Are some people biologically doomed to be stuck in spiral dynamics stage blue?

[SamC]

Acording to research conservatives tend to score lower on openness and higher on conscientiousness than those who consider themselves as liberals for example. Furthermore, we know for a fact that biology has a massive impact on our big 5 personality types, and that some people, in other words are not born to have high openes in their personality profile.

If this is the case this should inform us that some people are not born to be spiral dynamics stage yellow -  for they can't be open minded enough due to their lack of openes to experience.

Here is my questions regarding this that I'd be super interesed to hear your answers to!

1: Does this mean that some people are "doomed" to be stuck on a lower stage for the rest of their life's because of their biology?

2: Is it even realistic that a conservative who is super closed minded can become a stage yellow in this life time?

3: Isn't spiral dynamics more of a modell on personality types than ego development? I mean,  If all the people can't climb up - doesn't that open up for the possibility of sprial dynamics being an illusion which in reality mostly describes personality types? ( I mean it certainly is both - but some people can't seem to be bound by their personality)

4:  If the answer to question 3 is yes. Could it be that some people must become another personality type to become a stage yellow eventually? ( like going from an ENTJ to an INFP, INTP or whatever)

5: Are there some MBTI personality types who tend to be more stage Yellow or torques than the other one's?

Looking forward to an interesting discussion down below.

Edited January 1, 2021 by SamC

[Leo Gura]

In practice, statistically speaking, yes.

But any individual can make an effort to outgrow a dogmatic worldview.

You have to distinguish between what's possible at the individual level vs the collective level. For example, not everyone in the world can become a millionaire, but you can.

There are millions of ex-ideological people who outgrew it.

[SamC]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In practice, statistically speaking, yes.

But any individual can make an effort to outgrow a dogmatic worldview.

You have to distinguish between what's possible at the individual level vs the collective level. For example, not everyone in the world can become a millionaire, but you can.

There are millions of ex-ideological people who outgrew it.

@Leo Gura

Hmm yeah true, but would it be possible for a conservative who scores low on openess to become stage yellow in a stage yellow society even? I mean - wouldn't that be the same as expecting that a narcissist/ psychopath ( spiral dynamics red) could become a loving hippie in his life time?

How much can the collective really help people move up the spiral if they don't have the right biological circumstances? Isn't all the people who have certain biological personality profiles than doomed to be stuck where there are at? 

Edited January 2, 2021 by SamC

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, SamC said:

@Leo Gura

Hmm yeah true, but would it be possible for a conservative who scores low on openess to become stage yellow in a stage yellow society even? I mean - wouldn't that be the same as expecting that a narcissist/ psychopath ( spiral dynamics red) could become a loving hippie in his life time?

How much can the collective really help people move up the spiral if they don't have the right biological circumstances? Isn't all the people who have certain biological personality profiles than doomed to be stuck where there are at? 

Things start to become a bit complex when you start talking about hypothetical Yellow societies. Could they even exist? What would they look like? The expression of Blue (conservatism) of course depends on the cultural context: conservatism of today is not equal to conservatism of the past; Blue people living in majority Orange societies will show different beliefs than in majority Blue or Yellow societies. 

So you have rigidity of beliefs, but the specific beliefs in question are somewhat flexible (for example views on slavery). When society gets to Yellow, the expression of Blue obviously shifts, both demographically and ideologically, so you'll see much fewer Blue people and a much "milder" version of it. You could say the core elements of rigidity and ethnocentrism will remain while it gradually gets stripped of its contents. What that ultimately will look like is hard to say.

If we assume in this hypothetical society that Blue's cultural influence is peripheral to the core functioning of societal systems, it will be limited to the level of individuals and turn into a local social problem instead of a global problem. Just like how very few people have strong enough dark triad traits to be limited to Red for life, there will be something like that relating to Blue, but again, the scale and impact of the problem will be minimized.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[soos_mite_ah]

I think that whatever spiral stage a large amount of people can get stuck in has to do with the time, place, and environment they grew up in. Don't underestimate how powerful the socialization process can be. That said, socialization is behavioral, not genetic. You can socialize someone to be more open minded or not but a lot of that needs to be handled in childhood since it's one of those things that becomes formed and solidified early on. 

If people would be genetically programmed to a spiral stage, there would be less moving up the spiral in the collective level. The vast majority of the people hundreds of years ago were blue and below and we all have ancestors from that time. Would that mean we all have genes that hold us back to stage blue and below? 

And while biology and personality coincide, I feel that it is necessary to emphasize that correlation does not equal to causation. One way to interpret biology an personality coinciding can be that biology creates your personality. Another way to interpret this is that personality creates biology. Being exposed to something for a long period of time, whether it is something as physical as toxic substances or being exposed to toxic people, can physiologically have an impact on us but that doesn't mean that biology caused said impact if that makes sense. 

6 hours ago, SamC said:

1: Does this mean that some people are "doomed" to be stuck on a lower stage for the rest of their life's because of their biology?

No. Be careful, this idea can be a limiting belief

2: Is it even realistic that a conservative who is super closed minded can become a stage yellow in this life time?

It isn't realistic IMO because of how powerful socialization can be and how the ego has so many defense mechanisms at earlier stages. It isn't impossible, just not likely unless the person is super into self development work or something. 

3: Isn't spiral dynamics more of a modell on personality types than ego development? I mean,  If all the people can't climb up - doesn't that open up for the possibility of sprial dynamics being an illusion which in reality mostly describes personality types? ( I mean it certainly is both - but some people can't seem to be bound by their personality)

No. The way I see it is that personality types are the forms we take in terms of our essence. Your ego can grow and change as it develops but your personality can still stay the same. That personality might manifest differently and therefore look completely different but there is still that consistent essence. It's kind of like aging. As you grow and develop physically, you can change your appearance drastically. If someone saw me when I was 5 and saw me again at 35, they probably wouldn't recognize me but I'm still the same person. You develop your ego but you maintain the same form but because you manifest differently as you grow, it looks like your form changes. 

4:  If the answer to question 3 is yes. Could it be that some people must become another personality type to become a stage yellow eventually? ( like going from an ENTJ to an INFP, INTP or whatever)

My answer was no.

5: Are there some MBTI personality types who tend to be more stage Yellow or torques than the other one's?

Looking forward to an interesting discussion down below.

I'm pretty sure you can be any MBTI type and still get to yellow or turquoise. All of the MBTI types were present in ancient times when people were mainly blue and below and those same types are still present in individuals who are in stage blue and above. I think whether you will tend towards yellow and turquoise has more to do with what kinds of hobbies and interest you have and I feel that hobbies and interests aren't necessarily indicative of personality type even though there are stereotypes regarding different MBTI types and stereotypes about people engaging in different hobbies and interests.  

I know what I said might be confusing and I apologize if I didn't find the best words to articulate what I'm trying to say. If you have questions regarding what I mean, I understand and I'm open to answering. 

[ArchangelG]

I dont think anyone is BIOLOGICALLY doomed to low consciousness, since consciousness is beyond biology. 

And biology(external, individual) is only one aspect of reality. 

Individual, internal(thoughts, emotions, values etc.) plays a huge part, as well as collective, internal(paradigm, collective values etc.) And external, collective(systemic).

 

 

[SamC]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Things start to become a bit complex when you start talking about hypothetical Yellow societies. Could they even exist? What would they look like? The expression of Blue (conservatism) of course depends on the cultural context: conservatism of today is not equal to conservatism of the past; Blue people living in majority Orange societies will show different beliefs than in majority Blue or Yellow societies. 

Good point! Thanks for the perspective.

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

So you have rigidity of beliefs, but the specific beliefs in question are somewhat flexible (for example views on slavery). When society gets to Yellow, the expression of Blue obviously shifts, both demographically and ideologically, so you'll see much fewer Blue people and a much "milder" version of it. You could say the core elements of rigidity and ethnocentrism will remain while it gradually gets stripped of its contents. What that ultimately will look like is hard to say.

Interesting. So in other words the content of spiral dynamics blue People differs.

 

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If we assume in this hypothetical society that Blue's cultural influence is peripheral to the core functioning of societal systems, it will be limited to the level of individuals and turn into a local social problem instead of a global problem. Just like how very few people have strong enough dark triad traits to be limited to Red for life, there will be something like that relating to Blue, but again, the scale and impact of the problem will be minimized.

Love your analysis.

[seeking_brilliance]

I think it helps more to get out of the environment, and the mind will flourish.  But I guess there are some predispositions to consider. 

[No Self]

14 hours ago, SamC said:

If this is the case this should inform us that some people are not born to be spiral dynamics stage yellow -  for they can't be open minded enough due to their lack of openes to experience.

Closed-mindedness is definitionally a trait of conservatism - and appropriately so. But is there any evidence that people's biology determines their political views?

I'd start with the nature vs. nurture debate before going any further.

[SamC]

8 hours ago, soos_mite_ah said:

I think that whatever spiral stage a large amount of people can get stuck in has to do with the time, place, and environment they grew up in. Don't underestimate how powerful the socialization process can be. That said, socialization is behavioral, not genetic. You can socialize someone to be more open minded or not but a lot of that needs to be handled in childhood since it's one of those things that becomes formed and solidified early on. 

For sure. The question is however if a person who is a psychopath or someone who scores super low on openess ever will be able take on multiple perspectives. I get that people's development is super influenced by social conditioning but the biology aspect exsists aswell! Some people can't feel empathy and some people can't take on multiple perspectives - because of their biological circumstances.

Arial Castro - the psychopath guy who kidnapped and raped 3 girls 12 years strait, wouldn't be able to be a systemsthinker even if the society would have been yellow. He would still be a psychopath, cause of his biological personality profile.

If this is the case, being stage yellow is dependent on having certain qualities in one's personality type. I mean - a person who is super closed minded has to transcend their structure of the mind in order to evolve to yellow.

Quote

If people would be genetically programmed to a spiral stage, there would be less moving up the spiral in the collective level. The vast majority of the people hundreds of years ago were blue and below and we all have ancestors from that time. Would that mean we all have genes that hold us back to stage blue and below? 

Not all people. Some people.

I do belive a lot of people do have genes or whatever that hold them back to become stage yellow. I don't know why that is though, but we all have different circumstances.

One could argue that it depends on the social aspect and it does... a lot. But yet there still is yellow people in our society, and all those people have one thing in common. All spiral dynamics stage yellow people score relatively high on opeennes in a society where are culture is not super open minded.

 

Quote

And while biology and personality coincide, I feel that it is necessary to emphasize that correlation does not equal to causation. One way to interpret biology an personality coinciding can be that biology creates your personality. Another way to interpret this is that personality creates biology. Being exposed to something for a long period of time, whether it is something as physical as toxic substances or being exposed to toxic people, can physiologically have an impact on us but that doesn't mean that biology caused said impact if that makes sense.

Yes for sure, that's one aspect of it - but it is not the whole truth.

We are born with different strengths, personalities and biology/ neurology. Personality  creates biology yes - but biology creates personality aswell. It's a feed backlop¡ they are both connected.

I know what I said might be confusing and I apologize if I didn't find the best words to articulate what I'm trying to say. If you have questions regarding what I mean, I understand and I'm open to answering. 

Feel free to answer my objections! I am sure I am missing a lot of stuff that you are aware of that I can integrate. 

It's super fun to hear and learn from other people. Thanks for your time and answers. @soos_mite_ah

Edited January 2, 2021 by SamC

[SamC]

2 hours ago, ArchangelG said:

I dont think anyone is BIOLOGICALLY doomed to low consciousness, since consciousness is beyond biology. 

And biology(external, individual) is only one aspect of reality. 

Individual, internal(thoughts, emotions, values etc.) plays a huge part, as well as collective, internal(paradigm, collective values etc.) And external, collective(systemic).

 

 

It does and you're right, conciousness is beyond biology.. 

But what is between one who is highly concious and not? 

Ego

In other words, biology has a big impact on one's conciousness cause biology has a huge impact on one's ego.

[SamC]

20 minutes ago, No Self said:

Closed-mindedness is definitionally a trait of conservatism - and appropriately so. But is there any evidence that people's biology determines their political views?

I'd start with the nature vs. nurture debate before going any further.

There is super strong evidence actually. people who score higher on concientsciens and lower on openes are more likely to be conservative.

High scores on Concientsciens and Low scores on openes is linked to the feeling of duty, orderliness and structure, which in one way is contrary to the more multi perspective way of a liberal, progressive or a spiral dynamics stage yellow. Look it up for yourself.

I'm all for that debate. Both biology and environment matter. It's not black and white, they both dictate personality. The question is not about natural hierarchies VS socially constructed hierarchies.. 

It's about what truth is in any given situation, and that's what I'm dying to figure out. Would love your perspective on this issue as well, I'm surely missing details I'm not aware of.

Edited January 2, 2021 by SamC

[SamC]

38 minutes ago, seeking_brilliance said:

I think it helps more to get out of the environment, and the mind will flourish.  But I guess there are some predispositions to consider. 

It's a complicated matter(: 

[soos_mite_ah]

IDK maybe it's just me but one time I had this realization that a lot of people's personalities, including my own, comes up in very early childhood as some form of survival given the social dynamics in our area and because that happened really early on, so early that most people don't remember it, people just assume that their personality and ego is this fixed thing. That can lead to the conclusion that a VERY large percentage of our personality is learned and shaped by socialization meaning personality being biological isn't as big of a factor. 

One of the reasons why personality can seem biological is because a lot of people are mainly exposed to their biological parent's growing up in very early childhood and as a result they pick up different mannerism and attitudes early on. I think I remember taking a psychology class where we talked about nature vs. nurture when it came to personalities and while it isn't a clear cut answer, the data heavily supports nurture, while nature can have an impact as well, albeit small. Even if you get adopted kids who were adopted as babies, when they grow up, they are more likely to take on the habits and personalities of their adoptive caretakers rather than their biological parents.  

There was a really interesting experiment I remember having to learn about that involved these identical twins (meaning there was some form of control in the variable of genetics) who were separated at birth. One twin grew up as a Nazi in Nazi Germany and the other grew up as a Jew. Then years later when they were like 70, they had to meet each other and they had completely different personalities because they had completely different life experiences. But there were some aspects that they had eerie similarities. When they sat down for breakfast, they buttered their toast the exact same way to the point where they looked like they were in sync. There were a couple other really small similarities regarding their habits where they were in sync, I can't remember them off the top of my head, but the overall conclusion was that there is a biological component to habits and personality but they are incredibly small and don't perpetuate beyond shallow little habits.

 

****Also side note, I don't think this was the intent or assumption of this thread or original question but I would be very careful with attributing genetics to personality and/or ego development. There are certain parts of the world that is less evolved on the spiral and a lot of it has to do with the sociopolitical infrastructure of that area instead of it being inherent to the people living there. The reason I want to make this environment/ socialization vs. genetics distinction is because attributing a large chunk of people to a personality and/or ego development can easily spiral into racist ideology with the assumption that certain groups of people all similar personalities or that certain groups of people are less psychologically developed than others. Again, I don't think that the original question had any undertones of this but all I'm saying is that the attitude of personality and ego development being attributed to genetics can be taken to a very unhealthy extreme. 

Edited January 2, 2021 by soos_mite_ah

[SamC]

1 hour ago, soos_mite_ah said:

IDK maybe it's just me but one time I had this realization that a lot of people's personalities, including my own, comes up in very early childhood as some form of survival given the social dynamics in our area and because that happened really early on, so early that most people don't remember it, people just assume that their personality and ego is this fixed thing. That can lead to the conclusion that a VERY large percentage of our personality is learned and shaped by socialization meaning personality being biological isn't as big of a factor. 

It is for sure a HUGE factor, but not the only contributor. It's a super complex and facinating question. It's not black or white.

Quote

One of the reasons why personality can seem biological is because a lot of people are mainly exposed to their biological parent's growing up in very early childhood and as a result they pick up different mannerism and attitudes early on. I think I remember taking a psychology class where we talked about nature vs. nurture when it came to personalities and while it isn't a clear cut answer, the data heavily supports nurture, while nature can have an impact as well, albeit small. Even if you get adopted kids who were adopted as babies, when they grow up, they are more likely to take on the habits and personalities of their adoptive caretakers rather than their biological parents. 

Yeah sure, but it's not that simple. Other adoption studies suggests that the childs personality is more alike their biological parents than their adoptive parents.

Quote

There was a really interesting experiment I remember having to learn about that involved these identical twins (meaning there was some form of control in the variable of genetics) who were separated at birth. One twin grew up as a Nazi in Nazi Germany and the other grew up as a Jew. Then years later when they were like 70, they had to meet each other and they had completely different personalities because they had completely different life experiences. But there were some aspects that they had eerie similarities. When they sat down for breakfast, they buttered their toast the exact same way to the point where they looked like they were in sync. There were a couple other really small similarities regarding their habits where they were in sync, I can't remember them off the top of my head, but the overall conclusion was that there is a biological component to habits and personality but they are incredibly small and don't perpetuate beyond shallow little habits.

Super interesting. This is a topic that needs more propor research and investigation to understand. There is a lot more to understand regarding this topic.

Quote

 

****Also side note, I don't think this was the intent or assumption of this thread or original question but I would be very careful with attributing genetics to personality and/or ego development. There are certain parts of the world that is less evolved on the spiral and a lot of it has to do with the sociopolitical infrastructure of that area instead of it being inherent to the people living there.The reason I want to make this environment/ socialization vs. genetics distinction is because attributing a large chunk of people to a personality and/or ego development can easily spiral into racist ideology with the assumption that certain groups of people all similar personalities or that certain groups of people are less psychologically developed than others. Again, I don't think that the original question had any undertones of this but all I'm saying is that the attitude of personality and ego development being attributed to genetics can be taken to a very unhealthy extreme. 

For sure  it can be a danger, but don't be closed down to the dangers of being ideological about the nurture aspect being the dominant factor aswell. There exsist a biological aspect to personality, that's a fact.

This does not mean that all people are stuck though, or that all the people in spiral dynamics stage blue for example is closed minded because of genetics. Not at all. Of corse the culture and most people will move up and that most people are where they are at because of their collective sprial dynamics level. Some people might be stuck because of the biological aspect- but that has nothing to do with them being worse, only not as developed ego wise. These people might simply not be there yet because they have to live this life as X before moving up in the next life or whatever, and that's fine - everyone needs to develop in their own time. 

In conclusion, Some people are more developed than others and all people have different biological circumstances. That's the truth, and discriminating if that's how one decides to look at it or frame it as. This is the glimpse of truth in determinism- that  people have used to  create hateful ideologies by making the truth be something else than it is - and that's a shame.

Thanks for your perspective - I will research more into the environmental vs biological aspect of it. There are a lot of understanding and nuance still to be had about this topic

Edited January 2, 2021 by SamC

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, soos_mite_ah said:

****Also side note, I don't think this was the intent or assumption of this thread or original question but I would be very careful with attributing genetics to personality and/or ego development. There are certain parts of the world that is less evolved on the spiral and a lot of it has to do with the sociopolitical infrastructure of that area instead of it being inherent to the people living there. The reason I want to make this environment/ socialization vs. genetics distinction is because attributing a large chunk of people to a personality and/or ego development can easily spiral into racist ideology with the assumption that certain groups of people all similar personalities or that certain groups of people are less psychologically developed than others. Again, I don't think that the original question had any undertones of this but all I'm saying is that the attitude of personality and ego development being attributed to genetics can be taken to a very unhealthy extreme. 

@SamCI realize that this almost certainly wasn't your intention, but genetic determinism is something that has been weaponized against groups as far back as the eugenics movement at the turn of the last century (and even before that), and has been used as a pretense for denying people full participation in Society. Reframing it as a question of socialization and environment largely avoids this problem.

[SamC]

20 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

@SamCI realize that this almost certainly wasn't your intention, but genetic determinism is something that has been weaponized against groups as far back as the eugenics movement at the turn of the last century (and even before that), and has been used as a pretense for denying people full participation in Society. Reframing it as a question of socialization and environment largely avoids this problem.

For sure. Not my intention at all. I get it - determainsim has been used in all of our history. 

Nazism

Racism

Imperialism and more...

What's important to understand however is that there  exists SOME biological differences in people, and that this is the glimpse of truth that can be found in determanism.

It's in other words important to not be afraid of seeing the biological aspects in personality aswell - cause they exist.. but than again, that doesn't mean that ALL is biological. It certainly is not. 

More is probably social. I don't know the exact numbers.

Edited January 2, 2021 by SamC

[No Self]

7 hours ago, SamC said:

There is super strong evidence actually. people who score higher on concientsciens and lower on openes are more likely to be conservative.

For sure; indeed, it would be crazy to disagree on this point as these traits are what actually define the movement. In the case of the more hardline right-wing communities, additional traits like authoritarianism and 'social dominance orientation' are substantial.

However, what is less clear to me is what the genetic differences are between, say, stereotypical Californian leftist or an equivalent rural conservative from South Carolina. Keep in mind that 50% of a human's DNA is the same as a banana, well over 93-98% is the same as a chimpanzee, and ethnic differences between humans are negligible; in this case there are not even any ethnic differences at all. There are enormous differences in education, exposure to diversity, cultural identity and so on. But I would argue that biology has almost nothing to do with it.

Anecdotally, I have known many young people from right-wing societies who go through a rebellious phase of caring about the environment, expressing concern for animal rights and so on, but eventually they fall into line and wind up succumbing to their childhood conditioning. (Even the Hippie movement of the '60s is a wide-spread example of this, considering where the Boomers ended up in later decades.)

Another factor is epigenetics. My knowledge is extremely limited, but it does seem that the experiences of the parents has an effect on genes, even if the parent never met the child. My father had a traumatic childhood and ended up with narcissistic personality disorder, and then his eldest daughter also had NPD even though she experienced no such trauma. I speculate that this is an epigenetic consequence rather than a result of early childhood socialisation.

I also have an uncle who I didn't see for many years. When we did reunite, it turned out that we had a crazy number of common traits, developed completely independently: vegetarianism, environmentalism, love of birds, etc. In addition to obviously having similar genes, we both were shaped by trauma; the Vietnam war in his case, and an ultra-dysfunctional immediate family in mine. Perhaps genes affects how we interpret experiences.

In conclusion, many people are indeed psychologically doomed to remain closed-off to change. At the risk of being offensive, I'd say we have to wait for more Baby Boomers to pass away before we can get serious about caring for the environment in our politics. But this is almost entirely about child-raising, culture, peer pressure and other mental shenanigans. Genetically, we are all remarkably similar.

[SamC]

38 minutes ago, No Self said:

For sure; indeed, it would be crazy to disagree on this point as these traits are what actually define the movement. In the case of the more hardline right-wing communities, additional traits like authoritarianism and 'social dominance orientation' are substantial.

However, what is less clear to me is what the genetic differences are between, say, stereotypical Californian leftist or an equivalent rural conservative from South Carolina. Keep in mind that 50% of a human's DNA is the same as a banana, well over 93-98% is the same as a chimpanzee, and ethnic differences between humans are negligible; in this case there are not even any ethnic differences at all. There are enormous differences in education, exposure to diversity, cultural identity and so on. But I would argue that biology has almost nothing to do with it.

Anecdotally, I have known many young people from right-wing societies who go through a rebellious phase of caring about the environment, expressing concern for animal rights and so on, but eventually they fall into line and wind up succumbing to their childhood conditioning. (Even the Hippie movement of the '60s is a wide-spread example of this, considering where the Boomers ended up in later decades.)

Another factor is epigenetics. My knowledge is extremely limited, but it does seem that the experiences of the parents has an effect on genes, even if the parent never met the child. My father had a traumatic childhood and ended up with narcissistic personality disorder, and then his eldest daughter also had NPD even though she experienced no such trauma. I speculate that this is an epigenetic consequence rather than a result of early childhood socialisation.

I also have an uncle who I didn't see for many years. When we did reunite, it turned out that we had a crazy number of common traits, developed completely independently: vegetarianism, environmentalism, love of birds, etc. In addition to obviously having similar genes, we both were shaped by trauma; the Vietnam war in his case, and an ultra-dysfunctional immediate family in mine. Perhaps genes affects how we interpret experiences.

In conclusion, many people are indeed psychologically doomed to remain closed-off to change. At the risk of being offensive, I'd say we have to wait for more Baby Boomers to pass away before we can get serious about caring for the environment in our politics. But this is almost entirely about child-raising, culture, peer pressure and other mental shenanigans. Genetically, we are all remarkably similar.

Thanks for your perspective. I disagree though, we are not all geneticaly the same.  Life is not an even playing field, some people have it easier in some things than others. I can't dance for example, and that is not because I haven't tried enough, it's because of me not having the talent for it. I could learn, but it would be an uphill battle compared to someone who have a different neurology than me. 

That being said; this shouldn't be used as a limiting belief, only to set proper expectations and for deeper understanding on how to tackle the obstacles in life - for we need to understand in order to find soultions to our collective and individual challenges. A lot of things is caused by environmental aspects, but don't underestimate genetics. We all are different, that's why everyone seems crazy

 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by SamC

[ArchangelG]

17 hours ago, SamC said:

It does and you're right, conciousness is beyond biology.. 

But what is between one who is highly concious and not? 

Ego

In other words, biology has a big impact on one's conciousness cause biology has a huge impact on one's ego.

In what way do you mean? How does biology have a huge impact on the ego?

Edited January 3, 2021 by ArchangelG