If you self-identify with any upper SD stage, you're CRINGE

[LordFall]

19 minutes ago, Zenterus said:

A software engineer can demonstrate their understanding objectively through their results. A self appointed Yellow stage forum member cannot, even worse when their worldview explicitly contradicts their so-called "stage."

It would be one thing if someone expressed high level wisdom that pointed others to their advanced maturity and development; it is entirely different when someone identifies themselves as higher on the spiral as a way to validate their worldview and perspective over others. 

Your credibility comes from demonstratable results, genuine wisdom and applicable knowledge. If one relies on an external factor, such as a Spiral Dynamics title, to inject a sense of authority and validity to their perspective, such a person isn't as developed as they would like to believe. 

Like, why do you need a sense of hierarchy to have a mature discussion about various aspects of reality? At the highest level, every perspective is just as valid as any other. Some might be more sophisticated and more applicable, of course. However what makes them so isn't the person expressing them saying "Oh, by the way, Im Turquoise." Instead, those perspectices become apparent when engaging with them; no external title to validate them is needed.@LordFall

Be careful, you're falling straight into the post modern trap my friend.

Which fields of reality can you have a mature discussion about without putting competence and credentials into it? It seems relevant in terms of economics, business, dating, theology, spirituality, nutrition, fitness, energy, politics, etc.

Your argument that the point should stand by itself is at first glance good but I don't think holds up. What if I argued that I think the economy of the US is gonna slump next year leading to major layoffs and warn people to look for another job now? Would you take me more seriously if I was a homeless guy saying this in your town's city centre or if I was a member of the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Which POV is most valid even if the words are the exact same? 

Literally last year I had a homeless guy come up to me and talk to me about crypto. I was pretty amazed that he seemed to know the basics of it but you can bet I did not hire him as a wealth manager.

We can chit chat about random topics without the need to think about where the points come from but let's be honest that this is more chit chat and vibing than any sort of serious points being made. 

I think you're right that it can become an easy way to posture and lead to the argument from authority fallacy but that can also easily be pushed against and the truth will ultimately prevail and conversation elevated from it. If I am in the business section I want to know if I'm talking to a successful business owner or a college student lost with life. Me asking for clarification on their background is not hostile, it elevates the conversation and increases it's value to the whole forum.

Some people charge $5000 for a consulting dinner with them and the people paying for that are very happy. It doesn't seem that anybody will pay that to chat with me just yet, perhaps in 10 years. Lets see how credible I manage to become! 

19 minutes ago, Zenterus said:

Like, why do you need a sense of hierarchy to have a mature discussion about various aspects of reality? At the highest level, every perspective is just as valid as any other. 

That's like saying becoming a heroin addict is as valid as any other at the highest level. Sure but it's mostly an irrelevant point IMO. 

Edited 5 hours ago by LordFall

[Carl-Richard]

16 minutes ago, Zenterus said:

@Carl-Richard You don't have to do that. Be you. Just dont create an ego around an SD stage, as if it's somehow objective.

How do you know when somebody creates an ego around it?

[Zenterus]

@LordFall I hear your points and I do agree that there is more credibility to be had when discussing certain aspects of reality. Titles and background make sense in those contexts. At the same time, titles often fall short in those contexts as well. You can be a professor at MIT and still suck at your job, while someone who doesnt have those same titles is more qualified for the position. Furthermore, just because someone is in a position where people value their time enough to pay for it, doesnt make that person inherently wiser or valuable, really. Human social psychology is easy to exploit when you know what you're doing and what people often value is very contextual, easily malleable and often illusory. However, I dont care to argue with you about all that.

At the end of the day, this is about spiral dynamics. Its not about economy, finances, dating, psychology, engineering or whatever. SD is a cognitive development model and my critique of how people use it on the forum still stands. 95% of the forum is clearly still miles away from Tier 2, which is apparent from their posts, yet theres a good subset of them that somehow think themselves higher.

That is my point and my observation. Clearly many seem to agree. 

[Zenterus]

@Carl-Richard Bruh.

[LordFall]

17 minutes ago, Zenterus said:

@LordFall I hear your points and I do agree that there is more credibility to be had when discussing certain aspects of reality. Titles and background make sense in those contexts. At the same time, titles often fall short in those contexts as well. You can be a professor at MIT and still suck at your job, while someone who doesnt have those same titles is more qualified for the position. Furthermore, just because someone is in a position where people value their time enough to pay for it, doesnt make that person inherently wiser or valuable, really. Human social psychology is easy to exploit when you know what you're doing and what people often value is very contextual, easily malleable and often illusory. However, I dont care to argue with you about all that.

At the end of the day, this is about spiral dynamics. Its not about economy, finances, dating, psychology, engineering or whatever. SD is a cognitive development model and my critique of how people use it on the forum still stands. 95% of the forum is clearly still miles away from Tier 2, which is apparent from their posts, yet theres a good subset of them that somehow think themselves higher.

That is my point and my observation. Clearly many seem to agree. 

Be careful with the wisdom of the crowd, it's rarely a bullet proof methodology 

I find it useful to take a lot of discussions from the Stage Yellow perspective and point out the ways in which people fall into Stage Green traps. I think it gives them an easy framework to understand and analyze if I'm right or not and how to gain greater insight into the issue we're discussing.

For example if we take Donnie Trump

From Stage Orange: Great president, will finally fix the economy and stick it to the triggered leftists

From Stage Green: Abomination for mankind and gets anxiety thinking about why its possible that such a man holds the greatest position of power in the world. Bastardize his character as being a dumb corrupt person. 

From Stage Yellow: Finds it curious to examine the systems that lead to his rise to power being possible.

For example Donald does not drink. He is an insanely focused man that does not fall to hedonism(at least of the legal kind.) To be overcame he must not be underestimated. Clearly narcissism in terms of wanting to push the limits and finding himself above the restraints of the average person is a weakness of his. 

From Stage Turquoise: A necessary part of human evolution to showcase the limitations of our government and clearly showcase that rule of law is an illusion of a pedophile can become the US president. 

If one comes it at solely from the emotional side then highlighting their blindspot towards the situation can help immensely in making sense of reality and how to be most happy and successful while operating in it. 

[something_else]

1 hour ago, LordFall said:

If an software engineer identifies as such says he has more understanding of systems architecture than a layman; is that also cringe?

Cringe is largely about delivery and context, rather than content. If a software engineer said “I studied systems architecture at university, and here is the specific principle I think you’re overlooking” I wouldn’t find that cringe. They’re giving a reason and explaining why their background is relevant.

If instead they said “I studied systems architecture, so you’re wrong and simply lack the experience I have” that has a much higher potential to be cringe because the credential is being used as a substitute for explaining the disagreement. That latter is much closer to how Spiral Dynamics stages get used on this forum.

There is also another important difference between the two cases. “software engineer” is relatively bounded, competence in that field can be verified quite easily. Whereas “I’m Yellow” is often a self-assigned assessment of one’s own developmental level for which there is little evidence on a forum. So using “I’m Yellow” as evidence that your interpretation is more correct than someone you deem as "Green" will often not land well unless you can really back it up to the point where people believe you are at that level.

Quote

Seems like you're stuck in subjectivism.

If an software engineer identifies as such says he has more understanding of systems architecture than a layman; is that also cringe?

A lot of people on this forum do embody clearly identifiable aspects of the lower stages in the spiral. Whether or not you think pointing that out is productive to their development or to valuable conversation is I guess the subject of your post? To which I argue against your conclusion. 

To put everyone on the same level bastardizes conversation imo and makes it so we can't talk about specific aspects of reality with any amount of credibility and end up having to chit chat about basic shared experience. 

It is a common trait of Stage Green to want to invalidate any sort of hierarchy to make it fair for everyone. Someone who is truly Stage Yellow could easily understand that tendency and point out it's shortcomings.

I think this point misses what the Spiral Dynamics hierarchy is supposed to represent. The point isn’t that Yellow is simply “more correct” than Green, Blue, Red, etc. Each stage embodies ways of thinking that are adaptive to particular conditions and problems. Sometimes a Green lens may be the most appropriate one, sometimes Blue, Red, Orange, and so on.

So “I’m Yellow, therefore I understand this better than someone at Green” doesn’t follow the system. Someone whose centre of gravity is Green could have a much better understanding of a particular domain than someone who considers themselves Yellow. Developmental stage is not a substitute for domain knowledge, experience, or the quality of the actual argument.

In fact, if Yellow is supposed to recognise the functional value of the earlier stages, then automatically dismissing a Green perspective because it is Green seems contrary to the very thing Yellow is supposed to understand.

Yellow is not meant to be a label to boost someone's ego and assert dominance, authority, or correctness. So when it is used that way it often comes across as cringe.

[integration journey]

How dare you. I’m stage yellow/ turquoise as fuck. 

[LordFall]

@something_else You make several fair distinctions, especially regarding delivery.

If someone literally argues "I'm Yellow, therefore I win the debate," that’s obviously an empty appeal to authority. But that's not what's happening when people diagnose developmental stages. Pointing out common Stage Green patterns such as egalitarian flattening, conflict-avoidance, or moralistic outrage is a useful diagnostic tool. It’s analyzing the cognitive architecture behind an argument. 

Where your critique falls into the standard relativist trap is here:

45 minutes ago, something_else said:

I think this point misses what the Spiral Dynamics hierarchy is supposed to represent. The point isn’t that Yellow is simply “more correct” than Green, Blue, Red, etc. Each stage embodies ways of thinking that are adaptive to particular conditions and problems. Sometimes a Green lens may be the most appropriate one, sometimes Blue, Red, Orange, and so on.

So “I’m Yellow, therefore I understand this better than someone at Green” doesn’t follow the system. Someone whose centre of gravity is Green could have a much better understanding of a particular domain than someone who considers themselves Yellow. Developmental stage is not a substitute for domain knowledge, experience, or the quality of the actual argument.

Domain expertise (knowing how to build a bridge or perform surgery) is distinct from cognitive development. A Stage Blue engineer might build a flawless bridge. Nobody disputes that. 

But Spiral Dynamics is explicitly a hierarchical model of cognitive capacity and systemic awareness. Clare Graves and Ken Wilber were clear: Tier 2 is not just "another equal lens to pick from the buffet." Tier 2 represents a massive leap in systemic bandwidth because it is the first tier that can consciously perceive, hold, and integrate all previous stages without being trapped by their dogmas. 

Stage Green fundamentally cannot understand Stage Yellow mechanics. It reflexively interprets Yellow's functional hierarchies and cold pragmatic calculations as "heartless, selfish Stage Orange." Meanwhile, Stage Yellow understands Stage Green completely, recognizes where its empathy is valuable, but also clearly sees its fatal blind spots: its allergy to competence hierarchies, its economic illiteracy, and its tendency toward spiritual bypassing.

I rarely see deep multi-perspectival points based on a deep understanding or even quest to understand the systems of reality being posted here. It happens but is rare. Stage orange are pretty obviously shallow in their points but the format for stage green posts is also pretty basic it goes "my ego dislikes X or Y". Rarely do you see people use systems thinking properly to connect various ideas together and produce unique insights as a result. Do you disagree with this? 

[oOo]

@Zenterus You're still rotating in circles, provide clear examples.

What comment has anyone made that leads you to believe that?

If you don't do this, you're weakening the ego integration that is possible for this thread you've started and you'll just feed the very habits that justify the wording I gave in my first post.

That this place is a sycophantic cess-pool more than it genuinely enhances peoples moral character; something which encompasses rather than being encompassed by spiral dynamics when viewed with the right scope.

Since last speaking to me, you've shown that you at least have some basic rhetoric, so enhance your credibility further by citing a clear example without revealing your own prejudice. Trying to strap me to the bed with a whip isn't going to do anything more other than showing that you have some gay fetish towards me; observing from a distance but never intellectually engaging with integrity. 

If not, my point stands and every comment here just bottled soda, snapped open and guzzled for ego-satiation. 

[LordFall]

11 hours ago, oOo said:

Proud Stage Coral.

People that find it cringe, learn from the insecurity. 

But cringe is fine in and of itself.

Cringe is a valuable protective mechanism of insecurity in so much as we can leverage it.

This is primal conscious learning.

If its not made conscious, its just primal unconscious learning; hint: that's when its not being leveraged well. 

It doesn't feel lonely up here in stage Coral, more distant, but a part of growth is learning how to bridge.

It's easy to feel alien, but that's only unhealthy when purpose has become imbalanced.

These are just correlational points on a graph. 

I just hit zilla-mode consciousness a moment ago, my feet can not only touch the bottom of the deepest ocean on the planet, I can feel myself hovering on black holes. 

That said, this place is still a circular cess-pool; its too easy for people to become sychophantic, which is unhealthy for consciousness development.

But there's nothing I can really do other than observe in horror other than complain here and there when I offshoot.

It really just comes down to self-regulation; that's a massive hinge point, and positively counterbalances any purpose misweighting.

What do you think stage coral represents and why do you think you embody it? 

[Human Mint]

The model isn't even for individuals.

You can act and think like a chimp, but if you enter a higher stage society you will move upward by osmosis.

Fun fact, I live in a mostly blue society.

[aurum]

Fair.

But also, people inflating their stage of development does not invalidate the existence of higher stages of development.

I would not let people’s misunderstanding poison a genuinely useful lens.

[oOo]

1 hour ago, LordFall said:

What do you think stage coral represents and why do you think you embody it? 

 

@LordFall I use Coral to name a centre of gravity, sovereignty that has absorbed interdependence.

The most compressed way of explaining my own embodiment to a construct that is incomplete is through falsification. 

1. Beige: staying alive doesn’t determine what makes living worthwhile, though I can be a cu**.
2. Purple: belonging doesn’t get a veto over perception, though I do feel the warm fuzzies still. 
3. Red: someone else’s submission adds nothing to the agency I’m cultivating, though I could kill you.
4. Blue: my principles remain answerable to experience, even when I authored them, but they are nervous system congruent, not an intellectual motto or mere emotional artwork.
5. Orange: I evaluate what winning does to the person becoming capable of it, and the perception of winning in and of itself, has its own levels; distinguishing between a bar fight and needing to enter into a bar fight.
6. Green: I can enter your perspective deeply without making agreement the price of connection. I empathise greatly, though I am measuring my own distance corrective distance with my sense of self, this is a point that has graduations to go. 
7. Yellow: systemic fit informs my choices; its a baseline intellectual value, model creation comes easy to me and I also question how the chooser produces the criteria for “fit", such as the merits of this very discussion, something that you're attempting to do right now.
8. Turquoise: interdependence informs my responsibility; it doesn’t supply a ready-made direction for my life, and I think free-will actually is a core developmental for people in stage Turquoise in going higher.

The distinction I’m proposing is deliberate individuation within that interdependence, so allowing experience to reconstruct me while remaining responsible for the reconstruction and extending that same freedom to others. I do not pretend that this is easy, moreover I come from a very privileged position, despite some of my setbacks, compared to the mass homelessness and deprivation that many people from many different countries experience. An experience of survival that both limits their developmental potential as well as any accurate scope on their ability, which I don't believe spiral dynamics in and of itself would be very useful to them as their sole developmental hierarchy. One of my criticisms of the forum is the lack of expanded awareness the environment reflects of the environment that makes it, our planet, while 'the greater universe' become more sock pocket commentary rather than anything particularly useful to people's or the environments development as a whole.

To be more specific to the theory while not being limited by it: I can be changed without being commandeered. I can commit without making the commitment untouchable. The self doing the choosing remains open to revision too. That sounds more like cosplay on the surface, though its harder than it looks when it comes to the actual practice of interpersonal discussions such as these, as present ego integrations thus far reveal on the subject in and of itself. 

That is my interpretation of Coral, rather than a claim that these capacities belong exclusively to it.

Feel free to pose or ask any further questions, or not, I design and make on the fly, so I'll surely make something of it regardless. 

 

[LordFall]

@oOo You have some interesting thoughts and creative angles in there, but there’s an obvious tension in how you express them. It feels like a clear flash of Stage Red aggressive ego-inflation and edgy power posturing.

Do you recognize that streak in yourself and just lean into it because you find it entertaining and provocative to communicate that way, or do you refute that there's any unintegrated Red driving the bus there?

Also what are you working on in life? What's your life purpose? 

Edited 51 minutes ago by LordFall

[Thought Art]

Oooo definitely a sign of being at the cringe stage. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

13 minutes ago, LordFall said:

@oOo You have some interesting thoughts and creative angles in there, but there’s an obvious tension in how you express them. It feels like a clear flash of Stage Red aggressive ego-inflation and edgy power posturing.

I agree with the expression feeling incongruent.

A true, embodied and congruent recognition of other/connectedness typically does not entail the sort of rhetoric employed. But a single interaction cannot act as a diagnosis - which is why further questions and interaction is required.

The study of language, precision and decompressing how we express ourselves is normally interwoven in general expression with upper stages. Poorly expressed language is of the crushed form where analysis, observation, perspective, judgement, needs & feelings are compressed into a single one liner. Clouding and obscuring meaning - and hamstringing connection. It is the difference between:

13 hours ago, oOo said:

I bet you feel all big and powerful.

 and:

"I notice you make observations expressing doubt. Lets get into that. I want you to understand how I assess this in myself and others. Ask away."

One mode of expression is the compressed thought, observation, perspective, judgement, feeling and retaliation (to make the other person feel what they feel). The other is the properly expressed language to facilitate connection so we are properly understood. Observation. Feeling. Need. Request.

[Ulax]

13 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Where the fuck is @Ulax when we need him 🥲

Glad to hear my presence means so much to you

[oOo]

@LordFall Can you quote specifically what I stated that was aggressive? Let's put it under the microscope. @Natasha Tori Maru There's a clear distinction between cultural interactions and meta-interactions interpersonally; I don't think there's anyone on the forum, less than maybe a few individuals, that are presently capable of lengthy meta-conversations, so I don't go out of my way to facilitate them. 

[Yimpa]

 

[Ulax]

Being Coral has been one of the honours of my life