Blackpill / redpill YouTuber popularizing spiral dynamics and integral theory?

[Raze]

Recently a new YouTube and tiktok channel called “hoe_math” has been rapidly becoming popular. Generally the videos involve the author briefly explaining certain black pill or redpill beliefs but with hand drawn art graphs, though I don’t believe he’s identified as either or agrees entirely with them. Here is an interview with him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfuCXoHtvxU

But what’s more interesting is he claims to study integral theory and his most popular video is a brief summary of it. He also claimed the “integral theory” people said they support him and heavily implied he is past stage green.

My opinion on this is mixed, though I like spiral dynamics and integral theory, I feel when given to certain people it can cause more harm then good and mess up their development and just fuel their ego and preconceived beliefs. He also may make others look down on it if they associate him and his more controversial opinions with it if they first learn about it from him.

What is your opinion?

[bebotalk]

It's all a massive scam. 

Just some nerdy geezers looking to understand dating dynamics that they didn't get whilst young, either from osmosis or being told.

The redpill for one tells guys that getting money and riches is the key to dating. I don't see how. Many people are not rich and get by in dating. The redpill takes some truths that women care about status, but translates them to some really wild ends. 

 

 

[The Renaissance Man]

@bebotalk Of course! Otherwise how could they sell you courses on how to become rich?

[28 cm unbuffed]

@The Renaissance Man

That's a limiting belief, it's like you would say something like that about Leo.

Fuck you, Leonardo!

[Danioover9000]

@Raze

21 hours ago, Raze said:

Recently a new YouTube and tiktok channel called “hoe_math” has been rapidly becoming popular. Generally the videos involve the author briefly explaining certain black pill or redpill beliefs but with hand drawn art graphs, though I don’t believe he’s identified as either or agrees entirely with them. Here is an interview with him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfuCXoHtvxU

But what’s more interesting is he claims to study integral theory and his most popular video is a brief summary of it. He also claimed the “integral theory” people said they support him and heavily implied he is past stage green.

My opinion on this is mixed, though I like spiral dynamics and integral theory, I feel when given to certain people it can cause more harm then good and mess up their development and just fuel their ego and preconceived beliefs. He also may make others look down on it if they associate him and his more controversial opinions with it if they first learn about it from him.

What is your opinion?

   It's a good move, from an ideological survival standpoint. Spiral Dynamics will propagate through the information ecology we have, and this particular person's presentation of Spiral Dynamics, while a bit simplified and tailored to his bias and preferences, I think this interpretation from him and how he communicates this modal to a wider audience is a good thing. Does it have it's drawbacks? Yes, but at least in this way it's propagated and spreads to the minds of the listeners, and if some of them are serious in investigating this modal, and take their self actualization journey, they'll go down the rabbit hole. For now this is fine because you have to factor in the big tech companies and the negative effects that social media and Tik Tok has had for 10+ years in the internet, and how corrosive they are to attention, mental health, and so on, so this method of presenting the Spiral Dynamics modal for that type of audience could make the difference for some of those people, even if there's greater risk of misunderstanding, misinterpreting and misapplying the modal.

[bebotalk]

The redpill was based on various flawed principles.

Yes, men and women are different. Men and women have traditionally valued different things in relationships. Men do, generally, value youth and women want security. 

This doesn't mean men have to be rich to get dates. This just doesn't bear out empirically or anecdotally. 

There are plenty of poor men who have relationships. They just date or marry other poor women in their vicinity. So by the redpill rationale, how do poor people expand? how have working-class or lower social classes always expanded? in medieval times, peasants married peasants. Nobility married nobility. People have generally dated and/or married in their geographical or socio-economic vicinity. 

Some points they have made are also dangerous - as in men never crying. Why can't men cry? Aren't we males human too? Don't we have a range of emotions? To say we should never cry is inane. So if one's parents, spouse, or children die, is this not reason to cry? 

It's good this ideology is dying. It was only ever a ploy to make money by taking weird conceptions of evolutionary psychology and selling it as the rtuth to the masses. 

[The Renaissance Man]

@28 cm unbuffed Lol

Conflict of interest is a real damn thing. I believe people who have had success with women, successful "redpillers" know very well that money and status is not the full picture. As if a rich shy creep could have that much success. No way.

It's not a belief, you can observe it. I lived it when I was trying to sell my services, and at the same time had to provide some value on social media. I couldn't reveal the full picture. It was before knowing Leo, so I was much less mature, and I wanted to rely on arrogance and selling absolute certainty, since others had success behaving that way. Pure orange.

It could also be that they place riches over everything in dating because of ignorance and lack of awareness.

BTW it was kind of a joke too. It's clear that not everybody in the red pill has get rich quick courses to sell. But there's surely some truth there

[Twentyfirst]

47 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

The redpill was based on various flawed principles.

Yes, men and women are different. Men and women have traditionally valued different things in relationships. Men do, generally, value youth and women want security. 

This doesn't mean men have to be rich to get dates. This just doesn't bear out empirically or anecdotally. 

There are plenty of poor men who have relationships. They just date or marry other poor women in their vicinity. So by the redpill rationale, how do poor people expand? how have working-class or lower social classes always expanded? in medieval times, peasants married peasants. Nobility married nobility. People have generally dated and/or married in their geographical or socio-economic vicinity. 

Some points they have made are also dangerous - as in men never crying. Why can't men cry? Aren't we males human too? Don't we have a range of emotions? To say we should never cry is inane. So if one's parents, spouse, or children die, is this not reason to cry? 

It's good this ideology is dying. It was only ever a ploy to make money by taking weird conceptions of evolutionary psychology and selling it as the rtuth to the masses. 

As long as there is feminism there will be red pill. Honestly I hope both die because both are seriously flawed

Men and women are equal? Since when? They have never been equal in thousands of years but all of a sudden out of the blue they are? What kind of man wants another man to date? We love women not women who try super hard to act like men. And if men really are the cause of all the worlds problems then why does feminism teach women to act like men?

Edited November 27, 2023 by Twentyfirst

[Consept]

I actually think his takes are pretty good where they do look at both sides, he also looks the flaws in mens thinking as well, whereas repill is basically just attacking women for having higher standards. His levels of thinking isnt perfect but i think hes on the right track and is a good explanation for a wide audience. The issue is that whatever group someone belongs to feminist, redpill etc they are viewing his teachings through that lens, Ive put a vid below of a redpill reactor, reacting to his video and she literally can not see it outside of the 'modern women dumb' lens. Also a wider point on groups and ideologies, redpill is big at the moment but all these groups follow the same structure -

- Group feels theyve been hard done by, by society 

- Cherry picks stats and history which presents a world view of oppression of their group (think redpills gynocentric society or feminists patriarchy)

- Creates enemy that are mainly responsible for their oppression (redpill vs feminist) 

- Presents opposing side in worst possible light in an attempt to convert more people to their ideology 

- Claims they have the 'truth' (redpill, blackpill, truth pill, escape the matrix) 

There are probably more points im missing out but you get the idea. These points can all be attributed to any organised religion or ideology you can think of not just redpill or feminism. Muslims, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, conservatives, democrats etc etc. 

 

 

[something_else]

On 25/11/2023 at 11:18 PM, Raze said:

He also claimed the “integral theory” people said they support him and heavily implied he is past stage green.

Without looking at any of his content I'd immediately identify that as a red flag.

"integral theory people"? what does that even mean? It's not like there's some certified body that judges what stage people are. And using whatever stage you think you are as evidence that you're correct or better than others indicates a big misunderstanding of integral theory too.

[DocWatts]

I'd heavily caution against using Spiral Dynamics (or Integral) as a personal development model, since it's all to easy to decieve oneself into thinking that you're much more 'developed' than you actually are. 

Much better to frame Spiral Dynamics/Integral as a sociological model that attempts to work out some of the dialectics behind how worldviews work, in a very broad sense. It's certainly not a replacement for understanding specific domains in a more contextual way 

[Danioover9000]

@something_else

2 hours ago, something_else said:

Without looking at any of his content I'd immediately identify that as a red flag.

"integral theory people"? what does that even mean? It's not like there's some certified body that judges what stage people are. And using whatever stage you think you are as evidence that you're correct or better than others indicates a big misunderstanding of integral theory too.

   Integral Theory people?

   Willing to guess it's immature stage green trolls and haters on the internet with a younger demographics and psychographics.

   As I said, I'm fine if it's too simplified and he preaches Spiral Dynamics to a wider, younger audience. It's an introduction, and now they know it's a thing in concept. Yes the tradeoff is like 'casting pearls before swine', diluting the teaching and modals by widening the niche and broadening to a wider target audience and higher risk of misunderstanding and stereotyping other groups via Spiral Dynamics, justifying demonizing and dehumanizing others. The question then becomes does the costs justify the marketing of this modal, and the benefits outweigh the costs? Same thing with Actualized.org, introducing this website and Leo Gura to a wider audience. 

[bebotalk]

On 27/11/2023 at 10:57 AM, Twentyfirst said:

As long as there is feminism there will be red pill. Honestly I hope both die because both are seriously flawed

Men and women are equal? Since when? They have never been equal in thousands of years but all of a sudden out of the blue they are? What kind of man wants another man to date? We love women not women who try super hard to act like men. And if men really are the cause of all the worlds problems then why does feminism teach women to act like men?

I don't see women having equal rights to me as a threat. I see it as a boon. IMHO, all people of all distinctions should hold the same rights in society. Is that offensive to you? it's not to me. Your points are also based on strawmen and shallow thinking. Nobody says men and women are totally equal. Just worthy of the same legal standing. Also, men like different things in women. You're just projecting. and what you've said doesn't even address what I said. 

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

57 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

I don't see women having equal rights to me as a threat. I see it as a boon. IMHO, all people of all distinctions should hold the same rights in society. Is that offensive to you? it's not to me. Your points are also based on strawmen and shallow thinking. Nobody says men and women are totally equal. Just worthy of the same legal standing. Also, men like different things in women. You're just projecting. and what you've said doesn't even address what I said. 

   What if, due to feminism, the increase in female workers is directly taking away your job opportunities? What if feminism imbues too much individualism into toung women they disregard relationships and marriage, even dating,and develop lack of commitment to the relationship?

   Due to feminism and egalitarianism in westernized secular countries, birthrates are declining in Japan, South Korea, Russia, China, the USA and other westernized countries that that country can't replace it's population within itself, thus having to source from theocratic 3rd world countries that can reproduce their numbers, which increases immigration. What if that increase takes away your job opportunities and increases prices of goods?

[bebotalk]

53 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@bebotalk

   What if, due to feminism, the increase in female workers is directly taking away your job opportunities? What if feminism imbues too much individualism into toung women they disregard relationships and marriage, even dating,and develop lack of commitment to the relationship?

   Due to feminism and egalitarianism in westernized secular countries, birthrates are declining in Japan, South Korea, Russia, China, the USA and other westernized countries that that country can't replace it's population within itself, thus having to source from theocratic 3rd world countries that can reproduce their numbers, which increases immigration. What if that increase takes away your job opportunities and increases prices of goods?

Japan has different dynamics, whilst being wealthy isn't really Western culturally. China definitely isn't Western culturally. Birth rates are declining due to a variety of factors, and not just due to women having equal rights with men. Moreover, job opportunities depend on the industry, one's education level, location, etc. So should women again be second-class citizens? You're taking some barbed bigoted views and conflating them with established economics. Goods being more expensive also has a variety of factors causing such. 

Oh, and Russia isn't Western nor industrialised, and Putin himself isn't an advocate of gender equality lool. 

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

1 hour ago, bebotalk said:

Japan has different dynamics, whilst being wealthy isn't really Western culturally. China definitely isn't Western culturally. Birth rates are declining due to a variety of factors, and not just due to women having equal rights with men. Moreover, job opportunities depend on the industry, one's education level, location, etc. So should women again be second-class citizens? You're taking some barbed bigoted views and conflating them with established economics. Goods being more expensive also has a variety of factors causing such. 

Oh, and Russia isn't Western nor industrialised, and Putin himself isn't an advocate of gender equality lool. 

   But the USSR and Mau's party were secularist countries, that overthrew the ruling monarchs, and were first to legalize abortion and other safe sex methods. Russia is first to do so, and that had generational effect that we see it today, that Russia has a problem with it's own homogenous populace, and declines in it's own birthrates in it's native country, in comparison to Ukraine's increasing population, which effects manpower in military. Yes, both China and Russia doesn't have the neoliberalism and capitalism ideology and western values, but it's westernized in terms of being secular countries. I cite Japan because Japan didn't have such a birthrate decline pre Pacific war, it's after the Americans won with nuclear bombs, and after Japan had to unconditionally surrender and adopt America's western values like egalitarianism and feminism that we start seeing this decline. Yes, the work culture is toxic and that capitalism and neoliberalism also plays a part in the birthrate declines. So is South Korea, I cite South Korea because it's now an American westernized secular country, having egalitarianism and feminism from America as Sough Korea is another key part of American hegemony and geopolitical power, because with America's military there close by, this effectively cuts off access to the sea and Islands from North Korea and China, yet the secularism from America and the capitalism has negative effects to the human flourishing of South Korea. If America wasn't present, and didn't transfer their western values onto Japan and South Korea, and isn't contributing to their decline in birthrates, what else could be? Seems like wherever America's interests and placements are, that country experiences a decline in birthrates.

   Now I'm not so anti feminist that I want women to be second class citizens generally, I'm pointing out that with feminism it inflates egotism in feminists, hyper individualism, that more women think they can just prioritize career and jobs first and family and marriages second. This type of thinking actually can be detrimental because there'd be a spike in female workers competing in some jobs and industries with average of male workers being there. That, plus immigration of foreigners trying to apply in those same types of jobs, doubles the competition for those types of jobs that the native population would have benefited from. The notion of women being second class citizens is also questionable because the majority of human history is autocratic and patriarchal, meaning that rights and laws were made by man, and enforced by men, so if all men decided that women should not have rights, what's stopping them from taking away their rights? 

[Twentyfirst]

8 hours ago, bebotalk said:

I don't see women having equal rights to me as a threat. I see it as a boon. IMHO, all people of all distinctions should hold the same rights in society. Is that offensive to you? it's not to me. Your points are also based on strawmen and shallow thinking. Nobody says men and women are totally equal. Just worthy of the same legal standing. Also, men like different things in women. You're just projecting. and what you've said doesn't even address what I said. 

Women have more rights than men. What rights do you think need to still be equalized? 

[bebotalk]

17 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Women have more rights than men. What rights do you think need to still be equalized? 

To dipshit men's rights advocates, maybe. Feminism in the true/traditional sense means men and women have equal legal standing. I do't see the issue with that. if you do, then fine good on you. You still brought up feminism as means to push some weird MRA agenda. 

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, bebotalk said:

To dipshit men's rights advocates, maybe. Feminism in the true/traditional sense means men and women have equal legal standing. I do't see the issue with that. if you do, then fine good on you. You still brought up feminism as means to push some weird MRA agenda. 

The issue with feminism is that men and women already have equal legal standing

[Danioover9000]

@Twentyfirst

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

The issue with feminism is that men and women already have equal legal standing

   The main issue with feminism is deep denial that the patriarchy makes and gives rights for women, by men. Feminists don't want to admit they exist because some men chose to enforce their ideology and protect it from other men who don't like feminism. Equal legal standing was made and enforced by men to begin with. Now what if some women don't benefit from Feminism, and femunism as an ideology is increasing women's mental health issues, making them act like men and act with too much rationality? What if we need to regulate feminism in some places?