Emerald

If we look at this in terms of Spiral Dynamics, it's emblematic of Orange's drive toward individuality reacting negatively against the community focus of Green and the systemic thinking of Yellow.

None of this is true... and you know it. It's just catastrophizing.

Thank you.

That's the most sure-fire way to find someone as a guy. Now, when it comes to compatibility, that's another topic. You'll have to vet through the women that get attracted to see if you'll be compatible. But the most important thing is to be social and meet a lot of women (and men too as an extension of the purely social aspect of meeting people). And develop the ability to socialize with anyone. Then, learn some basic techniques for flirting and attracting women in general. And eventually someone will be interested. She may not show it though. Many women tend to be very closed-lipped about their attractions.

That's the tricky part about it. It's not about one particular "ingredient" that a man has that makes a girl attracted. It's about how the unique mixture of ingredients come together to create a unique "dish" and how it suits a particular woman's "palette." So, two men with very similar qualities would have two totally different reactions with a given woman. That said, there are ways to improve the "ingredients" of your being to make them have more appeal to more women. So, it isn't a 100% subjective thing. You can max out your good qualities. But there is no one trait that female attraction hinges upon. It's always about the mix of traits together as a whole that consists of more than the sum of its parts. And then, how that unique vibe that a man has interacts with an individual woman's emotions. So, it just doesn't really work like male attraction, that's objective, relatively non-selective, and largely based on having particular traits. Female attraction is a lot more subjective and idiosyncratic with emotions and intuition being the main qualifier for attraction. And it's very selective, despite the fact that many women could become attracted to the most average guy in everyone else's book. So, it's picky... but not picky by standards. It's picky by particularity. It has to be that particular guy (or perhaps one of a few guys). So, it's a matter, for men, of maxing out their "ingredients" that have mass appeal and casting the net wide enough to find the women that are attracted to them particularly. So, I suppose the best thing to do is to get to know what type of woman tends to be the most attracted to guys that are kind of like you, and spending a lot of time around them. But there are never any guarantees because of the subjectivity of the whole thing. I personally can't even predict who I'll be attracted to before I get attracted to them. It's always a surprise when the feelings come up for a particular guy. So, the main takeaway here is that women experience attraction in a very multi-faceted way that is very hard to pin down objectively or logically.

That's true. I am being a bit generous with my numbers. But the main thing I was trying to drive across is that his ideological ways are not noticed by a lot of people. So, it becomes the pill inside the peanut butter, that people just don't notice they're taking But the example you brought up is a perfect example of how he twists things. In one video that I watched from him, he was talking about IQ. And he was saying that he had a client with an IQ of 85. And he had to teach that guy how to fold letters, and it took him over 40 hours to teach him just how to do that satisfactorily. Now, he never advocated for genocide of all people with low IQs. And he never made any implications about race in the video. But his entire comments section was rife with Alt-Right talking points about how "black people have an average IQ of 85". And lots of people were advocating for genocide against those who had lower IQs because of the burden that they place upon society. And there were lots of people mixing up both these lines of thought on race and IQ and ethnic/IQ cleansing. This was really the first time I had realized what he was doing. He even said in one of his videos, (paraphrased) 'Watch the effect that a person is having, and you will find their intentions'. And that really rings true with him. He never says anything for sure that you could point out as advocating for regressive and dangerous ideologies. But if you look at the effect that his words have on people, you will see the effect he's trying to have.

I don't believe that Jordan Peterson has that kind of power on his own. So, no, I don't believe that will happen because of Jordan Peterson. But if you look around, there is a regressive attitude that is quite contagious in the current state of society. And Jordan Peterson is like kerosene to that fire. So, even though I don't believe that society isn't in such a state that this type of thing is a danger at present, there are definitely some really disturbing regressive patterns that I see as a ticking time bomb. And this is true in many facets beyond gender as well. This was just a for-instance. So, I try to nip these patterns in the bud as I'm seeing them grow, because I want to do everything in my power to discourage regressive ideologies and the collective shadow from taking hold of humanity. But if you think our democracy is so strong that it could never succumb to regressive ideologies, then I would encourage you to question that notion. And if you think that 99% of people are on board with egalitarianism and democracy, I would encourage you to look around the internet a bit and really question whether or not that's true. People flip on those values easily... all they really need is a little push. I say the same thing because I see a wolf in sheep's clothing in Jordan Peterson. He has the veneer of an open-minded person, but he is anything but. But the particular point that JP was bringing up about women in male dominance hierarchies is just one example among many. And his worst affront doesn't have to do with gender specifically. It's his end goal of turning the world back "Blue", which would effect a lot of people negatively and would keep us going down the road toward repression of the feminine principle. The effects of which stretch far beyond gender, and have the lion's share to do with how people treat the Earth itself. So, I consider these regressive ideologies an enemy to the planet itself. And if there are huge swaths of the population buying into the words of someone like Jordan Peterson, I consider it a loss less likely that humanity will make the jump in time to salvage the planet. So, understand that this is why I try to really stick this point. The worldview that he's advocating for assumes certain things to be true, just like any other worldview. That's the way every worldview works. It has no truth on it's own. But worldview have certain assumptions of truth, and then all the other beliefs within the worldview are scaffolded upon those assumptions. And then beliefs are stack on beliefs are stacked on beliefs until you have something that seems solid and airtight. And when you have a worldview, there are certain ideas that are logical conclusions that stem from them. So, because he advocates for a Blue worldview, the most logical conclusions to come through from that worldview are that men and women should cleave to traditional gender norms or the social order will get thrown out of whack. And the idea that men and women should both be able to step out of the traditional gender norms are logically inconsistent with the inherent assumptions of the Blue framework. It's only when you get more into the Orange framework that breaking free of limiting gender norms makes sense and is logically consistent. So, yes. With Jordan Peterson's worldview that he advocates for, the most logical conclusion within it is that men and women are best following traditional gender norms, and that deviation from this "natural" order is causing social decay. Therefore, if you want to stop social decay, get women out of male dominance hierarchies and back at home taking care of children. But this is only a logical conclusion if we're trying to regress society back to an earlier form of itself... which is what Jordan Peterson is trying to do. But again, this is just one example of Jordan Peterson's advocacy for regression.

I didn't say it 95% good advice and 5% poor advice. I said it's 95% good advice laced with 5% regressive propaganda to convert people to his ideologies. So, it isn't a matter of him just giving some shabby advice here and there. He's very calculated with how he gives his advice, as he hides his agenda in it. And his agenda is dangerous. Stating that men and women are generally different is true. But it's the implications that are left open in Peterson's "musings" (which are really just regressive talking points posed as open contemplations), that make his rhetoric dangerous to progress. It's his disguise as an open-minded intellectual that throws most people off of his ideological agenda that is the beginning, middle, and end of the influence that he wants to have. Now, you ask me to give you the claims that he's made that are false. I'm sure he's made some false claims before. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about some false claims that Jordan Peterson accidentally made. I'm talking about purposefully placed regressive propaganda, that implies the impetus for societal regression. For example, if we go back to the statement "men and women are generally different." This is true from some perspectives and untrue from others. But regardless of the truth in the statement, it's the fact that he will make this statement then he will muse about the potential implications. Like saying, "Due to these differences, can men and women really co-exist in the workplace?" or "What do we do now that women have come to be in male dominance hierarchies?" or "Why don't we ban women from wearing make-up (which is only for sexual provocation, anyway) in the workplace?" And he poses these as just one question out of a litany of questions, so that he seems like a fair-minded person just exploring all the perspectives in the free marketplace of ideas. But this is not what he's actually doing. What he's actually doing is leaving it to his audience to connect the dots that women and men can't co-exist together in the workplace and that women don't belong in male dominance hierarchies. And from there, it's only logical to come to the conclusion that all of the liberation that women have had in the past 60 years has been a wrong move and that we need to go back to more patriarchal times where women stayed at home and had kids and men went out and worked in the dominance hierarchy. And perhaps if we did that, the social decay would cease and the "golden age" would return. So, the dangerous part is not the falsehoods that he states. The dangerous part is how he NEVER MAKES A REGRESSIVE CLAIM, yet he muses on regressive things in front of an impressionable audience just enough to have them connect the right dots on their own. And he knows what people will generally do with those musings. And this tactic is done on purpose, so that he can divest himself of any responsibility for claiming, "Women and men can't work together, so women need to get out of male spaces." And he can divest himself of that because he never made that claim... he just mused on it in front of his impressionable young male viewers. Most people won't see that this is what Jordan Peterson is doing. But it's really clear if you look at his whole shtick. So, no. I can't point to a single claim that JP ever made that is dangerous. He never puts the dangerous stuff in his claims. He keeps it in his musings.

Most people will react that way to you if you bring up these types of topics, as they see no value in it. Their eyes will just gloss over most of the time. Or they'll get uncomfortable because they're afraid they can't keep up with someone who's into dense topics and that they'll be judged. But to tell you the truth, as a woman who is genuinely interested in these types of topics, I don't care much whether the guy I'm into is interested in them. I really only care about how his personality and mannerisms are and how that mixes together with his looks and lifestyle. Common interests are nice, but they don't make an attraction. So, if a woman doesn't share those common interests, it especially isn't going to make an attraction. She'll just react like most people... eyes glossing over, wondering if you're crazy, and/or intimidation by the dense nature of the topics. So, in the immortal words of Shania Twain... "That don't impress me much." But seriously, listen to that song, and it pretty much gives you an insight into how women DON'T get attracted to guys, and how any individual positive quality doesn't really make a dent. That said, he has to be able to carry on a conversation with me. That's a must. I have to be able to have deep conversations where I feel like we're on the same wavelength, otherwise it would be a major damper in the relationship. But if a guy showed me he was interested in personal development, non-duality, etc., I would be like, "Oh hey. Me too." And I would log that in my mind like, "That's cool." But it's not a turn-on. I know a ton of guys who are into this stuff, and I'm not attracted to any of them. It's just kind of like, "Oh cool. We probably share some commonalities." But it doesn't spark any interest beyond platonic interest... the heart and libido want other things.

No. I live in St. Augustine. So, it's a pretty mellow town. I think it was the fact that I was a young female street musician who worked at night on a pedestrian street. If I were in a bigger city, I'm sure it would have been way worse.

I agree. He knows how to be sneaky about his agenda and appeal to most people. That's why he's so popular and effective with his rhetoric, which doesn't even register as rhetoric to most people. He's an excellent mask-maker, so a lot of people don't see the mask.

I agree. And he probably remembers a time in the past where he didn't have that conflict, and sees that time through rose-colored glasses. This is a common thread for those that are enamored by the archetype of the golden age. They believe that the best times are behind us, and now there is no goodness in the world because we've strayed from the traditions of the "golden age". But really, it's just an internal conflict projected out onto the world. And a deep longing for a time that occurred long ago.

Yes. But I think that he thinks he's being dishonest for a good reason. He thinks he's fixing society by bringing us backward and what he considers a more "natural" way of being. So, he's willing to be manipulative and dishonest for his mission. The problem is that he has things wrong, and he's actually bringing us back into something we've already outgrown and is really just causing issue for women and people who don't conform to gender roles.

Thank you.

Not only do I believe this, I think it's quite obvious if you listen to his work. He is very anti-progress, and seems to credit the social progress of women over the course of the past several decades for the social decay he perceives. So, if you listen to his work, it's really clear that he wants to bring up a lot of the social mores of yesteryear... especially relative to women's place in the world.

I think I can give some insight into this. When, I was 20, I was a street musician that would play my guitar (mostly at night) for people who were leaving the bars and clubs in the pedestrian area of my town. During that time, I got a lot more harassment from men than I would normally get, because they probably assumed I was homeless... as most of the street musicians were. And when certain men think you're in a position of powerlessness relative to them, they will try to exploit that weakness. So, during that time, I had tons of guys come up and make sexual comments to me. One man bent down and kissed my legs as I was playing the guitar. I was propositioned quite often by the Ward Cleaver types of the world. I had one guy beg me to kiss him. I had one guy say that "I better get used to running from (him)." I had men follow me home. I had men try to invite me to come and live with them (with the promise of chicken and rice). One guy, who was walking with his girlfriend (who was mortified), kept repeating "I wonder what she would do for a twenty!" after his girlfriend tipped me a couple bucks. I had one group of guys (that I later suspected that they were sex traffickers) invite me to come to Amsterdam with them. And this is just the stuff that I can remember of the top of my head. Sexual harassment was just a constant occurrence during that time, when before it was just every now and then. I never went a single night of playing without receiving unwanted sexual attention. And as I got more and more used to this kind of attention from men, my disgust and fear would bleed into my daily life. I just had an auto-projection onto all men that they were going to harass me as a defense mechanism. So, I would avert my eyes whenever I would cross paths with a man on the street. I just got so used to intrusive levels of male attention, that I would go into defense mode whenever I was around a man. And it was a nightmare because it made me feel like secretly all men were perverts that seek to exploit women whenever they perceive a weakness. Even though I knew this was probably not the case, the fear was still there because it was the main way I experienced men during that time. So, I became deeply misandristic and fearful of men as a projection because I was always bracing myself for the fallout. It took me quite a few months to get over that projection. So, basically, my thought is that it's probably a projection based on past experiences with other men. I say this because I experienced an intensified version of the harassment that I would normally receive, and it resulted in an intensified version of the projection. So, perhaps you've experienced a milder amount of harassment that translated into a milder projection that just sometimes crops up.

I mentioned this to you before about Jordan Peterson. He brings up a regressive point of view like he's simply musing about it, as an open-minded intellectual playing devil's advocate. But he's already knows how his audience will receive those "musings". He knows that his audience will make the connections he wants them to... which is that women are to blame for harassment in the workplace because they wear make-up and are asking for it. That's his whole game. He never commits to any of those viewpoints. But he turns his followers on to them, so they can do whatever they want to do with them... which JP knows exactly what that is. This is the lion's share of his manipulation game.

Thank you!

I don't know where I'd peg myself on Spiral Dynamics. But I find that I'm actually better able to relate to people now, than I was a few years ago. But I also have many outlets where I can talk to others who have similar interests and paradigms. So, I don't starve for that type of interaction, and I don't ever try to get that type of interaction from random people in my life anymore. That was always a disaster to try. So, I basically just had to keep myself to myself for many years. But now, I can just have conversations about anything that that person is interested in, and I'm not starved for outlets so I'm content being with that person without needing to try to bring them into stage yellow and turquoise topics. I'm content to talk totally mundane things that are just normal. So, I think finding an outlet and people who share your interests is key for functioning normally around others and not trying to force others into the higher paradigms that they may have no interest in or resonation with.

I call Jordan Peterson the Trojan Horse of human regression. His desire is to go back to some golden age... that he would probably hate if it was actually achieved (to be honest). So, he give 95% good advice for living and laces it with 5% regressive ideologies that demonize progress and seek to bring the state of society backward. One such way, is by painting a much smaller box for everyone (especially women and anyone who doesn't conform to gender) to live within. He thinks there is something special and natural about the gender roles of the past. So, he thinks everyone would be happier living within those confines. Everything about his perspective holds up Blue as the end all be all of healthy and natural human social structures. And he wants us all to go back to that. That's why I call him the Trojan Horse of human regression. It's the pill inside the peanut butter that he feeds all of his fans. And they eat it up like it's the best thing on the planet, as it gives them the illusion of expansion while they're contracting into a less expansive perspective. Kind of like running on an conveyor belt that's even more quickly bringing you backward.

Perception and rationality are two different faculties of the human lens. But if we are unconscious, we come to mix them up. When I was 15 and learning how to draw and paint, in high school art class, I learned that perception and my mind's ideas about what I was seeing were two different things. Before that, I had never seen the world in my entire life. All I ever saw were my ideas and labels of things. Tables were just tables. Chairs were just chairs. Things were essentially as I thought they were, and not as they actually were. I lived my life through a projection of a very subtle framework that I had woven throughout my life. But when I really started to perceive accurately, I realized that there were no separate objects at all. It was just one huge two dimensional plane of shapes imbued with colors. And that plane changed completely if I moved even one inch, or the lighting changed slightly. My mind had no useful information to tell me about the world in front of me as far as accurate perception goes. In fact, the mind could only distract and delude me away from accurate perception. So, at that point, all I needed to do was to trust that my perception was accurate and to let go of the need to cleave to my mind's notions of the world, and that was 95% of the battle of learning to paint and draw. And I learned it all in a one-second long insight into the nature of reality and perception. And I had a feeling like the implications of that insight spanned into the other senses as well. Though, I didn't figure that out until much later. So, rationality and intellect will always try to strong-arm their way into the mix and distort accurate perception. The trick is to learn how to disengage from the rational/intellectual strivings and simply perceive. Meditation can help you learn to detach from intrusive thought processes like that. You just have to recognize when they're trying to sneak in.

I don't know. To me, all this leading/following focus feels like putting an idea over top of a relationship and the masculine/feminine dynamic that doesn't really need to be there. And as a woman, it's tiring far more than it will ever be titillating to engage with men who are enamored by that idea. It feels like these types of men like to masturbate to the fact that they're men, in some kind of weird auto-androphillia, and it just doesn't do anything for me. And I'm pretty sure that's the way most women think about it, as there's no shortage of men who are trying to cram themselves into the alpha mold. It's very dime a dozen with those types. Plus, it's a lot less ego-friendly to be type-cast as the follower in that narrow caricature of a relationship dynamic than as the leader. It squelches the natural flow of libidinal energy because the story tells you to make yourself smaller. And there's nothing less sexy than a man who's hung up on being the dominant one. It ironically feels very immature and try-hard... which are the very opposite of the natural Yang energy. I remember the first time I'd heard of the dominance submission dynamic in a relationship, I was 19 and my friend Andrew's sister had married this guy Brian. And they were pretty religious. And they had vowed that she would be submissive to him and that he would be dominant and make all the decisions in order to live by God's word. And we had to laugh because their personalities didn't resemble that dynamic in any way. So, they just started acting weird trying to cram themselves into those ideas. So, ultimately, people have their natural set-points, and when people are authentic there may be one partner that's more of a leader than the other. But creating rules around who leads (man or woman) just feels like a bunch of kids trying to be adults and fetishizing the mundane lives of men and women amd cleaving to those roles in an attempt to live out a fetish. The way I see it, is that people will naturally lead where they have an aptitude and follow when the other partner is the more skilled of the two. And there will also usually be a bedroom dynamic that each person enjoys, as well. So, I just feel like all the fixation on leading and following muddies up our relationship to our natural Yin/Yang energetic signature which best ebbs and flows from situation to situation. The dominance/submission stories are old and tired. Any story is just a story. And stories write over the truth. Just do what feels right without engaging those stories, and life will be a lot more expansive and pleasurable. So, female-led and male-led relationships are okay... as long as it happens organically and no one's trying to cling to ideas.

I just began life-coaching, but I do technically have a successful career (in the business sense) in it because I can now quit my job. I haven't gotten certified yet, and I've only been doing it for two months though. I have also been able to help my clients in real substantial ways despite the fact that I'm very new to it. I'm surprised at how much I have actually been able to help and how many breakthroughs that I've witnessed in just two months of sessions. But people are mostly interested in my services because they subscribe to my YouTube channel and are interested in my perspective and having me guide them through their issues. So, the main value that I provide is not in that I have an amazing life with all the money, success, etc. And then saying, "Look. You can have this too." My life is very modest, which I'm very candid about if the topic comes up. So, the thing that really sets me aside is the amount of inner work I've done. So, I know the terrain of the human psyche pretty well because I've personally fallen down a lot of rabbit holes and have had to find ways to climb back out again. And I can guide people into whatever is blocking their goals in ways they may not have considered. I'm also very receptive, non-judgmental, curious, and personable in my approach. And most people come to me for a sense of direction and clarity. So, I am a novice coach. But the thing that sets me aside from even seasoned coaches is my ability to facilitate paradigm-hopping in my clients to give them new perspectives to consider their issues from.

Why are you asking? Are you just going thinking into the future like, "What if I got into a relationship and broke up. Then, if that's the case, should I stay in or go out?" and getting stressed about these far-off possibilities. And is it you trying to talk yourself out of giving relationships a try? I'm going out on a limb here, of course, but it feels like a really strange question to ask for someone who is single.

@Charlotte I was looking around for the sources that I found before, but I couldn't find them. But this one had a lot of good information, even though it's written blog-style... https://www.precisionnutrition.com/intermittent-fasting-women