🟡 **色彩人格分类与政治光谱：** 邓肯·萨宾的色彩理论将绿色（追求和谐）、白色（追求秩序）、蓝色（追求知识）、黑色（追求满足）和红色（追求自由）作为核心分类，并认为这些颜色可以用来理解个体和组织的行为模式。作者进一步将这一理论应用于分析政治意识形态，例如将不同政治派别归类到相应的颜色，从而提供了一种理解政治光谱的新视角。

⚫ **权力结构中的“黑色”主导：** 文章强调，在竞争激烈的社会中，“黑色”人格（追求满足，不惜手段）往往更容易获得权力。这是因为他们将获取权力作为首要人生目标，并愿意为此付出巨大努力和牺牲。文章分析了“非黑人”如何被“黑色”人格的邻近颜色所统治，以及其中的欺骗性策略，如伪装以获取选票。

🚀 **跨性别主义政治的挑战与新型治理：** 文章指出，跨性别主义者（常为蓝黑结合）正成为一股日益强大的政治力量，其技术（如基因工程和超人工智能）可能颠覆现有的市场和民主体系，因为它们会破坏知情同意和权力制衡。为此，作者探讨了三种可能的新型治理体系：一种是基于力量威胁的蓝黑模式，一种是蓝白模式下的国际条约和法律，以及一种蓝红模式下的开源解决方案，以应对未来技术带来的挑战。

💡 **不同色彩组合的治理模式：** 文章详细阐述了蓝黑、蓝白、蓝红和蓝绿等不同色彩组合在治理模式上的差异。蓝黑倾向于权力斗争和竞争；蓝白倾向于建立国际条约和法律框架；蓝红则主张开放源代码和技术普及；蓝绿则侧重于意识形态的转变和促进对话。作者认为，理解并能够跨越不同色彩的意识形态测试，对于构建有效的政治联盟至关重要。

Published on November 10, 2025 5:05 AM GMT

2025-11-10

Disclaimer

Quick NoteTarget audience - Anyone curious about this topic. I've tried making myself more comprehensible here.I have never spoken to Duncan Sabien, and I might end up reinterpreting his concepts in ways he doesn't like or agree with. If he's reading this, he can correct me.

Colour wheel

Duncan Sabien's colour wheel tries to classify both individual personalities, and movements and organisations, using the same system.

If you don't want to read the full article, here is the summarised classication

Green - Seeks harmony through acceptanceWhite - Seeks peace through orderBlue - Seeks perfection through knowledgeBlack - Seeks satisfaction through ruthlessnessRed - Seeks freedom through action

I asked gpt-5 to make a list of popular political ideologies and classify them on Duncan Sabien's colour wheel.

You might have minor disagreements with which ideologies are popular versus not, and you might have minor disagreements with some of the classifications, but mostly this makes sense to me.

Which colour are you?

The best way to identify which colour you are is by looking at your own life decisions where you have sacrificed something of value. Look at revealed preferences not stated preferences.

Here's my list of Duncan Sabien's social dark matter

DeathSexClose relationships (especially conflicts in them)Morality and politicsMoneyPhysical and mental health

What is your attitude towards death, sex, close relationships, morality and politics, money, and physical and mental health, as shown by your life decisions?

I will also include the following, as they're among the most important life decisions one can make.

How you spend your time and money - which projects, activities and people get it?Which city you live in

Examples of life decisions and which colour they may indicate

(Note that being Green does not strongly indicate you will donate to environmental non-profit for example, but donating to environmental non-profits strongly indicates you are Green)

Green
If you follow a strong deontological moral codeIf you donate your money to environmental non-profitsIf you are typically the peacemaker rather than picking sides, when two of your close relationships enter a conflict with each otherIf you follow a political ideology that is Green
White
If you stay in a job you tolerate but don't love, because your parents ask you toIf you freely loan your money and time to people within your communityIf you plan to marry and have kids, and disprefer casual or non-monogamous relationship stylesIf you follow a religion or ideology that is White
Blue
If you join academia or a lower-paying job, but the job satifies your curiosityIf you shift cities or distance yourself from a partner to join academia or lower-paying curiosity-satisfying jobIf you obsess over pursuit of scientific knowledge via reading papers or blogs, to the point where it causes social isolation or degrades your mental healthIf you follow a political ideology that is Blue
Black
If you work on a startupIf you are working on projects that may cause some harm, like working on a gambling appIf you shift cities or distance yourself from people, in order to live with other people who also seek powerIf you follow a political ideology that is Black
Red
If you travel a lot because you intrinsically love travelIf you pick an unusual relationship style, such as polyamoryIf you have distanced from parents, partner or a job, because you found them controllingIf you follow a political ideology that is Red

Blacks rule

In a sufficiently competitive society, IMO primarily Black people get power.

There will always be people who care deeply about acquiring power, who are willing to endure a lot of personal suffering to acquire it, who are willing to make acquiring power their number one life priority, and consistently do this for decades.If you are not one of those people, you will probably be outcompeted by someone who is, over a long time period. Over a long time period, you probably will just get what you want badly enough.

Political implications

This means non-Black people are typically ruled by Black people who are their nearest neighbour on the colour wheel.Often there is deception involved. For instance fascists may pretend to be religious in order to get the religious votebank, and authoritarians may pretend to be communists in order to get the communist votebank

Non-blacks ruling blacks

A population with majority being traditional religious people (White Green) is typically ruled by fascists (Black White)A population with majority being classical liberals (White Blue) is typically ruled by transhumanists and neoliberals (Black Blue). They may also be ruled by fascists (Black White)A population with majority being communists and socialists (Red White) is typically ruled by authoritarians (Black Red)

Blacks ruling blacks

A population with majority being neoliberals is typically ruled by other neoliberalsA population with majority being fascists is typically ruled by other fascistsA population with majority being transhumanists is typically rules by other transhumanistsI don't know of any societies that were primarily ruled by libertarians or anarchocapitalists, so I'm ignoring those Black ideologies here.

I have not shared examples because they're political sensitive, especially where I live right now. If you think a few minutes, you can probably think of examples for all of these.

My personal views, and transhumanism

Me

I'm personally Blue Black, with Blue being primary.I used to have a shade of Red too, but that is fading.I am a neoliberal.I am not a transhumanist, but I wish I could be.I have now classified all my close relationships (friends, family, etc) in this system, and it makes intuitive sense to me how this is useful when we have political discussions.

Transhumanist politics

History and present
I think societies ruled by neoliberals (black blue) have historically done better than societies ruled by authoritarians (black red) and fascists (black white).I think transhumanists (black blue) are increasingly replacing neoliberals, fascists and authoritarians as the most powerful political force on Earth.IMO this is a problemNeoliberals have figured out stable political systems (like free markets and representative democracy) within which they can compete for power, but transhumanists have not figured out stable political systems within which they can compete for power.
Future
The default outcome of technologies like human genetic engineering and artifical superintelligence is to break both markets and democracy.Markets and democracy rely on informed consent, which only makes sense when the intelligence gap between both agents is narrow. Large intelligence gaps break this, as extreme persuasion can manufacture consent.Markets and democracy rely on many unintelligent people keeping a few intelligent power-seeking people in check. This breaks down if the few can become too powerful and too intelligent too quickly.Democracy relies on free speech and free flow of ideas to ensure that good values are spread in society. This breaks down when you can directly engineer your values into other agents by messing with their code (in case of digital minds) or genes (in case of human genetic engineering).
Pause AI politics
One response to this threat is to simply preserve neoliberalism, by banning both artificial superintelligence and human genetic engineering.To enforce a ban, you have to build a coalition between many actors, who are not Blue Black like transhumanists are. (A major motivation for me to write this post was to understand people's views across the political spectrum, to figure out how to communicate with them more effectively, or how to think about political alliances, and so on.)On the timescale of a century however, I'm unsure how stable a ban will be. It is useful to invent new systems of governance to handle transhumanist technologies.
New political systems of governance for transhumanists.
I have noticed that when I have discussions with people around new systems of governance:Blue Black power-seekers like me typically propose a system of power-seeking actors threatening mass violence on each other.
Historical examplesSupporting gun laws and supporting keeping guns illegally, if you country does not legally allow guns.Supporting the post-WW2 world order that keeps peace via states threatening nuclear war on each other.Most neoliberal policy is blue-black, it assumes unrestrained competition via free market is good, and the harms and externalities of this competition are acceptable or can be mitigated later on.Industrial revolution and subsequent colonisation of the world by the British EmpireEnglish becoming the universal language, as countries that don't use English can't compete. (Chinese and French play this role to a smaller extent.) Singapore mandated English, India prioritised it, most of south east Asia didn't prioritise English and this is hinderingChina and US leading the world on many zero-to-one technologies, due to atheist culture in their top research institutes.
Blue White technocrats typically propose new international treaties, laws and political structures that assume the existence of atleast some systems that remain benevolent, or some actors that remain benevolent.
Historical examplesInternational treaties to ban human gene cloning or CFCs for ozone depletionDeregulation, reducing licensing and zoning restrictions in housing and various industries, while not eliminating regulation completelyCarbon credit systemInflationary monetary supply and the eurodollar system to loan dollars to foreign govtsVenture capitalist ecosystem funding fundamental R&D for transhumanist technologies like anti-aging
Blue Red freedom-lovers typically propose more open source solutions that involve giving the weapons or technology to everyone
Historical examplesOpen source movement in the software industry such as Linux, the Free Software Foundation or Github todayDemocratising scientific knowledge via internet such as Arxiv, internet archive, libgen, bittorrentOpen sourcing specific hard tech like drones or robotics or pharmaceutical manufacturingFocus on decriminalisation and harm reduction for hard drugsCypherpunks movement that was pro-encryption and privacy, and lead to Tor, Signal and blockchain.
Blue Green people I have met in practice often propose new ideology to persuade actors to become more benevolent, without proposing any specific changes in political systems
They generally accept neoliberalism will continue, and have a neutral stance towards it. Possibly a negative stance if they are also pro-environment.They try to create centres where discussion between powerful people of other camps (Blue Black, Blue White, Black Red) can take place.My ability to pass ITT for Blue Green people is pretty bad, so I am going to skip this section entirely.
I could dive deeper into the specific disagreements between Blue Black, Blue Red, Blue White and Blue Green, but I don't want to get into detail here. I generally do think though, that no matter which camp you belong to, it is useful to be able to pass the ideological turing tests of the other camps.