Challenging Leo on women

[Asayake]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'd like to share a different perspective here, as a woman who is very dedicated to my life's purpose who has been called Masculine by many on here (though I disagree)... and who has never had trouble attracting men and having longterm relationships with men who love me.

Consider that being hyper-attractive is very positive for men as it widens the net of potential partners. It's like adding a bit of honey to attract more flies, as the challenging task for men is attracting more flies.

So, because your dating/mating strategy is attraction if you want a partner and you find women attractive, you are thinking it works the same way for women.

But the dating/mating strategies are actually quite a bit different. And the goals are often different.

And women of all levels of attractiveness are already receiving quite a bit of male attention (usually too much). And about 95% of that attention is spam attention. The flies are already over-swarming the honey pot.

So, women becoming more attractive to the male gaze doesn't actually increase their ability to strike a good longterm match (which is what most women are seeking out sexually and romantically... and what is actually satisfying to most women). 

Instead, what actually helps women strike a great match is to be more discerning and learning to sort better... which means narrowing the pool of applicants significantly by sorting the wheat from the chaff.

And it's even better if you can disgust the wrong ones and scare them off with your particularity and authenticity... and they sort themselves from consideration. That way, you don't even have to reject them directly.

In this way, hyper-attractiveness is bit of a liability for women... as it's harder to scare off the wrong ones if they're audacious.

And it requires extra defenses, sensitivity to her own feelings of disgust, and what I call "personal disgust factors" for that hyper-attractive woman (and this goes for more average women as well) to end up with a well-suited guy... and not some spam attention guy who only cares about her good looks and wants to mold her to his whims, like in the example you gave.

And disgust factors are things that are polarizing... like high standards, directness, hyper-particular interests, unique styles, high intellect, hyper-particular opinions, decorative make-up that doesn't appeal to the male gaze, development of the Masculine side, etc.

This is often why very attractive women tend to operate in groups and can be bitchy, if you cross them. It scares away the spam.

And very attractive women who fail to consciously adopt these disgust factors or who are too nice, will tend to dim her attractiveness by dressing down, not taking great care of herself, or even gaining weight to deviate more from the beauty standard.

Ordinary-looking women will tend to have her disgust factors built in. So, she doesn't need as many disgust factors, as the hyper-attractive woman. But she still needs some.

Ultimately, these personal disgust factors polarize in the sense that they scare off spam attention... but if they are authentic to her they also attract genuine attention.

So, for women, the main challenge isn't to become more attractive.... it's to become more discerning and more authentic and particularized and therefore disgusting to the wrong ones.

Interesting ideas but I’ll challenge them a bit because I’m curious what it’ll produce.

How do you know the disgust factors are actually filtering as intended and not just repelling men who have certain standards or criteria that go beyond looks? 

For example if you have a “looksmaxxing” woman that attracts tons of flies and a couple golden flies, if the filtering qualities are genuinely attractive then why would they repell all the guys who are just looking to pump & dump & use you and who only care about looks, wouldnt these type of men be the most likely to stick around regardless of who you are and what youre doing while men who might want to commit & build a family might filter for something beneath the surface? Im suspecting the latter  is what you were trying to get at but I think the naming “disgust factors” does your idea a disservice, but curious what youll respond!

Edited 2 hours ago by Asayake

[Joshe]

3 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Spiral dynamics tier 2 is not merely about having a predisposition towards systems thinking. It's more of an identity and way of relating to the world.

Right. But I was pointing at something. You have to realize the systematizing predisposition is necessary for what you like to think of as "tier 2". 

If you follow the implications down, you will see just how flawed SD is for anything above green. 

7 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Have you watched the videos on tier yellow, turquoise and the applications of spiral dynamics? 

The thing Leo never did was tear SD apart. You can rip it to fucking shreds if you want to. 

The descriptions of tier 1 are useful and map to real-world stuff. But the model is embarrassingly naive and unconscious of it's claims about "Tier 2". I plan to share more when I get the time and energy. It's not going to be easy to explain because how flawed it is. The story of why it's flawed in the way that it is is the most interesting thing to me. Not sure I'll get into that though. It's complicated. 

 

[LordFall]

I would be very curious on your deeper thoughts on it. I think perhaps you just don't understand the concept enough? Tier 1 sees the world only from its own perspective.

Tier 2 starts having a multi-perspectival experience of reality. Stage Yellow is an intellectual experience and Stage Turquoise an existential experience where your sense of self and the illusion of duality literally melts apart. 

It makes a lot of sense to me. Have you had any mystical experiences or dabbled with psychedelics? I think if you only understand spirituality from an intellectual perspective it would be hard to really grasp and believe in spiral dynamics.  

Edited 2 hours ago by LordFall

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Asayake said:

Interesting ideas but I’ll challenge them a bit because I’m curious what it’ll produce.

How do you know the disgust factors are actually filtering as intended and not just repelling men who have certain standards or criteria that go beyond looks? 

For example if you have a “looksmaxxing” woman that attracts tons of flies and a couple golden flies, if the filtering qualities are genuinely attractive then why would they repell all the guys who are just looking to pump & dump & use you and who only care about looks, wouldnt these type of men be the most likely to stick around regardless of who you are and what youre doing while men who might want to commit & build a family might filter for something beneath the surface? Im suspecting this is what you were trying to get at but I think the naming “disgust factors” does your idea a disservice, but curious what youll respond!

My disgust factors are always based on my authenticity... and so it isn't used solely to repel men who don't fit. It's just a fringe benefit to knowing myself and not being willing to round my edges to make myself more appealing to the masses.

I also have a very strong intuition about who fits with me and who doesn't. So, anyone that gets past those filters, I can still sort manually.

But if a non-spam guy is disgusted and loses attraction because my authenticity, that's a good sign that he wasn't right for me... even if he is genuinely someone else's golden fly. That's more of a compatibility issue that gets averted that way.

But there are also many men who have an under-developed relationship with their Feminine side, who will lose attraction to a woman if she has any particularity to her whatsoever as he interprets any authenticity/particularity at all as Masculinity.

And a more integrated woman won't be as attractive, as he's looking more for a woman to play the role of his disowned Feminine side rather than her being a whole person in her own right.

And their way of looking at women is usually to see them as blank slates who hint at the general idea of what an attractive woman is. And getting into a relationship with those guys is a nightmare, as there is no room for the woman's authenticity or growth.

This is one of the main reasons that it's so important for women to know themselves deeply and express themselves authentically, as it's a real turn-off for these types of guys.

But when I was closer to the ideals of female attractiveness in my early 20s, I could have used some stronger defenses... like the bitchiness that attractive women often have.

I was constantly bombarded by tons of spam guys because I was too nice and too quiet/shy... and I had begun dressing in clothing that wasn't hyper-particularized because I had a white collar job. And they were just looking for a young, thin, attractive, but nondescript woman that hints at the general idea of Femininity. 

In my teen years, I was goth. So, that sorted out guys who were disgusted by the goth thing. And it ultimately had the effect of attracting in guys who appreciated my style and usually had compatibilities with music.

So, I knew the value of personal disgust factors, even as a teenager. And I was great at finding the kind of guys that I wanted. (Though, the kind of guys that I wanted back then... were appealing to teen Emerald, but very unappealing to adult Emerald.)

But as an early 20-something, I didn't have the goth fire-wall up anymore. And I also didn't have very loud disgust factors because I have always been reserved and kind of quiet. 

So, even though I had decent levels of discernment with romantic partners... I didn't scare as many spam guys off. And going to the grocery store was a pain-in-the-ass.

[aurum]

39 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Well, we need to define terms to have a proper discourse around the subject. What do you even mean by masculinity and femininity?

I literally just wrote a book about this subject as part of a new project I'm launching. 

There's way too much depth to compress it into a forum post, but the punchline is that masc / fem are something analogous to your Big Five personality or Myers Briggs. Constructed models that nonetheless capture something important about how you orient to the world.

If you deconstruct traditional gender roles and rigid gender ideology, it does give you more range of expression. But it does not change your core orientation.

Furthermore, just deconstructing gender roles and ideology is not enough. You must also reconstruct what mattered.

I don't experience myself as suddenly "becoming feminine". It's more like masculinity expresses itself differently across different contexts.

39 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Why are you strongly against it? 

Because it's confusion.

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, LordFall said:

I think perhaps you just don't understand the concept enough?

I've watched all the videos and have explored on my own. Granted, I never trusted or adopted the model because I can't just adopt models until they map, but I have tried to let it map and it never did. If it was going to map onto reality, it would have by now. 

So I kept asking, "How come it's not mapping? These intelligent people are saying it maps!" And I eventually figured out it actually does map for tier 1, and not for tier 2. That's part of why it was difficult to see the issues with it. And the other large part of seeing the issues was that it has built-in mechanisms to prevent you from seeing it. Such as "if you think yellow is bullshit, it's only because you can't see it, because you're not there". So, I got to the bottom of that whole thing, and you can too. 

The very fact that you can't reach "yellow" without the systematizing predisposition should be enough for you to dismantle it on your own. If SD has been a big thing for you for a long time, there will be reluctance to see the flaws. Which is why it's important to be very careful and slow to adopt models in the first place.

Can you have "yellow" without a systematizing predisposition?

The answer is no. 

What are the implications of that?

If you don't want to do the work yourself, simply plug this inquiry into your favorite AI to be spoon-fed gold, lol. 

And then ask yourself, "how come the people who say SD is one of the best models for understanding humans never thought of this?"

And then ask yourself "what are the implications of that?"

😂

28 minutes ago, LordFall said:

It makes a lot of sense to me. Have you had any mystical experiences or dabbled with psychedelics? I think if you only understand spirituality from an intellectual perspective it would be hard to really grasp and believe in spiral dynamics.  

Yes, very much so. TBH, my cognition seems to be basically designed for mystical experiences. And I did psychedelics regularly, like every weekend for two years until I exhausted it. And I'm very much open to new perspectives, but also very much an independent thinker. I have to verify everything and SD just never mapped, even after having spent years on the table. 

I disagree with the point about how psychedelics make SD more real. I can totally see all of tier 1, easily. But tier 2 was always a black box, and that is what raised my suspicion and inquiry into why it was a black box. 

[LordFall]

@aurum Got it and what are the conclusions in your project based on in terms of hard data? I'm quite familiar with the big five personality and MBTIs. The closest thing that I can think to map to femininity/masculinity is the dichotomy between feeling types and logic types in MBTI but we still didn't define what we mean by both of those spectrums so it's hard to make definitive conclusions. 

15 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Can you have "yellow" without a systematizing predisposition?

The answer is no. 

Some people seem to me to have a multi-perspectival way of viewing the world without being particularly analytical and relying mostly on their intuition over hard logic so your answer of no seems a bit too definitive here. 

15 minutes ago, Joshe said:

The very fact that you can't reach "yellow" without the systematizing predisposition should be enough for you to dismantle it on your own. If SD has been a big thing for you for a long time, there will be reluctance to see the flaws. Which is why it's important to be very careful and slow to adopt models in the first place.

 I don't understand why this conclusion makes sense to you. If spiral dynamics is a model made to map cognitive development why would an ability to systemize reality either intuitively or logically being required to achieve tier 2 invalidate the model?

The whole point of the model is that it's made for the most cognitive animal on earth or constructs like social groups or entire societies which in and of themselves operate as massive cognition engines. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[aurum]

2 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Got it and what are the conclusions in your project based on in terms of hard data? I'm quite familiar with the big five personality and MBTIs. The closest thing that I can think to map to femininity/masculinity is the dichotomy between feeling types and logic types in MBTI but we still didn't define what we mean by both of those spectrums so it's hard to make definitive conclusions. 

I talk about evolutionary psychology briefly, but I don't put a focus on hard data. I'm not an academic.

My conclusions are mostly based on observation. 

[LordFall]

4 minutes ago, aurum said:

I talk about evolutionary psychology briefly, but I don't put a focus on hard data. I'm not an academic.

My conclusions are mostly based on observation. 

 

23 minutes ago, aurum said:

Because it's confusion.

How do you figure you're not the one that's confused then? It almost seems like we're talking about the sky is blue situation. To have a serious conversation we have to agree that there isn't really such a thing as the sky and we're talking about ozone layers which appear blue but are not really definitively so. 

4 minutes ago, aurum said:

I talk about evolutionary psychology briefly, but I don't put a focus on hard data. I'm not an academic.

You don't need to be an academic to find data that backs your conclusions otherwise you're just venting your feelings and claiming to have access to truth. You can ask any AI model to prove or disprove your ideas and find relevant studies to reference. I don't honestly think you'll find some that will validate your conclusion that masculinity and femininity are immutable traits. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[aurum]

4 minutes ago, LordFall said:

How do you figure you're not the one that's confused then?

You'll have to read my book and decide for yourself.

4 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I don't honestly think you'll find some that will validate your conclusion that masculinity and femininity are immutable traits. 

That is not my conclusion.

[LordFall]

Fair enough, looking forward to seeing it! 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

...it does not change your core orientation.

That's how I often speak about the Masculine and Feminine polarity as well.

No on can fundamentally add or take away Masculinity or Femininity from themselves, as it is the "binary code" that acts as the foundation of one's being... or even the being of both organic and non-organic systems in reality. 

And it informs but supersedes human dynamics like gender expression and sexuality. And it doesn't change. (That's why things like conversion therapy are ineffective)

And I like to think of a person's inherent Masculine/Feminine signature like an light.

And then, the Persona is like a lens through which that light can shine out.

So, the light of the Masculine/Feminine signature never changes.

But the Persona lenses can be changed in a way that either allows more of that light to express outwardly... or that blocks that light from external expression.

So, if for example, a woman has a predominantly Feminine 'Masculine/Feminine signature' but she exists in an environment where only Masculinity can exist and flourish and Femininity is seen as weak and bad and is given no space, she's only going to allow the Masculine qualities to be expressed through her Persona lens, as that's the more adaptive for the context.

In fact, she may even grow her identity and worldview to exclude her Feminine side altogether... despite it being her dominant energy.

And there are many contexts that exist (especially male-dominated contexts, where the men are trying really hard to minimize the Feminine portion of their signature) where it's not wise or even possible for the Feminine to be expressed there.

These are spaces that repel the Feminine and require a Masculine way of expressing to exist in. And it will chase most women off who don't want to operate in a Masculine way. And then of course, men in those spaces are often complaining about women not being Feminine enough... or how they're struggling to attract women. (This may sound like a familiar place )

But think of an individual's Masculine and Feminine signature as a flower seed.

And think of the context as the soil.

And think of the flower as the Persona.

The seed never changes. It is the core personality.

And let's say, there are three types of soil...

• Acidic soil that Feminine-dominant flowers thrive in,
• Basic soil that Masculine-dominant flowers thrive in,
• and then there's a type of soil that's similar to, different from, and greater than both the acidic and basic soil where all flowers can thrive. (A bit like type O blood is in comparison to Type A and Type B)

And most contexts in the world at this juncture in time are like giant plots of Basic Soil. And there are a handful of specialty niche 3rd spaces that are like plots of Acidic soil.

And there are VERY FEW niche 3rd spaces that are like the third kind of soil.

So, there isn't really a lot of space for Feminine-dominant flowers to grow to their highest level of development. But they can grow the Masculine parts of the flower quite well by planting themselves in Basic soil.

However, that doesn't make the flower a Masculine-dominant flower.

A Daffodil doesn't turn into a Sunflower just because the soil wasn't ideal for Daffodils. But the yellow part of the Daffodil might be the parts that grow better. 

And the Sunflowers might go... too much yellow! These Daffodils are more like Sunflowers. But that's not accurate. 

Edited 12 minutes ago by Emerald

[Joshe]

5 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Some people seem to me to have a multi-perspectival way of viewing the world without being particularly analytical and relying mostly on their intuition over hard logic so your answer of no seems a bit too definitive here. 

You're literally describing me here. 

By "systematizing predisposition", I meant having the raw materials that would lead to the capacity to hold several parts in mind at once and work your way to figuring out how they relate to each other, accurately. It doesn't matter if you primarily use intuition first or analysis first.

I go to "predisposition" first because capacity is downstream of it. The capacity will never develop without the predisposition or very strong environmental pressure. But it will almost always develop naturally on its own with a strong predisposition, which is what you see here in this community and within yourself. 

41 minutes ago, LordFall said:

 I don't understand why this conclusion makes sense to you. If spiral dynamics is a model made to map cognitive development why would an ability to systemize reality either intuitively or logically being required to achieve tier 2 invalidate the model?

It makes sense to me because I understand psychological distribution. 

The ability to hold multiple parts in relation varies between people early, and it isn't produced by development. It's not something you arrive at by working through blue and orange and green. Some people have it at age 8 and some will never have it. So if yellow has it that the ability to do this is a hard prerequisite to be considered yellow (and it does), then access to yellow is gated by predisposition. So it's trying to sort people by a trait, while acting like it's a personal advancement. 

And if you think about what "yellow" is, it's not just about systematizing anything. It's about understanding minds as systems. Something like 15-20% of people have a systematizing predisposition, according to the literature. Of these 15-20%, the majority will point their systematizing at engineering, math, code, markets, ecosystems, etc. Only a small percentage will point it at minds/psychology. And conveniently, those are the "tier 2" people. 

Does that make sense?