Engage & Participate

Online Exercises

Quick Test: Are You Post-Progressive?

Are You A Developmentalist?
Take the Test

Take a 2-minute test of your political developmentalism, and see your “transcendence and inclusion score.”

This simple test asks you to select your level of agreement or disagreement with twelve political statements. The test results will indicate your inclusivity score, your transcendence score, and the overall extent of your developmental perspective.

Worldview Questionnaire

Worldview Questionnaire

What is your worldview? Take this 7-minute test and find out which “values frame” describes you best.

By answering these 17 questions you may learn more about your own worldview, as well as about the worldviews of others.

Character Development Exercise

Character Development Exercise

Become a better person through this brief exercise in character development—create your personal portrait of the good.

Answer 10 questions to create a personalized chart of what matters most to you. This chart—your Portrait of the Good—will be sent to your email address as a pdf file.

Community Comment

“I am grateful for the post-progressive way of thinking. It was totally new to me, and now that I have been exposed to it, I think it is the way forward. It is the future. If there is a way out of this terrible culture war, I think it will be something along these lines. I love the idea of taking the best of the different worldviews and bringing them together into a more inclusive post-progressive worldview. This is a brilliant approach, and I am going to try to share it with as many people who are willing to listen to me as possible.”

– Lucas Chasin

Community Comment

“Progressivism doesn’t work without a foundation of modernism and traditionalism. Post-Progressivism allows modernists and traditionalists to feel significant, to feel needed, and to have a foundational seat at the table. The reason I don’t identify as a progressive, even though I am a vegan, spiritual, conscious, burning man guy, is because I feel its rejection of these previous worldviews …”

– Thomas Waterman

Load More...
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons
3 weeks ago

SHARE! ... See MoreSee Less

Video image

Comment on Facebook

4 weeks ago

It has been interesting to hear the different perspectives amongst various people I know, leading up to election day in the US. A theme that I keep hearing from the blue voters is "yeah, but protecting our democracy needs to be our top priority". A theme that I keep hearing from the red voters is "yeah, but sending a clear message that this anti-liberal authoritarianism is unacceptable needs to be our top priority".

I have been thinking about how both perspectives have a grain of truth in them, and how our real problem is only that we tend to see it as an either-or choice. Indeed, it alarms me that some people seem to think it's worth risking real harm to our democracy in order to force necessary change upon it. It also alarms me that some people seem to think it's worth silencing the diversity of perspectives and gaslighting their complaints in order to protect our homeland.

Could it be that these perspectives represent the two sides of a polarity, creating a vicious cycle that feeds off of itself? What if our threatening words and acts of violence are precisely what is making it more likely that others will write off our perspective and fail to hear the validity of our complaints? And what if the censorship and gaslighting are exactly what fuels the anger that poses the very threat to our democracy that we say we want to protect?

What if the grain of truth in the complaints we are failing to hear behind the anger is exactly what would evolve our democracy and make it stronger, if we allowed it into the conversation?

What if the fear that our democracy will be harmed is the only thing that gets in the way of our perspective being included, and if we learned to share our perspective in a less threatening way, we'd actually have better luck creating the change we want to see?
... See MoreSee Less

It has been interesting to hear the different perspectives amongst various people I know, leading up to election day in the US. A theme that I keep hearing from the blue voters is yeah, but protecting our democracy needs to be our top priority. A theme that I keep hearing from the red voters is yeah, but sending a clear message that this anti-liberal authoritarianism is unacceptable needs to be our top priority.  

I have been thinking about how both perspectives have a grain of truth in them, and how our real problem is only that we tend to see it as an either-or choice. Indeed, it alarms me that some people seem to think its worth risking real harm to our democracy in order to force necessary change upon it. It also alarms me that some people seem to think its worth silencing the diversity of perspectives and gaslighting their complaints in order to protect our homeland. 

Could it be that these perspectives represent the two sides of a polarity, creating a vicious cycle that feeds off of itself? What if our threatening words and acts of violence are precisely what is making it more likely that others will write off our perspective and fail to hear the validity of our complaints? And what if the censorship and gaslighting are exactly what fuels the anger that poses the very threat to our democracy that we say we want to protect?

What if the grain of truth in the complaints we are failing to hear behind the anger is exactly what would evolve our democracy and make it stronger, if we allowed it into the conversation?

What if the fear that our democracy will be harmed is the only thing that gets in the way of our perspective being included, and if we learned to share our perspective in a less threatening way, wed actually have better luck creating the change we want to see?

Comment on Facebook

Here we go, I mustered to courage to turn it into a proper blog post! polarity.coach/protecting-and-evolving-our-democracy/

I like this. I'm left on most things politically, but I'm absolutely sensitive to the *honest* motivations of those who are considered right. The abject failure of neoliberal policies is the fertile ground for those who understandably want to burn it down. It's hard to support the defense of a system that has hollowed out the middle class. And yet I cannot tolerate LIARS. No matter their motivation, no matter their tribal identification, and no matter left or right - I see lies as a violent attack on reason and public discourse. I try to guard against righteousness. Where the truth is not clear, I work hard to reserve judgement. I'm a natural skeptic. I rarely identify as the smartest in the room. I have so much to learn from everyone, truly. But LIES that are clear as day drop me down the spiral. They are my enemy, and I seek to extinguish them. I see RED. You want to lower taxes for the wealthy, pass out private school vouchers, limit sex education you think your kids aren't ready for or shouldn't hear from outside their home? OK, I may disagree but I'm open to consideration - maybe more so on the last two 😉. You want to protect freedom of speech, even when its widely considered repugnant? OK, I'll listen - it's not an unlimited freedom, and speech does not equal reach, but PC groupthink shouldn't be pushed either and I get it. College campuses banning controversial conservative speakers are flat out wrong imo. I listen to those I don't agree with. I pause to understand perspectives. And I can empathize even when I don't agree with a position, most times. But holy shit, the fucking lying! If people want to propagate the idea that the Jews sold out Germans in WWI, you get WW2 and the holocaust. There is an insane amount of lying going on today - its has an unbalanced amount on the right. It's nearly impossible to compromise with liars. As we travel through this Great Release (Robb Smith), I'm all about integrating and seeking compromise - but I find myself rather uncompromising when it comes to objective truth, like the validity of elections. What to do with that? I'm not sure. I feel rigid about defending the concept of Truth. Am I part of the problem?

Well said, Jeremy.

Load more

Community Comment

“I really appreciated the use of gay marriage as an example of win-win-win policy solutions because it shows how people with different approaches to political issues can still align on values. In speaking to my friends about using this value integration technique I realized that it can be helpful to use value as a verb, rather than a noun. When you look at value as a verb, as in ‘what do we all value?’, it really does become possible for traditionalists, modernists, and progressives to value a lot of the same things.”

– Scott Kirby