Joshe

Ahh yes!! Scarcity! There's actually something to that.

😂

I found the key to make women like you is to actually listen so you can engage them in ways they've never been engaged before. But since you gotta big dick, maybe that makes up for it? lol

lol, yeah. Horrible move. I was a teenager finally getting attention from girls and I couldn't contain it. But seriously, all the attention I was getting literally came from being friends with girls, not from my looks or some sly shit I was doing. I recommend putting yourself in the friend-zone intentionally and see what happens. Suspend your desire to have sex with them - don't even think about it.

Never thought about it like that, but that tracks perfectly. There was a period in my life when I was involved in a social situation very similar sounding to yours, and shortly after that ended, I wound up in a bad group. I was getting girls in both situations but the first was effortless and the latter was much darker. In fact, mostly what led to the destruction of the healthy social group was me cheating on a girl in it with 8 other girls and then bragging to another dude about my "accomplishments", lol. There was abundance, then there was struggle.

The friend zone is what you want! Dude, if other girls see other girls like you so well that they want to be your friend, that's a highly ideal situation. It's very likely you'll have girlfriends if you have girl friends. If you changed your tact to only get friend-zoned, that's a far better number games than 1000 approaches will produce because it keeps paying out without you having to do anything. Also, some of them will slowly build attraction for you. Because like Emerald keeps saying, this is how girls build real attraction - over time. I'm of the mind that if a girl is hanging out with you, she has attraction for you on some level. She's not blind to the fact that you're a man and she's a woman. She knows you're a man, and she knows you have a dick. And she knows the thought has crossed your mind. Yet it's interesting that she's hanging out with you regardless. lol. Patience.

So, two people with the same range of models and cognition can differ in their orientation to them. For example, person A could care about efficiency and utility and thus want to discard more, and person B could care about exploration and want to collect more. You're smuggling in a value judgement.

Of course I'm not yellow, lol. Seriously, I am not yellow and I don't claim to be because the idea of yellow is so flawed and absurd that I would not apply such a silly ass notion to myself. Also, it wasn't weird at all. I was actually generous in giving you a high quality line of contemplation you could go down. I was kind of hoping you'd spend 5-10 minutes on it to see if you could pick up on any error signals. I wasn't sure if you would, but then you showed you wouldn't, which is why I said I had higher hopes, because I did. Was just being honest, not trying to be condescending. Also, the fact that you and a few other SD folk here have placed me at green just reveals how bad SD is. Your definition of green includes that it cannot see what its mind is doing, which is the most absurd thing you could apply to me. As well as to assume that I lack the ability to form comprehensive perspectives and dive into them on a whim. And of course, the communities behavioral heuristics used to discern an individual's likely position on the spiral is one of the big issues. "Triggered", neuroticism, excitability, etc. are largely stable traits and say nothing about being multi-perspectival, biased, or blind to its own mind. Which you would know if had good models of trait psychology and pondered it for 10 seconds. I'll respect OP and save the SD talk for later. In the meantime, if you want to "transcend and include" SD, look into how trait psychology complicates it. Also, look into what emotional purpose SD serves for the small sliver of the population who cares about self-development (to get a good look at bias). Also, look into why with everything including green and below, SD is describing things you can see in the world at scale. But above green, it's pointing at an ideal and traits, then calling it the next stage when it's really a prediction based on the creator's biased preferences and lack of understanding trait psychology. And look into how SD isn't even a model, but a heuristic, and that tier 2 is an extrapolation from the tier 1 heuristic. Lastly, look into how traits themselves generate values/preferences and then get mistaken for values you arrived at via development. Talk later. FYI, I've never even had the thought that SD is unfair. My issue is that it's not accurate, not that stages exist. Although, what the ego does with those stages is quite repulsive to me. Maybe you picked up on that repulsion and mistook it as evidence for my spiral location.

Of course there’s no reasonable answer to that question. which is why there will be none. And that is the answer,

But say I did. Would that complicate anything? Because I’d put money that my models are more accurate than yours. And what if I could prove it? What I want to know is, what makes your systematizing different than mine?

the only reasonable answer is "emotionality" 😂😂😂

You have called me stage green previously (which was funny as hell because I've never been anything like green). But if I can predict humans better than you, what makes you at stage yellow, or above, better than me at whatever stage I'm at it? What separates us? If I have deeper knowledge of human psychology and human systems than you do, how am I in some way lower on your spiral?

Bullshit. I was born with it. And the implication is that I was "born into yellow". This has massive problems for the model. I wasn't "born into yellow". I was born with a "predisposition". It doesn't make me special. I dont't get to claim some higher level development because of it.

Sorry if I was disrespectful.

thanks bro. I'll come back when I'm clear

No, I said I'd explain it all in the future but it's complicated and would take some work.

Of couse I'm in stage green! That's been the problem my entire life! I just couldn't understand hierarchies! No matter what I did or how much I contemplated, I just couldn't understand hierarchies for the life of me! lol. Quick question for you: Which stage is hierarchy most conscious? Is that "orange"? It's actually funny to even think about if you wanted to compare your understanding of humans to mine systematically, that your understanding would make mine look inferior. I had higher hopes for you kid.

That's because you're myopic but think you see the world through a telescope and you're cool because of it.

No. I'm saying that "yellow" requires something most people don't have. And there are massive implications to that. You're a sharp dude. You can get to the bottom of it if you want. I'm not sure how to articulate this to you at the moment. I've been drinking. But I sense you're reluctant to see the truth of what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with the mystical aspects of reality. It's totally derivable from logic alone, if you have the courage to go there. And I know you do! You just have to do it! lol You're one of the few on here that has that innate courage. So I'm hoping you go there and dismantle what you spent years building. Or at least see the validity in what I've said.

You're literally describing me here. By "systematizing predisposition", I meant having the raw materials that would lead to the capacity to hold several parts in mind at once and work your way to figuring out how they relate to each other, accurately. It doesn't matter if you primarily use intuition first or analysis first. I go to "predisposition" first because capacity is downstream of it. The capacity will never develop without the predisposition or very strong environmental pressure. But it will almost always develop naturally on its own with a strong predisposition, which is what you see here in this community and within yourself. It makes sense to me because I understand psychological distribution. The ability to hold multiple parts in relation varies between people early, and it isn't produced by development. It's not something you arrive at by working through blue and orange and green. Some people have it at age 8 and some will never have it. So if yellow has it that the ability to do this is a hard prerequisite to be considered yellow (and it does), then access to yellow is gated by predisposition. So it's trying to sort people by a trait, while acting like it's a personal advancement. And if you think about what "yellow" is, it's not just about systematizing anything. It's about understanding minds as systems. Something like 15-20% of people have a systematizing predisposition, according to the literature. Of these 15-20%, the majority will point their systematizing at engineering, math, code, markets, ecosystems, etc. Only a small percentage will point it at minds/psychology. And conveniently, those are the "tier 2" people. Does that make sense?

I've watched all the videos and have explored on my own. Granted, I never trusted or adopted the model because I can't just adopt models until they map, but I have tried to let it map and it never did. If it was going to map onto reality, it would have by now. So I kept asking, "How come it's not mapping? These intelligent people are saying it maps!" And I eventually figured out it actually does map for tier 1, and not for tier 2. That's part of why it was difficult to see the issues with it. And the other large part of seeing the issues was that it has built-in mechanisms to prevent you from seeing it. Such as "if you think yellow is bullshit, it's only because you can't see it, because you're not there". So, I got to the bottom of that whole thing, and you can too. The very fact that you can't reach "yellow" without the systematizing predisposition should be enough for you to dismantle it on your own. If SD has been a big thing for you for a long time, there will be reluctance to see the flaws. Which is why it's important to be very careful and slow to adopt models in the first place. Can you have "yellow" without a systematizing predisposition? The answer is no. What are the implications of that? If you don't want to do the work yourself, simply plug this inquiry into your favorite AI to be spoon-fed gold, lol. And then ask yourself, "how come the people who say SD is one of the best models for understanding humans never thought of this?" And then ask yourself "what are the implications of that?" 😂 Yes, very much so. TBH, my cognition seems to be basically designed for mystical experiences. And I did psychedelics regularly, like every weekend for two years until I exhausted it. And I'm very much open to new perspectives, but also very much an independent thinker. I have to verify everything and SD just never mapped, even after having spent years on the table. I disagree with the point about how psychedelics make SD more real. I can totally see all of tier 1, easily. But tier 2 was always a black box, and that is what raised my suspicion and inquiry into why it was a black box.

Right. But I was pointing at something. You have to realize the systematizing predisposition is necessary for what you like to think of as "tier 2". If you follow the implications down, you will see just how flawed SD is for anything above green. The thing Leo never did was tear SD apart. You can rip it to fucking shreds if you want to. The descriptions of tier 1 are useful and map to real-world stuff. But the model is embarrassingly naive and unconscious of it's claims about "Tier 2". I plan to share more when I get the time and energy. It's not going to be easy to explain how flawed it is. The story of why it's flawed in the way that it is is the most interesting thing to me. Not sure I'll get into that though. It's complicated.

Tier 2. lol. You mean someone with the predisposition to systematize? I can get into systematizing women if they're engaging with systems I care about, like psychology. But it would be hard to be attracted to a girl systematizing the global economy, unless it was balanced well with the feminine. And probably even then it wouldn't work because I don't even like hanging around dudes systematizing dry shit. I could totally get into a cute therapist or psychiatrist and enjoy discussing those topics with her. Just like systematizing men are still humans underneath, so are women. It's just a matter of can you put up with their content.

I think that’s normal if you’re just starting out getting girlfriends, but ideally those first few breakups would teach you how not to cling. If a girl wants to leave you, you just let her. If she doesn’t want to be with you, then you shouldn’t want to be with her. No bargaining should ever come to your mind. For me, I literally cannot want a relationship with someone who doesn’t want one with me. There would be zero trying to get her back. In fact, I accommodate and usher her out, and I’m not sitting in fear of what I’m going to do to get another girl, and I’m not even thinking about another girl because I have to process the breakup and move on with life. Your bargaining power in the relationship is that you will not bargain. She should always know your stance is that if she wants to leave, there’s the door.

So are the majority of men. That’s a bothsidesism, but just wanted to toss it out for perspective. And of course, almost no one considers themself a sheep. Also, if the majority of women are sheep yet you’re still chasing them, there’s probably some internal conflict there. Potentially worth looking into depending on how dominant it is in your worldview.