Carl-Richard

I was given the choice during an university lecture 1.5 years ago, or rather it jumped up behind me and tried to force me into submission, but I kept holding on, really hard. I spent a full year of silently struggling to regain a sense of self, and I'm still on unstable grounds. Basically, the choice you felt you were given and had to turn down in fear, for some it's not just a choice -- it's a reality. What you said, "May I one day have the courage to give up my own will for God's. This is the ultimate act of faith.", resonates with me deeply. This is my quest.

@IAmReallyImportant Again, no idea what you're talking about

You're not average just because you fall within the green area. You have to take all the data into account to determine the average, which means it will actually be somewhere outside the green area.

*sigh* Debunk youtubers...

If you score higher than 50% of people on either metric, that means you're exactly average compared to the rest of the test takers. I have no idea what you're talking about though.

The percentage says exactly what it says. I don't see what is so hard about it ?

You're average if you score higher than 50% of people, which seems to be about 2.5. Higher than 50% of people also means lower than 50% of people

I wonder how the conservatives parse their freedumb stance on vaccines with the draft in the Selective Service: "all males between the ages of 18 and 25 must register with the Selective Service to be drafted if needed". We're somehow fine with putting individual lives in danger to protect the country against a military threat, but when it comes to protecting ourselves against a pathogen, it suddenly becomes so abstract and complex.

...very postmodern

It's not that surprising, because there are still many unvaccinated people. They lifted all restrictions in June, and the delta variant is still a thing.

On a second thought, he might just be a very inquisitive and agreeable Green. Nevertheless, he was very fun to talk to. What struck me as Yellow in him was his non-dogmatic feel, like he wasn't pushing a particular contracted perspective. He is in one of my psychology courses at a Norwegian university

I think I found a random Yellow person today (either that, or my mind is just starved from talking to intuitives). We talked for an hour about metaphysics, epistemology, holism, collectivist vs. individualist societies, ideological lenses, integrating different perspectives, trauma, Freud, Jung, Plato, cognitive theory, karma, personal relationships, the relativity of perspectives, Eastern vs. Western religions, theology vs. mysticism, near-death experiences, psychedelics.

You can't Neil deGrasse Tyson this shit.

Yes. It's infinitely inclusive. Why not both? It's infinitely inclusive. The end of suffering is when you realize that not suffering is not better than suffering.

If we take the "10,000 years ago" literally, that was the beginning of the agricultural revolution, which lead to the fall of sub- dunbar number tribal societies and female nature religions, and the rise of empires and male power religions. Crops and farm animals act as a lever on the food supply, effectively freeing up labor, lending it to technological advancement, territorial expansion, and tribal warfare. If there ever was a time where selflessness took a hit, it was during the transition from archaic collectivism to imperial individualism.

That's the thing with evolution and development: it's a progressive climb of trial-and-error by selfish entities. For a developed person, when looking back at his own growth in retrospect, it's natural to think "what a waste", but the benefits of a gradual process is that it produces a relatively stable product. An organism that evolved legs will predictably walk on land, and a person who's childhood development occured within a progressive society will predictably show progressive tendencies. On the other hand, if you try to give a software upgrade that is incompatible with the hardware (like giving democracy to Afghanistan or non-duality to pre-rational sheep herders), the program will either shut down or produce a corrupted file . So while our current shortcomings and stubbornness may seem like a waste of potential, they're nevertheless a necessary part of growth.

?

...are violinists just sexual predators?

You can always comfort yourself with the fact that there is so much more evil and wrong things going on in the world that you're not aware about and that the things you read on the news are only a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the real world behind the scenes

Are we hurting the floor when we step on it? Is the ground being hurt by cars driving on it or houses being built on it? How far are you willing to stretch your compulsion to anthropomorphize non-living objects?

The amount of intelligence that goes into creating a flat-earther should floor you. To create a living creature that is able to engage in self-deception requires immense complexity. There is no contradiction there. Self-deception is also a key feature of survival. Your mind is constructed to take shortcuts and make assumptions about its environment, because information processing is a costly activity. Your mind only experiences what it needs in order to survive. Survival is not a truth-seeking activity. It's the game of maintaining a bias.

It's useful to view each proceeding stage as a synthesis of the previous stages (dialecticism; thesis -><- antithesis => synthesis). In other words, the clash between Red (thesis) and Blue (antithesis) resolves to Orange (synthesis). The synthesis is not merely the operation of adding each trait of the previous stages together, but there is an act of "emergence": parts coming together to make up a whole where the sum of the parts are not reducible to each part. It's just like how hydrogen and oxygen join to make up water; where each part has different chemical properties in isolation, but when they exist as a part of the whole, they produce some completely new properties. When you recognize this perspective, you'll see that each stage has its own ethical dimension (ways of determining what is good). It's not that Blue is ethical and Red is not. It's just that Blue ethics is very different from Red ethics (and Orange and Green ethics etc.). The lower stages all have their own ethics, but of course they're more limited than the higher stages (smaller circle of concern). The mistake I'm pointing to is to view a concept like ethics as if it has a objective basis and that one stage has a stronger coherence with this basis than another. No -- rather, ethics is completely relative one's own survival values and hence one's own stage of development. This means that to evaluate the ethical conduct of Orange by comparing it to say Blue ethics becomes a bit problematic. There are many ways that Orange will act that it will justify through ethical argumentation that goes completely against Blue ethics. One obvious example is gay marriage: Blue thinks that to stray from well-established, traditional, tried-and-tested survival techniques is unethical, while Orange -- who invented ideas like individual rights and reason -- thinks anything which unreasonably contradicts one's right to individual expression is unethical. Likewise, Red ethics is very different and tends to be based on things like strength, loyality, and pride. This doesn't mean that Orange or Blue or Red cannot agree on some issues; it's only that you have to use different arguments to persuade them.

Tier 2 people today are thinking in complex ways relative to surrounding culture, but that doesn't mean society cannot become Tier 2. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were all very complex thinkers relative to their culture, but today their teachings are taught in children's classrooms. When society turns Tier 2 (whatever that means), you should expect most people to be Tier 2 as adults. @DocWatts Didn't mean to steal your points -- I made similar points recently