Interesting examples of BLUE

[How to be wise]

In the book ‘spiral dynamics’ it has some very interesting facts about stage blue. Firstly, that atheism can be in stage blue. In fact, in the book it is mentioned that many atheists are in fact stage blue, and not stage orange. I always thought that atheism was stage orange, but not according to Don Beck and Christopher Cowen. Secondly, we can also have blue feminists. This also surprised me because I thought that feminism was exclusively green, but what do you know. Feminism can manifest itself in stage blue, and again many feminists are stage blue, and not green. Thirdly that stage blue can manifest itself in both right and left wing. So the notion of right wings being blue and left wings being green can be safely discarded. Stage blue people can be in either right or left wing, or even “entrenched in moderation” as quoted in the book. So that leads me to believe that we can have some very different types of blue societies. Some blue societies can look a lot like green societies because of the shared values. Does anybody know of any examples of stage blue left-wingers or moderate people. Far too much we see stage blue people being portrayed as right wingers, but stage blue can of course take any position including what we call stage green or even yellow values. For example a stage blue society that focuses on knowledge and open mindedness. 

[Forestluv]

@How to be wise Ah yes, there are many nuances to SD. My understanding is: the levels are not the action/expression itself - the levels are the underlying "meme".

Consider someone who joins a diversity committee at their company:

An Orange-level person may join the diversity committee so that he "looks good" to improve his chances for a promotion

A Green-level person may join the diversity committee to promote equality and inclusion at her company

The hallmarks of Blue stage is "either / or" thinking. Right or wrong. Moral or immoral. Strict rules and laws.

Consider how the stages viewed the NFL player protest (NFL players kneeling during the anthem).

Blue Stage: Either / Or thinking. You are either American or anti-American. Standing during the national anthem is American, so kneeling during the national Anthem is anti-American.

Orange: How will NFL players kneeling affect our profit margin? Is viewership declining? Can we retain high profits off of commercials if the kneeling continues?

Green: The kneeling brings awareness to racial inequality in the country. By increasing awareness, we can move toward a more egalitarian and equal society.

 

[CreamCat]

@Serotoninluv A diversity committee in a company? It is going to accelerate politics in the company. Acceleration of politics results in faster rates of job termination and more back-stabbing. It will give leverages to employers by making it easier to divide and conquer and accelerate politics. To reduce the rate at which people are fired, politics need to be slowed down as much as possible. Slowing it down is good for workers. To me, diversity seems like just another way for employers to divide and conquer employees. You can ask employees whether they support meritocracy or diversity.

Workers slow down politics by not working too little or too much and overloading information channels with useless information to confuse employers.

Professional associations and unions make it harder to single out a single employee for termination by hiding individuals in teams.

By forcing employees to be aware of races, they become more divided. I think diversity in a group can be achieved by making it easier for anyone to participate and leave. Wikipedia doesn't make you aware of races, but it makes it easy for anyone to participate and leave. As a result, wikipedia has way more diversity than any closed system that forces people to consider diversity. I think an open system where people are free to join and leave is more conducive to diversity than a diversity committee.

An open system like wikipedia and the internet is infinitely diverse while a diversity committee is a closed system and is only finitely diverse. For example, wikipedia doesn't care whether you are an AI or a human or a dog. A diversity committee considers only a few human variables.

Our concept of diversity is pathetically narrow and finite and closed. Diversity in infinitely many dimensions is going to be way more diverse than our concept of diversity in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, and a few other variables.

In a sense, a diversity committee stifles diversity by focusing on only a few variables. I prefer open systems to whatever finite concepts of diversity people have.

It's a paradox of diversity. By focusing on diversity, you reduce diversity. That's because both racists and advocates of diversity focus on only a few variables.

A diversity committee is not diverse. The whole system of earth and reality includes diversity committee and is infinitely more diverse. The focus on diversity of a few visible human traits is only one among thousands of cultures on planet earth.

Edited September 18, 2018 by CreamCat

[Shadowraix]

When it comes to things like feminism and a lot of agendas, you have many layers.

Maybe this person has true green-like intentions but express actions more associated with blue?

Maybe they are using a green stage idea to push orange stage motives.

People REALLY like to play fair when it benefits them, so many may try to push the play fair agenda to raise their status and even topple the seesaw the other way showcasing their orange intentions.

Super interesting stuff. Strawmans are very common through blue stage manipulation. "If you don't support feminism then you must be anti feminist and therefore hate women!" ignoring the incredibly complex dynamic of language definitions vs political climate.

This kind of vs mentality is extremely common I find when I discuss an extremely sensitive and taboo topic. If im not on the 'kill them all' bandwagon then you are sympathizing with them and must be one yourself!

They make you an enemy where no enemy exists.

[Forestluv]

@CreamCat My point was not to analyze the value of a diversity committe. Rather, I just described with a simple example how it might be viewed from Orange and Green perspectives. 

Regarding my place of work: there had been 160 years of white privilege. Women and minorities were very rare and had virtually no power. Finally, a critical mass of white males realized things would not change unless action was taken to change institutional biases . There were reasons why the institution was doninated by white males for 160 years and why women and minorities were few and far between. These are deeply ingrained institutional biases that don’t get fixed with a few memos and rallies. All the upper-level positions and the entire board were white privileged males. Nothing changed decade after decade. We were finally allowed to form a diversity committe with teeth. Many initiatives from the committe have been adopted which have led to a complete overhual of the college. We know have women and minorities in upper level positions. We are one of the most multicultural institutions in our state. I’ve traveled to over 20 foreign countries and my workplace us now as diverse as any place I’ve traveled. We have workshops to increase awareness and promote cultural competence. We are now a multi-cultural community. These initiatives did not lead to divisions. Rather, it was our differences that brought us together. There is an integration of diversity including socio-economic, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, and life perspectives. When all this integrates, it’s beautiful. My workplace environment now is sooo much better than when it was all crusty white privileged men. And it took a lot of work and action to make these changes - much if which came from our diversity committee. 

[CreamCat]

@Serotoninluv What do you mean by minorities? In my country, asians are the absolute majority. Here, white people are a minority group. In USA, asians are a minority.

Majority advantages apply to every country. Every ethnic group has its own majority advantage somewhere. In triad, chinese people have the majority advantage. Women have their majority advantages in certain industries or certain departments of universities they like to inhabit, too.

In fact, my countrymen do not envy white people. When I hear of white privilege, I don't take it seriously. A lot of people living in my country feel that they are more privileged than most white people in USA. USA is becoming the richest third world country filled with poor people where medical insurance is fucked up and police officers steal money from citizens. I think white privileges are somewhat overrated. In my point of view, white people are being screwed along with other ethnic groups.

Perhaps, your university has no reason to favor middle-aged white men. I don't, either. However, I prefer forming new structures to terraforming existing institutions. My opinion is that universities should prioritize meritocracy over diversity. As long as the game is not rigged, meritocracy shouldn't reduce diversity. If the game is rigged in favor of white men, then a repair is going to be beneficial.

I don't care much about the race or gender or age of a professor. I care about the quality and personality of professor for the same reason that I care about leo's words and behaviors rather than leo gura's gender and race and age. I follow leo gura because he helps me get results.

I prefer meritocracy to diversity because meritocracy helps me take responsibility for results that I get. Diversity arguments don't seem particularly helpful for helping people take responsibility for their results. I've seen some lazy people who blame other people for their failures. Those lazy people could also blame white people or men in general. Some lazy men also blame women for lack of sexy girl friend. Diversity arguments should be carefully worded since they can be abused by lazy human egos.

Also, you should consider whether you might be nagging people who don't want to be professors to become professors. When a feminist nagged a woman to become a politician for diversity, the woman said she didn't want to become a politician. The woman said "Why don't you become a politician instead?". The feminist didn't want to become a politician, either. Thus, I care more about giving people what they want than about diversity.

I think different kinds of people gravitate toward different things, and diversity should be observed in the macro scale rather than in a university department or a single profession. I really don't like to think about micro-managing diversity. Now, I realize that I didn't like diversity arguments because I didn't like micromanagement.

Edited September 19, 2018 by CreamCat

[Forestluv]

@CreamCat For sure. What is considered "minority" is relative to the context of time and location. Another way to say it is "under-represented". For me, the concept of diversity is an integrated of lots of perspectives, personal life histories, ethnicity, gender, age etc.

I also think meritocracy has value. From my POV, it's best to integrate meritocracy and diversity. Problems arise with pure meritocracy or pure diversity. For example, in a pure meritocracy that just awards ability - who decides what "ability" is? Who decides what value and purpose is? How about deciding between experience and potential? There will be *diverse* views. A pure meritocracy gravitates toward privilege and elitism.

Blue and orange-level mindsets will resist green-level diversity perspectives. Blue will focus on "either / or" thinking. For example, that people are either hardworking or lazy. They will resist diversity initiatives because they see it as rewarding laziness. An orange-level mindset will resist diversity initiatives because they see it as intruding on personal freedoms. They see diversity initiatives as being micro-management - which is a threat to their personal freedom.

A green-level perspective sees diversity initiatives as promoting equality and inclusion. They may have good intentions, yet fail to see undesired impacts of their diversity initiatives.

A yellow-level perspective understands blue, orange and green level modes of thinking. A yellow perspective can see value and limitations at each level. Yellow sees the complexity of the issue and looks to integrate and connect dots between multiple perspectives within the 1st tier consciousness modes. 

[CreamCat]

@Serotoninluv Micro-management is a huge problem at workplaces. Employers like to micromanage, and employees hate micro-management. I hated micro-management at workplaces. I was subject to the most egregious degrees of micro-management when I was an indentured slave who couldn't escape. Sometimes, I couldn't even ask permission to go to toilet when I wanted to pee. The boss nitpicked every little detail, yelled at me, and slowed down my work to a halt. It was suffocating. It was a trauma. The boss was a sadist who just didn't care about getting results but enjoyed torturing employees.

Let me go meta.

There's diversity of approaches to diversity. My approach to diversity is to recognize diversity that's already there and growing.

You see a university that has only white professors, a university that has professors of diverse colors, a university that only has chinese or japanese professors, and so on. It's a form of diversity.

There's philosophical diversity, species diversity, geographical diversity, cultural diversity, and so on. 

There's also diversity of education system. Public schools and universities are only one of many ways to educate people. There's khan academy which replaces K-12 education. There are people like Leo Gura who teach specific topics deeply on the internet. Skillshare teaches various skills at cheap prices. Those internet alternatives to education have racial and gender diversity built in without having to micro-manage diversity. Those internet education businesses also have geographical diversity which universities and physical public schools can't have. They also allow financial diversity because they are cheap and affordable to poor people.

Intelligence diversity will lead to AIs that will take jobs from professors and make universities and public schools obsolete.

Even if you do nothing about diversity, diversity will explode in this century. In case of education, internet education and AI education will have racial, gender, and geographical diversity built in. No need to micro-manage. My life already has more diversity than your university where the focus is limited to racial and gender diversity. I got the degree of diversity that I have without having to work for it. You only have to recognize diversity that already exists and is growing.

Actually, if I had children, I would free them from public schools and universities so that my children would be free to figure out their life purpose and pursue it early in life. Starting to pursue life purpose early in life will save tons of my money and their time. My children will probably not even become wage slaves in the first place. I bet my hopes on internet education and my guidance.

The internet is more meritocratic and more diverse than schools and universities. My opinion is that universities are already somewhat obsolete unless you want to become a researcher, a lawyer, a medical doctor, an engineer, or a computer programmer. But, you can already become a competent computer programmer without going to universities if you work hard and learn hard. You're clinging to an institution that will become totally obsolete in this century. Actually, AIs will take the vast majority of jobs from us, so there will be no human lawyer, no human professor, and no university to worry about.

For me, there is no need to care about diversity. Diversity is already taken care of in my life.

Also, recognize that there's diversity of approaches to life and raising children. My approach is vastly different from yours. Don't worry about lack of diversity. You will always miss out on many dimensions of diversity.

I'd like to say

Quote

Let go! Have faith in reality!

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by CreamCat

[Forestluv]

That all sounds good. We just have different life histories and different perspectives.

[CreamCat]

16 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

For example, in a pure meritocracy that just awards ability - who decides what "ability" is? Who decides what value and purpose is? How about deciding between experience and potential? There will be *diverse* views. A pure meritocracy gravitates toward privilege and elitism.

I know why pure meritocracy can't exist in the current system.

First, merits are difficult to measure in knowledge work in the short term. In knowledge work, merits should be measured over months and years because of ups and downs of daily results.

Second, in the current corporate system, managers distort perception of merits. They can do so because people are wage slaves and cannot escape corporations. Managers also damage perceived performance of employees who disobey managers. In companies, those who know how to play politics can increase perceived merits. Thus, political ability + political power + favoritism = merits in companies. People know true merits are not measured in companies, but they cannot escape due to financial obligations. In graduate schools, those who cannot suck up to professors fail. In medical schools, those who cannot suck up to excessive overwork are expelled. Most professions are more about sucking up professionally than about merit.

When it becomes possible for people to say no to jobs, it will be far easier to measure merits. I think universal basic income can make it possible for people to say no to bad jobs. Merits cannot be measured correctly when people must produce short-term results or lose their jobs.

I think we should push for rights to say no to jobs instead of diversity at workplaces. Being able to say no to jobs is far better than inclusion at companies!

Why fight for inclusion when you can fight for exclusion from schools, universities, and jobs? Why fight for inclusion into the system that enslaves you through indoctrination? Exclusion is better than inclusion sometimes. The fight for inclusion is simply a fight for financial security in disguise. Financial security through jobs is going to fail soon due to full automation. Financial security through basic income is another way.

Let's say that if you are matter, I am anti-matter.

Edited September 20, 2018 by CreamCat

[How to be wise]

@Serotoninluv When you go to stage green mobs, strict anti-trump rules is what you normally see. Then what difference is there between antifa and a stage blue left wing mob?