Leo’s dumb political ideology exposed

[fluffy]

Claims: "Reality is nothing but a perspective".

Makes a career out of strawmanning libertarian and right-wing belief systems. 

Calls these belief systems "less evolved" by referring to his dumb neo-piagetian, teleological, spiritualist model.

Have you ever wondered why no reputable political scientist has ever used Spiral Dynamics? Because it has no empirical backing whatsoever. You are ironically constructing an ideology from the ground up, using unscientific claims. Funnily you have no interest in debating me - because you know I could deconstruct your whole crooked endeavor. 

Not so curious about the Truth now, huh?

[Leo Gura]

Hehehe... that's some fine gaslighting.

[fluffy]

Hahah, you continue to amaze me

[Nak Khid]

21 minutes ago, fluffy said:

 

Have you ever wondered why no reputable political scientist has ever used Spiral Dynamics? Because it has no empirical backing whatsoever. You are ironically constructing an ideology from the ground up, using unscientific claims.

The idea of Spiral Dynamics was originally created as a way to describe psychological and awareness development on both an individual and collective level.  Back in the 1950s, while Abraham Maslow was formulating his Hierarchy of Human Needs, a psychologist named Clare W. Graves began doing research on what makes people different in terms of behaviors, values and worldviews. He didn’t “type” personalities, instead he called his work, “”The Emergent, Cyclical, Levels of Existence Theory.”
Graves passed away before publishing his conclusions, so he is less known than his contemporary, Maslow.  Then in the 1980s and beyond, two of his students, Don Beck and Chris Cowan, went on to publish a book in 1996 titled, Spiral Dynamics based upon Grave’s work.  Beyond their collective efforts, the well-known author Ken Wilber expanded the theory in his book a Theory of Everything and other books that followed.

 The book was based on the theory of psychology professor Clare W. Graves, and originally targeted at a business management audience.

______________________________________

So why are you a hooting and a hollerin it's psychology, not a hard science and was originally for a  business management audience.

Add to this Leo's spiritual ideas.   
You would have to tear down the whole of spirituality for not being scientific.
Also where's the fluffiness?
you seem to have the quills out 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Nak Khid

[TrustTheProcess]

54 minutes ago, fluffy said:

Claims: "Reality is nothing but a perspective".

Makes a career out of strawmanning libertarian and right-wing belief systems. 

Calls these belief systems "less evolved" by referring to his dumb neo-piagetian, teleological, spiritualist model.

Have you ever wondered why no reputable political scientist has ever used Spiral Dynamics? Because it has no empirical backing whatsoever. You are ironically constructing an ideology from the ground up, using unscientific claims. Funnily you have no interest in debating me - because you know I could deconstruct your whole crooked endeavor. 

Not so curious about the Truth now, huh?

less evolved= more simplistic, more black and white, more egocentric, more contracted scope

It is not just leo. there is a reason why professionals of history, sociology, economics, political science, psychology tend to have a heavy left wing bias across the board and would agree that right wing belief systems are less developed even if they don't necessarily know about sd... those kinds of belief systems simply don't hold up against nuanced academic discourse... yes, even that is just a perspective, but some perspectives are less contracted and encompass more perspectives than others, and thus relatively more truthful... 

In order for you to realize this, it would require you to surrender your ego and put your world view on the chopping block... just consider that perhaps you really don't know shit about anything.

Try to actively see the limitations in your own worldview before trying to point out the holes in others and use that as justification to maintain your own perspective without bothering to honestly assess it critically. 

Quote

"You hypocrite! First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye."

Mathew 7:5

I wish you luck on your journey man. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by louhad

[Boethius]

@Nak Khid Beck also came out (in conjunction with a few other authors) with another book in 2018 called Spiral Dynamics in Action: Humanity's Master Code where they very specifically apply spiral dynamics to a variety of different regions in the world, including work they've done on Israel and Palestine. This a denser and more technical book than the one you mentioned from 1996, so I've been only reading bits and pieces of it, but it's simply false that spiral dynamics is somehow not "reputable". Hell, I've heard (though I don't have citation for this) that the US government trains some of its foreign affairs officers in SD!

[Girzo]

58 minutes ago, fluffy said:

why no reputable political scientist has ever used Spiral Dynamics?

Because they are stuck in Blue/Orange mostly.

Just the same reason why the most reputable priests don't use feminist theory or Derrida in their sermons.

[Parththakkar12]

56 minutes ago, fluffy said:

Claims: "Reality is nothing but a perspective".

Makes a career out of strawmanning libertarian and right-wing belief systems. 

Calls these belief systems "less evolved" by referring to his dumb neo-piagetian, teleological, spiritualist model.

Have you ever wondered why no reputable political scientist has ever used Spiral Dynamics? Because it has no empirical backing whatsoever. You are ironically constructing an ideology from the ground up, using unscientific claims. Funnily you have no interest in debating me - because you know I could deconstruct your whole crooked endeavor. 

Not so curious about the Truth now, huh?

Lol!! Nice attempt to put it in a nice little nutshell. 

As far as his 'crooked endeavors' go, Leo is a political cult! Cult! CULT!!! 'LEO DEBUNKED!!!' 

If you're being serious, my take is that you're over-over-over-simplifying it.

[Extreme Z7]

1 hour ago, fluffy said:

Have you ever wondered why no reputable political scientist has ever used Spiral Dynamics?

Hahaha. . .  how would you determine a political scientist as reputable? When they start using SD, you'll start labeling them as unreputable.

[Carl-Richard]

[Epikur]

2 hours ago, fluffy said:

Claims: "Reality is nothing but a perspective".

Makes a career out of strawmanning libertarian and right-wing belief systems. 

Calls these belief systems "less evolved" by referring to his dumb neo-piagetian, teleological, spiritualist model.

Have you ever wondered why no reputable political scientist has ever used Spiral Dynamics? Because it has no empirical backing whatsoever. You are ironically constructing an ideology from the ground up, using unscientific claims. Funnily you have no interest in debating me - because you know I could deconstruct your whole crooked endeavor. 

Not so curious about the Truth now, huh?

At least he motivates people who would not otherwise more about politics, history, economy and so on in a entertaining way.

Because some guy calls himself Napoleon doesn't mean he can not tell real stories about Napolen's life. 

You have to pick people where they are. People need entertainment in a safe space. If you want to go to the next step you can go to a politics forum. where people slap each other with "facts" that can hurt. 









 

[Artsu]

2 hours ago, Girzo said:

Because they are stuck in Blue/Orange mostly.

Just the same reason why the most reputable priests don't use feminist theory or Derrida in their sermons.

Priests don't use feminist theory or Derrida in their sermons because they're stuck in blue and orange?

Uh, i don't think so.

It's a sermon, not a university seminar on critical theory.

If i went to a sermon i wouldn't want to hear about that stuff, although it could be worth novelty points.

[AtheisticNonduality]

16 minutes ago, Artsu said:

 

It's a sermon, not a university seminar on critical theory.

 

Yes, Blue and Orange.

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Girzo said:

Because they are stuck in Blue/Orange mostly.

Just the same reason why the most reputable priests don't use feminist theory or Derrida in their sermons.

The human psyche is more nuanced than that. I know of a Yellow guy that is still religious. He simply doesn't apply yellow to religion but nevertheless to everything else. And he does not even know about SD. I dare say he's way more nuanced than I am even though I've spent years studying this stuff and we're both at a similar age. This shows that you can have different stages of development for each area of your life. You don't have to be fully tier two to have a tier two orientation. In fact I believe that's where a lot of people are at. Becoming a professional in any field essentially means getting into a tier two zone even if you're purple in other fields. 

[Gesundheit]

@Leo Gura finally it is time to pack your shit and go home. 

[Epikur]

I wanted to check on SD in wiki but there seems to be some potential for development there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Spiral_dynamics&redirect=no
 

[Artsu]

1 hour ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Yes, Blue and Orange.

In the sense that you're speaking to a general audience of a range of levels, it would be typical not to include material too complex, but religious education goes quite deep from what i hear. Theology is not for the faint of heart.

I became more religious when i was in what i assume to be yellow, and as i move into post integral, it is the main focus of my life.

This site goes hand in hand with the interest. You are assuming religious people are generally blue, and while most don't question the assumptions of the religion, and thus remain in dogma zone, religion is a powerful domain where the highest of high in SD terms reside.

[Nak Khid]

WHERE'S FLUFFY ???

[Epikur]

13 minutes ago, Artsu said:

In the sense that you're speaking to a general audience of a range of levels, it would be typical not to include material too complex, but religious education goes quite deep from what i hear. Theology is not for the faint of heart.

I became more religious when i was in what i assume to be yellow, and as i move into post integral, it is the main focus of my life.

This site goes hand in hand with the interest. You are assuming religious people are generally blue, and while most don't question the assumptions of the religion, and thus remain in dogma zone, religion is a powerful domain where the highest of high in SD terms reside.

Like the sufis for example Rumi?

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Boethius said:

@Nak Khid Beck also came out (in conjunction with a few other authors) with another book in 2018 called Spiral Dynamics in Action: Humanity's Master Code where they very specifically apply spiral dynamics to a variety of different regions in the world, including work they've done on Israel and Palestine. This a denser and more technical book than the one you mentioned from 1996, so I've been only reading bits and pieces of it, but it's simply false that spiral dynamics is somehow not "reputable". Hell, I've heard (though I don't have citation for this) that the US government trains some of its foreign affairs officers in SD!

Cool! I wasn’t aware of this. On my booklist!

5 hours ago, fluffy said:

Have you ever wondered why no reputable political scientist has ever used Spiral Dynamics? Because it has no empirical backing whatsoever.

Actually, Graves had quite a bit of empirical data including hundreds of students essays over years. The main reason his work was not disseminated into academic psychology is because he died before his work was published. Remember, he lived before the internet. If someone didn’t publish their work, it didn’t get disseminated. 

What do the greatest psychologists in this area consider of Grave’s work? Well the great Abraham Maslow admitted at the end of his life that Graves work was far more sophisticated and superior to his hierarchy of needs. Yet Maslow was able to disseminate his model throughout academia. It is in every psychology textbook and is taught in every psychology department around the world. Every psychology student learns it and then those that become psychologists and psychology teachers then teach it. It is passed on from generation to generation.