Consept

Great wisdom, what really hit me is when he says at the beginning, 9 times out of 10 we fear something because we dont understand it

I'm glad but honestly I like it, I just don't think you can use it to work out others, but to observe yourself I think it's excellent

I disagree, i would say SJWs are green but unhealthy version of it. The big difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is that you cant take on others points of view that contradict yours. So SJWs have no understanding or empathy for why a conservative thinks the way they do, they still believe that there is one truth and their opponents are blocking that truth because theyre stupid and dont get it. To communicate this they use red intention, they have no intention of coming to a mutual understanding. However the content of what they believe is green and most likely they even build up communities of people who feel the same way they do and most likely these are lovng communities, but when challanged the loving goes out the window

Thank you bro

I dont think its complicated and like @w4read says its ideal for introspection, im even looking at how i post and referring back to it. I know you changed it but i actually prefer the colour idea. I kinda get where theyre coming from because it means looking at yourself and you may not like where you would be pegged so you argue with the label, but to be honest the slight backlash that youre getting from this would prove your model even more.

I think the issue is that those who would peg themselves at yellow or maybe higher are realising that on your intention model some of their communication is probably lower like orange, so its the cognitive dissonance that they cant accept being at stage orange. But of course youre isolating to just intention of communication which is different to world views and things like that. So as i understand it you can embody green but post something in a way thats orange even if the content itself is green the intention could be orange, for example if youre trying to prove someone wrong about veganism

I agree you should test things out if you feel to and if it works for you great! I still havent started the wim hof thing but i will. @fridjonk Yeah a lot is to be said for the placebo effect, if we should look into anything it should be that. Apparently placebos can be just effective as the real drugs - https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect which is amazing when you think of the potential that we have in our bodies. But then also makes me think can we make ourselves more ill, for example if you really believed in 5g being dangerous would you actually get sick? Think of Chuck from Better Call Saul. A good example of Big Pharma being overly money focused would be them not looking into the placebo effect as much as they could, obviously if people are healing themselves, theres not much money in that

As i understand it what youre saying is, the intention behind why people post a particular post. Is that right?

@The observer true well said, openness is key

@LfcCharlie4 I agree big pharma is a massive money making industry and to be honest a lot of the things the do are shocking. But for one doctor who let's say doesn't like big pharma (if I was a doctor I'd feel like that) and wants to make money this is a good route. With business it's an extremely effective strategy to niche down and find passionate, active consumers that will be die hard for anything you produce. Now if you look at say this doctors strategy it is definitely that, I don't think it's even possible to find more passionate consumers. If you can say what they want to hear and offer an argument against what they hate, they will love you for life. I would intuit that the doctors that do this are very aware that this is the case, they are smart people. As I mentioned with Wakefield he was very aware of the consensus in science and he couldn't even say that vaccines cause autism because he knew all the studies, but getting money from lawyers made him try and force a way to make it look like that. And it worked for him anti vaxxers love him in the states now, despite all the madness that happened before, so in this case it's definitely a business strategy. Regarding Mercola it's not as clear cut as Wakefield, although he has a lot of shady things in the past, but I'm merely speculating that this is a plausible business strategy. It's either any doctor will go against scientific consensus because he's truly found the answer that no one else has or he's found a way to make money from peoples beliefs over facts. I take that government would have an agenda of what they want studies but there are many studies that are looking for issues with vaccines just as there are for 5g. Saying you reject all of them because one guy with a usually shady past says to, strikes me as a confirmation bias situation rather than looking at it scientifically. Having said that there's nothing wrong with questioning things and experimenting yourself. My only point is that people esp those in all media's, have agendas, they're not just there to help you, you'd probably get that at turquoise or maybe yellow but otherwise it's very rare

@The observer I mean it feels like you're putting a lot of pressure on this. I get your point it's not a perfect model but why would it be? What I took from it is let's look at our intentions behind what we post, if you want to put it into sd it will of course be open for interpretation, but a lot of people don't consider why they're are posting and I think this is a why of looking at it that I've not seen discussed before.

Personally I think this is a good idea, not to judge others as people have said but to judge yourself and your intentions behind each post. For example I do post up sometimes because I see something that is really wrong in terms of how they arrived at that, and I feel an urge to correct that or offer a different a perspective. Now part of this is I want to help but there is also a part where I want to be right or at least challanging to their view. I'm not sure where that falls in this model. But anything that builds up awareness to the reasons you do things is a positive I think

How to start an ideological movement 1. Identify a marginilsed group of society or point out how a group is being marginilsed. Group can be any set of people that have at least one commonality 2. Create a story around this group, why they're important, how theyre being shutdown, how they're being unfairly treated, how other groups are being treated better. Can include past history of others being treated how your group is being treated. Look for studies that could back up your story but be sure to exclude those that contradict your message. Stretch truth or create truths that could be difficult to disprove. 3. Create the enemy. Find an opposing group whose beliefs directly contridict yours, point out the most exaggerated section of this group, the ones that look crazy and use them as examples of that group. You may also want to create boogeymen who is the absolute extreme of this group and deomonise them. Make it seem as though everything would be fine if they weren't there. 4. Recruit your group using exaggerated stories about your opposing group but also use the story created in point 2. Explain how you're good people and misunderstood, you only want fairness. Use YouTube and social media to get to your people and blame mainstream for not allowing you to have a voice. 5. Set up marches, protests, anything you can think of to get people energised. Once they are they will start trying to get other people into it and it will catch steam 6. If you really get going you may get supporters with a bit of money, if this happens get them to invest in documentaries that frame your plight and mix truth with opinion. You may also be able to push into politics. Any backlash you get just accuse them of not caring about your issues Once you've completed these steps your group will be ready to take on society ??

This is when we get into belief territory

Thought this was an interesting 5g vid as well -

Theres a lot of crazy stuff about the doctor that wrote that book though - https://quackwatch.org/11ind/mercola/ This is not to say there might not be issues with 5g there could be but i just dont think its as bad as the hype has been around it. The hype has tied into whats going on now with the corona and the theories whose name we must not mention. People are adding this story onto that and everythings just going a bit crazy. Another thing occurred to me that it makes a lot of sense is that a doctor (and im not saying any in particular) who is quite shameless could very easily go against the scientific community because he knows theres a massive crowd of anti vaxxers and people who generally distrust the media narratives. Its also very easy for them ironically go on mainstream media, because their opinion is so controversial. Now lets think logically, where are most doctors on the spiral, usually orange, materialists, making a lot of money, obviously there will be green as well and maybe higher. But a good proportion would be orange, I dont think its much of a stretch to say that at least a few will spot this business opportunity. Guaranteed you could make a lot more money than if you were following official studies and all that and definitely if you werent a great doctor in the first place. A good example is Andrew Wakefield who got paid by the lawyers for parents with autistic kids to do a study to specifically find a link between autism and vaccine, he didnt find it but fudged the numbers and the studies got thrown out. I think he lost his license. This is an, i think, balanced doc about autism and vaccines featuring Wakefield himself -

@GodDesireOnlyLove my take is deal with whatever facts are there, if there's no facts or no conclusion just accept that you don't know and let it go. The trouble is with all media you here a lot of narratives, I think really being an independent thinker is looking past the narratives to what's real and trying to pick that out. Every narrative has an agenda and that's what we're dealing with, it used to be a bit more subtle but since we're post truth people are very obviously trying to exaggerate or even all out lie to get their narrative some traction. As people we just want that certainty and I guess things like conspiracies can offer that, the same way religion can. But the practice should always be embracing that uncertainty and being comfortable with uncomfortable situations

Yeah ive never really heard that take on it, but its really interesting because ultimately something is happening and its your narrative on it that shapes your experience of it, so can either be a fearful everything is changing we need to work out whats going on, or everything is changing and evolving into something beautiful and we have to accept that. @GodDesireOnlyLove Havent seen them, ill check them out, thanks for sharing

Following

Yeah eventually we'll get to that, the issue is that it cant come from something external to you. So for example we cant just get an enlightened leader and then everyone changes to that, because most likely people will rebel against it if theyre not on that level. I think the evolution is internal as in we ourselves go up maslows pyramid or ascend spiral dynamics and as each person does this it increases the collective consciousness. Once thats at a high enough level, love compassion and all that good stuff will just happen naturally. You can see this in some higher consciousness societies like the nordic countries, although not perfect they tend to trust their government and their government gives them transparency. But it depends on the people and what their ideals are, its the same as that saying 'when the student is ready the teacher will appear', ' when the people are ready, the leader will appear'

I think a good way to judge whether someone narcissistic or manipulative is to see how they react when they receive valid criticism, this guy does not react well. Also you can tell he does believe he is incredibly intelligent but not only that there's a lot of arrogance with it. Loads of red flags, I would say it's a cult.

Was he the one that was talking a lot about logic being the foundation for truth and reality or something like that, a few years ago?

???? That's up my street

This convo reminded me of a King of the hill episode. It shows the differences between green and orange very clearly in this episode. A bit stereotypical but pretty funny. I love the show i think its great

@Zanoni that's right how to get rich but it's not what you think it is. When I read it I was very stage orange so I literally wanted to find out how to get rich, but it's more like a memoir. He's very honest and points out his regrets of pursuing that life and the limitations it has, but also describes the process, I found it very insightful and it probably started me questioning the trying to be rich mindset and looking at it more as just a process to be understood