Matt23

I was just using the "Green Scandinavian" archetype as an illustrative example. Not saying this is true.

These critiques come from Bonnitta Roy who's been a leading thinker in these spaces for decades now. I'm going to try and rehash what I got from her but in my own words, so I could leave some points out or get them wrong. Defining Values First, the true test of a person's values comes from their behaviors and choices, especially when faced with difficult decisions. A person's values don't come from reasoning, feeling, or thinking about them in some abstract way. Sure, you may think and feel that you truly value nature and that you believe in human-caused climate change. But do you wake up every morning and try to solve this problem? If you truly valued and believed these things you would. You would be trying to find a job that is better for the environment. You'd stop buying food in plastic packaging. You only buy food from within 100 miles of your home. But if you still drive a car instead of taking the bus, if you still buy exotic foods from around the world, if you still leave the lights on in rooms you're not in, if you rarely spend time in nature, if you aren't trying wholeheartedly to change your lifestyle to be more in nature, you don't really believe climate change is real or value nature. Associating Certain Values (i.e. value-memes) With Certain Developmental Stages One of her main issues is that developmental stage theories (DST), like Spiral Dynamics, lead people to believe that you need to have certain values in order to progress to the next "higher" set of values, and that this is a universal and linear process inherent to all human psychologies. She claims that this is a fallacy. Where Do Values Come From? If values development doesn't come from an inherent psychological process, where does it come from? The Body A person's values are significantly influenced by the stage of life of the person's body. Bonnitta cites the work of Ezekiel Di Paolo who outlines several stages the body goes through (sensorimotor, linguistic, hormonal, reflexive). Bonnitta thinks that teachers of DST have significantly, if now outright, ignored the influence of the body on people's values. For example, the body of a hormonally charged 16 year old will influence what they value very differently than how the body of a reflexive 60 year old will influence their values. When people get older they start to experience more aches and pains. People then pay more attention to their bodies since, well, they hurt. This increased bodily noticing has a cognitive correlate which makes them more reflexive in general. Thus, changing their values in ways that are drastically different from how a teen full of sex and growth hormones values things. The Social Pipeline Bonny also considers "social pipeline" to be a huge influence on people's values. One which, again, is significantly left out of DST discourse. This one is pretty self-evident: the social milieu one grows up in determines and influences the values one has and aspires to (i.e. the Spiral progression). The values associated with each level of the Spiral (and thus, which ones are, if only implicitly, deemed "higher" or "better") are reflections of one culture's value set. If you grew up in an indigenous tribe in 13th century Indonesia, the values associated with each level of development could look very different. Life Experience and Context A person's life experiences and context also contribute significantly to the values one holds. Scientifically Agreed Upon Developmental Stages The developmental stages that psychology and science do agree exist are...: preconventional---conventional---postconventional. Confusing Value-Memes with Developmental Stages If you grew up in rural India and were surrounded by "Blue" values, but then went on to become a doctor and adopted more "Orange" and then "Green" values, you'd be displaying postconventional developmental. But if you grew up in a Scandinavian country already surrounded by "Green" values and stayed there, you'd be CONVENTIONAL AT A GREEN VALUE-MEME LEVEL. The problem with modern cultures is that there are so many co-existing value-meme "attractors" and subcultures that 3 siblings can live together each with a different value-meme set yet each is still at a conventional level of development since they've simply adopted and conformed to the values of their peers and in-groups. The "Language Instinct" People have a very good language instinct which they can use (consciously or unconsciously) to make them seem like they hold certain values and to "fit in". They can, and have, used this to "hack" the sentence completion tests used in DST to determine a person's level of development. Bonny says some more intellectually gifted people have even admitted to doing so consciously. Development Still Occurs, It's Simply Trivial Bonny isn't saying that development, even psycho-cognitive development, doesn't occur. People still need to be 2ft tall in order to be 5ft tall. You still need to understand abstractions before understanding systems of abstractions. You still have to be able to do basic arithmetic before doing algebra or calculus. You still have to be able to stand up before you can walk. But these are rather obvious and trivial insights. In terms of cognitive and reasoning development, this also occurs. But, when people are able to figure out how to "hack" the language instinct and use it to seem more "green" or "turquoise", what they are actually doing is going meta on certain values and ideas and then coming up with more complex reasonings. So, Bonnitta agrees that their reasoning abilities are developing, but that this is not the same as "developing certain values in a linear progression". DST Reflecting A Devaluation of Right Action For Bonny, DST theories are more a reflection of a devaluation of right action. She claims that when people are unable to make the correct moral and ethical decisions in their lives, they simply bump the problem up a level in complexity and call that development. But really, they're just avoiding making the right decisions. "Higher" Values Bonny asks "Are Industrial societies made up of "schooled" individuals who destroy the environment really more preferable to people from a small rural village who never pass beyond the conventional level of development, yet who are intimately tied and appreciative of nature and never take more than they need?" We may say the schooled intellectuals from the West are "higher" up the values-stack... but which group of people really embodies the values of living interdependently with all the other beings and forces of nature and act in accordance with those forces and laws? To act ecologically? She asks us to have more choice around the values we espouse and fit them in pragmatic accordance with what our context requires. As opposed to viewing them in a rigid hierarchy of universal values that cannot be change and which are viewed, even if the teachers say they aren't, as better and worse than other values. DST teachers are not inclined to delve into such questions since a) they are paid to teach these models (so why hurt your business), and b) whoever studies these models feels more superior (so why let that go?). The True Test Of A Person's Values As mentioned before, behaviors are a core indicator. Another way to realign with your actual values is to make the distinction between "social drivers" (a "push" mechanism from society that makes you feel you can't do anything but that thing) and "actual values" (a "pull" mechanism which comes from the values you actually aspire to). Social Drivers How much are your behaviors "pushed" by societal pressures? Actual Values How much are your behaviors "pulled" by your actual aspirational values?

I'm no techno junkie, nor a techno optimist either, but I've been reading a bit on AI and experimenting with ChatGPT a bit, and if it doesn't become this massive godlike entity that some claim it will, I think it will still be significantly relevant. So, the question that came up for me (perhaps coming from Leo's blog since I remember him asking a similar question) is.... How are you going to implement AI in the future for your career, life purpose, and creative pursuits?

This post I speak of is titled "Leo's worst outburst yet" and can be found on the bottom of page 3 (maybe page 4 now) of this Personal Development - Main sub-forum Leo, I think that what you're doing, the way you've behaved, is developing into something not too great. Though there may be aspects of what you do that feel and are true and good or useful, it's just with the lack of leadership that I feel you've definitely deluded yourself and others. The issue that came up that sparked this post was when you pretty disrespectfully, and even in breach of your own rules for the forum (it seemed you were probably on psychedelics, and you called him names like stupid etc., which are against forum policies), spoke and chastised a member. This breaking of your own rules and guidelines is a big red flag and signifier to me that your maturity is still not wholly great. I just think that that was totally and unequivocally out of line and should be told as such. Just don't try to be so arrogant and then be so dismissive of your behaviors. One thing I believe that would help is being in a community more where your behaviors and ideas can be checked. I think you've done lots alone and maybe have lost touch with what feeling and helping others is about. Or that you even consider others much when you interact with them (not in a detached sense of love for them when alone, etc.). Maybe even your entire formulation of spirituality and reality are not real as well. What you said was just atrocious and just really fucking shitty tbh. Plain and shitty. Like, let the people do what they do, don't yell at them etc.. Just relax. Goddamn, like, ya, it was just really bad behavior for you to react that way. I know you probably have tons of reasons and excuses. One being "you can't be too nice, you gotta be disagreeable", etc.. Seems like you can just excuse any shitty behavior of yours now. But save them. I just hate all that talk. That's totally some negative-guru behavior that's common and has been pointed out by many people in the field as toxic behaviors. I believe you should definitely apologize and not do it again. You often come out saying you're trying to change your behaviors, but I don't see it in all the years I've followed you. It may even seem to be getting worse in my opinion. I believe connecting with a group more tightly, and exposing yourself to more people online in interviews etc., having discussions, etc., is probably helpful too. It was just atrocious and I don't see how people can put up with that and follow him any longer tbh. It's just atrocious. I believe it's not so good to stay here and take all this shit. So I'm gunna be leaving. I love ya'll, especially @Michael569. Appreciate muchly the services and kind banter and opinions. Though sometimes maybe too intellectual for me. I hope ya'll find some peace of mind and mindfully be aware of how people treat you and each other. Join together if you can. Create shit together. Believe that transcendence without a sense of grounded naturalism won't be very beneficial and healthy. Develop personal autonomy and don't put up with people yelling at you, breaking their own rules, etc., especially as a "leader".

How dare me?! Fuck you Leo. Honestly man. THis is just shitty leadership and you know it deep down. Even going so far as to like fucking break your own rules and shit. LIke jesus this is fucked up man. This is just shitty leadership. Like, jesus, your mind games you fucking play. Get a life. live a little. live outside of your mind. You're trapped in it. That's what it looks like to me and what I see. Someone who's gone way off the rails into their own mind. And no... this is not the problem since I DONT THINK I HAVE IT FIGURED ALL OUT! That's probably projection from you since you believe that about life and yourself. Nobody said this, not me at least. Strawmanning. Like, you don't need to be a pious fucking saint to be mature. Jesus. You don't have to be a pious saint to not break your own guidelines, and call people shitty names and demean them. Cut the zen bullshit out. Just realize you belong to people and they you and that if you tried to be more kind and mature about things you'll be better off. Maybe try being in nature more. I dunno. Again... like wtf. I had said nothing of the sort. I don't even follow any spiritual teachers anymore. Again, you're assuming so much about me and I believe others like... also, this sounds so arrogant and is. Like, "nobody but me can understand since I'm the smartest." Jesus. Like, just get off the high horse and believe that maybe you have been unkind and acting foolishly and do not have it all figured out. I know this is it. But I've said enough I believe. It doesn't matter cuz it won't reach anyone. Felt I need to let it out and loose for once. Maybe later will see.

I get that and have no doubt about it. Do you see my point though? In regards to the specific post, not the other stuff I tossed in there. Like... that was pretty outrageous and just... like common decency, teacherly decency, seemed to have gone completely out the window there, and this seems to be a common issue with you. I don't want to leave and feel bad about saying that since I feel some good people reside here and community is important to me. I value that much. But I just feel it's time to step away... I duno. That doesn't really matter though. The point is that what you said was like... pretty out-there, and to like not see that is sort of messed imo. But I just think that it was definitely a poor judgment to react the way you did and feel it's not in the best interest of people to treat them that way. Primarily since, at the bottom of it, it's unkind and demeaning.

Ya, I scored pretty high (in the "excellent" range) when I did the test from his book. But then I did the other tests in his book as well as other tests online and scored higher predominantly towards autism. So I dunno... Seems like maybe the eye-test thing may not be totally accurate in relation to autism, or may simply mean something else. Yes, would be nice to hear what he has to say about it.

Balance doesn't necessarily mean equal amounts. I think words like "fair" or "just" are better words in politics as opposed to "balanced" or "equal" since the latter two tend to imply a sense of things being of the same amount, which usually doesn't allow for actual, legit critiques to be made and thus choose wisely which side/arguments are better and worse. Thus succumbing to an egalitarianism that demolishes any ability to create hierarchies of better-worse, thus not allowing one to make those better-worse decisions. I'm not saying you're wrong or w/e, I don't follow politics much and didn't watch the video, but what I'm making a point on isn't a political one but rather a philosophic, epistemic, or logical point in how we think about things. A "meta-point" if you will. Something to consider.

I'm interested in getting into Nietzche (or however you spell his name). Any book recommendations for a beginner? Nothing tooo dense. I don't mind too much of an intellectual workout, but would love something easier to start. Maybe even a book that's not Neitzche himself, but a commentary or explanation of his ideas and that also includes some of his writings. Cheers

This is also kinda scary; who knows what he'll do now that he knows he doesn't have long to live. Seems like a person who values his own legacy (at all costs) as opposed to leaving peacefully or without what he wants.

I disagree... I just think using Spiral Dynamics as the be-all-and-end-all model for humans is kind of limited. Thus, I think your analysis is probably missing lots and not giving some of these philosophers their due. This has been a general grudge I've had with Spiral Dynamics here on the forum; people taking it as the ultimate model of human development and not studying more broadly beyond it and realizing the human system (socially and indidivually) is probably way more complex than Spiral Dynamics. Sure, it's a useful frame perhaps... but also very limited. Thus, when improperly used (only using this model and nothing else for example) it can give a very partial view of who your looking at at since you've already disqualified them as being of a "lesser stage", thus you don't even bother with them or their ideas and dismiss them. Additionally, lets say spiral dynamics is "the great model". This doesn't mean you can't still learn from others if they are of a "lesser stage" than you. I think any idea can spark new connections, new creations, and a deeper understanding of things. It helps expose you to more and more. Even if you don't agree with the ideas, I think there's something akin to ''meta-learning" that can happen; you disagree maybe with the ideas they explicitly teach but you start to learn, maybe, about how that philosopher thinks, or that stage, for example. I agree... In a general sense in that not everyone needs to read philosophy in order to develop. There are, in my opinion, other great ways of developing yourself; having experiences being #1, or creating things, travelling, having relationships, etc.. I know Leo emphasizes intellectual study and that's his jam... but I just think studying can actually be a big distraction from actually living life and witnessing the beauty of it. At least in my experience. Not that I dislike studying, I do love it... But just not the same amount as I thought I should be doing, and I'm aware that creating things and adventuring give me way more pleasure and fulfillment than study.

Really? I don't listen to him much at all... be just the initial impression I get from him is, yes, more rationally minded but yet still having a high-degree of openmindedness. So, I would expect him to ya, maybe not agree with Leo's points, but at least respectfully disagree and not be a dick about it. ?

Do you really want to do that? -- Would be my question. Like, are you just doing it because you believe you should, are told it's something good to do, etc.? I think if you truly find it meaningful and something enjoyable, you'd be doing it. I used to try and read tons, study, and be diligent intellectually. But it did feel like a grind sometimes. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy studying, reading, and understanding stuff and "nerding out" on things, but faaaarrrr less than I initially believed. Recently I've just sort of realized that no, I don't really want to be the intellectual guy and have cut down my studies faaaaarrr more recently. Instead, I realize that being creative gives me fffffaaaaaarrrrr more joy and love than studying; The simple act of making a drawing or a video puts me back into that childlike place of play. IT feels so much better. So I'm trying to just do more stuff rather than simply read and study. Whether that's creating things, going on adventures, travelling, exploring, socializing, etc.. Like, really just trying to do things that I find intrinsically way more rewarding, joyful, and meaningful. So maybe try just doing other stuff to fill your time. Experiment. As opposed to thinking you should be studying etc. (unless that's what you truly want and find joy in of course).

Cheers

How will you grow then, if you aren't open to hearing others' POVs, and hearing them reflect to you things you don't want to hear yet are true and would be healthy for you to hear?

The same way you'd show respect for any other person, animal, or thing. How do you show respect for your mother, your father, your friends, your dog, your favorite toy as a child, yourself, etc.. ? I mean, if you just meet someone and know nothing about them, I think I usually just start off with respect. Then, as we interact and I get to know who they are and how they interact with me, that initial respect may fluctuate; it could grow or decreases as I feel them interacting with me and learn what they do/have done etc..

Ya... start off easy. Seems like cold-approaching is like literally climbing a mountain as your first workout ever, or playing against Messi as your first soccer opponent. Go to social places and do social activities that naturally make you feel comfortable, at-ease, and at home. Ideally you'll want to feel good about what you're doing. To have fun. Trust me, if you're having fun, that takes care of sooooo many issues related to dating. Cuz then it's not all about the dating part, so there's less pressure since you can always be like "Oh well, the date or picking up women isn't going so well, I'll just be myself and have fun anyways" and this will attract people (even if it's not women to sleep with). This will attach a positive feeling to simply being social in the first place and get you increasingly confident and open and positive in a social setting; all things that increase the chances of dating and having sex. And sure, if you're sexual appetite is reallllyy strong, maybe hiring a prostitute could tie you over. But try focusing on simply having fun.

Luv this

I keep hearing from many academics and people in psychology and theories of consciousness that makes me think many believe that "what" the mind does or can do equates with consciousness. Things like "This organism can solve this complex puzzle or use language, therefore it must have consciousness." I still don't really understand how they don't see the issue in that reasoning; why do they believe that the content of the thing equates to the consciousness it might have? Just because a system (an A.I. perhaps) can perform certain tasks has no bearing on whether it has consciousness or not... to me anyways. For example, to me it is far more likely that an ant has consciousness rather than an AI. I would even go so far to say that even if an AI could outperform an organic organism on every task imaginable, I'd bet on the organic organism having consciousness but not the AI. I guess I view consciousness as simply the awareness of things happening, rather than the things that are happening or the functioning of things. So you could have literally just a left to right movement but with consciousness, or you could have an AI capable of doing things the entire human race collectively could never do but without consciousness. ... What do you think? I suppose one link between consciousness and what I'll call "actions" (the functioning of a system, not necessarily the consciousness) could be something like free-will and creative and novel choice making. But how you'd determine whether a choice of action was an original move, I have no idea.

I've been experiencing some ego-backlash and angst lately; more frustration, more porn usage, more negative habits slipping through the cracks, getting a bit negative with others, etc.. Last night I got to a point where I felt like I was going to just blow up. Like I couldn't hold it in any longer and would just lose it on someone. I didn't know what to do with it. Then I just rested with it and came to a sudden insight that provided soooo much relief; I don't care about people. Plain and simple. It felt sooo good to just acknowledge that and just like ya, be and inhabit that. It's like, ya, I mean I still do care some for others, maybe a little, but not a ton. It was just so nice to not care and be ok not giving a shit anymore. Very liberating. Especially for someone who feels he has to "be the good one" or "caring one" or "has to care about others lots" n' stuff. It's just very freeing to acknowledge and be the things you are that you believe are bad and shun. I'd recommend it.

Which ones exactly? How long have you been on them? Hope it continues (thumbs up)

seems reasonable and safe enough.

Luv ya bud I relate to the autism thing It's interesting how though someone can be self-centered and lack cognitive empathy, they can likewise still maintain a deep caring and sensitivity to others emotionally.

Yes. I know there is this whole thing about empathy and compassion and the like being also masculine things as well... and ya, like, of course there's a balance and stuff... but also I think there is something unique in the male psyche that attracts him to certain virtues over others; some just feel more meaningful. For example, I literally cried ("crying" is putting it mildly. It was something that was like I NEED THIS) for 30 minutes when I read Alexander Beiner's essay on masculinity (he's a co-founder of Rebel Wisdom) I believe many people, regardless of sex or orientation, are craving stories that celebrate masculinity. That don’t demean men and boys for their preference for connecting shoulder to shoulder instead of face to face. Stories that don’t shame men who prefer not to express their emotions sometimes. That don’t pathologise a male desire to set emotions aside if they get in the way of a larger purpose. The part of "shoulder to shoulder" reeeeaaaalllllyyyy touched me deeply. I cried so much envisioning standing shoulder to shoulder in the front line of a battle formation, the enemy charging at us, the things we love and are protecting behind us... each there for each other as we face what needs to be faced to protect what we love. The image of a circle of men facing outwards also came to mind as a powerful image; with the center, again, being what we're protecting (loved ones, nature, whatever it is). This makes me think protecting what is most meaningful to you is a powerful masculine trait or characteristic. protecting side-by-side.