DocWatts

"People need more than to be scolded, more than to be made to feel stupid and guilty. They need more than a vision of doom. They need a vision of the world and of themselves that inspires them." - quote from Ishamel by Daniel Quinn

As someone who thought Biden was one of the worst picks among a handful of really promising candidates (Bernie, Yang, Warren, Tulsi), he's at least amenable to popular pressure for progressive reforms; Bernie's doing some tangible good here, as can be seen with the massive investments in Infrastructure and Green Energy that Biden was nudged to be on board with. And you know, for all his problems, at worst he's more of the same prior to 2016, rather than an authoritarian who's actively damaging Democratic institutions to avoid being prosecuted on corruption charges.

Ranked Choice voting is a system that can help avoid the lesser of two evils dilemma, and give third parties and independents a more fair opportunity to win elections. It could also be implemented when voting in primary elections for our two political parties. Really should have been implemented a long time ago in the States, as there's no real downsides to using a system like this.

For presidential elections this is certainly true, but on a smaller scale third parties have won governorship in a number of states in our lifetimes (Minnesota comes to mind). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_and_independent_United_States_state_governors I'm all for pushing the Democratic party towards a more progressive policy platform, and on a tactical level what you're saying makes a lot of sense; but don't totally discount the idea of Independents or Third Parties winning small, more local elections, even up to and including Governor.

Anyone who's still supporting Trump after everything that's happened in the last four years would find a way to rationalize a chainsaw massacre if Trump praised the people doing it. The election will be decided by how many otherwise apathetic people in swing states put the time and effort in to Vote against a guy that only a third of the country likes.

If there any other literary nerds out there, Dostoevsky is about as Blue as they come. Crime and Punishment is particularly interesting, as it's a Blue critique of a Red worldview.

Still an interesting read even after transitioning out of Orange.

Thought I'd pop in here real quick and give a mention to Daniel Quinn's work, as it was a big influence for my transition in worldview from Orange to Green. "Ishmael is a 1992 philosophical novel by Daniel Quinn. The novel examines the hidden cultural biases driving modern civilization and explores themes of ethics, sustainability, and global catastrophe. Largely framed as a Socratic conversation between two characters,[1] Ishmael aims to expose that several widely accepted assumptions of modern society, such as human supremacy, are actually cultural myths that produce catastrophic consequences for humankind and the environment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel)

Just my perspective, so take it with a grain or two of salt, but I see a pragmatic approach to ethics as the best way forward if your goal is to actually leave a lasting impact on the world, and moralizing can be counter productive to that goal. Metaphysical issues aside, for ethics and morality to serve any practical purpose, we need some axiomatic principles that just have to be taken as a given, even if it's something as simple and basic as "we should reduce needless suffering in the world." While I'm still very much interested in why people believe the things they do, I think it's easy to get hung up on promoting your own worldview, and that its worthwhile to try and find common ground with people from different backgrounds and beliefs where possible. Coming from an American point of view, to get any actual legislation passed that can begin to address systemic problems in our society, you need to make your ideas palatable enough for Middle America, so to speak. Leo's multipart "Conscious Politics" serious is a great resource that makes a convincing case as to why politics matter, and why its worth your time to engage with the political process.

I think that the modus operandi of blue is a collectivist 'One Right Way' mindset. Atheism isn't incompatible with Blue, but religion maps much more easily onto that mindset than Atheism does, which becomes much more prominent at Orange. Again that's not to say Atheism can't also be dogmatic, but it doesn't map as easily on to institutions as religion does. (I'd argue that examples like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia map more neatly on to Red than Blue, but it's a debatable point). Where Blue and Atheism do coexist, I've noticed that belief in a God tends to get replaced by an equally strong belief in some other ideology or institution (such as Marxism or the military). Since the nature of Blue is a one right way mindset mapped onto a strong belief in something, be it religion, institutions, traditions, or family values, I would think that the healthier the ideology or institution that forms the core beliefs of Blue, the healthier a Blue individual will tend to be. From my own experience, I've seen healthy Blue in my own life from my own grandparents, who've worked hard all thier lives, and are genuinely kind loving people, despite being outdated in their outlook on the world. I also think of friends I've had who joined the military but never saw active combat, and were fortunate enough to come back and have a relatively normal life.

I guess a question I would have is are there actual healthy versions of Red in an industrialized democracy like the United States, that would perhaps be superior in some ways to Blue fundamentalism? One interesting example was one brought up by Tamler Sommers (of the Very Bad Wizards podcast), who makes a somewhat convincing argument that contained Honor systems seen in Sports are a healthy and functional version of Red (he doesn't frame his argument in terms of Spiral Dynamics, but the parallels are pretty clear).

Also this is just my personal experience, so take it with a grain of salt, but in my own life I've seen many more examples of healthy and functional people at Blue, and very few examples of someone in stage Red who has their shit together and seems happy with their life.

Fair point, and of course Blue comes with its own train of baggage, but for the individual in question, even an unhealthy version of Blue can curtail alot of the self destructive qualities of Red which can land someone in prison or in an early grave. Maybe I'm off base here, but I'd imagine the individual in question has a better chance of someday leaving an organized religion they've gotten indoctrinated into, than they would at getting their lives back together after getting roped into the revolving door prison system in the United States. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who's highly sensitive to the harms of stage Blue fundamentalism, but looking at this from a harm reduction standpoint for the hypothetical individual in this situation, there's no question that they're going to be better off in Blue than they were in Red.

While I don't have find alot that I can personally connect with in Jordan Peterson's work, I can still see how others might find his work meaningful and relevant in their own lives. I'm by no means an expert on Jordan Peterson and I'll admit upfront that much of what I know of his work comes from podcasts he's made appearances on that I listen to (plus a few lectures), but it seems like at least one big aspect of his message is emphasizing the need to grow up, and accept some responsibility in your life. And you know what? I don't see that as a bad message. There really are some people who really do need to hear that, and I can imagine that at least a portion of the people who's he's made an impact on, he probably helped facilitate the jump from Spiral Dynamics stage Red to Blue.

Reminds me of how the platonic ideal for socially conservative people in America, Ronald Reagan, started pushing for an end to open carry laws as the governor of California after Black Panthers started showing up in public spaces with rifles slung across thier backs. Anyone who denies that the ability to carry a gun in America isn't a privelege of race and socioeconomic status is deluding themselves.

Maybe we could use a megathread of healthy vs unhealthy real world examples for all stages of the spiral.

Campaign Zero is an advocacy group that's using an evidence based approach to find realistic policy proposals to address the issue of police reform in the United States. I'd encourage anyone who's serious about addressing police abuse in a systemic manner to consider supporting this organization. They also provide updates on their website as to tangible progress that's been made in various cities across the country about reforms that have been passed, or are being considered. https://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutions#solutionsoverview

So I'm not sure if this is the best Discussion Board for this topic, or if it would be more at home somewhere else, but I thought it might be an interesting topic of discussion. With Leo (correctly in my view) pointing out that our culture's stage development sees a large chunk of the entertainment and media we consume being low consciousness junk that's highly commodified, it might be worthwhile to point out positive examples of higher consciousness entertainment that goes against this trend. For my part, I would kick this list off with Michael Schur's 'The Good Place.' which is an incredibly heartfelt, humorous, and thought provoking show about the afterlife which deals with important philosophical questions like 'what does it mean to be a good person?', which is still somewhat rare in a lot of popular entertainment. The show can be seen as a refutation of the play 'No Exit' by existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who opined that "Hell is other people." Over the course of the show we see how our show's four protagonists lift each other up, and help each other to become healthier, more caring people. And despite the weight of some of the questions it asks, the show still managed to be playful and humourous, and lacks the sort of pretentiousness one might expect from a show that deals with weighty ethical questions.

To add to that, your point reminds me of a character in 'The Good Place'. One of the characters in the show, Chidi, is a moral philosophy professor, who's personality flaw is decision paralysis because he over analyzes every mundane decision in his life.

@Apparition of Jack I realize that the question was directed at the OP, but I think you make a good point. What generally happens is that ethics is inculcated into a value system that becomes second nature at some point, and in real life we don't have the time or inclination to deliberate the ethical merits of every (or even most) decisions we make. Perhaps virtue ethics has a point here then, as ethics can build in someone a set of foundational principles that they act on as part of their nature. Of course in the real world there are a handful of decisions where we can and should deliberate the ethics of (public policy, who to support for office, long term plans for an organization you're part of), but your point still stands.

@tuckerwphotography Primarily I was thinking more higher than the average/mainstream, as I would think entertainment embodying yellow or turquoise values would be quite rare. Thanks for the suggestion by the way.

@r0ckyreed Very well written and thoughtful exporation of some of the strengths and weakness of deontology. I don't really have a dog in the race here, as I see utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics as being valuable while also having their own limitations. One point against deontology though, that I've yet to see adequately refuted, is a point I'll borrow from Sam Harris : the only reason that deontology works is that following a categorical imperative is only useful because it leads to positive consequences, and wouldn't make sense as an ethical system if following it led to bad and/or harmful results. If someone had an adequate refutation of this point though, I'd be very interested to hear it.

I have a friend of mine who's fallen down a right wing conspiracy theory rabbit hole: everything from Plandemic, to Black Lives Matter being a conspiracy funded by George Soros to install a Bolshevik style government in America. This is someone who wasn't really overtly political a few years ago, and who I consider to be a decent guy overall. I guess my question is has anyone found a healthy way of engaging with someone who's fallen into a Conspiracy Theory rabbit hole, in a way where they won't get immediately defensive when the subject is broached? I realize there are healthy and unhealthy manifestations of different political views, and I see what my friend has fallen into as very toxic (and not to mention really off putting to other people). I'm very well aware of Spiral Dynamics, but there's a difference between understanding a model on an intellectual level, and actualizing it in a way where you can employ it successfully in day to day interactions. I know the answer here is probably that he needs to move from an unhealthy and toxic version of Red to stage Blue, but what would that look like on a practical level? Has anyone found successful examples of what that would look like in their own lives?

That's absolutely a fair point (although in fairness one of the civilization collapses he does cover is that book is the classic Maya collapse). I guess there's not as many examples to look to for large industrial society collapsing, much less a globalized civilization like the one we live in today. Since the sort of world we're living in is unprecedented in human history, there's not really anything comparable we can look to to say what will happen if it does collapse someday. One through line I did get from the book is that societies are at a risk of collapse when there is a conflict between the short term interest of the elites and the long term survival of the society, especially when the elites are able to isolate themselves from the problems of the society... and doesn't exactly inspire optimism for our own society, I'm sorry to say. Though I will say that he does go out of his way to emphasize that societies can and have pulled back from the precipice, and we do have a choice in the matter. If you're interested in Jared Diamond's work, I'd also highly recommend his newest book, Upheaval, which deals more directly with modern industrialized societies. The book is basically a case study of how various modern nation states have either successfully or unsuccessfully dealt with periods of crisis, and like Collapse, attempts to draw out commonalities. One incredibly interesting case study in particular was that of Finland, and of the delicate tightrope they needed to walk to avoid being swallowed up by their more powerful neighbor, the Soviet Union, during the Cold War.

I'll second the 'How Ideology Works' video as incredibly insightful, but I don't see it being as useful for people who don't already possess a certain degree of self-awareness; as in I can see that video being misinterpreted and used to solidify one's own confirmation bias by people at lower stages on the spiral (ie applying it to your ideological opponents, but not being self aware enough to see that you yourself are in an ideology). But I'm glad that you were able to use it to actually help someone in your life, and perhaps it goes to show that my previous statement might not be entirely true. And it sounds like you put in some serious work to research her point of view, before introducing her to the 'How Ideology Works 'video.