Spiral dynamics on COVID political situation

[Preety_India]

Just now, thisintegrated said:

..in other words "not bruising fragile egos".

Do you expect the forum to strengthen your ego?  Cause that's not the goal of the forum.  Green is a relatively advanced stage, it doesn't need to be treated like a baby.  No Green would want to be given special treatment.

I never said about it. But shitting on it isn't exactly helping it flourish. Every stage has its mean sides. But Green takes the greatest amount of flack. What could be the reason other than that Green is challenging every ego that's non Green. This is simply attacking Green in order to protect ones ego meanwhile under the assumption that somehow it's  about not  allowing bruised egos be protected, no this is just a cover up, the real reason is to protect one's own ego..

It's like shutting down a whistle blower giving some bullshit excuse like we aren't allowing the whistle blower's bruised ego to be coddled ! But the underlying strategy is not this. 

Because listening is the most empathetic thing to do. So the first thing a Tier 2 person would do is giving space to listen. Instead of suppressing in the name of a higher mission, pure hypocrisy and bastardization of true values.

 

[thisintegrated]

5 minutes ago, Happy Lizard said:

@thisintegrated not really, I don’t really care, I see my blind spots as having a green prospective ( some I don’t think I’m completely green tough idk). And I’m here to learn. I just feel like there are some Ive noticed who criticize green from below which is counter intuitive if there objective is to learn. I personally don’t mind a criticism from above since I know that being too hell-bent on protecting everyone and there emotions wouldn’t get us far.

Whether criticism is from above or below is mostly irrelevant.  Tier 1 stages will all have their own problems, visible to other stages above and below.  The lower stages are all out of balance.  For Green to get to Yellow, it has to to return to individualisticness, the same side that Orange is in.  So hearing perspectives from Orange can help.

[thisintegrated]

8 minutes ago, cookiemonster said:

See this is why SD is such a silly system.

Lots of unnecessary judgement and very little practical benefit.

Who's judging who?  Why "little" practical benefit?  People would say the same about MBTI, and every other model that's ever been made.

Edited July 28, 2021 by thisintegrated

[Preety_India]

7 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

The lower stages are all out of balance.  For Green to get to Yellow, it has to to return to individualisticness, the same side that Orange is in.  So hearing perspectives from Orange can help.

We have reached paradigm lock.

 

[Happy Lizard]

@thisintegrated

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Whether criticism is from above or below is mostly irrelevant.  Tier 1 stages will all have their own problems, visible to other stages above and below.  The lower stages are all out of balance.  For Green to get to Yellow, it has to to return to individualisticness, the same side that Orange is in.  So hearing perspectives from Orange can help.

Hmm interesting, never looked at it this way before. I think I was thinking about it it this way: listen to higher stages as they can tell you what you don’t yet know. Stages below would just be butt-hurt and not understand your level of development. 
 

makes since actually. I actually do listen to lower stages some times and appreciate there points of view. Though Maybe I need to look at all criticism with more open mindedness for understanding there points of view and not be too judgmental. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, thisintegrated said:

You sure you're not a mod?

 

Can't really pick on a random mod to make my point, so it's hard to explain.

I sincerely have no idea what you're talking about ?.

 

1 hour ago, thisintegrated said:

Whenever Blues contribute, their posts tend to be in accordance with the [Green] theme of the forum.

What about an example outside of internet forums?

 

1 hour ago, thisintegrated said:

Blues are very conformist, and Blues are very common in the world, so any Blues that find themselves here often take on a Green color.

Blues are often chosen to be mods.  So whenever a mod posts something, it's gonna look Green on the surface, but when you dig deeper you find Blue.

So you're saying that when an apparently Green person posts about the need for more LGBTQ+-friendly options in the gender section on one's forum profile, or advocates for the rights of non-binary people in the military, or talks about the benefits of taking a feminist lens on history, or that we should be critical of patriarchical social structures, or that we should be tolerant of different cultures or religions other than  western Christianity, or that we should elevate the minimum wage and maybe consider implementing a 4-day work week, and that we should be tolerant of non-traditional relationships and family structures (polygamy and queer parents etc.) – you're saying that this person could in fact be Blue?

Edited July 29, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[thisintegrated]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

So you're saying that when an apparently Green person posts about the need for more LGBTQ+-friendly options in the gender section on one's forum profile, or advocates for the rights of non-binary people in the military, or talks about the benefits of taking a feminist lens on history, or that we should be critical of patriarchical social structures, or that we should be tolerant of different cultures or religions other than  western Christianity, or that we should elevate the minimum wage and maybe consider implementing a 4-day work week, and that we should be tolerant of non-traditional relationships and family structures (polygamy and queer parents etc.) – you're saying that this person could in fact be Blue?

o..m..g.. that's quite a few examples you've got there.

 

Could, yes, but Blues rarely start threads about reform or making big changes of any kind.  Blue posts tend to be either:

1. Boring, not really saying much, and kinda pointless.
2. Just complaining about Muslims or whatever random thing they don't like (e.g. "Not ANOTHER lockdown!! I ain't wearing no mask!").
3. Random Blue question, and not replying back after someone answers it.

[Preety_India]

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Blue posts tend to be either:

1. Boring, not really saying much, and kinda pointless.
2. Just complaining about Muslims or whatever random thing they don't like (e.g. "Not ANOTHER lockdown!! I ain't wearing no mask!").
3. Random Blue question, and not replying back after someone answers it.

Brahh, I need to know what you're smoking. 

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

o..m..g.. that's quite a few examples you've got there.

 

Could, yes, but Blues rarely start threads about reform or making big changes of any kind.  Blue posts tend to be either:

1. Boring, not really saying much, and kinda pointless.
2. Just complaining about Muslims or whatever random thing they don't like (e.g. "Not ANOTHER lockdown!! I ain't wearing no mask!").
3. Random Blue question, and not replying back after someone answers it.

The point I'm getting at is this: when it comes to collectivist stages, while it's true that they can be said to share conformism as a general trait, it's more the case that Blue is conformist as a result of the Blue worldview and Green is conformist because of Green. In the context of SDi, to treat this conformist trait as if it's decoupled from its developmental basis and that it can work independently of any specific worldview seems a bit wonky to me. You're maybe more able to do that with traits in personality models, but in this case, I don't think it's appropriate.

It's like with spirituality: collectivist stages tend to also be more spiritual/religious (which has to do with community bonding), but Purple has Purple spirituality, Blue has Blue spirituality, and Green has Green etc. They're not really translateable to eachother (Purple is tribal, shamanic, ritualistic; Blue is traditional, devotional, rule-oriented; Green is pluralist, heart-centered, experimental). Likewise, Blue conformism is not really translateable to Green conformism.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[cookiemonster]

1 hour ago, thisintegrated said:

Who's judging who?  Why "little" practical benefit?  People would say the same about MBTI, and every other model that's ever been made.

 

2 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Could, yes, but Blues rarely start threads about reform or making big changes of any kind.  Blue posts tend to be either:

1. Boring, not really saying much, and kinda pointless.
2. Just complaining about Muslims or whatever random thing they don't like (e.g. "Not ANOTHER lockdown!! I ain't wearing no mask!").
3. Random Blue question, and not replying back after someone answers it.

 

And that's the judgement I was referring to.

Judgement, tribalism, lack of nuance.

 

[cookiemonster]

Okay I think I'm about done with this forum. Thankyou everyone I'm out.

(I'll continue to watch Leo's videos though)

 

Peace.

[thisintegrated]

4 minutes ago, cookiemonster said:

And that's the judgement I was referring to.

Judgement, tribalism, lack of nuance.

How is that judgement?  It's just an observation.  You sure you're not just projecting?

Most people I know are Blue.  Even I was a Blue once ..for a period in my childhood.  Got nothing against Blues ..except the music genre.

Edited July 29, 2021 by thisintegrated

[BadHippie]

5 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

How is that judgement?  It's just an observation.  You sure you're not just projecting?

Most people I know are Blue.  Even I was a Blue once ..for a period in my childhood.  Got nothing against Blues ..except the music genre.

What he means is that there are no "blue" people, there are people which have blue perspectives, beliefs and/values. 

But a person is never just in one stage. The model is way to simple to actually really describe the complexity of reality. 

Sure it's a good way to understand why people do what they do, what people need for development, etc. 

But no single person can be described by saying: "Person X is blue". That's basically reducing all his complexity and nuance to a single color of a model. 

[Andrea Marchetti]

12 hours ago, _Archangel_ said:

@Tobia

yes, 6-7  poeple will die,  but millions will be saved, i guess we can risk it.

There's a thought experiment in ethics that's keeping philosophers busy for a long time now. There's no definite solution to the dilemma it's presented. It's called Trolley dilemma and here's a picture of it, together with the Fat man. What amazes me is how fast decades of reflection on the topic just went away when such a dilemma presented in reality, as in the case we're discussing about. Action is faster than thought? Or it's a mindless action?
In moral and political philosophy, John Rawls is probably the most important philosopher of the last times. What he's proposing it's a "veil of ignorance", from a position of ignorance about who you're going to be in a situation, what are you going to choose? You could say, from an utilitarian perspective which you seem to support, that activating the lever and killing a person instead of five is the right choice. But what if that one person happens to be you?

[Andrea Marchetti]

11 hours ago, cookiemonster said:

See this is why SD is such a silly system.

Lots of unnecessary judgement and very little practical benefit.

It depends on how it's used. Being hierarchical, in its own way, it can be misused to catalog people into better people and worst people.

[_Archangel_]

@Andrea Marchetti These are certainly scenarios worth reflecting upon but i don't think they're completely accurate for these days happenings.
Why?

About image 1: it presupposes that we don't know that if we chose the left trail longer down the road we will have killed more poeple then we would have if we chose the right. This to mean that what we initially thought to be the best choice turns out to be the worse one.

This is NOT the case with Covid.
We DO know that gatting the population vaccinated is the BEST choice in terms of life saved.
And the more poeple get the vaccine the more it will turn out to be true. So paradoxically, the poeple that scream "muh freedom" are exacly the one that stands in the way of it.

About image 2: Yesterday i got vaccinated and i was fine having a 0.003% risk of developing serious reactions. The benefit though, are much more evident, for the individual and for the collective. Again, it's about evaluating pros and cons. And every choice bears risks and some one that will get dameged by it. The question is not if but how many. And if you care about the health of your society you have to be willing of to take that miniscule risk. That's why the whole "what if it was you" paradigm is very low-consciosness.
By this logic you should ban generic medicines, car driving, swimming, alcohol, and smoking because they cause more deaths than the vaccine.


To close, it is funny to see poeple protesting in the name of philosophical rights when they don't take into account that this is an emergency.
Ironocally, they are the one blindsided for not seeing that their behaviour is slowing down the process to liberty.