developmental psychology

The Open Question March 18: How do we reason about the future given AI? I find this topic extremely perplexing, and endlessly fascinating.

• What are we raising our kids to be ready for? What skills don't matter anymore that we used to hold sacred, and what do we need to emphasize?
• Will we have universities?
• Where to invest time/energy?
• Where to invest money? Will money even matter?
• Purpose and meaning, etc... 

especially when I factor in stuff like Nate Soares talking about If Anyone Builds It Everyone Dies, Rob Miles and Jeffrey Ladish communicating the wild risks involved in AI acceleration, there's almost too much to contemplate at once, and I'd love y'all's help.

Some convos already on UpTrust that might be relevant:

• Blake on AI collaboration
• Tommy on TikTok brain with AI
• Renee on Older people adopting AI
• Leif on Digital Mystics
• Alex on AI & the Second Coming of Christ
• Dave on an AI Safety introduction he likes

#openquestion 

Trump is now…. ..officially a convicted criminal. And he’s still going to run. And he’s probably still going to win.

I’m not quite sure what that says about the state of democracy, the Biden administration, the US and/or our world.

But it strikes me as so utterly absurd, it’s actually kinda hilarious.

I remember 8 years ago, I was so appalled when Trump got elected, it seemed like the end of the world.

But the world didn’t end. And it might be my heartbroken disappointment with Biden’s warmongering-while-virtue-signaling administration or the fact that whoever’s actually in control of the Democratic party seems to just not give a fuck and is willing to run him again when he seems at least half-senile, but this time around I’m like, yeah, OK, Trump again. Fine. Bring it on.

(Insert gif of person eating popcorn ).

On Aspiration. In a recent Relateful Flow session, I said that I was aspiring toward something and that, to me, aspiration is an active principle.  My comment was met with strong disagreement from a person who said that aspiration is passive and only concrete action of a physical kind, actually "doing" something, is active.  I was a bit shocked and then realized that I might be in the minority on this subject.  To me, "aspiring" is actively signaling Life/God that I am now ready and willing to receive the thing I have been saying I wanted.  It is an energetic "yes"!  Other more physically tangible actions may follow, but aspiration is first , especially in things which have always seemed to be beyond my grasp. 

However, I understand what the person was pointing to.  There is a world where action is physical; aspiring may be useful in some way, but it is a passive practice.  

Would love others' thoughts and experience with this.

The Pathology of Ungrounded Development. One of the ways psychological development can become pathological is if the current primary level from which a person operates isn’t grounded in skillful integration of the previous level. Higher stages are not inherently healthier or more mature unless they remain tethered to the embodied, functional insights of prior stages. Without that grounding, what looks like development may actually be a kind of spiritual bypassing or compensatory fantasy.

I’m going to use Integral levels in this post, but I think it holds for all the frameworks I can think of.

The example that first motivated me to write is Amber meme. It’s easy to look at Boomers and Silent Generation people as narcissistic or emotionally blunted, but this often misreads what’s going on. Amber consciousness is about identification with social roles within stable traditions. The “self” as a modern person might understand it—a complex internal landscape of feelings, preferences, and identity—is there, but it’s just chatter or even a threat to the more important social order. One’s value comes from doing the actions required by their roles, not from being unique and authentic.

That works when the tradition itself is strong, coherent, and meaningful—when Amber is healthy—and when the individual is rooted in a resilient Red: capable of exerting will, taking responsibility, and protecting the integrity of their whole. But when those roots are absent—when tradition is hollowed out and Red is weak or disowned—Amber becomes an empty cosplay of morality, nakedly incoherent and pretentious. Its roles are unprincipled, disconnected from humane values, and its rigidity masks insecurity. In that state, Amber is nearly indistinguishable from pathological narcissism: a brittle persona that cannot tolerate dissent or complexity.

This pattern repeats at every level:

• Magenta (archaic-animistic) works when the magical worldview is rooted in somatic presence and awareness. Without that, it becomes free-floating paranoia, magical thinking, and manic overinterpretation of signs—a kind of disembodied superstition.
• Red (egocentric-power) is healthy when the will to power arises in a world thick with gods and spirits, where one’s force is in dialogue with other forces. Without that mythic context, Red devolves into nihilism, hedonism, and psychopathy—a raw assertion of dominance without mythic consequence or embeddedness.
• Amber (mythic-traditional) thrives when roles are taken on by a self that can still act and desire; when conformity serves a greater good. Without a strong central self, Amber becomes self-abnegating and repressive—an obedience to dead structures that no longer serve life.
• Orange (rational-achievement) flourishes when its analytic clarity and drive for progress are rooted in a felt understanding of shared purpose and moral interdependence. Absent that, it becomes a frenzied churn of technocratic problem-solving, manic ideation, and disconnection from the sacred—a kind of spiritually bankrupt meritocracy.
• Green (pluralistic-relativistic) is healthy when it’s guided by a principled meta-awareness: an outside view that honors many perspectives while staying grounded in coherence and care. Without that, Green devolves into performative egalitarianism, chronic indecision, and an allergy to clarity or hierarchy. It becomes allergic to value distinctions, collapsing into a world where all perspectives are equal, and therefore none are meaningfully actionable.
• Teal (integral-systemic) works when its systems thinking, self-authorship, and multi-perspectival awareness are grounded in the humility and compassion of Green, the drive and responsibility of Orange, and the stability of healthy Amber roles, driven by the clear animal self of Red, in dialogue with the Magenta, mysterious forces of the world. When grounded, Teal can hold paradox, lead adaptively, and design organizations and lives in alignment with inner and outer complexity. But ungrounded Teal collapses into smug aloofness, pseudo-strategic detachment, and abstraction addiction. It can become a refuge for ego inflation masquerading as "perspective-taking," where the person dissociates from emotional and interpersonal reality in favor of managing symbolic frameworks. Leadership turns into control disguised as wisdom, and complexity becomes a shield against vulnerability.
• Turquoise (holistic-global) works when the deep spiritual insight into the interconnectedness of all life is anchored in the personal shadow work, disciplined mind, and rooted body of the earlier stages. A healthy Turquoise brings spaciousness, equanimity, and a profound, loving orientation to life that flows through action. But ungrounded Turquoise becomes dissociative mysticism—bypassing pain and complexity with a thin glaze of cosmic oneness. It risks becoming passive, impotent, and spiritually elitist: asserting unity while refusing to get its hands dirty in the particular. In this form, it confuses transcendence with escape and radiates a kind of abstract compassion that never actually helps anyone.

---

And therefore, the real measure of development isn’t altitude—it’s integration.
The vertical climb through developmental levels is only as meaningful as the horizontal web of connection it maintains: to the body, to community, to the sacred, to the world of action and consequences. Each new altitude offers a wider view, but without grounded roots, that view becomes disorienting rather than illuminating.

And therefore, the work is not merely to “ascend,” but to metabolize—to turn insight into skill, to anchor perspective in practice, and to allow each level to remain alive within us as we move forward. The warrior does not disappear at Green. The ritualist does not vanish at Orange. They become elders within the internal council, not ghosts haunting the halls.
And therefore, pathology is not failure, but signal. The manic ideation of Orange, the allergic egalitarianism of Green, the abstraction addiction of Teal—these aren’t just flaws to be corrected, but symptoms pointing us to the abandoned children in the basement of our psyche. Red screaming to be acknowledged. Magenta whispering through dreams. Amber clinging to ritual because we never taught it to choose.

And therefore, healing is recursive. To move forward, we often have to circle back. To grow up, we must also grow down—into roots, into history, into shadow. Every higher order of complexity demands a deeper humility, a willingness to touch the soil of what came before and still lives within.

And therefore, the path of true development is compost, not ladder. Each stage decomposes into the next, fertilizing it. The higher cannot replace the lower—it must digest it, dance with it, honor it. Otherwise, what we call transcendence is just dissociation with better branding.

The Pathology of Ungrounded Development. One of the ways psychological development can become pathological is if the current primary level from which a person operates isn’t grounded in skillful integration of the previous level. Higher stages are not inherently healthier or more mature unless they remain tethered to the embodied, functional insights of prior stages. Without that grounding, what looks like development may actually be a kind of spiritual bypassing or compensatory fantasy.

I’m going to use Integral levels in this post, but I think it holds for all the frameworks I can think of.

The example that first motivated me to write is Amber meme. It’s easy to look at Boomers and Silent Generation people as narcissistic or emotionally blunted, but this often misreads what’s going on. Amber consciousness is about identification with social roles within stable traditions. The “self” as a modern person might understand it—a complex internal landscape of feelings, preferences, and identity—is there, but it’s just chatter or even a threat to the more important social order. One’s value comes from doing the actions required by their roles, not from being unique and authentic.

That works when the tradition itself is strong, coherent, and meaningful—when Amber is healthy—and when the individual is rooted in a resilient Red: capable of exerting will, taking responsibility, and protecting the integrity of their whole. But when those roots are absent—when tradition is hollowed out and Red is weak or disowned—Amber becomes an empty cosplay of morality, nakedly incoherent and pretentious. Its roles are unprincipled, disconnected from humane values, and its rigidity masks insecurity. In that state, Amber is nearly indistinguishable from pathological narcissism: a brittle persona that cannot tolerate dissent or complexity.

This pattern repeats at every level:

• Magenta (archaic-animistic) works when the magical worldview is rooted in somatic presence and awareness. Without that, it becomes free-floating paranoia, magical thinking, and manic overinterpretation of signs—a kind of disembodied superstition.
• Red (egocentric-power) is healthy when the will to power arises in a world thick with gods and spirits, where one’s force is in dialogue with other forces. Without that mythic context, Red devolves into nihilism, hedonism, and psychopathy—a raw assertion of dominance without mythic consequence or embeddedness.
• Amber (mythic-traditional) thrives when roles are taken on by a self that can still act and desire; when conformity serves a greater good. Without a strong central self, Amber becomes self-abnegating and repressive—an obedience to dead structures that no longer serve life.
• Orange (rational-achievement) flourishes when its analytic clarity and drive for progress are rooted in a felt understanding of shared purpose and moral interdependence. Absent that, it becomes a frenzied churn of technocratic problem-solving, manic ideation, and disconnection from the sacred—a kind of spiritually bankrupt meritocracy.
• Green (pluralistic-relativistic) is healthy when it’s guided by a principled meta-awareness: an outside view that honors many perspectives while staying grounded in coherence and care. Without that, Green devolves into performative egalitarianism, chronic indecision, and an allergy to clarity or hierarchy. It becomes allergic to value distinctions, collapsing into a world where all perspectives are equal, and therefore none are meaningfully actionable.
• Teal (integral-systemic) works when its systems thinking, self-authorship, and multi-perspectival awareness are grounded in the humility and compassion of Green, the drive and responsibility of Orange, and the stability of healthy Amber roles, driven by the clear animal self of Red, in dialogue with the Magenta, mysterious forces of the world. When grounded, Teal can hold paradox, lead adaptively, and design organizations and lives in alignment with inner and outer complexity. But ungrounded Teal collapses into smug aloofness, pseudo-strategic detachment, and abstraction addiction. It can become a refuge for ego inflation masquerading as "perspective-taking," where the person dissociates from emotional and interpersonal reality in favor of managing symbolic frameworks. Leadership turns into control disguised as wisdom, and complexity becomes a shield against vulnerability.
• Turquoise (holistic-global) works when the deep spiritual insight into the interconnectedness of all life is anchored in the personal shadow work, disciplined mind, and rooted body of the earlier stages. A healthy Turquoise brings spaciousness, equanimity, and a profound, loving orientation to life that flows through action. But ungrounded Turquoise becomes dissociative mysticism—bypassing pain and complexity with a thin glaze of cosmic oneness. It risks becoming passive, impotent, and spiritually elitist: asserting unity while refusing to get its hands dirty in the particular. In this form, it confuses transcendence with escape and radiates a kind of abstract compassion that never actually helps anyone.

---

And therefore, the real measure of development isn’t altitude—it’s integration.
The vertical climb through developmental levels is only as meaningful as the horizontal web of connection it maintains: to the body, to community, to the sacred, to the world of action and consequences. Each new altitude offers a wider view, but without grounded roots, that view becomes disorienting rather than illuminating.

And therefore, the work is not merely to “ascend,” but to metabolize—to turn insight into skill, to anchor perspective in practice, and to allow each level to remain alive within us as we move forward. The warrior does not disappear at Green. The ritualist does not vanish at Orange. They become elders within the internal council, not ghosts haunting the halls.
And therefore, pathology is not failure, but signal. The manic ideation of Orange, the allergic egalitarianism of Green, the abstraction addiction of Teal—these aren’t just flaws to be corrected, but symptoms pointing us to the abandoned children in the basement of our psyche. Red screaming to be acknowledged. Magenta whispering through dreams. Amber clinging to ritual because we never taught it to choose.

And therefore, healing is recursive. To move forward, we often have to circle back. To grow up, we must also grow down—into roots, into history, into shadow. Every higher order of complexity demands a deeper humility, a willingness to touch the soil of what came before and still lives within.

And therefore, the path of true development is compost, not ladder. Each stage decomposes into the next, fertilizing it. The higher cannot replace the lower—it must digest it, dance with it, honor it. Otherwise, what we call transcendence is just dissociation with better branding.

Can someone actually have any Teal if they score 0% Orange, Amber, Red, and Magenta? Going through the scores of the Better Political Conversations quiz is fascinating. (reference: https://www.guidedtrack.com/programs/we0q1pq/run)

Now, this very well could have been someone running an experiment to test the scoring, or to try to get a sense of a friend or family member, but they did give a name where a lot of people leave that blank.

Their scores are:
Teal 55%
Green 45%
Orange 0%
Amber 0%
Red 0%
Magenta 0%

Is it at all possible that someone could select every single response at Orange, Amber, Red, and Magenta as False, wrong, or just doesn’t make sense and have any actual Teal?

Also interesting, I got an email from someone who thinks of himself as primarily Orange, but was surprised that his quiz results came out 0% Orange. He referenced his Meyers-Briggs results as a reference in support. Utterly fascinated, I’ve asked him to let me know what correlation he sees between the Integral levels and Meyers-Briggs, and I’ve asked him what statements at Orange would have had his quiz results come out accurate for him.

Each time I make a significant edit in the content of the project I make a note of the change in the google sheet where I’m keeping track of scores. Here are the averages of the currently 75 scores:

Amber 26%
Green 25%
Teal 21%
Red 12%
Orange 11%
Magenta 5%

One blatant pattern I’m seeing is that high Green scores ALWAYS pair with a high score in Amber, and that people who have that pairing always score exceedingly low in Red and quite low in Orange.

Can someone actually have any Teal if they score 0% Orange, Amber, Red, and Magenta? Going through the scores of the Better Political Conversations quiz is fascinating. (reference: https://www.guidedtrack.com/programs/we0q1pq/run)

Now, this very well could have been someone running an experiment to test the scoring, or to try to get a sense of a friend or family member, but they did give a name where a lot of people leave that blank.

Their scores are:
Teal 55%
Green 45%
Orange 0%
Amber 0%
Red 0%
Magenta 0%

Is it at all possible that someone could select every single response at Orange, Amber, Red, and Magenta as False, wrong, or just doesn’t make sense and have any actual Teal?

Also interesting, I got an email from someone who thinks of himself as primarily Orange, but was surprised that his quiz results came out 0% Orange. He referenced his Meyers-Briggs results as a reference in support. Utterly fascinated, I’ve asked him to let me know what correlation he sees between the Integral levels and Meyers-Briggs, and I’ve asked him what statements at Orange would have had his quiz results come out accurate for him.

Each time I make a significant edit in the content of the project I make a note of the change in the google sheet where I’m keeping track of scores. Here are the averages of the currently 75 scores:

Amber 26%
Green 25%
Teal 21%
Red 12%
Orange 11%
Magenta 5%

One blatant pattern I’m seeing is that high Green scores ALWAYS pair with a high score in Amber, and that people who have that pairing always score exceedingly low in Red and quite low in Orange.

Can someone actually have any Teal if they score 0% Orange, Amber, Red, and Magenta? Going through the scores of the Better Political Conversations quiz is fascinating. (reference: https://www.guidedtrack.com/programs/we0q1pq/run)

Now, this very well could have been someone running an experiment to test the scoring, or to try to get a sense of a friend or family member, but they did give a name where a lot of people leave that blank.

Their scores are:
Teal 55%
Green 45%
Orange 0%
Amber 0%
Red 0%
Magenta 0%

Is it at all possible that someone could select every single response at Orange, Amber, Red, and Magenta as False, wrong, or just doesn’t make sense and have any actual Teal?

Also interesting, I got an email from someone who thinks of himself as primarily Orange, but was surprised that his quiz results came out 0% Orange. He referenced his Meyers-Briggs results as a reference in support. Utterly fascinated, I’ve asked him to let me know what correlation he sees between the Integral levels and Meyers-Briggs, and I’ve asked him what statements at Orange would have had his quiz results come out accurate for him.

Each time I make a significant edit in the content of the project I make a note of the change in the google sheet where I’m keeping track of scores. Here are the averages of the currently 75 scores:

Amber 26%
Green 25%
Teal 21%
Red 12%
Orange 11%
Magenta 5%

One blatant pattern I’m seeing is that high Green scores ALWAYS pair with a high score in Amber, and that people who have that pairing always score exceedingly low in Red and quite low in Orange.

Hello! And a question on measuring the quality of a connection. Hi Uptrusters! Sara here, joining for the conversations (debates? connections? community?) and because I’ve been frothing to see the inside of this platform ever since Jordan told me about it 🤤.

Since I imagine the best way to say hello here is to start an interesting conversation, here’s something I’ve been noodling on lately.

Right now I’m doing a bunch of research on loneliness and social isolation (two different things, as it turns out!) to write an article on How to make friends for the publication Clearer Thinking, which i think does the best independent psychological research and tool development of anywhere I know. In case you want more context for this post, here is the draft of the first half of the article, posted on my Substack while I’m working on it. https://authenticrevolutionary.substack.com/p/how-to-make-friends-part-1-inner?r=34w9f

There are a few research questions that have come up for me as I do this, areas of study that I think could be more explored and would be exciting to look at if we ever have Ph.Ds or grant funding for our field. If this topic interests people lmk and I’ll post more of the questions.

Here’s one I’ve been thinking on. There are a number of studies that look at how social connectedness, whether strong or weak-tie, affects health and happiness.

However, the metrics they use to ASSESS social connectedness seem…maybe incomplete, to me? For instance, I was reading a study this week on how the quality of conversations affects happiness and a sense of connection (study available here, if you want to read the results: https://psycnet.apa.org/manuscript/2019-62902-001.pdf)

The metrics they used to assess quality of connection were:
- Self-disclosure
- Depth of conversation (rated from superficial to substantive)
- Liking of the other person
- Prior knowledge of the other person

So here’s my question. What other metrics, if any, do you think would be pertinent to assessing the quality of a connection?

Reproductive rights. I have a really hard time understanding why folks support stripping reproductive rights before we’ve tackled better support for children and families in the US.

From my perspective, the better we can support children, mothers, and families more broadly, the less we’ll actually have unplanned pregnancies.

It just seems wise to really take care of those that are alive right now and try to improve their lives.

Teal Version of US Democracy. I asked ChatGpt what changes could be made to US democracy to make it teal. I really dig these concepts. I hadn’t ever heard of Liquid Voting before, and it sounds cool as heck.

1. Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) on a National Scale
   Description: Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than voting for just one candidate. If no candidate wins a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on voters’ next preferences. This process continues until a candidate wins a majority.
   Teal Impact: RCV encourages more nuanced, cooperative, and less divisive campaigns, as candidates are incentivized to appeal to a broader range of voters, not just their base. It reduces the polarization inherent in two-party systems and promotes coalition-building, which aligns with teal values of inclusivity, complexity thinking, and the integration of diverse perspectives.

2. Deliberative Voting Structures
   Description: Deliberative democracy involves structured, informed, and inclusive discussions among citizens prior to voting. Participants engage in dialogue to explore different viewpoints and potential solutions before casting their vote.
   Teal Impact: This would encourage citizens to move beyond partisan talking points and engage in deep, meaningful discussions about policy and candidates. It fosters greater empathy, collaboration, and systems thinking—key elements of teal governance—by helping voters understand the interconnectedness of issues and the long-term consequences of their choices.

3. Proportional Representation
   Description: In a proportional representation system, legislative seats are allocated based on the percentage of votes each party receives. For example, if a party receives 30% of the vote, they would hold 30% of the seats in the legislature.
   Teal Impact: Proportional representation encourages a more inclusive and diverse political landscape by allowing multiple parties and viewpoints to be represented. This system discourages binary winner-take-all thinking and creates space for collaboration and compromise. In a teal system, this would better reflect the complex spectrum of human development and values, leading to a more integrated and balanced government.

4. Liquid Democracy
   Description: Liquid democracy allows voters to either cast their own vote on issues or delegate their vote to a trusted representative or expert. Unlike traditional representative systems, delegations can be revoked or reassigned at any time, allowing for a dynamic and responsive voting structure.
   Teal Impact: Liquid democracy would enable a more fluid and flexible form of representation, where citizens could actively participate in areas where they feel knowledgeable and delegate in areas where they do not. This approach mirrors teal values by empowering individuals to engage in governance based on their unique strengths and knowledge, while also fostering collective intelligence by delegating decisions to trusted experts when needed.

5. Holacratic Voting
   Description: Holacratic governance is a decentralized system where power is distributed among roles or circles rather than individuals. In a holacratic voting structure, small, autonomous groups (circles) would vote on issues related to their specific roles and areas of expertise.
   Teal Impact: A holacratic system of voting would distribute decision-making power more evenly across the population, reflecting the teal emphasis on self-organization and decentralization. Citizens would have more direct influence on issues relevant to their communities and professions, creating a more organic and adaptable system of governance that empowers people at all levels.

6. Consensus-Based Voting for Key Decisions
   Description: Instead of simple majority rule, consensus-based voting requires that decisions achieve broad agreement among participants, often with mechanisms to ensure minority voices are heard. Modifications to proposals can be made to accommodate different viewpoints.
   Teal Impact: Consensus-based voting aligns with teal’s focus on inclusivity, cooperation, and holistic solutions. It prevents majoritarian dominance and encourages decision-making processes that take into account the needs and concerns of all stakeholders. This approach fosters a deeper sense of community and shared responsibility, which is essential in a teal democracy.

7. Policy Feedback Loops and Systems Thinking in Voting
   Description: In a teal democracy, voting structures could be designed to include mechanisms for ongoing policy feedback loops. Citizens would have the ability to vote on policies or amendments, but also provide real-time feedback on how policies are working through ongoing participatory platforms.
   Teal Impact: This system would help voters think in complex, systems-based terms, encouraging them to consider the long-term and interconnected effects of policies. By integrating feedback loops into the voting structure, it would create a more adaptive and responsive governance system that evolves based on the changing needs and conditions of society, aligning with teal’s focus on evolutionary development.

8. Blockchain-Based Voting for Transparency and Trust
   Description: Blockchain technology can be used to create a secure, transparent voting system that allows for tamper-proof voting records. Voters can cast their votes digitally, and the system ensures that each vote is counted accurately while preserving voter anonymity.
   Teal Impact: Blockchain voting would enhance trust in the electoral process by providing complete transparency and accountability. This technology could reduce concerns about fraud or manipulation and make elections more accessible, particularly for marginalized communities. Teal democracy values transparency, trust, and fairness, and blockchain would support these principles.

9. Participatory Budgeting at National and Local Levels
   Description: Participatory budgeting allows citizens to directly decide how to allocate a portion of the public budget. It has been used successfully in cities around the world to give citizens a direct say in how funds are spent on community projects.
   Teal Impact: By scaling participatory budgeting to both local and national levels, a teal voting structure would empower citizens to engage in collaborative decision-making about public resources. This process would deepen civic engagement, promote collective responsibility, and ensure that public spending aligns more closely with the needs and priorities of the people.

10. Multi-Level and Issue-Specific Voting
    Description: In a teal democracy, voters could have the opportunity to vote on different levels of governance (local, state, national) and on specific issues, such as environmental policy, healthcare, or education, through issue-based elections. This could allow citizens to participate more actively in areas they are passionate or knowledgeable about.
    Teal Impact: Issue-specific voting reflects teal values by encouraging deeper engagement in governance. Citizens can focus their energy on specific issues where they have expertise or passion, allowing for more nuanced and informed decisions. It would also decentralize power and ensure that specific areas of governance are shaped by those most interested and knowledgeable about them.

Is the Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis dialectic too constraining? Stephanie Lepp has started a project called Faces of X – don’t worry, X doesn’t mean Twitter, rather X as in fill in the blank

See: https://www.facesofx.org/p/interview-the-glenn-show?r=1gw0e&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

She is trying to break people out of either or thinking with very short (5 minute) videos that attempt to steel-man each of the thesis and antithesis perspectives, and then coming in with a synthesis view that explores the potential territory missing in the previous two.

Best just to watch a sample for yourself on facesofx.org (examples videos on Gender, Race, Capitalism, and Abortion, you know, just a few safe and non-controversial starters).

The link for this post is an interview by Glenn Loury, a college professor in which he responds with his thoughts and seems to get stuck in the either/or dichotomy, or in the view that no perspective that can be voiced in a few minutes is sufficient to give the topic its due.

While I love Stephanie’s approach, I am concerned that it may assume more capacity that the average person can meet. You’ll have to watch to get a sense of what I mean.

Race and IQ. I recently got dinner at a hole-in-the-wall asian spot with a geneticist named Razib Khan. Over noodles, and with a concerned glance over his shoulder, he admitted that the science is clear: race is absolutely tied to IQ. Jews are the smartest. Pretty much everyone on the continent of Africa is at the bottom.

This fact alone is controversial, but we have to be able to talk about it, and here’s why:

I nodded, and asked: How many generations does this take to change?

Razib: As little as three generations. For example, the Egyptians used to be the smartest, but a century of inbreeding knocked them to the bottom. Incest drops IQ by 10 points in the first generation. After that the effect weakens.

This is huge. At first glance, the controversial statement seems like a slamdunk for racists the world over. But dig into the details, and you find out 3 generations is enough to change things—this means that race and IQ are not inherently linked as far as we know, they’re just linked in today’s world, because of today’s policies and systems.

Knowing this could actually help us target where we need to focus our interventions for the next three decades. Let’s get us all up!

Racism through a developmental lens. unfinished draft…
note: I’m totally uninformed here…

• Red: Does this benefit me?

• Amber: My race is simply better (or worse) than yours. We perpetuate it because that’s good.

• Orange: Racism is a thing we transcend by being worldcentric and meritocratic; we perpetuate it by constantly looking at everything through the racism lens.

• Green: Systemic racism is everywhere (and at the root of many of our social problems); we transcend it by balancing the scales with education and programs to help the victims and stop the perpetrators; we perpetuate it by taking advantage of our privileges, ignoring it, and doing nothing.

• Teal: Systemic racism is real, but it’s mostly an unconscious self-organizing system that’s perpetuated because of the incentives that keep things how they are. We transcend by owning our projection, and by setting up systems that reward non-racism for each level of development in the currency that level values.

• Turquoise: We never transcend racism, it’s a construct we enact through conscious embracing and boundarying/channeling or we enact through ignorance.

All these are frames that enact world-experiences that overlap, and they’re all us; these frames keep us from being in awareness and seeing awareness as the stuff the frames are made of-which is the way out of the self-referential self refuting trap of this frame into unity of experience…

note: This doesnt mean everyone who’s using the surface language of systemic racism or whatever is actually at that level—for example there’s a red green alliance that uses Green language because it benefits them directly; there’s an amber-green alliance that uses green language to make their in-group good/better and make others wrong/bad.