Spiral Dynamics

[SlipperyQ]

Spiral Dynamics is a psychological model as well as a scientific theory.
The theory states that humans can evolve through certain psychological/ cultural memes both collectively and individually. Each stage increases in sophistication as an individual or collective embodies and then transcends each stage of the spiral. The vast majority of humans start at the bottom and eventually evolve to the level of their parents and peers depending on their speed of maturity. Once an individual has matured to the level of their peers they stagnate at that stage for the rest of their life unless there is some kind of catalyst that causes that individual to develop further.
Each stage on the Spiral is reflective of various cultures, attitudes, worldviews, and lifestyles found throughout the world. Any collective, or individual can be measured using this model. The stages are each represented by a color. The spiral starts with Beige, which is infancy, it is the mindset of a very small child, or feral human.
I will provide an image so you may see this model for yourself.

I am sharing this model because it provides an explanation for varying values between humans.
INTPs may be similar to each other in certain regards, but there is still differences to be found. Alternative models such as this one provide a way to distinguish between different INTPs based on their level of psychological development. Some INTPs may behave very differently from other INTPs, and this model can point out the distinction.

 

[Black Rose]

Ken Wilber is an important figure in development stages. Here is a more comprehensive graphic. Click to expand.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

How do we know that this is not all nonsense?

 

[Black Rose]

How do we know that this is not all nonsense?

How do we know if anything is not all nonsense?

 

[Haim]

This is nonsense, if you see a duck it is a fucking duck.

 

[Minuend]

I think you mean hypothesis?

I kinda get the impression hypothesis like these are observing humans from the outside (in contrast to going "into" the human mind and understand it from within), trying to put them into aesthetically pleasing models. I mean, if humans functioned like this, that would be very neat and appeal to the sense of category and logic, right? Because you could easily reduce human behaviors to easily understood and easily predicted behaviors. And it has nice colors and feels good.

Not that you can never predict a person accurately if you understand it, but models like this, the motivation to create them seems to come from other interests than genuine understanding

 

[SlipperyQ]

I shall dispell some of this invalid skepticism towards Spiral Dynamics. I understand that a model is limited and can't fully describe or illuminate every aspect of the human mind. With that said, just because there are variables left unaccounted for when utilizing MBTI or Spiral Dynamics doesn't mean these models are invalid. In fact, these models are quite accurate, and spiral dynamics is on the cutting edge of psychology. Decades of work has went into Spiral Dynamics, with contributions from many different scientists. This theory wasn't developed in an ivory tower either, it's based on working in the field, conducting interviews, assessing values, and psychological analysis. I think this model is a bit more than a tentative notion, making it more credible than your objection.
Your objections to this model is essentially "The map is not the territory" and while that's true, it doesn't invalidate the need for a map.
I can use a ruler to measure your height, which provides a small amount of infornation about you. Doesn't mean I know everything about you, I only know the information that the model (ruler) is meant to uncover.
With your logic you can invalidate any theory. Mathematics must be invalid because it's just symbols written down and primarily exists as concepts in our minds, so how can mathematics be reliably used to learn about reality?
2+2=4 is only a collection of symbols based on subjective, arbitrary concepts meant to appeal to the sense of logic and categorization! The motivation behind maths must not be genuine understanding but simply forcing a worldview!

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

How do we know that this is not all nonsense?

How do we know if anything is not all nonsense?

Well, as someone who works in the financial sector, about 50% of my work is about separating sense from nonsense.

Nonsense models typically have the following characteristics:
- They contain a lot of gratuitous fancy language which doesn't add anything useful
- They are typically a form-without-function; e.g. something that sounds sciency but is ultimately a hollow shell
- They are very vague in their definitions and assumptions, allowing them to move the goalposts whenever the model fails to predict something
- They have no clear criteria for how to test or falsify the model

The models above satisfy all of these

 

[Minuend]

With your logic you can invalidate any theory. Mathematics must be invalid because it's just symbols written down and primarily exists as concepts in our minds, so how can mathematics be reliably used to learn about reality?
!

Not really, some concepts are more provable than others, some are more accurate than others.

How do you imagine you can prove the spiral dynamics hypothesis as well as various theories within mathematics?

If you have better sources that have better proof and reasoning, feel free to link them.

 

[SlipperyQ]

Keep in mind that this model is an extreme simplification of the theory. It's far more complex and nuanced than these visual representations may suggest.
If you really want to familiarize yourself with this model and determine it's accuracy for yourself then read this Academic Paper on the theory of Spiral Dynamics. You'll see the evidence for this model and it's practical application.
@Serac you can't apply that criteria to this model when we haven't even begun to apply this model to any real examples in this discussion nor even examined the ramifications of this model.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@SlipperyQ

A quote from the conclusion of the paper:

It might be that this is the incredible space of each person's gross, subtle, causal and non-dual states, stages, floors, and worlds, as they intersect with others who are at different gross, subtle causal and non-dual states, stages floors and worlds, with these intersecting spaces evoking evolution with each other? Yes, this is simply another more complex version of the third model depicted at the beginning of this paper. Perhaps this fourth model is simply describing something else; a pliable model that sees the truth of all of the previous models, and can't easily be put on paper because it is itself evolving moment by moment through time; a model that continues to change as humanity evolves; a flowing model which might be accessed if I take a meta-perspective on perspectives-sweeping-though-time, rather than from any one frozen place; perspectives viewed like rushing water in a stream, sometimes a trickle and sometimes a flood, which through time changes the truth of the concrete, subtle and causal landscape forever even as it doesn't change the truth of the stream that is flowing.

Awareness kissing distinctions

The Witness parenting stages

Ave Maria becoming

Ishwara

The kingdom of mind

Bows in service to the Mouth of the River

Setting Buddha's and Christ's table

Host or Hostess?​

I rest my case on this one

I don't mean to be rude to you, @SlipperyQ, but these people are straight-up cranks. I hope they are not financing this horse shit by taxpayer dollar.

 

[SlipperyQ]

The paper is discussing non-dual perspectives and higher states of consciousness, which is very difficult to do using academic language. This model is uncovering the psychological forces behind certain spiritual practices, like Zen Buddhism or Taoism. It's explaining concepts like Maya, Nirvana, Spiritual Enlightenment in a more scientific fashion. It requires understanding meta-perspectives. Just because it ventures away from your western materialist paradigm doesn't mean it's not worth consideration.

Here is a good Book which also goes where spiral dynamics goes but using a different approach. One of my favorite great works in psychology, and it contains knowledge that I find can be easily connected to Spiral Dynamics.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

If it's some sort of religion or self-help tool, then that's all good. If it claims to have anything to do with science though, it should be able to specify exactly how its theories/models can be put to an empirical test. I.e. define a hypothesis which, if proven false by experiment, falsifies the theory. Is there such a hypothesis in that framework?

 

[SlipperyQ]

You should know that psychology as a field is very ambiguous and theoretical. Experimentation on this level is usually either unethical, illegal, or unfeasible.
In the case of Spiral Dynamics, it's based on analysing a person's mindset and worldview. Over time the observer uncovers certain patterns in culture and value systems. They have determined from thousands of these studies all over the world that culture falls into 6-8 different categories, and the relationship between these categories are linear and show an increase in complexity.

Many historians use spiral dynamics as a tool to revise history.

The historic examples are obvious. Several thousand years ago humans lived in small tribes and depended on their direct family to survive. These were stage 2 people, whose sophistication is limited to tribal customs and beliefs. To stage 2 people, the world is mysterious, magical, and dangerous.

Humans eventually evolved into stage 3, which is the mentality of dominance. These individuals follow a worldview in which the world is a jungle and the toughest survive. Stage 3 cares less about tribal customs and more about domination and control. They use coercion to get what they want. Modern day examples include criminals and rebellious teenagers.

Stage 4 is the religious stage. The stage 3 people grow weary of endless struggle among themselves and create concrete laws which come from a higher power which governs all mankind. This is aimed to enforce an ordered society and unbreakable consensus. Stage 4 is the first stage in which large communities form and common identity is shared among thousands or even millions of people. Spiritual leaders are at the top of the hierarchy, followed by politicians and military. There are many real examples of this stage, including medieval Europe, The Muslim World, Hindu culture, American evangelicals, Fascism, Fundamentalism, Communism, etc.

Stage 5 is the scientific individualist stage. Capitalist corporate America, Wall Street, Dubai, The Industrial Revolution, Science, Stock Market, technology etc. are all stage 5 phenomena. The religious stage 4 person let's go of their dogma and instead focuses on practical achievement. They see reality as a mechanical system which can be exploited for one's own benefit.


As you can tell, the only way to make an experiment is to force a person into various environments for an extended period of time and see how their values change. The main proposition of this theory is that human values and worldview fluidly changes to adapt to new situations and environments in typical ways. When social context changes, human thought advances into the next stage, which occurs when previous perspectives become obsolete.
It is possible to formulate an experiment for this model.

 

[QuickTwist]

Interesting.

I might look into this book you are talking about.

I believe principles like the Fibonacci Sequence are staples throughout the universe and as we are part of the universe, they apply to us as well.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

So when is the next stage and what will it be?

 

[Black Rose]

So when is the next stage and what will it be?

A relativistic worldview where we learn culture constructs are arbitrary. Language is a construct. It is basic sociology that the forces of history come from ideas in the minds of people and change and are not absolute. Culture changes, it is Relative, all human endeavors are products of mental constructs that can be molded.

 

[SlipperyQ]

So when is the next stage and what will it be?

A relativistic worldview where we learn culture constructs are arbitrary. Language is a construct. It is basic sociology that the forces of history come from ideas in the minds of people and change and are not absolute. Culture changes, it is Relative, all human endeavors are products of mental constructs that can be molded.

@Serac Stage 6 has already materialized and is growing it's cultural influence every year.
Animekitty is spot on with that explanation but I'll try to provide a more vivid description.
Stage 6 is also known as stage green.
The rational and individualist person from stage 5 begins to see the limits of individualism, capitalism, science, and unchecked materialism. They no longer value wealth, status, and personal acheivement, instead they begin to value human relationships, equality, health, beauty, artistic integrity, community, love, and freedom (cultural freedom not economic freedom which is what stage 5 values). There are actually many examples of stage 6 communities.
They include Woodstock, Hippies, Vegans, Feminists, Moral Relativists, Nudists, New Agers, Scandinavia, progressives, Greenpeace, environmentalism, multiculturalism, etc. As a side note, just because they're higher on the spiral doesn't necessarily mean they have good politics, they just have better ideals.

The next two stages are incredibly rare. Stage 7 is only 1% of the population. Stage 8 is less than 0.01% of the population.

 

[nanook]

Of course the first insight of integral cognition is that its pointless to teach integral cognition to others, as it biologically grows on us and is not comprehensible, until this growth has happened.

Yet, i myself did do some more battling, mainly with pluralists, for some years, after getting how hopeless it is, in theory. I guess i needed to have evidence of the pointlessness.

Now i know how to tune out of relationships, as soon as they are broken, transmuted into nothing but projections, misunderstandings.

You can monologe forever in this place, but when you start a thread on your own, you will be sort of attacked or challenged, because of how (otherwise oblivious) inferior or tertiary feeling is irritated by the obviousness of a thread.

Most so called "INTP" are obviously different cognitive types. This message board does not consist out of a homogeneous group of types. Not even NT.

But your are right of course, the types go through stages.

I myself am also influenced by Integral Theory and have at least heard one audiobook by Don Beck.

And since i went through most of these stages, i can also have a good idea of what kind of a person is entirely out of the spectrum of my type, even if i can't type them or myself accurately, if all my definitions are somehow warped, mirrored, etc.


There is also pathology to be taken into account. This is potentially a larger source of confusion, from my point of view.

For example: Is Integral Community Leader "XYZ" merely an ENTJ or a narcissistic ENTJ? This i find extremely hard to tell. Of course i drown in intuitions about it, but since i am not that type myself, at that stage, i just can't be absolutely certain about what worldview or attitude is ideal ("healthy") for that type at that stage and state. My own type (and possibly pathology) must cloud my perception. An integral type is only integral about what they have inside of themselves, not about everything that exists under the sun (this is a point, where i often feel that some integral people's and wilber's ideas of integral enlightenment must be criticized as being potentially megalomaniac).

 

[Black Rose]

Of course the first insight of integral cognition is that its pointless to teach integral cognition to others, as it biologically grows on us and is not comprehensible, until this growth has happened.

Toiurquoes "A profound stable connection with all that is"

My emotional situation has been extremely unstable for 3 years now.
In that case being non-judgemental is difficult. I've been trying to be stable as I can.
Disturbances are hard to deal with. Anxiety goes against settling down.
Being calm in an isolated quest space takes effort, I always feel the need to do something.
I am unsettled all the time. Meditation makes it worse. I am looking for ways to be calm. Sometimes I do become calm.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Stage 6 has already materialized and is growing it's cultural influence every year.
Animekitty is spot on with that explanation but I'll try to provide a more vivid description.
Stage 6 is also known as stage green.
The rational and individualist person from stage 5 begins to see the limits of individualism, capitalism, science, and unchecked materialism. They no longer value wealth, status, and personal acheivement, instead they begin to value human relationships, equality, health, beauty, artistic integrity, community, love, and freedom (cultural freedom not economic freedom which is what stage 5 values). There are actually many examples of stage 6 communities.
They include Woodstock, Hippies, Vegans, Feminists, Moral Relativists, Nudists, New Agers, Scandinavia, progressives, Greenpeace, environmentalism, multiculturalism, etc. As a side note, just because they're higher on the spiral doesn't necessarily mean they have good politics, they just have better ideals.

The next two stages are incredibly rare. Stage 7 is only 1% of the population. Stage 8 is less than 0.01% of the population.

I.e. slave morality is on the rise and is claimed to a "better" ideal. Personal achievement and wealth = bad. Multiculturalism, "progressives", "equality" = good.

In general terms, this is just taking superficial facts about history and politics and sticking woo-woo new-age narratives to it. But hey, that's just me and my western materialist paradigm.

Their theories notwithstanding, I'm impressed that these cranks and charlatans are somehow clever enough to exploit our "materialist western" system to gather funding for this nonsense.

 

[Hadoblado]

@SlipperyQ
Okay so, just a little primer on the forum. A lot of us here are skeptical of MBTI. Despite this, we're still around, and while it's a pretty old topic we'll still work within the framework to communicate with believers. The believers and non-believers still get along, which I think is really pretty good.

So this spiral thing? A lot of us are sitting here on a forum for a personality inventory we believe to be bunk. This is going to be a hard crowd, but I think so long as it's a two-way conversation, your spiral stuff could be an interesting contribution.
//primer

My thoughts:
I agree with Serac. This is at best indistinguishable from nonesense. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that you haven't provided much evidence for it being right. And that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, just like my Kryptonian Grandma.

I don't like that you called the forum's skepticism "invalid". That's not reasoning, it's just a dismissal that is itself invalid.

When you talk about spiral being 'accurate', how do you know? Because let me tell you, personality psychology is fucking rough. It is super difficult to make predictive models of human behaviour that work, and you don't know whether you've got a good model until you've crunched a lot of numbers.

And continuing with the theme of 'prediction', that's basically the measure by which I weight anything of this ilk. Show me that it has predictive value beyond other models, and you've got yourself a convert. I want you to show me how accurate of a map it is. Show me how it makes falsifiable predictions that are accurate.

 

[Black Rose]

The system follows Piaget's stages of cognitive development where Rational Self (orange) is formal operations. It then goes on to higher stages of cognitive development as the system elaborates on. (post-formal operations).

 

[Hadoblado]

Yeah, I know. I was actually introduced to spiral around the same time I was introduced to MBTI. I was told with my then-assumed personality type (INTP), I could reach the second highest level. The person recommending this of course thought themselves at the highest level. I don't know whether they were referring to some hybrid theory or speaking out their ass.

I really like Piaget, but I don't like models that are more accessible than they are rigorous, which extrapolate developmental principles beyond what their authors intended. Piaget stopped at formal operations iirc? So let's just assume that spiral has at least received the science treatment up until there (even though Piaget underestimated children in a lot of ways, his ideas have generally held up and been useful).

I'm interested in the evidence for the stuff after that.

Because when I look at spiral I see something akin to false religion. It's asserted without evidence to create a narrative that places some people over others. Instead of being the closest to the creator force, you're just the most advanced developmentally. A hierarchical device.

 

[redbaron]

I really like Piaget, but I don't like models that are more accessible than they are rigorous

im that dickhead that quotes part of a post just to say +1

but like i really +1 this

 

[Black Rose]

Perhaps I am but a child compared to the development of someone else. I would not put a limit too development. I am sure it reaches much higher. (I cannot label anything like that)

 

[Hadoblado]

It's not about whether there's a limit to development, it's about people claiming to know more about development than they demonstrate.

Personally I think development is better extrapolated on beyond what Piaget provided, by integrating other approaches (so more of a horizontal expansion than vertical). This however would limit accessibility which is something the expander likely prioritises.

 

[Black Rose]

Personally I think development is better extrapolated on beyond what Piaget provided, by integrating other approaches (so more of a horizontal expansion than vertical). This however would limit accessibility which is something the expander likely prioritises.

I'm interested in horizontal expansion.
It should be more accessible in the beginning.
What are the approaches you know of?

 

[Hadoblado]

Erik Erikson's series of crises
Kohlberg's moral development
Vygotsky's scaffolding

To name a few. Just pick up any text-book on developmental psychology for the family assortment of theories that are used in parallel to explain development.

It looks like Spiral theory is a spin-off from neo-Piagetians. Like, I know this isn't a rational argument, but I recommend you start with the text-book before you try to interpret the infographic that has 'magician' as one of its categories. You should understand the conventional views before you attempt to rise above them via alternative perspectives.

As for whether it's worth your time, reading about developmental psychology fundamentally changed my world view, it might be valuable for you too.

 

[Polaris]

While I think it is beneficial to strive for certain ideals on a personal level, it becomes somewhat icky, if not outright alienating when a bunch of knower-betterers decide to put people into arbitrary good/bad categories based on their own superficial assessment, and subjective personal ideals. It reeks of Nazism. Yes, that was a value-judgement of Nazism, but the example merely serves to demonstrate a point. It doesn't seem to pay much attention to individual circumstance and development, which is rather shonky-shoddy, and also disrespectful.

It's like calling people crazy without examining or understanding causative processes. Which means a significant percentage of the population become outsiders, or are made to feel like outsiders thanks to the labels and categories we assign them to. Similarly, integral theory comes off as arrogant and elitist by categorising people in a hierarchy.

 

[nanook]

Its not like the recognition of stages is an optional act. Nor is the recognition of personality types. Both grows on us. Besides Integral Theory does acknowledge that development applies rather to any line of development, than to all aspects of a person at once. In that it differs from some of the schools of data-collection that went into the making of academic developmental psychology, which would often sort of reduce humans to one particular line or aspect of behavior, like needs, morals, etc. To have your favorite school of development and ignore the others implies to objectify (reduce) humans for the purpose of the line examined by that school, thus it is a potential enslavement and hierarchical oppression of individual/natural freedom. In a school everyone is a worthless piece of shit, if they can not remember facts. To acknowledge all abilities (lines) of humans is the way out of this particular bias and power agenda. You favor a particular academically recognized model of development because this way you rise in the hierarchy of academia. We can not go backwards, shy away from recognizing stages, that would bring us back to when it was the survival of the fittest warrior, that defined our value, we have to move forward, to the whole picture, include everything that matters. Integral Theory aims to describe Nature passively. The definition of what a line is is also entirely open, since integralism acknowledges the subjectivity of such a focus. It just allows to specify/label/communicate the perspectives that already exist within human nature and shows how they relate to each other. Its essentially a language. There is limited data about the context sensitivity of one person's cognition, relative to the cognition of their environment. Does company drag you down or up, where would you be without it? Its obvious that some degree of such contextual influence is happening and one way integral jargon allows to speak of this influence is via the word "meme", or by specifically focusing on the level of social interactions, in integral jargon the lower left quadrant (society, subcultures, parties, etc). Every individual has a unique sensitivity about what they do with their vision logic or integral jargon. Of course it can be abused for narcissistic purposes. Everything can. Spiral Dynamics is focused on political and economical problems, it rarely ever zooms in on individual development but is specifically interested in how companies, communities or alliances can be composed to allow for the highest possible stage to emerge or manifest in that context.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

You favor a particular academically recognized model of development because this way you rise in the hierarchy of academia.

It's funny because this Spiral stuff is a very good example of this phenomenon where a group of people – or an institution – essentially make a religion out of an idea and create an in-group of people buying into the idea. They typically lose touch with reality and use various tactics like the ones used by OP and yourself to elevate, as it were, themselves above the out-group. This includes rejecting rigorous empirical science as a "materialist paradigm". One can also see from the reference list in that "paper" that they get their foundations from a limited pool of writers dealing with similar new-age nonsense.

 

[Minuend]

So I was planning on reading this more in depth to pinpoint exactly why I think it's not valid. But not sure if I should bother.

The idea of stages themselves seem to contradict what I know about humans. I mean, humans are not neat, orderly things that go through stages. They are messy all over the place cognitive individuals that varies between or combine or mix the various categories called stages in this case. I don't believe humans orderly develop and leave their own worse (?) version behind. In fact, we can develop our understanding to a complex degree while still polluting it with our biases and feelings to the point were we wouldn't value or care about what's supposed to be the "next" level, what's right, what should be etc. (I kinda regret using the word polluting here, because our feelings and biases can actually teach us something about ourselves if we know how to understand it. Feelings, even when considered irrational, can help us if understood and used correctly)

Also, these stages seem to be heavily dependent on the values of the creators. I mean, they obviously value green values above orange. But does that means those values/ priorities are actually superior? Not that superior exists outside our minds, but you get the idea. Why couldn't orange be superior to green? Why must they even be exclusive or separate? Why is complex thought superior or indicative of development? Development according to who or what and why?

Also, nanoook, are you implying it's not worth debating ideas here because there are few/ no intps? I don't necessarily disagree there are few intps, but I think if you're searching for specific personality types because you think they will be more open to your ideas or similar, actually I'm not sure what to make of that. I think if you're frustrated with the community, it's not a type issue. Considering the low activity, I'd think there are more people and types who feel similarly.

I do understand feeling frustrated if you are always shut down or if people are being too negative, but I think a lot of us end up being dependent on that critical ability due to our environment. It doesn't imply a personal offense or disregard to people with ideas. In fact, I've found many people actually appreciate individuals who write consciously even when in disagreement. I also think you might underestimate how much people reflect upon what you or others write, even when they seem very critical. Critical does not equal dismissive, even though it gives that impression

 

[nanook]

Integral cognition is as impersonal as the ability to recognize colors

If you alone can see colors and inform a color blind society about the existence colors, does it mean you only want to elevate yourself (do they even recognize color sight as a leadership quality?) or does it mean you think the world would be a better place, if colors were recognized, for example that people could solve their problem with certain fly attacks by not wearing the color yellow or blue or reduce buffalo attacks by avoiding red, etc.

In speaking of colors, I make no claim about my personality, my social skills, my sanity, any line of intelligence that makes me a uniqe person with a name, nor - most importantly - do i ever intend to enter an interactive relationship with the reader, therefore however awesome it may be to have the gift of color recognition, is of no relevance to the subject.

SD has a purpose of fixing problems in the world through diplomatic action, that cannot be solved by a more primitive thinking.

Its not at all in the least bit a community that can be joined for the purpose of shared prayers or raping minestrants.

Its a seminar for politicians or leaders of economy/entrepreneurs, that focuses on improving the quality and impact of their power/ability, instead of focusing on an advancement of their career. There is no money or fame in SD.

Integral Theory on the other hand does have many local scenes around the world, in part because it focuses also on personal development, which requires a task oriented community, and obviously there are going to be some narcissistic extroverted cult leaders involved, and their beta-competitors, wherever human beings unite for any kind of purpose or interest. This is a rather irrelevant ad-hominem like observation. There is not a single movement in humanity, that does not reveal the monkey nature of neurotypical human beings. If that is going to be the main object of critique (inferior / paranoid Fe is on the leash) then we also have to look into evolution of great apes and how it may have taken a wrong term (Tony Wright does that) and Integral Theory is a great starting point (jargon) for such a discussion. Its an open system, designed for updates. Its a map, not a personality or community or movement. In its current state, it includes shadow work, so any dysfunctional, egotistical superiority trips of individuals will be addressed within the possibilities of our given neurology (therapy, reflection).

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

There is no money or fame in SD.

Allow me to introduce you to Terri J. O'Fallon – the author of the paper posted by OP: she has a BS in Education, MS in Special Education, and has a long career in public school administration. And whaddya know, folks, she also runs this company called Developmental Life Designs where you can get a "Stages Assessment" for prices ranging from $250 to $650. If anyone wants to sign up, here is the link: https://www.stagesinternational.com/stages-assessment/

Cranks and charlatans.

 

[Hadoblado]

@nanook
It's not just that you see colours while others don't. It's that this theory puts some colours above others and this is part of this meme's life cycle. People receive instant affirmation when they identify themselves as a high-level 'colour'. They then perpetuate the model in order to sustain their world-view.

It's not just that there's a cultish element to the idea, after all, a lot of good ideas have the same potential for exploitation. It's that this idea has no entry requirements for becoming an exploiter. It claims scientific status (see OP) without demonstrating anything scientific.

It's that, as Serac pointed out, people are making money off it, just like an MBTI lite.

So:
- it has the trappings of science without being science (borrowed authority)
- it tries to replace the entire open-ended field of developmental psychology with just one theory, which makes no sense. The field is just too big. While you may feel like such an expansive theory is 'open-minded', it's kind of limiting because it shouldn't be competing with any one theory, but the entire field.
- it apparently has a savior flavour? developmental psychology doesn't usually try to save the world. What other fields is it now competing with?
- it has a memetic lifecycle that exploits people's natural biases
- there's people in authorship positions who have positioned themselves to make dollars off people's beliefs
- it makes an effort to market itself. While yes, science can be marketed, it typically doesn't target the layperson

And while saying all this, again I'll reiterate, this doesn't necessarily make it wrong. It just thus far hasn't distinguished itself from bad ideas.

 

[Minuend]

Integral cognition is as impersonal as the ability to recognize colors

If you alone can see colors and inform a color blind society about the existence colors, does it mean you only want to elevate yourself (do they even recognize color sight as a leadership quality?) or does it mean you think the world would be a better place, if colors were recognized, for example that people could solve their problem with certain fly attacks by not wearing the color yellow or blue or reduce buffalo attacks by avoiding red, etc.

In speaking of colors, I make no claim about my personality, my social skills, my sanity, any line of intelligence that makes me a uniqe person with a name, nor - most importantly - do i ever intend to enter an interactive relationship with the reader, therefore however awesome it may be to have the gift of color recognition, is of no relevance to the subject.

SD has a purpose of fixing problems in the world through diplomatic action, that cannot be solved by a more primitive thinking.

Its not at all in the least bit a community that can be joined for the purpose of shared prayers or raping minestrants.

Its a seminar for politicians or leaders of economy/entrepreneurs, that focuses on improving the quality and impact of their power/ability, instead of focusing on an advancement of their career. There is no money or fame in SD.

Integral Theory on the other hand does have many local scenes around the world, in part because it focuses also on personal development, which requires a task oriented community, and obviously there are going to be some narcissistic extroverted cult leaders involved, and their beta-competitors, wherever human beings unite for any kind of purpose or interest. This is a rather irrelevant ad-hominem like observation. There is not a single movement in humanity, that does not reveal the monkey nature of neurotypical human beings. If that is going to be the main object of critique (inferior / paranoid Fe is on the leash) then we also have to look into evolution of great apes and how it may have taken a wrong term (Tony Wright does that) and Integral Theory is a great starting point (jargon) for such a discussion. Its an open system, designed for updates. Its a map, not a personality or community or movement. In its current state, it includes shadow work, so any dysfunctional, egotistical superiority trips of individuals will be addressed within the possibilities of our given neurology (therapy, reflection).

So, do you think you could understand people being skeptical or dismissive when you start talking about people being blind, mentioning primitive thinking, inferior/ paranoid fe etc? What if people genuinely want to understand, but are met with that kind of attitude? What if that's the attitude you have towards those who differ from you?

I'm actually a bit disappointment that's the direction you chose to take. I understand it, but I'm disappointment.

I grew up with grand parents who pretty much started a christian cult and I can inform you they labeled their opposition quite harshly. In their eyes, they were enlightened, they were on the right path. When you start trying to poke at people's flaws/ weaknesses by saying they are in some ways inferior/ stupid/ ignorant- that's what my grand parents did. It's pretty shitty, to put it mildly.

 

[nanook]

I express my own perspective, in so far i am sure it roughly overlaps with Wilber's integral theory (or elsewhere, i may also speak of my differences and my own views). I do not even bother to address anyone by name, because your misunderstandings or projections or defensive reactions or whatever it may be are all stereotypical patterns, not at all unique to you, but are common to like way over 80% of the population. Nothing about the subject (what is reality?) is personal. Ego and free will are illusions anyhow, so lets not pretend that anyone exists who has any control about whether the truth about integral theory will be grokked or not. (No god who transmits truth, no devote believer who is granted insight in return for devotion - this is NOT a religion). Certain ideas could be responded to on a purely factual level. For example a reader does not't have to understand or agree with me in order to acknowledge, that what i say is not what he expected. For example integral theory is accused of oppressing and can demonstrate to remove existing oppression instead. It transcends and includes, it does not abandon anything essential, only surface structures, such as misunderstandings.

I can not address any feelings that are invoked in the reader, by the possibility, that some people who have posted in this thread might not be maximal removed from any primitivity (might not be absolutely advanced, perhaps even beyond evolution, crossed the finsh line), might not be all seeing (might not be suffering from a blindness to any spectrum or dimension, such as to the psychological structures, which reveal the holarchy (transcend, objectify, include) of the inner complexity of ideas or psychological moves). Such feelings are entirely the product of the value system or psyche of that reader. Can i understand it? Of course. Am i surprised about it? Not in the least bit. Can i correct it? Can i objectify something, that to you is subjective and can therefore appear "hurtful"? Absolutely not. Am I responsible for it? No, i am not the creator god of your psyche and Integral Theory does not support such a responsible god. Does the mentioned possibility (dichotomy from primitive/simple-minded to more complex) have anything to do with me? No. Am i different from you? Do i not also fear the lack of success that stems from any poorly developed line of intelligence, such as my social skills, do i not suffer from dementia and face its horrible future? Of course i also fear consequences of primitivity, in that i am the same. But do i find this fear so insufferable, that i do not acknowledge my constitution or can not tolerate other people mentioning the possibility? Absolutely not. I have objectified the whole spectrum of human misery and can label and describe every tiny bit of it. Am i offended, that you compare me to cult leading parents? Absolutely not. This is just your perception, you express it, i acknowledge it as part of the universe. Integral Theory acknowledges all kinds of Pre-trans fallacies in much detail. Luckily i can speak of things as they are, without making any "judgements" of the kind that cause psychological dissociation and projection. Am i offended, if you perceive Ken or the likes as cult leaders? Absolutely not. I also understand such feelings or speculations, or may have similar ones. But i point out, that those feelings do not invalidate integral theory and have nothing to do with it.

Even your parent's cult was just an expression, a manifestation of their psychological structure. It was not a doing, that was chosen. I was raised by a radically narcissistic father (red, amber, in color terms), he made our family into a shut-off four person cult, without being religious, just being plain insane - and he could not do any other way. Again, i am no different from you in having such fears of oppression, its just that you did not grok that integral theory is something else entirely.

@Hado: "And while saying all this, again I'll reiterate, this doesn't necessarily make it wrong. It just thus far hasn't distinguished itself from bad ideas" - in your perspective and this is because you do not understand it enough to see how it is not only a good idea, but an invaluable, irreplaceable and inescapable idea. And the very first thing integralism recognizes and admits is that it can not make itself recognizable to everyone. It does not attempt to be a missionary to the world, but only to equip those, who are already integral inside, with a jargon that allows them to connect, that is all. Which is why addressing your other perceptions (keypoints) can not lead anywhere. I am not here to convince you of Integral Theory, nor to stop you from saying entirely false things about it, i just respond a little, because you people keep quoting me, but i must draw a line here. Its unproductive for me to write anything, that has more to do with you or me, than with integral theory. In satsang you do sometimes describe awakening in terms of what it is not. "Awakening is not faith, nor a drug experience, yada, yada." But Integral Theory is not Awakening and describing Integral Theory only in terms of how it is not what you think it is, is entirely pointless. The point of describing Integral Theory is to raise the curiosity of those who are already integral. They will instantly grasp the integral logic behind it and recognize what is being offered: a language, that allows the expression of this logic, that will be understood by all who have this logic, a language that is thus far without alternative. Obviously i started posting again, after being away for months, because SlipperyQ revealed an interest in the subject, not to haunt the rest of you people with my perspective on you. Try stop telling yourself, that you are being victimized by this thing, that is only your own fantasy.

 

[Minuend]

Do I have to read all that. Holy fuck, that's some next level rationalization.

Yeah, sure, we should be able to say whatever the fuck we want, if other people react to it they are being primitive beings who are feeling "hurt", or who more likely are just being primitive.

What the actual fuck. Oh, never mind this reaction is clearly a sign I'm a purple-er. Better get back to my brainlet friends.

Holy fuck.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I get it that it feels nice to think that you have unlocked the mysteries of the world, that you have the key to all truths, and that you are on the highest plane of existence. That way, not only do you possess that, but you can tell anyone who questions your ideas that they are not enlightened enough to understand it. There are some powerful fucking chemicals that are splashing around in your brain from that.

Unfortunately this is the exact ingredient in every cult, religion, and other shit which is nothing more than mind viruses and means of charlatans to exploit stupid people.

Anyways, I'm signing up for the $650 product. I want to get the maximum bang for my buck when I'm dealing with material of this potency. And it's a scientific theory so I know it's gonna be good.

 

[Black Rose]

@nanook I know someone on transhumanist forums that writes like you do. One thing about her (not you) is that when you try an pin her down on a point she shifts perspectives and thus never addresses the main subject. I was claiming one money needed to be finite or buying and selling would not be possible. She said money was like inches and you never run out of inches. But that is not how buying and selling works. Even in bitcoin (finite), exchanges must happen or the system crashes. You cannot buy all the gold in the world no matter how many inches you own. She dodges every inquiry.

You know things about integral theory people here do not quite understand. I do not know if it is helpful what you are doing. But walls of text stating your thesis is very much confusing. The person I knew on transhumanist forums writes 4 times as much as you do. She needs to get everything in there in order to cover everything. And I know you want to be useful to those who do understand you. But I think it would help if you are more concise in addressing people that call what you understand a cult. You do not have to address everything in terms you think they will not understand but in terms, they will by explanation or simple language.

What I am saying is that there are better ways to communicate without saying all you need to say. If they do not understand there is no harm in defining your terms, but I understand if you feel they are being rude. People often attack things they do not understand.

 

[Hadoblado]

@nanook
I don't think you're understanding where I'm coming from. You probably think you do, but your reactions don't address what I'm saying. So I'm just gonna leave it cos all this is doing is making you feel persecuted.

 

[redbaron]

sprial d UKnamics fuck in sucks

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

You know things about integral theory people here do not quite understand.

So far the only answers people have given to why this stuff is not nonsense is
1) It cannot be expressed in scientific terms (despite the original claim that it was a scientific theory)
2) If you don't get it, you are not sophisticated enough

So there's not much to "understand". I understand perfectly what it is, and what sort of tactics are being used to justify it.

In my eyes, the sort of stuff that this Terri J. O'Fallon individual is doing is nothing less than fraud. Like, if one does this sort of shit in a field where there are real risks associated with theories, one faces real consequences of being wrong or misleading people.

 

[Black Rose]

or maybe you just don't understand

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

or maybe you just don't understand

I know, I know. It's because I'm in the beige stage.

 

[Black Rose]

Hado made a reference that above formal operations was speculative.

But we can look at those and see what they are.

Plusiritic - postmodern
Rational - Atheistic
Mythic - Religious
Archaic - Spirit world

One came before the other and each believes the others are wrong.

Integral stage believes all of them are correct if we look at them as stages of cultural development. Pluralistic believes truth is impossible because of cultural relativity. Truth can still exist even in cultural relativity according to integral stage. Rationalist atheist who believes science is absolute truth but because of pluralism can be seen as one way truth can be assessed. Mythic religion can be seen as a spiritual way to truth. The archaic spirit world is a possible experience of truth also one can live in without loss of the modern mind.

Beyond integral are zen-like states of awareness. There you have a deeper understanding.

This is just my summary understanding of it. I hope I am not trying to bring anyone into a cult or anything.

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm both atheist and post-modern.

You seem religious, spiritual, and post-modern.

I think you're using loose enough terms to make anything fit the spiral model. A square peg can fit in a round hole if the hole is large enough.

 

[Black Rose]

I'm both atheist and post-modern.

You seem religious, spiritual, and post-modern.

I think you're using loose enough terms to make anything fit the spiral model. A square peg can fit in a round hole if the hole is large enough.

I am not going to deny we both do not fit the model but I know of plenty of people that are just religious or just rational. It is not like the different groups are not interacting with each other either. Who/what culture was postmodern in 1812? What humans 50,000 years ago were anything other than animistic? Everything I described is a cultural developmental model. The culture is developing and individuals within it make up the culture that is the result of all previous cultural evolutions. Culture does not remain static. It develops. Simply Think: is everyone postmodern yet in our culture? (what is after post-modernism?)

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Integral stage believes all of them are correct if we look at them as stages of cultural development. Pluralistic believes truth is impossible because of cultural relativity. Truth can still exist even in cultural relativity according to integral stage. Rationalist atheist who believes science is absolute truth but because of pluralism can be seen as one way truth can be assessed. Mythic religion can be seen as a spiritual way to truth. The archaic spirit world is a possible experience of truth also one can live in without loss of the modern mind.

Rational atheists don't believe "science is absolute truth". Science is just a method of critically interrogating one's beliefs with the maximal amount of epistemic humility, maximal amount of consistency, and minimal amount of arrogant claims which are not empirically testable and which don't account for human fallibility.

Like I said, if the only claim is that this thing is just some kind of religion, then that's fine. At least then, people can make the pertinent judgments of it. However, in this case 1) the model does make claims about the empirical world, and 2) tries to piggy-back on science to make it look more rigorous than it is. So one cannot say "these science-guys are just on a different stage of development" because this thing overtly trespasses into the scientific domain and tries to ostensibly mimic its methods. However, when critiqued in light of actual scientific principles, it says "nah, science is too primitive for this stuff". In that way, not only is it a bad theory, it's also profoundly dishonest, hypocritical and fraudulent.