What are the odds that you, an average dude, is Tier 2? Not very high.

[Emerald]

  On 4/12/2025 at 7:04 PM, Davino said:

@Emerald What could we do to make those men more open about green?

It might involve feeling and being vulnerable. There might be too much of a masculine blueprint and momentum to let go of that. Maybe there's a way to green where men feel empowered and masculine. Or maybe it's the time for them to recognise the feminine in them to which they resist and surrender more. In which case, I still have no clarity to make this jump easier.

What about women that are in green in a safe zone of yoga and innocent hippieness?

I think that the reason why men tend to resist green is because green takes Masculine-principled values off of the pedestal and critiques their value within the context of contemporary society (things like strength, competition, achievement, trials by fire, hierarchical thinking, dominance, conquest, etc.)

In the context of earlier societal structures, these qualities are highly valuable over Feminine-principled qualities... as they help our survival in pre-industrial times. But these values reach a point of diminishing returns very quickly once the progress from the industrial era blooms (which is the impetus for Stage Green to come online in the collective)

And it upends male dominance narratives, which are easily fetishized and dangle like a carrot that many men are invested in chasing as it is seen as a salve to shame and disempowerment that men feel in Stages Orange and below. And in this image is a promise to have all needs and wants fulfilled (money, attractive women, respect, status, power, etc.) through embodying this idealized Stage Blueified Masculine image that Stage Orange dangles there as the ultimate meaningful goal for a man to pursue.

So, many men hold very tightly to Stage Orange and the idealized image of Stage Blue Masculinity that Stage Orange asserts as ideal Masculinity... where men can imagine having the power imbalances of Stage Blue WITHOUT all the added responsibility and hardship of living in a less developed society. 

Plus, it can even be difficult to relinquish an attachment to Masculine values over Feminine values for a woman who's patriarchally conditioned... despite that her gains are much more evident.

I had a hard time making this shift myself. It took me like 10 years to relinquish the idea that Masculinity is better than Femininity... and all the archetypally Masculine and Feminine values that aren't even labeled as such in the collective that go along with that. 

So, it can be extra difficult to relinquish and deconstruct these values for men because it feels like golden handcuffs... and losing Stage Orange can feel like a permanent loss of power. And Stage Green is rife with questioning the long-held valuation of Masculine values over Feminine values... and of men over women.

The main thing that will help men deconstruct from Stage Orange is to recognize that the power you get from moving up the spiral is far greater than sticking around in Stage Orange... or in larping as Stage Blue. 

And we begin to see this already... as in the past 10 years, there's been a renaissance of out and proud polarized Masculinity that you see in Manosphere guys, Andre Tate, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, pick-up artists, grind-set entrepreneurs, tech bros, conservative influencers, etc.

Before, there was a lot of mystery around this because it was shrouded in the collective Shadow. And 10 years ago, when it first began to break above the surface, a bunch of men were like "Thank God! We're sooo back!"

But now, 10 years later, seemingly at the apex of its power... it is laid bare as insecure and easily lampooned by comedians.

And that is how we learn to leave it behind collectively. 

Edited April 12 by Emerald

[Elliott]

Orange caring about social issues is not yellow, it's often just poorish orange people wanting help for their orange aspirations.

Like young people caring about the environment is not green, it's self preservation. Or women caring about minority issues.

Orange, orange, orange.

People are here for personal improvement, there's like 3 people that barely post that might be green, and they are not hippies, they'reintellectuals, hippy is a religion. Intellectualism, philosophy, understanding, is useful for orange. I mean hell, most of you are coaches, you're literally here to make a business out of this.

There are no yellow discussions on this forum. A forum would be a hard place for yellow thinking to even exist, it exists in books and essays. Imagine authors digesting some peers essays, and then writing a book in response. It's deep, it would take a week to digest an idea, not 3 minutes and reply with a post, you have to draw it out and research and think, you'd write a notebook on the topic, not just check your post's grammar.

 

Edited April 12 by Elliott

[Nilsi]

  On 4/12/2025 at 3:45 PM, Nilsi said:

I’m not really in the mood to argue or defend myself - but I do feel some responsibility to clarify what I mean when I speak from Deleuze.

Deleuze isn’t “reducing everything to difference.” His concept of difference [di.fe.ʁɑ̃s] isn’t some abstract label you slap onto things. It’s an invitation - a kind of metaphysical tenderness - to encounter the world as something irreducibly strange, dynamic, and in excess of any concept or system we try to impose on it.

Difference, for him, isn’t just variation. It’s the very condition of reality unfolding on its own terms, without asking for our permission, our approval, or our categories. Yes, we inevitably reduce that complexity when we speak, think, or act - that’s the cost of being human. But there’s also another posture: not reduction, but reverence.

It’s not about coming to conclusions. It’s not about solving or fixing anything. It’s about cultivating a kind of useless presence - an ethics of perception, of staying with the unassimilable, of being touched by what resists us without needing to control it.

If there’s anything “practical” in Deleuze, it’s this:

to remain attuned to the singular, the inhuman, the unspeakably weird pulse of existence - and to let it shape us, rather than forcing it to fit.

In that sense, it’s not a theory. It’s a kind of empathic fidelity - to life, to others, to experience itself.

Actually, let me put some more meat on this bone.

The ethical posture I’m advocating here is closer to that of thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Susan Sontag, and Roland Barthes - an ethics grounded in attentiveness, in reading the world as one would read a text: not for what it symbolizes, not for what it “really” means, but for how it speaks in its own voice. And by “text,” I mean this in the broadest possible sense: a literal written text, yes, but also the view from a window, an encounter with a stranger, a piece of music, a sexual moment. Anything that presents itself to perception.

Sontag might call this an erotic reading - sensing a thing in the fullness of its presence, complexity, and singularity, rather than reducing it to a function, a code, or a symptom.

This stands in contrast to the more “traditional” hermeneutic ethics - the ethics of Plato, Jung, Lacan - where every experience is ultimately traced back to some higher form, archetype, or hidden structure. You look out the window at a vast landscape, and instead of being with it, it becomes “landscapeness,” a Platonic echo, a Jungian symbol of emergence, or a Lacanian symptom of industrial alienation.

But the real point is: you can’t avoid taking a stance. The moment you look, the moment you sense, some ethical orientation is already happening. And chances are, you’re already committed - perhaps chronically - to one way of seeing over another.

[Emerald]

  On 4/12/2025 at 7:04 PM, Davino said:

@Emerald What could we do to make those men more open about green?

It might involve feeling and being vulnerable. There might be too much of a masculine blueprint and momentum to let go of that. Maybe there's a way to green where men feel empowered and masculine. Or maybe it's the time for them to recognise the feminine in them to which they resist and surrender more. In which case, I still have no clarity to make this jump easier. (In my life green came with a woman that forced me to feel and with being vegetarian)

What about women that are in green in a safe zone of yoga and innocent hippieness?

As another note on this, it's important to understand that people stay holding onto a stage of development because they feel like that stage will empower them more than the latter stages.

It's not true. It's a mistake that people make. But moving beyond the current phase requires a deconstruction and a feeling of losing power to make that transition. And there is a need to grieve the loss of the story that each phase tells.

But with women, very few Green women are truly attached to yoga and innocent hippiness. Most women are attached to the dream of world without oppression and injustice... and a world where women are not oppressed for our gender.

The transition of women from Green to Yellow requires us to face into the wounds of disempowerment from earlier phases... and to sort the wheat from the chaff with regards to the Feminine.

For men, it's about losing the idea of Masculine/male superiority and embracing the Feminine... which men have been told makes them a little bitch and not worthy of women or existence.

So, men's transition from Orange to Green feels disempowering... and women's transition from Green to Yellow/Turquoise brings her right into the raw wounds of historical oppression and rape of the Feminine.

For men, it reads as a loss of a power advantage and an evening of the playing field. For women, it feels like the loss of the newly gained even playing field and a descent into hell.

But when you do let yourself descend into hell, you find a much deeper power than that which is in Green.

 

[BlueOak]

  On 4/12/2025 at 7:04 PM, Davino said:

  What could we do to make those men more open about green?

Move to a community or peer group with more green in it. Where these values are what is being connected and interacted with. Its critical for Stage Green.  Its difficult to foster communal ideas within a community resisting it, whereas it's easier to isolate in yellow or orange and go your own way. 

You can do this through education or parenting, but in my experience, in the last 20 years we've actually rolled backwards in many key areas (while making progress in others). Women tend to form and carry social connections more readily, so they have an easier time surrounding themselves with many like-minded people. A man can do this, I just find women on the whole able to do it more naturally and easily. Ditto emotional development, whereas men move logically, at least in western societies. Valuing emotional understanding more in relationships (everything is a relationship not just people) could be a key consideration, as it's deeply required for stage green to bond to those nurturing caring values toward how they relate to their 'external' world.

As for yellow, other than repeated exposure to multiple perspectives (as perhaps an AI could replicate), and parenting or educating the acceptance of these perspectives as critical for understanding a more complete picture of yourself, I think it's just getting out and experiencing a lot of the world. Teaching openess and critical thinking etc.

It's also about showing the limits of green, or orange, while offering a more comprehensive understanding of the value of each stage. You don't get out of a stage, you just build on it. 

So the next time I say I can't afford a relationship for example, which is the clearest demonstration of a part of me that's stuck in orange, and is actually wrapped up in fear of inadequacies of self-worth if you read between the lines. Someone could come along and tell me how addressing those issues of self worth is going to be liberating, connecting and give me a sense of companionship I won't find alone. Then if you want to hit the yellow stages you could model how it might affect other areas of my life at the same time etc with examples. If that makes sense.

Such as how being a father fosters qualities of leadership, and the protector personality in people, or how it motivates your drive to earn for your children/wife, or the spiritual connection between two individuals in an intimate setting and how that can enhance your entire being, or the integration within society as a whole, which I see parents share with not only relating to each other but also in the mutual development of the community they are in etc 

So someone could sit me down and just say put your orange aside, and the fears of your self-worth within a relationship for a bit as it's massively limiting you. Because that's all that stops personal development: knowing the right path and fearing to take it.

Edited April 12 by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

  On 4/12/2025 at 6:22 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Oh really? So the telling signs are what somebody does in the world rather than what somebody is capable of understanding? Interesting...

No. I never said that.

  Quote

My point with this thread is essentially that if you let for example Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson spend a week learning about SD and make them go larp as Tier 2

This is such a weird way of framing it.

Ben Shapiro and JP are incapable of truly. understanding Yellow. There is a big difference between learning it as a school assignment vs actually understanding it to the point where it changes how your mind works and the worldview you hold.

You're using the word "understanding" too loosely. Like, Ben Shapiro in capable of "understanding" solipsism. Doesn't mean he really gets it.

Edited April 12 by Leo Gura

[Nivsch]

  On 4/12/2025 at 7:56 PM, BlueOak said:

So someone could sit me down and just say put your orange aside, and the fears of your self-worth within a relationship for a bit as it's massively limiting you. Because that's all that stops personal development: knowing the right path and fearing to take it.

The opposite - investigate those fears and work with them directly. This isn't limiting but what you need to develop further.

[Daniel Balan]

Hi @Leo Gura! Can spiral colors combine to form a new stage? For example, could Green and Red traits mix to create something like Yellow? If I show both Red and Green traits, does that mean I'm partly Yellow? Or could Blue and Green traits combine to resemble Turquoise? Or combining spiral colours is not meant to blend into other stages like how real life colours work? I'm really curious and would love to understand!

Edited April 12 by Daniel Balan

[Carl-Richard]

  On 4/12/2025 at 8:17 PM, Leo Gura said:

No. I never said that.

This is such a weird way of framing it.

Ben Shapiro and JP are incapable of truly. understanding Yellow. There is a big difference between learning it as a school assignment vs actually understanding it to the point where it changes how your mind works and the worldview you hold.

How do you know when it has changed how somebody's mind works and that they're not just larping?

Edited April 12 by Carl-Richard

[Alexop]

  On 4/12/2025 at 9:00 PM, Carl-Richard said:

How do you know when it has changed how somebody's mind works and that they're not just larping?

ask them trap questions that will reveal their biases and partisanship. When they aren't able to see perspectives as they are, just perspectives, and they put thier worldview as asbolutely better, then that's not Yellow. 

[Carl-Richard]

  On 4/12/2025 at 9:24 PM, Alexop said:

ask them trap questions that will reveal their biases and partisanship.

So you don't know if any celebrity intellectual you haven't personally spoken to is Yellow?

Edited April 12 by Carl-Richard

[Yimpa]

  On 4/12/2025 at 10:02 PM, Carl-Richard said:

So you don't know if any celebrity intellectual you haven't personally spoken to is Yellow?

I know that SpongeBob is Yellow 

[Elliott]

  On 4/12/2025 at 10:02 PM, Carl-Richard said:

So you don't know if any celebrity intellectual you haven't personally spoken to is Yellow?

You're making a false dichotomy, obviously we can only identify an advanced person we don't know personally, by their public work. That doesn't mean unknown people are not advanced. 

Public figures are often tested.

Edited April 12 by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

  On 4/12/2025 at 10:17 PM, Elliott said:

You're making a false dichotomy, obviously we can only identify an advanced person we don't know personally, by their public work. That doesn't mean unknown people are not advanced. 

Public figures are often tested.

So again, it's about work, wordly occupation, doing things in the world?

[Elliott]

  On 4/12/2025 at 11:18 PM, Carl-Richard said:

So again, it's about work, wordly occupation, doing things in the world?

Or, as in public work I also meant interviews, questioning, or statements.

Just like you posit that people can larp tier 2, they can also, like Musk for example, be a futurist con-artist. Then you see him questioned in an interview and the wheels fall off.

I think it would be a holistic assessment. Some people's works are not even catalyzed until after they're dead, that doesn't negate them being genius when they were living just because they weren't recognized then.

Edited April 13 by Elliott

[Leo Gura]

  On 4/12/2025 at 9:00 PM, Carl-Richard said:

How do you know when it has changed how somebody's mind works and that they're not just larping?

You are expecting too much.

These labels are rough ballparks based on what we see of a person. It is not a reading of their soul.

How do you know someone isn't larping as a progressive but is actually a secret Nazi?

You don't ever really know anyone through a TV screen. You judge public figures based on how they present themselves over time.

Ben Shaprio cannot even understand that rising sea levels means people will lose their houses.

Edited April 13 by Leo Gura

[LordFall]

  On 4/11/2025 at 2:00 PM, Carl-Richard said:

People are attracted to interesting-sounding and wise-sounding ideas, but that does not mean they are able to grasp them to the full extent. I'm willing to bet that if you interviewed random people on the street giving them a short briefing on SD and ask about their thoughts about it, the vast majority would say "wow, that's so cool, that makes so much sense!".

Then of course, based on that surface level understanding, you would have many who would tweak the theory based on their own biases (like you are doing right now) by for example "why is Green over Orange?" or "I think conservatism is Yellow" or "I think I'm a bit of everything". The bottom line is, it's always possible to pull the model down to your level, and people who come across this forum which has no entry requirements but a few clicks on a screen are not exempt from that.

I already mentioned what I think are the two best ways to identify whether you are at a certain stage, but another one would be to notice how you deal with everyday problems or problems in your life. For example, do you use the same solution for most problems (e.g. "I simply write down everything I find valuable"), or do you intentionally tailor the solutions to the particular problem (e.g. "I only write down what I need to do for today")? Do you hold two things as mutually exclusive (e.g. "I want to persevere on pursuing my goals but be kind with myself") when they could actually be compatible?

The way your mind deals with concrete issues is a much stronger test of your actual capacities than regurgitating a set of talking points purely in the abstract. It shows what your mind opts for when it's connected to your inner drives and impulses and when it's presented with something you don't have a pre-set answer for.

You'd be surprised I think being attracted to those ideas is already signs of an open mind. I've talked to people that said that world peace is a stupid idea and would never work. Plenty of people would be dumb founded by the ideas of peace and love of stage green and do not genuinely think that getting along makes sense. 
 

I know some people that talking about trump deporting people almost turns them on, it’s clearly a sign of stage red/blue thinking. 

I like the idea that you revert back to your lowest stage when push come to shove, that makes sense to me. I think in general hearing about models of reality does literally move you up a bit up the spiral in and of itself, plenty of people live their lives without even hearing of other paradigms. 

Edited April 13 by LordFall

[ExploringReality]

@Leo Gura

Ashwaganda, Cordycep, and lions mane mushrooms. 

 

[Carl-Richard]

  On 4/13/2025 at 1:54 AM, Leo Gura said:

You are expecting too much.

These labels are rough ballparks based on what we see of a person. It is not a reading of their soul.

How do you know someone isn't larping as a progressive but is actually a secret Nazi?

Easy: you look at the before and after the larp has begun, before learning about SD. Were you talking about roughly the same things, or did you suddenly get fixated on a new set of beliefs? Was there always a principled and embodied stance underlying it, or is it pure identity?

I remember maybe a couple of weeks before my friends introduced me to weed at 16-17 (and I had no knowledge that it would happen then), I had a conversation about drug criminalization with some other friends, and I was speaking critically about it and claimed that maybe weed is not as harmful as it's portrayed and that punishing people for using it makes little to no sense.

And then after I was introduced to weed, I felt a sense of pride of having held that position before I was introduced to it and before it became a part of my identity. I had sort of reasoned it out of myself. This is sort of the same dynamic I'm pointing towards: is it really you, or is it something you have to believe now because of your newly adopted identity?

And yes, as everybody is pointing out, I acknowledge pretty well that learning about the right ideas can facilitate development. But I'm getting more and more wary of the cases where it doesn't.

Edited April 13 by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

  On 4/13/2025 at 2:21 AM, LordFall said:

. I think in general hearing about models of reality does literally move you up a bit up the spiral in and of itself, plenty of people live their lives without even hearing of other paradigms. 

But, it might also get people stuck focusing on stages higher than they can understand very well, trapping them by them thinking they should be there or are there, confusing them and wasting their time. 

To me, these models might only be useful for people already tier 2. If you listen to Wilber, tier 2 is a learner, a humble learner.