Categories
Vertical Development

Marginalizing People Doesn’t Make a Better World, It Just Fosters More Marginalization

A lot of young men had the sense that the Democrats didn’t see them as having problems. They saw them as being the problem.

Richard B. Reeves
American Institute for Boys and Men

Yet in many ways, men are faring worse than their female peers. Young men have lower academic achievement. They’re more likely to still live with their parents. They suffer more deaths caused by opioid overdoses and suicide. Younger White men from low-income households in particular are worse off than their fathers on most economic and social measures.

Men today have also become more isolated. Americans across the board spend more time alone than was the case 20 years ago — but this is especially true for young men.

That’s arguably how Trump won over young men, too — less with his policies and more with his macho affect and his ability to help isolated young men feel welcome and liked. After all, Trump’s agenda has done little to address the economic and mental health challenges young men face. Indeed, Reeves says American men’s policy preferences haven’t changed much in recent years.

On some level, the very things that disturb fussy establishment pundits like me —Trump’s strongman tendencies; his propensity to arbitrarily fire people and break stuff without regard to consequences — might appeal most to young male populists frustrated by a system they believe has abandoned them.

If Trump’s agenda results in, say, more economic stress (higher prices, fewer jobs) and less access to mental health or substance-abuse care — both outcomes that seem likely — young men will suffer, too. Maybe their affection for Trump will curdle.

Ultimately, the key to winning young men back — whether you’re a politician, concerned parent or potential partner — is to stop “pathologizing” them, Reeves admonishes. Instead, start listening.

I believe this relates to why we’re seeing a breakdown in society that started decades ago with the destruction of blue-collar work which made work accessible for men with Socialized Minds. Thus these men felt like an integral and valued part of society by doing a physical, “honest days work” and getting paid well for it.

Today this has shifted to white-collar work which requires more of a Self-Authoring Mind. Yet even today, with the increasing usage of AI, this type of work is also coming under threat and may be lost as well.

Yet if businesses in the work world don’t create newer forms of physical work for not just men but people with Socialized Minds or mental work for people with Self-Authoring Minds, you will have even more disenfranchised and marginalized people feeling like they are abandoned by society.

Alternatively if governments don’t create programs to help people to “level up” their level of consciousness (i.e. Socialized Mind > Self-Authoring Mind) so that they feel capable of tackling more challenging work, perhaps even starting their own business, these people will feel useless, without any value, and abandoned by society.

And you definitely don’t want a world where most of the population is marginalized in one way or another. Why? Because these people are the most susceptible to being psychologically manipulated by others, as politicians will often gain power through them by tapping into their anger and create divisions through blame. This is the standard “divide & conquer” playbook that most authoritarian leaders use.

All said and done, we need both business and governments to start caring about the well-being of the people that they interact with and are in relationships with.

Categories
Vertical Development

What Can Vertical Development Reveal About the U.S. Elections?

Stumbled across this post below on how vertical development relates to the elections in the United States today and provided my commentary on it below, both from the possibility of a late stage leader being drawn to a political position but also the importance of how leaders today need to be higher stages to understand the complexity of the problems we face.

What about Nelson Mandela? Yes, a different country but a late stage leader who transformed their country and their people expectations of what a leader should be from a political position.

Yes, America is different, filled with empty talk and phoniness as the norm in terms of politics, but it doesn’t mean it needs to continue that way. It can take a different path if people choose to take one. But if the dominant mindset of the people is based in lower stages focused on having a “strong leader” to “take control” so that “all their problems can just go away”, that’s who people will vote for regardless if that leader has an actual understanding of the problems and plan for them.

This to me is the more troubling issue. That being the relationship between the leaders stage of development and their ability to grasp simple, complicated, complex, and even wicked problems. Lower stages will often think they know everything and have simple answers for complex problems. Yet in trying to tackle complex problems with simple solutions, they may make them infinitely worse.

This ties into what Robert Fritz said in his book The Path of Least Resistance. It’s not enough having a clear vision of where you want to go into the future. You also have to be seeing and understanding the present reality clearly as well. Yet most political leaders today still don’t seem to understand the full breadth and scope of the systemic wicked problems we are encountering today. Having said that though, at least Harris seems like she’d be open and curious to listening to ideas, whereas Trump would just assume he’s the smart person in the room and doesn’t need to listen to anyone.

Nollind Whachell