-
Content count
13,704 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Forestluv
-
Forestluv replied to Enlightenment's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
@ajasatya I’m at a beginner level of statistics. ANOVA is as high as I go. I’m interested how a statistical analysis can reveal an insight in one context, yet it may be limited to that context and biased in other contexts. I usually just do basic stats, yet if I enter more complexity I try to be careful in understanding what it’s revealing and it’s limits. Sometimes, I need assistance from a statistician about what I am allowed to conclude from a particular analysis and the caveats. And with the more complex stuff, I need to find someone I trust to translate it for me. It’s almost like a foreign language. I know enough basic phrases to get around, yet once it gets into complex grammar and different dialects I need someone I trust who is fluent in the language to help translate for me. -
@Marten These are really good. A few of them can induce a low grade trippy state in my mind, similar to CEVs on 4-HO-MET. I don’t get strong visuals on other psyches, yet these videos capture a form of psychedelic essence, even a non-visual psychedelic essence through visuals. I’ve never seen animations do that before. I’m curious what it would be like to watch them during tripping.
-
Forestluv replied to Enlightenment's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
@ajasatya Would this be a correct hypothetical for one of the dilemmas you point to? Let’s say a poor neighborhood is 90% black and 10% white. A rich neighborhood is 10% black and 90% white. If we take a representative sample from each group it would be: Poor group 90% B : 10% White vs Rich Group 10% B : 90% white, it’s not a completely fair comparison because composition the two groups are unequal. Yet if we equalize the two groups such as 90% B : 10% W, it is not a fair comparison in the sense that the two groups no longer representative of the original populations. Each method would have value in one context, yet would be biased in another context. . . We would have a similar dilemma if we added in things like education level, obesity frequency etc. -
Forestluv replied to Parththakkar12's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
By definition, conservatives don’t want growth and change. I’m using the term “growth” in the context of learning and expanding. In any hierarchal system, there will be disagreements on what qualifies as “growth” - yet there are reasonable constructs that can be made. For example, algebra is a component of calculus. We could there for say going from algebra to calculus is growth. However, this does not mean that calculus is “better” than algebra or that people who only know algebra should be shamed as being ignorant of calculus. This also goes back to “growing”. I would consider learning and expansion to be forms of growing. For example, if someone learns about the cultures of South American countries in a classroom, that is one form of learning. If they also travel to South America and actually experience and participate in the cultures, that is another form of learning. Taken together, I would consider this learning and growing. Creating a standardized unified system has value as does flexibility within localities. For example, legalizing LGBTQ marriage and equal rights at the federal level has value. It prevents localized areas of discrimination at the state level. Waiting for states to individually progress to LGBTQ rights would have taken decades longer. Places like Alabama would probably need another 100 years or so. The south is still dragging their feet about confederate monuments. Yet pushing too fast also has drawbacks. For example, a state may feel like the law has been imposed upon them by an external power. If the support level is too low, this can cause problems. For example, if LGBTQ support in the south is 28%, a federal LGBTQ law is going to cause tension. As well, there should be flexibility in how concepts are taught. Teaching in an inner city school in NYC is very different than teaching in a rural school in Oklahoma. -
Forestluv replied to Enlightenment's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
For those interested in learning the basics of causal inference and selection bias. -
It’s fine to say that the level of advancement has nothing to do with race. Yet it’s not semantics to point out the limitation of saying “advancement is *all* about culture”. That is a loaded statement and in my view is misleading without qualifiers. People are not going to assume that geography, climate and rare cataclysmic events count as a form of “advancement”. I don’t understand your framing. It would be like saying “winning a marathon is *all* about running lots of miles”. Then someone points out “Actually, diet is also really important” and then saying “Diet is a form of winning”. . .It’s a convoluted dance to me.
-
Forestluv replied to Parththakkar12's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Nonsense. This is what cultural evolution is all about. There becomes a critical threshold of awareness and then there is a shift. My school is approaching that threshold. The awareness is getting out that shaming interferes with growth (when one is open to growth). When a critical threshold is reached, there is a turning point. We recently had an external review of my school and they estimated that 25% of our workers is the threshold needed for the cultural shift to occur. This goes back to an earlier point. The foundation of what I am describing assumes developmental progress has value. Evolving from lower developmental stages to higher developmental stages has value. Without that agreement, the dynamics of the conversation completely shift. For example, if we are to discuss how to best create inclusion and equality for LGBTQ, there needs to be agreement that inclusion and equality for LGBTQ has value. Then, there can be a discussion how to best attain that. However, without that agreement things regress to a debate about wether LGBTQ inclusion and equality is of value. The person who does not see it of value will try to obstruct the person who sees it as value. In this context, the value is developing empathic understanding of excluded groups. If you don’t value that, there cannot be a discussion about how best to achieve it. However, if you do value it then there can be a conversation about how best to achieve it. For example, in the above video there may be ways to improve the method or try a totally different method. Or perhaps we wait until the children are a bit older. We might discover that our teachings have pros and cons. We can modify our approach to make it healthier. For example, if we agree that physical exercise is of value for children, we can have a discussion about the best ways to introduce exercise to children. Perhaps we find out that teaching them gymnastics when they are 8 years old has a high injury risk. We can scrap that and try soccer. Perhaps gymnastics is more appropriate at 12 years old. . . This is a very different mindset than saying “there is not value of exercise for children”. That mindset will try to obstruct any exercise program. Similarly, a mindset that does not value teaching empathic understanding of exclusion will won’t to prevent that understanding, rather than explore the best ways to transmit that understanding. No. You are adding in elements of shame. Imagine I am hiking with a friend. I stop by a stream and drink some water. My friend tells me that there are microbes in the water and it’s unhealthy to drink it. My friend tells me that we should boil it. I respond “Oh, I was unaware of that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Let’s gather some water to boil over the campfire tonight”. There is zero shame in that. It’s totally different if my friend said “Don’t you know that microbes are in the water? Are you an idiot? I thought you said you were a Boy Scout. Didn’t you learn anything? I just posted a picture of you drinking the water on IG and everyone is laughing about how stupid you are”. <= that is adding in shame. Nope. It’s mature Green. -
An internal logical contradiction. . .
-
Is geography /climate ‘shaping’ culture exclusive to the ‘advancement’ of that culture? Can we really make a clean distinction? If a culture is 90% destroyed by severe tornados, is that simply ‘shaping’ the culture without an impact on the ‘advancement’ of that culture? To me, that seems like odd usage of the terms, ‘shape’ and ‘advancement’. To me, the two are tightly intertwined to the point that the distinctions break down upon inspection. The problem I see with that is ‘advancement’ will be considered separate from geographical / climatic ‘shaping‘ - yet they are inter-dependent. Leaving out the ‘shaping’, gives a distorted view of the ‘advancement’ imo.
-
If a culture is 90% destroyed by severe tornados, wouldn’t that impact the advancement of that culture?
-
I disagree that is is *all* about culture. For example, geography and climate are factors. A culture that lives in a geography / climate ideal for agriculture has an advantage over a culture that lives in a remote, frozen area of the arctic or a culture that lives in an arid desert. Luck is another factor. A culture that gets decimated by tornadoes is at a disadvantage relative to a nearby culture that did not get hit by the tornados.
-
Forestluv replied to Parththakkar12's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
In a relative contexts, there are degrees of self-centerdness and the harm impact it has on oneself and others. Burning down your neighbors house because you are bothered by their loud music is a more extreme form of self-centerdness than getting a massage to recover from a hard week of work. The problem with saying “saying self-centerdness isn’t objectively bad” is using that for self-centered purposes in a relative context. Someone could say “Self-centerdness isn’t objectively bad!! I can go out and rape women and kill children and it isn’t objectively bad!!”. In one context it is true. However, it can be used by the ego to justify bad behavior in a relative context. This is conflation between absolute and relative. I’ve written two paragraphs about this and have used bold and italics font. I’d rather not use 36 pt. font or all caps because it looks like I’m screaming. . . Again, I think it is critical that we *do not shame* people as they become aware of subconscious biases and their participation in societies with systemic biases. This is a major block against realization, growth and the development of both intellectual and empathic understanding. It is very important that people be given a safe and supportive space for this. However, if a person is aware of their behavior and intentionally behaving in this manner, then things like mocking can be effective. I would say this is a difference between immature green and mature green. Immature green wants to shame everyone, mature green does not. This passes the buck to future generations. This resists progress and supports the status quo. Imagine saying “Let’s not do anything about slavery for now. Future generations will be wiser and they can figure out the ethics of slavery.” There are two distinctions here: subconscious and conscious biases as well as degree of bias. Of course 100% of bias can be removed from humans. Being human itself is a bias. Simply being human means you are not a dog or a bat. Perceiving reality as a human is a form of bias. It’s not a binary issue. It’s about reducing the degree of bias and becoming aware of bias. -
Forestluv replied to Parththakkar12's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
I hadn’t thought of that. That’s a good question about how to be most efficient with the exercise. I would say there are grey areas and they need to make some judgement calls. Perhaps they could speak with the parents before-hand to include them in the exercise. I think it would be much more effective with parental involvement for re-enforcement. If there were a few bi-racial kids, they could ask the parents which group would be most appropriate. For example, they could ask the parents which lesson they would prefer their child learn. I also agree that this exercise can potentially become problematic and dehumanizing. There is some skill necessary to pull it off. -
Forestluv replied to Parththakkar12's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
I can see how this exercise could be problematic, yet I think the underlying empathic understanding is of value. This exercise might not be the best way to convey that. For example, it might be better to do it with children that are older or modify the exercise. For example, teaching the children intellectually about exclusion and showing them some examples in life. This could help prepare the students. As well, it could be that it’s best to scrap the whole exercise and try a new method. Claiming absolute can a form of resistance within relative constructs. An alcoholic beats his children and loses his job due to his excessive drinking. His wife says “You are acting like a ‘bad’ father. We need to get some counseling as a family to heal and get healthy”. The alcoholic responds “You are assuming that my narcissistic and abusive behavior is objectively bad. My behavior is relative and objectively neither good or bad.” That is fine within a nondual discussion at Starbuck’s, yet in relative constructs it can be used as a cop-out of avoidance. No. That is not how I’m teaching empathy at all. You added that in there. If you read my post, I strongly stressed how critical it is not to tell them they are racist. I wrote a whole paragraph about it!!! When someone is gaining insights of subconscious biases and has a genuine interest to grow, it is critical that we don’t call them racist. This is a form of guilt and shame and it is a major barrier toward growth. There needs to be safe space and support. However, if one becomes aware of it and consciously continues the behavior, it is a totally different dynamic. In this case, allowing safe space and support enables the bad behavior. Even in a situation of conscious bias , it generally isn’t productive to call them a racist because it triggers intense defense mechanisms. However, I do think that shaming and mocking can be productive in certain stimulations. For example, I know thing mocking people who support the Confederate flag on shows like SNL can be productive. There is an important distinction between the value of teaching empathic understanding and the best effective way to teach that understanding. You are arguing against the value of teaching empathic understanding here. From this orientation, you would not be open to a discussion of how best to teach empathic understanding (because you don’t value it). It would be like someone saying teaching children a second language has no value. This mind will not be open to the best way to teach children a second language because they don’t even value it. Any form of teaching children a foreign language would be seen as “shoving the foreign language down your throat”. This is an actual dynamic in Southwestern U.S. states and Spanish. This is one component, yet it is insufficient IMO. There is too much counter-noise in society and simply role modeling would delay growth and development. I would estimate that only about 20% of the population in the U.S. is at a high enough level of empathic embodiment to transmit it to under-developed people. It’s just not enough - or would take an extremely long period of time. This is the equivalent of people getting upset that LGBTQ people who wanted inclusion and equal rights were “shoving their lifestyle down the throats of others”. This was a super common attitude and has only recently begin to shift. Part of that shift was educating people about LGBTQ and part of this education came through empathic understanding. The problem with this is idealism and realism. As well, the power of conditioning. This view does not acknowledge that there is systemic racism and subconscious biases in society. This conditions children and makes the de-conditioning as an adult much harder. I think it is appropriate to point out biases to children to counter-act the conditioning biases. However, this should be done in a way that does not guilt-trip or shame the child. Again, everything I write in this thread assumes that there is value to green and evolution toward green. To me, the question is: How can we evolve from lower developmental stages to higher stages in an efficient and healthy manner? I think teaching children empathic understanding is of value. Yet I’d be open to discussing wether this exercises is the best method to teach that understanding. I can see how it could be potentially problematic and counter-productive. In terms of efficiency and healthy, I would be against teaching empathy that was too intense. This would miss the point, be counter-productive and could cause harm to the child. Yet to me, the above exercise is temporary and mild. It gives the children a decent idea of what it feels like to be marginalized and excluded. I wish they had this type of thing when I was a kid. I think society would be much more developed than it is today. -
Yes, Empathy is to division as garlic is to a vampire.
-
@freeman194673 Everything is not the sum total of every thing. Everything is One Everything.
-
I’m observing a lot of conflation between development / abilities and arrogance. An important distinction can be made. In terms of SD, a blue level person often perceives higher developmental stages being arrogant. For example, a mind at blue may perceive issues as simple binary constructs. For example, it is either good or bad. A mind at orange can see nuances, such as the spectrums of good and bad. Also, some things can be a combination of good and bad. A mind at green can begin to see relativity - that “good” and “bad” are relative terms. There is no one objective, universal standard of “good” or “bad”. These cognitive abilities are distinct from the personality trait of arrogance. For example, could there be an orange level scientist that is very good at seeing spectrums and nuances that he considers himself “superior” to those at blue? Of course. Might Orange mock Blue? Of course. It happens all the time. Every night on late night TV shows. However, the personalities are distinct from the abilities. Another example: imagine someone who can only speak English is traveling through Europe. He is in an area where everyone around him can speak 3 languages. The English-speaking person is lost and needs help and the Europeans are mocking him because he can only speak English. They even speak other languages he cannot understand in a condescending tone. Is it fair to say “You are being arrogant!” Of course. Yet it would be absurd to say “The ability to speak three languages is arrogant!”. Of course not.
-
Forestluv replied to Parththakkar12's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
From a green perspective, the value here is understanding the experience of marginalization through direct experience and empathy. Not through intellect. An intellectual understanding has value, yet so does empathic understanding. They are two forms of understanding and green places a high value on empathic understanding. Intellectual understanding is orange and empathic understanding is green. They both have value, just like a hammer and screwdriver both have value when building a house. In terms of direct experience understanding, drawing on one’s own related experience can be a useful tool. As you suggest, one can draw on their own experience of being marginalized to better understand what other marginalized people have to go through. For example, I am a male and cannot directly relate to what it would be like to be a woman that has to be mindful of sexual harassment and assault. There are many situations in which a woman needs to be mindful of this risk and have a heightened alert level, which involves a heightened stress level. Women who hike solo in our local nature preserve need to be mindful of risk. This heightened alertness for risk generally involves slight elevation of stress hormones like cortisol. I don’t have to worry about this when I hike in the nature preserve and I don’t know what it’s like to experience this. I can have an intellectual understanding and that has value, yet so does an empathic understanding. As you suggest, I can draw on my own experience to indirectly gain empathic understanding. For example, when I was in Medellin Colombia, there were elevated risks for a white tourist like me. I wasn’t in immediate danger, yet there was elevated risk wherever I walked. As a result, my alertness and stress level got bumped up. I wasn’t in a panic, the stress level went up from perhaps my normal 2/10 to a 4/10. I’ve spoken to women about their experience regarding risk of assault as a woman and they often tell me “yea, it’s sorta like that”. . . The important thing is that I had similar direct experience to draw on. However, not everyone is good at developing indirect empathic understanding. One common block is thinking “Everyone goes through that”. This attitude can block empathic understanding. It can be helpful to have more direct forms of direct experience to “get it”. I think the exercise in the video is excellent to stimulate that direct experience understanding. I agree. The solution is not to marginalize a group for their entire life for them to develop empathic understanding. That is counter-productive to the goal. This is very different. This is very mild and temporary exposure to give people direct experience to develop empathy toward others that regularly experience it. This is a very important point. Imprinting guilt and shame is counter-productive when the person genuinely wants to grow and is undergoing direct experience. That is why I said I like how the school created a safe and supportive environment. Without this, there will not be development of empathic understanding. For example, a few years ago some of my own privilege and subconscious biases surfaced. It felt uncomfortable to look at it. If people around me had shamed me and stigmatized me for it, I would have internalized guilt and shame. I would have gotten defensive. These are major blocks to developing deeper understanding. There needs to be safe space. I was fortunate that the people around me didn’t shame or guilt-trip me. Instead, they helped me grow through it and develop deeper understanding. Yet the key is that I was open and willing to it. If I became aware of it and continued to behave with those attitudes purposely, that is a very different dynamic. Here, allowing safe space is counter-productive. Rather than allowing for growth, it enables the attitudes. This is one of the most critical things for green to realize. Shaming has it’s place, yet allowing safe space for growth also has it’s place. Many immature greens do not see this distinction and they are shaming everyone. Yet mature green knows when to offer someone safe space to work through it. It’s also important to be aware of the distinction between valuing empathic understanding and the best methods to develop empathic understanding. One of the major resistances Orange has against green is that Orange does not value empathic understanding. Orange values intellectual understanding. Therefore, Orange won’t even want to teach empathic understanding. They will criticize from below. They will criticize in a way that resists the teaching of empathic understanding. Green and above values empathic understanding and they will criticize from above. They will want to develop the best methods to teach empathic understanding. If components of their lessons are inefficient and counter-productive, they will adapt those components so they can better transmit empathic understanding. -
Forestluv replied to Parththakkar12's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Developing empathy for marginalized people is as green as it gets. That is the heart of green. Being able to empathize with marginalized people allows for a genuine desire for inclusion, which is another fundamental green value. -
Forestluv replied to Parththakkar12's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
This looks like a good exercise to better understand the experience of others and to develop empathy. I like how the school setting and parents allow space and support for realizations and growth. This is an example of how deep and important direct experience and empathy is for understanding. If a person is simply told intellectually, it’s at a surface level. I would consider this a green form of education to learn about Blue. . . Of course there is a spectrum of intensity and we don’t want to go so intense that it becomes counter-productive and traumatic. As well, there is a spectrum of sensitivity. I don’t consider this exercise to be too intense. I think it is fairly mild and most of the children were getting direct experience realizations with very mild discomfort. The boy they focused on is higher on the sensitivity spectrum and may have empathic potential. If I was the teacher here, I would be very tempted to expand this to marginalization in general - not just based on race. -
Forestluv replied to Robi Steel's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
I updated the post to make it more obvious. Observe the distinction between principles and personalities. A = B does not mean that C = D. If people (A) who believe the theory of planetary motion (C) are arrogant jackasses (B), it doesn’t mean that the theory of planetary motion is incorrect (D). -
Forestluv replied to Robi Steel's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
I was once into science, then I saw scientists as having big egos - so I became anti-science and now believe the earth is flat. I once loved music, then I saw musicians as having big egos - so I became anti-music and now believe music is the devil’s brew. I was once a sports fan, then I saw sports fans as having big egos - so I became anti-sports and now believe exercise is unhealthy. -
Forestluv replied to Robi Steel's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
I saw some arrogant scientists online, so I became anti-science. I went to a concert and some people were rude, so I became anti-music. I went to a football game and a drunken brawl broke out, so I became anti-sports. -
Forestluv replied to An young being's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
@An young being Sounds like the owl cleared some space for the snake to crawl by. That would be a loving gesture by the owl. -
Forestluv replied to Enlightenment's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Of course crime won’t be evenly distributed in a society. There will be a bell-curve of ranging from people that do no crime, to people doing minor crime to people doing hard crimes. Another way of looking at it is the “80/20 rule”. 20% makes up 80%. For example, 20% of the students in a class cause 80% of the problems. Notice how this is reduced this to one variable. This is a hyper-simplistic binary construct. Consider: Do black people raised in wealthy, healthy communities have a higher likelihood of having black hair compared to white people raised in poor, unhealthy communities? (Yes). Do black people raised in wealthy, healthy communities commit murder more often than white people raised in poor, unhealthy communities? (No).