2020 October

Meeting Intensity with Intensity

One thing that’s seems to slip by but could be seen in the intersections between Jim and I are people that learn through confrontation.

The minute I watched reminded me of that axiom that part of the continuum of CP-RED and ER-ORANGE “agency” where confrontation has a very broad use from surprisal all the way to pushing people to push you.

A lot of the power continuum (and something just popped)…


As I said that…

Another voice inside said, dump SGD, there is not enough that’s original anymore that you can keep vs starting back with PAAA, adding kinship and survival as graves did because there wasn’t any primary research on that only conjecture that almost all of which doesn’t work.

Now what’s even more interesting is how insights occur…in that 15 microseconds where that insight popped, the entire complex that I wrote emerged as a whole idea that took me several minutes to describe…amazing how our brains work!

For two decades I’ve been trying to make sense of how to update SGD when it fact, I just realized that all the efforts while important for affiliation, are putting me in the position to disclaim more and more of the model.

That means a further unraveling which Alicia’s post triggered when it’s really more important to consider the underlying continuum.

[Douglas Murray just appeared on Tucker to discuss the newest outrage on the use of “sexual preference” which as you can imagine for me is pretty far from the source;)]

Back to Alicia’s note, instead of confusing people with CP-RED, and the fact that it’s considered mainstream as a pejorative position in that world…

Perhaps the best thing would be to just retire my use of the model and point to it  if needed but to obsolete it and move on….




6 replies on “Meeting Intensity with Intensity”

Misc thoughts…

To your first point…learning over time requires tension. Confrontation is a form of tension. Perhaps those of us with thicker heads require confrontation. 🙂

Confrontation has many other important functions. E.g. Some are motivated by it, use it to perform (ala Jordan / Trump). At a systems level…confrontation/tension is fundamental.


Re: SD…curious what you’d come to.


My overall sense…Tier 1 conceptualization is a vast improvement over other frameworks…like Hall-Tonna…which is a hot mess.

I find SD at Tier 1 is workable / useful, good enough. It’s actually an elegant reconceptualization of values, value attractors, etc. Read the Hall Tonna piece I sent to get the typical alternative understanding of what values are…which is a pile of pudding.

Tier 2 is where the framework becomes its own hot mess. My sense anyway.

Confrontation for the sake of learning… 🙂

FWIW…I don’t recall the last time you spoke of CP-Red in a non-pejorative conceptualization. Somehow you hear me doing it. I am not, at least I’m the one not trying to.

One place to go before you throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak (on SD) is to make a case for what “healthy” density/frequency @ meta red looks like.

Because it blows up the naïve current conceptualization of the model fairly easily – and paves the way toward a conceptualization of 2nd Tier. (@FS-Green thinks “healthy” means nice, kind, sweet, compassionate…which humans are generally not anyway, red @ healthy certainly is not. Nor is FS-Green at healthy is not either.)

Not a hard case to make at all. Just use exemplars…like a Michael Jordan, and say how can this level of performance be possible without off the chart DF @ CP-Red. Pull CP-Red out of the makeup and poof Jordan goes away. Or seal team members, etc. Or an Elon Musk, etc. Or pretty much any serious artist or entrepreneur. The fitness at CP-Red is a fairly simple case to be made.

Not quite sure why you won’t / don’t acknowledge this or make the glorious, necessary case for it – never have seen you even give a nod to it, you just say that everyone hates CP-Red?

There is nothing at the frontiers of creation that does not require a fair bit of density at CP-Red. Not hard to turn the tables. Their position is not defensible.

Is the values x maturation matrix you posit a “growth to goodness” model? You say “healthier” and perhaps that is right, although I wonder if there’s a case to be made for “less healthy” approaches to be more fit to some contexts?

Alicia Parr

I think we need a reconceptualization of what “healthy” means. Or probably need other words like “mature”

Healthier could mean more evolutionarily fit for example.

I suspect there is something of a continuum of how much you are subject to your particular embedded wiring…that likely is a marker for maturation.

I can’t tell who is talking to me in this so if you have a question to me just let me know because I don’t see any directly to me?


Comments are closed.