Carl-Richard

Leo doesn't have motivation problems.

Do you do weight training?

Kill em with Red, love em to death, whatever it takes ?

Greeners gonna include The boomers included women and got fixated on that, so they viciously attack any threats to that. The zoomers included trans people instead, so of course they'll clash. Perfect example of how T1 inclusion is fake (and gay)

TERFs = Green boomers Trans activists = Green zoomers That is all the analysis we need ?

I don't know what those stages of indigo and up even mean (other than being vaguely mystical), but I guess putting all of it into a new Tier (3) can do a lot of work for justifying such a move.

When it comes to mysticism and my rigid view of SD, I like to think of it as a synergistic relationship rather than it being an inevitable marriage at the higher stages. In other words, maximizing one aspect of development will naturally increase the chances of exploring new avenues of development or maxing out other existing avenues (it's both a statistical thing and a functional thing). To say that there is absolutely no overlap between different aspects of life is of course stupid, but to place very different models along the same developmental line is also stupid imo.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is not SD though That's actually a good example of a traditional psychology model which has less emphasis on cognition (throwback to one of my earlier posts).

He calls everybody Turquoise.

We're only talking about maps here. If you think you can ever talk about the territory, you're deluded.

Ok. That's just like, uh, your opinion, man. I'm not talking about "human development" (whatever that is). I'm talking about SD. I'm not placing all of human development under SD.

I'm sorry, I misspoke. An explanation is just the act of reducing something to something else, so it may include a comparison, but that's not the kind of explanation I'm looking for

Ok. However, a comparison is not an explanation, unless you can explain the comparison. An explanation reduces something to more fundamental concepts. For SD, the obvious choice there is Western psychology, but not necessarily. EDIT: I'm sorry, I misspoke. An explanation is just the act of reducing something to something else, so it may include a comparison, but that's not the kind of explanation I'm looking for

I don't understand. What do you mean by mystical? What do you mean by personal?

Why can I not read your thoughts, or feel what you're feeling, or see what you're seeing?

@Nilsi Why are you talking about Cook-Greuter anyway? It's a different model.

Some models or ways of talking about reality are mystical. Reality is reality. I swear all my disagreements with people regarding SD always boil down to them having some naive realist conception of reality. I'm an epistemic pragmatist: SD is not reality, mysticism is not reality; it's all conjecture.

I'm using a mainstream definition of cognition from cognitive science and psychology, i.e. the qualitative aspects of the personal mind. Spiral Dynamics are in the same vein as earlier cognitively oriented stage theories like Piaget, Kohlberg etc. However, mysticism and self-transcendence is about transcending cognition; it's transpersonal, it's beyond qualities. It's not about developing cognition. There does exist stage theories that are less cognitively oriented (or fully orthogonal to cognition), both in traditional psychology and mystical traditions, but SD is not that.

I know, but I don't know what it means other than some vague intuition.

It's the contents of the mind becoming more complex.

Cognitive complexity.

You're using neologisms without explaining what they mean.

Idk, but it seems like you're trying to pull the territory out of the map ?

You won't find Spiral Dynamics written inside your brain either, or at least nobody except you would call it that. You might not care about that, but then you're perpetually stuck under a glass ceiling of idiosyncrasy.

Obviously. I wouldn't be trying to intellectually derive what Turquoise is if I was already there. I would just say what it is. In fact, I wouldn't even entertain the model at that point. I don't care what you call it. All I said is that there is someone named Ken Wilber who calls something "Waking up". You're indeed talking about something else, and I actually mentioned that Wilber might call that specific thing maximizing Waking up + Growing up + Cleaning up. However, I also mentioned that SD is not that thing either. I get the sense that you're almost making the models about yourself. I don't care if the person who made the model was somehow low consciousness by whatever biased metric I have. I just try to represent what they were actually trying to convey to the best of my ability. It's not my model, it's not my terminology, so it's on me to try to represent it as accurately as possible, and that is as much as I expect from these types of things, despite how flawed or corny they might be. That's why I wanted to learn about developmental psychology in general.