Emerald

Green mostly gets picked on because it's the one that's new. And the people here on this forum are mostly in Stage Orange with a strong attachment to Stage Orange values that are woven into their identity.

I still think you're underestimating how much people's connection needs are playing into this dynamic. The main reason why people (individually and collectively) stay in a particular phase of development they're at and don't progress to the next isn't usually because of intellectual deficits... or just because that's the phase of development they're in. People hold onto their current stage of development or clamor for earlier phases in development despite the societal technology changing to reflect a higher stage in development, precisely because they believe that's where they can best meet their needs. And that usually isn't true most of the time, once the societal technology moves on. And right now, Stage Orange's atomization and social isolation is pushing some people forward towards the abstractly collective (but still hyper-individualistic) focus of the earliest semi-Orange iterations of Green that are seen in the contemporary progressive Left. And it's making some stage Orange people clamor for an idealized mythology of what Blue once was because they have a learned resistance towards the initial iterations of Green that are seen in Lefty politics. And like I said, it's mostly men who are in Stage Orange that believe that going back to Blue is going to bring them into a communal utopia where they'll be the most self-actualized version of themselves and respected as a traditional man and have status and an obedient Stage Blue trad wife while they get to have all their usual freedoms that Stage Orange society affords them. But of course, that's not real. That's just a Stage Orange idealization of Blue. Plus, if we truly regress back to Stage Blue... we'd need to un-invent the atom bomb to even survive as a species. And we'd also need to get rid of the internet and international air travel to pull off a consistent Stage Blue consciousness. --- Also, the same values war that's happening now also happened in the Weimar Republic during WWII, as there was a lot of similar initial iterations of Green where people were more accepting of the LGBTQ community and had a more world-centric cosmopolitan view of things, and there were all sorts of art movements and academic expansion associated with Bauhaus. It was Modernist times with the schools of thought in academia and the art world, but verging on the beginning of a Post-Modern era. And then, a demagogue came in to promise the Stage Orange/Blue society that they'd purge the Stage Green cosmopolitan degenerates and Communists who are funded by the Jewish elite, and bring back an idealized version of Blue when Germany was rural, traditional, pastoral, and idyllic. And then, that failed miserably because you can't really have the government come in and retrofit Stage Blue onto a Stage Orange society. And after the crash, it eventually led into a worldwide clamoring for Stage Green peace and unity which eventually precipitated in the 60s and 70s with hippie movement, anti-war protests, the Civil Rights movement, 2nd Wave Feminism, and ecological movements that progressed even further into Green than during the Bauhaus era of the Weimar Republic. So, you can look at these types of patterns that came from WWII (and WWI as well) and see that there tends to be a natural burgeoning of Green world-unity values to contrast the devastation of global war caused by nationalistically minded people that are maladapted to a unified post-atom-bomb world. And then we that trailed off into a less popular version of that in the coming decades where there was a holding pattern of Stage Orange society with Stage Green values taken for granted as the norm. And all these Shadows were under the floor boards until Trump came along. And now, we're going back into a few years of top-down authoritarian attempts to reset the idealized version of Stage Blue society. And it will also fail. And similarly, people will likely polarize to the opposite in a decade or two... maybe quicker. That's what happens when you try to re-install a previous phase of development in a top-down authoritarian way. It fails and sends people careening forward as far as they can go. And we enter into a new cycle. Then, all the unintegrated Shadow get pushed under the floorboards again for another generation or two... until we get another authoritarian movement trying to retrofit the old ways onto contemporary society.

It is the same archetypal story. But my ears tend to prick up when I hear it because it is often used to demonize and marginalize real people. And if someone starts with "the lizard people are in government and are controlling us", it probably won't be too much longer until they transition over to a more tangible real-world enemy.

They are old conspiracy theories, but not so complex. Qanon takes a lot of their Jewish conspiracies directly from Nazi Germany. Hearing it now, it's not so clear that he's talking about Jewish people. But that's the thing with dog whistles. They're not supposed to be clear. They're meant to be taken in by each person according to what they think it means. But it can be subtle signal to people on the far right that says "Hey, I'm one of you." I just remember hearing that short last year and going "Uh oh. Not another one."

Yes, the royal "they". It's an easy scapegoat to invoke to make people feel like they're fighting and evil and elite force together. And all of that "scheming overlords" talk usually gets projected onto Jewish people.

If it were something longterm and abiding like enslavement, there would be a generation or two of backlash and then a tacit normalization and acceptance as "just the way things are". But the loss of the right to vote would probably be normalized by the majority of the populace in a few years because it isn't something that affects people every day. And when people would protest about it, people would be weaving the dissident Neo-Suffragettes as the newest edition of the "woke mob."

But most people who are clamoring to go back to Blue are not Stage Blue either. They're just lonely Orange, Green, and Yellow people. And it's mostly Stage Orange men who are clamoring to go back to stage Blue because they think it will be better for them. But they will find Stage Blue to be too constricting because they are past that phase of development. When my first child was a toddler, one of my former professors came to visit me at my house. And I was nursing my daughter, and asked her a question about how her kids handled the weening process. She mentioned that she'd weened her son at age 2. And when he was 3, he got really upset and insisted that he wanted to nurse again. So, instead of denying him, she let him nurse. And he did for a minute and got bored. Then, he was over it because he didn't get what he wanted out of it. It wasn't that interesting to him. If Stage Blue wins the values war (which they might) and we go back to a monocultural patriarchal theocratic values like the days of old, the majority of the people who think they want it now will quickly be clamoring for lost progress. Like the first grader who believes they want to go back to kindergarten... one day into kindergarten they will realize the magic is gone and that they can't wait for the 2nd grade.

I'm sure that the amount of sexual success men have with women (or lack thereof) doesn't lead to misogyny. I just tend to think of misogynists as being more socially awkward around women because of the hatred patterns. So, my claim is the inverse of what that study is studying. It's not that awkward guys who have little success with women become misogynists. I know plenty of guys that this describes who are lovely guys. It's more that misogynists become awkward guys who have little success with women because of their misogyny. But of course, this could be a vocal minority. But I personally suspect that it's not a minority but the majority based on my experiences.

I didn't realize that she'd lost support among women. I thought her numbers with women stayed the same. But it's probably women focusing on the economy and looking for a change. I suppose it's just that the loss of rights becomes easily normalized in the wider populace. If women had the right to vote taken from them, they might be upset for a few months. But then it would probably would become quickly normalized by the populace and just the way things are done.

I disagree with that. People really only care about getting their needs met. They don't care very much how they get it... as long as they get it. It's like, "Do you want the water in the green cup or the blue cup?" If you're thirsty, you'll take the water in whichever cup is available to you. But the collective has already had a lot of collective experience drinking from blue cups. We have a history of blue cup drinking. And we have lots of idealized stories about how blue cup drinking is that draws in people who are in Orange, Green, and Yellow. So, there is a desire to regress to Blue (even with people who are not themselves Blue) because they cannot yet conceptualize drinking from a green cup. But they don't realize consciously that connection is what they're searching for. They have a vague notion of being for the old ways, but what they really want is belonging in a tight-knit community. If right now, there was some Stage Green cult where people could come together in a community... it would attract a lot of the people who are currently in resistance to Green because the reason why they're currently in resistance to Green is because they perceive that opening up to the Green stage in development will get in the way of their needs.

I would give young people a little bit more credit than that, even though their views can be more socially malleable than the average adult. I know I held some very strong views at the time that were contrary to what many of my peers were thinking, which are still part of my internal compass. And I've worked with kids who also have their own nuanced views about the world derived from their own thinking. But to your point, young people are more malleable and influenceable... especially by peers. For example, it's clear that young men are skewing more conservative because of peer pressure and the right wing media environment that's geared towards young men. And this is in spite of previous the previous generations of men being more left-leaning than the generations prior. So, it shows that there can be a regression in values based on peer pressure and propaganda geared towards the youth.

WIth Roe v Wade, that's true that women are still angry. And women came out in near identical numbers to the last election. It was left leaning men who mostly stayed home and didn't vote for Kamala... likely because the men were more focused on the economy than on abortion rights because abortion rights feel less relevant to them. But understand that Trump is the face of MAGA. And lots of Republicans are really into Trump. They're not as much into other MAGA people.

That's true. There is a strong backlash against Stage Green and even Stage Orange to some degree. And there's a desire to go back to the small communal element of Blue. Because the populace hasn't developed the Stage Green communal element yet, the last known source of community is in Blue. That said, because elections are so close and people are so partisan because of the media landscape, I have a hard time chalking a loss or a win up to more than just the average under informed swing voter's perceptions about things like the economy.

One reason why the Republicans under-performed in the midterms is because Roe v Wade had just been overturned, and that was still fresh in the minds of the populace and hadn't been normalized yet. Plus, it was mostly election denying Republicans who lost their races. Generic Republicans did quite well comparatively. I think Trump himself excites the base. But I don't think Trumpy generic Republicans in the house and senate excite the base much at all. Trump is pretty much the face of MAGA. And MAGA without Trump is pretty unpopular.

I don't think that was the primary driving force. Across the board a variety of different nations in the first world, the incumbent party lost their election... likely due to inflation. That's even true in the UK where the conservatives have been in power for like 13 years. They lost their election to Labor. In times of economic hardship, people tend to think "Different is better than better" and they flip to the other side of the pillow in hopes of a change.

I don't think Bernie is to blame for Hilary's loss. I think she just ran a bad campaign because her whole slogan was "I'm with her" and was focused on electing the first female president without any promise to constituents about what she'd deliver. That said if elections were fair and it was 1 person/1 vote, Hilary Clinton still clobbered Donald Trump. Plus, so many people (including me) had their political awakening because of Trump and Bernie. Before then, a lot of people were disengaged.

I remember (maybe a year ago) seeing a YT short or TikTok from him after I'd known about him for several years. And in the short, I forget specifically what he was saying. But he seemed to be dog whistling some QANON talking points and the Jewish Question in a way that most people would miss unless they'd done a deep dive into far right rhetorical tactics. I wish I remembered what specifically he'd said that make me go "Uh oh." But I can't say that I'm surprised at him being pro-Trump. Edit: I found the TikTok... https://www.tiktok.com/@aaronabke/video/7239388342800977198?_r=1&_t=8rg0J6FmRUE

It's too short of a period of time to determine what fails and what doesn't fail. Often time, it's the case that short term failures lead to long terms successes. And that the long terms successes require short term failures for the collective to learn lessons.

That's definitely true. Being an aspirational misogynist is lucrative because he is what insecure men believe that a secure man looks like. And they want to watch him and pay him to teach them his misogynistic Jedi tricks.

I know that's true that most men who are "good" with women (in the way pick up artists define it) don't care about women... and many hate them. And having sex with lots of women can tend to exacerbate negative feelings about women in general because it reinforces objectification and disconnection. There's no doubt in my mind that a great many pick up artists are misogynists and/or they have major issues with connecting with women and use sex like a drug, like your friend. And certainly pick up artists are having quite a bit of sex and multiple female partners. And certainly, in the place I grew up in there were tons of emotionally detached men who would use women for sex. And they were misogynistic. None of that is new information to me. I've seen it before, as these are also relatively common phenomena. My claim was more that the average misogynist that I come across seems to be incredibly socially awkward and even afraid of women. Maybe that's a misperception on my part and that that's not as big of a percentage of misogynists as I think. My perception is that that describes 80% of misogynists the I've encountered in my life that they're pretty social awkward. I don't tend to get an image in my mind of an emotionally detached guy when I think about misogynists. I get an image of a fairly desperate and bitter guy. So the types of guys I'm thinking about when I think about the concept of a misogynist is that they are probably having much less success with women than the average guy. I'm sure that's true. But maybe these types of guys account for a lower fraction of misogynists than I had assumed. But I also see that men who are truly detached from women's humanity could potentially see women as mere objects to manipulate. In which case, the social awkwardness may not even be a factor. And that could lead a guy to getting a lot of sex because he could just treat pick up like going to the grocery store. I'm just not sure that that describes the majority of misogynistic guys who seem pretty upset and pressed about women all the time. Now I'm curious what the mean, median, and mode are regarding types of misogynists.

To be clear, my claim is not that having fewer sexual partners is the driving force behind misogyny. Repression of Feminine aspects of the personality, shame, resentment, and scapegoating are the driving forces behind misogyny. And the "women won't have sex with me" is just an Incel's means of feeling like their resentment and scapegoating is justified and to wallow in self-pity, anger, and shame. And when misogynists start getting sex with many women through learning pick up, their hatred tends to intensify rather than getting better. But it is hard for me to imagine that the majority of misogynists are getting more sex than the average non-misogynistic guy. Yet again, perhaps they do seek it more often with pick up and things like that. So, maybe that's the case that they're getting it more because they're seeking it out more. I'm still not sure about that though because the average misogynist seems to be a lot less social than other guys. They come across online as victimy and isolated. I think of the keyboard warrior type of guy who does nothing but play video games all day and complain about women. That's my impression of what the average run-of-the-mill misogynist is like. I rarely think of the hyper-aggressive macho misogynists because that seems to be the exception and not the rule. Perhaps that machismo doesn't translate online, because misogynists all feel pretty catty and bitter. So, what might translate as machismo in person, exudes emotional vulnerability online. Yet again, my impression is still that most misogynistic guys I've encountered in real life and online are fairly vulnerable guys who don't possess a lot of machismo. Maybe the study selected for guys that fit the "misogynistic macho guy" mold and that less masculine misogynists weren't included in the study. I'll have to see how the sampling was done in the study.

This can also happen when a person is able to cope well with their shame by polarizing into superiority to avoid falling into feelings of inferiority. And many can be fooled that this person comes across as a confident person. But more often than not, misogynistic guys aren't as good at coping and hiding their insecurities. It's just like if someone feels shame, and polarizes into achievement to temporarily bolster their sense of self-efficacy to feel superior instead of inferior. Some people can keep that up and keep running on the floating log of achievement. But far more often than not, people fail to stay afloat on the floating log and end up in the waters of shame and inferiority.... and they can't motivate themselves at all.

Yes, women tend to be more socially aware than men on average. We are better at socializing as an aggregate... partially due to nature and partially due to nurture. But just because men aren't as good at meeting their social needs compared to women, doesn't mean they need them less. In fact, they might potentially need them more BECAUSE they aren't as good at socializing. It's kind of like if humanity evolved into a form where people needed to be constantly lifting really heavy weights to get by, women might struggle to adapt to such a society quite a bit more than men. And they may require more outside assistance. The same thing is true with connection and men. Connection is a heavier weight for men to lift. And it's evident to me that men are struggling to adapt to hyper-individualistic society far more than women are... precisely because women on the whole have greater levels of talent with regard to social connection. I know a great many people that I've met as friends and as clients in my role as a coach. And 8 times out of 10, it is the men who are struggling the most with loneliness and connection. And there was a study that came out of older men and women whose spouses passed away. And when the women's husbands died, the women were still able to keep themselves together and live full social lives. The men, on the other hand, really fell apart and became isolated and struggled to care for themselves and their homes when their wives passed away. Now, this could be because they were studying a populace that had a clear delineation in the man's and woman's roles. And women had learned to socialize, cook, clean, and all that other stuff that's necessary to maintain a quality of life. While men had learned more individualistic achievement-oriented skills like working and making money, which became less relevant upon old age and retirement. But when we think of socializing only as something women need and we don't teach men how to connect and the importance of finding community, it is men that end up suffering for that misconception.

Men's survival also requires it. No human being is exempt from our collectivist nomadic wiring. And the bottom three rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (which your channel is named for) have always been met through existing within a community. Men did not evolve in different circumstances than women. To say that women need social connection and that men don't, is like saying women need food and men don't. Every single man (prior to a couple hundred years ago) who survived and went on to reproduce lived a life that was deeply intertwined with a community of people. And the more socially adapted a man was, the more likely he was to reproduce. Men today are less social because they have more of a capacity to ignore their needs and disconnect because men are encouraged to be stoic and disconnect from their feelings and needs, while women are more generally more in touch with the goings-on of our nervous system and sensitized to their feelings. And my conjecture is that men tend to have more of this emotional disconnection capacity because men who tended to be the ones that would need to kill animals and other people to provide and go to war for the community. So, there is a built-in capacity for emotional numbing when circumstances call for it. But just because a man has that built in Novocaine to help him go unconscious to his emotions and needs, doesn't mean he doesn't have those emotions and needs. He can just go selectively unaware of his emotions and needs for short periods of time if the situation calls for it. It's the same way that, if you numbed your hand and stuck it down on a hot stove... you may not feel the pain but the harm is still being done. The issue with the way things are is that men tend to be fed with ideas about how to be Masculine that focuses on rugged individualism and personal achievement. And in a more individualistically oriented society where there is the possibility of getting our physical needs met without social connection, men might have less of a tendency to seek out connection because of these hyper-individualistic achievement-oriented tendencies that are enforced by the culture. But it's really clear if you look around the men are collectively hurting a lot more than women are by a hyper-individualistic society... precisely because they don't feel their hand resting on the hot stove as much as women do.

Men's survival requires it just as much as women's. Men often just don't realize it and go numb to these needs because of certain contemporary narratives around individualism, self-sufficiency, and being the lone wolf. But these narratives aren't that old. For 97.5% of the run-time of our species, we lived in small nomadic groups that relied on each other for survival. And 2.5% of the run-time of our species, we lived in tight-knit agrarian communities that relied on each other for survival and had shared community and rituals for everything. And even now (over the past couple hundred years) in industrial and post-industrial times, we still rely on others for survival. We're just more spread out and socialize less often. And we don't cultivate the community element very well. There's never been a time where a large number of solitary men have gone out in the wilderness to hack it on their own. And so, men have never evolved the wiring to exist and survive outside of a social context. Our wiring is still nomadic and communal. It's only pop cultural narratives and myths that make that seem like being a lone wolf without a social circle is viable option for men. And it's a dangerous narrative as well that leads to men to isolating themselves and not acknowledging their needs for connection and community. And then we end up with the political mess we're in right now because all of that male pain and sadness has to go somewhere.