DocWatts

Besides personal financial gain, there's also the prospect of getting to be treated as an "honorary white" as a reward for confirming to the Christian nationalist ideal of what a model minority should look and behave like. Can't talk about racism in America without also talking about classism, as the two are inextricably intertwined. When reactionaries do find their idea of a model minority who's willing to become a mouthpiece for Christian nationalism, they tend to show them off like merit badges ("see we're not really racist, it's just black culture that we have a problem with...")

From my own experience I would say the difference between the strategy and construct stages is this: At the Strategist stage you'll be likely to know in an abstract way that Constructs exist and may be able to list off some examples of social constructs (gender being an obvious one), but you probably won't be putting serious work into understanding the adaptive purpose of constructs, nor will you possess a high degree of self awareness about how your own experience of Reality is filtered through Constructs of various kinds. Once you start to move in to the Construct aware stage, you'll begin to cultivate a background awareness of the ways that human beings carve up an undifferentiated Reality for the purposes of survival. Constructs will move beyond something that only exist in the social realm, and you'll start to get an initiative sense of how the basic ways that we perceive and interact the world is pre-structured in advance of experience. You'll be less likely to see bad behaviors in a purely pejorative sense, but will want to understand what adaptive purpose those behaviors fulfill.

I would strongly caution against trying to use Spiral Dynamics for the purposes of personal development. Spiral Dynamics is far better understood and utilized a sociological model. Trying to use it for self improvement will almost certainly lead to epistemic bypassing. Give the Enneagram a look if you're looking for a developmental model that's much better suited for introspective work.

I would say that the most important issue in epistemology is cultivating construct awareness around the frameworks we use to navigate Reality, for the purpose of becoming more skillful in knowing when and where to use a particular framework. The flip side of this is the sort of epistemic inflexibility that leads to all kinds of reductionism, and to time and resource washing pseudo problems like the so called mind-body problem.

Beat me to it! Reading the book of the same title right now, and would highly recommend it. The descriptive approach of Social psychology is a very useful framework for gaining insight on the particular moral intuitions behind the various the Spiral Stages (which in the context of Haidt's book are Blue, Orange, and Green). The important takeaway being that different survival contexts cultivate particular moral intuitions, oh which our stated moral preferences tend to be post-hoc justifications. Moral intuitions which prioritize purity and a social hierarchy where everyone has their assigned role make good sense for the difficult survival challenges faced by the sorts of ethnically and culturally homogeneous communities which have been the norm throughout most of recorded history. It can become a huge problem though when these moral intuitions have to be integrated into the types of ethnically and culturally diverse societies that we happen to be living in today.

The main point of confusion here seems to come from failing to distinguish between meaning and purpose. Meaning in this context refers to the process of relevance realization which we use to navigate and manipulate our environments. Meaning is part and parcel of how Reality is phenomenologically disclosed to us, and is responsible for the automatic ways that our minds carve up an undifferentiated Reality for the purposes of survival. Our tendency to see the world as consisting of objects exists because the boundaries we draw have meaning for us; they are not arbitrary. A creature that is unable to make meaningful distinctions between the food it needs to survive and a predator charging at it through the bushes will not be able to survive. Meaning is a byproduct of being able to skillfully cope within one's environment, and is present for all complex life; as such it's baked into the structure of how we experience Reality and is not something that is 'chosen' by us (however we do have some agency as to the particular types of meaning we experience). Purpose in the context of this discussion refers to the long term goals, projects, and relationships that make a person's life worth living. Unlike meaning which is part of how Reality is disclosed to us, purpose is something that's cultivated over a lifetime and is something that we have at least some influence over. As such, purpose isn't something that's external to us, nor does it originate inside of us without any input from the outside world. Rather, purpose can be better understood as an embodied interaction that arises from the challenges and opportunities that arise from within a particular social context.

True, but Legislation needs to pass through both chambers to become law. And in addition, the Senate is the more powerful of those two chambers; Supreme Court justices which serve lifetime appointments.are confirms in the Senate.

Abolish it. There is no reason whatsoever to keep it other than to shield a decaying Republican Party that's out of touch with the rest of the country from having to complete fairly within democracy. Also it's worth noting that the electoral college is small potatoes compared to the highly undemocratic structure of the US Senate, where each State is apportioned 2 Senate seats irrespective of that State's population. So California with it's 40 million people, and Wyoming with 400 thousand both get to send exactly two Senators to Congress. If Senate seats were allocated fairly the Republican Party would likely never have a majority in Congress ever again, which is why they're so adamant about maintaining this antiquated system.

Well I for one am looking forward to seeing the Orange Man-Child's narcissism and pettiness doom the Republican Party's prospects in 2024. Though I think Leo is right that DeSantis is being propped up as the obvious candidate for a 2028 run, with the competent ideological fascism of DeSantis being a far greater threat than Trump's narcissistic buffoonery. On the other hand, that does give us potentially another 4 years to forestall the collapse of democracy. That's assuming the reactionary Supreme Court doesn't decide to nuke democracy before that point by adopting the 'independent State legislature theory '.

...well considering that the choices right now are basically: [ ] A flawed political party that at least is trying to make the country a better place, and is willing to abide by democratic norms (D) [ ] A fascistic political party that's an existential threat to democracy, which is openly advocating for political violence (R) Someone like John McCain was a principled person whom I happened to disagree with on policy. The modern GOP is dangerously unhinged from Reality, with no higher principles beyond exploiting existing cultural divisions as a means for personal gain.

Can't fully say for sure since the book's not out yet (releases Jan 1), but here are my best guesses: Quit : Cultivate the ability to walk away from things (jobs, relationships, belief systems) that have become a drain on your well being. Try to arrange your life so that you don't become trapped in these things, and have an escape hatch / backup plan. Learn how to cultivate healthy forms of detachment so as to be less emotionally reactive. Do the Walk of Shame : Gonna be honest, not really sure what this one will entail. Change Your Worldmap : Become self aware about the assumptions and beliefs you use to navigate and make sense of reality. Learn how to separate your sense of self from the Beliefs you hold about Reality. Don't become trapped in an ideology. Deconstruct your beliefs from time to time. Kill Your Guru, Find Your Meta-Team : Don't become dependent on any one person (be that Leo or anyone else) to make sense of Reality for you. Much healthier to have a team of peers with a metamodern (ie Tier2) perspective who challenge each other, rather than the one way relationship between a Guru and thier disciples. (This rule is also a play on the old precept : if you meet [someone claiming to be] the Buddha on the road, kill him).

Snippet from Hanzi Freinacht's next book. Hanzi is a metamodern author whose previous titles include The Listening Society and Nordic Ideology. His books are a metamodern framework written in a humorous and sincerely ironic tone, as the snippet from the intro should make clear: "I, Hanzi, a sociologist and philosopher, am hereby writing a self-help book with no apology or excuse. I have a vision of life, an intimate and subtle practice, an embodied philosophy, and I intend to share it. Yes, may scholars cringe and casual observers laugh: I shall carry their contempt as a cross. Those naive souls who dare defy the scorn and laughter of others are the true rebels of our time, as the novelist David Foster Wallace once claimed. How I long to join their ranks!"

@integral Just wanted to chime in to mention that excerpt in the OP is from Martin Ucik's book: Sex Purpose Love: Couples in Integral Relationships Creating a Better World https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Purpose-Love-Integral-Relationships/dp/0984570330 Martin is a close friend of a personal friend of mine, so I just wanted to make sure he's recognized for his work

I would say so. He was the first postmodern philosopher who had a knack for being able to deconstruct the morality systems of his day in very insightful ways. In addition, he was quite prophetic about the long term problems that would come as modernity displaced traditional value systems (ie widespread social alienation and a cultural meaning crisis that we're living through today, which various breeds of authoritarian ideologies have preyed on). That said, a word of warning; insightful as he was, Nietzsche was also a very damaged person with a huge chip on his shoulder from an unhappy upbringing. This informs his philosophy in a number of problematic ways. Nietzsche was an undeniable egoist with some very questionable ideas which are disdainful of women, democracy, and universal compassion. In a some ways Nietzsche was the 19th century equivalent of an Incel. While it wasn't his intention, there's also a reason his work was able to be so easily misappropriated by fascists. And that's because for all his brilliance, much of his philosophy can be read as the power fantasy of a weak and disempowered man. So as long as one doesn't get thier ethics and morals from Nietzsche, there's a lot that can be learned from him. Just make sure to engage with his work critically.

All due credit to the Left wingers like Vaush who have been consistent on this point (keeping in mind of course that he's still approaching this from a Green perspective); that keeping democracy from collapsing is only the only issue that matters right now at a national level.

The #1 priority right now is to keep democracy from collapsing. In order to keep that from happening, the Left needs to be able to work with Liberals and moderates When the Left alienates Liberals and moderates because it refuses to be strategic, it shoots itself in the foot, and is less effective at actually resisting fascism.

I don't get the sense that anyone here is making a false equivalence between what the Left is doing and the political violence coming from the far-right. But think of it like this. In a country like United States, the Left (as opposed to milquetoast liberals and moderates ) make up perhaps %10-15 of the population. In order to successfully resist fascism, the Left needs to be able to cooperate and make common cause with both liberals and moderates. That doesn't mean giving up on thier ideals, but it does mean knowing how to be strategic and place the democratization needs of society above thier own vision of what they would like society to be. Leftism can push the envelope of what is possible in a system dominated by liberals. That opportunity goes away if the system's center of gravity regresses to a reactionary authoritarian regime.

Considering how corrosive the political environment has become, I'm honestly surprised that political violence isn't even more common than it already is. I used to think that Leftists were being paranoid when they pointed out that it might not be a bad idea for liberals and progressives to learn how to use firearms to defend themselves and thier communities from right wing terrorism, but I'm becoming more convinced that they may have been more correct than I'm comfortable admitting (this is coming from someone who has a gut level aversion to firearms)

Easier said than done. And ironically, by operating on the basis of how people should be rather than dealing with how people actually are, you're perpetuating some of the very same normative mistakes that are being pointed out in the video. If part of the goal was to get people anchored in Green to become more aware of the blindspots in thier worldview, then I can't say the video was completely successful due to its adversarial tone. What a typical person anchored in Green is going to hear (despite what Leo is actually saying) is that the political polarization is primarily thier fault for not being more accommodating to fascists. As I see it, like many of Leo's other videos it's primarily useful for people who come into it with an existing frame of reference for the points he's making to be able to articulate these ideas in a more explicit way. Nothing wrong with that mind you, but Leo might not be the guy who's going to get Greens to reevaluate thier deeply held beliefs.

I think that one of the weaknesses of Leo's approach is that he sometimes tends to frame things in an overly abrasive manner, in a way that triggers the ego defenses of people who might otherwise be receptive to his ideas (and yes I know that Leo is aware of this). This video might be a good example of some of the downsides of that approach, even if the overall point he's making is a solid one. What our society really needs right now is for Green values to be enacted in a healthier way, while also giving Greens who are ready for it an onramp to begin exploring Yellow. (And of course we also need Orange and especially Blue to be much healthier than they are now, but that's a different discussion). The good news is that a lot of this can be done in ways that are palatable to Green sensibilities and values. My suspicion is that healthy Greens that are integrating towards Yellow values are going to be shouldering the burden of responsibility for most of this, rather than an emerging Yellow that represents perhaps %1-2 of the population in a developed country like the United States.

Vaush rightly calling out toxic elements on the Left for thier lack of compassion towards the loneliness epidemic that men are experiencing. He also makes a salient point that people downplaying this issue as an individual rather than a sociological problem are ironically adopting the same victim blaming mentality that reactionaries have weaponized against marginalized people.

Sorry, but I feel like I have to chime in here, since there's a ton of disinformation on this topic (not accusing you of intentionally doing so, these misconceptions are common place). While the Right likes to loves to use this point to emotionally manipulate thier base, in point of fact this is very misleading and not at all representative of how and why people terminate pregnancies in %99 of cases. The overwhelming majority of abortions happen in the first two trimesters, and of the third term abortions that do happen the majority of those happen for health reasons (either due to the pregnancy being dangerous, or the fetus not being viable for any number of reasons). If someone carries a pregnancy for 7 or 8 months they very likely want to have a child, and having to terminate a pregnancy one wants to have is emotionally difficult enough on its own without being demonized as a callous and irresponsible person. And keep in mind before the Dobbs decision, in the United States abortion was only legally protected during the first two trimesters anyways.

@trenton continuing my earlier post. I'll also try to keep these other ones shorter and more curated. (2) Sociology: in short, good sociology involves applying systems thinking to complex societal structures. Here are some good works on the topic: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality by Ken Wilber : Was actually debating whether this would be a better fit here or in the epistomology section, since it deals with both. Put it here because while Wilber's magnum opus deals with a wide range of topics, it's also one of the best resources you'll find for gaining a broad understanding of the various social paradigms that are active in our culture Guns, Germs, and Steel; Collapse; Upheaval by Jared Diamond : these three books are some some of the best social systems thinking you'll find that's still accessible enough for an average educated person to pick up and get value out of. If you pick up nothing else from this section, pick up Jared Diamond's works. The Listening Society and Nordic Ideology by Hanzi Freinacht: an introduction and articulation of metamodernism, which is an emerging socio-cultural paradigm that attempts to contextualize and find value in the cultural paradigms that shape society A Theory of Justice by John Rawls : a landmark work of 20th century political philosophy, this book takes an extremely nuanced and thoughtful stance for how we should think about inequality and the distribution of resources in complex societies Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armageddon, Ghosts of the Osfront, Supernova in the East) : a podcast recommendation rather than a book! Dan Carlin does a great job of teaching 20th century history in a way that's highly informative and engaging. His great strength is being able to demonstrate a high degree of empathy for the various peoples and cultures that find themselves on different sides of a conflict.

Oh gosh, how do you summarize 5-10 years worth of learning and development in a few paragraphs? Well I'll give it the old college try. I'm actually a software developer and artist, so while I did go to college, I'm self taught on %95 of this stuff. I would also recommend trying to become less reliant on Leo's vids and teachings over time, so that you develop your own path (Leo's content is great, but there's also things I disagree with him on, which is healthy and to be encouraged). So I think at a Root level what helped me was putting effort into developing a handful of key areas: epistemology, sociological literacy, psychology, and mindfulness practices. While I'll be happy to offer some recommendations for useful resources in those four areas I mentioned, it's important to note that for me at least it took a deliberate effort to develop more sophisticated forms of thinking over a period of years. While reading books on each of these subjects is a great way to start, the eventual goal is to be able to embody this stuff as new ways of thinking. Even though this stuff will take some time to fully embody, don't let that dissuade you! Even a bit of sociological or epistemic literacy can go a long way. Also don't try to cram this stuff, reading it at a resonable pace and engaging with it critically is what's important here. Anyways, here are some resources to get you started. (1) Epistomology - this of course refers to theory of knowledge, which in practical terms means learning methodologies and practices meant to assess the degree of validity for Truth claims in more sophisticated ways. Here are some books to get you started. I would call epistemology foundational because it's quite literally the foundation of all our other thoughts and beliefs about the world. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn: will give you a more sophisticated understanding of the epistemology behind science, and is a great demonstration of how paradigms work Metaphors We Live By by George Lakoff: explores epistemology by examining how metaphors structure our normal ways of thinking and interacting with the world. Is also a great resource for learning the Embodied nature of our minds. The Embodied Mind' by Fransisco Varella : explores the epistomic consequences of our minds being Embodied and embedded in an an environment. Deals with the ways that Reality is disclosed to human beings because of the types of creatures we are. Philosophy in the Flesh by George Lakoff : deconstructs bad epistomology of both enlightenment era philosophy and scientific reductionism Phenomology by Chad Engelland : introduction to a form of philosophy that builds epistemic awareness by paying very close attention to our direct experience. Has much in common with Eastern perspectives which emphasize mindfulness I'll add more later in another post to keep this from turning into a novel. While it may initially seem that this stuff is kind of esoteric and far removed from politics, I assure you that it will be helpful in giving you a strong epistemic foundation that will make it easier to approach other areas (such as psychology and politics) in more sophisticated ways. The end goal is to be able to relate to your fellow human beings in more complex and compassionate ways, and this foundation will be super useful to have in your pocket as you move on to sociology and psychology. At the end of the day you'll want to approach these subjects and politics from a Construct Aware perspective, which requires a solid foundation in epistomology.