Carl-Richard

(These are just my thoughts, not an official representation of any authority on the matter. Some of the terms presented here use my own idiosyncratic definitions and may have different meanings elsewhere. It's also not at all a comprehensive view on the topic but only a rough summary based on my limited understanding.) I've spent the past year or so really trying to wrap my head around the essence of Tier 2 cognition (starting at Yellow), namely systems thinking. Just these past 6 months, after taking some courses in communication theory and community psychology, I've gotten some insights into the matter that really solidified my previous intuitions which I'd like to share here. I was truly surprised of how much these two fields were based on systems theory (mainly the theories of Gregory Bateson and Urie Bronfenbrenner respectively, although these two theorists only serve as lightning rods for the vast meta-theoretical space that is systems thinking). I'll open up with a quote from each of the aforementioned theorists: What these quotes have in common is that they emphasize relationships or interconnections. That is what a system is: a collection of relationships. But isn't it the case that anybody can understand concepts such as "relationships", "interconnections" and "systems"? What makes systems thinking so special? Now, you could actually argue that systems thinking itself isn't necessarily confined to Tier 2. However, I'll say that Tier 2 cognition consists of something called a "mature systems view." It's about a way to view the world; a worldview, and it's of a certain sophistication or maturity. To truly understand this worldview, we must first contrast it with a more common worldview, which I will call "analytical thinking." Analytical thinking Fritjof Capra, a pillar of the mature systems view, refers to this worldview and way of thinking as the "Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm." It's characterized by reductionism, mechanism, atomism and positivism. The Cartesian method approaches understanding the world by breaking it down into smaller components (reductionism). Newtonian mechanics describes the world as force interactions between physical objects that consist of atoms (mechanism, atomism). Positivism refers to the idea that we can formulate consistent laws based on this type of knowledge (e.g. "laws of physics"). Another way to think about it is that analytical thinking approaches the world "vertically": This vertical approach isn't just confined to the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology). It's also central to fields like psychology. The analytical tradition of psychology reduces problems down to components within the individual: symptoms, diagnoses, traits, drives, genes, beliefs, values etc. It lays the basis for individual psychotherapy (psychoanalysis, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy etc.), psychiatric medical treatment (antidepressants, anxiolytics etc.), personality psychology (Big 5, MBTI etc.), cognitive psychology (e.g. Beck's schema theory) etc. Jordan Peterson is a big proponent of this view. On the other hand, there is a systemic tradition within psychology called community psychology. It emphasizes relationships, connections and environmental factors when solving problems (social, economic, political, cultural etc.). Not coincidentally, Jordan Peterson is not a big fan of this approach. Without making this any more about our beloved JP, let's get straight to it: what is systems thinking? Systems thinking In contrast to reductionism, mechanism, atomism and positivism, systems thinking is relational, holistic, ecological and organic. A system is a collection of relationships between units, and holism is about focusing on the whole. Taking a systems view is about seeing the interplay as a whole, not just the individual units for themselves. The bigger the system view, the greater and more inclusive the whole becomes, and the more holistic it becomes. Ecology is about understanding the relationships between organisms and their environment, and an organism is an interplay of smaller living units ("organs" or organic units). Systems in nature and society are complex and can be described using different concepts from systems theory (e.g. "transaction", "self-organization", "adaptation", "feedback" etc.). In contrast to the vertical nature of analytical thinking, systems thinking is "horizontal": This picture represents a social system, however the horizontal principle applies to other systems as well: organ systems, cells, molecules, atoms etc.). These are «real systems» (natural/social systems). You also have abstract systems (e.g. scientific theories, ideologies, value systems, meta-systems, paradigms, meta-theories etc.), and that's where things like construct awareness come into play (more on that later). Meta-theories are "theories about theories", which try to understand how abstract systems work through meta-systematic observations. Fields like philosophy of science and models like Spiral Dynamics and Integral theory are examples of such meta-theories. Model of hierarchical complexity (MHC) is a good model to understand the different levels of abstract systems (e.g. "how complex is a paradigm?"). Context awareness, Construct awareness and Theory pluralism. I've already mentioned construct awareness, which is one of three main facets that I think are useful to further understand systems thinking: Context awareness refers to the general ability to understand the pervasive nature of relationships in the world: the vast array of relationships across different domains (physical, biological, social etc.). Any individual unit exists within a larger context (their environment or the larger system), and being aware of context is synonymous with a general form of system awareness. Bronfenbrenner's Ecological systems theory is a good illustration of context awareness: Construct awareness is the ability to the understand the relationship between the human and the world with respect to making sense of the world (knowledge, sensemaking and epistemology) and how it's a process of constructing abstract systems. People may manipulate these abstract systems without understanding how they work, e.g. what kind of system it is, how it's made, and how it relates to other systems, which would be an exercise in construct blindness. For example, it's possible to operate a car without knowing how it was made or how the engine works. To not be aware of how abstract systems work to construct your reality is to have a lack of construct awareness. Thomas Kuhn and his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is a good example of construct awareness. After performing a meta-theoretical study on the historical development of science, he concluded that all scientific theories at all times are validated relative to a historically contingent framework of philosophical assumptions (a paradigm, a collection of constructs), and thus all scientific knowledge is fundamentally relational in nature. So not only are the external aspects of human behavior dependent on context (as in social interactions; Bronfenbrenner), but also the internal aspects (mind). If we go back to Gregory Bateson, in his systemic communication theory, he in fact defines "context" not as something external, but as an internal psychological framework. He does this because of the insight that the mind is constructing the external world. Alfred Korzybski's "the map is not the territory" is also a staple of construct awareness. With enough context and construct awareness, you'll inevitably end up with theory pluralism: the ability to explore and understand a wide range of different abstract systems (theoretical frameworks). In a sense, theory pluralism is both a prerequisite and a consequence of construct awareness (they're co-created). However, to really develop a wide knowledge of theory, you must have a deep meta-theoretical understanding which is able to see the larger picture – the essence of construct awareness. Ken Wilber is a great ambassador for theory pluralism. His vision of integrating all domains of knowledge into a single, comprehensive framework is the pinnacle of systems thinking. Fritjof Capra should also be mentioned here with his book "the Tao of Physics", where he not only makes profound observations about context and construct in his writings about Quantum Mechanics, but he also makes theoretical comparisons to Taoism and non-duality. I mentioned earlier regarding having a "mature systems view" that systems thinking is not necessarily confined to Tier 2 cognition. This is because Green is very open to context awareness and will easily appreciate models like Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. What Green struggles with the most is construct awareness. It might be able to deconstruct a lot of Orange systems, both from a rational place and an intuitive place, but it struggles to pick up the pieces, both theoretically and practically. Construct awareness also makes you more prone to grasping the concepts in systems theory, which unlocks key concepts like the meta-theoretical evolutionary lens (Beck & Cowan, Wilber, Kuhn), which Green crucially lacks. So that is the gist of it, but there is so much more I could talk about, e.g. the history of systems theory (deep ecology, cybernetics, Gestalt psychology etc.) and different systems theory concepts like I've alluded to earlier. There are also other aspects of Tier 2 cognition that could be expanded upon, like the ability to hold paradox, understanding holarchies, or different real-life applications (that's a big one). I would anyways like to hear what you guys have discovered about systems thinking that I've left out. I would never turn down the opportunity to deepen my theory pluralism Additional notes and clarifications: Expanding on this: Analytical thinking and systems thinking must not be thought of as diametrical opposites, but as generally expressing different dimensions of movement through abstract systems (vertical vs. horizontal). Neither of them are pure expressions of either "vertical" or "horizontal" thinking, because technically all abstract thought utilizes both dimensions to navigate the cognitive landscape. An alternative description could be hierarchical movement vs. cross-hierarchical movement. The categories explored in hierarchical movement tend to have a corresponding familiarity or similarity of kind, while the ones in cross-hierarchical movement have corresponding distance or diversity of kind (in that it's possible to have many qualitatively very different things interacting with each other in a system). One reason why horizontal movement tends to be more readily associated with complexity might be due to the relative simplicity of postulating it abstractly, because meanwhile it's possible to have interactions between many qualitatively different things, it doesn't actually necessitate or force a qualitative difference (e.g. you can simply have interactions between many molecules of the same kind), meanwhile a comparably complex vertical scenario is much harder to postulate, as the different levels of a hierarchy always forces a degree of difference (e.g. molecule > atom > sub-atomic), and thus most abstract hierarchies tend to be simpler (because models are supposed to simplify). In other words, the tendency towards horizontal complexity could simply be a bias of abstraction, and that in reality, systems are equally infinitely complex across all dimensions, both vertically and horizontally. Thinking is nevertheless about abstraction, and therefore horizontal thinking serves as a litmus test for complex thinking. So from this alternative view, what is systems thinking? Well, the more you refine your general ability to abstract both vertically and horizontally across categories (symbols, concepts, classes and domains), the more expansive and complex your thinking becomes. Therefore, the proclivity towards the mature systems view simply depends on the size and complexity of one's perspective. Horizontal thinking is nevertheless generally an indicator of complex thinking.

I was hopeful when I saw this video, but sadly, you were correct: You really get the feeling that we're living in different universes.

It's fine if you want to go on a cynical treasure hunt for contradictions, but I've already clarified that he has merely demonstrated some cognitive aspects of Tier 2. Maxing out Tier 2 across all developmental lines is a much broader project. Even so, I doubt that Tier 2 magically solves every problematic personal interaction. Communication is complex stuff. Also, don't forget about the power of hindsight. The compulsion of having to incessantly purity test everybody for their SD development is a bit shallow and annoying.

@Roy I just spent 30 minutes re-watching the Vaush conversation and 5 minutes watching this one while mainly focusing on the chat, and it's sad how much it magnifies the contrast between the two approaches. He looks like a saint in comparison, and it makes me emotional. I think we're underestimating how important his mission is, despite how futile it may look. We've become so numb to the default state of unconditional hate from all sides. He is doing God's work, and he'll probably sacrifice himself for it as well.

It's a statistical question. Public figures tend to have more expertise than the average person.

Is that brunette Lauren Southern?

@Scholar I feel like I'm overdosing on Mr.Girl content. I just watched 4 hrs of the Christmas eve talk with Destiny ?

If you have, can you present some of his points to me? I've watched earlier interviews with him.

We can control the impact of tsunamis, hurricanes and viruses by being smart and taking collective action.

Meh. The naturalistic fallacy is pretty down there. ...OK? You trust cyanide? Ricin? Any other natural poison or venom? This is not a trivial point that you can just brush away.

I know you already technically conceded to the point, but here I go anyway: let's say that he, instead of being plagued by radical honesty, always liked to think deeply about philosophical topics, to the point where it served as a significant trade-off between other aspects of his life, but which nevertheless lead him to where he is now (e.g. understanding that there is a place for inclusive empathy). That doesn't exactly invalidate the insight, does it? After all, doesn't this alternative description ring a bell? I'm saying it's not that easy to separate things like personality or life experiences ("character development") from SD development.

That's an 11 hour video ?. What early trauma? "Trauma", "personality", "naturally fell into it" – sounds like life to me. I know you're making a broader point, but with regards to Mr.Girl, I would clarify that he has demonstrated aspects of Yellow cognition, which is after all what you'll pick up on in a philosophical discussion. Integrating all stages is a much broader project than just cognitive understanding (interpersonal, occupational, financial etc.).

This is like asking which haystack is the best for finding the needle.

A lot of self-help people here. If I had to pick a science popularizer, it would be Neil deGrasse Tyson (because Carl Sagan is not really Orange). Even though his teachings are very simple, I believe he is the more humble type of rationalist (a la Karl Popper): "we're not saying we know anything for sure – we're just trying disprove our own theories", which is maybe one of the reasons why he stays fairly apolitical and disassociates himself from the anti-theist crusaders like Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens. These people have a more absolutist, neopositivist bent (a feeling of certainty and righteousness) which uses science as a normative platform to say "religion bad." One of the few talks he had on religion (notice how careful he is):

This one has more Spiral Wizardry. Same set-up: convincing a Green to commensurate higher and lower perspectives, only this time the problem isn't a lack of empathy for so-called bad people (as with pedophiles or nazis), but rather the lack of ability to say "no" to so-called good people: "how can we empathically say no to trans-people?" This angle is obviously a bit more productive than the "learn to accept pedos" angle . It's a bit of a build-up, but there is a beautiful pay-off around the 45 minute mark.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1409003/real-life-tarzan-incredible-story-of-the-boy-who-lived-in-the-jungle-for-41-years-after-his-dad-fled-the-vietnam-war/

If you approach it on a trait by trait basis, technically everybody has a bit of Yellow in them. However, I think this undermines the developmental aspect. You gotta look at the entire package, not just isolated examples. I wouldn't associate Vaush and his ilk with Yellow, but don't underestimate the complexity of Green. Mr.Girl is more or less consistently Yellow in this conversation and you see the contrast to Vaush's Green.

Ah great, now it looks like I plagiarized him in my thread about Systems thinking ?:

Annihilation is genuinely the scariest movie I've ever seen. What got to me wasn't really the gore (except the fucked up bear – holy shit), but the context or vibe of disorientation and gradual psychological deterioation (call it "psychological gore"), because it made me feel mentally unstable myself. It's like a nightmare trip.

For example, you're generally not horny anymore after ejaculation. It takes time to build up to the same level of sexual appetite, which is a hormonal process (among other things). It's more adaptable than say a menstrual cycle, but it's a cycle nonetheless: horniness -> ejaculation -> decrease in horniness -> celibacy -> increase in horniness etc. The overarching point is that everything that is physical is cyclical, and that there are many different cyclical systems, and that many of the cycles especially in the body influence each other. Repressing one system might create an inbalance in other systems and the system as a whole.

Hehe I guess all this controversy surrounding Mr.Girl and his unfiltered honesty has made me too careful ?

No problem . I'll just say that I wouldn't use this as an ideal example of Yellow (for reasons previously stated), but it's still a rare thing to see in these types of conversations. Postmodernism is typical Green. It's highly relativistic but lacks a proper meta-theoretical lens of hierarchy or progress, which is re-discovered in the type of evolutionary lens presented by people like Don Beck & Chris Cowan and Ken Wilber (and precursors like Clare Graves and Robert Kegan respectively) and various ego developmental and Neo-Piagetian offshoots (e.g. Cook-Greuter and MHC).

Yeah, I've gotten more of this sense lately as I've reviewed my stances on a couple of things (granted, the grifter label is a bit harsh). I found this particularly evident when watching his reaction to the Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson cafe talk of all things. This is not to say that I've done a complete 180 on either of these people (not at all), but after reviewing particularly JP's psychological stuff, I find that most of his points in that domain (in general and in that particular conversation) go way above Vaush's head (and Shapiro for that matter, poor guy), to the point where the entire video devolves into him repeating the same point of "he is making zero sense", "cognitive decline arc", "he is not saying anything of value right now", which is just childish levels of engagement, zero charitability, no self-reflection or willingness to understand. I was legitimately disgusted by that video. To clarify, I'm not siding with either Shapiro or JP on the ridiculous political takes about gender theory etc. What I'm saying is that the arguments that mainly JP brings up with regards to psychology (Shapiro is genuinely not worth mentioning here; he said that "CBT is the only legitimate therapy tradition" ) are deeply meaningful insights that are nested in the type of meta-theoretical understanding that is applauded around here. It's just a shame that he applies them in this way to fuel his politics.

This might have nothing to do with what you're referring to, but I think you can use it as a way to refer to different types of perception, cognition or consciousness that is also somewhat consistent with a physical understanding of dimensions. In our normal everyday reality, we tend to live moment to moment in 3 dimensions. The structure of moving from one moment of 3-dimensional experience to the next can be represented as a movement through the 4th dimension (time). Now, what the heck could the 5th or any higher dimension usefully represent? I think one example is psychic phenomena like precognition. Precognition is when you gather information from one part of 4th dimensional space to the next (from one moment to another) in a sort of discontinuous leap (a movement "outside" of ordinary 4-dimensional movement). This type of movement of information could be represented as a 5th dimensional movement. Why? Because it's is not a linear movement like the moment to moment 4th dimensional movement, but something else, something of a higher-order complexity. For example, to try to explain why you had that exact precognition at that exact moment is not as straightforward as for example trying to explain why you had the idea to go to the store when you saw that the fridge was empty, because the latter explanation is linear and local ("this caused this" etc.). On the other hand, why the hell did I dream about being chased by tornadoes during one of the biggest tornado outbreaks in history on the other side of the world? (this actually happened). When you feel the need to ask yourself "where did that information come from and why is it in my head?", it's a sign you're dealing with some higher dimensional phenomena (5th etc.). You can say that ordinary everyday thoughts tend to operate within the 3rd and 4th dimension, while discontinuous leaps (like insight, intuition, precognition) could be said to be of a higher dimensional quality. In summary, ordinary cognition is local and linear, and extraordinary cognition like intuition, precognition and other psychic phenomena tends to be global, non-local and non-linear. A closely related dichotomy is rationality vs. trans-rationality (and personal vs. trans-personal domains). I have a topic about some of my experiences of precognition (dreaming about future real-events) if you're interested: Now, what exactly is the structure of 5-dimensional movement? Why is it at a higher order of complexity than 4-dimensional movement? Well, people with psychic abilities (or people who self-report having regular experiences of psychic phenomena) tend to report that it's not "their" insight or "their" ability or even their "will". It's as if their ability is a part of a larger plan, something ultimately outside of their control (you can call it "God's plan" or "Love"). You also see this with artists who enter a state of flow, where suddenly they feel like they're channeling some higher intelligence that is not their own, and that they're simply a witness to it all. You can say that the post-4-dimensional complexity taps into the infinite intelligence of God at some level (in a sense that it defies explanation). After all, God's infinite being is an infinitely complex structure, and it transcends our ordinary, linear explanatory models (which after all are limited by our survival and evolutionary history; they're not at all capable of giving a comprehensive account of reality as a whole). So what is it exactly (the 5th dimension)? Well, it's simply the trans-personal and trans-rational levels of intelligence and complexity.

People often cherish the positive effects of nofap while ignoring the potential side effects like sleep problems, chronic stress, restlessness, bodily tightness, aggression, emotional numbness etc. Your body is intelligent and will tell you what it needs to maintain optimal functioning. The body follows natural cycles, and messing with these cycles (like the reproductive cycles) can impact other cycles like sleep. It's not just females that have a reproductive cycle. Male sexual behavior is also cyclical in its own way, which is driven by physiological mechanisms. Transcending these cycles cannot be done forcefully, only through growth. High consciousness people who are celibate don't have to work to maintain celibacy. It happens naturally. Don't got against your nature.