Emerald

Great analogy. In fact, this analogy could be applied to all things within the personal and collective shadow and how they remain unconscious.

I suppose it could. But only if you feel like you're fairly immune to peer pressure and feel comfortable with pushing back on the status quo of the institution as a whole over a sustained period of time. All the while, remaining and appealing person for other people to aspire to. So, if you think you can do this, you can effect things in small positive ways from within that system of being in the reserves.

I think cancer is an apt metaphor. Cancer itself has no malicious intent, but it has an extremely debilitating effects. Cancer is an invisible hand issue, that you can't really blame anyone for. It just happens as a result of many different systems working together in a way that produces dysfunction. This is a lot like racism. Even though racism does sometimes have malicious intent... most of the time the workings of the system go completely un-noticed. And most people who support and maintain this system do so because they don't know that they're doing it. So, cancer grows when cells continue to expand and grow beyond what they're supposed to. But the body registers the abnormal growth as normal. This is a lot like the system of racism. So much of what causes racism is seen as normal by society at large. Due to lack of systemic thinking and consciousness in general, they don't see any issue with things that actually have a huge effect on the social system. So, we are not at a point where we can transcend issues of race altogether. Society isn't there yet, and people are still being affected negatively by it. And to, as an individual, flip into that detached perspective and "transcend" the issue, is simply to ignore what's going on and pretend that these systemic issues don't exist and to insulate ourselves from our own participation in those systems and those systems' impact upon our psyche and behaviors. Modern times, call for a Yellow-Green perspective to percolate through society relative to racism. So, trying to jump to a more transcendent perspective is just bypassing.

I think that all peoples are equally capable and pre-disposed to bigotry. So, there is nothing special about certain races that make them more or less bigoted than other races. And bigotry is not nice no matter who does it and who it's done to. That said, focusing on this issue at the level of overt bigotry that individuals have is not effective. And focusing on this issue at the level of hurt feelings about bigotry is also not effective. Instead, it's important to focus on the issue of racism at the level of systems and thinking about that issue as a largely "invisible hand" issue that comes about from a bunch of different factors working together in idiosyncratic ways, as opposed to being purely the result of malicious intent put forth by flawed individuals. So, on the level of systems, there is no overarching pattern that disenfranchises white people in the same way that it disenfranchises people of color. The system works to the overall benefit of white people and to the overall vulnerability of non-white people to those systemic forces. So, even though white people are no more pre-disposed to bigotry than anyone else, the system largely works in our favor and we benefit most from the status quo. So, it is most important for white people to become conscious of how this system works, as we have the most power to dismantle it.

That's why I said that bandaids and paint colors are merely a reflection of a much more pervasive pattern. They are very trivial on their own. But what they point to is anything but trivial. So, you could boycott and demonize bandaid companies and paint companies and have them stop doing that, but it would do very little to effect the system at large that poses whiteness as default. Now, that's not as to say it would have no effect, as even dismantling something small has some positive effect. But renaming the paint color "nude" to something else isn't going to do much to change the system in a radical way because it won't do much to raise consciousness around systemic forces that enforce white defaultism. We're still remaining in the same paradigm as before. For this, we have to address the issue of racism from its roots, instead of from its symptoms. This is what Green struggles with. They want to address the individual symptoms in hopes of curing the root of the problem. So, they go around obsessing about the color of bandaids and little things like that, but don't pick up on the larger systemic force that gave way to that symptom. So, it's like a person trying to kill a tree by picking its leaves off one at a time, and being surprised when still new leaves grow on the tree.

These are the main aspects of the collective shadow that society at large is on the verge of becoming conscious of in order to make a transition from an Orange paradigm to a Green paradigm (to speak from a Spiral Dynamics perspective). So, the horse is still very much alive. This is why this topic will continue to come up again and again and again and again until collective consciousness has integrated these perspectives. So, if it were truly a dead horse, it wouldn't be absolutely EVERYWHERE. This is the cutting edge of collective consciousness. So, even if it's nowhere near Turquoise, these conversations are important to have to encourage forward momentum.

Like I said above, these are two minor things that are merely a reflection of white defaultism, which is a huge systemic issue. So, despite that band-aids and paint colors on their own would be non-issues, they reflect a much more insidious and pervasive systemic force that has profound effects on the social system relative to race. So, take these as very minor symptoms of a deeper and more serious illness. In the same sense that cancer has some symptoms that don't look that serious on first inspection, it is the same for these minor tells relative to much more deeply ingrained racist patterns.

Think of systemic racism like a huge Rube Goldberg machine, where the ball drops and a flag goes up and that makes dominos topple over which makes a gun shoot which makes even more dominos topple over and a ball go into a cup that tips over and a string is pulled, etc. So, it's a complex and idiosyncratic system that creates a lot of unexpected outcomes. And also, it's important to understand that the vast majority of negative effects toward people of color come from unconsciousness as opposed to direct malicious intent. Now, that's not to say that there aren't people with malicious intent toward people of color. It's just that the majority of racism comes unknowingly from unconscious well-meaning people. But the people with malicious intent know this, and can use those people as pawns to spread their agenda. So, let's take a very small and mundane aspect of the system of racism as an example. Band-aids are made to match white skin tones. The paint color "nude" is also a white skin tone color. Now, these are seemingly relatively innocuous examples. But they are actually a reflection of a much more pervasive systemic issue. Namely, that white is seen as the default race and that all other races are a variation on the white norm. I call this white defaultism. This is also reflected in the terms that we use to describe Americans who are of different races. Black people are called African Americans, and this is true no matter how long their family has resided in the United States. The black family and their ancestors could have been living in the United States for 400 years, but they are still called African American. Meanwhile, we don't refer to white people as European American. And even if a white person's parents came from Europe, if that white person was born in the United States then they will just be referred to as an American. So, white people don't get a signifier like all other races and ethnicities, which also is a reflection of white defaultism. And all minorities that live in the states get signifiers that suggest they are variations upon the white default. Even Native Americans, have the signifier of being "Native" as the qualifier upon being American, despite the fact that they have the most right to just be called American. Then, if someone says, a person walked into a bar, the image that comes to mind is usually a picture of a white man walking into a bar, as person as an idea = white person. And this is an implicit bias that we get inundated with from a very early age because of cultural understandings and representation in the media. So, it takes a lot of awareness of this issue to not project this white defaultism onto reality, as it is such a cultural and psychological groove that enforces a lot of harmful mindsets around race and belonging. So, it even branches out and has many other effects on how people interact with and perceive people of color. Edit: Also, to be white and seen as default has the effect of coming off as "race neutral" to most people. So, white people get the benefit of not having people react to their race very often, as it is seen as the norm and blends into the background. So, white people get significantly fewer uncomfortable reactions to their race, where people of color would have to take other's reaction to their race into consideration really often. Also, being race neutral creates a comfort zone of racelessness in white people's minds. So, white people tend to become really sensitive and avoidant of matters that deal with race. White people tend to get upset and uncomfortable when they're in a situation that their race becomes a focus because they're not used to it. And that anxiety tends to get projected onto people of color, so people of color have to carefully navigate the waters in discussions about race with white people. And white people tend to not listen to grievances relative to race because they feel blamed and put on the spot. And they often have world-views that minimise the focus on race in general. So, it is difficult for people in minority groups to get people in the majority group to listen because of the majority group not being used to having attention drawn to their race and having anxieties and guilt around racial issues being brought up.

This again, seems to neglect the validity of the collectivist perspective and shows a tendency to fall back on the superiority of the individual perspective. While it is true, that a collective system is made up of individuals, there are issues that cannot be solved from the individualist perspective. And to always draw everything back to the individualist perspective invalidates truths that can only be seen from a big picture collectivist perspective. Likewise, someone who's always looking from a collectivist perspective and is attached to that lens will be blind to truths from the individualist perspective. To give an example of why being stuck in an individualist perspective is limited, imagine that there is a forest. You could say that the forest is an illusion because a forest is essentially just a collection of individual trees. And there is technically no forest to be found on the level of trees. It is just a way that human beings conceptualize a grouping of individual trees. That said, if there is a problem within the forest, then you can't necessarily discern the solution to that problem by looking at individual trees without regard to looking at the larger system that is the forest and how the smaller systems react within that larger system. This is the same situation with regards to complex systemic issues like racism, as it isn't necessarily driven on by the intentions of individuals. You have to look at the entire system to discern why things are happening the way they are and what is happening. Only then, can viable solutions come about. And the individualist perspective, is not conducive to the awareness of systemic solutions to these issues as the individualist lens is to reductive to have efficacy in that situation. So, again, it is failure to be multi-perspectival to always default to the individualist perspective as the superior or correct perspective. This kind of thinking leads to myopia and sheds light on the meaning of "missing the forest for the trees."

That's an Orange view on racism. Orange views racism as an individual character flaw and overt bigotry levied by intentional racial supremacists who have certain beliefs, concepts, worldviews, and ideologies on race. So, Orange people tend to think of themselves as not racist, and will be blind to their own implicit biases and contributions to negative patterns within the social system. And if a Green brings up the blindspots the Orange has and tells them they're being complicit in racism, they will get really offended and take it personally as they feel like they've been accused of having a character flaw on the caliber of David Duke. Green, however, views racism as something that exists in collective systems that are maintained by individuals both conscious and unconscious of their implicit biases based upon race. And their solution is to demonize and discourage those maintainers of the status quo of the racism within systems to punish and discourage them from continuing. They are aware of the systemic issues... but they often don't think systemically about the solutions to them. Yellow views racism as something that is a systemic invisible hand issue on both the collectivist and individual levels. So, they think systemically on the individual and collectivist level and see how the two perspectives inform eachother and maintain the system. The difference is in the lack of demonization and understanding that misunderstanding and unconsciousness is the lion's share of the problem. And they will be more focused on raising consciousness then on punishing wrong-doers, as they see how easy it is to succumb to unconsciousness. They want to really understand all the perspectives and workings within the system to address the issue at its core in a real way.

Someone who is an overt and intentional racial supremacist is someone who could benefit from the insight that race is an illusion. This is true that ultimately they are projecting too much meaning onto race as an existential reality that implies some value or lack-there-of onto a particular race. That's why I said before that this truth was helpful when society as a whole were at an earlier point of development where we were less conscious is general and projected a lot more meanings onto race. Understanding that insight really helped us get out from under the most overt forms of institutionalized racism. But in present day, we're dealing with the racism at a deeper and more subtle level that is still mostly in the collective shadow. And it is only people who are in Green and above that will be able to perceive of the existence of more subtle systemic patterns of racism. People in Orange will be largely unconscious to these patterns because they are directly in the blindspot of the Orange worldview. And because Orange values meritocracy, the realization that there are certain systemic riggings within society is very dangerous to Orange's beliefs in the world as being fair and meritocratic. So, thinking of racism as something that comes only from overt racists also tends to reflect the idea of Orange Individualism in thinking of racism as a relatively uncommon character flaw that an individual has. People in Green and Yellow think about racism as a pattern within systems that are best dismantled... which requires a high degree of awareness relative to the subjective experiential truths about race to avoid feeding into (at Green) and avoid feeding into and actively dismantling (at Yellow). Orange doesn't possess this awareness, so it cleaves to its ideas about how individual racists intentionally cause racism... so don't hate anyone and you won't be complicit in racism. Race is an illusion, so we shouldn't pay attention to it anyway. We should strive to be color blind because that means we, as individuals have character. So, it is not able to notice collective "invisible hand" patterns that maintain a status quo based in racial hegemony. So, it doesn't see any practical value in focusing toward the collective perspective.

@Outer I'm trying really hard to explain this to you, but it's not working out too well. I will try one more time. You are still not able to open up and hold space for paradoxes and shake free of the uni-perspectival paradigm that you're currently stuck down in. You will never be able to evolve out of Orange unless you see the validity of Green and release resistance to it. So, when I talk about the subjective, practical, and down-to-Earth perspectives about race as being valid AND the scientific perspective about race being valid at the same time, it doesn't quite make sense to you. You're still in the notion that there is one perspective that is correct (or more correct) and that all other perspectives are invalid. So, you're in an "either/or" mindset about race, instead of in a holistic/integrative perspective on it. So, you try to invalidate the practical perspectives on race as an experiential reality, by cleaving to truths about race that are reductionist, deconstructionist, and detached from the subjective human experience and the emotional reality of being alive. So, when I say that race is a real experiential reality that has practical implications for how individuals are treated and systems run, this is true. When you say that race is an illusion form the scientific perspective that there is no clear delineations between racial groups other than by phenotype, this is also true. So, it is in being able to reconcile the paradox that both of these perspectives, though seemingly contradictory, are true from the standpoint of certain paradigms. But if we are looking to improve the status quo and to remove barriers to consciousness for humanity at large, one of these truths is helpful in aiding awareness and the other is usually used to obscure the truths that are aiding awareness. And this is what you and so many others are doing. So, claiming that race is an illusion is just using the truth to create blindspots that serve the function of keeping you stuck in your current paradigm where you feel safe and secure. In order to become more conscious, you must learn to let go of your attachments to the beliefs that make up the paradigm you currently reside within.

Sounds legit.

This is definitely a danger. So, if you think you'll fall into the traps of believing illusions and being taken in by the symbolism and the current aegis of the institution, then I recommend even avoiding the reserves. That said, the reserves do provide a practical service around protection that makes sense.

That's because you were experiencing the discomfort of cognitive dissonance and went into defense mode by an idea that contradicts your worldview. Read the whole thing without the getting triggered into an emotional response, and you will see that what I am saying is valid. So, if you are honest, you don't see everyone as ants. You might think this thought in the abstract and are used to intellectually zooming out. And certainly, that is one perspective among many. From that perspective, we are little specs on a small rock floating in infinite space. But that is not the end-all-be-all of perspectives. There are also experiential perspectives that are subjective, practical, and down to Earth. And those perspectives are also valid. Be a little more open minded and embrace a worldview flexible enough to be multi-perspectival, so that you can perceive truths from more than just one paradigm. So, if a person of color talks about their experiences and struggles as a person of color, interjecting with the ant narrative isn't going to help them deal with the social systems that disenfranchise them. It's just going to invalidate their perspective because you've chosen to remain blissfully ignorant to the uncomfortable realities that surround race. Imagine a black woman living in the ghetto who had a twelve year old son that was gunned down by police when he was playing in the front yard and minding his own business. Telling her that race is an illusion will fall on deaf ears. Race is obviously a major factor in that woman's life, and people react to her and her family members differently because of it. And in this case, it cost her son's life. Race is a real experiential reality, and so is racism. And it's usually only white people who like the "there's no such thing as race" narrative because it keeps us in a state of not having to realize how messed up things are. It lets us stay in a little bubble that's detached from real life, and safely nestled into reductionist perspectives. Er go... using the truths from one paradigm to obscure truths from another paradigm.

Essentially yes. There can be exceptions, but this is how it's always been for me. The friend zone is default, so it takes the development of feelings for a man to cease to be in the friend zone. Most men tend to think of the friend zone as a place that women actively put select men that they're not interested in. But this is not true, and is largely an assumption that women and men work the same way regarding selectivity and attraction. But women don't work like men relative to attraction. For women, everyone starts from the friend zone for the most part, and then if feelings develop then that person gets out of the friend zone. So, the friend zone is basic for 99.9% of men, and only a small fraction of a percentage ever get out. Though the latent attraction potential exists for many men within that zone.

That's hard to say. For me, it usually takes me at least a few days for an attraction to set in. But even that's hard to say because the onset of the attraction is very gradual. All men start out as friends/acquaintances who are neutral, and most remain neutral. The friend zone is the default zone for everyone. But every once and a while, I'll make a guy friend or acquaintance and I'll be thinking of him when I'm not around him. Then, gradually, I'll start to realize that an attraction is forming and that I'm feeling very alive when I'm around him or thinking about him. But the onset is so gradual and coming from nothing that I don't know where the attraction actually technically begins. There are no hard lines to anything. It's all very organic and slow burning. But I've had it to where I've known a guy for a while, but started to get an attraction a long time down the road. Or I meet a guy, and I have developed an attraction with him within the week. So, there is no set answer. The main thing is to become attuned to signifiers of attraction and hone your intuition about who is developing feelings for you and learning how to stoke those fires in subtle ways.

Race is not a hallucination in the practical sense. It definitely exists as a real experiential reality. And people are treated differently on the basis of it. So, to say that race isn't a real experiential reality is to engage in the mental gymnastics needed to ignore race-related issues and your emotional responses to it and maintain the status quo within your comfort zone. It's all a mind-game that's designed to ignore certain realities to keep one's worldview in tact and avoid transcending it and relinquishing attachments to certain beliefs. Now, you can look at race in the vacuum of a more detached perspective that looks at race from a purely scientific view and say that everyone is a mix of different genes and that race is technically a false divide between people. And that's true from the scientific perspective. And technically, this perspective can help undo more overt forms of racism that society was dealing with 60 years ago and before. So, at one point this was a really helpful truth... but it doesn't work at the level we're facing racial issues at in present day as we're dealing with issues higher up on the spiral of human evolution. So, it's not the appropriate truth for the given circumstances and needs that we have as a society. So, when this scientific and detached perspective is viewed as the ultimate perspective on race, it is reductionist and edits out the truth and validity of the practical, subjective, and experiential reality of race. And this view is only true and helpful from very limited perspectives. So, to cling to this scientific truth as the "real" truth is to fail to be multi-perspectival and realize that there is more than just one truth about race and more than one valid perspective to see the world through, and that the validity of the perspective will vary based upon practical application. And the primary practical application that this truth is used for in the current day is simply to avoid uncomfortable subjective truths about race and how social systems react to it. So, this perspective on race is true from certain perspectives... but it isn't very helpful and invalidates and obscures other more helpful truths that will actually create expansion and integration within the human species and improve the quality of life for many people. And practically, everyone on the planet notices race as a phenomenological reality except people who are literally blind. And to claim otherwise is just self-deception and assuring one's self that "I'm not racist. I'm color blind". So, using this reductionist truth that "race is an illusion" to invalidate the experiential truth that "race is a subjectively, practically, and phenomenologically real and noticeable, and it has real effects on people and the world" is just using the more convenient truth to lie to one's self and create a blindspot whenever cognitive dissonance comes up. Don't put it past the mind to be able to self-delude and use truth from one paradigm for the purposes of dishonesty and self-deception to create a blindspot relative to another paradigm. So, let's be honest. You definitely notice race. I definitely notice race. You are not color blind. I am not color blind. There are very clear visual signifiers for race that people (including small babies) notice. And theres is nothing wrong with noticing that race is a phenomenological reality. Color-blindness is not a virtue to be aspired to anyway, as it is just a lie and a way to sweep problems under the rug that affect real people every day.

This is just more of Orange's Individualist resistance to Green's focus toward the Collectivist perspective, and a way to write off Green and demonize it. So, no. Individualism and Collectivism are both valid but imperfect perspectives, and both have utility relative situations and lack utility relative to certain other situations. So, a Yellow person would look at a given situation and see what was most appropriate in a given situation and choose depending on the scenario. And if they were looking from a social systems perspective as to how to effect major change in the world and creating space for expanded consciousness and higher quality of living on the macro, they would be wise to choose the Collectivist lens for dealing with these issues and creating actionable solutions. And from the perspective of social systems and everyday living, race is anything but a hallucination. It has very real impacts on how people are affected within a social system and how the entire system runs. And to ignore race as a reality is to create a blindspot and relegate all patterns that exist relative to race to the personal and collective shadow. It requires mental gymnastics to deny that these realities exist. This is why it's unconscious as it exists in the realm of Orange's shadow that it doesn't like to acknowledge, as it undermines the seeming airtightness of the Orange worldview to an Orange person. So, there will be many attempts to rationalize away these aspects of reality and invalidate them as "playing identity politics." In other words, denying the existence of the subjective collective reality relative to any identity signifier and its potential effects on individuals, just creates blindspots and unconsciousness and is rooted in denial of aspects of the social systems and how they work. It insulates us from the awareness of the barriers to humanity's expanding consciousness and liberation that looms upon the horizon.

Stage Yellow would be able to see which paradigm is most appropriate in a given situation. So, I wouldn't call it Individual Collectivism as a synonym for Yellow thinking. It's far more accurate to say that Yellow is adept at systemic thinking, as it has the ability to look at things through both and Individual and Collective lens because it has integrated and transcended both Orange and Green, as well as all the previous levels of Individualism and Collectivism. So, it can shift back and forth between the two depending on which paradigm is most appropriate for the common good in a given scenario.

The way I see it is this. The military will always exist as long as human society exists, as it is a natural form within our societies. It is necessary for protection and defense, as there will always be a chance of one country attacking another. So, there needs to be that line of defense there. That said, the military will take more denigrated or exalted forms (as every profession does) depending on the level of consciousness a society has. The same is true for law enforcement, teaching, religious figures, etc. So, if you get into the military for a real and tangible reason that you can see provides clear value to society, I don't see an issue with it. So, if you are in the reserves, this means that you are in your home country and ready to protect if another country attacks. So, this has clear value to your society as it saves lives, and it doesn't involve attacking another country and creating a bad situation for others. It's merely for protection, which is the highest tangible value that the military can realize. However, the current state of affairs with the military is heavily influenced by tribalism, ethnocentricity, greed, cleaving to imaginary symbols, and meaningless conflict that has no value to society. So, offensive wars are very low consciousness unless they are done to protect vulnerable countries or ourselves from tyrants and their regimes. Now, you have to be careful in the military, even if you're just in the reserves because they do tend to enforce a lot of rigid Blue values based in imaginary ideas and symbolism. This is something that a person who's trying to actualize themselves should be looking to transcend to get detached from illusions and more grounded in truth. But if you can remain conscious that the highest purpose of the military is for protection and protection only, then being in the reserves should be okay. And realize also, that protection and offense are two totally different things.

Women tend to respond to a feeling of romantic ambiguity if there is a latent attraction there already (i.e. She thinks you are relatively attractive looking, etc.). So, if you can interact with a woman in a platonic way 99% of the time and give a small slip of ambiguous flirtation. That way, she will think of you when she is alone and wonder what your intentions are. And this will create a sense of tension around you... again if there is already a latent attraction. It will play out like, "Hmm. What did he mean by that?"... "Is he interested in me or am I imagining it?" And this curiosity can lead to a growing feeling of attraction because your intentions are mysterious and it makes her wonder if you're thinking about her and if you're attracted to her. You will be able to tell if she's interested because she'll come around more and may even try to get you to show that kind of attention to her again that got her thinking in that direction in the first place. So, being aware of attraction signifiers and picking up on those clues and trusting your instincts will be key to advancing further. But be aware that this method will take self-control, restraint, and subtlety. It's a seed you only plant once and wait for signs that she wants you to advance closer. This is a good method for women you are around pretty often. A subtle slip of innuendo or a platonic touch on the shoulder can be enough to set this reaction in motion. But it has to seem natural, innocent, detached from outcome, and unplanned. Now, you can also do the cold approach until you get a yes, and this will probably work faster. You will be able to find women who are looking for something a bit easier. But if you want to garner a deeper and more passionate response in the woman, you can try the above method.

Social status is definitely an "ingredient" that's naturally highly sought after. But social status by itself will only attract women who are looking for a free ride. Also, the main thing that women care about is context. So, it can be different for different women. For example, as a teenager, I was turned off by guys who were from wealthier backgrounds because I interpreted it as him never having to work for anything having mommy and daddy giving everything to him and not having the same experiences that I had as a working class person. So, being from a wealthy family meant that the guy wouldn't be able to give me the experience I wanted because of the bourgeois context of his life and his lack of grit. I wanted a more worldly guy who lived an edgier life that was interested and filled with working class values, a disregard for social status climbing, rebellion, and a stoner life-style. That's the kind of life I wanted to live, so I was interested in guys who already had that life. As a young adult, however, I had had enough of the drama of the previous lifestyle. So, I began to value financial success, stability, and social status in myself. To me, it was a signifier of my own ability to pull myself up by my bootstraps. I wanted to be and feel like an adult most of all. So, I began to be attracted to older men who were already settled with a stable career, as this is what I aspired toward. I desired the context, and men who had created that context for themselves. So, I found myself as a twenty year old getting attracted to mostly settled down guys in their 30s who had already developed a mature adult lifestyle. But this wasn't a decision I made. I just began to project attraction onto men like this. This is when I met my husband. Currently, I am almost thirty myself, and happily married. But I suspect if I were to find myself dating now that I'd be looking for something completely different than social status which was so important to me back then. I would definitely consider someone's career and finances before I got with them because that would have real consequences on my life long-term. But I'm no longer enamored by the idea of joining a man in his pre-established adult life-style and trying to climb in social hierarchies. I have other desires now beyond being an adult, now that I'm actually comfortably established in my own adulthood. So, I would probably be looking more for a guy who I could live an easy-going life with, who generally shared by values, disposition, and could join me where I'm at. But I still probably wouldn't date him if he didn't have career-goals and passions that are conferable in scale to my own, mostly for practical reasons of congruency. So, understand that for a lot of women who are looking to settle into a relationship with a man, they will be highly attuned to your ability to make a living and have respect within the community, as this will have direct consequences on their lives. Plus, this is what most people value in general. So, you will find that most women want to be with a guy who lives a stable lifestyle. And she will see a lack of social status and/or money as a potential red flag that the man doesn't live the lifestyle that she would like to live. So, this will be a major concern for most women. Plus, a man who is hard-working and successful likely possesses certain virtues that has brought him to that state. So, this is genuinely very admirable, and thus attractive. It makes a woman feel like she is stable and will be supported by that guy. So, there is definitely something incredibly sexy about that. But the sexiness isn't about he social status or success on it's own. It's sexy because he possessed the grit and intelligence to make something happen. So, for many women, social status is a very attractive ingredient because of what it implies about the man's virtues and the lifestyle he lives that she wants to join him in. But also, social status is only a deal-maker for women who are looking for a free ride or who feel unable to support themselves. Social status on its own doesn't make an attraction. But if there is a lack of status there, and a woman wants to live a stable middle class lifestyle, then it could be a deal-breaker if a guy doesn't have that.

But to focus only on the individual creates a blindspot in consciousness to the systemic nature of the social patterns that squelch society's consciousness and full potential. People who are interested in removing unnecessary systemic barriers relative to race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. are not engaging in Red/Blue tribalism. And to see it that way is just an outgrowth of Orange's resistance to Green. They are, in fact engaged in stage Green community focus and the more effective are both engaged in Green community focus coupled with Yellow systemic thinking. To boil everything down to the individual is to ignore the systemic nature of the workings of society, and to deny that society has systems that have real reactions to race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. So, it is Orange denial of Yellow to remain in the holding point of unconsciousness to the awareness of how certain communities of people are affected differently by the social systems that exist within society. Of course, Green does have a resistance to Orange individualism as well, and this is what makes them less effective than those who are interested in social justice causes that are more Yellow. So, Green people will also get stuck in victim's mentality and lose the ability to switch lenses from community focus to individual focus. But once a person is in Yellow, they will see the workings of society clearly and notice that race, gender, socio-economic status are foolish to ignore and pretend don't exist or have any bearing on anything. But they will also be more detached because they will be able to switch their lens back to individual focus if the situation is more appropriate. But all these problems with Green are Green problems. They're not Blue and Red problems, at all. Labeling them as Blue/Red is just a crafty way to justify resistance to Green, and to remain in Orange.

There's a difference between demonizing someone and stating what someone is doing and calling them out on it. I personally, don't demonize Jordan Peterson. I think that he thinks he's doing a very positive thing. So, I don't imagine him as some evil person rubbing their hands together maniacally and tying women to railroad tracks. I see Jordan Peterson as an idealist who has a particular view of what's best for humanity, who is willing to be manipulative and deceitful to make those 'positive' ends come to fruition. It's just that his positive ends, assume a lot about what actually makes a society the most functional. And one of those assumptions is that traditional gender roles are good for men, women, and children alike. And that deviating from them causes social decay. Another one, is that certain cultures are inherently superior to others because the people in those societies have a higher IQ. And that mixing people with lower IQs into a society with a high IQ, weakens the society. So, Jordan Peterson's goal is not to oppress anyone. It's to create a perfect society by making sure that everyone is in their proper and natural place... which necessitates exclusion and cleaving to traditional norms and roles.