Carl-Richard

That just means you haven't integrated those aspects of yourself properly,

I want to get a better picture of what is really going on: How would you define the IDW (and the left) in terms of values? What beefs or main points of disagreement do you feel are most important? What does either side have to learn from each other? What are they both missing? The IDW would be people like Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin etc.. The left is vast, but to mention some people: Sam Seder, Michael Brooks (RIP), David Pakman, Kyle Kulinski, Vaush etc.. I'm also interested in especially Sam Harris' beef with Noam Chomsky (disagreements about foreign policy). What is really going on there? Is it a good example of this phenomena? Please sprinkle some SD into the analysis aswell

These are my observations: Sam Harris' built his whole career on his reaction to 9/11, and his beef with Islam and leftist foreign policy stems from there. That made him very attached to the idea of the importance of beliefs and how they inform people's actions. The left is more concerned about how historical events determine the expression of those beliefs. If Sam Harris used his own beliefs to analyse himself, he is opposed to Islam and the left because of his beliefs. If he were to use the left's analysis, he felt that 9/11 threatened his existence and responded by criticizing the beliefs of Islam and the left, and that made him express those particular beliefs. More generally, Sam has adopted a more eurocentric lens as a survival response, which makes him at odds with worldcentric green. This ties into the "we need to protect western enlightenment values" sentiment that is so prevalent on the IDW.

He doesn't practice what he preaches.

That was just a coincidence. I didn't have any alterior motives with the frog other than the expressions

@Demeter More surprises, more potential for chaos and delusion. Everything comes with a price.

People who hold valid concerns against psychedelics know about the danger of getting lost in the weeds so to speak, and they don't want to risk it. The meditation-only route is simpler on its surface (not easier), and that appeals to some people. You can do a lot of work with a hammer, but you can also hurt yourself with it. Then again, you have to take chances if you want to grow.

It's impossible for it not to be so.

My stepmother moved from Portland, Oregon to Norway a couple of years ago #funfact

Yourself.

You also don't truly "exit" a stage once you've unlocked the next one. It only keeps deepening.

*boss music*

The stages in Tier 2 aren't prevalent in today's society, which means that children can't start to absorb it through cultural osmosis in the same way like stage green in say Norway. That is mostly why there are no ages listed on yellow or turquiose. The age brackets provided in the model is the average age where most people unlock that stage given that their culture allows for it, and they only apply relative to the current world we live in: For example, a teenager won't necessarily unlock orange unless the society around him is orange or above. Even if your society is orange, that doesn't mean you'll be orange either. Likewise, not every person will enter Tier 2. In 100 years, the same age brackets may not apply any longer. I feel like you're expecting too much from the model. It's not an universal, rock-solid, black-and-white, "this is how it is for every single person" type of model. Every statement you make regarding SD needs to have numerous of caveats. It's important to note when we're dealing with averages, groups, individuals, facets, lines etc.. Childhood development is more rapid than adult development, but you can still "level up" in SD as an adult, just slower on average. It was actually initially conceptualized as an adult developmental model, but it applies to children aswell.

If 5-MeO-DMT is an anti-psychotic then chocolate is a weight loss product

In regards to stage turquoise, it applies to less than 1% of the population. The most developed countries are at best getting established in green and maybe touching at yellow in some places. These countries have well-established civil liberties and are also moving towards a more socialist economy and focusing on general welfare for all citizens.

I made a topic where you get a very rough overview of the SD development of different countries. It's based on the Democracy Index, and it doesn't show which particular SD stage each country is in. The colours range from less developed to more developed in terms of "pluralism, civil liberties and political culture": I would be hesitant about generalizing to this extent, but you could probably link "Full democracy" to Stage Green-Orange, "Flawed democracy" to Stage Orange-Blue, and "Hybrid/authoritarian regimes" to Stage Blue-Red. (I didn't know you made this topic before I made mine btw ).

I wanted to see if I could find a map of the world that correlates with SD development. I first checked out the Human Development Index, but that doesn't take into account things like political systems (Hong Kong has the same score as Germany). I then found the Democracy Index which measures "pluralism, civil liberties and political culture". It looks like this (2019): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index I didn't spend too long looking for alternatives, but I have a feeling this is as good as it gets. If you can spot any flaws or if you know about a better index that gives more accurate results, please share it here

That one seems much more proper. I still prefer the layout of the Democracy Index though

Haha probably. I like how the colours also roughly correlate to the SD colours, red through green. You also could easily change the colours in paint or something with not too much work.

Now I wonder what it's like to be touched by a blind person. Probably very gentle and conscious

Seeing a super charismatic guy can make you more aware of your own insecurities, so that makes sense.

I'm a zoomer so take this with a grain of salt. In my opinion, early stages of education is more about socialization than anything else. If you don't let your kids hang out with other kids at their age, you can forget about ever teaching them the pitfalls of blue/orange. Developing an understanding of social clues, empathy, the distinction between play and violence is the foundation of all growth. Let them go to school, let them socialize with other kids, and most importantly don't force green values on them too early, because that will also interfere with their development. They have to grow to green themselves. All you have to do is help them "max out" their current stage and grow to the next stage on their own. Young kids mainly inhabit stage red and need a healthy dose of blue in order to not become ruthless sociopaths. If they do something wrong, make them know that in a clear way. Don't brush it off like "hahaha you know you can't do that ). Children are clueless. Once they know how to behave, only then they can start moving towards orange and green.