Stage Yellow Right Wing Discussion

[How to be wise]

You would think that stage yellow and right wing are mutually exclusive, but these two individuals will prove you otherwise:

 

[Nilsi]

Jordan Peterson should have already proven you otherwise years ago.

[Danioover9000]

@How to be wise

11 hours ago, How to be wise said:

You would think that stage yellow and right wing are mutually exclusive, but these two individuals will prove you otherwise:

 

   Shows you how powerful ideologies indoctrinated into your mind from upbringing, self biases and preferences, diverse life experiences and worldviews are, and how states, cognition, moral systems, and values systems deep in the psyche, all dictate how you interpret life and the world.

[DocWatts]

The difference lies in the absolutizing right wing ideology as an end in and of itself (a perspective from below), and discerning where right wing perspectives are situationally appropriate as part of a larger effort to transcend and include them in a flexible, evolving meta-framework (a perspective from above).

Peterson may have ambitions towards the later, but in my view he's too fixated on the former to fully appreciate the dialectics behind how value systems function and evolve. Which is to say that he's nowhere near people like Ken Wilber, John Verveake, or Daniel Gortz who have a solid Yellow understanding of these things.

Are there people who, more than anything, really just need to get their shit together, and for whom Peterson's Rules for Life can serve as a 'Volumetric Shit Compressor'? Undoubtedly. But I'd also contend that there are other places you can get the information needed to start embodying self responsibility skills, without it being coupled to reactionary political baggage

Edited March 3, 2023 by DocWatts

[How to be wise]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@How to be wise

   Shows you how powerful ideologies indoctrinated into your mind from upbringing, self biases and preferences, diverse life experiences and worldviews are, and how states, cognition, moral systems, and values systems deep in the psyche, all dictate how you interpret life and the world.

Yeah, let’s not forget Don beck was raised in the south!

 

I think the most outrageous part of the conversation is when they agreed that the reason why Europe is so advanced is because of their superior genetics! You would’ve thought hitler was speaking.

Edited March 3, 2023 by How to be wise

[Danioover9000]

@How to be wise

1 hour ago, How to be wise said:

Yeah, let’s not forget Don beck was raised in the south!

 

I think the most outrageous part of the conversation is when they agreed that the reason why Europe is so advanced is because of their superior genetics! You would’ve thought hitler was speaking.

   To be fair, genetics is a factor among many other factors that can contribute into if a country is more successful, overall, than another country.

   It's when a person makes the few additional leaps from using the genetics factor, and weaponize a fact against some out groups. that point is the main problem, not the fundamental factor of genes because it is the case that some people are radically different, different body composition, different brain shapes, different sense making. There's genes for happiness, or genes that make a person blind from birth, or give them extra sensory input into their vision, causing them to 'see' colours not normally there, and other freaky things that most people just take for granted.

   Geography is also the 'genetics' of a country too, yet we don't see how people argue heatedly that it's 'eugenics' or 'racist' or 'ethnocentric'  to point out a country's limitations of geography.

[How to be wise]

30 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@How to be wise

   To be fair, genetics is a factor among many other factors that can contribute into if a country is more successful, overall, than another country.

   It's when a person makes the few additional leaps from using the genetics factor, and weaponize a fact against some out groups. that point is the main problem, not the fundamental factor of genes because it is the case that some people are radically different, different body composition, different brain shapes, different sense making. There's genes for happiness, or genes that make a person blind from birth, or give them extra sensory input into their vision, causing them to 'see' colours not normally there, and other freaky things that most people just take for granted.

   Geography is also the 'genetics' of a country too, yet we don't see how people argue heatedly that it's 'eugenics' or 'racist' or 'ethnocentric'  to point out a country's limitations of geography.

If you go by the notion that German and British genetics (as they said in the video) is superior to all others, then you would have to be against interracial relationships, because the “pure” genetics is being diluted. This is White Supremacy 101.

Edited March 3, 2023 by How to be wise

[Ulax]

@How to be wise My agreement with your point of view would rest, to my mind, on what way a stage yellow thinker could come to be 'right wing'.

To me, there's a big difference in supporting a right wing party because (1) It seems the decision that will produce the best systemic outcomes in a certain context, and (2) Supporting right wing parties because you agree with the ideological underpinnings of right wing parties. 

In general, the latter seems pretty non-sensical because, to my mind, most right wing parties have political ideologies which refute systems thinking. And you cant be a stage yellow systems thinker who refutes systems thinking. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Ulax
clarification

[Danioover9000]

@How to be wise

4 hours ago, How to be wise said:

If you go by the notion that German and British genetics (as they said in the video) is superior to all others, then you would have to be against interracial relationships, because the “pure” genetics is being diluted. This is White Supremacy 101.

   Okay, that's some really subtle offensive racist and ethnocentric shit you wrote, but I'll let it slip. I agree and condone the second part of the using and weaponizing of genetics to justify white supremacy and overt Racism, but I won't condemn the existence of genetics by themselves. GENETICS IS GENETICS! Each human body is a unique snow flake of interconnect genes doing stuff, and extremely difficult to change on that level directly.

[Danioover9000]

   Tangent aside, I do belief that it's possible people hold contradictory beliefs and views, but despite the hypocrisy and paradox,  right action can still take place. I'm a systemic thinker and strongly stage blue/orange with some yellow values, but my political biases are middle to right, and I do hold some conservative positions, as well as a few liberal ones. I don't end up voting for UKIP or some Alt Right party though.

   Also, Don beck and the other coauthor were in the boomer generation, so the epistemic generation indoctrinated him and his generation such. Can't be helped, but epistemology and metaphysics still can be more powerful than other modals of psychology.

[Ulax]

@Danioover9000 What conservative positions do you hold?

[How to be wise]

7 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@How to be wise

   but I won't condemn the existence of genetics by themselves. GENETICS IS GENETICS! Each human body is a unique snow flake of interconnect genes doing stuff, and extremely difficult to change on that level directly.

That’s fine, but when you believe that British and German genetics are superior to all others, the pure Aryan Race, that’s when you become a white supremacist. 

To be fair to Don, he didn’t bring those topics up. The interviewer (a German, no prizes for guessing that) went full nazi and brought up white supremacist talking points, and Don beck agreed with them. A few minutes later he talks about how he helped South Africans against apartheid. 

[Leo Gura]

Well, Beck was a Trump supporter. So how seriously can we take his politics?

But of course Yellow can be conservative.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@Ulax

12 hours ago, Ulax said:

@Danioover9000 What conservative positions do you hold?

   A few points:

1. Ownership of property must be respected amongst neighbors, until a national crisis and state intervention must take place. Until then, property rights are a thing.

2. Honor your own home country.

3. Respect the moral standards you grew up on, and be of good character.

4.Careful what you spend money on, generally.

   If these points are not enough, please list more specific questions about my political view.

[Danioover9000]

@How to be wise

4 hours ago, How to be wise said:

That’s fine, but when you believe that British and German genetics are superior to all others, the pure Aryan Race, that’s when you become a white supremacist. 

To be fair to Don, he didn’t bring those topics up. The interviewer (a German, no prizes for guessing that) went full nazi and brought up white supremacist talking points, and Don beck agreed with them. A few minutes later he talks about how he helped South Africans against apartheid. 

   I see, interviewer was suspect. I got it. But you didn't have to bring and attack my country, UK, and Germany and making both equally Racist and Xenophobic. Then, Germany was in an economic nightmare after WW1, which allowed someone like Adolf Hitler and Nazism to take hold. Britain wasn't as bad as Germany, and the whole previous world situation wasn't Germany's fault, as the western alliance had us believe, because WW1 was issues with other European alliances and the western axis powers, just that Germany lost and bore the brunt of the negative consequences.

[Emerald]

23 hours ago, DocWatts said:

The difference lies in the absolutizing right wing ideology as an end in and of itself (a perspective from below), and discerning where right wing perspectives are situationally appropriate as part of a larger effort to transcend and include them in a flexible, evolving meta-framework (a perspective from above).

Peterson may have ambitions towards the later, but in my view he's too fixated on the former to fully appreciate the dialectics behind how value systems function and evolve. Which is to say that he's nowhere near people like Ken Wilber, John Verveake, or Daniel Gortz who have a solid Yellow understanding of these things.

Are there people who, more than anything, really just need to get their shit together, and for whom Peterson's Rules for Life can serve as a 'Volumetric Shit Compressor'? Undoubtedly. But I'd also contend that there are other places you can get the information needed to start embodying self responsibility skills, without it being coupled to reactionary political baggage

?

[Danioover9000]

@DocWatts

On 3/3/2023 at 6:43 PM, DocWatts said:

The difference lies in the absolutizing right wing ideology as an end in and of itself (a perspective from below), and discerning where right wing perspectives are situationally appropriate as part of a larger effort to transcend and include them in a flexible, evolving meta-framework (a perspective from above).

Peterson may have ambitions towards the later, but in my view he's too fixated on the former to fully appreciate the dialectics behind how value systems function and evolve. Which is to say that he's nowhere near people like Ken Wilber, John Verveake, or Daniel Gortz who have a solid Yellow understanding of these things.

Are there people who, more than anything, really just need to get their shit together, and for whom Peterson's Rules for Life can serve as a 'Volumetric Shit Compressor'? Undoubtedly. But I'd also contend that there are other places you can get the information needed to start embodying self responsibility skills, without it being coupled to reactionary political baggage

   That issue will have to let itself sort itself out, eventually the political ideologies of the right will have to develop over time to weed out. After all, how does a person or state craft, intervene with solutions to problems, in such a way that won't trigger a backlash, or further creating problems within and outside this context? The answer isn't that simple, as almost every solution only half solves a problem but then creates other problems, meanwhile trying to deprogram certain right wing ideologies from a person is challenging to do, so light intervention is necessary.

   Jordan Peterson has solid psychological takes, due to his background and specialty in acidemia based psychology. He's definitely well versed in specific types of psychology. The only issue and challenge, is if the general population can make distinctions when he's talking about some of his psychological takes, to when he starts talking about his political takes? Because that's mostly the issue, is making that distinction. At least Jordan's book is a start and introduction to the concept  of self responsibility, and even leads others to exploring the self help field.

   No disagreement with his low quality political takes here. Like Bruce Lee says, take what's useful, discard the rest. Do that with Jordan Peterson first in good faith, not in bad faith after listening to some SJW's complaining way too much and misrepresenting who he is.

[DocWatts]

56 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@DocWattsPeterson has solid psychological takes, due to his background and specialty in acidemia based psychology. He's definitely well versed in specific types of psychology. The only issue and challenge, is if the general population can make distinctions when he's talking about some of his psychological takes, to when he starts talking about his political takes? Because that's mostly the issue, is making that distinction. At least Jordan's book is a start and introduction to the concept  of self responsibility, and even leads others to exploring the self help field.

   No disagreement with his low quality political takes here. Like Bruce Lee says, take what's useful, discard the rest. Do that with Jordan Peterson first in good faith, not in bad faith after listening to some SJW's complaining way too much and misrepresenting who he is.

No disagreements here.

Hell, considering how much value I've gotten from someone like Heidegger, who's both one of the most brilliant philosophers to ever live and also someone who was sympathetic to Nazi ideology, it would be hypocritical of me to suggest otherwise.

That said, in my mind the degree to which their area of expertise can be compartmentalized from their bad political takes matters a lot here.

Also the question of whether by supporting the person in question you're also supporting thier political causes when you buy their books or watch their content also matters, a question which would be far simpler if Peterson was someone from a bygone era rather than someone who's influencing events in the present day.

Edited March 4, 2023 by DocWatts

[SeaMonster]

On 3/3/2023 at 2:40 PM, How to be wise said:

I think the most outrageous part of the conversation is when they agreed that the reason why Europe is so advanced is because of their superior genetics! You would’ve thought hitler was speaking.

Mean IQ differences among various ethnicities are a real thing (even in Europe, where e.g. Western Europe is generally higher than Eastern.)

That they exist doesn't mean you want to "exterminate the inferior races." It does mean that this leftist idea that everything is socially constructed and all differences are due to environmental factors (iow total denial that genetics play any part in intelligence and ability) is not just a fantasy or a lie, but one of the most bald-faced lies one can possibly tell.  

This is why leftism at its essence is seen by many on the right as either wishful thinking or moral narcissism or some kind of vendetta against God and nature.  If something this foundational is lied about, then all specific policies and ideas must be questioned as well.

[DocWatts]

27 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

Mean IQ differences among various ethnicities are a real thing (even in Europe, where e.g. Western Europe is generally higher than Eastern.)

Leaving aside whether this statement is true (let's assume for the sake of argument that it is unequivocally true), this brings with it the implicit assumption that a person's level of intelligence is a measure of their worth.

The reason that the motivations behind these questions are (rightly) scrutinized is that they are almost always used as post-hoc justifications for self serving intuitions of superiority. Which in practice is a necessary condition for the construction of dominator hierarchies.

One doesn't have to be a  postmodernist to question the value of asking these types of questions. 

A sophisticated understanding of Constructs includes the insight that Constructs are bounded by biology, and are adaptive for a survival context rather than something that's arbitrary (something that the postmodernists tend to lose sight of).

Edited March 4, 2023 by DocWatts