something_else

I mean… yes? I feel like that’s quite a reasonable thing to do.

It is definitely balanced in favour of women. Men do some pretty horrific shit to women on average, worse than what women do to men on average. Not to say women are innocent in gender wars, of course not, but it definitely isn’t one of those cases where both sides are equally bad.

@Emotionalmosquito Nice dude!!! It’s normal to be nervous, try not to overthink, don’t go in with an agenda, don’t go in with expectations. Vibe with her and have fun. Regardless of what happens, this is personal development and more experience, so enjoy that feeling. If there is flirty energy then you can invite her back to yours, some girls are down, some aren’t. Just don’t be too pushy about it, and try to slide it into the convo smoothly rather than just directly inviting her to yours. Good luck!!

Weirdly, this is pretty much just our arguments flipped. I'm arguing for Transcend and Include for Orange -> Green, your argument seems to be transcend Orange to Yellow and bypass Green. My follow up point is that Green's effectiveness comes in different forms from Orange, forms that when evaluated under an Orange value structure seem ineffective when they are actually not. Well, the US now has a massive democratic majority that will likely lead to the end of the Iran war. Or at the very least make significant progress towards ending it. This massive majority was largely possible because of a change in the cultural zeitgeist, created by collective awareness. I think Stage Orange is very valuable when it's healthy. I've never had any interest in bypassing it, most of my life has been spent on Orange values tbh. Exactly, but without that potential energy an individual cannot act as the lightning bolt that sparks change. Green is all about creating this potential energy at a cultural level through shared value systems. Again, this is evaluating Green under an Orange value structure. Green's methods of producing change in the world don't live at the level of the individual, they live in the shared culture of a society of individuals. Red vs Blue is a good analogy, again. Red's method of effectiveness is individual violence and power, Blue's is in the collective authoritarian regime that everybody follows. From the perspective of Red, emerging Blue is useless because it creates weaker individuals. However the shared values of Blue across an entire culture produce a cohesive unit that is more effective than Red as a whole. Orange to Green is similar. Green doesn't necessarily produce more individually successful people according to Orange's standards, but its shared values can produce forms of collective effectiveness that Orange alone struggles to achieve. For example, Scandinavian countries.

Firstly, most people operate in level 1 and level 2. It's not specific to Stage Green. Secondly, you are applying a Stage Orange value system to a strawman of Stage Green and wondering why Stage Green doesn't hold up. This is vaguely analogous to someone who is Stage Red using number of people killed to qualify somebody at Stage Blue. Yes, Stage Blue is often fine with violence but it wants the violence to serve a higher collective purpose and so it doesn't really value the act of dominance and murder in and of itself. The same is true of Green, it may climb the corporate ladder or achieve personal success, but personal success is not at the pinnacle of its value system anymore and so it is somewhat unfair to qualify Green strictly on Stage Orange values. One of Green's fundamental tenets is "it's not about you". I don't disagree with you on this. People like this can certainly be annoying, depending on how much they complain and how little action they take. But I think you're overlooking the value of collective awareness itself. An individual becoming aware of systemic flaws in their government or society can contribute to societal development without taking extraordinary personal action. When millions of people undergo the same shift in perspective, the resulting change in the collective zeitgeist can be enormously powerful. An entire country becoming dissatisfied with its government can create the conditions for far greater change than even a particularly effective individual could achieve alone. I think there's a tension here between your personal values and Spiral Dynamics itself. You seemingly place enormous value on individual achievement and personal responsibility, all of which are characteristic of Orange. But Spiral Dynamics doesn't inherently regard someone who excels according to those standards as more developed than someone whose primary concerns have shifted towards collective welfare. In fact, somebody who lives a relatively unremarkable life by Orange standards but who has developed a collectivist worldview could be considered further along the spiral than an exceptionally successful Orange individual. My sense is that this frustrates you because you're evaluating developmental progress according to the standards that Green exists specifically to transcend.

Do you have examples of people doing this? I don't doubt it happens, but the 80-90% figures you were quoting earlier don't match up with my experience. Again, identification of systemic problems, discussion, and awareness are a large part of healthy stage green. They are a feature, not a bug. Perhaps it bugs you because you're so oriented towards individualism and the individual solving their own problems, but that is not really what stage green is about. It's a collective stage. It seems like inaction when everybody is just sitting around complaining and talking about issues without necessarily doing anything, but this still collectively improves the development level of society over time. Most issues Green feels strongly about are not things an individual can do a whole lot about anyway, it requires large scale mindset shifts in society to fix those problems, which is achieved largely through awareness, identification of problems, open discussion, and yes, crying about them.

The moment you see healthy + effective Green you reclassify it as Yellow, because it doesn't fit your conception of Green. But every stage can function effectively. Post-war America was a highly effective expression of Orange, just as great historical empires like Rome were effective expressions of Blue. Why should Green be the exception? Spiral Dynamics describes overlapping value systems with a centre of gravity, not rigid categories. Rome had elements of Red and Orange, and post-war America had elements of Blue and Green. Likewise, Scandinavian countries have Orange and Yellow characteristics, but their centre of gravity is distinctly Green. This is a developmental model. Healthy Green doesn't need to reject Orange's achievements. It can retain markets, productivity and individual competence while prioritising equality and collective well-being. Using Orange mechanisms to serve Green values doesn't automatically make a society Yellow. I think you're overlooking the value of those Green "talking points". Awareness, empathy, fairness, dialogue and community aren't substitutes for development, they're developmental achievements in and of themselves. Orange emphasises individual achievement and action. Green recognises that many problems are systemic and require collective solutions. Raising awareness, changing public attitudes and building shared understanding are part of how Green produces change through democracy and collective action. What you dismiss as "just talking" can actually be the groundwork for societal progress. And without that expanded awareness of different cultures, perspectives and systems, how could the genuinely systemic thinking of Yellow emerge? Of course unhealthy Green can get trapped in moralising, virtue signalling and endless discussion. But that no more defines Green than corporate greed defines Orange or authoritarianism defines Blue. Most left-leaning Western people centred at Green are ordinary, functional people with careers, relationships and responsibilities. They're not all stereotypical online activists. And if the people you're criticising aren't even centred at Green, why use them as evidence of Green's dysfunction? Ultimately, my question to you is this: If you classify Green as ineffective whenever it fails, but reclassify it as Yellow whenever it succeeds, what would healthy, effective Green actually look like to you?

More LordFall than you, to be fair. But “most green are ass at orange” conveys the same sentiment indirectly.

@LordFall @Ulax You’re both stereotyping green as activist hippies or like the stereotypical SJWs of old. Most people with a centre of gravity in stage green just come across as fairly normal well-educated people with careers, hobbies and goals like everyone else. The average left leaning westerner is firmly stage green, but most are not activists. Think of Scandinavian countries for example, they’re some of the most stage green places on earth yet it hardly makes sense to say “Scandinavian countries are useless at coming up with solutions to problems” because it’s simply not true. One look and you can see that they’re some of the most effectively run countries in the world, yet they would be classified as having a centre of gravity that’s firmly green. The way you’re applying spiral dynamics is quite flawed to be honest, you’re using it like a personality test instead of a developmental model.

I pretty much only ever bring up spiral dynamics when other people do. I like the model and I think it models human development well, but it’s often used more like a personality test than a development model

Sprezzatura The art of looking put together without looking like you're trying too hard

I think you're stereotyping green a bit. There are plenty of stage green people who try to find solutions for problems. Don't forget that in order to properly integrate green you have to go through orange, and orange is very solution oriented. Yes, some stereotypically stage green people resent orange, but most stage green people are not like that. Awareness, open discussion, and community are usually the mechanisms by which green tries to solve problems, and those are not terrible solutions for the problems green likes to grapple with. It's limited, but to say that green never provides solutions for problems is a touch strawmannish.

This is fair, but both men and women had incentives to have casual sex in the past too, and plenty did. Men to have as many children as possible, and women to get the best possible genes for her children.

What is coming?

Daddy in a sexual context just makes me laugh. I can't take it seriously. Calling a girl mommy as a joke is pretty funny though, I've done it.