SD: Self-identity

The "other" ERE. Societal aspects of the ERE philosophy. Emergent change-making, scale-effects,...
boomly
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:53 am

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by boomly »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Thu Sep 30, 2021 10:58 am
Blue thinkers would like to be Green, so they mimic Green but ultimately cannot remove their clannishness/ ego from the equation,
Yes, most "Greens" are actually Green Blues - Blues that have taken on Green values (I'm not sure a true Green would approve of cancel culture). The "bad Greens" in SD discussions always seem to have a straw mannish quality.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13584
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

Alifelongme wrote:
Thu Sep 30, 2021 9:17 pm
@J+G and @Jacob
So could it be structured not so much as a single spiral but rather like a DNA Double Helix?
Yes, like the strands are threading the needle hole of each other to progress w/o spending much time in the needle hole itself. Anyway, that's what popped into my head---at least as far as the extremes of "warm" and "cold" go when it comes to personal progress. There's probably a reason why they didn't make it that way---because humans follow more of a bell curve when it comes to individual/collective---but the double strand could be how it's perceived by the different camps.

daylen
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by daylen »

When introducing states and lines into the picture, the warm-cool hinge can be loosened a bit so that type is more independent of the pivoting. There are like a bajillion different ways in which a ( spiral, type, state, line ) framework can be constructed. Depending on where you start, the constraints of one may determine how the others present themselves. With various different starting constraints leading to vastly different overall perceptions and flows in scale-time. It will probably be quite hard to tell how the overall space of possible frameworks tends to polarize and harmonize until more construction attempts are made. In the meantime, I sense that people interested in the space will likely diverge a bit. Should be interesting as the chaotic weaving of threads may lead to a novel patchwork from a dragonfly's view.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 878
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by Jin+Guice »

I agree with @7w5 that I think the push and pull between increasingly synthesized group-centered and self-centered focus to be the driver of progress in the model, but I will also not that her and I have the exact same I/E temperament.

User avatar
Jean
Posts: 1456
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:49 am
Location: Switzterland

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by Jean »

To which color is this model most likely to at first glance appear like some elaborate form of circular jerking?

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13584
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

Jean wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:17 am
To which color is this model most likely to at first glance appear like some elaborate form of circular jerking?
Interesting question. Most likely is Red who will see SD as too much inactionable theory. The second most likely is Orange who will see SD as overcomplicating something that Orange insists is much simpler.

GandK
Posts: 2034
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by GandK »

Interesting post.

I've found myself objecting to all of these in the last year or so for reasons that likely have to do with life phase change and a growing disgust with politics/the uses to which these labels are being put, primarily (outside this forum's intellectual space) to caricature and dehumanize persons whom one chooses not to see as a whole.

Ergo, I would answer a bit defensively, when asked how I identify: "I am Kathryn. And the various attributes of Kathryn are person, woman, spouse, mother, age 47, blue eyes, 5'5", practicing Christian, functional Libertarian, ideological retiree, Texas voter, etc. To say that I 'am' any one of those things is so diminishing that it borders on untruthful... any one of those attributes is 5% or less of my paper identity, even less of my humanity. And apart from influencing my decision structure any one characteristic barely touches me." Something along those lines.

No clue what color that is.

slsdly
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:04 am

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by slsdly »

I'll be honest and say I'm not sure if I completely follow all of these discussions.

I've self-identified with many things over the years, and slowly I feel like they've been chipped away. I hold affection for my home province, but alas, I can no longer identify with the stereotypes others push upon me, and one sided beliefs I held growing up. I once always wore my engineering "iron ring", but now it rests on my home office's bulletin board; I sometimes look at it with a bit of sadness, as I stopped wearing it when I concluded my profession is just another cog in the great machine predominantly serving my so called "betters." I'm not religious but less anti-religion than I was. I now dislike all of my political party choices to varying degrees. I once saw myself as a nerd, but then I got into exercise :lol:.

City life has exposed me to the "woke" crowd, for lack of a better label. They would certainly profess to be citizens of the world, in the vein of Orange. But I see nothing but hypocrites who at best, wish the world was a better place than it is, and at worst, are simply chameleons echoing the necessary words to fit in. They hold a lot of blind spots about how their own actions contradict what they profess to reverently believe. On the other hand, some do actually try in some ways to make good on it, despite their failings.

What color would one apply, if you question the value of your various historical self identities? That to what degree does participation in a system confer an identity upon you, regardless of what you may want to believe about yourself? If I had to put my current identity into words, "I'm a bit of a hypocrite, and I wish I was less so, even if in some ways I do better than most in similar circumstances."

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13584
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

slsdly wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:39 pm
What color would one apply, if you question the value of your various historical self identities? That to what degree does participation in a system confer an identity upon you, regardless of what you may want to believe about yourself? If I had to put my current identity into words, "I'm a bit of a hypocrite, and I wish I was less so, even if in some ways I do better than most in similar circumstances."
The long answer:
SD is a sociological model/parallel to adult development. What's disturbing (or highly disagreeable!) to many is the realization that there are multiple levels of adult development. This means that some adults are as mature at age 70 as others are at age 14. That's really tough to accept because normally make a split between e.g. baby, child, teenager, and adult, ... but then for some bizarre reason halting the differentiation as if everybody over the age 18 has ceased growing in their understanding of themselves, the world, and the interrelation to/with/between others in the world.

For example, someone I know recently had the "mindblowing [to him] realization that everybody who knows him each has a different (subjective) understanding of who he is". Most people come to at least this conclusion---that other people are subjects rather than objects---somewhere between the age of 12 and 25. It is the beginning of an objective self-image which unlocks complex feelings like shame, conscientiousness, and socialized behavior to fit into a group setting. He is in his fifties and sincerely thinks his insight (which essentially was the development of a third-person perspective) was a novel concept that most people were unaware of. (It is not. 85% of humanity has it.)

Another way of saying this is that he moved from is-a self-image relation to has-a self-image. Self-image became objective whereas previously it was subjective: From "I'm just being me. Everybody sees me as I am" to "Everybody has a different idea of who I am based on how they see me".

There are various ways of being-an identity and having-an identity. These go through prepersonal (a baby is a part of the mother, there's no ego; a soldier is a part of the platoon; a soccer fan is a supporter of a soccer club---basically identity by association, there's no identity without the association) to the personal (I choose to follow the rules; I am responsible for my GPA or career success; I see other humans as equal to myself; I see everything in relation to everything else---basically identity by volition) to the transpersonal (I am spiritually connected to the universe and everything in it; it is part of me as much as I'm part of it; ultimately there's no I---basically the disintegration of the ego as an identity and identifying more with the universe than the "I").

It's absolutely normal to move through the colors as long as one is still developing as an adult---and that development doesn't necessarily ever end. Colors are just jargon for values and perspectives one has a has-a relationship with. However, people tend to reach diminishing rate of development at some point and proceed to stay there until the end. So some reach Red at age 14, say, and perhaps never move on from there. Others realize at age 15, say, that seeing themselves as a "member" in relation to a leader or team/gang---perhaps realizing that the leader is but a human themselves---and instead focus on objective rules of behavior in a greater hierarchy leading to Blue. If this happens in school, it might be in the form of being a good student after moving on from being one of the cool kids. If it happens later, maybe it will manifest as the desire to be a good wife, mother, father, or provider; perhaps an important person in the community. And so on ... like at age 24 Blue may realize that rules can be played to one's advantage and proceed into Orange---he will now begin to think that Blue is rule-bound and stagnant---or he may stay Blue forever.

A Red 14 year old will act differently than a Red 55 year old, but they will have more or less the same value system and capacity for relating to other people although the 55 yo will of course have much more experience and e.g. have a job instead of being in school.

In particular just because someone is prepersonal or early-personal doesn't mean that they're not capable of mastering "simple adulting" in a civilized society like buying groceries, learning a technical skill, showing up on time to do a job, farming or hunting, becoming a parent or going to war, ... Indeed, if you think about it, it's only convention that prevents us from giving typical 14 year olds those responsibilities. However, something like negotiating a treaty or managing a crew will require "advanced adulting" ... and uniting a polarized community or getting people to sacrifice their lifestyle for the good of other people's great grandchildren will require a fantastic level of very advanced adulting which very few are capable of.

Sociologically speaking it should be rather obvious that a society of people "who don't care about what they do unto others until someone does it to them" (because they simply don't see others outside the family or association as humans like themselves) will be very different from a society of people "who care as much about others as they do about themselves that they're willing to force those who don't agree to care as well" (because the needs of the many always outweighs any individual needs). And so on: The behavior of a society is set by the adult development of its members.

The short answer:
Since you asked, based on this I see individualist/pluralist awareness; the realization that many identities exist in both yourself and likely in others; and that one can hold several depending on the environment, not all of which are necessarily genuine as some people may play roles (have the identity selectively rather than being it). Kegan4 or 4/5. Somewhere between Green and Yellow. 15-20% of the population (US).

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13584
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

jacob wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:02 pm
The behavior of a society is set by the adult development of its members.
And so the possible behavior and size of an emergent movement is also set by this level of development. In particular, how you appeal to someone (the carrot) very much depends on their perception of themselves and others. This is why it's important to understand how people see themselves in order to appeal to them becoming something more.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6677
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jennypenny »

jacob wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:26 pm
This is why it's important to understand how people see themselves in order to appeal to them becoming something more.
I think framing the goal as appealing to people to become 'something more' sounds a little elitist and implies that people aren't good enough as is, which I imagine will elicit a negative response more often than not.


What is the real goal? Is it really to get everyone to level up? There used to be more opportunities for people to learn leadership skills and civic-mindedness, but in the era of declining civic and religious groups and 'everyone gets a trophy,' opportunities are dwindling.

Is the goal to get people to realize that there are people 'above' them (not level up themselves) and they should trust them to do the right thing? To touch on J & G's point about people mimicking those above them, if we've hollowed out the institutions to which people used to belong (where they could see for themselves those people a level or two above them) and created a ladder without middle rungs, people won't encounter anyone IRL who could be a useful model.


Either way, I don't think the problem is people alone -- society needs to localize again and recreate those rungs. I realize that we're facing some global problems but humans aren't wired to be 'global citizens'. IMO relocalizing people is the only way to slowly rebuild trust. It won't come in time to prevent some catastrophic climate change but at least it will strengthen society before it needs to deal with the fallout. Shaming people and/or forcing people into solutions won't end well, the results of which might make climate change seem like the less severe outcome.

I'm not trying to be harsh, but the recent emphasis on color-coded identities seems misguided. You can't change people in a meaningful way by classifying them and gamifying the system. As soon as the game ends, they'll revert back to who they were. You need to construct and support localized groups -- from families to small communities -- that offer people enough of a reward that they *want* to be welcomed and respected members of the group by acting appropriately, and ultimately communally.

GandK
Posts: 2034
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by GandK »

@jacob

I spent time last night rereading this thread and the Green Origin thread. I am trying to figure out what endgame is for these lines of thinking... both what your goal is as an author, and what my goal should be as a reader if I agree with your premise.

I assume based on multiple factors that at bottom is the desire for humans (all, or just the motivated?) to become less self-centered and less consumption-oriented (one or the other primarily? both equally?). I follow the potential movements, but can identify no clear catalyst for any given change. I see no motivation (apart from "bettering oneself," which as @jp says, may harm ego as it requires admission of shortcomings). I see no obvious "better" choices for the masses to make day-to-day to implement any change they see as helpful in this system (better as in, helps self at least as much as theoretical others)... minus altruism, this is surely required. And I don't know what, as a reader, I should take away. In this spaghetti system, am I moving toward an end state at all, or simply in a beneficial direction? If the former, what end state? If the latter, who benefits, and how do I know I'm "progressing?"

Long story short: I've missed something. I know it.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6677
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jennypenny »

GandK wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 6:52 am
I am trying to figure out what endgame is for these lines of thinking...
That's what I was trying to get at too. If it's to change people to make them more willing to make sacrifices for the global good, IMO changing their [human] environment is more effective than trying to convince them to change from within. That would include everything from diversifying friends and acquaintances to reversing the trend of self-sorting ourselves. Diversity -- at the local as well as idealogical level -- is the key to getting people to improve by giving them people (in their own lives) to mimic and nudge them when needed. (I feel like there's a permaculture metaphor in there somewhere.)

The colors are good for modeling, but they aren't a map.

J_
Posts: 766
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Netherlands/Austria

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by J_ »

I have read trough all "type-casting" colors, from beige to turquoise + the pro's and contra's. I recognize it as a kind of evolution. An affinity with the Kegan-grades. It is the development (most/some?) people undergo by growing older, learning of your past, getting a broader view on your own life and your role in the human community.

Several years ago I have asked Jacob if it was possible to widen the ere-scoop to (governmental) institutions. As I remember well he thought at that time that it did not suit him or that ere could not be used in that way. I asked it him because I saw so much waste of money and waste in the organizational manners of governments and municipalities.
Now I see Jacob is, with all his mind-power (and our mind-power), looking for broadening the scoop to ere 2, not aimed at governments but aimed to as many individuals as possible.

I agree with jennypenny that speaking in colors is way to abstract for general use, to bring ere to a broader movement: the emerging of a way of living which would suit mankind to undergo/withstand/cope with the climate-and-human-health change we are seeing unfolding already.
But for now those Social Dynamics pattern can help us to realize and understand that most of us humans have very different ways of how they see life.

It is not elitist trying finding ways to make people more aware, more wiser of what ways of living are better suited in these times of change and danger than continuing and even exaggerate our ego-centric way of life. A more world-centric way of life would helps us all.

@jennypenny wrote further:..." Diversity -- at the local as well as idealogical level -- is the key to getting people to improve by giving them people (in their own lives) to mimic and nudge them when needed".
I think, jp, we are on the same road but can you be more clear/give more examples of what you mean by: "changing their (human) environment is more effective than trying to convince them to change from within"?

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13584
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

@jp/GandK - I would certainly not make a direct appeal to people to "level up" for the sake of leveling up---only a few are interested in growth for the sake of growth. People do revert/regress. People can fake or mimic other levels w/o grokking them. Changing the "environment" does exert a strong pull---even visiting another "environment" opens people's minds.

The color-coding is really "market research" and trying to understand the "market segmentation" and what kind of messaging is appealing to people. For example, the "the only solution to all humanity's problems is developing spiritually"-proposal has certainly been observed "in the wild", but that's likely to send Red, Blue, and Orange running away screaming ... and that's 80% of Americans. Similarly, if I present something like the standard FIRE-movement to Green, it will be dismissed because "capitalism is evil" and related issues.

I also can't take the standard FIRE concept into Red or Purple territory and go "Congratulations, all your problems will be solved if you 1) Learn how to code via these online courses we set up for you. 2) Get a job in software using this app. 3) Invest 50% of earnings in VTSAX using vanguard 4) Become a millionaire." Yet many propose exactly that because in theory it should work. However, in practice it misses a lot of points (tries to solve the wrong problem) and thus fails spectacularly.

And as you say---and I fully agree---a lot of the rungs are gone. And FIRE is not the rung for everybody. It is only the rung that appeals to Orange and possibly leads out of it (for example, the ERE book is the case against Orange and the case for Yellow showing what kind of thinking and methods would facilitate such a transition, YMOYL is ditto but Orange to Green. Conversely TSPTW is Orange to Orange.).

Therefore in order to deliberate design a concept that could turn into a movement, I need to understand the audience.

SD, like WL, is a thesis-antithesis-synthesis construct. This means that the solutions to the problems eventually encountered at N can be solved by introducing new stuff from N+1 (not N+2 or 3... and not doubling down with N either, a common mistake). That doesn't mean they will be solved---many will simply decide that solutions are unpossible. Rather it means that the solution (synthesis) will most likely take the form of N+1 although there might be other kinds of yet-to-be-mapped syntheses.

Red (passionate, impulsive, self-protective, guilt-free), specifically needs institutions and local role-models as an alternative to a "hooligan tribe"-culture that only respects the powerful. Religion and local clubs (orders, etc.) provide this in the form of strong rules (or eternal punishment or banishment). It has been an epic mistake for Orange corporates and Green social institutions to replace Blue social structures with faceless forms and universal guarantees because Red isn't ready for that.

Thus to solve the Red problem the solution would take the form of strengthening local communities (because Red is egocentered and at best ethnocentered on "my tribe", not nationcentric) with rule-(not power)-based structure and role models; not with money or regulations from nationcentric or worldcentric government programs which would be considered an imposition although taking the money regardless would still be rationalized.

However, such an "abiding traditional rules to fit into a structured local community"-approach would be rather unappealing to say the least to Orange (50% of US), Green (20% of US), Yellow (1% of US), and Turquoise (~0.1% of US). They are definitely wired differently. Their solution to that solution would be to take their brains and physically leave. Brain drain.

Basically, it's never a one-size-fits-all. Gotta meet people where they're at. SD is useful for figuring out where people are. We are not unique snowflakes ... however, we're not all the same either. Some people definitely have traits that others don't and so on, but there's a countable number of general traits. Thus it's possible to construct a mental zoology and having identified what species someone is, it is also possible to predict with some accuracy what they value and how they behave.

It just needs to be done with respect for the person. It's arrogant and crude to say to someone that "since you're X, you are this and that and therefore ...". However, I would not ascribe arrogance for statistical observations because in that case they're basically true and objective observations. One might not like to hear it but that's doesn't change it. That is the difference between saying "you're under 5' tall so you can never play division one basketball" and "there are very few people under 5' playing division one basketball".

So ...

SD has the same issues as WLs. WLs are useful to communicate better with others as in "don't start talking about systems theory or achieving yields if someone just asked you a question about improving their credit score". WLs will let you know almost exactly what someone understands already (WLn and below), what they'd find inspiring (WLn+1), and what looks insane (WLn+2 and higher). They're bad when weaponized or used to frogmarch people "if you just leveled up you'd understand already" although I'll admit sometimes resorting to punching down when people are punching up. WLs are so-so when used as a normative roadmap ("I want to increase my savings so how do I ... ) but this leads to the risk of trying to manifest higher levels from the base of a lower level, e.g. drawing WoGs instead of learning to follow a budget. Each WL requires a more nuanced understanding that builds on previous levels and so on, so there's a real learning or development curve in there. Some simply know more. They have a better understanding.

It's similar to school grades. They are useful for figuring out the order in which to teach things. Will people really be offended insofar we say that in order to fly to the moon, we have to master calculus. And in order to master calculus we have to master trigonometry and arithmetic. And in order to master there we have to learn to count. No calculus, no moon. Reality does imply that a people who only know "plus and minus" can never fly to the moon. It may be that in a society (such as ours) only the elite knows calculus, but saying that knowing calculus is required to work for NASA is not elitist.---And I do not think this is a strawman, because different social constructs and social behavior also relies on a similar build up. It's not possible to think formally (making rules about human behavior, say, ... or more advanced stuff like human rights... or even more advanced stuff like human potential) without mastering conceptual abstraction (the general idea of a person instead of Ann, Bob, Carl, ... and eventually "me as a person like others"-like my friend example above) and it's not possible to abstract without concrete thinking (realizing that Ann is a being separate from myself). This too goes all the way up. And here too there are a few people who have a much better understanding of human sociological relations (Kegan5) than the average (Kegan3) and a few that have a much weaker understanding (Kegan2). Some humans really are wired to be global citizens. They look at other humans as a individuals and not as a Germans or Swedes. On the flip side some humans aren't [even] wired to be national citizens and they look at other humans as "one of us" if they're inside the tribe or political party and "one of them" if they're outside the tribe---possibly as barbarians not even deserving human rights or courtesy.

Elitism is not knowing more or saying that there's more to know or even saying that some people know more than others when they objectively do. Elitism is a particular governing or decision system that says that those who know the most should call the shots. It's a rather Orange system unlike the typical Blue decision system which says that those who have been placed at the top of a hierarchy (perhaps by birth or legend) should make the decisions; the typical Red system which would have the most powerful (perhaps by challenge and physical contest) on top; or the typical Green system which would have things decided on by reaching total agreement (through dialogue and sharing) in an endless meeting.

Thus Red, Blue, and Green will accuse Orange of elitism, but for different [and highly predictable] reasons. Orange will similar accuse those other colors from their own perspective, like "Strange women living in lakes handing out swords is hardly a foundation for a functional system of government." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur (H/T Monty Python).

The real goal with SD is thus "market segmentation research" and figuring out what kind of carrot appeals to various segments (for a complete carrot vector) and what kind of solutions are possible for those segments.

mountainFrugal
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 2:26 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by mountainFrugal »

From my own understanding, I do not view the levels as all or nothing. It might be useful to reiterate that these levels are the median tendencies for people for most of the environments/situations (internal or external) they find themselves in rather than concrete stairs to climb. Your level (tendency) would be where you spend most of your time in most situations. You can move around these levels depending on situation and how solidly your have internalized each stage. Upper levels are accessible at all stages, but they will be interpreted as the average of the stage that you are currently spending most of your time. This is why you can have profound experiences on various drugs that completely open your mind and see what is possible, but unless you have done the hard basework of the lower levels, you are unlikely to stay at the wider view level. The experience can remain a motivator though. It is also possible to revert. As an example, a monk meditating many years in a monastery and achieving very high levels, but then changing contexts by going out into the wider world and "reverting" their median tendencies of thought or action. This is why many Buddhist traditions have monks venture out of the monastery as further practice, but the monks usually have had to achieve a certain understanding/central tendency before doing so. Same with NASA engineers and calculus.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6677
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jennypenny »

jacob wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:56 am
However, such an "abiding traditional rules to fit into a structured local community"-approach would be rather unappealing to say the least to Orange (50% of US), Green (20% of US), Yellow (1% of US), and Turquoise (~0.1% of US). They are definitely wired differently. Their solution to that solution would be to take their brains and physically leave. Brain drain.
I don't support bringing back traditional societies and community organizations en masse -- they had a host of problems that contributed to their downfall. And I certainly don't support stagnation wrt location and opportunity. I'm talking about simple diversity. Its lacking anywhere people have the means to choose their surroundings, whether it's on college campuses, in towns with only one tax bracket, in religious communities, or even in communes. Siloing cements people in place, and you're aiming for solutions that make people more malleable, not less.


@J_: I mean encouraging policies and practices that bring diverse people together. I think people (at large) have misinterpreted the idea of 'tribe' with the recent emphasis on identity. I've done it too, including here on the forum when I felt like I'd found 'my tribe' because I could relate to people here. Your tribe isn't limited to people exactly like you or people who self-identify the same way that you do; your tribe is the people you chose to include in your life. We can chose to diversify that group.

To come back to what jacob said, I'd like to see solutions that include ways to make that easier, and see examples of people deliberately diversifying their lives (without being patronizing) and relying less on their identity.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13584
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

mountainFrugal wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:13 am
From my own understanding, I do not view the levels as all or nothing. It might be useful to reiterate that these levels are the median tendencies for people for most of the environments/situations (internal or external) they find themselves in rather than concrete stairs to climb. Your level (tendency) would be where you spend most of your time in most situations. You can move around these levels depending on situation and how solidly your have internalized each stage. Upper levels are accessible at all stages, but they will be interpreted as the average of the stage that you are currently spending most of your time.
To add a bit:
  • The so-called Tier1 colors (beige, purple, red, blue, orange, green) tend to be mutually antagonistic. Other colors are simply seen as "wrong" or "misguided" through the lens of one's own color. E.g. Blue sees Orange as elitist, Orange sees Red as stupid, and so on... In particular, there's a prescription for how to trigger ColorX to hate ColorY. Politicians understand and take advantage of this. This is why wars are endless. Everybody thinks their value system is the right one and tries to argue for it. It is literally inconceivable how anyone could (still) think in any other way and insofar they do we must either politely tolerate or accept them or try to convince them to change---surely it is only a matter of debate before they see the error of their ways. (Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFv ... sychology) )
  • One tends to absorb a given Color by living in a given Color environment. For example, Denmark where I grew up is Green. This does not mean that other colors aren't present. Some people have temperaments that are more compatible with other Colors. It's just that the learned behavior tends to be the societal color. This is possible even insofar one doesn't fully grok why a system was formed. For example, one can participate in a democracy and go through the motions of voting without being able to appreciate that every human should have an equally valid say in matters (the Green foundation). Schoolchildren still learn rules like "don't run with scissors" as rules even if they don't yet understand that the point of the rules is to take care that other kids aren't hurt.
  • However, coming up with the Green idea of "democratic agreement as a governing form" in the first place is an extremely original innovation that requires a substantial push from "late-egotic level" individuals. It simply can not and does not spontaneously occur if most people are pre-egotic or early-egotic and firmly believe that "might makes right" as a functional justice system (see 8th century Europe and many many other places). For another example, coming up with the Reformation (an Orange idea) saying that individual humans in the peasant class are capable of directly communicating with the divine without going through the Blue hierarchy of the priesthood class was also very original, disagreeable, consequentially dangerous thinking.
  • Due to the difficulty of spontaneous innovation, it's very hard to come up with yet-to-exist colors. This is why Coral is ill-defined. Nobody has had much insight into what this would look like yet. The fog of comprehension at the top level applies to everyone.
  • On the flip side, a Green society makes it a lot easier for children to grow into adults that function up to and including Green because Green would encourage late-egotic development as the smoothest form of existing as an adult. Not everybody will get there (temperament, preference, capability, ...). Whereas a Purple society (not many of those left) makes it rather hard to develop any lenses beyond Purple.
  • Relocating to a different environment opens one up or infects one with other colors. Blue sending their kids off to ultra-Green liberal colleges where they're exposed to all kinds of "woke"/Green-ideas causes real (Blue vs Green) friction when the kids come back. There's also the risk that enthusiastic and action-oriented Red/Blue kids could take Green concepts w/o understanding the sentiments behind them and construct a vigilante-enforced "politically correct" rule-system of pronouns. (This effect is called Boomeritis. It specifically refers to egocentric manifestations of worldcentric ideas. Green via Red. But it can easily be generalized.)
  • A somewhat more self-aware person might use "passing" to incorporate multiple value systems and use them appropriately depending on which environment they're in, that is, "when in Rome, do as the Romans". This is the best outcome. It is Kegan4. However, they may be accused of being fake or "not speaking their mind plainly" by those who have only incorporated one single system (Kegan3). For example, a politician adopting the local dialect when outside of Washington. Harvard educated lawyers with 8-fig NWs (about as elite as it gets) taking selfies driving a truck pretending to be one of the boys.
In any case, this is why SD is useful as both a first-order and second-order navigational tool. It prevents going down the wrong path and it provides a method for preventing adverse blowback when radically changing or even fiddling with existing value-systems.

Papers of Indenture
Posts: 194
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:40 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by Papers of Indenture »

Jacob you are great at discussing this stuff. I've been in the online circles that led to Stoa since 2016 and always thought you would be a great addition to the conversation. I've heard bullet point 2 above referred to as "Scaffolding".

Have you talked with the Consilience Project? You're probably familiar with Daniel Schmachtenberger. Relevant to bullet points 2 and 5 above.

https://consilienceproject.org/about/

oldbeyond
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:43 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by oldbeyond »

Any system like SD will be map, not territory. But the alternative realistically isn’t complete free-form insight but the naive realism per jacob’s link. SD/WL attempt to create useful models, but aren’t The Truth. In the end it’s all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)

Post Reply