An Introduction to “Ego Development Theory” by Susanne Cook-Greuter (EDT Summary)

[QVx]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Look at it this way:

Cook-Grueter's model tells you that the first 4 stages are about building up the ego and the next 4 stages are about deconstructing the ego.

So what happens at the end of 4 stages of ego deconstruction? Where does that lead?

That’s what interests me the most! What’s next after one has deconstructed the ego?

Does it all start again or is that it?

[Clarence]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

My life is pretty simple. It's nothing glamorous because I mostly live for the intellect and creativity.

Do you also enjoy going out with a close friend from time to time?

I have a few close friends, but there is one I feel especially close to. We don’t talk or see each other very often, but I find the moments we spend together very meaningful.

I wonder if this kind of connection is also important to you as well.

[Oeaohoo]

On 23/11/2024 at 5:40 AM, Leo Gura said:

It's hard to answer that because for the last 5 years my life has been derailed by serious and worsening health problems. So most of my life is just about managing my health problems and doing what work I can in between.

I’m sure you have heard a million explanations like this but I recently heard Shunyamurti say that thyroid problems often come from a disconnect between the mind and heart. I have a lot of neck pain and I think it comes from this.

[Davino]

@Carl-Richard I've been reflecting about your post, thanks for clarifying what you actually meant.

In short, I think you are overemphasizing a reasonable limitation.

In long, let me evaluate:

On 22/11/2024 at 6:15 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Some point out it has individualistic assumptions that doesn't translate well to collectivist cultures (e.g. Africa, Asia) and that it applies more to "American men" than other people. What does Wilber say about that?

This what I would say:

Quote

The most core, cross-cultural, and universal insight of Erikson's model is that human development unfolds through a series of psychosocial challenges or crises, each representing a key tension between personal growth and social expectations (individuality & communion). These challenges—such as building trust, forming identity, or balancing intimacy and independence—are intrinsic to the human condition and arise in predictable patterns and stages of life. (First you crawl then you walk, in engineering first comes car and then plane, so in the human psyche it happens)

While the specific expressions of these crises may vary across cultures (e.g., autonomy vs. interdependence), the underlying developmental tasks—such as creating meaningful relationships, contributing to society, and reflecting on one's life purpouse—remain relevant and recognizable universally. In fact, such principles manifest through every culture becoming a beautiful expresion of human diversity.

 

On 22/11/2024 at 6:15 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Well, for one, those things are made more explicit. It's in the name ("psychosocial", "ego development", etc.). But EDT is not for example called "Western Ego Development Theory". It's called "Ego Development Theory". So again, when looking at the name and the neat graphics, it has a facade (surface appearance) of universality. And when you suggest that it essentially doesn't matter that it's not actually universal, you subtly fuel that facade.

I invite you to contemplate the intertwined nature of personal development and societal development. So much so that maybe you cannot separate one from the other. Quoting Susan:

Quote

“It is best understood as a framework that portrays the growth of individuals as moving into ever greater awareness and integration about both the inner and the outer world. Although EDT focuses on the development of individual awareness, it fully recognizes that there is no individual interior development outside a cultural and linguistic surround, nor is individual growth possible without the external context (historical, geographic, infrastructure, etc.) as it supports and constrains what is possible in the interior.”

See, now the situation gets more nuanced. On the one hand we must understand the commonalities of human expression and development universally, and on the other we must understand and humble ourselves with the intrinsic dependency of culture and language.

It is well known for example that the Hindu psyche is the most evolved one, with a reservoir of psychic unconscious tools engrained in the minds of the cultural descendants:

Quote

The Indian/Hindu psyche has been shaped by a living cultural and societal continuity that spans at least 3,000 years, evolving uninterruptedly over millennia. Unlike many societies shaped by linear history or external disruption, India has preserved and refined a collective reservoir of spiritual, psychological, and mythological tools. Its traditions, such as the Vedas, Upanishads, and Bhagavad Gita, embed archetypal narratives and symbols that resonate deeply within the unconscious, developing a psyche tuned to both personal transformation and metaphysical Awakening. Practices like yoga and meditation, honed over centuries, serve as advanced tools for integrating conscious and unconscious dimensions, enabling profound self-awareness and psychic refinement from generation to generation.

Crucially, the Indian worldview’s embrace of paradox and interconnected existence cultivates a multi-layered, inclusive psyche capable of holding complexity and diversity without disintegration. Myths and archetypes connect the individual to tested societal framework, while inward-oriented practices refine the mind’s subtler layers. This long arc of cultural evolution has equipped the Indian tradition with psychic tools and structures that integrate both survival and material achievement, with conscious truths and mind mastery—making it a profound testament to humanity’s potential for psychic and spiritual sophistication.

The Hindu psyche predates the American psyche by thousands of years, contrasting millennia of cultural layering and introspective refinement versus the relatively nascent, pragmatic focus of the American cultural mind. This massive temporal gap highlights why the Hindu tradition possesses such mature psychic tools and frameworks for understanding existence.

Quote

The American psyche, as a relatively new cultural construct, is oriented toward external achievement, innovation, and individuality. While this has led to exceptional advancements in science, technology, and material progress, it often lacks the depth and integrative tools for navigating the unconscious or addressing existential questions. The emphasis on linear growth and immediate results can leave gaps in self-awareness, resilience to paradox, and the cultivation of inner harmony.

To evolve, the American psyche would benefit from adopting or generating intrinsic tools like older traditions, such as practices that deepen introspection (e.g., meditation or yoga), frameworks for long-term meaning-making, and an acknowledgment of interconnectedness beyond the ego. This integration could help balance its outward focus with the inward depth necessary for sustained psychological, ecological and spiritual development.

So it is clear that the individual egoic development is going to be immensely shaped by the cultural tradition one is born in. Therefore, it actually makes sense to do applied cultural ego developmental models as well as striving for universally applicable principle-based models.

Edited Sunday at 08:04 PM by Davino

[Davino]

On 22/11/2024 at 6:15 PM, Carl-Richard said:

This is a general phenomena that I believe happens when you survey Westerners about their "development" (particularly when not strongly distinguishing it from their "values"):

On the almost top of the model, you will generally have Western, highly educated, rich people and their multiplistic, self-aware systems view of reality (the "intellectual elite"). And on top of those, you will have the ones who re-discover "spirituality" within that context (so-called "Unitive"), which is virtually always New Age.

And in a sense, it is a logically "next step" in that context: people feel a bit better about themselves (stepping out from the spiritual black hole of modernity); people become more "open", "expansive", "flexible", "nuanced"; they get access to a "new" dimension of life (mysticism, "union with God"); etc. So this logically seems to place them higher.

But of course, a step into spirituality can happen at any level of "true" ego development (which history proves and which e.g. Wilber has pointed out). Therefore, if you in your sample also control for cultures where spirituality has been shown to be stepped into at lower stages, then you can expect to conclude in your construction of the model that it's not a next step of "ego development" but rather something else (which Wilber identifies as "Waking up" as contrasted to "Growing up").

All in all, with a more culturally diverse sample, you would expect to shave off (at least) the top of the model and place it somewhere else (e.g. in its own developmental line).

Regarding your points about new age and the unitive maturity stage. This is what I have to say:

Quote

The Unitive stage in Cook-Greuter’s Ego Development Theory is not a catch-all for spiritual awakening but a profoundly mature state of ego development that transcends and integrates all constructs, including spiritual ones. It represents the human culmination of "Growing Up," where the ego becomes fully self-aware of its limitations, dissolves attachments to specific narratives (whether intellectual, cultural, or spiritual), and embraces a fluid totally interconnected understanding of existence. Unlike New Age spirituality, which often reinforces egoic needs through superficial mysticism or feel-good constructs; the Unitive stage is characterized by humility, limitation-awareness, wisdom, and a radical integration of all stages, perspectives and thought-currents. A New Age individual remains trapped in the Construct-Aware stage or earlier, unable to transcend the very spiritual paradigm or meta-meta-narrative they cling to.

Your critique conflates spiritual awakening ("Waking Up") with ego development in the EDT model, failing to recognize their independence. As you stated, Awakening—direct breakthroughs of Infinity—can occur at any ego stage, from mythic to modern, as history and Wilber's work clearly demonstrate. However, the Unitive stage is not about isolated oneness mystical experiences but about sustaining an ego-clarity and transhuman-wisdom while being fully engaged in the complexity of human existence. It is neither elitist nor New Age, but a universal marker of integrated development (doing, being, thinking), where all constructs—including spiritual ones—are seen for what they are while still operating masterfully in the midst of them.

Having said this, I ask myself how developed can you be without stumbling into Awakening?

In the same way, how developed can a society be without collectively recognising Trascendence and Infinity Consciousness?

Edited Sunday at 08:02 PM by Davino

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

I’m sure you have heard a million explanations like this but I recently heard Shunyamurti say that thyroid problems often come from a disconnect between the mind and heart. I have a lot of neck pain and I think it comes from this.

New Age BS

[Davino]

Quote

What is the difference between Actualized.org and hippie New Ager spirituality?

Like the difference between a kid that received a sweet

And Willy Wonka

[Davino]

On 22/11/2024 at 11:30 PM, Leo Gura said:

Cook-Grueter's model tells you that the first 4 stages are about building up the ego and the next 4 stages are about deconstructing the ego.

Literally the same that Jung said. 

That's why Carl warned young individuals about deconstructing ego before having fully developed it. Such a multidecade trap, like dressing and undressing yourself at the same time. This is something I struggled a lot while Awakening in my teens and trying to build up a nice human life at the same time.

So just a cautionary tale of how Awakening can negatively impact Growing up or maturity, particularly at premature ages.

On 22/11/2024 at 11:30 PM, Leo Gura said:

So what happens at the end of 4 stages of ego deconstruction? Where does that lead?

To the peak of the mountain

[Davino]

On 23/11/2024 at 6:40 AM, Leo Gura said:

It's hard to answer that because for the last 5 years my life has been derailed by serious and worsening health problems. So most of my life is just about managing my health problems and doing what work I can in between.

Aside from that I feel very secure and basically there's not much I need from life. I mostly focus on doing artistic work that I enjoy and contemplating reality. I understand myself and reality like xray vision. Hardly anything doesn't make sense to me.

My stress is low. Procrastination is problematic due to it being hard to build up momenrum from health problems and often not feeling good. Only real addiction I have is the internet since my work revolves around it.

My life is pretty simple. It's nothing glamorous because I mostly live for the intellect and creativity. If I wanted to live a more glamorous, adventurous, busy, or luxurious life, I could, but that barely appeals to me.

As far as psychological problems I basically don't have any other than the suffering from my health.

@Leo Gura Thanks for sharing and being open about that.

I wonder, what would be your advise for the ambitious ones that desire Growing up and God-Realization as much as you do, but are in a younger temporal line? Any subtle trap you would like to mention for those who will go all the way?

[Carl-Richard]

On 24.11.2024 at 1:58 PM, Davino said:

@Carl-Richard I've been reflecting about your post, thanks for clarifying what you actually meant.

In short, I think you are overemphasizing a reasonable limitation.

In long, let me evaluate:

This what I would say:

Quote

[...] These challenges—such as building trust, forming identity, or balancing intimacy and independence—are intrinsic to the human condition and arise in predictable patterns and stages of life. (First you crawl then you walk, in engineering first comes car and then plane, so in the human psyche it happens).

[...]

The critics disputed this with respect to the particular order of the stages (it does not reflect African or Asian cultures; link).

 

On 24.11.2024 at 1:58 PM, Davino said:

I invite you to contemplate the intertwined nature of personal development and societal development. So much so that maybe you cannot separate one from the other. Quoting Susan:

Quote

It is best understood as a framework that portrays the growth of individuals as moving into ever greater awareness and integration about both the inner and the outer world. Although EDT focuses on the development of individual awareness, it fully recognizes that there is no individual interior development outside a cultural and linguistic surround, nor is individual growth possible without the external context (historical, geographic, infrastructure, etc.) as it supports and constrains what is possible in the interior.

 

Again, these dynamics are not systematized in her model. She merely mentions the role of culture but she doesn't elaborate on it, she doesn't focus in on it ("EDT focuses on the development of individual awareness").

 

On 24.11.2024 at 1:58 PM, Davino said:

It is well known for example that the Hindu psyche is the most evolved one, with a reservoir of psychic unconscious tools engrained in the minds of the cultural descendants:

Very Hindu supremacist of you 😂 What about the Tibetan psyche?

 

On 24.11.2024 at 1:58 PM, Davino said:

The Hindu psyche predates the American psyche by thousands of years, contrasting millennia of cultural layering and introspective refinement versus the relatively nascent, pragmatic focus of the American cultural mind. This massive temporal gap highlights why the Hindu tradition possesses such mature psychic tools and frameworks for understanding existence.

So it is clear that the individual egoic development is going to be immensely shaped by the cultural tradition one is born in. Therefore, it actually makes sense to do applied cultural ego developmental models as well as striving for universally applicable principle-based models.

Sure, but then again, let the models have "Hindu development" or "American development" in their title.

 

On 24.11.2024 at 2:14 PM, Davino said:

Regarding your points about new age and the unitive maturity stage. This is what I have to say:

Quote

The Unitive stage in Cook-Greuter’s Ego Development Theory is not a catch-all for spiritual awakening but a profoundly mature state of ego development that transcends and integrates all constructs, including spiritual ones. It represents the human culmination of "Growing Up," where the ego becomes fully self-aware of its limitations, dissolves attachments to specific narratives (whether intellectual, cultural, or spiritual), and embraces a fluid totally interconnected understanding of existence. Unlike New Age spirituality, which often reinforces egoic needs through superficial mysticism or feel-good constructs; the Unitive stage is characterized by humility, limitation-awareness, wisdom, and a radical integration of all stages, perspectives and thought-currents. A New Age individual remains trapped in the Construct-Aware stage or earlier, unable to transcend the very spiritual paradigm or meta-meta-narrative they cling to.

Your critique conflates spiritual awakening ("Waking Up") with ego development in the EDT model, failing to recognize their independence. As you stated, Awakening—direct breakthroughs of Infinity—can occur at any ego stage, from mythic to modern, as history and Wilber's work clearly demonstrate. However, the Unitive stage is not about isolated oneness mystical experiences but about sustaining an ego-clarity and transhuman-wisdom while being fully engaged in the complexity of human existence. It is neither elitist nor New Age, but a universal marker of integrated development (doing, being, thinking), where all constructs—including spiritual ones—are seen for what they are while still operating masterfully in the midst of them.

 

You or AI? I don't care about AI answers when interpreting nuanced theoretical matters. You might as well ask an ant or a butterfly.

 

On 24.11.2024 at 2:14 PM, Davino said:

Having said this, I ask myself how developed can you be without stumbling into Awakening?

I acknowledged this when talking about Wilber's Tier 3 model earlier. Still, how undeveloped can you be when stumbling into Awakening?

 

Look, you're free to have your Western-centric models and use them to understand yourself. I have made this argument myself before. I just want us to aim higher and be very explicit about the frankly embarrasing limitations of our current models.

And it's not a hopeless or pointless endevor to include more diverse samples even though absolute universality is not practically possible. It's in line with the general philosophy of science of falsifying hypotheses rather than "verifying" them (whatever that means).

For example, if you have a Western-centric model and you repeat the study using a sample that for example controls for modernity and it ends up producing a slightly different model, then you have falsified the previous model as being independent of modernity. That is a valueable finding and is generally how science progresses (outside paradigm shifts).

Edited yesterday at 03:48 AM by Carl-Richard

[OmniNaut]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

The critics disputed this with respect to the particular order of the stages (it does not reflect African or Asian cultures; link).

This link discusses Erik Erikson Model of development which is based on Freudian theory. I thought we were discussing Jane Leuvinger/Cook Greuters model.

Again, these dynamics are not systematized in her model. She merely mentions the role of culture but she doesn't elaborate on it, she doesn't focus in on it ("EDT focuses on the development of individual awareness").

 

Very Hindu supremacist of you 😂 What about the Tibetan psyche?

What about Nepali Psyche. People often discuss Indian as an developed culture which I'm not going to dispute, but what is not discussed is the colonisation that is now intermixed into their society deeply. The same goes for many different Asian, African and South American countries. If you want to take a Hindu country as an example take Nepal, they were never colonised and very proud of it I might add.

I have lived for 2 months in Nepal, had a relationship with a Nepali who was raised Hindu but converted to Christianity (which is happening a lot there) because in her words Hindu religion now is only about false pretences and making money. When I was living there the approach how Hindu is practised now (in Nepal at least) struck me as the televangelism we saw in the 80's and 90's. Giving money makes you a good person, and show the world what kind of good person you are. A lot of ego corruption going on there, same as Christianity.
Hindu in the books and Hindu as it being practised today are not the same. Survival for the multi billion+ people is still their predominant motivation, spirituality takes a back burner, even in a culture that is rich in spiritual history.

Sure, but then again, let the models have "Hindu development" or "American development" in their title.

 

I don't care about AI answers when interpreting nuanced theoretical matters. You might as well ask an ant or a butterfly.

I don't care about theoretical models only as a tool for understanding practical reality. You might as well ask yo mamma 😄jk ofcourse

 

I acknowledged this when talking about Wilber's Tier 3 model earlier. Still, how undeveloped can you be when stumbling into Awakening?

 

Look, you're free to have your Western-centric models and use them to understand yourself. I have made this argument myself before. I just want us to aim higher and be very explicit about the frankly embarrasing limitations of our current models.

And how did you encounter these limitations, you know personally know people from these cultures, you have conversations with them about them about this topic? You have travelled and encountered it yourself?

I have lived in Nepal, Cambodia (colonized by the French), Philippines (colonized by Spain and the US) and visited Jamaica (colonized by the British) and Egypt. And it's shocking how from a meta perspective they (Jamaica and Egypt were short trips only, so I cannot include them for now) think and act the same, some are more developed than others, this is true for the culture and for individuals. These developmental models do hold up, but they're not perfect. Most of the cultures nowadays cannot be studied without taking into account the Western colonization and the effect it has on their development on the human psyche.

Your world view is incomplete if you only sit behind a desk and absorb theoretical models. It does not matter if it will support or contradict a model.

 

Edited yesterday at 02:24 AM by OmniNaut

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

This link discusses Erik Erikson Model of development which is based on Freudian theory. I thought we were discussing Jane Leuvinger/Cook Greuters model.

Maybe read the discussion. @Davino wanted to mention a model which he thought maybe would actually be universal (which, well, you can judge for yourself).

 

2 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

And how did you encounter these limitations,

By reading the papers and seeing that the samples (probably) only included Westerners.

 

2 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

, you know personally know people from these cultures, you have conversations with them about them about this topic? You have travelled and encountered it yourself?

Again, maybe Cook-Greuter should do that But of course, we are not talking about personal anecdotes here. We are talking about giving thousands of people sentence completion tests. You know, rigorous, quantitative, nerdy, desktop warrior science.

 

2 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

What about Nepali Psyche. People often discuss Indian as an developed culture which I'm not going to dispute, but what is not discussed is the colonisation that is now intermixed into their society deeply. The same goes for many different Asian, African and South American countries. If you want to take a Hindu country as an example take Nepal, they were never colonised and very proud of it I might add.

I have lived for 2 months in Nepal, had a relationship with a Nepali who was raised Hindu but converted to Christianity (which is happening a lot there) because in her words Hindu religion now is only about false pretences and making money. When I was living there the approach how Hindu is practised now (in Nepal at least) struck me as the televangelism we saw in the 80's and 90's. Giving money makes you a good person, and show the world what kind of good person you are. A lot of ego corruption going on there, same as Christianity.

Hindu in the books and Hindu as it being practised today are not the same. Survival for the multi billion+ people is still their predominant motivation, spirituality takes a back burner, even in a culture that is rich in spiritual history.

[...]

I have lived in Nepal, Cambodia (colonized by the French), Philippines (colonized by Spain and the US). And it's shocking how from a meta perspective they think and act the same, some are more developed than others, this is true for the culture and for individuals. These developmental models do hold up, but they're not perfect. Most of the cultures nowadays cannot be studied without taking into account the Western colonization and the effect it has on the development on the human psyche.

I did touch on the problem of cultural imperialism earlier, and it could definitely have wide-ranging effects like you are suggesting. However, there are of course other people around the world who were not colonized, and also for the colonized, there could be variability, and we would still need to do the science (as even there, there is essentially none). Merely making educated guesses and knowing a few people is not that. Now, you can get far on just that, but that's not what people like Cook-Greuter are interested in.

 

2 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

Your world view is incomplete if you only sit behind a desk and absorb theoretical models.

It is, but that is what we are talking about right now. If you want to talk about something else, then don't listen to Cook-Greuter and her findings based on sentence completion answers from 4500 probably mostly Western participants. You are free! Free as the wind!

Edited yesterday at 03:44 AM by Carl-Richard

[OmniNaut]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Maybe read the discussion. @Davino wanted to mention a model which he thought maybe would actually be universal (which, well, you can judge for yourself).

 

By reading the papers and seeing that the samples (probably) only included Westerners.

 

Again, maybe Cook-Greuter should do that But of course, we're not talking about personal anecdotes here. We are talking about giving thousands of people sentence completion tests. You know, rigorous, quantitative, nerdy, desktop warrior science.

 

I did touch on the problem of cultural imperialism earlier, and it could definitely have wide-ranging effects like you are suggesting. However, there are of course other people around the world who were not colonized, and also for the colonized, there could be variability, and we would still need to do the science (as even there, there is essentially none). Merely making educated guesses and knowing a few people is not that. Now, you can get far on just that, but that's not what people like Cook-Greuter are interested in.

Which I mentioned as the Nepali people.

It is, but that is what we are talking about right now. If you want to talk about something else, then don't listen to Cook-Greuter and her findings based on sentence completion answers from 4500 probably mostly Western participants. You're free! Free as the wind!

Some people want to become astronomers, some want to become astronauts

Sam Neill - Jurassic Park 3  
 

I like to get my hands dirty, not blindly believing what is being written in books. Testing theories, not blindly believing them. Not falling in the ego trap that a theory can be proven or disproven with another theory. But also aware that my sample size can have flaws in them, using theory to understand reality. Using both approaches to shape my view of reality, not blindly focussing on one.

But I guess this place is lacking astronauts in favour of astronomers here.

Edited yesterday at 02:50 AM by OmniNaut

[OmniNaut]

Perfect analogy for the point I'm trying to make here.

[zurew]

4 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

I like to get my hands dirty, not blindly believing what is being written in books. Testing theories, not blindly believing them. Not falling in the ego trap that a theory can be proven or disproven with another theory. But also aware that my sample size can have flaws in them, using theory to understand reality. Using both approaches to shape my view of reality, not blindly focussing on one.

But I guess this place is lacking astronauts in favour of astronomers here.

I think you are talking to ghosts.

I dont see anyone who took the position that there is 0 limitation to these models.

Edited yesterday at 07:34 AM by zurew

[OmniNaut]

58 minutes ago, zurew said:

I think you are talking to ghosts.

I dont see anyone who took the position that there is 0 limitation to these models.

I'm not saying that. The discussion point broad up in this topic is about questioning the validity of the model because of the bias in the sample size. Which in a certain way I can relate too. 

The assumption that because of the small and Westernized sample size the theory is wrong is per definition bad science and close mindedness. An open minded person rules in the possibility that even by blind luck the model can be correct, but not scientifically proven. Disproving the model because of intellectual merit alone does not fly for me, especially when in real life I see the validity of this model in action every day. With limitations of course, it's not perfect.

@Carl-Richard jokingly says that Cook-Greuter should be dropped off at an island. I live on a tiny 3rd world/under developed tropical island for in total 5 years. But yet my real life observations are just put aside in favour of intellectual theoretical assumptions. I would happily discuss the validity of the model with people who have field tested it. For now this is all swimming on the dry floor for me.

Edited 23 hours ago by OmniNaut

[zurew]

2 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

I'm not saying that. The discussion point broad up in this topic is about questioning the validity of the model because of the bias in the sample size. Which in a certain way I can relate too. 

My bad, I didnt track the convo well it seems.

2 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

An open minded person rules in the possibility that even by blind luck the model can be correct, but not scientifically proven.

I dont think that makes sense in the context of what you are trying to do. I dont see why couldnt it be scientifically proven , given that you imply that you can test the theory by getting your hands dirty.

So it seems that you dont imply that the given theory cant be tested in principle ,so I dont see why it couldnt be scientifically proven.

2 hours ago, OmniNaut said:

Disproving the model because of intellectual merit alone does not fly for me, especially when in real life I see the validity of this model in action every day.

What do you see specifically that you think could be counted as evidence in favour of the validity of the model?

[OmniNaut]

13 hours ago, zurew said:

My bad, I didnt track the convo well it seems.

I did not track the whole topic as well, but it was the starting and prevailing premise until now as far as I can tell

I dont think that makes sense in the context of what you are trying to do. I dont see why couldnt it be scientifically proven , given that you imply that you can test the theory by getting your hands dirty.

So it seems that you dont imply that the given theory cant be tested in principle ,so I dont see why it couldnt be scientifically proven.

By getting "my hands dirty" I mean field testing. I go out in the real world to test the validity of the model and also test my own understanding and interpretation of it and reality. Field testing is one of the ways to prove or disprove a model. Question my assumptions and question the assumptions of the model. Science is here to support the understanding of reality. To turn it around, reality is not here to support science. A common trap within the scientific/intellectual community is to make science prevailing over reality.
If a model does not work in the field/reality, the model is faulty, but claiming the model is faulty by default of sample size is a wrong assumption.
Something can be correct but not scientifically proven, science is not the final judicator, just a tool.

What do you see specifically that you think could be counted as evidence in favour of the validity of the model?

I will happily discuss the validity or non validity of a model with people who have been in the field as well. If someone says I have to X country or X society and I found this to be true or not true, that's awesome. Bring it on, it gives validity to the discussion. I would not count it as evidence perse, more as data to form evidence.
Travel, explore, question your assumptions by testing it in the field. 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by OmniNaut