French Revolution and Spiral Dynamics

[now is forever]

3 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Yes. That has been his point from the beginning. 

The problem that I see with this is that you don't treat the root of the problem. It is a quick fix. By perpetuating a nefarious habit for yourself, you get trapped in a echo chamber. Curing would require awareness and then the elimination of the pattern.

Basically, giving 2D CP to pedo is the equivalent of giving severe heroin addict their fix as part of a recovery plan. It might be done for a while, but you want to get them out of that ASAP.

Same for the low taste free porn for normies.

oh - hope no one got confused. i was talking about teenager education. 

pedophily is another loop. i guess my thoughts on the problem are more radical so i don’t tell them.

[now is forever]

@Serotoninluv guess she didn’t talk about discussions, only. but she also didn’t vote for touchunderstanding.

well maybe some back massage classes with mixed gender, could be an option. maybe not, maybe separated gender. at least getting some tools.

Edited October 10, 2018 by now is forever

[Annoynymous]

@Emerald I have just read your reply and preparing myself to read again. It's quite complex writing! I have never thought of this issue in the way you described. It has opened some new perspectives to me.

I assume that you are at stage yellow. Lovely to read

Edited October 10, 2018 by Annoynymous

[SFRL]

@Emerald what @TomDashingPornstar was aiming at is men very often losing access to their children after divorce.

And having to pay alimony many many years after a divorce. Even if let's say for example she was not loyal to him, and it was her idea to get a divorce.

Edited October 10, 2018 by SFRL

[TomDashingPornstar]

@Annoynymous It's complex because it's a massive projection.

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by TomDashingPornstar

[Forestluv]

8 hours ago, TomDashingPornstar said:

@Emerald Is there any area of society where you think maybe straight men don't have it better than everyone else?

 

@Emerald I agree with your essay on male - female power dynamics and I'm trying to think of a case where men "don't have it better". The closest I can think of is child custody after divorce.  Traditionally in the U.S., women were seen as the nurturing mother that provided child care while the men worked to provide financial support. So after divorce it seemed like women were given preference for custody share and men had to fight for equal custody rights (especially in the conservative south of the U.S.). I know we have progressed in this area over the last couple of decades, yet would you say that overall there is gender equality for child custody (assuming both parents are healthy)? This is anecdotal, but my brother, who lives in South Carolina, has had to go to ridiculous lengths in court trying to gain full custody from an unfit mother. During the process, the mother has broken custody laws, she has snapped into fits of rage and aggression - she has been caught threatening and verbally abusing the children. My brother has spent years working with lawyers, police officers and psychiatrists to gain majority custody and get the troubled daughters into therapy (one of the girls attempted suicide). The mother has worked to *prevent* the girls from receiving therapy. Yet, the court kept giving her equal custody. After years of this, he was recently given 75% custody. If the situation was reversed  - I can't help but think he would be stripped of custody.

I know this is anecdotal and I don't have statistics, yet do you think, overall, child custody is biased toward the mother?

[Annoynymous]

@TomDashingPornstar Projection or not that i don't know but her writing reminds me of Leo's stage yellow video.

[Forestluv]

I'm curious about views on this from @TomDashingPornstar and other men:

On a case-by-case basis, gender inequality itself is unjust (regardless of whether the bias is toward the male or the female). Yet, at a *population* level, what if most of the inequalities disfavor females? Let's say 80% of the gender inequalities disfavor females and only 20% of the gender inequalities disfavor males. How should we distribute limited resources? Would it be fair to give 50% of the resources to address female inequality issues and 50% of the resources to male inequality issues? Or is it more fair to give 80% of the resources to female inequality issues and 20% of the resources to male inequality issues?

I'm also curious about the sources of male frustration on gender equality. Using the hypothetical 80:20 example above. . . In your opinion is there more male frustration that the country is not acknowledging the existence of 20% male gender issues? Or is there more male frustration that the resources are not evenly split 50:50 to address female and male inequality issues?

 

[Emerald]

23 minutes ago, SFRL said:

@Emerald what @TomDashingPornstar was aiming at is men very often losing access to their children after divorce.

And having to pay alimony many many years after a divorce. Even if let's say for example she was not loyal to him, and it was her idea to get a divorce.

With regard to anything related to the relational aspects of life, men's emotions are often overlooked because there is an expectation of lack of emotion. So, men often get the crappier end of the deal in family courts. So, this does relate back to what I said generally. It's one of the fruits that grows off of that tree.

Power and success is often expected of men and the opposite of women. So, continuation of alimony to female spouses is an outgrowth of that societal expectation. This likely came about in a time where women didn't work outside of the house and needed it. But now it's not necessary because women can work too. Perhaps making it to where the spouse that makes more money has to chip in their support for the spouse that doesn't make as much makes a lot more sense.

It is also thought that emotions and nurturing are in the domain of the feminine, to which there is an assumption that children need to be with their mother most of all and that the father is the expendable parent. It is also assumed that the man won't care that much because care-taking is feminine and unmanly.

So, all of this relates back to the domain that I was speaking about. 

And this isn't talked about much because society sees the masculine principle as desirable and the feminine principle as undesirable. So, society reads more injustice into women's barriers to their masculine principled potential in relation to men's barriers to their feminine principled potential. The latter is assumed in such a way, "Why would men even care about their barrier to the feminine?" In other words, we care more about careers, money, status, achievement than relationships, raising children, emotions, and care-taking. So, to be kept from he former feels more unjust to our society than the latter.

There is also an assumption of strength in men and weakness in women. So, it makes the feelings of injustice toward women seem extra terrible and injustices toward men to seem whatever because men are strong and can handle it. It's kind of like if someone punches an action hero... we don't feel bad for him because we know he's strong. But if someone punches a puppy, everyone goes "Awww!" The former is what we expect of men. The latter is what we expect of women. 

So, it's really the combination of the two assumptions "Masculinity is better than femininity." and "Men are strong and women are weak." That lead to society having more compassion toward women's barriers to the traditionally masculine versus men's barriers to the traditionally feminine. This is true, even if the statements made are very anti-feminine and anti-woman. It still effect men negatively in some pretty harsh ways.

[Zweistein]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

IME, colleges/university "discussions" about controversial issues tend to be rational/logical debates in which both sides double-down on their belief and want to "win" the debate. This can strengthen someone's perspective and polarize groups further.

I think we would make more progress if there were more post-rational discussions.

How about more role-playing? Spending a week or two in "someone elses skin" should give more insights and understanding than any discussions. Maybe that could be a good idea for virtual reality businesses? ?

I also love the idea of introducing more robot babies into high school curriculums. Just in case anyone is wondering what I mean with "robot babies": 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Zweistein

[now is forever]

@Zweistein ohh, mh. i don’t know if that’s the answer to what was talked about after you posted the educational stuff. but it’s kind of a way to get them to use preservatives at least. 

chaos queen 

[Sockrattes]

21 hours ago, Annoynymous said:

I am a student of International Relations and quite interested to Study about History of civilization and politics. Suddenly a question popped out in my mind. What do you think of French Revolution according to spiral dynamics? The nature of the event resonates with which stage most?

Social and economically: Orange

Politically: Yellow (the emergence of modern representative democracies)

[Forestluv]

@Zweistein In general, I think the U.S. places too much emphasis on rational/logical thinking and not enough emphasis on direct experience. I think they are BOTH important. Yet, I would estimate 80%+ of emphasis is given to intellect. It's unbalanced. Especially in the sciences. I'd say 95% plus emphasis is given to rational/logical thought. And not just course material. There is a mentality that a person needs to "be tough" to excel in the sciences or one needs "thick skin". There is a mentality that science is highly competitive and it's a "dog eat dog world". Any type of emotion is frowned upon. Students that express emotion in their applications to grad school or med school are often advised to take out the "squeezy stuff". Students that say things like "I feel like the data suggest a new mechanism of protein activity" are often told to say "I think that the data suggest. . . ". Even though the underlying intuition is closer to feeling than thinking. I think we would be much better scientists if we acknowledge the value of empathy and intuition in conducting science.

I've found the best way to deepen one's direct experience understanding is to directly experience it. A great way is to immerse oneself into the experience. The video you posted seemed to exaggerate and mock this concept (yet I don't assume that was your intention). Exaggerating and mocking ones direct experience is a barrier toward direct experience. A less hot-button example would be: If you want to understand the life of natives within a Peruvian tribe - one could read and study a lot of theory. This would give one type of understanding. Yet it is limited. Actually traveling to Peru and living with a tribe for a year would give direct experience understanding. IMO, both forms of understanding have value - yet our society tends to prioritize intellectual knowledge over direct experience.

A real life example would be Jane Goodall. She has an immense amount of direct experience immersing herself in chimpanzee culture. I would put her high level direct experience understanding on par with high level intellectual theory understanding. When combined together, there is emergence of a new ultra-high level of understanding. That is what we should be aiming for IMO.

[TomDashingPornstar]

@Serotoninluv Why would you limit resources?

[Sockrattes]

@Serotoninluv (Orange) Science is based on replicability and falsifiability. Does that apply to emotions as well?

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, TomDashingPornstar said:

@Serotoninluv Why would you limit resources?

Because there are limited resources (time, energy, money).

Using the example that 80% of inequality disfavors females and 20% of inequality disfavors males:

Suppose we had a 1 million dollar budget to raise awareness about gender inequality and to promote gender equality.

Would you devote $500,000 to inequality issues that disfavor females and $500,000 to inequality issues that disfavor males? 

Or would you devote $800,000 to inequality issues that disfavor females and $200,000 to inequality issues that disfavor males?

[Forestluv]

29 minutes ago, Sockrattes said:

@Serotoninluv (Orange) Science is based on replicability and falsifiability. Does that apply to emotions as well?

I'm referring to conducting science, not the scientific method. They are related, but not the same thing.

Removing empathy and intuition from conducting science limits the potential of a scientist.

Of course, intellect is very important as well. IMO, there is an overemphasis on intellect (Perhaps 99% emphasis). If we shifted the balance to 90% intellect and 10% empathy/intuition - we would be much more efficient and productive. Better yet, let's integrate the two

 

[TomDashingPornstar]

@Emerald

I don't now Emerald, I think a lot of the difference has a lot more to do with people's hormones than you think.

Edited October 10, 2018 by TomDashingPornstar

[now is forever]

34 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Zweistein In general, I think the U.S. places too much emphasis on rational/logical thinking and not enough emphasis on direct experience. I think they are BOTH important. Yet, I would estimate 80%+ of emphasis is given to intellect. It's unbalanced. Especially in the sciences. I'd say 95% plus emphasis is given to rational/logical thought. And not just course material. There is a mentality that a person needs to "be tough" to excel in the sciences or one needs "thick skin". There is a mentality that science is highly competitive and it's a "dog eat dog world". Any type of emotion is frowned upon. Students that express emotion in their applications to grad school or med school are often advised to take out the "squeezy stuff". Students that say things like "I feel like the data suggest a new mechanism of protein activity" are often told to say "I think that the data suggest. . . ". Even though the underlying intuition is closer to feeling than thinking. I think we would be much better scientists if we acknowledge the value of empathy and intuition in conducting science.

I've found the best way to deepen one's direct experience understanding is to directly experience it. A great way is to immerse oneself into the experience. The video you posted seemed to exaggerate and mock this concept (yet I don't assume that was your intention). Exaggerating and mocking ones direct experience is a barrier toward direct experience. A less hot-button example would be: If you want to understand the life of natives within a Peruvian tribe - one could read and study a lot of theory. This would give one type of understanding. Yet it is limited. Actually traveling to Peru and living with a tribe for a year would give direct experience understanding. IMO, both forms of understanding have value - yet our society tends to prioritize intellectual knowledge over direct experience.

A real life example would be Jane Goodall. She has an immense amount of direct experience immersing herself in chimpanzee culture. I would put her high level direct experience understanding on par with high level intellectual theory understanding. When combined together, there is emergence of a new ultra-high level of understanding. That is what we should be aiming for IMO.

in steiner schools they do internships related to age and development stages. some of these are in the social field, for example in 8th or 9th grade (counting from 1 to 12). these experiences are not about sexuality but they relink to reality and form a more down to earth understanding.

Edited October 10, 2018 by now is forever

[Forestluv]

Just now, now is forever said:

in steiner schools they do internships related to age and development stages. some of these are in the social field, for example in 8th or 9th grade (counting from 1 to 12).

That sounds awesome. I've been told so many times I should be a Montesorri teacher - yet I'm just not skilled at teaching kids. I'm so impressed by teachers that can effectively teach kids.