Is it possible for a Yellow person to be a conservative?

[Haribo]

i maintain what i said, you did not address my point.

SD focuses on cognitive and mainly moral development. It seems to me that If you don’t embody systems thinking, you are not tier 2, regardless of your life experiences.

Now, how can you be loyal to the meta-stability of a complex system and a nation-state at the same time?

[Danioover9000]

@Haribo

4 hours ago, Haribo said:

i maintain what i said, you did not address my point.

SD focuses on cognitive and mainly moral development. It seems to me that If you don’t embody systems thinking, you are not tier 2, regardless of your life experiences.

Now, how can you be loyal to the meta-stability of a complex system and a nation-state at the same time?

   That's called balance, or in other words the Yin-Yang symbol, the swirling balck and white but each one has a dot of it's opposite side. Balanced yet asymmetrical. That's why I can be loyal to both a meta system and a nation state, because I'm inside the nation state and grew up a bit inside my nation, yet during my upbringing I travelled to several countries that gave me complex layers of reality, both geographically and the exposure to otherness of people, which allowed me to intuit a meta system at play. And the balance is always shifting around, just like the Yin-Yang symbol has the tear dot shapes flowing together in a circle, one revolution the Yin symbol is on the top position, but another revolution the Yang is top, and each moment each positioning is slightly different and actively shifting, so if circumstances are right and my survival is threatened it's nation state over meta system, but if I'm very secure, it's meta system over nation state. The contradictions are a feature and not a bug in the system.

   I was also using Ken Wilbur's integral theory with spiral dynamics for the nuance.

   I repeat, some people are just capped at various development factors. I'm conservative, yet my worldly experiences has made me more developed than typical conservatives out there and in some cases liberal or progressive in certain policies. Are you just gonna throw the baby with the bath water, or try to be more nuanced and factor in the exceptions? Can you hold, in your mind, a saintly sinner?

   Also my political views and policies aren't conservative only as I have many different takes.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Danioover9000

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

@Haribo Though I'm a globalist/have anti-nationalistic tendencies, on a surface level there is nothing wrong with caring about your immediate environment and with feeling a sense of duty and loyalty for your country/state/city/local community etc. That would be a misunderstanding of spiral dynamics. Tier 2 doesn't invalidate all the aspects/values of tier 1. It depends on how these value are manifested. If you'd do anything your leader tells you without question that'd be a different manifestation from seeing that you can't help people in other countries unless you yourself live in a stable environment in which you don't have to care about basic survival. Judging a vague value which holds many possible interpretations as tier 1 is ironically tier 1 behavior.

[Danioover9000]

@DefinitelyNotARobot

3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

@Haribo Though I'm a globalist/have anti-nationalistic tendencies, on a surface level there is nothing wrong with caring about your immediate environment and with feeling a sense of duty and loyalty for your country/state/city/local community etc. That would be a misunderstanding of spiral dynamics. Tier 2 doesn't invalidate all the aspects/values of tier 1. It depends on how these value are manifested. If you'd do anything your leader tells you without question that'd be a different manifestation from seeing that you can't help people in other countries unless you yourself live in a stable environment in which you don't have to care about basic survival. Judging a vague value which holds many possible interpretations as tier 1 is ironically tier 1 behavior.

   This is true.

[Ulax]

Perhaps. But not as an end in itself, but they may support conservatism as a means to an end.

A yellow thinker may want long-term left wing change. And, although a certain left wing candidate would implement preferable short term changes, it may be that long-term they actually do harm than good to the leftist agenda. For example, if Corbyn had got into office in Britain, it may have been that there would have been a big backlash after his term, with conservatism taking more of a long-term strangle hold than had he not been there.

I don't think conservatism can be supported as an end in itself by a yellow person because of free will. Conservatism is generally based on ideas that the individual is a relatively free agent within society and is the maker of their own wins/ losses. However, stage yellow embraces systems thinking which is deterministic as it would see society as working as a set of systems. Therefore, stage yellow thinkers would refute the idea of the relatively free agent within a society.

[BlueOak]

On 7/15/2022 at 9:52 PM, Haribo said:

i maintain what i said, you did not address my point.

SD focuses on cognitive and mainly moral development. It seems to me that If you don’t embody systems thinking, you are not tier 2, regardless of your life experiences.

Now, how can you be loyal to the meta-stability of a complex system and a nation-state at the same time?

@Haribo

Because people are not limited to one aspect of their psyche, nor should they be easily placed into convenient labels when talking about their entire personality. We should not dismiss any aspect of life as being not useful, especially when applied across millions or as a way of interacting with such a collective. In truth people and society have multiple aspects to their personality that are in different stages of development, beyond that they choose to access different ways of thinking depending on the situation, or who/what they are interacting with. You are often dealing with patterns of behavior too as much as a conscious choice, in the collective of that country, group, or individual.

I often kick up into green for example when I am dealing with a lot of blue and sometimes orange pushback. This is natural and sometimes hits a wall lacking any empathy whatsoever, so whatever identity or collective identity I am using in that discussion gets flattened  Sometimes it successfully points people to look at more than just money, or their obligations to family and community. If I were to take the time to understand their perspective in more depth, perhaps I would be able to reach some sort of understanding between viewpoints without this generic green approach. Even if it were, possible, who has time to learn every perspective on every issue before they reach a conversation or interaction with that perspective?

It's much the same on the macro: Nation states are a vehicle we use to organize and govern populations without having to understand every perspective intricately in them at once, we make laws or rules that frame how they live and decide a status quo. Nations are built of things like complex cultural, racial, resource and geographical concerns, that we have to sum up into actionable law or collective identity. Is this outdated, no because we are using it. Is it more helpful to the planet than a globally interconnected super collective, in some ways yes, and some way no.

The larger the area governed, generally the more inefficient policies decided at a macro level are, because they either have to make assumptions or comprise so much of local concerns that it becomes cumbersome. Of course, larger countries often get around this by delegating certain laws to smaller areas, which brings its own tensions and concerns where those areas interconnect. If you wanted to, you could say we govern somewhat globally now, but those own individual areas have their own perspectives and concerns which cause friction or division. 

Trouble is by overemphasizing national identity over global identity we get war for example, an increase in selfishness, and more of a zero-sum game. You get great imbalances too.

Edited July 17, 2022 by BlueOak

[Brittany]

Maybe I am wrong but I think it's possible to be even Stage Turquoise and conservative.

The higher the stages .... the more you see the grey in Liberal vs. Conservative. 

It's not this Black and White thing. Good vs. Evil thing.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Brittany

[Lews Therin]

On 16/07/2022 at 7:04 PM, Ulax said:

Perhaps. But not as an end in itself, but they may support conservatism as a means to an end.

A yellow thinker may want long-term left wing change. And, although a certain left wing candidate would implement preferable short term changes, it may be that long-term they actually do harm than good to the leftist agenda. For example, if Corbyn had got into office in Britain, it may have been that there would have been a big backlash after his term, with conservatism taking more of a long-term strangle hold than had he not been there.

I don't think conservatism can be supported as an end in itself by a yellow person because of free will. Conservatism is generally based on ideas that the individual is a relatively free agent within society and is the maker of their own wins/ losses. However, stage yellow embraces systems thinking which is deterministic as it would see society as working as a set of systems. Therefore, stage yellow thinkers would refute the idea of the relatively free agent within a society.

This.

Styling yourself as a "conservative" means having an ego about it, identifying yourself with the idea of conservating something.

Being against some stuff that most progressives say doesn't make you a conservative, only your own attachment to a label can do that.

[Danioover9000]

@Lews Therin

11 hours ago, Lews Therin said:

This.

Styling yourself as a "conservative" means having an ego about it, identifying yourself with the idea of conservating something.

Being against some stuff that most progressives say doesn't make you a conservative, only your own attachment to a label can do that.

   Exactly, this is what I've been saying. Even though I'm identified as conservative and misogynistic, doesn't mean that I'm lower in over al development of the stages, cognitive and moral development, personality, life experiences and different states of consciousness. I can be at the level of systems thinking, and think in complex modals, while in other areas I could be a little bit lower.

   Also, we still suffer from the problems with language and impartial context and impartial information. We can't type our entire life story in a post, so we have to make compromises and give shorter texts. So, how can we tell if a user is more developed than another? Through texting?

[Danioover9000]

@Brittany

On 7/18/2022 at 1:18 AM, Brittany said:

Maybe I am wrong but I think it's possible to be even Stage Turquoise and conservative.

The higher the stages .... the more you see the grey in Liberal vs. Conservative. 

It's not this Black and White thing. Good vs. Evil thing.

   Exactly, it's not a black and white issue, it's an issue of can anyone see, understand and empathize with the grey areas in between.

[Danioover9000]

@BlueOak

On 7/17/2022 at 11:27 AM, BlueOak said:

@Haribo

Because people are not limited to one aspect of their psyche, nor should they be easily placed into convenient labels when talking about their entire personality. We should not dismiss any aspect of life as being not useful, especially when applied across millions or as a way of interacting with such a collective. In truth people and society have multiple aspects to their personality that are in different stages of development, beyond that they choose to access different ways of thinking depending on the situation, or who/what they are interacting with. You are often dealing with patterns of behavior too as much as a conscious choice, in the collective of that country, group, or individual.

I often kick up into green for example when I am dealing with a lot of blue and sometimes orange pushback. This is natural and sometimes hits a wall lacking any empathy whatsoever, so whatever identity or collective identity I am using in that discussion gets flattened  Sometimes it successfully points people to look at more than just money, or their obligations to family and community. If I were to take the time to understand their perspective in more depth, perhaps I would be able to reach some sort of understanding between viewpoints without this generic green approach. Even if it were, possible, who has time to learn every perspective on every issue before they reach a conversation or interaction with that perspective?

It's much the same on the macro: Nation states are a vehicle we use to organize and govern populations without having to understand every perspective intricately in them at once, we make laws or rules that frame how they live and decide a status quo. Nations are built of things like complex cultural, racial, resource and geographical concerns, that we have to sum up into actionable law or collective identity. Is this outdated, no because we are using it. Is it more helpful to the planet than a globally interconnected super collective, in some ways yes, and some way no.

The larger the area governed, generally the more inefficient policies decided at a macro level are, because they either have to make assumptions or comprise so much of local concerns that it becomes cumbersome. Of course, larger countries often get around this by delegating certain laws to smaller areas, which brings its own tensions and concerns where those areas interconnect. If you wanted to, you could say we govern somewhat globally now, but those own individual areas have their own perspectives and concerns which cause friction or division. 

Trouble is by overemphasizing national identity over global identity we get war for example, an increase in selfishness, and more of a zero-sum game. You get great imbalances too.

   Great post with some good points.

   On just the war bit, yes one of the factors is when the collectives of both countries/nations are strongly attached to their national identity, that when there's any conflict between those nations it can trigger some type of war. There's a greater factor in war though, that is far more common in history, which isto gain additional resources in terrain, assimilation of a weaker culture/tribe, and the biggest driver of war: increase in sex.