Emerald

Calling a pathological liar out on their lies isn't a leftwing position. I get what you're saying about Lex Friedman acting as Larry King. And I don't expect him to grill Donald Trump on his lies for that reason. It's just not his brand. But let's not frame pressing Donald Trump on his lies (or pressing anyone else on their lies) as "leftwing"... and let's especially not frame calling out dishonesty as "radical". Let's let go of assigning apolitical virtues to partisan groups, and rehabilitate the frame from the pre-Trump era that the expectation of honesty is a neutral apolitical position that everyone with a good head on their shoulders would agree with.

Your viewpoint only works in a casual social setting like if you're choosing friends. Like you can avoid both Jim and Jane if both of them are dishonest (a lot or a little bit) because you have TONS of other people you can choose to spend time with. And in this context, neither Jim nor Jane is having to navigate the realities of having power and being a politician, which often necessitates some degree of opacity to get elected and do the job effectively. But, if you're going to vote to choose a commander in chief for the most powerful nation on the planet, and your only two real choices are one politician who is a pathological liar who CONSTANTLY lies every time he opens his mouth AND another politician who lies about as often as your average politician... then you're much wiser to choose the latter to be in the position of power. Having a pathological liar in a position of power is very dangerous, as the commander in chief's role is that of a very influential moral leader. And a moral leader who doesn't value truth or honesty at all can convince huge swaths of the population lies that mobilize them towards things that cause harm to themselves or others.

Of course, I will consider it, as I have in relation to your previous posts. But as of right now, I'm either not understanding what you actually mean and there is a miscommunication... or I have been understanding you correctly and your point of view just doesn't square with the way the world actually works. Either way, I need more of your thought process to get whether this is your viewpoint and why this is your viewpoint. And it needs to not involve the Spiral Dynamics model because "It's tier 2 thinking" just doesn't cut it as an explanation.

First of all, you're not even really explaining the meta viewpoint here as it isn't even really clear what you're advocating for or how you think that any of this would work in these circumstances where the other side is already plotting to steal the election and install themselves as a dictator.... and has really fringe draconian policy positions that will rip away basic freedoms in a very undemocratic way. It's just... 'don't be pragmatic because Spiral Dynamics.' Meta viewpoints without the integration of pragmatism are just impotent naval gazing that ensures that the forces of nonsense and tyranny will be the only pragmatic ones and that tyranny will take hold... while the forces of sense-making and democracy will content ourselves with saying "At least we're the sense-makers and not stooping to their level." Or in many cases with autocracy, sense-makers would just be put in camps or shot by firing squads because they'd be too dangerous to the totalitarian state if left alive. How in your view does this meta viewpoint you speak of integrate with pragmatism as it pertains to preventing the forces of tyranny to take hold? And if it doesn't integrate with pragmatism and you view them as diametrically opposed to one another, then why is it better to prioritize sense-making sans pragmatism if it 100% guarantees the forces of tyranny will take hold? In essence, why is it better and more in alignment with Tier 2 thinking for sense-makers to reject pragmatism and have no power... and for pragmatic tyrannical nonsense-makers to have all the power?

Name one gay person who turned straight... or one straight person who turned gay who wasn't already gay.

Someone could engage in same-sex sexual acts in a prison setting because there are no other outlets to meet their sexual needs. But that doesn't make them gay or bisexual as a matter of preference. It's just that people have needs and will meet them any way we can if we're deprived of how we prefer to meet them. It's kind of like if a person hates the taste of orange soda. But if they're dehydrated in the desert, they will force themselves to drink orange soda because they need SOMETHING to drink and they'll take anything at all. The same is true for our sexual needs and touch needs. Just because we're deprived and will take it from anywhere doesn't mean that's a reflection of PREFERENCE. Now, if a guy supposedly "turned gay" because he went to prison and "couldn't go back"... that suggests to me that he was already gay and just used his experiences in prison as a way of blaming his gayness on external factors. So if you're really straight, you can stop worrying. You can't change your sexual preference any more than you can change your height or the color of your eyes.

Straight people who are ACTUALLY straight cannot magically turn gay. Ask any straight man or woman and they will tell you that they just aren't sexually interested in the same sex. Though anyone could have fleeting same sex sexual thoughts here and there, even if they are straight, that isn't a reflection of their actual sexual preferences. So IF you're actually straight, you don't have anything to worry about. But given that you're worrying about it makes me suspect that you may have some degree of same-sex attraction (maybe bisexual to some degree or gay... or perhaps you've just experienced fleeting sexual thoughts that hint at same sex attraction, even if you are straight). And you've built this evidence-less narrative up in your own mind to deny your own same-sex attractions to yourself and to protect yourself form becoming aware of it. Like if you can cling to this belief that there is a choice and that you can suddenly make yourself "impure" if you don't put yourself on the defense against gayness, you can just keep "choosing to be straight" and not admitting your attractions to yourself. And it creates this sense of intense fear and urgency to avoid any gay thoughts because (in your mind) you could 'permanently change your hormones and turn yourself gay.' and 'fall from grace' and lose your "purity". And it gives you a giant group of scapegoats to blame for your same-sex attractions because they influenced you to be gay... which gives you the comforting impression that 'All I have to do is to resist the tempting siren song of the LGBT community and I protect the purity of my straightness.' Another possibility is that you have "Homosexual OCD" where a person gets obsessively/compulsively worried and has to constantly check to make sure they're not gay... even if they're totally straight. Either way, your viewpoint shows that you're afraid of being turned gay. And that's not possible. You're either sexually attracted to men or you're not. And there's nothing you can do to change that either way.

There's definitely a lot of that here. I originally joined the forum when it first began, and it was a bit more mellow and focused towards personal development and the like. But things changed over the years vibes-wise and chased away a lot of the more constructive collaborative participants. I mostly come back here from time to time to spar and debate with people I disagree with because it's fun and helps me get more clarity on my perspective through debate. And that's because the culture of this forum is more of a place where you challenge people to intellectual debate battles. And it's fun and there is some connection with like-minded people... but definitely not a super constructive or growth-oriented place.

@DLH 100%

Certainly that can and does happen. There are many people who are naive to the overall wisdom of how the system works and evolves... who want to make the system conform IDEALLY to their vision of what "should" be. And you see this a lot in fringy groups... both left and right... because society's status quo is very far from their idealized vision. So, they try to use a top-down form of authoritarian control to force society to conform to their vision, working against the bottom-up currents of nature and human evolution in the process. But I'm responding to Aurum saying that pragmatism is fundamentally opposed to sense-making and that it should be sacrificed for the sake of sense-making... instead of taking an integrative approach to it where both of those things can work together. And this perspective, throws away necessary values-neutral tools of political engagement that can be used in both positive and negative ways depending on the wisdom and discernment of who wields them. So, we can have a deep understand of policies and go deep in our philosophical understanding of politics individually. But this will never negate the fact that, for every leader (political or otherwise)... it is a necessary tool to be able to create a compelling narrative with short, punchy, easy-to-remember messaging that encourages people to coalesce and galvanizes them towards a strong call to action. And that's true at every stage in Spiral Dynamics because people will always be people and must coalesce towards common collective goals to produce wanted outcomes. And this is best organized like an orchestra where there is a conductor wielding the baton to ensure people can collaborate effectively. And this case... it's using the tool of narrative and messaging to encourage people to vote to keep a wannabe autocrat out of office. So, in this case, the pragmatism is wise because it reflects and amplifies the bottom-up will of those in the system who don't want America to become a Trumpian autocracy.

I think Spiral Dynamics is a WONDERFUL system for diagnosing collective groups of people and the overall evolution of humanity... but a relatively ineffective way to diagnose one's own level of development because everyone's ego gets wrapped up in it. To be fair, I do think that Aurum is intelligent and has many Yellow perspectives. But in this case, it's effectively prioritizing empty intellectual elitism over things that work practically. And it's the heartless head of Orange thinking that shows through in this perspective. But I think this environment on the forum is mostly Orange with a smattering of Blue and Yellow here and there... but a Stage Green Shadow due to a general resistance towards the Feminine Principle and a mistrust towards it. Like Leo is often Orange with a smattering of Yellow in his approaches to topics on the forum... even though on his channel he's mostly talking about Yellow topics. So, the people who are attracted to it tend to be people who have developed some Yellow perspectives but are still somewhat stuck back in Orange thinking as it pertains to practical topics like politics and dating. So... it's Yellow on the level of intellect... but Orange on the level of lived experience. So, there tends to be a prioritization of the ideal over the real... the lofty over the grounded... thinking over feeling... and the branches over the roots. It's very "brain in a jar" empty analytical thinking to the sacrifice of the wisdom of human-heartedness... instead of a true synthesis between intellectual reason and human-hearted wisdom. And this of course can lead to a lot of rationalizing ways of operating in the world that only work in the context of the ideals of the imagination.

You should know better than this. Sacrificing pragmatic outcomes in favor of some intellectually idealized form of political engagement that doesn't actually work in a real life context IS 100% SELF-DECEPTION and sets the stage for some REALLY heinous things to happen. His perception of so-called "sense-making" to the sacrifice of pragmatism, if applied universally, would pretty much guarantees that authoritarianism would take hold. And then the authoritarians would target ACTUAL sense-makers first... as they always do. So, there would come to be ZERO space in society for higher consciousness perspectives as you would be silenced. So, those that truly are sense-makers would ALSO be pragmatic. And they would integrate sense-making and pragmatism instead of seeing them as being diametrically opposed. And if these so-called "sense-makers" aren't pragmatic... they are in a deep state of self-delusion. If you're in a burning building with a bunch of other people and you're the first among them to become aware, you SHOULD shout "Fire!"... ..instead of calmly intellectually explaining the mechanics of thermodynamics to the majority of people, and arguing on the existentialist philosophical merits of whether it is better to survive or not in the fire. To do anything less is silly, and isn't properly sounding the alarm in the way that most people can and will digest it.

If you don't want to continue the discussion, that's fine. But you haven't made clear why you think it's better to prioritize "sense-making" over practical outcomes in a field that pertains to practical outcomes. You've just said it's Tier 2 thinking as the justification and stressed that "it's a meta point" as a justification for your claims. But that's a very abstract answer that's not tied to any preferred real-world outcomes. It's just "wiser because it's wiser" based off of the Spiral Dynamics model. But none of that explains why it's better to function that way. Why is it better to prioritize "sense-making" over pragmatism, even if it guarantees that sense-makers will have less or no power... and thus allows the forces of nonsense and tyranny to seize power and proliferate because they are the only ones willing to be pragmatic? To me, it seems to be a problem of integration similar to what happens in The Dark Crystal. The evil and foolish Skeksis are dynamic and have all the power. And the good and wise Mystics are slow and lumbering and have none of the power. And in the integration between the two, you have a situation where you get something greater than just good. My advice is that it is wise to approach politics as an integration between Yin and Yang with a full and total surrender to the nature of humanity and the world, as this will enable us to realize the highest expression of the political archetype within society where it serves the outcomes of health, harmony, and justice. And health, harmony, and justice is the most beautiful flower... but recognize that the most beautiful flowers grow in the dirtiest of dirt.

To use the Spiral Dynamics model, it's Stage Orange analytical thinking believing it's Stage Yellow systems thinking... because Stage Green hasn't yet been fully integrated yet in relation to political engagement or approaches to real-word geopolitical issues. To use the MBTI model, it's more of a Thinking versus Feeling bias that disconnects one from the heart of the matter and the consideration of how sentient lives and planetary well-being are affected... which is the expression of politics that's most in alignment with love, compassion, health, and harmony in the first place. The systems we create and influence are designed to serve humans... not humans to serve systems. So, the thought that Tier 2 thinkers would prioritize a theoretically "higher consciousness" process that sloughs off what works from earlier phases on the spiral... over the human wellbeing within the context of individual civic engagement is just a "brain in a jar" mistake. When the mind gets too complex in its analysis, people get ungrounded from reality and lose sight of simple practical wisdom. People who are truly at Tier 2 would be pragmatic about the situation because common sense and common decency has been integrated into their perspective instead of tossed away for something more complex and ineffective. And they will pull tools from whichever of the other phases most suits the political ends they feel serves the greater good... because pragmatism is the point. So this is just an example of Stage Orange Thinking believing it is superior to Stage Green Feeling... and tossing away the practical tools of phases earlier on the Spiral. But if they were suddenly on the chopping block, they'd wise up very quickly and realize that they're being an educated fool.

First off, who cares about Spiral Dynamics and what tier it's in, really. It's a useful model in some contexts. But if it gets in the way of common decency and common sense, then there's a problem. Don't be so smart that your brain falls out.

Then so called "sense-making" is nonsensical in this context... because it gets in the way of pragmatism and doesn't work with how the world actually works. It instead works with a naive idealistic vision of the world that doesn't exist. And it allows the forces of tyranny to take hold while so-called "sense-makers" get the intellectual victory of "being right". But reality can only be properly engaged with pragmatically on the level of reality itself. (And as an aside, this is also part and parcel SD Tier 2 thinking.) There is a story of the student and the master. And the master hands a very thin tea bowl to the student. The student takes the tea bowl and it immediately breaks in his hands. And the student exclaims "The tea bowl was too thin!" And the master replies, "No, you held it too hard." And the point of this parable is to showcase that there is wisdom with working with real world and how it works... rather than admonishing the world for not being ideal. Taking this parable into our context that we're discussing... it's practice in surrender to the nature of humanity, the world, and politics and working pragmatically with the reality AS OPPOSED TO saying that humanity, the world, and politics "should" function in a way other than what it does. And then resisting any practical adjustments that deviate from the idealized state of humanity, the world, and politics that only exist in your mind and in your conceptualization of abstract models like Spiral Dynamics. And that's why it's counter-productive navel gazing in this context because it necessarily opens to the doors for the forces of tyranny in favor of a more idealized political engagement. Also, SD Tier 2 politics looks a lot like Green politics with a little more systemic awareness and less demonization. The goals are largely the same, but approached from a different frame of mind. But until EVERYONE is in SD Tier 2 and has an IQ over 110 (which will never happen anytime near our lifetime), we have to engage with the multitude of diverse perspectives and levels of intelligence in order for democracy to function. And that means couching complex policy positions in the context of stories and narratives and slogans.

I'm an INFJ... really really close on the J and P though.

Explain what you mean with a bit more clarity. What is sense-making? How do you apply sense-making practically in the realm of politics WITHOUT weakening the impact of those that would practice good sense-making... thereby ensuring that those with bad sense-making will always win and take power? Why does it negate the ability to skillfully use rhetorical skills like shorty punchy slogans? How can you get the average person of average or below average intelligence to engage in sense-making regarding their engagement in politics? How does sense-making improve the outcomes of politics? In the meantime, check this video out to understand my issue with prioritizing sense-making over pragmatic outcomes...

It's a bit deeper than that. It doesn't actually have that much to do with the opposite sex or being side-lined by the opposite sex. That's mostly just a transference of deeper seated feelings onto a scapegoat because their deeper seated feelings tend to be triggered in dating and relationship contexts. And the opposite sex just becomes a projection screen to shadow box with their "inner demons." The difference between an Incel and a non-Incel isn't that the Incel is inherently less attractive to women. The difference is that the Incel is dealing with crippling feelings of shame that makes him much more sensitive to rejection... and internalizing that rejection as meaning something core to his sense of self and his sense of validity. And this kind of shame pattern tends to impact men more than women in part because most women don't do as much approaching and can derive a sense of security in the ability to connect by having men approaching her.... and in part because men are often expected (and expect one another) to match up to an idealized image of masculinity. And there hasn't been a male equivalent to women's lib. So, there's a pattern where men are stuck a bit more in patterns around traditional gendered expectations. And they can even be ridiculed or bullied by their male friends and acquaintances for straying from those expectations. And they will often be called feminine insults to get them to fall back in line with traditional masculine social expectations, which further exacerbates the shame of not matching up to idealized masculine expectations. Another thing that contributes to this issue is isolation and unmet connection needs more generally... which is reflective of collective social ails that have eroded community and interdependence. So it is this starvation for connection coupled with shame... interacting with online culture's tendency to create echo chambers around specific "vibrations" of pain.

I keep pressing you on this because I genuinely don't understand how you're thinking about this. Why is detachment essential in your opinion? And why is it better to prioritize supposed sense-making over pragmatism? And why are we thinking about "having a political agenda" as being a negative thing in the realm of politics? It seems akin to using addition and subtraction as a negative thing in the realm of mathematics. Like from a philosophical point of view, I can be detached from my political agenda to be able to control my own body. And I can question like "What if it were the case that, as a woman, sacrificing my bodily sovereignty is necessary for the maintenance of the order of the state?" And I have done that as a thought exercise along with other thought exercises of this sort in my own mind. But I would never incorporate those private philosophical musings into my real world civic engagement with politics because that minces paradigms and would muddy the waters and takes steps to normalize what would put my life and other's lives in a compromised situation. And it creates a false neutrality in a situation that isn't neutral at all. Like if someone's chasing you with a knife, don't be nonchalant about it and pretend like it's business as usual. So, I genuinely don't see how detachment from a political agenda would be more helpful outcomes-wise than enacting a political agenda... because it seems to me to be a sheep calmly chit chatting with the wolf about how "Perhaps there's some merit to you eating me."... instead of just shutting down the entire suggestion as ridiculous. Or sitting down with a group of child abusers that want to argue for their right to abuse children... while detaching from pragmatism and putting their views through the neutral detached vetting process of "sense-making"... and thereby unintentionally rhetorically normalizing their viewpoint to the audience as a serious viewpoint worthy of merit and consideration. This is how nonsensical it is to me to suggest detachment from the political agenda in the realm of politics.... and prioritizing sense-making over pragmatism. I notice that when people are detached, it's often people who aren't directly affected by the harm. And this detachment, causes them to feel like they are able to be a more objective arbiter of the situation and the voice of the adult in the room in comparison to people who are directly impacted by the harm. But in reality these 'neutral arbiters' often don't sound the alarms when they're meant to be sounded.... and don't rhetorically shut down from consideration what is wise to shut down in the realm of civic engagement. It becomes like sitting in a burning house and talking neutrally about the situation like nothing's wrong. And this is where common sense and common decency get lost in the pursuit of a less "politcsy" kind of politics where we can all be enlightened fence-sitters. Sometimes it's much wiser to be able to say something simple like "bad things are bad" and "good things are good" and "Let's do more good things and not bad things" to communicate to the average person and cut through all the detached philosophical noise that normalizes things that harm people.

There could be attachment issues here. But it could also just be a reflection of being under-resourced regarding your connection needs. And you start to feel more attached because you're wanting connection... but seeing the only outlet as just one person... because you don't have as many close and intimate connections as you need. This could potentially be remedied by creating a more robust social circle.

But if we're talking about engagement in politics... why isn't the political outcome and that political outcome's impact on people and society the primary focus for you? This is where I feel it gets into unwise paradigm-mincing navel-gazing territory. Politics in the highest form of the archetype is about serving the greater good of people and society. And even more importantly, it is there to protect people. That's the function of politics when it works well. And I've noticed a pattern on this forum (with this post included) that is idealistic and prioritizes a theoretically more conscious process of engaging in politics as an individual that is detached from the outcomes and puts harm and help as equal outcomes... as long as a more theoretically conscious process is taken to get there. For example, you mentioned earlier that me and my husband have skin in the game... and seemed to somewhat poo poo the pragmatic way of winning in favor of a theoretically more conscious process because... "What if the epistemic commons degrade?". But the things that are being proposed could upend our entire lives in significant ways. And we're not the only ones. So, even the notion that someone would value a less pragmatic and less effective method of fighting against it over something that ACTUALLY works (especially when that thing isn't bad in itself) feels emotionally detached and navel gazy. And it's a position that's unwise parading itself as wisdom... whilst throwing the value of common sense and common decency out the window. Don't become so conscious that you allow a murderer come in and murder your family because you're too idealistic to engage in the baser process of immobilizing them.

What I'm saying is that being eggheads concerned with higher consciousness and solid epistemology like you and I are isn't the way that most people are... nor even the way most people should be, for that matter. Humanity is built for specialization where different people have different skills, talents, and interests. And the fact of the matter is that most people aren't equipped and/or oriented to being super philosophical and concerned with solid epistemology... in the same way that my short self is not equipped and/or oriented to playing in the WNBA. And if you don't "dumb things down", politics can only be approached by people who have the intellectual skills and philosophical interests to properly broach these topics. But this would be anti-democratic and would bar 80% of people from civic engagement. This is why rhetorical strategies are a necessity of leaders and wannabe leaders... as it enables them to paint a mythos that people can engage with and join together in service of. It is a necessary component of moral leadership, which is a major pillar of being an effective politician. And it's a necessary values-neutral skill to acquire. And it can be used for good and for bad. It can galvanize people towards fighting for civil rights. But it can also galvanize nazis. The mistake I think you're making is to take the necessary, values-neutral leadership skill of rhetorical strategy and seeing it as diametrically opposed to what you call "sense-making"... which I believe is your way of talking about more absolute higher consciousness truths. But it is no more a hinderance towards "sense-making" as any other values-neutral skill. It's like looking at the field of mathematics and believing that subtraction and division are antithetical to sense-making.... when in reality, they are just necessary "tricks of the trade" and exist in a totally different spectrum of reality from the one you're judging it by. It's similar to how some people on here might give higher paradigm advice for people who are asking questions about how to meet women. And someone responds "There is not you. And there are no others." And that might be true in the absolute. But it isn't going to be effective... and the insight is a non-sequitter. Politics are going to do what politics do... just like math is going to do what math does... and law is going to do what law does. So, I can't help but think you're mincing paradigms and taking ideas into the sphere of politics that aren't realistic or effective... and don't belong there. It's not the best thing to always be reaching for higher order perspectives. Often times, it's a much wiser choice to get grounded and to interact with the world as it is... instead of how you believe it should be.

That's a plot twist. This whole time I thought he was just operating from a place of lacking coherent internal logic. But in reality, he's got the secret... but is withholding it.

Do you really think that you could just choose to be attracted to men if you aren't already somewhat attracted to them?