Emerald

You should know better than this. Sacrificing pragmatic outcomes in favor of some intellectually idealized form of political engagement that doesn't actually work in a real life context IS 100% SELF-DECEPTION and sets the stage for some REALLY heinous things to happen. His perception of so-called "sense-making" to the sacrifice of pragmatism, if applied universally, would pretty much guarantees that authoritarianism would take hold. And then the authoritarians would target ACTUAL sense-makers first... as they always do. So, there would come to be ZERO space in society for higher consciousness perspectives as you would be silenced. So, those that truly are sense-makers would ALSO be pragmatic. And they would integrate sense-making and pragmatism instead of seeing them as being diametrically opposed. And if these so-called "sense-makers" aren't pragmatic... they are in a deep state of self-delusion. If you're in a burning building with a bunch of other people and you're the first among them to become aware, you SHOULD shout "Fire!"... ..instead of calmly intellectually explaining the mechanics of thermodynamics to the majority of people, and arguing on the existentialist philosophical merits of whether it is better to survive or not in the fire. To do anything less is silly, and isn't properly sounding the alarm in the way that most people can and will digest it.

If you don't want to continue the discussion, that's fine. But you haven't made clear why you think it's better to prioritize "sense-making" over practical outcomes in a field that pertains to practical outcomes. You've just said it's Tier 2 thinking as the justification and stressed that "it's a meta point" as a justification for your claims. But that's a very abstract answer that's not tied to any preferred real-world outcomes. It's just "wiser because it's wiser" based off of the Spiral Dynamics model. But none of that explains why it's better to function that way. Why is it better to prioritize "sense-making" over pragmatism, even if it guarantees that sense-makers will have less or no power... and thus allows the forces of nonsense and tyranny to seize power and proliferate because they are the only ones willing to be pragmatic? To me, it seems to be a problem of integration similar to what happens in The Dark Crystal. The evil and foolish Skeksis are dynamic and have all the power. And the good and wise Mystics are slow and lumbering and have none of the power. And in the integration between the two, you have a situation where you get something greater than just good. My advice is that it is wise to approach politics as an integration between Yin and Yang with a full and total surrender to the nature of humanity and the world, as this will enable us to realize the highest expression of the political archetype within society where it serves the outcomes of health, harmony, and justice. And health, harmony, and justice is the most beautiful flower... but recognize that the most beautiful flowers grow in the dirtiest of dirt.

To use the Spiral Dynamics model, it's Stage Orange analytical thinking believing it's Stage Yellow systems thinking... because Stage Green hasn't yet been fully integrated yet in relation to political engagement or approaches to real-word geopolitical issues. To use the MBTI model, it's more of a Thinking versus Feeling bias that disconnects one from the heart of the matter and the consideration of how sentient lives and planetary well-being are affected... which is the expression of politics that's most in alignment with love, compassion, health, and harmony in the first place. The systems we create and influence are designed to serve humans... not humans to serve systems. So, the thought that Tier 2 thinkers would prioritize a theoretically "higher consciousness" process that sloughs off what works from earlier phases on the spiral... over the human wellbeing within the context of individual civic engagement is just a "brain in a jar" mistake. When the mind gets too complex in its analysis, people get ungrounded from reality and lose sight of simple practical wisdom. People who are truly at Tier 2 would be pragmatic about the situation because common sense and common decency has been integrated into their perspective instead of tossed away for something more complex and ineffective. And they will pull tools from whichever of the other phases most suits the political ends they feel serves the greater good... because pragmatism is the point. So this is just an example of Stage Orange Thinking believing it is superior to Stage Green Feeling... and tossing away the practical tools of phases earlier on the Spiral. But if they were suddenly on the chopping block, they'd wise up very quickly and realize that they're being an educated fool.

First off, who cares about Spiral Dynamics and what tier it's in, really. It's a useful model in some contexts. But if it gets in the way of common decency and common sense, then there's a problem. Don't be so smart that your brain falls out.

Then so called "sense-making" is nonsensical in this context... because it gets in the way of pragmatism and doesn't work with how the world actually works. It instead works with a naive idealistic vision of the world that doesn't exist. And it allows the forces of tyranny to take hold while so-called "sense-makers" get the intellectual victory of "being right". But reality can only be properly engaged with pragmatically on the level of reality itself. (And as an aside, this is also part and parcel SD Tier 2 thinking.) There is a story of the student and the master. And the master hands a very thin tea bowl to the student. The student takes the tea bowl and it immediately breaks in his hands. And the student exclaims "The tea bowl was too thin!" And the master replies, "No, you held it too hard." And the point of this parable is to showcase that there is wisdom with working with real world and how it works... rather than admonishing the world for not being ideal. Taking this parable into our context that we're discussing... it's practice in surrender to the nature of humanity, the world, and politics and working pragmatically with the reality AS OPPOSED TO saying that humanity, the world, and politics "should" function in a way other than what it does. And then resisting any practical adjustments that deviate from the idealized state of humanity, the world, and politics that only exist in your mind and in your conceptualization of abstract models like Spiral Dynamics. And that's why it's counter-productive navel gazing in this context because it necessarily opens to the doors for the forces of tyranny in favor of a more idealized political engagement. Also, SD Tier 2 politics looks a lot like Green politics with a little more systemic awareness and less demonization. The goals are largely the same, but approached from a different frame of mind. But until EVERYONE is in SD Tier 2 and has an IQ over 110 (which will never happen anytime near our lifetime), we have to engage with the multitude of diverse perspectives and levels of intelligence in order for democracy to function. And that means couching complex policy positions in the context of stories and narratives and slogans.

I'm an INFJ... really really close on the J and P though.

Explain what you mean with a bit more clarity. What is sense-making? How do you apply sense-making practically in the realm of politics WITHOUT weakening the impact of those that would practice good sense-making... thereby ensuring that those with bad sense-making will always win and take power? Why does it negate the ability to skillfully use rhetorical skills like shorty punchy slogans? How can you get the average person of average or below average intelligence to engage in sense-making regarding their engagement in politics? How does sense-making improve the outcomes of politics? In the meantime, check this video out to understand my issue with prioritizing sense-making over pragmatic outcomes...

It's a bit deeper than that. It doesn't actually have that much to do with the opposite sex or being side-lined by the opposite sex. That's mostly just a transference of deeper seated feelings onto a scapegoat because their deeper seated feelings tend to be triggered in dating and relationship contexts. And the opposite sex just becomes a projection screen to shadow box with their "inner demons." The difference between an Incel and a non-Incel isn't that the Incel is inherently less attractive to women. The difference is that the Incel is dealing with crippling feelings of shame that makes him much more sensitive to rejection... and internalizing that rejection as meaning something core to his sense of self and his sense of validity. And this kind of shame pattern tends to impact men more than women in part because most women don't do as much approaching and can derive a sense of security in the ability to connect by having men approaching her.... and in part because men are often expected (and expect one another) to match up to an idealized image of masculinity. And there hasn't been a male equivalent to women's lib. So, there's a pattern where men are stuck a bit more in patterns around traditional gendered expectations. And they can even be ridiculed or bullied by their male friends and acquaintances for straying from those expectations. And they will often be called feminine insults to get them to fall back in line with traditional masculine social expectations, which further exacerbates the shame of not matching up to idealized masculine expectations. Another thing that contributes to this issue is isolation and unmet connection needs more generally... which is reflective of collective social ails that have eroded community and interdependence. So it is this starvation for connection coupled with shame... interacting with online culture's tendency to create echo chambers around specific "vibrations" of pain.

I keep pressing you on this because I genuinely don't understand how you're thinking about this. Why is detachment essential in your opinion? And why is it better to prioritize supposed sense-making over pragmatism? And why are we thinking about "having a political agenda" as being a negative thing in the realm of politics? It seems akin to using addition and subtraction as a negative thing in the realm of mathematics. Like from a philosophical point of view, I can be detached from my political agenda to be able to control my own body. And I can question like "What if it were the case that, as a woman, sacrificing my bodily sovereignty is necessary for the maintenance of the order of the state?" And I have done that as a thought exercise along with other thought exercises of this sort in my own mind. But I would never incorporate those private philosophical musings into my real world civic engagement with politics because that minces paradigms and would muddy the waters and takes steps to normalize what would put my life and other's lives in a compromised situation. And it creates a false neutrality in a situation that isn't neutral at all. Like if someone's chasing you with a knife, don't be nonchalant about it and pretend like it's business as usual. So, I genuinely don't see how detachment from a political agenda would be more helpful outcomes-wise than enacting a political agenda... because it seems to me to be a sheep calmly chit chatting with the wolf about how "Perhaps there's some merit to you eating me."... instead of just shutting down the entire suggestion as ridiculous. Or sitting down with a group of child abusers that want to argue for their right to abuse children... while detaching from pragmatism and putting their views through the neutral detached vetting process of "sense-making"... and thereby unintentionally rhetorically normalizing their viewpoint to the audience as a serious viewpoint worthy of merit and consideration. This is how nonsensical it is to me to suggest detachment from the political agenda in the realm of politics.... and prioritizing sense-making over pragmatism. I notice that when people are detached, it's often people who aren't directly affected by the harm. And this detachment, causes them to feel like they are able to be a more objective arbiter of the situation and the voice of the adult in the room in comparison to people who are directly impacted by the harm. But in reality these 'neutral arbiters' often don't sound the alarms when they're meant to be sounded.... and don't rhetorically shut down from consideration what is wise to shut down in the realm of civic engagement. It becomes like sitting in a burning house and talking neutrally about the situation like nothing's wrong. And this is where common sense and common decency get lost in the pursuit of a less "politcsy" kind of politics where we can all be enlightened fence-sitters. Sometimes it's much wiser to be able to say something simple like "bad things are bad" and "good things are good" and "Let's do more good things and not bad things" to communicate to the average person and cut through all the detached philosophical noise that normalizes things that harm people.

There could be attachment issues here. But it could also just be a reflection of being under-resourced regarding your connection needs. And you start to feel more attached because you're wanting connection... but seeing the only outlet as just one person... because you don't have as many close and intimate connections as you need. This could potentially be remedied by creating a more robust social circle.

But if we're talking about engagement in politics... why isn't the political outcome and that political outcome's impact on people and society the primary focus for you? This is where I feel it gets into unwise paradigm-mincing navel-gazing territory. Politics in the highest form of the archetype is about serving the greater good of people and society. And even more importantly, it is there to protect people. That's the function of politics when it works well. And I've noticed a pattern on this forum (with this post included) that is idealistic and prioritizes a theoretically more conscious process of engaging in politics as an individual that is detached from the outcomes and puts harm and help as equal outcomes... as long as a more theoretically conscious process is taken to get there. For example, you mentioned earlier that me and my husband have skin in the game... and seemed to somewhat poo poo the pragmatic way of winning in favor of a theoretically more conscious process because... "What if the epistemic commons degrade?". But the things that are being proposed could upend our entire lives in significant ways. And we're not the only ones. So, even the notion that someone would value a less pragmatic and less effective method of fighting against it over something that ACTUALLY works (especially when that thing isn't bad in itself) feels emotionally detached and navel gazy. And it's a position that's unwise parading itself as wisdom... whilst throwing the value of common sense and common decency out the window. Don't become so conscious that you allow a murderer come in and murder your family because you're too idealistic to engage in the baser process of immobilizing them.

What I'm saying is that being eggheads concerned with higher consciousness and solid epistemology like you and I are isn't the way that most people are... nor even the way most people should be, for that matter. Humanity is built for specialization where different people have different skills, talents, and interests. And the fact of the matter is that most people aren't equipped and/or oriented to being super philosophical and concerned with solid epistemology... in the same way that my short self is not equipped and/or oriented to playing in the WNBA. And if you don't "dumb things down", politics can only be approached by people who have the intellectual skills and philosophical interests to properly broach these topics. But this would be anti-democratic and would bar 80% of people from civic engagement. This is why rhetorical strategies are a necessity of leaders and wannabe leaders... as it enables them to paint a mythos that people can engage with and join together in service of. It is a necessary component of moral leadership, which is a major pillar of being an effective politician. And it's a necessary values-neutral skill to acquire. And it can be used for good and for bad. It can galvanize people towards fighting for civil rights. But it can also galvanize nazis. The mistake I think you're making is to take the necessary, values-neutral leadership skill of rhetorical strategy and seeing it as diametrically opposed to what you call "sense-making"... which I believe is your way of talking about more absolute higher consciousness truths. But it is no more a hinderance towards "sense-making" as any other values-neutral skill. It's like looking at the field of mathematics and believing that subtraction and division are antithetical to sense-making.... when in reality, they are just necessary "tricks of the trade" and exist in a totally different spectrum of reality from the one you're judging it by. It's similar to how some people on here might give higher paradigm advice for people who are asking questions about how to meet women. And someone responds "There is not you. And there are no others." And that might be true in the absolute. But it isn't going to be effective... and the insight is a non-sequitter. Politics are going to do what politics do... just like math is going to do what math does... and law is going to do what law does. So, I can't help but think you're mincing paradigms and taking ideas into the sphere of politics that aren't realistic or effective... and don't belong there. It's not the best thing to always be reaching for higher order perspectives. Often times, it's a much wiser choice to get grounded and to interact with the world as it is... instead of how you believe it should be.

That's a plot twist. This whole time I thought he was just operating from a place of lacking coherent internal logic. But in reality, he's got the secret... but is withholding it.

Do you really think that you could just choose to be attracted to men if you aren't already somewhat attracted to them?

The conclusion he's making about people becoming gay by deciding to change their hormones, still doesn't make sense if that's the premise of his internal logic. He's saying you can change your hormones to become gay... but not in the taking HRT sense like trans people who are seeking gender affirming hormone replacements. That would be the way it would make sense based off of his internal logic in the way that you're mentioning if he's conflating sex and gender and seeing gay and trans as the same thing... and seeking hormone changes to change both. It's incorrect still. But that would at least make sense by his own internal logic. In his internal logic, he seems to be under the impression that there's a reset button on the human body/mind that you can deliberately press to change your hormones to become permanently gay. I keep asking about his rationale because I'm genuinely curious (and mildly amused) at pondering what his internal logic is. Is it just a decision in your mind and then "BAM!" your hormones change and you're gay? Is it a magic spell you cast? Is it a medicine that you take? Is it something else? I must know... so that I can get even gayer and rid myself of my pesky opposite sex attractions!

Sources please? I do take into account the idea of straight-identifying people having a secondary sexuality that can come through in a more pronounced way in certain environments... like in prison. In this sense, I think that most straight people have some small degree of bi-sexuality and the capacity to be attracted to someone of the same sex under specific conditions where there is touch starvation or deprivation of outlets to meet sexual/romantic needs without the preferred opposite sex outlet. But I don't buy AT ALL that someone would be prison-gay and 'never able to return back to being straight.' If someone is claiming that, the person was already gay from the get-go and using prison as an excuse. So, it's weird that you and the OP both have this belief, "Going from straight to gay is totally possible and sexuality is fluid and you have to work to preserve your straightness. BUT once you slip up and go gay, you can NEVER go back." It's almost like you guys think of straightness as a kind of purity. And you have to maintain that purity. The, once that purity is lost, you can never regain it again. It's a very strange way of thinking about human sexuality that showcases a distinct defensive stance against going/being gay.

From your perspective, how does it go against sense-making to use these rhetorical strategies? It's not like it's backed up by nonsense. The majority of people genuinely aren't asking for this crazy stuff. Plain and simple. Now, you could try to give the public the whole powerpoint presentation about how the viewpoints that come from Project 2025 are minoritarian views that represent the threat of autocracy stemming from a desire of 20% of the population to go back to pre-industrial era societal structures. And you should do that too. But meanwhile, 80% of people have already tuned out because it's a college-level lecture. And the average person's literacy is at an 8th grade level. And most people aren't interested in having the discussions you want to have. And that's not a bug... that's a feature. Instead, you can just put it plainly and simply in the way that a 3rd grader can understand.... "No one's asking of this crazy stuff!" And that's simple and true... and it makes sense to the the vast majority of people. And it reflects the will of the vast majority of people. It's just a less fancy and less intellectual way of saying, "Wannabe autocrats are using Trump's megalomania as pawn to try control your life by eroding democracy." If you always have to couch things in super philosophical political language, you have to recognize that it's leaving 80% of people out of the conversation because they're either unwilling or unable to engage on that level. But break it down and make it simple. Then it makes sense to the majority of people.

?

I don't even see it as particularly manipulative. It's wrapping a truth up in an offensive attack format that the average disengaged voter can digest quickly and easily. So, it's values-neutral and can be practiced in positive and negative ways. So, instead of being eggheads and using million dollar words and giving a powerpoint presentation that explains in depth all the problems that can arise if Project 2025 gets enacted, it's summing it up in a short punchy offensive package like "Mind your own damn business!" and "No one's asking for this crazy stuff!" and "We're not going back!" And this cuts through all the noise. And it's true because VERY FEW people in America actually agree with these extremist positions. And while like 20% of people are politically engaged and philosophical and intellectual and can have these types of philosophical discussions about politics, it's always been the case that like 80% of people don't view politics beyond the impressions and vibes. And short punchy offensive attacks are the way to win the vibes war. And that just is what it is.

Oh yeah! I remember now! That's how I did it.

You're a bit too detached from these dangers because you're not directly impacted by them. And you can afford to think about these things in more detached philosophical ways and worry about "Oh no! What if epistemic commons degrade!" because you haven't been on the chopping block... not yet anyway. It's different for me and my husband because we are impacted by them. And that makes us MORE objective about this topic and not less... not in spite of our conflicts of interest, but because of them. And I am glad that Democrats are winning the messaging war. And they aren't even needing to lie or play dirty to do it. They're just pointing out and crystallizing into words, indicting truths about how out of touch and strange the far right views espoused by Vance and that would be supported in policy by Trump via Project 2025 is in the eyes of most American people. So, it's fine to play angel's advocate (with the angel in question being Lucifer) when you're not directly impacted by these patterns. But this is just devilry in a philosophical guise.

I don't really look at it as, "You go low, we go low." It's more like... integrating the ability and willingness to take the offensive stance in order to serve the greater good. When you're appealing to reason and higher nature, you HAVE TO take a defensive stance because it takes a long time to explain those things. And it requires a lot of brain power that the average voter either doesn't have or doesn't value engaging with. And that is just how people are. And the desire to give a whole powerpoint presentation and explain and appeal to reason and truth comes across as waffling and weakness. But if you take the offensive stance and you're able to be short, punchy, and sharp with clear repeatable meme-able talking points that highlights the weakness and ridiculousness of the opposing team... this reads as strength and certainty. And you then put your "enemy" on the defensive where they have to explain themselves, which makes them look weak and bothered. So, the willingness to take the offensive stance isn't negative. It's understanding human nature and working with it to serve the greater good... as opposed to naively expecting the majority of human beings to be rational, educated, highly informed, and highly consciousness beings. The fact of the matter is that, politics is a boxing game when it comes to winning the hearts and minds of the average person. And we need those that are serving the greater good to become adept at boxing... instead of nobly losing and being above it. Like, I don't want to lose any more of my reproductive rights or have my husband deported because some Far Right wannabe autocrat get into office and wants to turn me into a brood mare for the state and rip away the Green Cards of documented immigrants, because those on the "Noble" Left were too moral to be on the offense and fighting the good the fight. There tends to be a naive liberal fantasy of appeal to logic, reason, and ethics to best the enemy. And it's in every single movie ever made where the protagonist puts the antagonist in his place with some "mic drop" moment where he comes back with the most reasonable and ethical argument. But this doesn't work in real life. And the reason why is because in a political debate in hopes of getting votes "If you're explaining, you're losing." And that's because explaining means going on the defensive. But if you're on the offensive and you keep it short, punchy, and memorable to showcase the weakness of your opponent, that sticks in people's minds.

But how do people (in your view) consciously change the hormones in their body to become gay? You're not answering the question of the mechanism by which you believe that's possible. It's just magical thinking... then "Trust me bro. I'm correct." How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you don't even have any internal logic behind your claim.

That's where the difficulty is in discerning. Like, I know that there are people who enjoy experiencing being dominated. And with that enjoyment comes the stripping away of both power and responsibility and surrendering both of those things to the other person. And it creates a euphoric powerlessness and smallness in the best form. So, desiring to be made powerless is relatable... and doesn't always come from shame. And because money is a tool of power, I can see how someone might enjoy playing through a scene where someone steals that power away from them in the form of money. So, I can understand why someone would value that from a non-shame-based perspective. That said, the reason why I lean towards it being more exploitative is because the person who's giving up the money may not actually have enough to cover their bills... and it may cause long-term issues for them. And the other person engaging in that with them probably doesn't have their best interests at heart. There's also a strong possibility that the person is engaging in that because they don't feel worthy of sexual attention unless they're giving money or something else. Or that they're using the experience only to trigger shame and to reinforce shame narratives. So... the distinguishing factors I would make is "How in control of this fetish is the person?" "Are they using money that they can afford to lose?" "Does the dominator/dominatrix have their genuine interests at heart and set clear ethical boundaries... or are they just exploiting the person?" "Is it a means for the person to wallow in self-punishment and self-hatred? Or do they enjoy it in similar ways like someone might enjoy being tied up?" This is why I lean towards it being exploitative because there are so many safeguards that would have to be met that I don't necessarily think is there. That said, in the BDSM community more generally... there is a very strong focus towards boundaries between subs and doms to keep the subs safe. That's why there are contracts and all sorts of other things done to set clear boundaries. So, if it's approached the same way with financial domination, then I'd see it in the same light as any other BDSM dynamic. But I don't know if financial domination is even widely accepted as valid in the BDSM community.