Do you think there should be the SD stage "business" below and "scientific" above?

[AminB501]

When I use spiral dynamics I separate stage orange into the business stage orange and the scientific stage orange.  I don't see how this can be considered the same. For example, imagine a stage orange like the wolf of wall street protagonist, Jordan Belford do you think he has anything to do with a stage orange scientist like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawkins, or any scientist that discovered anything?

I think the business stage is much more individualistic and less ordered than the scientific stage, which can even be considered a bit altruistic in its endeavors, and it's more ordered, there's a higher sense of collective purpose. In the average business mentality, one tries to maximize his own good as much as possible. Then stage green I would say there are many stage green scientists, but this Is clearly another stage with other priorities. Maybe the stage green scientist will work reasoning from an intention to improve the planet, but a stage orange scientist may think pragmatically, and sometimes may build things that are destructive because of reasoning from a pragmatic or human bias perspective.

Note that I mean the business that tries to maximize one's own gains, the one that doesn't care about innovation, progress, or collectivism, the one that even fights against those things. The oil business, tobacco, fast food are great examples.

Edited September 20, 2021 by AminB501

[Rilles]

This is very interesting, I have been thinking about this lately too, you might be politically Stage Green but not Woo woo Green, I think those are two different camps, I wouldnt say youre not Stage Green just because youre not some New Age hippie, so yeah, some nuance and discernment is required there. For example Noam Chomsky is very Green but hes not some wacky, tea leaf reading, yoga pants wearing reiki practioner. 

[AminB501]

@Rilles I think we're transcending spiral dynamics hahaha

[Rilles]

1 minute ago, AminB501 said:

@Rilles I think we're transcending spiral dynamics hahaha

Meh, its useful for me right now, its just a model, it will wither away when it needs to.

[martins name]

Scientific orange is pure orange while business orange is orange that uses its red subcomponent.  Scientific orange seeks knowledge, which is an orange thing, for its own sake. While business orange seeks knowledge, in this case, knowledge of business for the sake of gaining power (red). 

Knowledge(orange) is power(red). In this way, orange is kind of a sophistication of red. Pure power(red) and abstract power(knowledge/orange) are on a spectrum. Business is lower down on that spectrum.

Edited September 20, 2021 by martins name

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, AminB501 said:

For example, imagine a stage orange like the wolf of wall street protagonist, Jordan Belford do you think he has anything to do with a stage orange scientist like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawkins, or any scientist that discovered anything?

Jordan Belford and Neil deGrasse Tyson both make decisions based on rationality, pragmatism and secular values like democracy, individual rights and liberty. They don't believe in fairies, mysticism or the spiritual importance of religious rituals or following the correct theological tradition, and they look at the world through a realist-materialist lens (the world exists "out there" and is made out of matter). With that said, Jordan Belfort, a white collar criminal, is a caricature of a Orange businessman, so of course Neil deGrasse Tyson comes better off with that comparison.

There are different facets to all stages. For example, there is Stage Red business and Stage Red "science" (a better word would be "epistemology"). Orange business expresses a particular set of values (democracy, individual rights, liberty, capitalism) which can be described as individualistic. However, Red is also individualistic, but it has a different flavor ("might makes right", impulsivity over rationality etc.).

Orange epistemology is very "scientific", but not just any type of scientific, but a very particular kind, namely positivism, mechanism, reductionism, rationalism; analysis -- understanding things by breaking them into pieces. On the other hand, Tier 2 science is constructivistic, systemic, holistic, integrative; synthesis -- understanding things by looking at the relationships between the pieces.

[AminB501]

@martins name What I have more disagreement is around the concept is that I don't consider science individualistic, business is, and the purpose on science is also not individualistic, In business orange it is. Science orange will work with purpose, collectively if needed, and using what others learned to build a model that helps other people, it innovates, seeks advancement for the future generations. Business orange seeks to be famous for having a Lambo, and to benefit itself, which there's nothing wrong with, but one of the differences is that business orange will attack innovation and progress and maybe cheat to get its fame and fortune. And science orange in business would be any business that does things based on science, and based on progress or innovation. A science orange business for example will start a business selling healthy food, or do things based on scientific evidence, helping to innovate, and It has a more leadership perspective, more collectivist.

Anyways, I may also be overcomplicating this too much... Maybe is not that significant.

Edited September 20, 2021 by AminB501

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, AminB501 said:

@martins name What I have more disagreement is around the concept is that I don't consider science individualistic, business is, and the purpose on science is also not individualistic

Science as we know it today has its roots in Greek rationalism and the departure from the mythic worldview of tradition, lineage, dogma, stories. The realization was that the stories of the collective are insufficent as sensemaking tools and that reason (rationality) is superior.

Reason stands on its own merits, independent of tradition, class or power, and originates within the mind of the individual. It doesn't matter from who's mind it comes from, whether it's a priest or a peasant, as long as it's of sound reasoning. In principle, this dismantled the epistemological monopoly of the Church (while in reality, the Church became the head of the scientific enterprise for the next two millennia), and gave the power to the people.

This is why Greek rationality went hand in hand with Greek democracy. That said, the thinkers of Ancient Greece only sowed the seeds for the Orange we see today. It took another 1000 years of medieval squabbles before we finally laid the mythic ghost to rest (meanwhile the same level of dogmatism is still alive and well today within the current scientific institutions).

 

3 hours ago, AminB501 said:

Science orange will work with purpose, collectively if needed, and using what others learned to build a model that helps other people, it innovates, seeks advancement for the future generations.

You say you believe the purpose of science is the betterment of the collective, or in other words survival. Well, so was the purpose of religion, myths, stories. Everything humans do is aimed at survival, and humans are innately collectivistic (despite how much libertarians want to deny it), so it's very rare that anybody doesn't act with at least some definition of a collective in mind (be it a severely contracted or expanded form).

A businessman will maybe say "I'm doing what is best for my company, my community, the economy", and a scientist will say "I'm doing what is best for my faculty, my university, my field of study". It's nevertheless all self-centered at the end of the day. The businessman is trying to earn money for his family and so is the scientist.

Maybe the scientist is working on a cure for cancer or some technology that will save the world, but there will always be a businessman who is also working on getting it out to the public (corporate management, financing research, distribution etc.).

[Cepzeu]

There is stage orange science and stage 'above-orange' science. Most scientists are still concerned with materialism and commercialism. Most scientific endeavours are done do discover a shippable product, even in the biological sciences. Truth is avoided in order to get studies published quickly. Universities do a little bit of primary research, but even that is done just in case it can be used for business later. Science at most universities is purely pragmatic and business oriented. Neil deGrass is 1 in a million scientists. Not because he is special but because of what his aims are. He is a celebrity. Most scientists are working on shippable products, patentable ideas etc.

Edit: trying to separate business-orange and science-orange is a very big trap which fails to see how money-driven science is. Current science is not focussed on truth, but money - for institutions and private laboratories (e.g pharma). There is value in separating orange science and above-orange science etc. But current science is very entangled with orange-level business. 

Edited September 21, 2021 by Cepzeu

[Cepzeu]

3 hours ago, AminB501 said:

@martins name What I have more disagreement is around the concept is that I don't consider science individualistic, business is, and the purpose on science is also not individualistic, In business orange it is. Science orange will work with purpose, collectively if needed, and using what others learned to build a model that helps other people, it innovates, seeks advancement for the future generations. Business orange seeks to be famous for having a Lambo, and to benefit itself, which there's nothing wrong with, but one of the differences is that business orange will attack innovation and progress and maybe cheat to get its fame and fortune. And science orange in business would be any business that does things based on science, and based on progress or innovation. A science orange business for example will start a business selling healthy food, or do things based on scientific evidence, helping to innovate, and It has a more leadership perspective, more collectivist.

Anyways, I may also be overcomplicating this too much... Maybe is not that significant.

Unfortunately not the case.  lot of 'science' work is boosting your social standing in the scientific community, publishing as much research as possible to get your numbers up and shitting on other scientists. Behind the facade of innovation it's all a poo-throwing contest. There is fame and fortune in science because a large number of post docs are battling for very few professorships and tenure positions. It is completely and utterly corrupted by monkeys throwing poo at each other and climbing a popularity ladder to look innovative. I've seen how this plays out in universities and research institutions, which is why I quit it.

Also, a PhD means very little. Lots of people with PhDs gotten from following the system in university are dumb as shit and their lives are super dysfunctional.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Cepzeu

[martins name]

@AminB501 Individualism is a product of the business oranges red subcomponent, just like power is.

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, martins name said:

@AminB501 Individualism is a product of the business oranges red subcomponent, just like power is.

Orange individualism is a reaction to Blue collectivism. It's not reducible to Red individualism. Red doesn't care about democracy, individual rights, rationality over dogma.

[martins name]

21 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Orange individualism is a reaction to Blue collectivism.

That is not quite true, you could have an orange person who has never come in contact with a blue person and he would still be individualistic. Orange is a sophistication of red individualism. If you look at the chakras which SD is an emergent property of then the Manipura chakra(navel/power chakra) that first comes into awareness in red is used in orange as in combination with rationality(throat chakra) to create orange individualism. Caring for individual rights comes from the blue social system subcomponent that is now tweaked to accommodate individual freedom.

[Carl-Richard]

58 minutes ago, martins name said:

That is not quite true, you could have an orange person who has never come in contact with a blue person and he would still be individualistic. 

How do you get to Orange? Through Blue. In an Orange society, you might not meet a lot of Blue adults, but you will hopefully be surrounded by other children as you grow up and go through the same developmental altitudes together. Your parents will also employ stage-specific techniques throughout your upbringing.

You don't discipline an impulsive 3 year old child with rational arguments ("do this, not that, because y reason" - Orange) or even rules ("do this, not that - no reason" - Blue). You have to mirror their developmental stage and be more situational, physical and reactive (clear signals, stern voice, "no!" - Red). A 3 year old doesn't abstract well over time, so giving him rules to follow will not help. In fact, this problem can last well past teenage years even in modern societies.

Using reason and following rules requires a certain level of cognitive development, and we all start at the lower stages and go through the higher stages. Red responds to dominance and strength, Blue responds to authority and rules, and Orange responds to logic and reason. For example, Red doesn't care about the authority of the cops (only if they employ a situational display of dominance). Orange understands the utility of the authority of the cops, but it doesn't trust it blindly like Blue does.

Each stage is also a reaction to the problematic aspects of the previous stages. Blue is a reaction to the excesses of Red (dominance without constraints leads to chaos) and Orange is a reaction to the excesses of Blue (constraints without reasoning leads to tyranny).

When you value reason over tradition/rules, there emerges a new type of individualism which understands the preceding collectivism in a new light, which is why it's not reducible to earlier forms of individualism. Orange is a reaction to Blue and not reducible to Red, because Red doesn't understand Blue.

[martins name]

@Carl-Richard If we dissect a stage we will find that it's made up of components. Orange has a beige, purple, red, blue, and orange component. I'm not reducing individualism to red, but individualism is the red subcomponent in action. This subcomponent is however integrated with the other subcomponents to change how this individualism expresses itself.

vMemes aren't entirely constructed, they are also coming from the depth of our psycology. There is a part that is constructed, usually against the previous stage, as you've said, but the other part we are born with.

Edited September 21, 2021 by martins name

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, martins name said:

@Carl-Richard If we dissect a stage we will find that it's made up of components. Orange has a beige, purple, red, blue, and orange component. I'm not reducing individualism to red, but individualism is the red subcomponent in action. This subcomponent is however integrated with the other subcomponents to change how this individualism expresses itself.

I think we agree that all stages retain some aspects of the previous stages within them and that there are other aspects which are emergent (not reducible to earlier aspects). I take more issue with the description that the individualism in Orange is derived from a Red subcomponent. It's not that I think your understanding of SD is inconsistent, but it's rather about the way in which the word "individualism" is used that I think is unclear.

Firstly just to clarify, and as you probably know, the individualist/collectivist dichotomy is of course not black-and-white (all the stages have their own expression of each). The issue however is that Beige is an individualistic stage that occurs before Red. Surely, Red must have a Beige subcomponent, but you wouldn't say that Red derives its individualism from Beige. Do you see what I mean?

That's why I prefer for clearness sake to just call it "Orange individualism" and "Red individualism", because while they're interrelated with eachother as "individualism", they're not reducible to eachother. Orange individualism is democratic and rational while Red individualism is machivellian and impulsive. Likewise, Beige individualism is primal and instinctive.

If you think that I'm the one who is being unclear, I would like to hear exactly how the Red subcomponent creates the individualism of Orange . 

[martins name]

@Carl-Richard Sorry, I meant individualistic as power-seeking/self-asserting. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, martins name said:

@Carl-Richard Sorry, I meant individualistic as power-seeking/self-asserting. 

Ah! That makes more sense . If I were to be a bit more accommodating of your model, you can say that in a sense what Orange does is that it recognizes Blue is being a bit too unrelenting in its repression of Red's impulses (the need to dominate, self-assert, enact power over others) and that it opens up and redirects this individualistic energy through these higher Orange principles (allowing the Red component more room). Then, the need to dominate others physically might instead manifest itself as the need to dominate others in the social game (financial status, relationship status etc.), and it justifies this by saying "everybody is free to do what they want as long as they're not infringing on other people's freedoms". Then you have Green that realizes that Orange's definition of freedom is in fact incomplete, as they're denying the collective ramifications of their self-asserting behavior which minimizes the freedom of unprivileged people, and then the pendulum swings back to collectivism again.

[martins name]

@Carl-Richard You are looking at SD from a cultural perspective, in terms of worldview. I'm more talking about the emotions that are driving SD stages. The emotional motivation to self-assert is the same.