Spiral Psychosocial Dynamics

[zekko]

Is anyone familiar with the theory of Spiral Psychosocial Dynamics? I was surfing some random videos on YouTube, and I happened upon this rant against PUAs. This guy wasn't saying pickup is bad or evil, but he referenced this theory to argue that the PUA Community represented a relatively immature level of development.

The theory comes from Dr. Clare Graves (a man) in the 1950s. Basically it says that people move up through different stages of development, and each stage is a reaction against the stage that precedes it. PUAs are supposedly at level Orange, which is a selfish level where you use resources and tactics to benefit yourself. A characteristic of this level is that it demonizes the level immediate below it (The Blue level - the nice guy, which is concerned with being a good citizen), and the level immediately above it (The Green level - which is concerned with forming more concrete relationships. We know PUAs look at LTRs as "beta").

I thought this so accurately describes what is going on around here that I had to share it. Here's a link to an article on Spiral Dynamics if you're interested:
http://www.spiraldynamics.net/DrDonBeck/essays/stages_of_social_development.htm

And here's a link to the guy doing the rant about PUAs. It's kind of long, but the part where he talks about Spiral Dynamics and PUAs is from about the 11 minute to the 24 minute mark.

Note: This isn't about being a hater of PUAs. It's simply recognizing that there is more beyond it. I remind you that even RSD Tyler says that having a self identity as a "pickup artist" is a pathetic thing.

 

[logicallefty]

Women use resources called vaginas and tactics called lieing, deception, manipulation, etc. to get what they want. So I'll stick right where I am bring a selfish orange prick. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[zekko]

Women use resources called vaginas and tactics called lieing, deception, manipulation, etc. to get what they want..

You seem to be making the assumption that people who are higher on the development ladder are chumps, and that is not the case. People learn the lessons from the stages below them.

Women can only manipulate you if you let them.

And I don't tolerate liars. Honesty is a trait I screen for heavily. There are honest women out there to be found, or who will at least be honest while they are high interest. And if they are no longer high interest, then I have no use for them anyway, so who cares? I'm a firm believer that liars will reveal themselves.

Regardless, the spiral development theory makes a ton of sense to me, and it looks like a very clear reflection of the PUA community IMO.

 

[logicallefty]

You seem to be making the assumption that people who are higher on the development ladder are chumps, and that is not the case. People learn the lessons from the stages below them.

.

From what I have seen, men who are higher on the chain of command in a workplace are chumps when it comes to standing up to women and dealing with women, but they aren't necessarily chumps with anything else.

From what I have seen, women who are higher on the chain of command in a workplace are not qualified to be there, and have likely been put there by some man (see above). Or, maybe by another woman who was put there by some man (see above)

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

You seem to be making the assumption that people who are higher on the development ladder

The problem with any kind of "ladder" or even the metaphorical term "higher up" is it's almost always described in pretty vague terms.

A monk, for example, who sits in a cave and eats bugs may think he has reached the pinnacle of self development when everybody else thinks he's just a nutjob that's really good a self-deception.

How SPECIFICALLY would one measure their "height" on any kind of "personal development" ladder? How could that possible be objective?

Money?

Physical fitness?

Authority?

Zip Code?

Martial Arts Belt Color?

IQ?

Number of kids?

Years in a committed relationship?

Years in a committed relationship with a certain number of kids?

Any answer like "peace of mind" or "happiness" or "self fulfillment" could be easily seen differently than others.

And if THAT is true, then how do you separate that from the "everything is relative" theory?

That dude in the video could have discovered the secret of life, OR, he could have failed miserably as a PUA and then found a 65 year old theory to justify that his failure is really some kind of insightful discovery of self development.

It's not unlike the whole MGTOW movement, where they've flipped the "I suck at getting women" idea to "I am superior so I decide to stay away from women."

Never doubt the ability of humans to deceive ourselves into thinking we are superior when we really just suck.

Without an OBJECTIVE way to measure something, it's tough to claim any kind of "superiority" or whatever else Nostferatu is getting at in that video.

 

[zekko]

Never doubt the ability of humans to deceive ourselves into thinking we are superior when we really just suck.

Nosferatu, lol.

I agree that theories like this have to be vague or general if they are going to be applied to large groups of people. There are always individual differences so it is necessary. Regarding "superiority", that's your word. But do people here really believe that the PUA Community represents the highest evolved state of humanity? I'm a pretty cynical guy, but even I have trouble believing that. I have to think there is something more to life, and guys like Pook thought that also. An integral part of his writings was that he would someday move beyond all this.

he assumes that men at Blue and Green levels are not selfish, but Orange is.

Sam, I agree that all the stages have a selfish component, but I don't think that disproves the theory. At each stage the individual is seeking his own fulfillment, he just goes about it differently.

It's interesting that you bring up the word "sociopath" in conjunction with the Orange level, because the PUA community practically hero worships sociopaths. All that stuff about the Dark Triad and all. If sociopaths aren't the main role model they hold up to emulate, I don't know who is.

The Green level may be about relationships, but that does not necessarily mean that a guy is committed to one woman or whatever. He's just more open to sharing, bonding, and deeper associations. Also, people often slowly transition from one level to another, so if their development is "arrested", they may be stuck in between one level and another, having characteristics of both.

I still think this is a solid theory. Look at all the guys who come here because they feel unfulfilled as "Nice Guys" (Blue Level), and eagerly adopt the Orange level outlook. I can't think of a more common scenario. That doesn't mean the Orange level is bad, just be aware that it is a stage. It is one plateau on a (hopefully) long journey.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Regarding "superiority", that's your word.

Actually I was ascribing it to Mr. Nosferatu who seemed to be implying that each "higher" color level is "better" than the one lower. That's the whole point of ladder metaphors, they imply higher levels are "superior" (which is really just another way of saying higher) on the ladder.

And my point was how does one KNOW they are "higher" on some vague set of ladder steps? When you realize there IS no spoon?

Ultimately I suppose it's how well you feel "fulfilled" based on your own subjective qualifications.

But that bring up my other point, which you quoted. How does one know OBJECTIVELY if they are "fulfilled" or if they are conning themselves? What are the OBJECTIVES ways to measure how high up the ladder you are, or using the color theory, what COLOR you are?

 

[zekko]

Actually I was ascribing it to Mr. Nosferatu who seemed to be implying that each "higher" color level is "better" than the one lower.

Well, it's not Nosferatu's theory, he's just noting how the PUA Community fits so well with the Orange level. I look at it more like the stages of grief. One level isn't really "superior" to another, they're just different steps on the way to completing a journey.

"Realize that sleeping on a futon when you’re in your 30s is not the worst thing. You know what’s worse, sleeping in a king bed next to a wife you’re not really in love with but for some reason you married, and you got a couple kids, and you got a job you hate. You’ll be laying there fantasizing about sleeping on a futon. There’s no risk when you go after a dream. There’s a tremendous amount of risk to playing it safe."

Marriage doesn't have anything to do with the levels though. Especially if you don't really love your wife, or kids. You could be married with children, and still be on the Red level. And just to be clear, I have never once recommended marriage for men, quite the opposite in fact. But aside from sociopaths, is there anything the PUA Community likes better than the image of the unhappy married man? They take a lot of glee from it.

 

[wifehunter]

Such silly color codes. Some good points though.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

One level isn't really "superior" to another, they're just different steps on the way to completing a journey.

Perhaps you're getting hung up on the word "superior"

When you say "steps on the journey," are you presuming that everybody is on the same journey to the same place? The color presupposes that all the colors lie along the same continuum, and people in some colors are "further along" than some in the other colors.

Do the people that Nosferatu think are "orange" agree that they are in orange and that Nosferatu is in green (or whatever the colors are).

What if the people he ascribes to be in orange don't agree with the theory? How would that be different than me, a pool player, looking at people playing snooker and thinking they are "doing it wrong?"

If you assume we are all on the same journey, my original question stands:

How do you objectively know where you are along the journey? Who DEFINES the journey? Who defines the destination?

If everybody's destination is different, than putting PUA's in an orange level they don't believe in makes no sense.

if everybody's journey is the same, who chooses it? Who defines the steps? Who defines who is on what step?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

I think you were right the first time: it's subjective. And only you really know for sure. The quote about men living in "quiet desperation" (Thoreau?) is cousin to another quote, to thine own self be true (the Bard). Your friend can tell you he's fulfilled, but only he will know for sure.

I'll end this post with another quote, from Bill Burr:

"Realize that sleeping on a futon when you’re in your 30s is not the worst thing. You know what’s worse, sleeping in a king bed next to a wife you’re not really in love with but for some reason you married, and you got a couple kids, and you got a job you hate. You’ll be laying there fantasizing about sleeping on a futon. There’s no risk when you go after a dream. There’s a tremendous amount of risk to playing it safe."

Excellent points.I agree, and I think it's common to THINK one is fulfilled when one is merely deceiving oneself. That's why I kept asking about "objective" evidence.

I believe the "path" that @zekko referred to is best self-defined, and if is defined by others (boss, society, theories about colors, etc.) it can lead to misery.

 

[zekko]

I think it's common to THINK one is fulfilled when one is merely deceiving oneself.

That's probably true, and that applies to people in the Orange level as well. But I think the point is about how people seek fulfillment, more so than whether or not they actually achieve it.

I believe the "path" that @zekko referred to is best self-defined, and if is defined by others (boss, society, theories about colors, etc.) it can lead to misery.

Absolutely. I'm not advocating people adopt this theory as a guideline to life. And I'm sure it has its flaws. But as psychological/sociological theories go, I thought this one is better than most I've seen.

As for who defines the journey, I suppose it depends on from what perspective you are viewing it. I can see heavy correlations between the Orange level and the PUA Community, even if they might not see it themselves. For my part, I'm talking about the community in general, rather than individuals. I'm sure there is more variation among individuals compared with tendencies of the group as a whole.

But I am very, very much surprised that so far no one else can see the similarities, when they seem so obvious to me. And the PUA Community openly brags about many of those characteristics as being benefits of their philosophical view. So, like I said, I'm very, very surprised that people can't see it. Except wifehunter maybe

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

. And the PUA Community openly brags about many of those characteristics as being benefits of their philosophical view. So, like I said, I'm very, very surprised that people can't see it.

From their point of view, it likely is. There are similarities among elite banker types who see any kind of compassion as a "weakness" that they need to "deal with" in order to maximize THEIR version of self-fulfillment.

 

[zekko]

This theory from the page you linked reads like a more layered version of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

An interesting observation, I can see the similarities. Sort of like an "I've got that covered, now I can move onto this" type of thing.

Speaking of Maslow, I remember some several discussions about the Hierarchy of Needs here a few years back. IIRC, most people objected to it because they didn't like the idea of sex being a need. Which I found somewhat amusing considering the subject matter of this forum. Sex is not as basic a need as air, but it's certainly a strong biological urge. Which I think the Heirarchy of Needs makes clear.

I think your dislike of "PUA's" is leading you to some real gay belief systems, zekko.

"Concrete relationships" are the goal. Why don't we all just read Cosmo and The Love Languages.

The fact that you think concrete relationships are the goal shows that you don't understand the theory. The stages don't even have anything to do with women necessarily. If you have no interest in the theory, that's fine. But if you're going to accurately criticize it, you're going to have to open your mind and look a little deeper.

As I've said before, I don't dislike PUAs. But I certainly don't think they represent the highest form of humanity that we can attain. Even RSD Tyler is critical of PUAs, and he should know.

Let me ask you this:
Do you really think there is nothing better to life beyond hedonism and pickup?
Do you really think it is "gay" for humans to form meaningful relationships?

 

[zekko]

You think that it should lead to an exclusive committed relationship, because you are accepting the frame of women

Where in God's green earth did I ever say that anything SHOULD lead to an exclusive committed relationship? Whether or not that ever happens is completely up to the individuals involved.