Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I had mentioned Graves' values systems at ET. (Also here and here.) Individual core values are a big thing in transformational psychology (as in NLP, corporate training). Challenging them instinctively brings forth emotional resistance, denial.

Graves build up his general system from numerous interviews, inspired by Maslow's pyramid of needs. The progression of values fairly reflects available resources (individually or collectively). The odd-numbered values transpire to be ego-centric (so to speak), while even-number numbered are "society" centric.

The liberals (and socialists) fall neatly into the value level #6: humanistic values, human rights; opposing extreme inequality and hierarchy; providing satisfactory living standards to everyone; supporting sexual choice, etc. The conservatives are represented by a mixed bag in this system: #4 (traditional society values, religion); #3 (authoritarian leadership of various sorts); #5 (entrepreneurship, opportunistic autonomy). The reason that conservatism encompasses a few different value systems is that those systems co-existed for centuries already. Besides, the meta-level #7 (awareness that values are not absolute, and using that for personal benefit) generally favors conservativism as well.

Within this paradigm, the general liberal direction in the last century is well explained by unprecedented abundance of resources. Extrapolation to a bright liberal future is then reasonable only assuming the same abundance of resource further down. But if resources become tight instead, prevalence of the value level #6 is in deep trouble. Firstly, it will badly become a punching bag for the conservatives and #7, as they are more eagerly perceptive of resource limitations. Secondly, it will be tougher to sustain or buy #6 personally, with the personal share of resources and benefits becoming unsatisfactory. Liberals will prevail in the biggest cities pretty long, as this is where resources and services are concentrated. But the liberals (generally) find themselves already pretty low in the financial food chain and social influence. Habitually, they profess their values passively and have intrinsic leadership issues. No wonder that they were led by #7 wolves in the last two decades to wholesome irrelevance. The progress in LGBT rights only masks the lost ground on social-economic issues.

Genetics is surely not a dominant factor in the Graves value system. Rather explicitly, it is postulated that Graves' values "progress" pretty inevitably with a larger cake of resources. In particular, #6 is dependent on the level of education, and appearance of having enough to everyone. Genetics might play a role in flexibility, readiness to embrace or avoid particular value systems. For example, (non)stickiness to authority dynamics might be a genetic determinant for #6 acceptance.

What I notice is that there are several trends heralding a depression of #6 values. The brief rise and fall of #6 might be a recurrent story of great civilizations.

by das monde on Sat Jun 6th, 2015 at 11:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think this confuses cause and effect. Even if you accept the premise of the system - which is questionable - resources are perceived to be scarce because it's the in interest of #7s to make them so.

In reality resources are abundant, and with reality-based development there's no need for current and future constraints.

What there is a need for is a removal of resource use for pointless tribal wealth display - which directly and indirectly creates scarcity in the short term, and stunts resource development in the longer term.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 7th, 2015 at 08:04:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, we take it for granted that "in reality resources are abundant"? There will be "no need for future constraints"? No matter what the population on Earth? No bottleneck resources ever?!

The current average Western lifestyle is beyond Earth's carrying capacity (for today's 7 billion) already, many suspect. We are already flaunting our tribal display to the future generations.

Even if humanity is objectively safe with resources for this century, perceptions of the concerned may matter more. The current austerity regime for the masses is indeed artificially sharpened scarcity. Would this be the first time in human history that tribal elites prefer to experiment with artificial scarcity rather than risk a cannibalistic collapse? Would #9s agree to compromise their transhumanist hobbies just to allow a billion more of fit, happy, productive people live on Earth? What if we won't ever reach planets near other stars if we dig into planet's oil resources for another 50 years like now?

by das monde on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 04:15:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wait, you're lecturing the ET crowd that we're taking it for granted that resources are abundant? I do believe you win the Internet. Well trolled.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 05:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who else will troll "in reality resources are abundant"?
by das monde on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 05:39:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're both wrong :

Firstly, it will badly become a punching bag for the conservatives and #7, as they are more eagerly perceptive of resource limitations.

Excuse me, who are the people who are perceptive of resource limitations? Do you class the global green movement among the conservatives?

Conservatives are generally in deep denial about resource limitations, or they pretend to be (global warming denialists are rarely liberals, for example). They consider that the commons (fossil fuels, fish in the sea, an unpolluted environment) are theirs for the grabbing, and eagerly exploit them for individual profit, while the negative consequences are denied (and become a collective responsibility, that only liberals care about).

Resource limitations are real. Scarcity is both the result of confiscation, and of mismanagement by the confiscators, who don't care about optimising the global outcome as long as they get their share.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 04:27:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the conscious level, the conservatives deny resource limitations indeed. But they never daydreamed (correctly or not, at different times) that there is enough for everyone on the planet. Generally, they do not take personal resources for granted, and they are ready to be adequately competitive. Their respect for hierarchy, territorial and private property forms a seamless way of dealing with resources. As rationalists, we still have to show that we have anything smarter than historical (or even nature's) territorial/hierarchical arrangements.
by das monde on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 04:41:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are these your personal fantasies, or were they dreamed up by some new-age pop psycologist? You seem to be extrapolating a lot from the basic notion of the conservative's respect for hierarchy : you appear to have created a personal system of values based on your perception of the fitness of hierarchical organization to automatically manage resource constraints.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Mon Jun 8th, 2015 at 06:17:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
After a few encounters with some personal and (somewhat) corporate training, suggestive ideas do come to mind. It is then more fun to read ecological, evolutionary or political philosophy, Archdruid, watch "American sniper". I could appropriate those links between value sets and resource management, to some degree.

The NLP/transformational training industry (whether for persons organizations) has definitely gathered a lot of practical impactful knowledge that is guiding big organizations and their leaders. In particular, corporations build up their inner structure as "societies" of individuals with "complimentary" Graves value sets. Not too surprisingly, the industry is not particularly interested do disseminate its knowledge to public just so. An academic formulation is apparently not the most attractive option for those involved.

Hierarchical structures are anti-fragile (in Taleb's sense) with respect to resource limitations, almost tautologically. That is a better characterization than fit.

by das monde on Tue Jun 9th, 2015 at 04:25:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And as a philosophy of political and social organisation, this is distinct from fascism in what way?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Tue Jun 9th, 2015 at 09:00:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fascism is just misunderstood. Probably the fault of the feminists.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 9th, 2015 at 09:24:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fascism = corporatism, old news.
by das monde on Tue Jun 9th, 2015 at 10:37:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series