DocWatts

Not sure whether to laugh or cry for how true this is...

@Leo Gura (or @ anyone here who's knowledgeable about psychology as a field of study). Just out of curiosity, how rigorous is the Myers-Briggs personality profile as a psychological model? From what I've heard from various people in the psychological community is that the Myers-Briggs profile is something that isn't taken seriously by professionals; just wondering if it's possible that I'm missing something here.

He makes a good argument, and if it came down to a popular vote (or at least a fair election without widespread voter suppression amidst a pandemic) I'd have more confidence in his analysis.

The rats are leaving the sinking MAGA ship.

We're in uncharted territory here. I don't think anyone really know what's going to happen, but Trump will almost certainly contest the election results, and even if Joe Biden wins in a landslide I would expect Civil Unrest during in the immediate aftermath. Also lots of ignorant posts by right wingers quoting '1984' because of the conspiracy theories vomiting out of the mouth of the candidate who ran the country in to the ground and then lost the election.

Seems like a shame that such a well thought out and insightful video has something like 150 views. I'll definitely be checking out more of his channel.

Correct. And of course it's a progression from being uncomfortable /morally opposed towards LGBTQ people, then a transition to being passively accepting of LGBTQ people, and if they continue developing that will transition in to actively fighting for LGBTQ rights and inclusion. Also from a developmental level, most Orange folks still have a limited understanding of what discrimination and exclusion looks like, and are only cognizant of the most direct and obvious forms of it.

Just anecdotally, but I happen to know a number of Orange Libertarian types who are totally on board with LGBTQ rights, they just approach the issue differently than someone at Stage Green or Yellow would.

Not sure whether this would be more at home here or in the Society and Politics section, but alas... I've been thinking back lately on a book a read earlier this year : 'Making of the Atomic Bomb' by Richard Rhodes. It's a fascinating and nuanced look at the creation of the atomic weapons program by the United States during World War II, and goes in to quite some detail about the lives and personalities of several of the key scientists involved in the creation of the Bomb including Einstein, Niels Bohr, Edward Teller, Leo Szilard, and John von Neumann just to name a few. But the most fascinating portrait to emerge of the was that of Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Los Alamos laboratory where the world's first atomic explosion was made a terrifying reality. Robert Oppenheimer himself was a man full of contradictions; a brilliant lab director who was able to understand a multitude of scientific disciplines, he was also someone who was deeply interested in Eastern religions and spirituality (keep in mind this was the 1940s before this sort of thing was common in the West). A person who had the interpersonal skills to manage the titanic egos of the scientists involved in the project, he was also someone who was deeply depressed for much of his life. But most importantly, this is someone arguably responsible for one the greatest crimes in the history of mankind by ushering in the age of nuclear weapons, who developed a deep sense of shame and regret after seeing the horrific consequences of their use on two cities full of civilians. And understanding the threat that he had helped unleash on the world, this is a man who had his life and career destroyed in his attempts to advocate for peace and make sure that these weapons were never used again. I'd be curious as to where someone like this would map on to Spiral Dynamics, as he was far from a static person, and seems kind of hard to map.

Any reason for this in particular? Being an engineer or a scientist encompasses a particular worldview, and for scientists in particular many of them have changed the world for good or ill in lasting and profound ways. Especially for some one like Oppenheimer whose life and work can't really be separated from the moral and ethical dimensions of the world changing discoveries he helped usher in.

If you want to support third parties, vote in candidates who are willing to support electoral reforms such as Ranked Choice voting. As it stands now, there's not even a remotely level playing field for third parties and independents. This ^ ^ ^. If you want to see a Green party policy platform enacted (as I do), your best bet is to support progressive Democrats that will help move the Democratic party's policy platform left. Also be appreciative of the fact that a Democratic Socialist and a candidate supporting Universal Basic Income have not only moved from the fringes towards the mainstream, but are having an active influence on the policy platform for the Democratic Party.

Bush was both better and worse. Better in the sense that he was just kind of a simple guy pushing a Blue / Orange ideology rather than a blatant authoritarian trying to subvert democracy, but I'd argue that he was also worse in the sense that the veneer of respectability obfuscated the looting of the country that's been a staple of the Republican party for decades. At least with Trump, the plutocratic tendencies have moved out in to the open, and unclothed the Emperor, so to speak. Not arguing some sort of false equivalency between the two, as Trump is obviously much more dangerous, but there is a clear progression from Reagan to Bush to Trump at work here.

Just something interesting that I recall Don Beck mentioning during an Interview is that he would probably map himself as Blue in SD.

Recently came across this show made by Duncan Trussel and Pendleton Ward (creator of Adventure Time). It's more or less an animated version of Duncan's podcast where he talks about frankly about a host of topics including grief, spirituality, psychedelics... The context for this clip is Duncan having a Conversation with his mother who was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, knowing this is one of the last conversations he's going to have with her (she passed away before the show went on the air).

No mention of Undertale? Shame on you good sir Undertale : A deconstruction of Role Playing video games that asks you to empathise with the monsters you come across, and encourages you to find non-violent resolutions to conflict. It's a game that asks you to take a deep look at the morality of your actions, and explores the topic of forgiveness. It also has positive representation for LGBT characters in a medium that still struggles with inclusivity. It's a deeply empathetic work of art with an incredibly life affirming and positive message. It's also incredibly playful and filled to the brim with lighthearted humour. Playing Undertale fills you with determination.

Thomas Nagel is my favorite; he's a contemporary philosopher who dives deep into integrating subjective experience (phenomenology) into an external objective reality. A lot of his work deals with the nature of consciousness, and he's become well known for his rejection of materialist reductionism when it comes to understanding how the mind works. He's also written quite a bit on law and ethics, and deals with questions such as Moral Luck and what it means to live a Good Life. One thing I really appreciate about Nagel is that he illuminates really interesting questions, but is also humble enough to admit that not every question is going to have a satisfying answer, and goes on to examine ways to cope with that uncertainty.

Thank you for the thoughtful response, you've given me a lot to reflect on; like just how imperfect justice can be in the real world; what"s the proper perspective to take when restorative justice isn't a realistic possibility, or when institutions are unlikely to hold people to account for thier actions? I won't pretend to have all of this figured out, but my own inclinations are to be highly uncomfortable cheering on anyone's death, even an objectively terrible person's.

@Keyhole I'm as disgusted and horrified by Trump as anyone you'll find, but would you say that wishing death upon even objectively horrible people is a sign of a virtuous character? Maybe it would be objectively better if Trump does pass away, but the death of another person isn't something to take pleasure in. Ends justify the means can be a slippery slope...

Don't be the Left leaning version of someone who fantasizes about horrible things happening to criminals (and make no mistake about it, Trump is a criminal). Not because you own him anything or he's deserving of pity (he's not), but because because engaging in this sort of behavior makes you a worse person.

This is a question that's come up as I've pondered on the peculiarities of the American two party political system. While corruption is endemic in the system with both parties complicit to varying degrees, the Republican Party has been rotting from within for several decades now, to the point where it has to use Authoritarian tactics to win elections because it has literally nothing of value to offer for the vast majority of ordinary people. With that as my frame of reference, I'm genuinely curious as to what a more reasonable and relatively healthy Conservative political party would look like in a functional Democracy. With as big and diverse of a country as America is, I've long since made peace with the fact that Conservative political parties are a legitimate part of a representative system; so if they are going to exist, I would much rather they be a relatively healthy form of conservatism and not antithetical to democratic norms and institutions.

By healthy I mean that they should be able to exist in a pluralistic political system in a non-destructive way; 'successful' authoritarianism of the kind you mention would be antithetical to this. Fact of the matter is that Conservatives are going to exist in most societies, so how does a democracy integrate thier political interests in a way that's fair while also not being damaging to everyone else in the society (as I'd argue the Republican party has become damaged over the last several decades, as an instrument for the corrupt to loot the rest of the society). And as long as Conservative parties are going to exist, wouldn't it be better for everyone if it were version of Conservatism that is able integrate in a healthy way with the rest of society? I wonder if part of the problem we're seeing is that Conservatives don't really have any version of this to latch on to in America.

Covid has something like a %1 to %5 mortality rate , whereas something like the flu has closer to a %0.1 mortality rate. But considering that he's one of the most priveledged people in the country, his chances of surviving are going to be much higher than a poor or working class person without the means to get treatment from our pay-to-access Health Care system.

No offense, but these are all Conservative rather than Moderate talking points. Whole point of the post though is that we would want a healthy political party to represent Conservatives, just like we would want a healthy political party for Progressives. The endemic corruption of Trump (though not limited to him) isn't good for anyone. I'm also happy to give due credit to Republicans who've been willing to stand up to Trump, rare as they may be (Romney marching to protest police brutality and racism comes to mind). We need more politicians with Integrity on all sides.