambition? Maybe you are right that he's more orange. As for Zhuge, I agree he's more enlightened. If not yellow, I would say at least he comes off as green in his interactions. If anything, I'd say these images make me more scared of stage turquoise, although also amazed. Also, I might have to check out Tool now. The idea of a yellow rock band is intruiging. I will add another blurb on one of my own list entries: The Ring of the Nibelung This is one of the greatest achievements of art in human history. The struggles of one man to create a 14 hour music drama of the finest music you can possibly find in classical music, as well as a story of Shakesperean proportions, tightness and richness. The story is inspired by Norse mythology and shows how the lust for power and the prioritzation of power over love corrupts society until it falls apart. This is almost the opposite story of Romance of the Three Kingdoms in that at the beginning of the drama, Wotan, the king of the Norse gods and all creatures establishes order by finishing his castle. However, to pay his workers, he steals a ring from one of the dwarfs - that the dwarf gained through magic means by sacrificing his ability to love for the sake of gaining power. Warned about the curse of the ring, he gives it away, even though he came to covet it. Still, he, the state, used stolen goods to pay off his debts, and now the universe is in imbalance. Wotan tries to restore the balance by manipulating events in the human world, so as to avoid the world ending in Ragnarok. However at some point, his quest to maintain power comes at the expense of the people he loves and he has to make a choice. Power over love? Or love over power? The drama sets up a struggle between green and orange values. In the end, the orange values win, but that also means the destruction of society. And in the last scene, the castle of Valhalla crumbles while the original owners of the ring of power try to wrest it from one another. In some way, you could say this makes for a compltely green story, but like Romance of the Three Kingdoms again, the struggle is painted as a cycle of nature, and the orange vs. green struggle as a law of the universe. The story is also rich with incredibly tightly written psychological drama. The characters sing what they think, but the underlying music shows what's really going on in their subconscious. So yeah, I would say this is a green story that transcends to yellow because of the way it argues its case and sees the causality and forces in the world that lead to the end result with such clarity.