SeaMonster

I would be extremely careful about applying the pre-trans fallacy to SD stages. It is more fruitful to apply it to states of consciousness rather than structures of consciousness. Even Wilber contradicts this idea by admitting that there are enlightened (i.e. trans-egoic) people in the Blue Stage e.g. Eastern monks, etc. Clearly people in the Bible such as Moses or Jesus were enlightened yet the Orange stage was nowhere close to existing. Really, it is animals and the most primitive kind of native peoples that don't have an ego and could be considered pre-.

The important thing is to understand the pattern. What you're really talking about is, there are certain behaviors or habits that lead to bad outcomes and others that lead to good outcomes. So even if you slip up occasionally, at least you know how to get back on track. At least you're not confused. You can TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. Most people are not even at that level of awareness. They don't connect their vices with their failures. So occasional weakness of will is always easier to manage than self-delusion and avoidance of personal responsibility.

Even bad people don't deserve to get killed if they're not trying to harm someone. I mean, I suppose there are gray areas (like gang or mafia rivalry hits, where it's a tit-for-tat killing) but is that what you're talking about?

Coaching is not a green business. It's ideally yellow. Green pretty much means "whatever stupid sob story I tell myself about myself is true and needs to be accepted by society that needs to change for me." It is antithetical to and resistant to any coaching (which means changing yourself.) It is impossible to coach people in Green mode (aside from letting them vent about how people/society has wronged them.)

Did you ever get checked for a learning disability? Sheesh. Didn't I say this shit like years ago? Not my fault if you didn't listen. You could have gotten extra time on the test.

I don't understand what the problem is. Is it that you don't have a social circle of intelligent people? Is it that you're forced to deal with stupid neighbors or relatives or co-workers? How does it affect you personally (and if it doesn't, why is it your problem?)

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed as of about 5 years ago. Leo has way too much baggage to go mainstream (and he knows this himself, he's not an idiot.) He would get destroyed by the media worse than Charles Manson. They would dredge up every family survivor of his suicided followers, run stories on irresponsible psychedelic use, discuss his grandiose claims and obsess over his pickup artistry and other salacious details of his past. Leo is not mainstream material and has not been for a long time. There is a reason he keeps a relatively low profile. If you think otherwise, you live in a freakin' dream world, and have no PR savvy.

Relationships for you would be a waste of time and money. You got this right: "socialize, get friends, and get laid first." Don't put the cart before the horse. You are too inexperienced to want a relationship. You would get ground up into dust going into that prematurely. What you need is (1) a social circle; (2) to observe how women actually behave; (3) to understand that you don't need to spend a lot of time and money to get laid (and that it's not even what at least half the women want either.) Your career is an asset. It's your status with women, whether that's acknowledged or not. You are somebody. Don't undervalue it. It would be good to at least have a sense of direction. If you play your cards right, the women in your social circle will hit on you. You don't need to do a lot of work. "Game" is really a joke (in the sense of cold approach.) It is highly inefficient. The return doesn't justify the effort (aside from doing it a few times to prove to yourself you can.) Smart men work smart, not hard. They build/join social networks with many single women. That's where it's at. There is pre-built social proof that covers about 75% of game.

The Mack Within by Tariq Nasheed.

LOL. Thinking about it may not do it for you. Who knows what the cause is? You may suffer from a vitamin deficiency or not get enough physical exercise, which affects your mental state. You can't mental-fap your way to the truth if your body is not at 100.

Jung's concept of individuation is infinitely more accurate and useful than SD. A lot of SD is ego development/polishing the old ego. The problem with Wilber is that he's only partially enlightened, so he places a lot of value on systems and intellectual development. He merely assumes that SD is somehow superior to being fully enlightened if the fully enlightened person is some ignorant rustic monk in Tibet or something. The fundamental paradox is that stage development is pointless until you're fully enlightened and unnecessary if you are. Wilber DOES NOT KNOW THIS. So even though I'm not a big fan of the "colonialism" argument, it is a very CLASSIST argument in the very least. A lot of being in Stage Green is really accounted for by the more basic socioeconomic and cultural factors, or an IQ differential vs. your parents perhaps. (I'm not even mentioning not being straight or things of that sort.) So the basic problem with stage development is that it is highly CONTEXT-DEPENDENT. If I drop you off in Africa tomorrow to live with forest people, your Green goes out the window. State of consciousness isn't. It is fully portable.

Sorry for your loss. There is no special way to grieve. Whatever feelings come up for you are valid.

This is incorrect. Green is NOT a second-tier stage, therefore it doesn't "transcend and include" Orange. It rejects Orange. This is Spiral Dynamics 101. Leo, you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that many scientists aren't self-proclaimed or self-identified Green. I'm arguing that they're full of shit and their stance is ultimately a self-contradiction. Your argument for nuance is an argument for confusion and cognitive dissonance and having your cake and eating it too. The two are simply incompatible at a fundamental level, and no amount of trying to thread the needle fixes the fundamental contradictions. This is all resolved by scientists going to the 2nd tier, of course.

It's possible your gut health is shot. This can GREATLY affect your mental states. Try to restore your gut health with probiotics and shit, and don't jump to any doom-laden conclusions.

It is the unconscious mind that does this, so it is unintentional. No-one wakes up in the morning and goes "things are going too good, how about I fuck things up a bit?" It simply HAPPENS because people, including celebrities, are unaware of their unconscious needs. If you're unaware of your unconscious needs, your unconscious mind will fuck things up to balance things out. The key with that is recognition that this is what is happening, and not doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on egoic behavior that calls for ruthless balancing of this kind. Rather it's about recognizing what you REALLY NEED as opposed to what your ego wants.

Leo's got lots of opinions, not all of them are correct.

If one experiences a separate self, then one believes one is the doer. At the point one no longer experiences a separate self (they call it No-Self -- it's akin to having no focal point center as an "I", now there is some local emptiness) one is also a non-doer. This is the first stage of stable non-dual awakening. Understand how the fiction of a separate self is maintained: it is through constant thought reinforcement that "THIS (focal point) is ME." These are terms describing how states of consciousness are experienced. Ultimate liberation is "the natural state." One realizes that "nature" is doing all the work: there is no "I" to take credit.

When you get into spirituality and enlightenment, you're fundamentally dealing with paradox. Linear logic goes out the window. Your logic is sound, but imagine e.g. if one completely sees through any form of identity...and yet, one's rational mind doesn't stop working, in other words is able to make all kinds of distinctions and categorizations. This is what you encounter upon extinguishing the I-thought. Your mind hasn't stopped. You know that many others e.g. see you as a discrete being, and it is easy enough for you to use your rational faculties to see yourself the same way. Yet, you also know that this isn't "reality" (in a metaphysical sense) but a product of rationality with certain premises and logic. The "real" reality is that everything is nondual consciousness. So the two can coexist without conflicting, and you can integrate both into a harmonious whole in your life.

"Green science professors" are a self-contradiction. The foundational premise of Green is deconstruction of all grand conceptual systems, including science/scientific method. You can be Green or you can be a scientist. Green in STEM is how you get shit like "decolonizing mathematics" i.e. left-wing fringe kook ideas.

Firstly, you should shitcan the Spiral Dynamics model as it applies to this particular issue in your life. It adds unnecessary complexity. Secondly, realize that this issue for you is keeping your mind focused on the past, as opposed to the future - in other words, who you were as opposed to who you can be. If you merely accept that who you are is a result of many things that happened to you over your life, but who you will be can be a different person based on your own behavioral alterations, then whatever happened in the past need not be a problem for you.

You only need one thing: to change your habits/behavioral patterns to something that doesn't make you anxious. People are like "anxiety is because you had trauma when you were younger..." -- NO. That's being kept in place by a vicious cycle of bad habits. You eliminate the bad habits/adopt good habits and the trauma doesn't matter. You don't need to directly address the issue with hokey shit like challenges and desensitization. Those are superficial -- they don't get to the root cause of why anxiety arises. The root cause is often unrelated to the social aspect itself. It may be something entirely unrelated, like you don't know how to cook, e.g. and unconsciously that makes you feel helpless.

"I ain't bullshitting" part 57.

Letting go is always a choice on some level. There isn't a single method that forces one to let go. You can double up on methods and it doesn't matter. Seeking is a paradox -- the ego always tries to hijack the process in order to sabotage it. Most seekers aren't even aware they're on a wild goose chase. You have to pick the thing you're least inclined to do, something there is MOST resistance to. Many people are like, "what's the most efficient way to get enlightened?" LOL, no, "the most efficient way" won't do it for you. Pick the LEAST efficient, something your ego will truly hate.

The point is you're not happy with where your social life and social skills are. You consider it an issue. No need to downplay it. But the point is, is it transferable or is it circumstantial? Maybe one is easier than the other, but does it translate into more growth necessarily? Like, easier isn't always better for growth. I know you're trying to be funny, but seriously, having to impress people with travel stories is not how I would go about making friends. It's trying too hard, like you're The Most Interesting Man In The World That's fine, but it seems like a special circumstance that may be different than actually forming deep, lasting friendships back home. Friendships aren't a big deal, it's normal human stuff. Therefore, don't treat it as it such. Don't think you need to go out of your way to get good at them. It's simple, you listen; you show interest in what people have to say, you talk a little about yourself and how it relates. You don't need to impress people (in fact, it can backfire.) I could easily make friends saying one tenth of what the other person is saying. Most people just want to be listened to, you don't need to be a raconteur. There's no reason to avoid trying that right where you are.

Why are you bringing up a Brazilian study when this is happening in the US, with its own particular set of circumstances? The affirmative action black students I went to college with had uniformly the lowest GPAs. Now you could argue that the reason they did is the same one they had lower SAT scores, but at some point reality must enter and colorblind performance must be the marker. Anyway, I largely agree with Leo here about Ivy League colleges: it's a status scam. They're not better colleges necessarily, just more selective and sell status. I went to a university where my major was 12th ranked in the country (higher than some Ivies) and I know for a fact that a lot of professors at these types of schools aren't even good lecturers, they put you to sleep. (BTW, my SATs were better than the average of every single university in the country so it's not like I wasn't smart enough.) They're not there because they're great teachers but because they excel at research (which doesn't necessarily do you much good, unless you're a grad student maybe.) Ultimately it's down to you to crack the books and learn this stuff, so you're paying for prestige and not much else.