Vaush debates an actual Yellow person?!

[Opo]

22 minutes ago, Kshantivadin said:

I come from a European country and the age of consent here is 14

I don't like this. 

At least socially it's 18.

[Girzo]

In Poland, it's 15 for girls and the boy has to be 18, if you are an older guy it's illegal I think.

I might not remember it 100% correctly as it doesn't interest me since I have been 15 yo myself.

[Thought Art]

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

. If everyone became Ultimate Consciousness, without any constructed morality, they would rape, murder and enslave each other for fun, because none of that actually is devilry. The only reason why it is devilry to you is because you are a human, and you have been born in this culture, in this time, with a brain that has encoded with the illusion of goodness and badness.

This has to be the most backwards thing I’ve read in awhile. 
 

try looking into transcendent morality. If you were ultimately conscious you would have the best sex with everyone and the best food with everyone and be one giant unitary family. …. Conscious people do what works… rape and molesting don’t work.
 

Even if the age people have sex is relative to the culture and historic period (which is historically and factually is)…  I am assuming the reason we moved away from that had some logic behind it. People want to be able to control what happens to their body etc…But, what sex IS to a culture is relative and most of the taboos around it are arbitrary taboos and social survival constructions… also very powerful survival drives…

 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Thought Art

[ItsNick]

In the Netherlands it's 16.

I guess it's fine if it's 15-16-year-olds experimenting/exploring with eachother and not with older people.

As long as they do it safely...

[Peter-Andre]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

This is something that really messed with my mind when I first listened to the conversation, because I've gotten so used to capitulating to the Tier 1 perspective when watching all these mainstream political youtubers, that when somebody suddenly presents a Tier 2 perspective out of nowhere, it completely throws me off. Like, my first thoughts were: "Where the hell is he going with this?", "Is he out of his mind?", "Is he trolling?" 

Now, you guys probably didn't have this experience, because I already planted the idea in your mind that that he is Tier 2 , but only after watching the entire Destiny discussion and 30 minutes of the Vaush discussion, it finally clicked: "wait, maybe he is actually Yellow? " It's like something switched in my mind. It's such a different mode of thinking that when you become accustomed to conceding to especially the normative aspects of Tier 1, a Tier 2 meta-theoretical view just looks so pale and feeble in comparison.

This is again without a doubt why Spiral Wizardry is very important when conversing in a Tier 1 environment, because it explicitly tries to make a bridge between these two modes that is more easy to follow and more tailored for the specific person (it's more meta-communicatively empathetic). I'm not saying that he was completely lacking it, but if he had spent more time on it from the start, maybe he could've gotten more people on board (and maybe I wouldn'tve spent so much time trying to gain traction).

@Carl-Richard Wow, that's really interesting because I had a very similar experience. When I first listened to the debate on Vaush's stream (not the entire thing, maybe just the first 15 minutes), I just dismissed him as a typical "enlightened centrist", but once I saw the same conversation mentioned here on this forum wth Mrgirl being described as a yellow person, I decided to watch it again with different expectations. It was eye-opening how differently I perceived him on my second listen. Tier 2 thinking seems so out of place on Vaush's channel.

It was also painfully frustrating how poor a job he did of actually communicating his positions effectively to Vaush. Personally, I think I see where he's coming from, but he's making it really difficult for someone who's not familiar with that style of thinking, especially with that thought experiment at the end. What was he thinking?

And normally, I look at Vaush as a good faith, honest and reasonable guy, but in this video, he came across as a lot more close-minded and needlessly dismissive. It was almost like he became a different person. Pretty surreal experience.

[Opo]

35 minutes ago, Peter-Andre said:

@Carl-Richard especially with that thought experiment at the end. What was he thinking?

If I remember correctly he explains it here. 

35 minutes ago, Peter-Andre said:

And normally, I look at Vaush as a good faith, honest and reasonable guy, but in this video, he came across as a lot more close-minded and needlessly dismissive. It was almost like he became a different person. Pretty surreal experience.

You new to Vawsh? 

[DieFree]

He says he could have convinced slave holders to end slavery without war and Hitler not to commit the holocaust. Seems delusional, self-absorbed with a level of naivety distant from yellow. 

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, DieFree said:

He says he could have convinced slave holders to end slavery without war and Hitler not to commit the holocaust. Seems delusional, self-absorbed with a level of naivety distant from yellow. 

Pretty sure he never said that.

[DieFree]

11 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Pretty sure he never said that.

Pretty sure he very clearly did on the video you yourself posted. 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Peter-Andre said:

It was also painfully frustrating how poor a job he did of actually communicating his positions effectively to Vaush. Personally, I think I see where he's coming from, but he's making it really difficult for someone who's not familiar with that style of thinking, especially with that thought experiment at the end. What was he thinking?

He mentioned something very interesting in his talk with Destiny that might be relevant to this. He took some kind of in-depth, 400 questions personality test while he he was in therapy, and he said he scored very high on "naivety", i.e. he generally thinks that other people have his best interests in mind. This was a general theme in both discussions (more explicitly with Destiny) which can explain his willingness to say exactly what he feels without being too apologetic and of course to use the most provocative hypotheticals and sarcastic jokes, because surely, nobody will take what he says and use it against him ?

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, DieFree said:

Pretty sure he very clearly did on the video you yourself posted. 

When I said "pretty sure he never said that", I meant to say that you took it out of context. Go to 12:23-14:11. He said those words only because he naively conceded to Vaush's framing, and he explicitly pointed this out ("I only said that because you made me say it").  He doesn't literally mean that he could personally travel back in time and convince ideologues to not be ideological. His point was that those wars weren't successful and that mutual dehumanization was a part of it. So Vaush made an uncharitable interpretation, he went along with it and so did you 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Opo said:

If I remember correctly he explains it here. 

You new to Vawsh? 

Does anybody know if Vaush responded to this video?

[Roy]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Does anybody know if Vaush responded to this video?

Probably not. Most grifters like him are generally cowards and don't have the honesty to revisit things if they feel they've been framed as the "winner" optically. I call Vaush a grifter while thinking he's at the absolute limits of that term. I don't think he isn't genuinely interested in progressivism or has bad intentions, but he has deeply settled into playing and exploiting a role, and has shown an immaturity that makes me unconvinced he will break out of being so beholden to his community anytime soon.

I've watched a handful of mrgirl content after you linked this. He is absolutely a master comedian, sadly he might be slightly ahead of his time. It feels like we are just getting over the crest of left wing insanity and those forces might make him a casualty of that before they taper off. We'll see though.

[Ulax]

@Carl-Richard I think that's a great find!

I haven't watched the video yet. However, I'm curious to see how this video allows me to develop my understanding of stage yellow v stage green. Sometimes, in some ways, I struggle to understand what stage yellow materialises as in actual discourse. I still am unsure what 'post-intuitive' means in the context of 'post-intuitive' being a stage yellow trait.

Thank you for presenting me with the opportunity to learn more about this.

@Leo Gura your words here, "It's going to boil down to a difference in emphasis. Vaush's emphasis is on practical political action and progressive victory. This guy's emphasis is not that, so Vaush will struggle to see the value in it.

The problem is that higher perspectives don't seem valuable or practical. But what isn't realized is that value and pragmatism becomes its own dead-end. Lack of value isn't a bug, it's a feature as you evolve to higher perspectives on life. But don't expect those who are mired in survival concerns to understand that.", remind me of the critical legal theorists, particularly Duncan Kennedy. They approach the project of theorising law through the lens of pragmatism, postmodernism, Marxism, and legal realism. I bring them up because although their postmodernist and Marxist influences lend themselves to appealing to universal notions of truth and knowledge. I find that they decide to argue through internal criticism. To my mind, that entails that they argue using the values that are deemed important today in judicial/ extra-judicial/ academic discourse. It strikes me as stage yellow stepping down to stage green so as to bring about the change generally desired by critical legal theorists.

General comment

I'm unsure whether to class postmodernism as either stage green, or yellow. I would like to hear people's perspectives regarding whether they think postmodernism is stage green/ yellow, or perhaps, even Turquoise. Thanks in advance.

[Carl-Richard]

59 minutes ago, Roy said:

Probably not. Most grifters like him are generally cowards and don't have the honesty to revisit things if they feel they've been framed as the "winner" optically. I call Vaush a grifter while thinking he's at the absolute limits of that term. I don't think he isn't genuinely interested in progressivism or has bad intentions, but he has deeply settled into playing and exploiting a role, and has shown an immaturity that makes me unconvinced he will break out of being so beholden to his community anytime soon.

Yeah, I've gotten more of this sense lately as I've reviewed my stances on a couple of things (granted, the grifter label is a bit harsh). I found this particularly evident when watching his reaction to the Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson cafe talk of all things.

This is not to say that I've done a complete 180 on either of these people (not at all), but after reviewing particularly JP's psychological stuff, I find that most of his points in that domain (in general and in that particular conversation) go way above Vaush's head (and Shapiro for that matter, poor guy), to the point where the entire video devolves into him repeating the same point of "he is making zero sense", "cognitive decline arc", "he is not saying anything of value right now", which is just childish levels of engagement, zero charitability, no self-reflection or willingness to understand. I was legitimately disgusted by that video.

To clarify, I'm not siding with either Shapiro or JP on the ridiculous political takes about gender theory etc. What I'm saying is that the arguments that mainly JP brings up with regards to psychology (Shapiro is genuinely not worth mentioning here; he said that "CBT is the only legitimate therapy tradition" ) are deeply meaningful insights that are nested in the type of meta-theoretical understanding that is applauded around here. It's just a shame that he applies them in this way to fuel his politics.

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@Carl-Richard I think that's a great find!

I haven't watched the video yet. However, I'm curious to see how this video allows me to develop my understanding of stage yellow v stage green. Sometimes, in some ways, I struggle to understand what stage yellow materialises as in actual discourse. I still am unsure what 'post-intuitive' means in the context of 'post-intuitive' being a stage yellow trait.

Thank you for presenting me with the opportunity to learn more about this.

No problem . I'll just say that I wouldn't use this as an ideal example of Yellow (for reasons previously stated), but it's still a rare thing to see in these types of conversations.

 

18 minutes ago, Ulax said:

I'm unsure whether to class postmodernism as either stage green, or yellow. I would like to hear people's perspectives regarding whether they think postmodernism is stage green/ yellow, or perhaps, even Turquoise. Thanks in advance.

Postmodernism is typical Green. It's highly relativistic but lacks a proper meta-theoretical lens of hierarchy or progress, which is re-discovered in the type of evolutionary lens presented by people like Don Beck & Chris Cowan and Ken Wilber (and precursors like Clare Graves and Robert Kegan respectively) and various ego developmental and Neo-Piagetian offshoots (e.g. Cook-Greuter and MHC).

[Roy]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

To clarify, I'm not siding with either Shapiro or JP

Eh you don't need to worry about "siding" with any of them just to talk about them. You can have just one foot in their sandbox, so to speak. The problem is online dynamics make us so uncharitable and everyone is so paranoid about how they are viewed for their positions, it makes us behave in oddly dehumanizing ways. The only way to fix this is regulating the shit out of social media companies, but that's a conversation for another day.

I actually think Ben Shapiro is a good person and don't mind listening to an interview of him once in a blue moon, and I'm left leaning/voting on nearly every political issue or topic. He might be a bit too rigid, but I don't think that's a crime that invalidates someone's genuine intentions. Even if the methods are a little dated or seem in opposition to the flavor of the time.

Same with Jordan Peterson. People narrowly focus on the politics and cultural games too much and ignore the real world impacts. The guy has probably saved tens of thousands of people from suicide and other kinds of harm. Compared to 99% of people (including Leo), he's practically Gandhi.

Maybe it's just me, but I find people pretty easy to read. Even if you don't agree on certain stances, you can sense the direction their intentions are headed. This will be broad > but I think when you are headed in the direction of "Goodness" it's important to make an effort to carry everyone who is also interested in that along, even if their perspectives don't match yours or have inefficiencies.

You have to be very careful about what and who you "leave behind", because they will usually come back to bite you in the ass one last time.

[Ulax]

@Carl-Richard

34 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Postmodernism is typical Green. It's highly relativistic but lacks a proper meta-theoretical lens of hierarchy or progress, which is re-discovered in the type of evolutionary lens presented by people like Don Beck & Chris Cowan and Ken Wilber (and precursors like Clare Graves and Robert Kegan respectively) and various ego developmental and Neo-Piagetian offshoots (e.g. Cook-Greuter and MHC).

I see. I find that to be a thought-inspiring perspective for me personally.

I think I sense the beginnings of a natural contemplation process beginning for me regarding these words of yours, "It's highly relativistic but lacks a proper meta-theoretical lens of hierarchy or progress, which is re-discovered in the type of evolutionary lens presented by people like Don Beck". Part/ part(s) of me also quite quickly thought about my plans for graduate school in light of your words. I look forward to reading further posts of yours.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Ulax
I didn't end up editing anything

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Roy said:

Eh you don't need to worry about "siding" with any of them just to talk about them. You can have just one foot in their sandbox, so to speak. The problem is online dynamics make us so uncharitable and everyone is so paranoid about how they are viewed for their positions, it makes us behave in oddly dehumanizing ways. The only way to fix this is regulating the shit out of social media companies, but that's a conversation for another day.

Hehe I guess all this controversy surrounding Mr.Girl and his unfiltered honesty has made me too careful ?

[Opo]

4 hours ago, Roy said:

I actually think Ben Shapiro is a good person

Can you show me the good part of him?

I learned pretty early on that he takes money from oil billionaires and uses arguments that only suit them. So I just dismissed him as a grifter and more or less ignored him from then on.