Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Using Developmental Psychology to Make Stories Feel Old (Patreon)

Published:
2025-03-15 20:00:15
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

This video deals with Ken Wilber's theory of cognitive/civilizational development — the final version will be about 50% larger. This stuff is super weird but it definitely works for me, so I want to see if it works for anyone else.

Files

Previews only

levels patreon

Comments

Straps-of-skin

I would be interested to see how you would categorize specific ancient civilizations in this hierarchy.

Straps-of-skin

While I still have my reservations about this concept, I like the GOT example because its more about how specific people in the same society can be at different levels. Saying, humans at this time didnt think like this at all, feels weird to me. But people being at different levels based on their environment and social power actually does make sense to a degree.

Local187
>>167885864

I’m not a historian so I don’t have a comprehensive mental database of these things, but Ghengis khan’s conquest of Mongolia seem to reflect level 3 thinking (a conquest that didn’t claim to be about ideology or religion, just conquest for the sake of conquest) Ancient Egypt also hovered around this level - worshipping power gods, doing slavery just ‘cause. You can also see remnants of level 2 thinking in their animal-headed gods. Medieval Europe was basically all centered at level 4 - people built a hierarchy around perceived godly authority. Then the enlightenment, the French & American revolutions were people moving up to level 5 - realizing that those hierarchies were irrational, which paved the way for our modern world which is concentrated at level 5 - I.e. American Capitalism. It does seem crazy to suggest that people literally were not capable of having certain types of thoughts at earlier points in history, but that is precisely the claim: The people of the ancient world were mentally third-graders. “The Origin of Consciousness in the breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” is a book that makes a great case for this.

Elsper

Guys will see civilization as a spectrum and just think "hell yeah"

Wavy

🌊 Thank you

Emira Sinha

I think the idea of a hierarchy of complexity of thought is perfectly coherent (so long as you adhere to the distinction between complexity vs value judgements). However this system being purely hierarchical does not seem like the appropriate description. I believe there is some amount of circularity in this system. Not logical circularity, but that the "principles" and "values" of each level can only advance so much before needing to reference the previous levels. I haven't read Wilber's actual theory and will go into it after this, from the way you explained it, it appears as if the "priorities" and "thought complexities" don't really advance beyond the 4th stage. What I mean by that is, it appears 5th level thinking begins to reject the structured justified morality of the 4th stage and returns to a level of instinctual morality you see in the 3rd stage, except the 5th level justifies this change by appealing to rationality. However, both 3rd and 5th level stories rely on the need to be the most powerful or most competent in their environments. The 5th level just adds on the need to justify its morality (post-moral) while 3rd is called pre-moral, which I call just the time before we developed justifications for our moral urges. I see the same sort of duality with Levels 2 and 6 where level 2 stories must appeal to the feeling of some mystical power beyond the self-usually spirits or gods while level 6 appeal to the mystical unrelatable idea of the collective good superseding the needs and dominance of the individual in the social zeitgeist. It is the same feeling of ignorance and powerlessness of the individual but the level 2 has none of the later concepts of structured morality while level 6 simply rejects those concepts. And the main reason I say this could be an important distinction is because it neatly categorizes the types of stories you might be able to tell on a complete spectrum between two extremes. Just from the description of these ideas, my instincts tell me there is exactly one type of story that can be told at level 1 and one at level 7. And the majority of all other stories may lie between these two. Just my initial two cents, none of this might make any sense if I actually read up on this guy and watch this video later.

Local187
>>167892070

Ken actually has an answer for this! He calls it the pre-trans fallacy. Basically, lower level ideas can LOOK like higher level ideas. Level 3 “I want” nests within level 6 “social structures are oppressive and we should not have to conform to them.” It can look like they’re saying the same thing, and indeed the lower levels can co-opt and parrot higher level ideas. When I first learned about this theory I was firmly at level 5, but I assumed I was at level 7 because I heard “objective reality beyond subjectivity” and I went “pfft yeah of course that’s me”

Local187
>>167892070

I definitely don’t think I explained level 5 well enough, because it’s more defined by rationality than by ambition. But to your point, I don’t think social advancement (5) and actual material conquest (3) are the same. One concerns self esteem and self-concept, the other is purely concerned with resources. It’s the difference between a shoplifter and a white collar criminal

Decipher Yourself

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but audio level is super low compared to other videos watched before and after. Just FYI.

Straps-of-skin
>>167885864

Ill definitely check out that book, maybe it will explain some of the problems with this concept that are still nagging me.

Vanessa Raeder

I like it when these concepts clash within the same story. As you already mentioned, Truman Show, The Matrix, but also Pleasanville. Or when characters have to choose between two options that are closely tied to different levels, like (spoiler) Joel in The Last of Us choosing the 3 level option although he's got an awareness that a 4 level option exists.

Eli Moran Odicio

Do you think it would be possible for societies or groups of people to degrade down to a lower level? Or is it more like: once you know a certain truth, you can never go back

Olivia Andersen

This concept is what the story I’m writing is all about acknowledging this and it’s talking about it in a way I’ve never put into words, so it’s overstimulating my brain and tripping me out

Olivia Andersen

Stranger Things has three plots, but the kid plot is essentially about them being in their earlier levels mentally (shown with their obsession with Star Wars, lord of the rings, and D&D) and what it’s like to meet that thing (society would’ve eventually pushed them out of) in reality. That was much of the appeal was watching these kids enter into a world of these earlier societal levels and live out their fantasy. It does feel like you watching the real world meet with a premordial and ancient one. Which was just fantastic to watch

tdon

Watch a local video and don't instantly feel creatively enlightened challenge (impossible) I've been watching since before the avatar vid (become writing God was the first video of yours I watched, then peacemaker and THEN avatar) but I've never commented cause I don't really engage on the internet like that. I've been on and off the patreon for like two years. Your channel is straight up the only thing on youtube I find valuable when it comes to writing, so maybe it's time I leave a comment. Your recent dive into conventions and moral/societal evolution has been super helpful. I feel like everyone has this creative intuition when it comes to storytelling/story consumption, but no one actually goes and sorts it neatly so people can discuss it. Your categorization of psychological concepts and storytelling intuitions has been super helpful to me, and this categorization of "collective" psychology is just fantastic. These ideas have been floating around in my head in non-word form for as long as I've been writing and it turns out I just needed a communication major to lay it out for me so I could get cooking with them. I just watched the invincible s3 finale and this video made me think of the Viltrum empire (I'm gonna assume you've seen invincible). Viltrum is TOTALLY a level 3 civilization, but they also have the most advanced technology in the universe, which gives the illusion that their less-developed mindset is the most advanced. This is a really cool blend of ideas and shows the storytelling potential of this tool. Invincible itself is also kind of level 3 on a meta level---when conquest came down from the atmosphere and rocked Mark so hard that it leveled New York, me and my friends were losing our minds like we just saw achilles absolutely dust Hector outside the walls of Troy. We exist in a level 5 civilization though---watching conquest singelhandedly kill a city's worth of people should have theoretically silenced the room. Despite our current convention, media with super powerful beings still has a MASSIVE audience (sukuna in JJK, viltrumites in invincible, pretty much any series with anime fights). It's level three media: look at this tough guy with no moral compass just fuck shit up. But invincible also has these level 3 viltrumites experiencing a moral awakening (Omni-man's whole deal, conquests "I'm so lonely" monologue). Dope stuff. This video helped me understand why I liked the finale so much even though I've thought this season has been WEAK SAUCE. It's also a really cool look at storytelling as a broad thing. Since I first heard characters aren't people I developed a really snobby outlook on stories, like "anything that doesn't have characters that undergo succinct psychological development is awful writing!" I've locked in at the same pace as you have, and this vid just reinforces my ideological development when it comes to stories. On a meta level, stories that feature each of these collective psychology levels are very attractive to people. Level one stories like Flow scratch an itch in the same way that Conquest beating the brakes off of Mark does. I convinced myself that I loved the scene of Paul riding the sandworm in Dune 2 because it was him tragically highjacking the fremen religion, and that liking it because it looks cool is for less cognitive story-consumers. But dammit that shit is just cool, and that's the main reason I love the scene! Same wit him going SILENCE! Level three brain activated. I feel like a lot of stories add flavor/appeal to their level 6 baselines by sprinkling on level 3 badassery (Conquest), level 2 awe (the sandworm looking at paul and jessica in the moonlight), level 1 "primal sorrow/loneliness" (Two socks in dances with wolves or DiCaprio's struggle to survive in the revenant. Don't know what to call this emotion) level four epicness (Tony vanquishing Iron Monger) or level 5 ballin-ness (Fun coupons! and all the other wolf of wall street funny bs). All these stories have characters that more or less go through level 6 arcs, but their actual appeal comes from earlier levels of collective development. And therein lies the vibe Yeah, cool vid, I'm gonna go write 10 books with my unlocked knowledge. I'm a year or so younger than you and have recently started making money writing, and I owe a lot of it to your channel fr. Keep making vids

Brandon Laird

Great video! It’s interesting to think of these levels as a foundation from which the characters behave, rather than the overall “vibe” of the world. Avatar: The Last Airbender seems like it would be a level 2 world at first glance (emphasis on ancient spirits and superstitions), but at a societal level, it’s a level 4. With the Avatar serving as the bridge between these worlds, and the role of bringing peace and balance. Compare this to the world of Legend of Korra: the level 5 society doesn’t have the same reverence for the Avatar and spirits because they represent a more “primitive” time. The role of the avatar runs counter to an individualistic society.

Local187
>>168053411

Hey thanks for commenting - so many thoughts. But mostly YES I totally associate power-scaling media with level 3. I don’t THINK primal loneliness would be level 1, but thats not something Ive given much thought to. For me, level 1 is purely biological needs. But there’s probably a more nuanced way to discuss emotional needs - after all, babies will straight up die if you don’t hold them

Local187
>>168192513

Yep and none of these things have to be limitations - if you know them you can use them to your advantage, which I think Korra (sometimes) does

tdon
>>168053411

True--primal loneliness might better describe the projection of a higher level audience member on level 1 characters. Saw your recent youtube vid and agree this might be the best one you've written yet. Excited to see the final cut

E FILMS

Are there any good depictions of a fictional 6 society yet? I was thinking of making my zootopia an ideal animal communist/socialist society

E FILMS
>>168232203

The one thing I haven’t seen 😭. Thank you tho! Will start watching

Jonathan Salvador
>>167939427

It certainly seems to happen at least in fiction. Dune portrays a society that has regressed from what must have been a 5 society back down to a level 4 society. Mad Max is a world that regressed all the way back down to a 3 society.

Jonathan Salvador

You can see how each level might have originated out of a need to address the flaws of each previous one too. To someone at level 5, level 4 looks dogmatic, backwards and repressive, but to someone at level 4, the church and the crown are what protect ordinary people from the barbarians at level 3.

Local187
>>168450889

Level 4 has a love-hate relationship with level 5. On one hand, they'll worship successful individualists as figureheads. On the other hand, they'll execute free thinkers like Galileo because they hired him to prove the truth, but the truth isn’t what they wanted.

Bansel

I wanted to rewatch this video because I had a lot to say after first seeing it, and now that you've dropped the graph, I figure it's the perfect time to go off (I don't disagree with any of what you're saying; these are just some takeaways). 8:35 When I first listened to this segment, it helped me articulate a theory I have about the development of the superhero genre from the 1940s to the 1980s, particularly regarding its increasing narrative complexity. In the early 1940s, DC characters were very archetypal, telling simple stories about good guys fighting bad guys—often in humorous or lighthearted ways (Level 4). Then, in the 1960s, Marvel added depth to these characters and began exploring the negative consequences of being a superhero. For example, Spider-Man had to navigate teenage drama alongside his superhero responsibilities, while the X-Men were a group of superheroes reviled by the very people they saved. Additionally, characters like the Fantastic Four were portrayed as celebrities, and the Hulk was depicted as a monster who could only access his powers when angry, struggling to control them (Level 5). By the 1980s, works like Watchmen, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and The Dark Knight Returns elevated the genre further, illustrating that being a superhero could have serious drawbacks and even critiquing the very genre itself (Level 6). Notably, this trend seems to repeat every 20 years. By the 2000s, we should have reached Level 7, but for some reason, the genre appears to be stuck in a limbo, unable to decide between conventional and post-conventional narratives. I’m still developing this theory, so if you or anyone reading this has any thoughts on why that might be, I would love to hear them. That took a while to write, so I'm going to have to come back later and edit this comment to add the rest of my thoughts since it's late here in Joisey.

Local187
>>168832480

I don’t know a ton about the history of the genre but that all checks out! I also think there’s a case to be made for all genuine inspiration coming from 7+. You can write any story from any level but if you don’t have a glimmer of that agenda-less beauty, your stuff just isn’t gonna be memorable

Jonathan Salvador
>>168450889

Seems like whenever the protagonist is a developmental outlier relative to their society, the writer tends to place them a step higher. Could be interesting to explore what it looks like when the reverse happens, like Forrest Gump who's rooted firmly at level 4 while the world zips past him.

Local187
>>168450889

Gump analogy is great I’m gonna steal that. But yeah typically the protagonists are a level up, or the exemplar of that level. Like in a level 3 power scaling story you’ll just get a character like Goku who is the corresponding little boy fantasy

Jonathan Salvador
>>168450889

Unrelated but it also just occurred to me that the "hyperlink cinema" genre sounds like it describes stories at level 7 pretty well. Cloud Atlas is one movie that comes to mind where there's a bunch of characters all participating in a grand epic that no one of them can fully appreciate. The movie even uses reincarnation to imply that there's an essential human-ness to each person that transcends the subjective, unbroken conscious experience.