Carl-Richard

I think we agree that all stages retain some aspects of the previous stages within them and that there are other aspects which are emergent (not reducible to earlier aspects). I take more issue with the description that the individualism in Orange is derived from a Red subcomponent. It's not that I think your understanding of SD is inconsistent, but it's rather about the way in which the word "individualism" is used that I think is unclear. Firstly just to clarify, and as you probably know, the individualist/collectivist dichotomy is of course not black-and-white (all the stages have their own expression of each). The issue however is that Beige is an individualistic stage that occurs before Red. Surely, Red must have a Beige subcomponent, but you wouldn't say that Red derives its individualism from Beige. Do you see what I mean? That's why I prefer for clearness sake to just call it "Orange individualism" and "Red individualism", because while they're interrelated with eachother as "individualism", they're not reducible to eachother. Orange individualism is democratic and rational while Red individualism is machivellian and impulsive. Likewise, Beige individualism is primal and instinctive. If you think that I'm the one who is being unclear, I would like to hear exactly how the Red subcomponent creates the individualism of Orange .

Do Afghan refugees have a bad attitude?

How do you get to Orange? Through Blue. In an Orange society, you might not meet a lot of Blue adults, but you will hopefully be surrounded by other children as you grow up and go through the same developmental altitudes together. Your parents will also employ stage-specific techniques throughout your upbringing. You don't discipline an impulsive 3 year old child with rational arguments ("do this, not that, because y reason" - Orange) or even rules ("do this, not that - no reason" - Blue). You have to mirror their developmental stage and be more situational, physical and reactive (clear signals, stern voice, "no!" - Red). A 3 year old doesn't abstract well over time, so giving him rules to follow will not help. In fact, this problem can last well past teenage years even in modern societies. Using reason and following rules requires a certain level of cognitive development, and we all start at the lower stages and go through the higher stages. Red responds to dominance and strength, Blue responds to authority and rules, and Orange responds to logic and reason. For example, Red doesn't care about the authority of the cops (only if they employ a situational display of dominance). Orange understands the utility of the authority of the cops, but it doesn't trust it blindly like Blue does. Each stage is also a reaction to the problematic aspects of the previous stages. Blue is a reaction to the excesses of Red (dominance without constraints leads to chaos) and Orange is a reaction to the excesses of Blue (constraints without reasoning leads to tyranny). When you value reason over tradition/rules, there emerges a new type of individualism which understands the preceding collectivism in a new light, which is why it's not reducible to earlier forms of individualism. Orange is a reaction to Blue and not reducible to Red, because Red doesn't understand Blue.

Orange individualism is a reaction to Blue collectivism. It's not reducible to Red individualism. Red doesn't care about democracy, individual rights, rationality over dogma.

Science as we know it today has its roots in Greek rationalism and the departure from the mythic worldview of tradition, lineage, dogma, stories. The realization was that the stories of the collective are insufficent as sensemaking tools and that reason (rationality) is superior. Reason stands on its own merits, independent of tradition, class or power, and originates within the mind of the individual. It doesn't matter from who's mind it comes from, whether it's a priest or a peasant, as long as it's of sound reasoning. In principle, this dismantled the epistemological monopoly of the Church (while in reality, the Church became the head of the scientific enterprise for the next two millennia), and gave the power to the people. This is why Greek rationality went hand in hand with Greek democracy. That said, the thinkers of Ancient Greece only sowed the seeds for the Orange we see today. It took another 1000 years of medieval squabbles before we finally laid the mythic ghost to rest (meanwhile the same level of dogmatism is still alive and well today within the current scientific institutions). You say you believe the purpose of science is the betterment of the collective, or in other words survival. Well, so was the purpose of religion, myths, stories. Everything humans do is aimed at survival, and humans are innately collectivistic (despite how much libertarians want to deny it), so it's very rare that anybody doesn't act with at least some definition of a collective in mind (be it a severely contracted or expanded form). A businessman will maybe say "I'm doing what is best for my company, my community, the economy", and a scientist will say "I'm doing what is best for my faculty, my university, my field of study". It's nevertheless all self-centered at the end of the day. The businessman is trying to earn money for his family and so is the scientist. Maybe the scientist is working on a cure for cancer or some technology that will save the world, but there will always be a businessman who is also working on getting it out to the public (corporate management, financing research, distribution etc.).

Jordan Belford and Neil deGrasse Tyson both make decisions based on rationality, pragmatism and secular values like democracy, individual rights and liberty. They don't believe in fairies, mysticism or the spiritual importance of religious rituals or following the correct theological tradition, and they look at the world through a realist-materialist lens (the world exists "out there" and is made out of matter). With that said, Jordan Belfort, a white collar criminal, is a caricature of a Orange businessman, so of course Neil deGrasse Tyson comes better off with that comparison. There are different facets to all stages. For example, there is Stage Red business and Stage Red "science" (a better word would be "epistemology"). Orange business expresses a particular set of values (democracy, individual rights, liberty, capitalism) which can be described as individualistic. However, Red is also individualistic, but it has a different flavor ("might makes right", impulsivity over rationality etc.). Orange epistemology is very "scientific", but not just any type of scientific, but a very particular kind, namely positivism, mechanism, reductionism, rationalism; analysis -- understanding things by breaking them into pieces. On the other hand, Tier 2 science is constructivistic, systemic, holistic, integrative; synthesis -- understanding things by looking at the relationships between the pieces.

Joe Rogan is not deeply invested in truth. The context is not compatible.

There is a communication theory course I'm taking that is explictly based on systems thinking and holism, people like Gregory Bateson and Fritjof Capra. The books are in Norwegian though ?

Become a social ecologist and sow the seeds for a new future, but remember that we need Green for fertile soil

This is false. All small selves are fundamentally The Big Self (God). The issue only arises when you create a separation between yourself and other people. All separation is secondary. The fundamental nature of reality is One. All people are imagination, but so are you. When there is no separation, there is no malintent, no hate, no exclusion or deliberate mistreatment, because that would be to mistreat yourself.

Lol sorry, I meant to say "scoring higher/lower than 50% of people means you have a median score", not "scoring 50% higher (...)" . If the answer is still no, then why?

The idea that for synchronicity to matter, it has to be a real phenomena that operates under the model of cause and effect, is in my experience not the case. Sometimes, I feel that a synchronicity can remind me about something I've forgotten or shine light on something I'm ignoring, in which case I interpret it as just another example of the many intelligent ways in which we know ourselves.

This usually doesn't end well...

Just perfect ?

Maybe the word I was looking for is "median" and not "average" (scoring higher/lower than 50% of people means you have a median score)

I've heard all of their songs way too many times

Porcupine Tree is my favorite band I love metal at the gym, but my taste has gotten mellower over time, leaning more towards rock/jazz.

Incredible explanation of how telepathy is a "visual language" in the first 15 minutes. Psychedelics increase the awareness of changes in face, body, emotions and context (visual aspects of communication) to such an extent that telepathy (communication without deliberate signalling) is possible. In other words, the increased ability to empathize (to "feel the other") melts the interpersonal boundaries into a shared experience. It's not so much an ethereal transmission of thoughts as a synchronous cognitive construction caused by the increased fidelity of stimuli/perception and similar dictionary units (hence why friends and relatives are better at telepathy than strangers -- and empathy for that matter).

In theory, technology is not simply a product of human brains. It's a product of geology, climate, flora and fauna, culture etc.

Ahh I see. I had some intuition about that but I'm a bit dense ?. So you don't get an average score by being placed in the middle of the distribution, but it nevertheless tells you about your placement in that distribution.

Acting like a normal human: not going too long without food, overeating, creating tension in the body, subpar posture, don't sit too still, keep your mind occupied at all times. The worst part about this is that I always feel resistance against fully immersing myself in a song or a movie, and feeling emotionally detached. It's not good for my health. The way I describe it is that a normal human maintains their sense of self by having a natural resistance to some things but less to others (which they're not conscious of and don't have to think about), meanwhile I have to maintain a steady baseline of resistance which is generally much weaker and has less fluctuations but which doesn't allow me to have deep, discriminate passion for particular things (which used to be music and guitar). Because what happens when I get too immersed in guitar playing, I start sliding down the path of ego death ?

Gotta say there is a great diversity of interpretations of the results ? A score of 2.1 is an average score, not "50% above average" (whatever that means).

I was given the choice during an university lecture 1.5 years ago, or rather it jumped up behind me and tried to force me into submission, but I kept holding on, really hard. I spent a full year of silently struggling to regain a sense of self, and I'm still on unstable grounds. Basically, the choice you felt you were given and had to turn down in fear, for some it's not just a choice -- it's a reality. What you said, "May I one day have the courage to give up my own will for God's. This is the ultimate act of faith.", resonates with me deeply. This is my quest.

@IAmReallyImportant Again, no idea what you're talking about

You're not average just because you fall within the green area. You have to take all the data into account to determine the average, which means it will actually be somewhere outside the green area.