Boethius

It might be worth noting that theories of childhood development (like Piaget's) are pretty much uncontroversial. It is theories of adult development that generate more controversy and doubt.

@lmfao Speaking for myself, I still carry with me the "weight" of a particular mistake I made 20 years ago. But I will say the weight has gotten lighter over time. Maybe one day it won't even be something I'm thinking about, who knows...

@Scholar What do you mean by "scientifically literate"? Are we talking about physics, chemistry, biology, math or are we talking psychology, sociology, philosophy? And are we talking about academics or laypeople? As I mentioned, Robert Kegan is a developmental psychologist who came up with his own five part scheme for human growth, he is an advocate of the SD model himself, and I believe he is the chair of a psychological department at Harvard University. So it's not true that developmental psychology in itself is not peer-reviewed, though that is more likely to be true of SD than of other developmental models given that Clare Graves died before his work could be published.

@Scholar First of all, I think we need to keep in mind that SD is a model of human beings rather than physical objects. That is going to change the standards for "scientific accuracy". Second of all, there are many other models for the development of human beings, with theorists including Robert Kegan, Lawrence Kohlberg, Jane Loevinger, James Fowler, Jean Piaget, etc. So yours isn't a question that has a simple answer...

No one is saying communism is what's required right now.

Isn't this the very definition of what Orange values?

@louhad

@-Tim- I am looking through the post "Black Lives Matter" that Dutch Guy started where he argued that the only problem with race in America is that Americans are so focussed on race. I also see that he states he is from the Netherlands. Let's just say that if a person is not from the USA they probably shouldn't be cavalierly weighing in on racial issues in the USA -- this is an incredibly easy way to show off their ignorance & possible prejudice, so it's not surprising they get called racist or a white supremacist.

Kind of.... The doctrine of Imago Dei (common to Christianity, Judaism, and Sufism) says we are made "in the image and likeness of God" with an incredibly detailed theology that has been developed over the centuries around how to make sense of that. Though honestly, I don't think going through all of those particulars is very illuminating on its own. Instead, I find two quotes by St. Paul to be more instructive: Galatian 2:20 says "My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." Philippians 2:5 says "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."

@Nak Khid Beck also came out (in conjunction with a few other authors) with another book in 2018 called Spiral Dynamics in Action: Humanity's Master Code where they very specifically apply spiral dynamics to a variety of different regions in the world, including work they've done on Israel and Palestine. This a denser and more technical book than the one you mentioned from 1996, so I've been only reading bits and pieces of it, but it's simply false that spiral dynamics is somehow not "reputable". Hell, I've heard (though I don't have citation for this) that the US government trains some of its foreign affairs officers in SD!

@Vagos In killing this person your friend would become a murderer. It's one thing to engage in abstract, intellectual thought experiments on these sorts of topics, but watch some videos made by former US soldiers who took lives in Iraq or Afghanistan to see what murder does to a person.

@Raphael I can see how using a punching bag everytime you are upset with someone fails to get to the "root" issue, but I think writing a letter doesn't really operate in that way. Writing a letter is usually a one-time thing that reveals the fundamental issues you have with that person. Then burning the letter, for instance, is a way of letting go of those fundamental issues (whereas sending the letter to the person amounts to bringing the issues to the other person's attention and tucking the letter away somewhere for further reading amounts to keeping the issues in "limbo"). Note: I'm not recommending you write a letter that's just filled with the phrase "Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck you!" Instead, I'm suggesting you write out as clearly (and maybe even as calmly) as possible what you understand as the issue you faced with the person.

As regards politics, I think it's important to have space where we can explore different perspectives whereas at work it's important to have a "polished" presentation of one's perspective. So I see no contradiction in being relatively anonymous on the Internet (as long as one isn't a racist troll, of course). As regards personal stuff, I draw a pretty sharp boundary between work and my private life -- I don't feel obligated, for instance, to come out as gay at work if I don't feel comfortable with the situation.

@Raphael You can write a letter to them telling them everything that you might want to tell them to their face. Then you can send the letter to them in the mail, you can tuck it away in a closet, or you can use it as kindling in a fire. After writing it all out, it will probably be clear what you need to do with it.

@Carl-Richard Ayn Rand's Objectivism would go under Orange (next to Libertarianism, of course).

@Boethius After thinking about it for a bit, and sitting with Leo's statement in the video that Onecirrus posted about how we tend to project onto "the elites" our own ego shit, I will admit that my cynicism may well stem from a frustration that as a society we don't in fact have the Wisdom necessary to help bring people to an "enlightened" understanding of the world. In all fairness, maybe that's in part because people feel they are being "programmed" -- as in this documentary -- by a corrupt elite! I guess people who wish to help shape the world (leaders, journos, academics, and teachers) should try to maintain a high degree of moral fiber, in order to maintain trust....

@Artsu The program I mentioned is primarily for "moderate" drinkers who are conflicted about their drinking. It actually tackles head-on this idea that you are either a normal drinker in total control of your drinking or an alcoholic who needs to abstain for life. This idea is a stumbling block for most people, myself included, since it prevents us from asking a different set of questions like "does alcohol serve me?" and "is alcohol really my friend?" So it's not about whether I should stop drinking but whether I want to keep drinking, and for me the answer turned out to be no.

I'm trying to understand what it is about the "conspiracy" in this documentary that is appealling to people. In all honesty, after the 20 minute mark I started skipping through the rest of the documentary because it just seemed like a boring waste of time to watch the whole thing. But what stood out to me from the parts I saw is this idea that we are somehow being "programmed" through the "entertainment" we are consuming. But isn't this kind of obvious? I mean, through movies and tv shows we come to understand what is socially acceptable in our contemporary society (lessons about multiculturalism, for example) which some people (fundamentalist Christians) might reject but most of us have come around on over time. At times the media can in fact fail us, as they did in the early 2000's for example with the boosting of Bush's case for the Iraq War, but I guess I don't see "the patterns" that add up to an overarching conspiracy. Honestly, I think our political leaders, journos, & academics are too fucking dumb/lazy to pull such a thing off. Maybe cynicism is the best defense against conspiracism....

The philosopher Edward Feser has some very interesting criticisms of Scientism, materialism, and New Atheism.

@Someone here The treatment modality required probably depends on the level of addiction. I was able to kick my "weekend warrior" routine with alcohol through a month-long online experiment of abstinence (you can look up Annie Grace, in case you're curious about this) that made use of mindfulness to explore our relationship with alcohol. The basic theory was that if we (consciously or unconsciously) desire to keep drinking it will be almost impossible to use willpower alone in giving up alcohol permanently, so we should tackle those desires head on. With three months of total sobriety, I can say that this approach has worked well for me.

We can probably re-litigate the various cases of cancellation all day long, since most of them will be "edge" cases. But haven't we seen this sort of phenomenon before? I'm thinking (a) sexual harassment/assault complaints against powerful men (b) police brutality against Black people Not to draw too much of a moral equivalence here, but in both (a) and (b) there were complaints ongoing for a long time that there was a problem & the "mainstream" of American society would analyze each case in isolation and say "I don't see the problem". Is it that much of a stretch that (c) cancellation of people who have rubbed socially-minded people the wrong way is another such societal problem? Maybe it really just requires each one of us to find an example of the phenomenon that we find to be convincing in order for us to be convinced.... Well, here is a list of examples if people want to see whether they do or do not find this to be a pattern: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/ https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/08/us/2019-canceled-stories-trnd/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/style/is-it-canceled.html For myself, the general rule "where there's smoke there's fire" leads me to accept that (a), (b), and (c) are not just isolated, arguable incidents but are all parts of larger patterns of problems we are facing as a society.

I assume you're responding to my comment about natural hierarchies? I mentioned it because I am actually not inherently opposed to shifting speech norms where people recognize that their group identity limits & informs their "view" of the world. For example, I don't really think the average white person's views on the problems of the Black community should be given much weight -- just look at recent forum posts here, about Black people being inferior to white people, to see where unrestricted free speech leads. So I feel roughly in agreement with the Left's techniques of centering marginalized voices, uplifting the voices of POC, owning one's privilege, being mindful of positionality, etc. And yet... if we're all expected to just parrot the "ideological" views on these issues then I don't see that the problems are truly going to solved. To your previous point, as well, this is probably not going to lead to the creation of great art.

@Leo Gura There are natural hierarchies on topics of race, gender, sexuality, etc: hierarchies of expertise as regards how to systematically solve problems connected to these issues. I mean, the average Black person does have the lived experience of what it's like being Black in America, but they probably don't have any especially deep insight into how to refinance, restructure, and reform the public education system. I feel like free speech can be defended if not on universal grounds (which progressives today have little sympathy for) then at least on pragmatic ones.

"The actual problem is that we have a new bunch of “speech regulators” (not in the legal sense, not usually at least) who are especially humorless and obnoxious and I would say neurotic — in the personality psychology sense of that word. I say let’s complain about the real problem, namely the moral fiber, emotional temperaments, and factual worldviews of the individuals who have arrogated the new speech censorship functions to themselves." -- Tyler Cowen