Carl-Richard

I agree on these points, BUT (but), debate is not exactly the primary Tier 2 format, is it? You might say "Tier 2 has no primary format! That is limited Tier 1 non-sense!". Well, ok, but let's say that Tier 2 were to choose a general format to stick to, wouldn't Tier 2 care about what is actually generally effective though? Debate is usually not very effective for convincing anybody. Sneako being convinced by Destiny is one spaghetti that stuck to the wall. Maybe he was a loose brick that needed a little push, and in that sense, Destiny surely is the Spiral Grand Wizard who poofed him up the ladder, but from a general standpoint, is debate bro culture really the horse you want to bet on? I mean, there is a reason why therapists won't debate you. It's generally not effective. It can be, but it generally isn't. So the approach of "your values are shit; here is why" didn't read like a general Tier 2 approach to me, but I'll concede that Tier 2's versatility maybe could've snuck under my nose on this one.

Like when he interviewed Richard Spencer?

I was referring to this specific context of him talking to a dude who has a certain set of values and trying to convince him that his values are shit. That would be to, if not completely ignore, at least to de-emphasize the developmental lens. Go to a homeless dude and tell him that he needs a good wife and a job that inspires him. That's kinda what I was seeing here. That's different than making a lecture series for the people who need it. Different people require different things at different times. But sure, maybe what Destiny is telling Sneako here is exactly what Sneako needs at this point in his life, but to me, it didn't read as a Tier 2 approach. What I'm thinking about is more like the Mr.Girl therapeutic approach of trying to facilitate self-understanding in the person, maybe asking "what do you think makes you fulfilled? What are your goals? Let's help you with that." But that said, Tier 2 isn't hyper-relativistic either, so it will try to foster a "healthy" version of whatever the person needs (a therapist won't help you build a meth empire).

I just did

I've decided that I want to socialize more, but I just turned down the first week of partying with the new students because of petty reasons like "I don't want to: drink even just a little alcohol be around drunk people while basically sober break my workout schedule be the odd one out who doesn't drink like a lunatic" I also make similar petty excuses for not socializing more with my classmates in general (between classes etc.): Suddenly starting to hang out with them two years into the degree would be weird COVID was to blame I don't need to be hard on myself because I spent those two years on the brink of constant ego death, and neither the desire nor ability to socialize properly was present. It's only one year left before I leave town anyway. The only people I talk to regularly in real life is a classmate who has been my roommate for 2 years, as well my other roommates. He signed up to be a godparent(?) for some of the new students, so he is pretty much obligated to party for that first week, which makes me feel even more like a rat when I turned it down to his face. Other excuses I have is that I forgot that he signed up for that, and that I wasn't expecting the 3rd graders to really party at all, so I didn't have much time to consider it beforehand (because if I were to join the partying, I would've needed to plan it out for some reason). Basically, I want to socialize more, but I don't want to sacrifice anything for it, so I opt for the easiest option. Next year though, I'll travel back to my hometown and start my Masters there, and I'll start fresh with new people and be more social then (I will have less excuses and I'll be prepared to make some sacrifices as well).

Let's argue against him being Tier 2: The approach of "this will not fulfill you, but this will" when it comes to something broad like lifestyle is not very Tier 2.

Intuition.

@Gesundheit2 You're treating objective/subjective as absolutes. You have to ask in what sense is science objective? How is it comparably less subjective than something else?

Cowardice.

You're just changing what is meant by objective in this case, from reproducibility of investigations to how accessible those investigations are.

I don't think it's an interesting question. I would rather know which stages you're working on integrating. For me it's been Blue for the last few years, and lately I've started on Red and even Orange (certainly more Orange the next couple of years).

Ted Kaczynski

The methodology itself might've been conceived through an intuition on the part of some genius many years ago, but the application of it is different. It's like following a recipe for a pizza. When you made your pizza, you didn't conceive the recipe through your intuition. You just followed the recipe, and the result is a pizza. When it comes to "scientific objectivity", it's the very application of the methodology that makes it objective, because it's not your methodology, and the very reason you're using it is so that you can filter out your biases. Sure, choosing a particular methodology involves a bias, but choosing a methodology is implicit in the "scientific" part (there is no science without it).

Ok, but you surely agree that relying on a structured scientific methodology is different from relying on say intuition to arrive at a conclusion? So the scientists in question have found a way to eliminate some (but not all) of their subjective influences on the situation, in so far as they're able to get generally the same result irrespective of who is doing the observation/experiment. "Scientific objectivity" refers to that thing.

What do you call it when different scientists repeat the same experiment under the same conditions and get the same result?

I'm hinting at repeated observation and experimentation. The more you're able to establish regularities, the more you want to call it objective. That said, scientific objectivity is never absolute. Science is always embedded in a context, and its objectivity can only be judged relative to that context. This applies to every level of the scientific process: methodology, data collection, data interpretation etc. For example, you could claim that Spiral Dynamics has established certain regularities of human development, but within the constraints of its metaphysical and methodological assumptions like psychological essentialism and developmental stage theory, the data collection constrains of WEIRD bias and Clare Graves' essay methodology, the data interpretation constraints of thematic analysis etc.

I feel more and more that the attempt to translate across realms (from experience to language) feels inherently dissatisfying. It doesn't give justice to the experience, and it corrupts the language. On the other hand, when you're working purely within the realm of language (like in philosophy or science), you maintain some sense of stability and coherence with the rules of the game. With non-duality, it feels like you're actively trying to break the rules and almost desecrate them. I feel at some point, if you value the precision of language (certainly of that found in analytic philosophy and science), you sort of have to choose one: will you speak the language of precision and rigor, or will you speak the language of non-speech and metaphor?

They can also be thought of as extremes on a continuum. Ego <---------------> Reality The ego is meta-cognitive structures built upon cognitive structures, built upon perceptual structures, built upon consciousness (reality). The longer you go to the left, the more you want to call it ego. The more you go to the right, the more you want to call it reality. However, "in reality", they're interconnected (non-dual; not-two ).

How does the human observer discover what is objective?

Just posting this here because it's my favorite Camel song and it doesn't exist on Spotify anymore ?

I'm exceptional

It finds regularities in nature.

Who?

It's also important to know the exact limitations of your lenses

Good discussion on ADHD.