For example, someone might champion pluralistic (Green) values but do so with the rigid, dogmatic mindset of an earlier Amber stage. This is common in certain ideological movements where progressive values are enforced in authoritarian or dogmatic ways — a clear case of later-stage content being interpreted and enacted through an earlier-stage lens. It’s similar to memorizing the solution to a calculus problem without knowing how to do the math that produces that solution in the first place.
Conversely, just because someone identifies with a traditionally Amber affiliation like Christianity doesn’t mean they hold that faith in a purely Amber way. A person could practice Christianity through the reflective, self-authoring lens of Orange (modern) or even from an Integral (Teal or Turquoise) perspective, embodying a more complex and nuanced understanding of their faith.
We often encounter stereotypes like “environmentalists must be Green” or “entrepreneurs must be Orange,” but these assumptions overlook the complexity of how individuals hold and express their values. It’s possible to advocate for environmental causes (typically associated with Green) from a highly rational, results-oriented (Orange) perspective, or even from a deeply principled and disciplined (Amber) perspective. Similarly, an entrepreneur might embrace meritocratic values (Orange) but approach their business with a more inclusive, systems-aware stance (Green or Teal). Or perhaps they are using Orange-adjacent language while pursuing their own self-centered acquisition of power and wealth (Red).
Celá debata | RSS tejto debaty