aurum

That’s the core of it. You so smart

Yup. It isn't defined well in these conversations because it actually can't be well-defined. The definitions are necessarily functional and not philosophically rigorous. Gender roles are perfect for showcasing this ambiguity. Can gender roles be authentic? That's a whole can of worms.

A ton. Much of my book answers the question "what do romantic relationships look like after you've deconstructed gender roles?" Or in other words, post-SD Green relationships. This naturally brings up many questions around authenticity.

Yes! It's a useful distinction when one is learning to individuate themselves from the collective conformity of lower stages of development. But ultimately, authenticity as a concept also needs to be deconstructed.

Speculation seems to be that things are heading for a mistrial.

Certainly useful for developing basic STEM competence. But, I found the best part of university to be all the additional autonomy. That autonomy allowed me to start taking philosophy seriously for the first time.

Sure, but I wouldn't call that the core defining characteristic. All of that is more of a downstream consequence of multi-perspectivalism.

Yellow is not about accuracy of models, it's a meta-orientation towards all models, paradigms and perspectives. If you think you have something, show me what you're talking about.

I don’t grant that you have greater predictive ability or understanding of human psychology.

100%. I learn from everyone here. The book is coming out very soon, so I will likely be sharing more about it.

You could be born with a predisposition that helps you develop into Yellow. That's not a contradiction. But a predisposition you are born with is definitely not equivalent to Yellow development by itself.

Development ain't an equal opportunity endeavor. There are many factors that give people developmental advantages and disadvantages.

Yellow is primarily about radical multi-perspectivalism, even beyond the pluralism of Orange / Green. This is not at all something humans are just born with.

I do have a different way of thinking about it, but these are good points. I appreciate the feedback.

You'll have to read my book and decide for yourself. That is not my conclusion.

I talk about evolutionary psychology briefly, but I don't put a focus on hard data. I'm not an academic. My conclusions are mostly based on observation.

I literally just wrote a book about this subject as part of a new project I'm launching. There's way too much depth to compress it into a forum post, but the punchline is that masc / fem are something analogous to your Big Five personality or Myers Briggs. Constructed models that nonetheless capture something important about how you orient to the world. If you deconstruct traditional gender roles and rigid gender ideology, it does give you more range of expression. But it does not change your core orientation. Furthermore, just deconstructing gender roles and ideology is not enough. You must also reconstruct what mattered. I don't experience myself as suddenly "becoming feminine". It's more like masculinity expresses itself differently across different contexts. Because it's confusion.

That does not mean people just flip-flop between masculinity and femininity at their core. I am strongly against this flip-flop argument. It misunderstands what it actually means to be masculine or feminine. Range of expression is not proof of changing your core orientation.

Best argument for polyamory is potentially that it just allows for more people to help raise the children. Raising children with two people alone can be very challenging. Usually you at least need some extended family involved, or maybe some hired help. People in throuples often report it can be beneficial.

You are going to have to heal this wounding eventually.

For guys on this forum who are legitimately approaching Tier 2, then yes some developmental leadership is likely inevitable. And yes, that will create somewhat of a hierarchy between you and her. That being said, most couples who last are at relatively similar levels of development. Otherwise the gap in values and lifestyle will just be too great.

People do not switch between core orientations and temperament. Does not matter how much polarity theory you read. If her core orientation leans more masculine, it's going to stay that way. People are just ultimately not that flexible.

Because the libs are concerned with egalitarianism, social justice and abuse of power. They often see muslims as an oppressed minority and victim of colonization in a world dominated by western Judeo-Christian nations. They are not totally wrong about this.

I wouldn't get hung up on a debate between which is more important. Just work on both.

San Diego. I think if anywhere here is interested in a long-term relationship, this is an underrated city. Large population, good nightlife, health conscious, family values, beautiful weather, spiritual friendly, and relatively easy access to LA, Vegas or even Mexico. Cons: it's expensive as hell for most people.