Carl-Richard

I see I see. I'm Orange. Any thoughts about the response to your comment about the collectivism/individualism dichotomy?

And you were 15 years old at that time?

And when was that?

Just curious: when did you first read about Spiral Dynamics?

Darwinists: *autistic screeching*

Hmm... Didn't know Osho listened to Death Metal

Ken Wilber goes into this: the difference between "waking up", "growing up" and "cleaning up". As I understand it, SDi doesn't track these different aspects to the same extent, particularily the "cleaning up" aspect, as it relates to the interplay between trauma and personal predispositions. For instance, what does it really mean to say you're Stage Blue or Yellow in terms of having worked through something like deeply imbedded childhood trauma?

I find it pretty god damn terrifying, but I'm just a wimp.

...is this: Become a little more sensitive

Heh it's like you are me.

Letting go of your attachment to your wife doesn't necessarily mean you will leave your wife. But if you cared either way, you would be attached.

He is joking.

Today, I almost ran my moms car into the garage door because I accidently pressed the gas pedal instead of the break. I'm sure Hanlon's Razor applies here

This is exactly why much of Green brush off the idea of cancel culture being a particularily new phenomena. People have always been disagreeing, condemning and calling eachother names. This isn't something new. Green calling people homophobes is like Blue calling people sinners, or Orange calling people SJWs, collectivists or neo-marxists.

Each stage is not dichotomously collectivist or individualist. That's a bit simplistic. The distinctions become less obvious at the higher stages. This is because the higher stages do in fact take lessons from the lower stages. That is why it's called a developmental model. It's like puberty: you gain some size, sexual maturity and cognitive functioning, but you keep your youthfulness and your body parts. You develop your pre-existing faculties. The transition from Orange to Green isn't an amnesic extraction of Orange individualism. It's rather the enhancement and augmentation of that individualism. Collectivism at the end of the day is a strategy for the survival of individuals, and healthy Green recognizes this fact and how it relates to the importance of individual rights in the modern world (Orange). Green hasn't forgotten about the benefits of the Enlightenment. In fact, Green was actually founded upon those values. The most dogmatic and problematic forms of collectivism are seen in Purple and Blue: racism, xenophobia, tribalism, authoritarian theocracy etc. Here, Green has taken the lessons from Orange, namely democracy and individual rights, and tries to battle these anti-individualist injustices in the collective arena. Therefore, in a sense, it's a step towards collectivism but not so much a step away from individualism. Green also recognizes that some individuals are worse off than others and that people deserve a base minimum of humanity. Why? Because again, like Orange, they believe that the individual has inherent value. It's much easier to see the dichotomy between say Purple and Orange, where the former may practice ritualistic human sacrifice to a spirit (or an ideal), and the latter reacts in horror. But then you have to wonder if Orange isn't also guilty of this sacrificial tendency when it comes to their purist approach to individualism. For example, are you willing to sacrifice human life to uphold a sacred ideal, e.g. capitalism? Can capitalism be questioned? These are the questions that Green is willing to tackle.

Orange more brainy, less veiny.

It's the next stage of development. In a sense, it literally is Orange but better. I'm reflecting the level of engagement that you've provided.

Green is actually more capable of rational thought than Orange. It just has an additional post-rational element that can be emphasized in different degrees depending on the situation. Nevertheless, the fight for LGBTQ rights is fundamentally backed by logically sound ethical concerns. No. Where did you read about feminism?

Please elaborate. Hahaha. That has always existed. It's called the republican party.

The state vs trait distinction is essentially what distinguishes the study of emotion from the study of personality (although they obviously overlap). Emotions capture the way some aspects of behavior are expressed in the moment while personality captures how some aspects of behavior is consistent over time. I have nothing against using words like extroverted or neurotic in a more colloquial way. After all, Big 5 was created by sampling adjectives from the dictionary. It's in many ways the model of the people.

It's a rather uncontroversial finding in psychology. Remember that some terms in psychology don't translate perfectly to every person's intuition of the term. In psychology, the term "emotion" has a very technical definition (with various nuances depending on the model), and it's possible to define happiness as something that goes beyond emotions. For example, consciousness is not the same as positive emotion (although they're strongly correlated depending on your definition). Emotions can change while consciousness remains the same. Is the unhealthy withdrawal from life due to a negative mood? I would make the distinction between traits vs. states. Neuroticism (trait) is not exactly equal to negative emotion (state). States change while traits are more or less consistent across situations. Big 5 personality traits are also considered independent (they don't correlate with eachother). For example, you can be highly extroverted and highly neurotic at the same time, and these different combinations will interact in predictable ways. Neuroticism measures the frequency and amplitude of emotions; how easily your emotional state changes and how strong they are (extreme highs and extreme lows). It's not necessarily linked to negative emotions, but it tends to be associated with that aspect. It has to do with how you tackle arousal and stressors, be it positive or negative. For example, the combination of high E and N and low Conscientiousness makes you more prone to risky sexual behavior and reckless drinking. Therefore, instead of saying that neuroticism can masquerade as introversion (two independent traits), I think it's more accurate to say that negative emotion (state) can express itself as social withdrawal (behavioral response), and that various personality traits can produce these different states and behavioral responses in different situations. A neurotic extrovert could feel very sad in the same situation that a neurotic introvert would feel huge relief.

Happiness is a fuzzy term. Extroverts tend to experience more positive emotion.

While some of what you're saying is certainly true to some extent, one thing you will notice is that extroverts are extremely energetic and present. Unlike an introvert, they don't have to expend much energy in order to "fit in". Fitting in is their natural state, and they feel a lot of positive emotion doing it. In a sense, it's not that they're uncapable of deep thinking or spirituality, but it's rather they don't have the same need for it. Introverts often misinterpret extroverted enthusiasm for inauthenticity and forced conformity, and while there might be a kernel of truth to that, for the extrovert, it's nevertheless fueled by an authentic and embodied expression. If you take this into account, imagine how freaking happy this guy is ?:

All separate "things" share one fundamental identity, namely the fact of existence. Existence is a single, unified and infinite field. If you look past non-fundamental appearances, you'll realize that all things are fundamentally one thing – "not-two", non-dual.