Socially Stupid People

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

I would agree that war at a macro level is stupid. Diplomacy would be more intelligent as that intentionally looks for a win-win.

If his invasion is successful, then it's at least less stupid. It doesn't look like that though.

[ValiantSalvatore]

@LastThursday I've been going out more and more and generally still and really have issues with people who are into academia and socializing, it's like some people make it a loose-loose scenaroy in case you are not part of their social groups behaviour. As many others are just open-minded and cause more win-win scenarios. 

I took a course online and I speed ran it I think I did not even take notes, as I felt sort of scammed, yet I noticed it now more how important it is and I intuited it's very important to know that stuff as it's adressed towards people who want to lead at the cutting-edge and who are interested in integral theory and all the ken wilber stuff.

What I notice when I look at the map of the 5 laws of stupidity and consider the course is. That it's never mentioned it's a polarity and you could make a polarity map almost out of the map of the video. As everyone goes through all of these quadrants it's important to notice it's a polarity basically smth. like this. I do feel also this map is very applicable to the map above, it looks complex and! It is really not complex. https://sixseedpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Blog_PolarityMaps5_Seriously-Lightly-702x526.png

These are sort of polarity maps. Thanks for sharing the video! I never would have come up with the idea to share this idea and information. 
https://universityinnovation.org/wiki/Resource:Polarity_Mapping

My point basically is when the 5 laws of stupidity are applied there is a polarity you will inevitabely glide through all quadrants and find yourself at one more, using a polarity map would show that it's important to focus on an upward movement of the polarity. As this loop or infinity symbol in the picture I posted above shows, if it would be placed lower there negative dynamic would be more in place. As the polarity would move more backwards and forwards inside the negatively listed quadrants of the map.

This can be contrasted with everything. Social vs unsocial. Justice vs. unjustice, feminine vs masculine, globalization vs nationalism, inside vs outside, individual vs. collective, conservative vs progressive. Each has upsides and downsides the important part is moving the dynamic more upwards towards the positive. 

As the map in the video is not fully laid out to be a polarity map it's biased towards one quadrant. All I want to say is it's a dynamic and that it is important to see that this happens, a polarity map displays this not sort of so absolutist quadrant view and is still free of interpretations mainly. 

To give a personal example I am going out more and more and I notice I focus more on the social negative sides of the feminine that I do not like instead of the positive and mainly focus on the positive masculine polarity/dynamic. Assertivness, dominance, providing, protection, leading, confidence, more active Instead of the more negative ones. For e.g aggression, domination, unstable, abuse of power, control, hyper competitivness, physical violence etc. I barely notice the positive feminine support, caring, intuitive, creative, kindness, nuturing etc. and notice more the negatives witholding, manipulation, victimhood, over sentimental and over sensetive, neediness. 

I do notice as everyone has these qualities that it's not so easy to move into the positive polarity consistently where I feel you'd mostly feel the positive qualities which would automatically create a win-win. My masculine side also appreciate this a lot when I receive positive feminine care etc. 

Emboyding as well as transiently experiencing any of these emotions more often would lead to more intelligent people regardless of sex, color and creed etc. That would be my take on the video. Got me thinking because I am going out more... thanks for sharing! Hope this is informative and useful!

Edited February 26, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Human Mint]

6 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Most of the time we probably behave like bandits, working in our own self interests, but not caring or understanding how it affects others.

Possibly

[LastThursday]

10 hours ago, ValiantSalvatore said:

polarity map

Yeah a lot of behavioural models are basically combinatorial in nature. You have several orthogonal axes where each axis represents either some sort of yes/no or polarity, possibly with a sliding scale. When combined together you get a space of possibility (or map). You can then be placed somewhere in the space and from that glean something new about yourself or track some sort of trajectory over time or compare yourself to others. The MBTI model is exactly that. The Stupidy model in the video is another simpler example.

Spiral Dynamics is not combinatorial, it is effectively a one-dimensional model, but there is still a sense of location and being able to move around in it. I would say each stage in SD is a kind of polarity in itself.

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by LastThursday

[ValiantSalvatore]

4 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Yeah a lot of behavioural models are basically combinatorial in nature. You have several orthogonal axes where each axis represents either some sort of yes/no or polarity, possibly with a sliding scale. When combined together you get a space of possibility (or map).

@LastThursday That is cool to know first time I saw one was when I took the course. 

4 hours ago, LastThursday said:

You can then be placed somewhere in the space and from that glean something new about yourself or track some sort of trajectory over time or compare yourself to others. The MBTI model is exactly that. The Stupidy model in the video is another simpler example.

Spiral Dynamics is not combinatorial, it is effectively a one-dimensional model, but there is still a sense of location and being able to move around in it. I would say each stage in SD is a kind of polarity in itself.

I am sometimes unsure I'd be way more critical of the content of SD itself having contemplated it for so long now, especially when reading and applying the sections from the book about life conditions, and it's not easy to establish those. 

I generally think with every model it's like this, yet if it's not polarity mapped, sometimes I noticed my thinking get's stuck on being focused on seeing the overall end-result and not the entire dynamic of the field, that includes obsession of the process of getting to the result, instead of seeing the full dynamic and how it runs and being reminded etc. 

I generally feel you can take every map and make it a polarity map and add orthogonal poles just riffing off language here to the map and it's quadrant. 

What many miss about SD you never are at one stage so the "dynamic" or polarity according to the book it basically runs like this if you are at one stage let's say I am orange then I use 33% one stage up and one stage down, as my main and these are integral terms... structure stage development. So it's fully achieved that I am orange and I now can use 100% of the capacity of orange, yet I fundamentally also will use 33% of the next higher and 33% of the next lower stage. I have access to 100% of the lower stages, yet my main "structure stage development" is bouncing between 3 stages using 33% of it's perspective most of the time. So you can gleam a good portion of the next stage and are using it at the sametime. Many don't notice this so when I am fully Green I use also parts of Yellow, yet I don't have the full capacity of Yellow active in me. SD is also value focused, integral theory goes a bit deeper. 

What I am saying is the model is one-dimensional most likely, yet the polarity is applied to the "whole field" of SD stages more, as when living conditions hit the fan. The dynamic spirals down till it hits a center of gravity. Then the polarity beginns again. Then there is the translation of the stage also basically moving towards the positive orthogonal pole more. Basically more direct experience of that stage polarity etc. 
---
I know it's a very unpopular opinion, yet I think the MBTi is heavily limited as it's so focused on the cognitive capacity of ones type and you can only be one type. It's everytime this stack of cogntive stacks of this compares to the stacks of that. It's like they forget that people have a body and only have a brain and are hunting for types instead of just seeing compatability. I noticed this when dating too... as a model I prefer the Ennea. As it deals with human desires and vices also. As well as includes congition. As well as has neuroscience as well as MBTI has neuroscience.

Dunno hope I did not derail the thread I definitely flucatate between all 4 of these, most likely bandit the least, as I am heavily focused on win-win situations from reading PD books. I definitely also would feel and say most people are more like bandits. 

[LastThursday]

On 27/02/2022 at 4:10 PM, ValiantSalvatore said:

I know it's a very unpopular opinion, yet I think the MBTi is heavily limited

I agree and all models are limited, I suppose that's what makes them models. You can rise to any level of sophistication with them, but reality will always outsmart any models. What you see a lot is attachment to particular models as explaining everything - everyone has their pet theories.

SD could be made more sophisticated by getting rid of the stages altogether and having something like traits. So just like weaving a Persian rug, a new coloured thread would be woven in and becames part of the ongoing pattern. Each thread is a new trait, for example: I use force to get what I want; and then: I use negotiation to get what I want; and then: I think about whether I want something or not; and so on. If you think about each SD stage as a cluster of traits each different from other stages, then they are kind of polarities - but of course each new trait runs up through all the subsequent stages. You can then state that particular traits come online at particular moments in development. This would make SD multi-dimensional.

I think what's nice about very simple models, is that they're easy to understand in one go and it's easy to see where you fall in them. And it's probably easier to see how you would move around the "space" of a model and improve yourself. Looking at the Stupidity model, it's obvious that we want to move towards the Intelligence quadrant and spend more time there. In that sense it's a good and useful model.

[ValiantSalvatore]

@LastThursday I dunno if you read the book they have life conditions that can be fostered through the description qualities/traits of all of these stages. Which is sort of the main difference that can be found and something that is still mindboogeling to me how I can create that in my own life etc. I bought more books on SD, I read the spiral dynamics in action book also. 

Sort of the tapestry of traits being woven out of characteristics and qualities within each SD is what SD makes a cluster of traits for me. 

https://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en/turquoise/

I am unsure anymore if the book etc. all SD resources talk about traits, I tend to forget at one point. 

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

but of course each new trait runs up through all the subsequent stages

This is by far the most important nuance and what many people forget about SD, all these qualities are still active and can be used etc. 
For me for it's just extremely difficult even after having done courses and the recommended practices to get to the next stages to explain the development without a map. 

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

I think what's nice about very simple models, is that they're easy to understand in one go and it's easy to see where you fall in them. And it's probably easier to see how you would move around the "space" of a model and improve yourself. Looking at the Stupidity model, it's obvious that we want to move towards the Intelligence quadrant and spend more time there. In that sense it's a good and useful model.

That is true. I sometimes dislike it as they can be just seen as "feel good" models instead of taking even simplicity serious and as well as having just fun with the model and not taking it serious. I'll definitely will be conscious of this info when going out lmao.

Edited March 1, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[tsuki]

Very interesting talk.

I have a problem with one of the rules though. If someone consistently caused harm to themselves and to others, how would s/he be otherwise successful in life? Wouldn't there be a vacuum in the space where they act stupidly? Like socially stupid people would be lonely, or financially stupid people would be poor, etc?

I get that we're multidimensional and that a stupid aspect of our life does not dictate overall quality of it, but to say that there are no signs of stupidity is an overstatement.

It also seems to fly in the face of the idea that we learn because we suffer. Isn't it painful to be unsuccessful in an area that we have needs in? Maybe, stupidity comes from indifference to some aspect of ourself? Or maybe it is a form of lack of development that results in limited needs in some area?

[LastThursday]

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

Like socially stupid people would be lonely, or financially stupid people would be poor, etc?

I'm sure this happens often. Or at other times, the socially stupid are more or less tolerated. I've seen similar situations in the software industry (although not in a social sense) where a bad programmer is a detriment to both themselves (because they become stressed) and the company overall, and yet everyone else will cover up for their inadequacies. The socially stupid are allowed to carry on being socially stupid.

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

It also seems to fly in the face of the idea that we learn because we suffer. Isn't it painful to be unsuccessful in an area that we have needs in? Maybe, stupidity comes from indifference to some aspect of ourself? Or maybe it is a form of lack of development that results in limited needs in some area?

The suffering angle is an interesting one. The overall implication of the video is that the socially stupid drag down everyone else, so this is a form of collective suffering. Actually, the video is more collectivist than individualistic in tone.

I don't know, I'm not so sure myself. There are a million ways to suffer, even for the socially intelligent. I guess the socially intelligent are the ones are more likely to learn from their suffering or they realise more quickly that they are the cause of suffering: but they still suffer in other ways.

I'm sure that social stupity comes from all the factors you mentioned. Maybe even the awareness is there but socially stupid habits are so ingrained that they're impossible to stop for the person: they don't learn from their suffering.