Countries by Spiral Dynamics Level of Development?

[Synchronicity]

@Serotoninluv I see your point now. That’s a peaceful close to this discussion ?

[InDeep]

Had to join just to jump in on this conversation in hopes of helping with some of the confusion. Synchronicity stated: "I don’t really like that liberals are ranked a whole stage higher than conservatives. In my opinion, conservatives have just as many good points as liberals. Similarly, just like conservatives, liberals have a lot of negative traits" and later, "However, there’s stuff that Conservatives are more adept at. Most conservatives, at least the ones I’ve seen) are generally more well-mannered. That is, they present their points in a more calm and logical tone."

Higher on the Spiral in no way means "better", and people can be well-mannered and kind (or complete jerks) on any level on the Spiral. To quote from Beck and Cowan's book "Spiral Dynamics" on the topic of the various levels/memes on the Spiral: "These are not inherently 'better-than' or 'worse than' states, but they do reflect different perspectives on what the world is like and the complexity one finds in it".  But, there are potentials for healthy and unhealthy expressions of the value memes at each level on the Spiral. In first tier, each level is in conflict with other levels on the Spiral (e.g. in this discussion, Blue and Green). At second tier, there is an intuitive understanding that kicks in that it isn't about either-or, but about having all first tier memes present and operating in healthy ways, e.g. healthy Blue, healthy Orange, healthy Green. Throw healthy Blue out the window and it's easy for Orange and Green to turn toxic. 

An analogy may be helpful to understand what is meant by complexity in Spiral Dynamics. The Spiral is holonic, meaning that each level encompasses and transcends the levels below it, but a more encompassing level does not negate the value and necessity of the lower levels. They are all relevant and the entire system works better when each of the levels is respected and helped to work better. Think of human history. Once upon a time, humans lived in small families. Families then came together to form clans, then clans came together to form tribes. Tribes eventually came together to form nations and nations then organized under civilizational umbrellas (e.g. Christian, Islamic, Sino, etc.) At Orange, these civilizational groupings are encompassed and transcended under the  umbrella of science and technology. Anyone from any of these world civilizational groups can go to UCLA to study biochemistry while also continuing to hold affiliations with their national and cultural identities, their clan (extended family) and nuclear family affiliations.

What, I believe, Synchronicity is speaking to is a desire to buttress healthy Blue in the system. And sorry, Leo Gura, your statement, "A conservative's cognitive and moral development are objectively lower and less truthful" comes from what is called a "mean Green meme" stance which is totally off-base and is part of the problem that is currently having the USA locked in this polarization. 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by InDeep

[InDeep]

On 7/18/2019 at 2:35 PM, Serotoninluv said:

 

Similarly, consider modes of thinking. Being in green, liberals can operate in logical and a basic level of relative. Being in Blue and Orange, conservatives are contracted within binary and logical thinking - they lack understanding and embodiment of relativistic thinking - such as cultural relativism. Liberals are much better able to see other POV's and empathize with others because of this expanded consciousness.

 

Serotoninluv wrote (for some reason, this didn't all get in the quote I was going for):

"Consider the collective conscious level/values of red, blue, orange and green. Which has the most expansive level of collective conscious? What is an example of "community" to a conservative and an example of "community" to a liberal? Which is more expansive? An average liberal has a more expansive sense and embodiment of community at the collective conscious level than a conservative.

"Similarly, consider modes of thinking. Being in green, liberals can operate in logical and a basic level of relative. Being in Blue and Orange, conservatives are contracted within binary and logical thinking - they lack understanding and embodiment of relativistic thinking - such as cultural relativism. Liberals are much better able to see other POV's and empathize with others because of this expanded consciousness."

 

This is a perfect example of how each level believes that what it sees is the entirety of the picture, they see rightly (actually it's more "self-righteously") and yet each has its blind spots. In Serotoninluv's above response, Green believes that it "has a more expansive sense and embodiment of community at the collective conscious level than a conservative" and yet, conservatives are not included in the community. In fact, anyone who does not think like Green is excluded. So much for diversity which for unhealthy Green stops at diversity of thought. Healthy Blue actually is able to include many that Green projects Blue will not include in Blue's sense of community (e.g. people of whatever color or sexual orientation)--if these folks express appreciation for Blue's concern with cultural cohesiveness: "We're all Americans, no matter what color, creed, political affiliation, sexual orientation (etc.) I'm proud to be American!" Look at Pew research studies to see how there actually is a lot of consensus among Americans where all kinds of things are concerned, including a valuing of racial equality, marriage equality, gun control, etc. It all depends on how one defines "inclusiveness". There are Blue meme black Americans, Latinix Americans, LBGTQ Americans, etc. And Green meme Americans who love their country (the good ole USA!) There are many second tier Americans (and people all over the world) who are concerned with unhealthy expressions of Red, Blue, Orange, and Green. 

I recommend to everyone interested in Spiral Dynamics to read "Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change" by Don Edward Beck and Christopher Cowan.

Edited August 19, 2019 by InDeep

[SFRL]

@Synchronicity @Serotoninluv I believe Ken Wilber said something along the lines that Democrats/Liberals attract the very best (most successful/developed) and the worst of what society got to offer. Republicans/Conservatives as a group tend to be in the middle. Well functioning but not very exceptional. 

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, InDeep said:

This is a perfect example of how each level believes that what it sees is the entirety of the picture and yet each has its blind spots. In Serotoninluv's above response, Green believes that it "has a more expansive sense and embodiment of community at the collective conscious level than a conservative" and yet, conservatives are not included in the community. Whereas, healthy Blue may actually be able to include healthy Green individuals in Blue's sense of community--if healthy Green can express appreciation for Blue's concern with cultural cohesiveness: "We're all Americans, no matter what color, creed, political affiliation, sexual orientation (etc.) I'm proud to be American!" Look at Pew research studies to see how there actually is a lot of consensus among Americans where all kinds of things are concerned, including a valuing of racial equality, marriage equality, gun control, etc. It all depends on how one defines "inclusiveness".

Green is not the most expansive. Don't drop down to Blue in an effort to expand further. Trying to better understand Blue and integrate Blue into Green - may help to develop a healthier Green - yet it will not evolve one into Tier2 and Turquoise. It is more radical than that.

Blue is more contracted than Green. For a deeper and more expansive community/inclusiveness, evolve further up Green and on into Tier2 and Turquoise for a more expansive community and inclusiveness. Trying to integrate within Tier1 has some value, yet it is very limiting and ends up being a hindrance to further expansion. You are trying to stretch Blue beyond it's developmental stage.

It's like saying "Wait a minute healthy 6th graders may actually be more developed than healthy 8th graders if they include aspects of the 8th grade". That may have some value in certain contexts, yet it is stretching the 6th graders beyond their developmental level. And it aint gonna help someone get to the 12th grade.

 

[InDeep]

I'm not talking about 

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Trying to integrate within Tier1 has some value, yet it is very limiting and ends up being a hindrance to further expansion. You are trying to stretch Blue beyond it's developmental stage.

It's like saying "Wait a minute healthy 6th graders may actually be more developed than healthy 8th graders if they include aspects of the 8th grade". That may have some value in certain contexts, yet it is stretching the 6th graders beyond their developmental level. And it aint gonna help someone get to the 12th grade.

I'm not talking about "trying to integrate within Tier1" nor attempting to "stretch Blue beyond its developmental stage". I am talking about speaking to the value memes within each level in the language of the level--and each level does have something of value that they see that other levels lose sight of and has something of value to say. In your grade school analogy, it would be like eighth graders forgetting foundational mathematics as they have moved up the grades.

Something else that often gets conflated when people are discussing Spiral Dynamics is that Green must necessarily mean Left while Blue is necessarily Right. Even the terms Left and Right are misunderstood. From Ken Wilber:

"In the last chapter of Up from Eden ("Republicans, Democrats, and Mystics"), I [Ken Wilber] made the observation that, when it comes to the cause of human suffering, liberals tend to believe in objective causation, whereas conservatives tend to believe in subjective causation. That is, if an individual is suffering, the typical liberal tends to blame objective social institutions (if you are poor it is because you are oppressed by society), whereas the typical conservative tends to blame subjective factors (if you are poor it is because you are lazy). Thus, the liberal recommends objective social interventions: redistribute the wealth, change social institutions so that they produce fairer outcomes, evenly slice the economic pie, aim for equality among all. The typical conservative recommends that we instill family values, demand that individuals assume more responsibility for themselves, tighten up slack moral standards (often by embracing traditional religious values), encourage a work ethic, reward achievement, and so on."

Second Tier thinking:

"The important point is that the first step toward a Third Way that integrates the best of liberal and conservative is to recognize that both the interior quadrants and the exterior quadrants are equally real and equally important. We consequently must address both interior factors (values, meaning, morals, the development of consciousness) and exterior factors (economic conditions, material wellbeing, technological advance, social safety net, environment)—in short, a true Third Way would emphasize both interior development and exterior development. 

"Let us therefore focus for a moment on the area of consciousness development. This is, after all, the hardest part for liberals to swallow, because the discussion of "stages" or "levels" of anything (including consciousness) is deeply antagonistic to most liberals, who believe that all such "judgments" are racist, sexist, marginalizing, and so on. The typical liberal, recall, does not believe in interior causation, or even in interiors, for that matter. The typical liberal epistemology (e.g., John Locke) imagines that the mind is a tabula rasa, a blank slate, that is filled with pictures of the external world. If something is wrong with the interior (if you are suffering), it is because something is first wrong with the exterior (the social institutions)—because your interior comes from the exterior.

"But what if the interior has its own stages of growth and development, and is not simply piped in the from the external world? If a true Third Way depends upon including both interior development and exterior development, then it would behoove us to look carefully at these interior stages of consciousness unfolding. And here some surprises await the typical liberal."

This is from http://www.integralworld.net/wilpert0.html in case anyone would like to read more of Wilber's thoughts on this.

You know one of the best ways to spot a second-tier thinker? Both Blue and Orange get upset with them (think back to President Obama and the guff he got from both the Left and the Right, from Blue and from Green). Orange just keeps truckin', working on its own success. :-D Of course Orange uses the means at its disposal--money--to get what it is seeking out of politics and policy. (Unhealthy Orange is called the "Only money matters" meme.)

Edited August 19, 2019 by InDeep
clarifying grammar

[Synchronicity]

@InDeep Thank you very much for providing those insights.

I agree that higher doesn’t always equal better. For example, someone could definitely gain insights into Truth and yet use it all for hate instead of love.

So what you said about applying “higher =\= better” to Spiral Dynamics sounds like a good solution to this discussion. Each stage has positives and negatives to offer. It can be healthy to integrate the positives??

 

[InDeep]

4 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

@InDeep Thank you very much for providing those insights.

I agree that higher doesn’t always equal better. For example, someone could definitely gain insights into Truth and yet use it all for hate instead of love.

So what you said about applying “higher =\= better” to Spiral Dynamics sounds like a good solution to this discussion. Each stage has positives and negatives to offer. It can be healthy to integrate the positives??

 

>>someone could definitely gain insights into Truth and yet use it all for hate instead of love.

Yup! :-)

Ken Wilber (I think it was Ken Wilber, perhaps it was Don Beck) has stated that there is nothing to prevent a second-tier sociopath utilizing second-tier insights towards his or her own ends! (A scary thought.) 

Going back to the conversation Serotoninluv and I have been having, people from different levels on the Spiral can have similar behaviors and even views. What distinguishes them is the underlying value system. For example, a Blue meme Christian (a true Christian, not a sociopath calling oneself a Christian as a means to his or her own ends) can abhor racism and violence towards anyone regardless of their ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. because coming from the Blue meme Christian's value system everyone is a child of God and therefore deserving of love and compassion. This Blue meme Christian, following the teachings of Christ would not judge anyone as that is God's business not there's (Judge not lest ye be judged.) There is not need to qualify this across the board compassion. Green meme fights against racism and all the isms from a value system that emphasizes its idea of "fairness" and "equality". Blue meme Christians--and they are out there--are often "green" as far as the environment is concerned, taking stewardship of the earth seriously as a demand of God to protect the earth God created. Behaviors can look the same. To guess at the level on the Spiral, look to see where someone is coming from as far as the value memes go. And please, let's stop equating Blue with "bad" and Green with "good"--and vice versa--as well as "liberal" with "bad" and "conservative with "God-fearing/good". There's good/love and evil, potentially, on all levels of the Spiral.  

Edited August 19, 2019 by InDeep

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, InDeep said:

I'm not talking about 

I'm not talking about "trying to integrate within Tier1" nor attempting to "stretch Blue beyond its developmental stage". I am talking about speaking to the value memes within each level--and each level does have something of value that they see that other levels lose sight of and has something of value to say. In your grade school analogy, it would be like eighth graders forgetting foundational mathematics as they have moved up the grades.

I understand and agree with that. That is a foundational component of SD. I was getting at something different. I may be off on another tangent though. 

When I teach genetics, I often have to over-simplify the concepts because the students are not at a developmental stage to comprehend greater nuances and complexity. For example, I first teach freshman students that there are two types of alleles: recessive or dominant. I don't tell them that gene alleles aren't technically just recessive or dominant. This would be confusing. I tell them in binary terms appropriate for their level. This is not completely accurate, yet it is necessary for their developmental progress. Once they have mastered this, their sophomore year I tell them "Remember how I told you that gene alleles are recessive and dominant? Well that isn't quite true and you will need to expand beyond that construct to understand what I am about to teach you next". I then teach them about codominance, incomplete dominance, alleleic hierarchies etc. 

I'm not saying the previous stage didn't have value. Knowing the binary construct of recessive and dominant has value. A student must learn this before moving forward. If a student is struggling with codominance and incomplete dominance - we go back to the previous level of teaching and I make sure they understand the foundational teaching. In this context, one teaching isn't more valuable than another teaching. They are both valuable - one builds on the other. Yet, I'm also clear about how one builds on the other. Simple recessive and dominant is a binary construct that has value and is necessary as framework to build upon. When we are expanding into gradients and multifactorial teachings, I may go back to the binary modes, yet I don't re-contextualize them to advance higher. This would cause confusion, imo. Yet I can see how others would disagree. Sometimes it's important to revisit simpler concepts to learn more advanced concepts, yet sometimes revisiting simpler concepts can be a hindrance to evolving higher. It is context dependent. While evolving, I prefer to keep earlier material in their prior context as structural support, rather than recontextualize it. Imo, doing so can lead to short term progress, yet will hinder longer term progress.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. If you are exploring from a meta yellow perpective, it's fun stuff to explore. Yet, in practical terms, I don't think it's the clearest and most efficient approach. That's just my preference though.

 

[InDeep]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Sometimes it's important to revisit simpler concepts to learn more advanced concepts, yet sometimes revisiting simpler concepts can be a hindrance to evolving higher. It is context dependent. While evolving, I prefer to keep earlier material in their prior context as structural support, rather than recontextualize it. Imo, doing so can lead to short term progress, yet will hinder longer term progress.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. If you are exploring from a meta yellow perpective, it's fun stuff to explore. Yet, in practical terms, I don't think it's the clearest and most efficient approach. That's just my preference though.

The way I see it, however, is that these values don't build on each other. They are whole and complete at every level and transcended and included as one moves up the Spiral. A nation, for example, is not "superior" to a family or a clan and so does not need to "teach" the family or clan anything; a nation may actually learn, from these less complex (when healthy) systems, about what works and what doesn't work where human relationship dynamics among people are concerned. (Another example of holons that might be helpful by the way is thinking of atoms coming together into molecules and molecules coming together to form cells. Each level transcends and includes the lower, less complex, level. A molecule doesn't need to think of itself as superior and having to "teach" the atom from its "superior" position. And it's very important for the atoms and molecules to be healthy for a cell to be functioning in a healthy fashion.) 

Part of the problem (imo) that we are getting into in our society, for example, is that Green is trying to "teach" Blue (the "racists", "sexists", "homophobes", the so-called "deplorables")  from a stance of thinking itself more enlightened and looking down at Blue, while Green actually has no comprehension of what Blue is actually speaking to; Green is completely blind to it. And of course people at Blue get offended and lose patience with what is actually quite an arrogant perspective (actually a projection). It would behoove Green to actually listen and try and learn from Blue, hear a truth that Blue retains and has privy to that Green sometimes (especially the mean Green meme) loses sight of. It would be great for Blue to listen and try to hear the truth that Green has privy to, but since one cannot see "up" the Spiral it would be helpful for Green to state its truth in Blue language (I gave an example or two earlier of how this might be done). 

An article to read: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/andrew-sullivan-the-limits-of-my-conservatism.html

(By the way, I have tended in recent years towards voting with the Democrats.)

[Forestluv]

@InDeep “Teaching” is just one way of describing it. Every approach or pointer will have limitations and won’t seem useful from another perspective. From one perspective, to “teach” suggests a hierarchy. From that perspective, there are limitations.

I often take views from various levels and see how different evils are integrated. For example, atoms compose molecules which compose cells which compose tissues which compose systems which compose an organism which composes a population. I use examples like this many times and they have great value in certain contexts. When we say “levels” here, that can be interpreted as being superior. A “higher” level is superior to a “lower” level. When we say a cell is at a higher level than a molecule, this is for convenience. “Superiority” is not necessarily inherent to the model. Similarly, we could interpret “teacher” as being “higher” than a student. Yet that is not inherently so. These are add ins. This intention can be present in some contexts, yet not in other contexts. I could talk about “levels” of consciousness in a context of superiority and I could talk about “levels” without a context of superiority.

I like the imagery you use, yet no one model or imagery is complete. If SD is a whole, there are no levels. There is no levels to move up. From a perspective, “moving up” is similar to “build”. If a cell is whole, there are no levels to “move up”. Atoms are not at a lower level than molecules at a lower level than the cell. It is certainly useful to build a model of atoms-> molecules -> cell. Moving up levels is similar to build. Atoms build molecules which build cells. We could say the cell is both one whole and contains parts which we can organize into levels. 

In terms of “listening” to each other, that has value in some contexts as you mentioned. Yet is not very helpful in other contexts. This is were development, expansion and “teaching” comes into play. For example, Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or. In some contexts, this is useful. Yet in other contexts, it’s not useful. My mom is blue and would see someone as a racist or a non-racist. I understand this simple binary construct and it is useful in certain, yet not in others. In another context, people are not simply racist or non-racist. There are degrees of racism. Someone can be strongly racist or mildly racist. As well, everyone has subconscious biases regarding race. In this sense, we all have components of racism. As well, some might be racist toward certain groups and not racist toward other groups. I would not be able to have this conversation with my mom. She would say “Why do you always have to complicate things? People are racist or not racist. That’s what it boils down to”. Here, I could listen to my mom for hours talk about who is racist and who isn’t racist. I can understand her perspective because I have developed above Blue. However, my mom will not be able to understand Orange. She cannot comprehend gradients and nuances. She can listen to me when I speak at Blue, yet she cannot comprehend me when I speak at Orange and above in this area. If she was open and curious about developing this ability, I can explain it to her. I would call this “teaching” since I would be transmitting a cognitive skill to her. . . Similarly, an Orange level thinker would have difficulty comprehending the relativism of “racism”. Orange understands in terms of objectivism and would not be able to comprehend a yellow level thinker.

When “pulling” someone up the spiral, we can try to use terms and modes at that level. And I agree that keeping it impersonal is important. Yet this has limits. One cannot explain gradients in strictly binary terms. If they did, it would be binary and not a gradient. Similarly, one cannot communicate relativism in strictly objective constructs. One cannot communicate intuition or empathy strictly through material evidence and facts. There comes a time a person has to make a “jump” in consciousness. For example, when a dog sees itself in a mirror it will not recognize itself and bark at itself. You can point to the dog and the mirror over and over saying “look it’s you!!!”. Yet the dog would need a jump in consciousness to realize “whoa!! That’s me!!”. This is a dramatic example, yet this component is with developmental psychology as well, which is integral to SD.

Personal hierarchies in Tier1 is a common manifestation of a personality construct. The dissolution of a personalized construct begins in Tier1 with empathy and cultural relativism, yet is more of a feature of Tier2. Then, attachment/identification dissolves one can mucbetter see multiple perspectives without judgement and superiority. Having transcended the personality, yellow would not make personal value judgements within Tier1 stages, yet Yellow would not consider all perspectives to have equal value.

[pluto]

https://www.ecowatch.com/will-denmark-become-the-worlds-first-100-organic-country-1882162562.html

Denmark and surrounding countries seem to be the most conscious IMO especially when it comes to the governments working in harmony with the public. Coherence is key.

 

[InDeep]

Thought I'd post this link to a report on the "Hidden Tribes" in America for anyone who might be interested. A fascinating read, I think, and very much related to Spiral Dynamics. Here are a few excerpts:

"Here's a quick snapshot of each group:

"Progressive Activists (8 percent of the population) are deeply concerned with issues concerning equity, fairness, and America's direction today. They tend to be more secular, cosmopolitan, and highly engaged with social media.

"Traditional Liberals (11 percent of the population) tend to be cautious, rational, and idealistic. They value tolerance and compromise. They place great faith in institutions.

"Passive Liberals (15 percent of the population) tend to feel isolated from their communities. They are insecure in their beliefs and try to avoid political conversations. They have a fatalistic view of politics and feel that the circumstances of their lives are beyond their control.

"The Politically Disengaged (26 percent of the population) are untrusting, suspicious about external threats, conspiratorially minded, and pessimistic about progress. They tend to be patriotic yet detached from politics.

"Moderates (15 percent of the population) are engaged in their communities, well informed, and civic-minded. Their faith is often an important part of their lives. They shy away from extremism of any sort.

"Traditional Conservatives (19 percent of the population) tend to be religious, patriotic, and highly moralistic. They believe deeply in personal responsibility and self-reliance.

"Devoted Conservatives (6 percent of the population) are deeply engaged with politics and hold strident, uncompromising views. They feel that America is embattled, and they perceive themselves as the last defenders of traditional values that are under threat."

"Progressive Activists and Devoted Conservatives together comprise just 14 percent of the American population—yet it often feels as if our national conversation has become a shouting match between these two groups at the furthest ends of the spectrum. Together with Traditional Conservatives (who share values and tribalism like the Devoted Conservatives, just less intensely), they compose the 33 percent of people in the groups we label the Wings.

"Combined, the members of these three tribes comprise just one-third of the population, but they often dominate our national conversation. Tribalism runs deep in their thinking. Their distrust and fear of the opposing side drives many of the people in these groups, and they have especially negative opinions of each other. When people today speak about how Americans seem to hate each other, they're usually talking about the opinions and behaviors of the Wings. (emphasis mine)

"The Wings are also the most unified internally. On many of the most contentious issues—race, immigration, guns, LGBTQI+ rights—the people in these three tribes express high levels of unanimity. Often more than 90 percent of people in one of these groups holds the same view about a controversial issue, and typically, it will be the reverse of whatever the opposing wing believes. In contrast, the remaining two-thirds of Americans at the center show more diversity in their political views, express less certainty about them, and are more open to compromise and change—even on issues that we all tend to consider highly polarizing.

"Progressive Activists and Devoted Conservatives together comprise just 14 percent of the American population—yet it often feels as if our national conversation has become a shouting match between these two groups at the furthest ends of the spectrum. Together with Traditional Conservatives (who share values and tribalism like the Devoted Conservatives, just less intensely), they compose the 33 percent of people in the groups we label the Wings.

"Combined, the members of these three tribes comprise just one-third of the population, but they often dominate our national conversation. Tribalism runs deep in their thinking. Their distrust and fear of the opposing side drives many of the people in these groups, and they have especially negative opinions of each other. When people today speak about how Americans seem to hate each other, they're usually talking about the opinions and behaviors of the Wings.

"The Wings are also the most unified internally. On many of the most contentious issues—race, immigration, guns, LGBTQI+ rights—the people in these three tribes express high levels of unanimity. Often more than 90 percent of people in one of these groups holds the same view about a controversial issue, and typically, it will be the reverse of whatever the opposing wing believes. In contrast, the remaining two-thirds of Americans at the center show more diversity in their political views, express less certainty about them, and are more open to compromise and change—even on issues that we all tend to consider highly polarizing.

"Why do the Wings dominate the conversation? A key reason is that polarization has become a business model. Media executives have realized that they can drive clicks, likes, and views, and make money for themselves and their shareholders, by providing people with the most strident opinions. This means that the most extreme voices―no matter how outlandish―often get the most airtime. In addition, people with the most extreme views are often the most certain of their positions. They are willing to argue with anyone and avoid moderating their opinions or conceding points to the other side. All this can make entertaining television and viral social media content. But it is distorting how we see each other, fracturing our society, and adding to distortions in our political system that give undue weight to the most extreme views."

Of course there are others who also stand to benefit from this continuing polarization... 

Here's the link which includes a link to a pdf of the entire research study: https://hiddentribes.us/

[InDeep]

On 8/19/2019 at 6:39 PM, Serotoninluv said:

@InDeep “Teaching” is just one way of describing it. Every approach or pointer will have limitations and won’t seem useful from another perspective. From one perspective, to “teach” suggests a hierarchy. From that perspective, there are limitations.

I often take views from various levels and see how different evils are integrated. For example, atoms compose molecules which compose cells which compose tissues which compose systems which compose an organism which composes a population. I use examples like this many times and they have great value in certain contexts. When we say “levels” here, that can be interpreted as being superior. A “higher” level is superior to a “lower” level. When we say a cell is at a higher level than a molecule, this is for convenience. “Superiority” is not necessarily inherent to the model. Similarly, we could interpret “teacher” as being “higher” than a student. Yet that is not inherently so. These are add ins. This intention can be present in some contexts, yet not in other contexts. I could talk about “levels” of consciousness in a context of superiority and I could talk about “levels” without a context of superiority.

I like the imagery you use, yet no one model or imagery is complete. If SD is a whole, there are no levels. There is no levels to move up. From a perspective, “moving up” is similar to “build”. If a cell is whole, there are no levels to “move up”. Atoms are not at a lower level than molecules at a lower level than the cell. It is certainly useful to build a model of atoms-> molecules -> cell. Moving up levels is similar to build. Atoms build molecules which build cells. We could say the cell is both one whole and contains parts which we can organize into levels. 

In terms of “listening” to each other, that has value in some contexts as you mentioned. Yet is not very helpful in other contexts. This is were development, expansion and “teaching” comes into play. For example, Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or. In some contexts, this is useful. Yet in other contexts, it’s not useful. My mom is blue and would see someone as a racist or a non-racist. I understand this simple binary construct and it is useful in certain, yet not in others. In another context, people are not simply racist or non-racist. There are degrees of racism. Someone can be strongly racist or mildly racist. As well, everyone has subconscious biases regarding race. In this sense, we all have components of racism. As well, some might be racist toward certain groups and not racist toward other groups. I would not be able to have this conversation with my mom. She would say “Why do you always have to complicate things? People are racist or not racist. That’s what it boils down to”. Here, I could listen to my mom for hours talk about who is racist and who isn’t racist. I can understand her perspective because I have developed above Blue. However, my mom will not be able to understand Orange. She cannot comprehend gradients and nuances. She can listen to me when I speak at Blue, yet she cannot comprehend me when I speak at Orange and above in this area. If she was open and curious about developing this ability, I can explain it to her. I would call this “teaching” since I would be transmitting a cognitive skill to her. . . Similarly, an Orange level thinker would have difficulty comprehending the relativism of “racism”. Orange understands in terms of objectivism and would not be able to comprehend a yellow level thinker.

When “pulling” someone up the spiral, we can try to use terms and modes at that level. And I agree that keeping it impersonal is important. Yet this has limits. One cannot explain gradients in strictly binary terms. If they did, it would be binary and not a gradient. Similarly, one cannot communicate relativism in strictly objective constructs. One cannot communicate intuition or empathy strictly through material evidence and facts. There comes a time a person has to make a “jump” in consciousness. For example, when a dog sees itself in a mirror it will not recognize itself and bark at itself. You can point to the dog and the mirror over and over saying “look it’s you!!!”. Yet the dog would need a jump in consciousness to realize “whoa!! That’s me!!”. This is a dramatic example, yet this component is with developmental psychology as well, which is integral to SD.

Personal hierarchies in Tier1 is a common manifestation of a personality construct. The dissolution of a personalized construct begins in Tier1 with empathy and cultural relativism, yet is more of a feature of Tier2. Then, attachment/identification dissolves one can mucbetter see multiple perspectives without judgement and superiority. Having transcended the personality, yellow would not make personal value judgements within Tier1 stages, yet Yellow would not consider all perspectives to have equal value.

Not sure I agree with you that "Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or" in the way you seem to speak of it. But in any case, I'm wondering what you, at Green, may see as something valuable of Blue that Green has lost sight of and, having lost sight of, contributes to Green turning "mean" (the mean Green meme" which contributes to the ugly and toxic polarization that is happening in the country and society? Andrew Sullivan, a conservative second-tier thinker, addresses this in the article I posted the other day (though not in SD terms, not sure if he is aware of SD). It's a good exercise, to move up the Spiral (as it were) to try and argue the points of various memes--in a sympathetic way. Take the role of Blue or Orange or whatever and speak from its value system: what does it see that other levels have forgotten or have missed, the "blind spots"? It's important to remember that even if someone's center of gravity is at Blue or Orange (or whatever), this does not mean that they can't understand the values of other levels. That's all addressed quite extensively in Beck and Cowan's book. We all, as individuals and collectively, move up and down the Spiral as circumstances, and therefore needs, change. It's not a progressive (no pun intended) linear progression. The system is actually much more complex than how many understand it. 

Wondering what is so important about Mom needing to understand the "gradations of racism", by the way? Healthy Blue, say in healthy Christianity, can see the "binary" that you speak of as, "we either love each other--all--as children of God, or we don't". Whereas toxic Green often puts some people in categories of being deserving of compassion and understanding--while others are excluded from this, undeserving of this as current or historical "oppressors". People feel this and, naturally, resist this. They feel pain because of it.

Edited August 21, 2019 by InDeep

[InDeep]

On 8/19/2019 at 6:39 PM, Serotoninluv said:

@InDeep “Teaching” is just one way of describing it. Every approach or pointer will have limitations and won’t seem useful from another perspective. From one perspective, to “teach” suggests a hierarchy. From that perspective, there are limitations.

I often take views from various levels and see how different evils are integrated. For example, atoms compose molecules which compose cells which compose tissues which compose systems which compose an organism which composes a population. I use examples like this many times and they have great value in certain contexts. When we say “levels” here, that can be interpreted as being superior. A “higher” level is superior to a “lower” level. When we say a cell is at a higher level than a molecule, this is for convenience. “Superiority” is not necessarily inherent to the model. Similarly, we could interpret “teacher” as being “higher” than a student. Yet that is not inherently so. These are add ins. This intention can be present in some contexts, yet not in other contexts. I could talk about “levels” of consciousness in a context of superiority and I could talk about “levels” without a context of superiority.

I like the imagery you use, yet no one model or imagery is complete. If SD is a whole, there are no levels. There is no levels to move up. From a perspective, “moving up” is similar to “build”. If a cell is whole, there are no levels to “move up”. Atoms are not at a lower level than molecules at a lower level than the cell. It is certainly useful to build a model of atoms-> molecules -> cell. Moving up levels is similar to build. Atoms build molecules which build cells. We could say the cell is both one whole and contains parts which we can organize into levels. 

In terms of “listening” to each other, that has value in some contexts as you mentioned. Yet is not very helpful in other contexts. This is were development, expansion and “teaching” comes into play. For example, Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or. In some contexts, this is useful. Yet in other contexts, it’s not useful. My mom is blue and would see someone as a racist or a non-racist. I understand this simple binary construct and it is useful in certain, yet not in others. In another context, people are not simply racist or non-racist. There are degrees of racism. Someone can be strongly racist or mildly racist. As well, everyone has subconscious biases regarding race. In this sense, we all have components of racism. As well, some might be racist toward certain groups and not racist toward other groups. I would not be able to have this conversation with my mom. She would say “Why do you always have to complicate things? People are racist or not racist. That’s what it boils down to”. Here, I could listen to my mom for hours talk about who is racist and who isn’t racist. I can understand her perspective because I have developed above Blue. However, my mom will not be able to understand Orange. She cannot comprehend gradients and nuances. She can listen to me when I speak at Blue, yet she cannot comprehend me when I speak at Orange and above in this area. If she was open and curious about developing this ability, I can explain it to her. I would call this “teaching” since I would be transmitting a cognitive skill to her. . . Similarly, an Orange level thinker would have difficulty comprehending the relativism of “racism”. Orange understands in terms of objectivism and would not be able to comprehend a yellow level thinker.

When “pulling” someone up the spiral, we can try to use terms and modes at that level. And I agree that keeping it impersonal is important. Yet this has limits. One cannot explain gradients in strictly binary terms. If they did, it would be binary and not a gradient. Similarly, one cannot communicate relativism in strictly objective constructs. One cannot communicate intuition or empathy strictly through material evidence and facts. There comes a time a person has to make a “jump” in consciousness. For example, when a dog sees itself in a mirror it will not recognize itself and bark at itself. You can point to the dog and the mirror over and over saying “look it’s you!!!”. Yet the dog would need a jump in consciousness to realize “whoa!! That’s me!!”. This is a dramatic example, yet this component is with developmental psychology as well, which is integral to SD.

Personal hierarchies in Tier1 is a common manifestation of a personality construct. The dissolution of a personalized construct begins in Tier1 with empathy and cultural relativism, yet is more of a feature of Tier2. Then, attachment/identification dissolves one can mucbetter see multiple perspectives without judgement and superiority. Having transcended the personality, yellow would not make personal value judgements within Tier1 stages, yet Yellow would not consider all perspectives to have equal value.

Still trying to figure out how to only quote a piece of something, haha, sorry, 

I'm coming back to address Serotoninluv's statement that "Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or". I think that at first tier every level is engaged in the binary thinking--and judgement--of "My way of thinking is the right way (obviously) and if everyone else would just see this, everything would be fine, great even!" (haha) And it's simply not true. Serotoninluv equates Blue with racism. Tribalism exists at every level of the Spiral, it's just that who is seen as being in the "tribe" is seen in different ways, e.g. in some pockets of Green it's "other progressives, like me". It's not a matter of color, but people-who-think-like-me, and as with any tribe, there is a sense that "my people" are morally superior, see things in the right way. That's the danger. It is in Blue meme religion that, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" arose.--healthy. And yes, there is sometimes fear/distrust of the "other" at this level--but that exists at every level in first tier. We've got to be very careful to not mix apples and oranges, not compare our (supposed) healthy/more "evolved" stance to unhealthy expressions of other levels (whether up or down the Spiral. But that is tricky to do (or not do) at first tier because each level in first tier insists it (only it) sees things clearly and therefore correctly.  The jump to second tier has been described as a "great leap in consciousness" and it is, one that allows one to see how, again, all the levels of first tier are valid and have something to offer the human experiment and that it's about working to ensure that each level is helped to operate in healthy ways. Higher on the Spiral, again, does not mean "healthier" or "better". Someone can be at Blue center of gravity, or Orange, and be operating in much healthier (and more loving, compassionate) than another at Green center of gravity. (For more on this, read Ken Wilber on "Boomeritis". There is a heck of a lot of narcissism and egocentricity at Green (as there can be at every level)! 

Let me give another example for how second tier might relate to someone coming from another level, first tier, vs. how someone in first tier might respond. A Jehovah's witness comes to the door and asks (as they do), "Have you been saved?" Unhealthy Green may (as unhealthy, mean Green meme often does) reply with outrage: "Don't you dare try and shove your religion down my throat!" and perhaps adding, "This is cultural imperialism!" A second tier thinker understand that Blue is coming from love, that this Blue meme individual is experiencing the joy of being "saved" and wants to do whatever they can to help others to also feel the joy of "salvation". How might a second tier thinker respond? "Thank you, yes, I have been saved!" The Jehovah's witness might very well exclaim--joyfully--"Praise the Lord! May I pray with you?" The second tier thinker, having no need to defend against this might say yes and...close their eyes and allow the Jehovah's witness to pray with them--and take this as a blessing. Each can then part with a greater sense of love and UNITY. And isn't that what it's all about?

Edited August 21, 2019 by InDeep
trying to figure out how to use the template on this site

[Forestluv]

13 hours ago, InDeep said:

Not sure I agree with you that "Blue is oriented toward binary thinking.

That is a feature of SD theory.

13 hours ago, InDeep said:

 I'm wondering what you, at Green, may see as something valuable of Blue that Green has lost sight of and, having lost sight of, contributes to Green turning "mean" (the mean Green meme" which contributes to the ugly and toxic polarization that is happening in the country and society? 

There seems to be Blue/Orange anchors in your essays. Imo, it's is more of an Orange perspective of Green than a Yellow perspective. Yet there may be some yellow elements re-contextualized at Orange.

Green is more conscious than Blue. In an important context, it does not mean that Green is "superior" or "better" than Blue. The key here is to see relativism and absolutism in multiple contexts - which is a yellow level ability. Just as we wouldn't say a modern eagle is better than a dinosaur or an 8 y.o. child is better than a 4 y.o. child. However, that does not mean that the development and consciousness is equal, in relative terms. Yellow has an understanding of relativism and can see that Green is at a higher conscious level relative to Blue. Yet would not assign "superior" or "better" value judgement in the context you use. Importantly, yellow understands relativism and that in the absolute all perspectives are relative. Yet that does not mean that within relative constructs that yellow gives equal value to all perspectives. SD is a construct within relativism, not absolutism. 

The relativism of development is crucial here, because without this an Orange perspective will be over-emphasized. At Orange, one cannot see the relative higher advancement of Green over Blue and it will be tempting to criticize Green for lacking/forgetting Blue values. This can certainly be true, yet it is a highly limited Orange-level view. Orange is criticizing Green from below and will not be able to see from Yellow's perspective. This is one of the tel-tale signs that someone is viewing Green from Orange. Yet, this perspective can be highly sophisticated, logical and nuanced at Orange. As well, individuals with some yellow development can drop down to an Orange perspective in certain areas. Especially if they have Green issues. . .  Yellow is looking at Green from above and can see Green deficiencies relative to Blue and Orange - as well as Green's lack of Yellow. Yellow will be able to see if Green is in need of working on some aspects of lower Blue/Orange stages, or if it is in need of further Green development/embodiment, or if the issue is due to lack of Yellow.

For example, there are many stage orange logical thinkers on the forum. Some are sophisticated, intellectual logical thinkers. If an Orange-centered person on the forum is struggling to understand something, a Yellow level consciousness will be able to see if the struggle is due to not being able to properly utilize a lower level Blue binary mode of thinking, or the inability to utilize a yellow level relativism mode of thinking. At yellow, we acknowledge that all levels have value, yet understand the developmental. Developmental psychology is essential to understand SD.  A yellow consciousness would not jump to conclusions that the problem Orange is having is due to deficiencies in previous levels because yellow can see below and above Orange. Most of the time, the Orange level person is struggling because they are not efficiently using their own level skills and/or are dropping down to previous levels. Often, the solution is to elevate Orange back to Orange and encourage further evolution to Green. . . Similarly, a well-developed Yellow can see when a person has not embodied Green - such as emotional intelligence, intuition and empathy. Orange will not be able to see this.

Regarding the "ugly, toxic polarization" in the country - it is important to first recognize the developmental stages of Blue and Green without assigning personal inferiority/superiority to Blue or Green. . . There are multiple lines of development including cognitive, emotional, intuitive, spiritual etc. Green is higher developed and more expansive than Blue, yet less developed and less expansive than Yellow. For example, Blue is predominately binary thinking, while Green can utilize binary and logical thinking (as well as cultural relativism). This is why Orange and Green mock Blue so much. Green gets frustrated and annoyed with how simple-minded Blue is. Green can't understand how Blue can't understand something logical or culturally relative. Put a Blue-centered person on the Sam Seder show and watch what happens.

Unhealthy aspects exist at both Blue and Green, yet will be more intense at Blue since Blue is at a lower conscious level. For example, all stages in Tier1 will blame other stages for their problems and will demonize other stages to a certain extent. However, Blue will demonize Green much more intensely than Green will demonize Blue. Go to a Trump rally and a Bernie Sanders rally and see the difference. Degree is very important here, so we don't create false equivalencies. This would obscure how we can help Green.

Regarding toxic polarization, the problem is not so much that Green has forgotten Blue values, it is that Green is dropping down and playing on Blue's turf. Green doesn't need to work on it's own Blue deficiencies - it needs to rise back up through Orange and back into Green-centered - then continue to evolve toward yellow. One example is with the toxicity of "racism" in the country right now. A big part of the problem is that racism is largely getting contextualized into Blue level constructs - in part because Blue cannot understand higher level constructs and also because Orange level media does not favor higher level constructs. For example, racism is getting framed in a Blue binary construct of either you are a racist or you are a non-racist. In some contexts, this has value. Yet the problem is that Orange and Green has fallen down to Blue and is playing on a Blue field. The problem is not that Green doesn't understand binary thinking, it is that they are being contracted within binary thinking. As a consequence, context is lost. Important context. For example, Orange and Green can understand spectrums and Green can understand cultural relativism. Racism is along a spectrum. A person can be weakly, moderately or strongly racist. A person can be racist in some areas and nonracist in other areas. As well, everyone has subconscious biases regarding race. This is orange level thinking that both orange and green can utilize. It is not that Green has forgotten Blue values, it is that Green is not utilizing it's Orange/Green values and abilities. As such, the discussion has dropped to binary "you are either a racist or a nonracist". This plays into Blue's advantage and Green is falling for it. The spectral context is essential. For example, Trump is not 100% racist or 0% racist. On an orange-level spectrum we may say that Trump is 90% racist on a scale of 1 to 100. However, on a Blue binary construct, if Trump does one non-racist thing then he can't be a racist, because a racist is 100% racist in a binary construct. This gives Trump and his supporters cover: "How can Trump be a racist, he is friends with Kanye!!". This causes intense polarization because Trump can be 90% racist and everyone will be debating whether he is racist or not. On a binary construct, Trump is neither racist nor non-racist. Nobody would be. Notice how the Orange media plays to this frame and how Green has fallen for it.

Green doesn't need to improve their binary thinking skills, they need to level up and use Orange level thinking skills. As well, Green needs to elevate back to their Green center - which involves cultural relativism and empathy. A good example of this is AOC. She recently gave a speech in which she reached out to young men that have become immersed into white supremacy. She reached out by trying to connect with them emotionally - she showed cultural relativism by trying to understand their cultural perspective and showed empathy by acknowledging their suffering and encouraged them to return "home" and that we will love you. This is Green. AOC doesn't need to drop down to Blue-level constructs. Once at Green, it would be beneficial to continue evolving to yellow. For example, seeing the relativism of racism and the fallacy of assuming objectivism regarding racism. That's not to say binary, spectral and objectivism has no value - it is to say adding in yellow-level relativism would expand our consciousness - yet we are many years away from this.

13 hours ago, InDeep said:

It's important to remember that even if someone's center of gravity is at Blue or Orange (or whatever), this does not mean that they can't understand the values of other levels. That's all addressed quite extensively in Beck and Cowan's book. We all, as individuals and collectively, move up and down the Spiral as circumstances, and therefore needs, change. It's not a progressive (no pun intended) linear progression. The system is actually much more complex than how many understand it. 

There are multiple lines of development and linear development is an over-simplification - yet has value in some contexts.

A person is not 100% one stage. We are a mosiac of stages in different proportions along different developmental lines. Someone is said to be "centered" in one level. The level they are predominately operating in and seeing the world through. For example, my mother usually sees the world through a blue lens. She would see people as racist or not racist. She would see Catholics as "good" and Muslims as "bad". Yet she has some capacity for Orange level thinking. When pressed, she would acknowledge that not all Catholics are "good" and that not all Muslims are "bad". A good example of this at the population level is Trump's comment that "Mexicans are criminals and rapists". This resonated very strongly with Blue - both cognitively and emotionally. Blue sees it as "Us vs. Them". Mexicans are not us - they are the "other" and there is a visceral Blue level emotional response as well. However, Trump and most of his followers have some capacity for Orange. So when called on this, some Trump supporters responded "Well, Trump didn't say ALL Mexicans were racist, he also said that there are some good ones as well". Yet a Green or Yellow level consciousness can easily detect the fallacy of this. That comment and reaction was at a Red/Blue level. Trying to veil it with some Orange will only fool Blue and Orange - not Green or Yellow. Green and Yellow understand the underlying dynamics because they are two conscious levels higher.

People don't move up and down the spiral as if they are proficient in all levels. Imagine Blue is a pair of scissors, Orange is a saw and Green is a chainsaw. Someone might be great at using a pair of scissors, unsteady with a saw and barely be able to use a chainsaw. It's not like they can go up and down the spiral using scissors, a saw and chainsaw. They will be most comfortable using scissors and will get gradually better at using a saw and even more gradually better at using a chainsaw. They might try to cut a branch with a pair of scissors and realize a saw would be better and try to learn the saw. If such a person saw a forest they would be overwhelmed.

As well, these are not always smooth transitions. Part of SD theory involves resistance and a crisis to evolve further. For example, an Orange-centered person may be very successful in their career. They have received many awards. They are very knowledgeable and have done a lot of personal development. They have a high salary and are financially independent. . . Yet this person may reach a classic Orange level crisis in which it's not working anymore and they are unhappy. They may seek relief by striving for more personal success, yet this will only deepen the crisis. What they lack is a sense of community, empathy, inter-personal love and human bonds at Green. 

Yellow can see that evolution along the spiral includes both linear and nonlinear evolution. And there are both horizontal and vertical axis. At higher yellow levels, this expands into many more dimensions along many more developmental lines. Yet this can become quite complex and cumbersome and unpractical in conversation.

11 hours ago, InDeep said:

I'm coming back to address Serotoninluv's statement that "Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or". I think that at first tier every level is engaged in the binary thinking--and judgement--of "My way of thinking is the right way (obviously) and if everyone else would just see this, everything would be fine, great even!" (haha) And it's simply not true.

Of course. Every stage utilizes binary thinking - including yellow. How could we have a coin toss to start a football game without binary thinking??!!

Regarding the view "my way is right, your way is wrong", does involve binary thinking. Yet this is example is more a Tier1 dynamic. There is a lack of relativism understanding. As well, there is a personality dynamic "my" view and "your" view, as well as attachment/identification to that personal view. This personality dynamic largely dissolves into Tier2. It runs very very deep, so I would not say a high level of purity is necessary. However, Yellow is much less about personalization and has much less attachement/identification to ideas. They are much better at considering and holding multiple perspectives without attachment. At it's heart, yellow loves perspectives and sees value in all perspectives. Yet to varying degrees, an undeveloped yellow may be able to have a yellow-level conversation with a solid yellow person, yet would drop down to Orange while having conversations with an Orange-centered person.

As well, every Tier1 stage blames other Tier1 stages for problems - because they are still highly contracted within a personality construct. Blue will do this more intensely than Green. 

11 hours ago, InDeep said:

Serotoninluv equates Blue with racism. 

No. Racism exists at each stage. Yet there are differences in degree. And each stage perceives racism through a different lens. Notice how Green calls Blue racists and Blue calls Green the "real" racists (e.g. "reverse-racism" is a common Blue perception).

11 hours ago, InDeep said:

Tribalism exists at every level of the Spiral, it's just that who is seen as being in the "tribe" is seen in different ways, e.g. in some pockets of Green it's "other progressives, like me". It's not a matter of color, but people-who-think-like-me, and as with any tribe, there is a sense that "my people" are morally superior, see things in the right way. That's the danger. It is in Blue meme religion that, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" arose.--healthy. And yes, there is sometimes fear/distrust of the "other" at this level--but that exists at every level in first tier. 

You are equalizing here. Green has a more expansive sense of community than Blue. 

You are also equalizing intensity. A very important component of the spiral is intensity. Green fear of the other is less intense than Blue fear of the other - since Green is at a higher conscious level.

11 hours ago, InDeep said:

The jump to second tier has been described as a "great leap in consciousness" and it is, one that allows one to see how, again, all the levels of first tier are valid and have something to offer the human experiment and that it's about working to ensure that each level is helped to operate in healthy ways. Higher on the Spiral, again, does not mean "healthier" or "better".

I don't think you are seeing yellow-level relativism. Yellow sees value in all perspectives, yet does not see all perspectives equally valuable.

Each stage will have healthy and unhealthy aspects - yet lower level unhealthy-ness will be unhealthier than higher stage unhealthy-ness.

For example, an unhealthy red level person may seek revenge by killing someone who did them wrong. An unhealthy orange-level person may seek revenge by libelling an adversary. They are not the same degree of unhealthy-ness.

11 hours ago, InDeep said:

There is a heck of a lot of narcissism and egocentricity at Green (as there can be at every level)! 

You are again missing degree and extent. Both are egocentric, yet Blue is more egocentric than Green 

11 hours ago, InDeep said:

A Jehovah's witness comes to the door and asks (as they do), "Have you been saved?" Unhealthy Green may (as unhealthy, mean Green meme often does) reply with outrage: "Don't you dare try and shove your religion down my throat!" 

That is unhealthy blue. Unhealthy Green would be gossiping and shaming a boss that is misogynist and homophobic. They key is that the other person violates a Green value, such as equality or inclusion and Green responds in an unhealthy way. Another example of unhealthy Green would be throwing blood on someone wearing a fur coat or blowing up a gas-guzzling SUV. Here, the Green is trying to protect what they value (animal welfare and the environment) in an unhealthy way.

11 hours ago, InDeep said:

A second tier thinker understand that Blue is coming from love, that this Blue meme individual is experiencing the joy of being "saved" and wants to do whatever they can to help others to also feel the joy of "salvation". How might a second tier thinker respond? "Thank you, yes, I have been saved!" The Jehovah's witness might very well exclaim--joyfully--"Praise the Lord! May I pray with you?" The second tier thinker, having no need to defend against this might say yes and...close their eyes and allow the Jehovah's witness to pray with them--and take this as a blessing. Each can then part with a greater sense of love and UNITY. And isn't that what it's all about?

That is Green. Cultural relativism, love, and inclusion. Those are hallmarks of Green.

[Zega]

@Synchronicity

 you mention "mental toughness" in conservatives. 

 

Would emotional intelligence be a more accurate term? Liberals do tend to be more reactive in that sense. 

 

You also mention self restraint being pushed into lower consciousness. I see it as more of a foundational thing that is gained at the lower levels and used to advance. 

 

It's also important to keep in mind that as in depth of a model as it is, SD is just that; a model. No matter how useful of a model it may be it comes back to the map not being the territory. 

[tenta]

On 2/13/2019 at 8:43 PM, Bojan said:

Do you know at which stages are Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro?

 

Mostly stage blue

[zeroISinfinity]

On 23.8.2019. at 10:42 AM, tenta said:

 

Mostly stage blue

Yes. Urban areas stage Orange. That civil war, collapse of old state, deep criminalization of society, high corruption, re destribution of power and capital into hands of mob 'elite'. Fun stuff. 

Joke is that commie Yugoslavia was on much higher rate of development in all areas in comparrision to splited mini states. 

Proof That It's stage blue is that collapse and civil war started purely based on religion differences. It's same nation. Serbs(Mostly orthodox Christians, Croats catholics, Bosniaks muslims) 

Edited August 24, 2019 by zeroISinfinity

[Bojan V]

@apparentlynoself Yes, ex Yugoslavia was stage blue, and not only that. It was a pathological stage blue. Especialy in rural areas.

Edited November 14, 2020 by Bojan V