Critiques on Stage Theory

[ryoko]

I've always felt this in the back of my mind that Spiral Dynamics is deeply flawed. I feel, this is a model with deep stage Orange bias, it feeds the lower stages' cravings, which is a feature not a bug, but at the cost of truth/accuracy.

Also when I see people on this forum demonize stages red or green or orange, it begs the question, is this a structural problem. To a huge extent, it is. When we associate one stage as higher than other it comes with all the perversions which arise with it. I've fallen into it, I see everyone else doing it at some point.

In a sense, I feel Spiral Dynamics makes it difficult to see people as they are. We have this tendency to put a label on everyone.

At best, Spiral Dynamics is a genius system which helps us rise to yellow, beyond that it's really nothing. It's at best useful for personal development. I don't think we should use SD as a base for working with people. My greatest insight on SD have been: don't use SD as an excuse to demonize or label people, and don't overlook the qualities of each stage.

Enter Integral Theory by Ken Wilber.

He's brought in more depth to SD. But here again, the same problem arises. The design of these models are inherently perfectionist. Also, the model itself has the goal of categorizing people, this one have more of that tendency. This is not recommended, it will cause a lot of cognitive dissonance. People are infinitely complex. This theory makes everything idealistic.. And if you take these theories seriously you'll find it extremely difficult to work with Tier one stages, and even keep you blind about true Tier 2 stages.

Critiques are welcome. I won't be defending or fighting SD, the purpose of this post was to bring back humility and encourage observation without judgements.

P.S - instead of just saying one thing is bad, let's introduce some more humane ways of sense making - Cynefin is one such way - it belongs to the domain of Complexity Thinking, and not Systems Thinking. You can explore that one from Dave Snowden

Here are some critiques against Spiral Dynamics, he talks about it briefly. Highly recommended.

 

Edited February 6 by ryoko

[Carl-Richard]

Theories are meant to categorize, so that cannot be the sole critique of stage theory in particular. A valid critique of stage theory and SD in particular is that the categories are less applicable or less justified in some situations than others. Particularly, stage theories and their many historical examples, according to my knowledge, exclusively skew in favor of describing Western society. I can't think of one example of a known stage theory as a whole that applies either equally or more to non-Western societies.

Edited February 6 by Carl-Richard

[Eskilon]

At the end of the day, its a model for sense making. And as such, because it is a model, it is limited and should be considered as another option/lense for helping you understand reality. You need balance and wisdom to be able to know when it is appropriate to use it and when it is not. Also if people are labeling and demonizing tier 1 stages, that just show you they have a lot of work to do to embody the model values and understanding.

Edited February 6 by Eskilon

[ryoko]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I can't think of one example of a known stage theory as a whole that applies either equally or more to non-Western societies.

9 stages of ego development have this Western bias more strongly.

[ryoko]

9 hours ago, Eskilon said:

Also if people are labeling and demonizing tier 1 stages, that just show you they have a lot of work to do to embody the model values and understanding.

Yes, and no.

There's a lot of demonization going on towards Trump, Andrew Tate, and telling them, "hey, you need to move up the spiral and integrate" is not gonna help them. 

Also this lens of seeing things is only ever gonna help people who are willing to learn, and is well off. In other words, there are many hidden coefficients which needs to be in place.

Also the complexity and chaos of humans are not something we can account for, by using SD.

Edited February 6 by ryoko

[Elliott]

I find it useful for empathizing with other people. I can see the different expressions in my life, by thinking of how I probably was as a baby and small child I can even see the primal ones. I'm skeptical of categorizing by stage or thinking of this as a developmental process. By seeing the prominence of certain behaviors in people you have a better chance to understand their perspective, but to me it seems everyone has all of the traits throughout the spectrum just in different proportions. I don't think the different traits indicate development, I think it's more a result of circumstance and catalyst emphasizing and subduing traits.

Edited February 6 by Elliott

[ryoko]

@Elliott The problem is structural. The structure of SD is very bad. It's evident by how certain traits are put on a pedestal while viewing some as primitive.

This is one of those models which makes you look for evidences which supports your assumption.

Edited February 6 by ryoko

[leebus99]

I think you may be confusing the model itself with people who misappropriate it.

For me, trying to ground myself in stage Yellow thinking has made me massively less judgemental.

I would also argue that humans aren't complex and chaotic, we're just a bunch of meat robots that are almost entirely products of our environments. Perhaps not even 'almost' (cue endless debate about free will).

[PenguinPablo]

@ryoko The demonization is more of stage green quality

Look at them! they are perpetrators, they are bad, etc..

Stage yellow would think about how to look at things more clearly without judgement,

Understanding the nature of situation,

As a starting point!

 

 

Edited February 10 by PenguinPablo

[Elliott]

Here's part of a good quote from another current thread on stage theory.

On 2/9/2025 at 10:55 AM, integral said:

 

5. The Real Hierarchy:
- Not about personal worth
- Not about lifestyle choices
- Not about wisdom or maturity
- Just about the complexity and inclusiveness of value systems

This clarification helps resolve some of the criticism in the original text - the model isn't actually trying to create a universal hierarchy of human development, just mapping how value systems tend to evolve in complexity.

 

Let me break this down with concrete examples of how value systems can evolve in complexity while being separate from personality, wisdom, or lifestyle choices:

1. Simple to Complex Value Evolution Example:
- Stage 1: "I value what's directly good for me"
- Stage 2: "I value what's good for my family/tribe"
- Stage 3: "I value what's good for my nation/belief group"
- Stage 4: "I value what's good for all humans"
- Stage 5: "I value what's good for all living things"
- Higher: "I can understand and work with all these value systems while seeing their limitations"