Carl-Richard

I would look at the adherence to Islam as a consequence of the level of development, not the other way around. Of course having a well-established religion creates a "temporal lag" in their development, but that is inevitable.

If we're talking on a national level, Saudi Arabia is more red-blue. Purple-red would be something like ISIS. If there are no state laws present, no modern infrastructure or no allied states, then we're talking about purple-red tribal conquest. Saudia Arabia has modern infrastructure, state laws and allies. If we're talking on a demographical level, then sure - maybe some purple aswell.

Musical innovator and virtuoso who has broken out of the classical stylistic boundaries of that genre. He also goes against the typical macho rockstar persona by embracing feminity and emotionality:

It's OK if you don't see the overlap between parts of the Actualized.org community and the gaming community, but you don't have to be a dick about it. His death brought a surge of mental health awareness in that community, and you can appreciate that as an outsider if you care about global issues. Online communities are infact global communities, and initiatives like Dr. K's stream is much more impactful than say Leo's youtube channel in terms of outreach. Have some perspective.

He was the first big streamer on Twitch, legendary World Of Warcraft player and loved by the community. It's like asking: "People die every second. Why do we have to care about the death of Michael Brooks?". He was also one of the first guests on Dr. K's stream, which introduced his mission of spreading mental health awareness to the community.

That just means you haven't integrated those aspects of yourself properly,

I want to get a better picture of what is really going on: How would you define the IDW (and the left) in terms of values? What beefs or main points of disagreement do you feel are most important? What does either side have to learn from each other? What are they both missing? The IDW would be people like Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin etc.. The left is vast, but to mention some people: Sam Seder, Michael Brooks (RIP), David Pakman, Kyle Kulinski, Vaush etc.. I'm also interested in especially Sam Harris' beef with Noam Chomsky (disagreements about foreign policy). What is really going on there? Is it a good example of this phenomena? Please sprinkle some SD into the analysis aswell

These are my observations: Sam Harris' built his whole career on his reaction to 9/11, and his beef with Islam and leftist foreign policy stems from there. That made him very attached to the idea of the importance of beliefs and how they inform people's actions. The left is more concerned about how historical events determine the expression of those beliefs. If Sam Harris used his own beliefs to analyse himself, he is opposed to Islam and the left because of his beliefs. If he were to use the left's analysis, he felt that 9/11 threatened his existence and responded by criticizing the beliefs of Islam and the left, and that made him express those particular beliefs. More generally, Sam has adopted a more eurocentric lens as a survival response, which makes him at odds with worldcentric green. This ties into the "we need to protect western enlightenment values" sentiment that is so prevalent on the IDW.

He doesn't practice what he preaches.

That was just a coincidence. I didn't have any alterior motives with the frog other than the expressions

@Demeter More surprises, more potential for chaos and delusion. Everything comes with a price.

People who hold valid concerns against psychedelics know about the danger of getting lost in the weeds so to speak, and they don't want to risk it. The meditation-only route is simpler on its surface (not easier), and that appeals to some people. You can do a lot of work with a hammer, but you can also hurt yourself with it. Then again, you have to take chances if you want to grow.

It's impossible for it not to be so.

My stepmother moved from Portland, Oregon to Norway a couple of years ago #funfact

Yourself.

You also don't truly "exit" a stage once you've unlocked the next one. It only keeps deepening.

*boss music*

The stages in Tier 2 aren't prevalent in today's society, which means that children can't start to absorb it through cultural osmosis in the same way like stage green in say Norway. That is mostly why there are no ages listed on yellow or turquiose. The age brackets provided in the model is the average age where most people unlock that stage given that their culture allows for it, and they only apply relative to the current world we live in: For example, a teenager won't necessarily unlock orange unless the society around him is orange or above. Even if your society is orange, that doesn't mean you'll be orange either. Likewise, not every person will enter Tier 2. In 100 years, the same age brackets may not apply any longer. I feel like you're expecting too much from the model. It's not an universal, rock-solid, black-and-white, "this is how it is for every single person" type of model. Every statement you make regarding SD needs to have numerous of caveats. It's important to note when we're dealing with averages, groups, individuals, facets, lines etc.. Childhood development is more rapid than adult development, but you can still "level up" in SD as an adult, just slower on average. It was actually initially conceptualized as an adult developmental model, but it applies to children aswell.

If 5-MeO-DMT is an anti-psychotic then chocolate is a weight loss product

In regards to stage turquoise, it applies to less than 1% of the population. The most developed countries are at best getting established in green and maybe touching at yellow in some places. These countries have well-established civil liberties and are also moving towards a more socialist economy and focusing on general welfare for all citizens.