Ok, I captured this one-liner to illustrate how “generators” work on data:
“If there was a ranking of international bureaucracies, the World Bank would be my favorite (or, to be more accurate, least unfavorite).”
You see, a “most bureaucratic generator” causes the World Bank to be the exemplar (in the author’s eyes), and by switching the generator to least bureaucratic, it’s his least favorite:
If GRAVES found no significant “intelligence difference” between any of the values designations then why are they ranked in an order of hierarchical complexity?
He used a “generator” on his data = relativism = FS-GREEN, or GT-YELLOW being the hierarchically most complex due to relativism.
Yet this creates a problem.
While societies “may” unfold in an increasingly more relativistic fashion, it doesn’t make them more complex, or more free (using degrees of freedom as a generator) per se.
Societies do not adhere to genetics, because there are no genes hardwired into societies, or cultures.
I’m starting to think that democracy is a mistake in nature as well, as a democracy is less fit for accelerating complexity, the standards for citizenship are too low.
Thinking that the more who participate evens out the lack of understanding is going to prove that democracy is a very narrow approach to governance, IMHO; one of those same narrow approaches disdained by the democratic, no less.
Generators are very important.
Conclusions for any set of data can be generated using a generator.
If Graves data would be reorganized as least relativistic, AN-BEIGE would be more hierarchically valued, and in survival conditions, it is almost always the best.
Each set of conditions generates “best-fit” values, thus under any condition, the best fit will always emerge as the most hierarchically complex because those claimed to be more hierarchically complex stand on particular conditions being present.
No rule of law, ER-Orange is not fit, FS-GREEN can’t protest.
While it’s oversimplified, it does falsify the ideas put forward that values are hierarchically complex and that it’s best that all humans or societies should proceed through all levels incrementally to reach the most complex level it can.
If you reinterpret Graves Research using a different generator, you will find that the values basins he discovered do in fact exist and are durable, not because people choose them, but they are reflections of hardwired motives and thus chose us in many hybridized forms, but nonetheless, a core Attractor can be seen in all of us–hybridizing and adapting our core attraction to map through the current or “expected” conditions.
The KEY @F-L-O-W has three facets:
1. is to identify which core attractors are going to serve your hardwired motives and look for conditions to cue, support, scaffold and lift you favorably.
2. Noting where conditions require you to complement, supplement and delegate MITEAM to satifice conditions that are outside of your core hybridization.
3. While this is a fractional approach, it’s collaborative by default thus providing you with your cake and the opportunity to enjoy it too.