Orange vs Yellow thinking

[tuckerwphotography]

This to me is a fantastic example of Stage Orange vs Yellow worldviews. 

I peg Bret Weinstein as very high Orange with some cognitive abilities (like systems thinking) that verge into Yellow. But fundamentally his worldview is Orange. He looks at the world from an almost entirely materialist's paradigm, specifically through a scientific evolutionary lens. He talks about the purpose of life being nothing other than to pass our genes onto the next generation. He talks about death in a very Orange way. He speaks about how important it is to save humanity from existential threats but fails to include that same concern for nature and animals. He mentions he doesn't believe in "fate or anything close to it." Most interestingly, Bret talked openly about how dark his worldview is, verging on a sense of nihilism that is common to Stage Orange.

Jamie Wheal, meanwhile, has a visibly lighter spirit which several people in the YouTube comments noted. He spoke about "radical hope" and frequently referenced spiritual teachers and religious texts. He brilliantly weaved together many different fields of studies unlike Bret who almost always brought it back to his domain of science and history. Jamie advocated for post-modernism and indigenous wisdom at one point. Bret acknowledged that Jamie embodies a more "emotional" approach while Bret admitted to being more rational and analytical.

What Jamie did so well - a huge tell of Stage Yellow - is he met Bret where he was at instead of debating him or calling him out (as the Green part of me wanted him to). Jamie was cool, calm and gracefully agreed with Bret's underlying points while expanding the conversation to include a more macro perspective, often which Bret agreed with...in other words, Jamie didn't go too far and loose his audience. He knew where to meet Bret and where to gently push him. 

This conversation also highlights to me some of the limitations of Yellow and Jamie's worldview. He still fundamentally is trying to save a material world and mapping the universe into infinity without expanding beyond the human mind into Turquoise territory, except for a few transcendent peak states of consciousness via psychedelics and breathwork, which he's spoken about. Jamie even joked that his wife makes fun of him for creating a map about whether he should lovingly touch her left shoulder or not, rather than just being a human and giving physical affection to his wife. He recognizes the limitations of map making and endlessly "complexifying" the world (calling out his fellow Stage Yellow friends), yet he mostly embodies the same shadows as they do. 

That's my analysis. Curious to hear what others think

   

[Carl-Richard]

You can see this parallell in their academic backgrounds as well: biology vs. anthropology. One is more essentialist and the other is more relativist. A biologist would be more inclined to want to ground something in an objective substance (analysis) while an anthropologist will be more inclined to compare and contrast different perspectives (synthesis). That said, both show Tier 2 traits (maybe Jamie a bit more than Bret).

Edited May 11, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, tuckerwphotography said:

He looks at the world from an almost entirely materialist's paradigm, specifically through a scientific evolutionary lens. He talks about the purpose of life being nothing other than to pass our genes onto the next generation. He talks about death in a very Orange way.

Green can also be like that.

Bret has a much better grasp of Green than, say, JP. I would place Bret higher than just Orange. I think he's Green in many ways. Just in a more sober and rational way.

Of course Jamie is way beyond that. He is a student of Ken Wilber.

[Inva]

@tuckerwphotography great synopsis thx for sharing I've always liked Weinstein

[tuckerwphotography]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Green can also be like that.

Bret has a much better grasp of Green than, say, JP. I would place Bret higher than just Orange. I think he's Green in many ways. Just in a more sober and rational way.

Of course Jamie is way beyond that. He is a student of Ken Wilber.

@Leo Gura Agree, from the few podcasts I've watched of Bret he doesn't seem openly hostile to Green, unlike JP. I can see that maybe he's more Green than I suspected, but at least from the video above with Jamie I didn't get a strong sense of that. Probably 50% Orange, 25% Green, 25% Yellow. 

Leo, do you ever listen to Jim Rutt's podcast? He's another example of a Yellow Game B thinker who is at times openly hostile towards the excesses of Green, and I can't sense whether it's because he has a Green shadow or if he's just being his blunt bombastic self. Either way, I really enjoy his conversations as he comes off as some normal dude sitting on the porch shooting the shit but from a stage Yellow perspective. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by tuckerwphotography

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, tuckerwphotography said:

@Leo Gura

Leo, do you ever listen to Jim Rutt's podcast? He's another example of a Yellow Game B thinker who is at times openly hostile towards the excesses of Green, and I can't sense whether it's because he has a Green shadow or if he's just being his blunt bombastic self. Either way, I really enjoy his conversations as he comes off as some normal dude sitting on the porch shooting the shit but from a stage Yellow perspective. 

I have not heard of him before.

The problem with hostility towards Green is that Green is our next stage for the next 50 years collectively. Is it wise to be hostile towards the next step mankind must take?

[tuckerwphotography]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I have not heard of him before.

The problem with hostility towards Green is that Green is our next stage for the next 50 years collectively. Is it wise to be hostile towards the next step mankind must take?

@Leo Gura Yes, precisely.

I see this as a larger challenge that many of the Yellow thinkers, including yourself, might at some point need to reckon with. 

I often wish I could send your videos to my deeply Stage Green friends, as these are the people who could grow most from your Yellow/Turquoise thinking. But because of your very masculine energy, blunt and direct way of communicating, I know most would be turned off because of "your energy" as well as your use of words like "bitch" and how every reference you make is he/him/his rather than including both genders or alternating back and forth. I don't personally give a shit about any of this, so it's not a critique; however it often prevents me from sending to Greens because I know it just won't resonate. The same is true for Jamie Wheal, Schmachtenberger, Jordan Hall, etc.

I'm not asking you to change, and I'd rather you be your authentic self, yet at the same time with some minor word choice tweaks and your softened energy (as you portrayed well in your JP video), I think you could really grow and expand your audience with those who are ironically closest to evolving into the 2nd tier. Or perhaps that's not your intention nor role to play, and that's fine, too.

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, tuckerwphotography said:

I'm not asking you to change, and I'd rather you be your authentic self, yet at the same time with some minor word choice tweaks and your softened energy (as you portrayed well in your JP video), I think you could really grow and expand your audience with those who are ironically closest to evolving into the 2nd tier. Or perhaps that's not your intention nor role to play, and that's fine, too.

I'm evolving every year so you may get your wish one day.

But honestly, my work is a bit too advanced for people stuck deep in Green. You have to be crazy like a fox to see the full value of my work.

But I will try to be more inclusive in the future.

[tuckerwphotography]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm evolving every year so you may get your wish one day.

But honestly, my work is a bit too advanced for people stuck deep in Green. You have to be crazy like a fox to see the full value of my work.

But I will try to be more inclusive in the future.

For sure, I can see that. 

The more Yellow type people I meet in-person the more I sense they've bypassed a lot of Green and went from late Orange to early Yellow but without fully swimming through the heart of Green.  

It seems more important than ever to have fully embodied Green-Yellow bridge builders. A few examples might include Charles Eisenstein, Zak Stein, Nora Bateson, Euvie from Future Thinkers, Richard Rohr. But there's not a lot. Some of the Integral Institute people like Jeff Salzman do a good job of speaking inclusively to Green in language anyone can resonate with. Maybe being one of these bridge builders is part of my Life Purpose...

[Flyboy]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm evolving every year so you may get your wish one day.

But honestly, my work is a bit too advanced for people stuck deep in Green. You have to be crazy like a fox to see the full value of my work.

But I will try to be more inclusive in the future.

I second this request.  I have seen the value in your work, and have thus invested a huge amount of my time learning from you.  To my dismay, though, almost no one I recommend you to will listen to you long enough to realize "where you are actually coming from", as these traits tend to put them off very easily and they make hasty judgments.  I admit that even with pretty significant personal tolerance for this, I had to listen to quite a few of your videos before I was really "sure" that you weren't coming from a place of narcissism.  It's an unfortunate barrier for many, as the holism in your work is unparalleled.

A specific request would be for you to soften the tone of authority; if you look at your own progression you went from the "eager explorer" to talking as a "master"; in other words, you basically always speak as if from above.  Even if true, people pick up on this.  It's super hard to convince people who don't have a clue why you are "above" to accept your authority as fact.  It appears like spiritual narcissism.  I think the best and most truly developed Master would be humble and soft, knowing that their grace and wisdom would shine through.  Masculine-style love only works when there is established trust, and you don't automatically have that with strangers.

[tuckerwphotography]

16 hours ago, Flyboy said:

A specific request would be for you to soften the tone of authority; if you look at your own progression you went from the "eager explorer" to talking as a "master"; in other words, you basically always speak as if from above.  Even if true, people pick up on this.  It's super hard to convince people who don't have a clue why you are "above" to accept your authority as fact.  It appears like spiritual narcissism.  I think the best and most truly developed Master would be humble and soft, knowing that their grace and wisdom would shine through.  Masculine-style love only works when there is established trust, and you don't automatically have that with strangers.

An easy way to do this is to switch from “you” to “we”. For example, instead of saying, “You have no what the nature of reality is” one could say “we humans often have no idea what the nature of reality is.” It makes it inclusive and doesn’t presume that one knows everything about the person watching. It feels invitational rather than confrontational. Could really help in softening the delivering, though I’m not even sure that’s Leo’s intention...