What Were They Thinking?!? Decoding the 2024 Election – Integral Life

Media
1

Notes to self:

David and Keith take a shot at unpacking the rationale of voters, and why almost all demographics, except college-educated women and those 65+, shifted to the right.

I found the discussion helpful in perspective-taking, though I’ve always had trouble with the Integral community’s “talking heads” love of complicating things. The dialoguers conclude that the reason for the swing to the right was that people were tired of the feeling of being force-fed by the Left what values to embrace. My own angle adds the idea that people prefer open, paternalistic coercion from a transparent sociopath to paternalistic covert coercion from the Left that seems to be leading to anomy and nihilism.

A friend wondered if was often simply a case of people imagining they were voting against inflation.

1 Like
2

With all the revelations happening. How well do you think the Integral narratives over the decades will hold up? It will be seen as infected with Boomeritis!!! Easy to label the issue. Hard to heal if Boomeritis is there. Who’s going to tell you guys. Robb certainly won’t.

1 Like
3

Death is the universal cure for all things, including boomeritis.
Boomers ultimately will not be able to deny, deflect and diffuse death.
Gen X is a strong but numerically small demographic. We wont swing elections and our best efforts are on the “Musk” front, fighting in spheres other generations dont understand yet are highly infuential. As an example, in the psychology and sociology of the “manosphere”. Right now, the right owns the conversation in the manosphere while the left is oblivious to how important that diologue is for the present and future.
If the left wants to win the millennial vote, they absolutely have to accept they took a wrong turn with feminism in the mid 1990s and did their own deny deflect and diffuse until it reached absurd levels in the present day.
I think what we see today is men as a block, not just white men but men in general saying “enough is enough”.
Yes, the right has twisted the narrative - but the left has abdicated any semblance of a remotely reasonable narrative in spheres where men go to interact. The left cannot continue to demonize manhood and also expect to get the majority of male voters. Men tolerated it for 40 years but not when it got - frankly - stupid.
There are very few men like myself who see this, but who also see that the right isnt the answer, either. This is why i say manosphere influencers like Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk, etc are stuck themselves and dont know the solutions to the problems they describe.
I see the problems they describe and see they are problems, but reject the “solutions” they offer as being worse than the problems.

If the left cannot come to terms with a healthy version of manhood that is not dictated to them by feminism, there will always be the chance that men as a block will vote for an addle brained lunatic, which is what happened.

Regarding Integral Theory - this is deeper than “making meaning”. This is core identity stuff. Part of the false narrative is that primal masculinity is an option and can be denied without consequence. It isnt and cant. Primal, archaic, survival mascilinity has to be “integrated”, so to speak by “I, we, them and it”, for example. My own vocabulary is the “stern father” archetype has to be forgiven then accepted. This was not done by “we, they, it” and since it hasnt been, Teal gets really messy and overly dominated by a anti-masculine green or at best buried masculine.

3 Likes
4

From the video:
“People voted differently than you, but its not because they are ignorant assholes”

As long as Integral thinks like this, it will not be able to understand much less adress vast swaths of humanity.

Instead, recognize and accept that many people are assholes. They may even enjoy being considered an asshole. The integration is not seeing assholes as “less than”. Accept assholes in all their assholery. Many people are retarded. The solution is not to refuse to recognize it, but to not look down on them as less than onself.

There are certain industries where its perfectly ok to call someone an asshole or a retard. There is a bond between people when this interaction is between equals rather than one feeling they are superior to the other. Its a bond that people cant understand who dont want to offend but at the same time look down on the other as inferior.

This is the great conundrum that green posing as teal cant figure out

1 Like
5

What makes someone an “asshole”? - Big Think

Good one Ray. I learned somewhere along the line that it was more politically correct to characterize someone as “acting like an asshole,” rather than type-casting them in concrete “assholery,” as “acting like” allows for the possibility of change… but then there does seem to be a lot politically correct (and smug about it) “assholes” about, and somehow (at the asshole level?) it feels more satisfying deep down to imagine them incapable of changing :).

1 Like
6

But here is the point: the politically correct believe deep down that being an asshole is wrong. They judge the asshole harshly and then do a spiritual bypass so they can feel good about themselves “I judge asholes harshly as being less than myself … but i dont actually call PEOPLE assholes, only their actions.” This gives them the ability to judge while pretending they are not by using clever verbal sleight of hand.

The problem we see manifested is that the assholes feel the judgement and are not tricked by this bait and switch. This trick only works with other politically correct people. What an asshole sees in the politically correct person is a coward who feels something but is too cowardly to actually say it, and then dishonestly tries to make themselves feel even more superior. A person with conviction and courage would, in the eyes of the asshole, just say “you’re an asshole”. The asshole would then respect tbem for speaking their mind truthfully and they could then move onto being drinking buddies.
The true-blue asshole doesnt really care if he is called an asshole. He might even wear it as a badge if honor in a community of assholes.

Try it on a general contractor, for example. Any general contractor will get a big goofy smile of brotherly love if you shout at them “youre a effin asshole, you know?”

This is a fundamental inability of green (often presenting as teal) to subsume and include. Instead it excludes, ignores and judges. This is why there is a near global and universal rejection of “PC” except among academics and why academics cant make heads or tails out of what is happening since at least 2015.

Inclusion means including what the thing actually is. Inclusion does not mean changing something to what it isnt and including that instead.

2 Likes
7

What about brining forward the best of each level, in particular moral development which is strong in traditonal values. How can we clean up and bring forth something with the fine qualities of traditonal and create something new? ~ thank you for the post ~

1 Like
8

Greetings Holly, You asked “… How can we clean up …?” I still maintain UL is where the heavy lifting takes place, as in, “how can I …?”

That’s not to say things can’t change at the “we” level, but I’m not waiting for “we.”

*Be the change you wish to see in the world - attributed to Arleen Lorrance

9

Hey All,

This is David Arrell here, from this thread’s “What Were They Thinking?” discussion with Keith. I’m glad to see some robust discussions unfolding here on the IL platform in response to our conversation.

I’d be happy to take any additional questions, comments, or critiques here that you’d like to me to consider. Feel free to post anything that comes to mind.

I’ll check in when I can and share my best thoughts on it.

Thanks again for catching our conversation!

David

10

Greetings David,

From the hip: I’m imagining a scenario if this or that “secular guru” (somehow images of John Vervaeke, Daniel Schmachtenberger pop up) were to sit before a bone fide “Zen Master,” the roshi would simply say, “too much thinking!” and kick them back to the zendo.

Highly intellectualized secular gurus seem to miss something (in my view) of the deeper grounding that comes from a different place than thought. Moreover, much of what Integral Life has to offer these days continues to add to, double down on that over-intellectualizing (though I lean-in a bit whenever Keith Martin-Smith makes an appearance … and BTW, Keith, glad you’re at least working on your f-bombing!).

I do appreciate your nuanced analysis of this “What were they thinking?” dialogue, as it helps in understanding the various rationale behind our choices. I’d have to go back and watch it again to see if unnamed and unconscious primal fear at all levels was mentioned as a driver of votes…

Thanks

11

Hi Sidra, thanks for sharing your “from the hip” thoughts, I appreciate the engagement.

  1. I’d agree with your Roshi response to almost all the current podcasting luminaries, but will point out that John Vervaeke is a long-time practitioner of Tai Chi and Qi Gong, among other embodiment practices. His 4 E Cognition framework (Embodied, Embedded, Enacted, and Extended) is very explicitly not confined to the space between our ears.

  2. To your point of how unconscious forces may inform our rationales, I would imagine that they do so in all kinds of powerful and, in at least some sense, inherently unknowable ways. In fact, the 3rd Order individual is largely driven by all kinds of unconscious allegiances to things they don’t even know, much less understand.

  3. Finally, and this partially addresses an earlier comment about some people just being “assholes,” this conversation between Keith & I was largely a follow up to a previous one where I shared the Structure/Content Fallacy framework. The “voter choice” situation was a great opportunity to walk through that framework to show how individual (Structural) development has its own logic and can fairly easily support very different understandings of the world (Content) using the same deeper meaning-making system.
    A secondary goal was to illustrate how the SCF-informed lens can support the idea that people CAN see the world very differently than we do, and in ways that are perfectly sane, rational, and morally good WITHIN the constraints of their Structural altitude and Contextual cultural content streams. The question for ourselves then becomes “how do they understand their actions in the world?”, which of course, still leaves plenty of room for all kinds of assholery to manifest in all the usual ways. :slight_smile:
    In short, the talk was a very quick walk through at a 30,000 foot view of a much more nuanced and complex topic (individual development in the context of cultural forces) using the extremely polarized election rhetoric as a starting point to invite more curiosity and consideration.

Thanks again for your perspective sharing!

1 Like
12

Thanks David for your quick response, which leaves me with a sigh of gratitude for not having consigned myself to the role of punditry in this life.

Keep up the good work!

13

I think it’s also important to recognize the two diffrent lenses here. Through one lens, it’s not iportant in the slightest to influence the Asshole. One (not me) can sit in the double lotus position and observe the asshole is on his own path and all paths are beautiful. One can observe the radical anti-honey vegan who insists on the pronoun “Zhe” equally detatched.
Through the political lens, it’s necessary for us to either take a stance on these positions, or abstain from contributing to descisions. These descisions (votes) have real world consequences so it is necessary to convince people to vote wisely and usually in a “lesser of two evils” way. (if we decide we want to influence them).

This is where Orange, Green and Teal and higher have completely failed since 2015 at least.

Imagine at the extreme a person in survival mode. Starving, severely beaten, etc. They won’t be receptive to a discussion about the “Global Mind” and will probably be angy at the person presenting it while withholding food. However, they will be receptive to more beatings. So if you want their vote, you will either have to feed them and provide medical aid, or beat them further.

More relevant for today, I don’t see anyone engaging with amber and red at their level except the far right and the far left. If Teal, Turquise and above want to have an influence in this discussion, they have to present it at the level of Amber and Red. Conferences at some remote location in Europe are not going to influence Amber or Red at all. Zero.
In modern parlance, Integral needs to “Get real up in this” - if they want to influence politics.
“Big picture thinking” does not attract them, nor does “Grounding”. They will only mock discussions above the 8th grade level.

I understand not having a desire to influence. Influencing others is a heavy burden and interrupts one’s own progress quite a bit. Interacting with Orange, Amber and Red requires considerable cleansing and purging at least daily. One has to consider if they want to influence these levels as well as the cost on one’s own progress. But trying to influence without getting down into those levels just won’t work and actually has the opposite of the desired effect when Orange, Red and Amber see that you really don’t “get” them.

14

I stand corrected!!! Go Robb

15

Yes, The so-called “Regan Democrat” turned MAGA and Trump voter is no more conservative than the participants of the October Revolution. The common theme I hear in MAGA is a joy in tearing down the political structure.

Where I disagree with the video is that while Conservatives may have paid lip service to building social structure, they didnt fund it with any bills unless you consider the military or corporate or Christian social structures. The Republican party for the past 50 years has been against any spending or tax breaks that did not benefit military, corporations or Churches.

16

Looks like you’re still in the battle between the left eco chamber and the right eco chamber. Basically , staying political. It’s been a uniparty for 70 years. I hope we are working towards a uni community. Local as the focal.

17

Hey Ray, thanks for the reflections.

I deeply resonate with your main point (at least how I understood it) of pointing out the impossibility of influencing those at any particular level with rhetoric or rationales grounded in higher-level understandings/appreciations of the world.

In my previous conversation with Keith unpacking the basic framework of the Structure/Content Fallacy I tried to speak to this very point. Integrally informed folks need to STOP talking ABOUT Integral, and START talking FROM an Integrally-informed perspective. Which, at a bare minimum, means “meeting people where they are” and speaking to them in terms they understand, in alignment with values that they profess, and to whatever the degree that Integralists are seeking to influence them, according to visions of the future that they believe in and want to contribute to bringing forth.

For example, folks operating primarily from the Red/2nd Order/Imperial mindset will primarily respond to and be motivated by messages that appeal to their sense of self-importance and personal success. Those in the Blue(Amber)/3rd Order/Socialized mindset will be more inspired by messaging that appeals to increasing their social standing, status, and other relational drivers. Those in the Orange/4th Order/Self-Authoring mindset will correspondingly be more motivated by authenticity, freedom, and independence oriented narratives. NONE of those people will be motivated by any kind of “Big Picture Thinking” requirements or directives UNLESS they are translated “down” into level-appropriate frameworks. And even then, the real challenge is to frame things out in ways that invite them to participate due to how they see doing so will benefit them directly, even if that is in the future.

When most skillfully done, this type of “Spiral Wizardry” needs to deftly appeal to each person’s leading edge of structurally development by affirming the deeper drives, but then illustrating how they can be better achieved by “reaching further up the ladder” into the next level’s meaning making framework. Red self-important needs can be coopted into more Blue-friendly behaviors by showing how good relationship building efforts can personally pay off in the long run. Blue relationship tending needs can be shown to thrive at a deeper level when you speak up more authentically and invite/allow others in your network to do so as well. Orange authenticity needs can be shown to be better satisfied by connecting with other people who are better poised to perceive and appreciate that authenticity and offer their own in return. Etc…

Bob Kegan’s book “In Over Our Heads” talks about these dynamics in more detail and gives a bunch of great real world examples of how a healthy overall spiral and ongoing development progression both require a steady blend of support and challenge.

2 Likes
18

A problem with imagining one has the moral high ground, aside from beginning to believe it, is the hint of a paternalistic smell to it … at all “levels.” Perhaps offering one’s perspective should be invited, not foisted, but I do get that some of us have a certain didactic itch to scratch … works-in-progress, all.

19

Hi Sidra! If you’ll continue to pardon my own “didactic itch,” I’ll share a favorite Integral lens artifact here with a bit of detail. :slight_smile:

One of the many great insights that come from Integral Theory is observation that all 1st Tier levels of individual development (Red/2nd Order, Blue/3rd Order, and Orange/4th Order) are fundamentally incapable of “seeing” the other Orders’ ways of making sense in any way other than beneath or less-than their own.

Some of what comes out of this has been Culturally helpful, as the main need of all Cultures (past, present, and future) is to successfully turn inherently selfish (Red) adolescents and young adults into productive members of the Culture (Blue). Check out Aesop’s Fables, Fairy Tales, and other cultural-mythological collections of wisdom and it’s pretty easy to see the universal theme of criticizing selfishness.

An obvious downside of the built-in bias of level-blindedness is the corresponding collapse of all higher levels into reciprocal lower levels. For example, Blue/3rd Order individuals necessarily (mis)understand the behavior of Orange/4th Order individuals to be coming from merely Red/2nd Order justifications. And harkening back to the above-mentioned Cultural imperative, the Orange/4th Order (Self-Authoring) drive of Independence-over-conformity gets “downgraded” into accusations of selfishness. In other words, the noble Orange/4th Order quest for authentic self-expression can only be understood by Blue/3rd Order types as ignoble selfishness and lack of appreciation of relational concerns. See any and all current/recent “Narrative” control issues and the resulting climate of censorship and Mis-, Dis-, and Mal-information issues(whatever that means).

Same dynamic is true for Orange/4th Order individuals and their fundamental inability to see higher Green/Yellow/5th Order emphasis on collaboration and co-creation as anything separate from Blue/3rd Order drivers for connection and conformity.

So, yes indeed! All (1st Tier) levels do view all “outsiders” with a bit of paternalism, or even condescension. And since they are fundamentally unable to “see” those outsiders with any degree of level-appropriate understanding and appreciation, they will necessarily “preach at” them from their own level. Blue tells Red to stop being selfish and start to think about how your actions affect other people, and yourself, poorly. Orange tells Blue to stop being mindless sheep and start taking actions and taking ownership of their lives.

HOWEVER, and this was one of the main points of the talk Keith and I had, for those at Yellow/5th Order/ 2nd Tier it is necessary to first and foremost simply accept that all those people at “lower orders” of development are STILL fully entitled to be where they are and to be 100% OK with what that means. Kegan, the theorist behind the Order framework, has a great quote that says something like “People have a right to be where they are, dammit!” Hence, our direct attempt to show how people at multiple levels might have voted for Trump or Harris with equally valid rationales according to their level-specific developmental drivers in “What Were They Thinking?”

A corollary that comes out of this is that the “true hope” of any active Spiral Wizard would be to actually help people live/discover richer and healthier lives as possible within whatever Order they are currently at, number 1, and number 2, to provide just the right blend of challenge and support to encourage them along their own path of continuous development.

Often times the “right blend” is to be more curious about their Worldview and to encourage them to talk about their values and beliefs and how they manifest them in their behavior, and according to their place on the larger developmental spiral. For example, those at the Blue level might be questioned about the felt richness of their relationships, status, and belongingness needs. Red might be questioned about their autonomy and accomplishment drives are working out. Orange might be asked about authenticity, self-expression, and independence goals. Again, the idea here is to be genuinely curious about the person’s life according to their own meaning making system, NOT to push some “moral high ground” Narrative on them.

For those that are in transition between stages, like Red-into-Blue or Blue-into-Orange, the Spiral Wizard is still called to offer the right balance of challenge and support, but now can orient the questioning to better help the person “build bridges” into their emerging level and strengthen connections there.

For instance, a Red-into-Blue person could be asked how they might imagine better serving their success-oriented needs by “working with” the cultural offerings for success (college, trade school, apprenticeship, military service, etc) and looking at the longer term gains for them personally by trading a bit of their “rebellious nature” for some temporary buy-in to a less autonomous collective endeavor. Or perhaps a Blue-into-Orange person might be asked to explore the idea that relationships can in fact be strengthened through saying no, stepping into conflict, or offering (and asking for) more authenticity to enrich them.

Anyway, lots more could be discussed but apologies for going on here. All of this stuff is a passion of mine and deeply relevant to my Coaching work, so I tend to share more here in these forums than is perhaps called for or of interest.

All the best,
David

1 Like
20

Greetings David. I picked up this handy “TL;DR” some time ago whilst perusing some other thread right here at Integral.

God bless your enthusiasm, God bless those committed to this stuff, and God bless those who aren’t interested.

Take care!