How Are You Communicating On This Forum??? (Mind Blowing Model) (Intention Of Commu..

[The observer]

@UnconsciousHuman

I think your approach here is Blue/Orange. You seem eager to prove your model is true and universal and you don't seem to be able to get what others are trying to say but rather you're conveniently deflecting and denying every other way of viewing or talking about your model. I think @lmfaomade a good point. It's not just about the model itself, it's also about how you relate to it.

[UnconsciousHuman]

@The observer

My approach is to create a better map of reality and yes Im certain of this model so I want to prove this model is right and those who dismiss it wrong but this isn't the main intention. This is combined intentionality YELLOW + ORANGE I would say more its a 7:3 ratio. Which only further proves the accuracy of the model. 

I should mention, there is no right or wrong intentionality, of course, RED and BLUE intentionality are usually not suitable for high-level communication to happen, you could then call them "wrong" but that's because of how ineffective they are, and in the case, with RED intentionality it is often bannable.

I'm in agreement with you and "lmao" when you say the power of the model is how you relate to it. With that being said though, I believe (based on my own observation of myself) that these intentions are mappable and the advancement levels have a predictability to them.

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[The observer]

5 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

@The observer

My approach is to create a better map of reality and I want to prove this model is right and those who dismiss it wrong. This is combined intentionality YELLOW + ORANGE. Which only further proves the accuracy of the model.

This is circular reasoning (early Orange and below). You're proving your model is true according to your model. You're dismissing all outside insights and putting them all in one category: "wrong". Our insights are not necessarily to prove or disprove your model, they're just observations from multiple subjective points of view. And I'm sure we're not on the same page when we say "approach". You probably mean intention but we mean the way this intention is manifesting in the real world. You can't have an objective view if you keep denying different ways of interpretation. Accuracy is not usually gained by circular reasoning but by open-mindedness and careful observation. I would look into the mechanics of creating models before starting to make conclusions.

14 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

@The observer

I should mention, there is no right or wrong intentionality, of course, RED and BLUE intentionality are usually not suitable for high-level communication to happen, you could then call them "wrong" but that's because of how ineffective they are.

This sounds like a late Green/early Yellow approach which is great in terms of SD.

[UnconsciousHuman]

@The observer 

Notice in yourself how you are trying to prove me wrong, If you chose to do the opposite, and look for the ways that I'm saying is reasonable, you wouldn't be so persistently critical, and instead see the ways this model can be used to explain a lot. 

The point on circular reasoning, true I did use that logic to point out how accurate it is at explaining my own intention but notice how you use that to prove your agenda that I'm closed-minded and not open to reinterpretation. "I'm using circular logic" "Stage ORANGE and below" which is said to imply that I'm deluded. 

Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "when we say approach" and "we differ in understanding intentionality". Who are you referring to by "We" and what do you mean by difference of use of those two words "Approach" & "Intention".

Could you help me out a little and tell me the multiple interpretations I dismissed?

By the very fact that you are pointing out personally how "you think" I responded to the users here, instead of analyzing the model and seeing its implications. It indicates to me ORANGE intentionality. Nothing wrong with that, as mentioned in before posts on this thread.

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[Zanoni]

Must be at stage purple, as I am just searching for my tribe 

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Zanoni GREEN Intentionality maybe?

[The observer]

47 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

@The observer 

Notice in yourself how you are trying to prove me wrong, If you chose to do the opposite, and look for the ways that I'm saying is reasonable, you wouldn't be so persistently critical. 

I wouldn't say you're wrong, just limiting yourself. We've agreed that there's no right or wrong in SD. And sure, you have valid points, no one is denying that. I would say your model is correct but not quite comprehensive, that's all. I think your model could use some optimisations, and people here are offering you that.

47 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

@The observer 

The point on circular reasoning, true I did use that logic but notice how you use that to prove your agenda thatI'm closed-minded and not open to reinterpretation. 

It's not my agenda. These are just my observations which are basically projections in the form of thoughts which then were typed by me as "possibilities" and then got interpreted by you as "agenda" probably because of the attachment you have to your model. Not that the attachment is bad or wrong. Again, just limiting in certain ways.

47 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

@The observer 

Also I'm not sure what you meant by "when we say approach" and "we differ in understanding intentionality". Who are you referring to by "We" and what do you mean by difference of use of those two words.

I mean me and others who you are arguing with. We're not here to argue, prove, or disprove anything. We don't know you in person and we have no stakes in this game. We're just sharing our thoughts. Yes, perhaps you could sometimes find some people who are looking to condescend your views (Orange and below, according to your model) but it's not likely here on this platform, and also since the different perspectives are multiple and agreeing on a core issue which is that there's more than just one simple way to interpret intentions, then that should ring some bells for you that they probably have a valid perspective and not just trying to prove your model wrong.

47 minutes ago, UnconsciousHuman said:

@The observer 

Could you help me out a little and tell me the multiple interpretations I dismissed?

I would say just try reading all the comments again from a non-attached place and see how different things can be. I think others have offered good insights. If you don't think so, then how can I make any difference? You see the paradox? You don't know until you know. But then how can you know? Sounds impossible, right? But not really. If you've never been to Paris, you don't know Paris yet but you know some other places. How do you get to know Paris while staying in New York? You can't, you see. You have to leave New York and come visit Paris. In other words, you have to let go of your perspective temporarily and try other ones.

Edited April 24, 2020 by The observer

[Consept]

@The observer I mean it feels like you're putting a lot of pressure on this. I get your point it's not a perfect model but why would it be? What I took from it is let's look at our intentions behind what we post, if you want to put it into sd it will of course be open for interpretation, but a lot of people don't consider why they're are posting and I think this is a why of looking at it that I've not seen discussed before.

 

[Cykaaaa]

38 minutes ago, cypres said:

I agree. I think Yellow here would view your original post as illustrating a principle and that you were referring to the stages, not defining them. If they wanted to modify or expand on the details, they would not find it necessary to frame it as a faulty assumption on your part.

You're probably right. I'm sorry. 

[The observer]

@Consept 

And I agree. It's good to see this subject being discussed. No one said it should be perfect. We're just stating possibilities for more comprehensiveness. Like for example, someone at stage Orange does not exclusively seek to prove his worldview. He could be looking for practical solutions to some problems he's having without necessarily having to be systematic about them. That's just one thought for expanding the model. Nothing is perfect, yet it does not hurt to try to get closer to perfection. Especially that the OP seems to value accuracy and to be open. It's really good to see him open because then we can offer him our expertise on how to best be open without wasting years of his time (like I did) going about open-mindedness in the wrong direction. Of course, all of our experiences are limited by nature, but what isn't?

Edited April 24, 2020 by The observer

[Consept]

@The observer true well said, openness is key 

[UnconsciousHuman]

@The observer

55 minutes ago, The observer said:

@Consept 

And I agree. It's good to see this subject being discussed. No one said it should be perfect. We're just stating possibilities for more comprehensiveness. Like for example, someone at stage Orange does not exclusively seek to prove his worldview. He could be looking for practical solutions to some problems he's having without necessarily having to be systematic about them. That's just one thought for expanding the model. Nothing is perfect, yet it does not hurt to try to get closer to perfection. Especially that the OP seems to value accuracy and to be open. It's really good to see him open because then we can offer him our expertise on how to best be open without wasting years of his time (like I did) going about open-mindedness in the wrong direction. Of course, all of our experiences are limited by nature, but what isn't?

You dont understand the model. 

This is independent of world views. You can be TURQUOISE on all other facets and come in her with ORANGE intentionality. This is commonly the case here!!!

Please do notice the nuances here and make the distinction between the individuals moral development and the simple 5 ways of going about navigating and interacting with the forum. Spiral dynamics does not just explain moral values it is a model tracking complexity, and Its application is astounding. I dont think many rules of the moral line of development apply to this one, for example the rule of regression backwards, I dont think you are locked in to one modality of intentionality all the time, you can alternate between them.

Another facet I discovered is “Routine Planning” Im not going to talk about this in much detail cuz Im tired of repeating myself at this point, you can look under my thread “Lines Of Spiral Dynamics...” 

Also stop trying to mask an ORANGE intentionality with the typical systematic YELLOW words, terminology and talking points. Its manipulative and you don’t acknowledge within yourself what youre doing. I advice you reread the model.

A good way to see the LEVEL of intentionality is to look at what is implicitly being communicated.

To clarify to you: I will keep developing the model, pointing out flaws and increasing it in accuracy... the model will evolve. If you can provide a useful new insight that could help with that evolution it would be better as opposed to saying what you are saying right now.

 

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[GodDesireOnlyLove]

@The observer when u don't talk like that. U know It's serious shit there lol. 

Agree & on point. You genuinely woke ?

Edited April 24, 2020 by GodDesireOnlyLove

[The observer]

@UnconsciousHuman 

I hope you will like the suggestions I've made below.

.

RED: You are looking for ways to develop power and go about it in an impulsive manner. (Trolling, belittling, hating etc...)

+RED: YOU ARE LOOKING FOR YOUR OWN INTERESTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING OTHER PEOPLE AT ALL (YOU DON'T SHOW RESPECT OR ANY EMOTIONS, YOU DON'T THANK PEOPLE AFTER GETTING WHAT YOU WANTED).

+RED: YOU ARE INTENTIONALITY AIMING AT TRIGGERING OTHERS BY USING SNEAKY MANIPULATIVE LANGUAGE.

BLUE: You are here to conform, belong, create ideology, follow rigid rules, and preserve principles.  

+BLUE: YOU ARE HERE TO SPREAD YOUR WORLDVIEW WHATEVER IT IS.

+BLUE: YOU ARE NOT OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING OUTSIDE YOUR CURRENT PERCEPTION AND UNDERSTANDING.

ORANGE: You are looking to prove everyone else wrong, and show that you are right. (ACCORDING TO LOGIC/RATIONALITY).

+ORANGE: YOU ARE LOOKING FOR PRACTICAL ADVICE.

+ORANGE: YOU ARE SEEKING TO IMPROVE YOUR COMMUNICATION SKILLS.

+ORANGE: YOU ARE USING THE FORUM AS A TOOL FOR MARKETING YOUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL, WEBSITE, OR BUSINESS.

GREEN: You want to contribute to the forum community, connect, bond, and help individuals as well as receive guidance.

+GREEN: YOU ARE HERE TO SPREAD HUMANITARIAN VALUES. (INTERSECTION WITH BLUE).

[UnconsciousHuman]

@The observer You are confusing the Values facet of a person and the realtime intention of communicating with users.

There is a line between the two.

The term "Spiral Dynamics" is probably creating this confusion. Forget everything you know about spiral dynamics and just look at this model as 5 different kneejerk reactions to communicating with others here.

Maybe the word intentionality isn't right. My vocabulary isn't as developed as I would like to be if I knew a better word for describing the concept I would have used it.

I altered the original post of this thread in order to better explain the thing this model tracks.

I added the line: This is separate from why you are on the forum.  That would be an indication of your "Values".Rather this model is looking at the intention behind the things you say.

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[Consept]

Just now, UnconsciousHuman said:

@The observer You are confusing the Values facet of a person and the realtime approach to communicating with users.

 

Maybe the word intentionality isn't right. My vocabulary isn't as developed as I would like to be if I knew a better word for describing the concept I would.

As i understand it what youre saying is, the intention behind why people post a particular post. Is that right?

[UnconsciousHuman]

@Consept That's more or less it, I suppose.

Thanks for your wonderful input whatever your name is, you allowed me to connect the dots even better. GO TEAM

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[The observer]

@UnconsciousHuman 

Okay, I think I get that. But regarding Orange people, you're giving them only one characteristic which is the desire to be right. I don't think that's accurate. I think anyone at tier one regardless of their stage would want to be right, and that desire declines as one moves up to Green until they reach tier two where one stops caring at all about being right or wrong and they become "completely" objective in a sense.

[UnconsciousHuman]

@The observer Again dude, you are confusing values with the model. Forget the spiral, for now, just think of it as intentions of communication. And there are primarley 5 different types, and 4 of them alternate between self and other (YELLOW does not have a personal)

By personal agenda, I'm referring to an agenda that seeks to place self within the environment; finding out what your role is.

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman

[UnconsciousHuman]

@The observer @lmfao @Carl-Richard @Consept

Heres something you might enjoy.

If you know Coldplay you know their new album "Everyday Life" 

On the track "Trouble In Town" skip to 02:21 and listen to the dialogue, you can see that there is a police agent aggressing a person, his values and morals are probably that of BLUE but his intention of communication is RED.

 

Skip to minute 2:21

Edited April 24, 2020 by UnconsciousHuman