How do we test Spiral Dynamics?

[Manusia]

Sometimes the more abstract model is, the more deep and wide the implication.

[Carl-Richard]

For me, one thing that makes SD convincing is how it aligns with the broad themes of human history: how we evolved from tribes (purple), to empires (red), to nation states (blue), liberal societies (orange), inclusive societies (green) etc.. If human history is a reflection of human development on a collective level, and given that a collective is made up of individuals, then it's not unfair to expect that the model would apply to the development of individuals.

[Forestluv]

34 minutes ago, Jacob Morres said:

@Forestluv where can I find materials and methods thing you're talking about? For running experiments 

In articles published in science journals, there is a section called “Materials and Methods”. Yet for many science experiments involve expensive reagents and equipment. 

[Scholar]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You test it by applying it in your life.

Of course stages Blue, Orange, and Green will tend to reject SD because they all think they got reality figured out and that they are on top.

Good luck convincing Richard Dawkins that he is stuck at Orange with his bullshit materialist logic.

And good luck convincing a Marxist like Vaush that there is something beyond Marxism.

Even if they thought people followed an evolution akin to spiral dynamics, they could still deny that being further up the spiral is actually more healthy and desirable. That would be much harder to prove in terms of scientific means.

 

8 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Independent replication is a feature, not a requirement, of a scientific study. I’ve published plenty of scientific papers that have not been independently replicated. It doesn’t need to be independently replicated to be science. The important thing in science is it can be independently replicated. I wrote clear instructions in the Materials and Methods about how to do the experiments. Researchers can independently conduct the experiments if they like. If they the same results are replicated, that strengthens the data. Yet it is not a requirement to be science.

In the context of Graves, it is super easy to independently do his study. We can ask 1,000 freshman students to write and essay on “What is a mature individual”. And ask them to write another essay for the same question every four years. Then we can map their progress and see if it matches Graves’ results and empirically supports the SD model.

This would mean we could call it science, but not established scientific fact. It seems like embracing the model like we do before it has actually been tested enough to be established to be accurate seems to be unjustifiable from the perspective of scientific reasoning.

We can call it scientific data, but we cannot call it scientific fact. It seems like it is more than a scientific hypothesis, but it is not yet a firm and robust scientific theory.

 

But for even this to be established we would need the actual research. Is this available somewhere online, because I couldn't find it when I was looking.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

Even if they thought people followed an evolution akin to spiral dynamics, they could still deny that being further up the spiral is actually more healthy and desirable. That would be much harder to prove in terms of scientific means.

The kind of stuff we are interested in cannot be outsourced to some robot logician in a white lab coat. Such standards are totally inapplicable when we are talking about consciousness and holistic understanding of the human condition.

There's never going to be some simple, brute-force, binary test that you can run on these kinds of models. These models require a deeply intuitive mind to comprehend. You have to be able to intuitively connect hundreds of dots using a deep intelligence.

It's like proving evolution. There's not a single simple fact which can prove it. Evolution is a holistic model which requires connecting thousands of dots to see a bigger picture. The only reason people accept evolution today is because some geniuses connected all the dots for them and then a hundreds years later, once there has been a massive cultural shift, people think of it as obvious and factual. Likewise, it might take 100 years before Spiral Dynamics is taken seriously.

Never forget that we are talking about the cutting edge of human knowledge here. So it will all be denied by the status quo, as usual.

Take a look at how Ken Wilber's work has been treated by academia. It's basically been ignored, even though it's some of the most brilliant stuff that exists. But it's so advanced academia has no way of handling it so it ignores it.

The mistake here is expecting academia to validate cutting edge advanced wisdom. If you want the highest wisdom and knowledge it's YOUR JOB to validate it yourself. Stop sucking on society's tit and learn to chew your own food. Nobody is going to support you in your search for Truth. No body! You will either do it all yourself, or you will not do it at all.

[fluffy]

@Leo Gura @Scholar

Well, let’s take a model like SD which poses that the worldview of individuals evolves throughout their lifespan into using a more liberal, green, caring and complex set of beliefs. Then why do people become more conservative as they age? Isn’t that the complete opposite of what the model says? These logical inconsistencies really make me question the model.

This is perfectly explainable by a temperamental analysis though. As people age, they get less open and more conscientious. These are the primary psychological traits correlated with conservatism, thus people get more conservative as they age.

[fluffy]

@Leo Gura @Scholar

Also, in Europe (extreme) right-wing parties garner the most votes from the youth. 

shouldn't this part of the population be more "evolved"?

[Nak Khid]

6 hours ago, Scholar said:

Even if they thought people followed an evolution akin to spiral dynamics, they could still deny that being further up the spiral is actually more healthy and desirable. That would be much harder to prove in terms of scientific means.

 

This would mean we could call it science, but not established scientific fact. It seems like embracing the model like we do before it has actually been tested enough to be established to be accurate seems to be unjustifiable from the perspective of scientific reasoning.

We can call it scientific data, but we cannot call it scientific fact. It seems like it is more than a scientific hypothesis, but it is not yet a firm and robust scientific theory.

 

But for even this to be established we would need the actual research. Is this available somewhere online, because I couldn't find it when I was looking.

Quote

Leo Gura 

 

 

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

@Scholar

This is psychologist Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs chart. It from the pinned post "What Is Self-Actualization?"
in the Self-Actualization Forum.   Spiral Dynamics was inspired by this theory.

theory 
The English word theory derives from a technical term in philosophy in Ancient Greek. As an everyday word, theoria, θεωρία, meant "looking at, viewing, beholding", but in more technical contexts it came to refer to contemplative or speculative understandings of natural things, such as those of natural philosophers, as opposed to more practical ways of knowing things, like that of skilled orators or artisans.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201601/the-is-psychology-science-debate

The “Is Psychology a Science?” Debate
Gregg Henriques Ph.D.
January 2016

Reviewing the ways in which psychology is and is not a science.
If one is a psychologist or even has a passing interest in the field, one has likely encountered the question about whether psychology is truly a science or not. The debate has been prominent since psychology’s inception in the second half of the 19th century, and is evident in comments like that by William James who referred to it as “that nasty little subject." Scholars of the field know this debate has continued on and off, right up through the present day. The debate flared in the blogosphere a couple of years ago, after an op-ed piece by a microbiologist in the LA Times declared definitively that psychology was not a science, followed by several pieces in Psychology Today and Scientific American declaring definitively that psychology is, in fact, a science. Just last month, a long time scholar of the field authored the paper, Why Psychology Cannot Be an Empirical Science, and once again the blogosphere was debating the issue.

___________________________________________________________________

@Scholar  why single out Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs or Spiral Dynamics when as per being scientific the entire field of psychology is debatable as to being a science?  
Isn't this just the broader question is Psychology a Science?

However >>

___________________________________________________________________

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow#Hierarchy_of_needs

Maslow's Hierarchy is used in higher education for advising students and student retention[47] as well as a key concept in student development. Maslow's Hierarchy has been subject to internet memes over the past few years, specifically looking at the modern integration of technology in our lives and humorously suggesting that Wi-Fi was among the most basic of human needs.

Self-actualization

Maslow defined Self-actualization as achieving the fullest use of one's talents and interests—the need "to become everything that one is capable of becoming." As implied by its name, self-actualization is highly individualistic and reflects Maslow's premise that the self is "sovereign and inviolable" and entitled to "his or her own tastes, opinions, values, etc."Indeed, some have characterized self-actualization as "healthy narcissism."

Maslow wrote that there are certain conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the basic needs to be satisfied. For example, freedom of speech, freedom to express oneself, and freedom to seek new information[46] are a few of the prerequisites. Any blockages of these freedoms could prevent the satisfaction of the basic needs.

Maslow's Hierarchy is used in higher education for advising students and student retention[47] as well as a key concept in student development.[48] Maslow's Hierarchy has been subject to internet memes over the past few years, specifically looking at the modern integration of technology in our lives and humorously suggesting that Wi-Fi was among the most basic of human needs.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Maslow's hierarchy of needs  
(much more at link)

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" in Psychological Review.[2] Maslow subsequently extended the idea to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity. His theories parallel many other theories of human developmental psychology, some of which focus on describing the stages of growth in humans. He then created a classification system which reflected the universal needs of society as its base and then proceeding to more acquired emotions.[3] Maslow's hierarchy of needs is used to study how humans intrinsically partake in behavioral motivation. Maslow used the terms "physiological", "safety", "belonging and love", "social needs" or "esteem", and "self-actualization" to describe the pattern through which human motivations generally move. This means that in order for motivation to arise at the next stage, each stage must be satisfied within the individual themselves. Additionally, this theory is a main base in knowing how effort and motivation are correlated when discussing human behavior. Each of these individual levels contains a certain amount of internal sensation that must be met in order for an individual to complete their hierarchy.[3] The goal in Maslow's theory is to attain the fifth level or stage: self-actualization.[4]

Maslow's theory was fully expressed in his 1954 book Motivation and Personality.[5] The hierarchy remains a very popular framework in sociology research, management training[6] and secondary and higher psychology instruction. Maslow's classification hierarchy has been revised over time. The original hierarchy states that a lower level must be completely satisfied and fulfilled before moving onto a higher pursuit. However, today scholars prefer to think of these levels as continuously overlapping each other.[3] This means that the lower levels may take precedence back over the other levels at any point in time.

 

 

 

[Jacob Morres]

i read that darwin had trouble getting scientific support 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Jacob Morres

[Nak Khid]

.

.

https://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/tag/ecclesiology/

[Nak Khid]

Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

Communitarianism

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Don Beck, co-author of the Spiral Dynamics theory: 

At its peak, GREEN is communitarian, egalitarian, and con-sensual. Without ORANGE we wouldn’t have GREEN, because in ORANGE the inner being was bypassed and ignored. Our science left us numb, without heart and soul, and with only the outer manifestations of success. The “good life” was measured only in materialistic terms. We discover that we have become alienated from ourselves, as well as from others. So GREEN, this fairly recent memetic code, began emerging about 150 years ago, out of the Ages of Industry, Technology, Affluence, and Enlightenment, to declare that in all of these undertakings, the basic human being has been neglected. The focus shifts from personal achievement  to group- and community-oriented goals and objectives—for GREEN, we are all one human family.GREEN begins by making peace with ourselves and then expands to looking at the dissonance and conflicts in society and wanting to make peace there, too, addressing the economic gaps and inequities created by ORANGE, and also by BLUE and by RED, to bring peace and brotherhood so we can all share equally. Gender roles are derigidified, glass ceilings opened, affirmative action plans are implemented, and social class distinctions blurred. Spirituality returns as a nondenominational, nonsectarian “unity.”  
It uses the resources that ORANGE has built, but because it dislikes ORANGE, it backs away from growth. Growth and consumption are bad. It wants to use resources already available and redistribute them so everybody can catch up. GREEN is a wonderful system, but ironically, it assumes that everyone enjoys the same level of affluence that it has.  Only those people who have been successful in ORANGE—who have good bank accounts, who have some guarantee of survival, who don’t have the wolf at the door—will begin to think GREEN. But unfortunately, when GREEN starts launching these attacks on the BLUE and ORANGE meme levels—the nuns with rulers and the fat cats in corporate suites—it’s like a person who climbs to the top of a house and then throws down the ladder that got him up there.

 

 

[Nak Khid]

This is a rare video recording of developmental psychologist Clare W. Graves discussing
his lifelong work of his conception of the psychological map of human existence,
the academic basis on which the Spiral Dynamics theory is based.

[Display_Name]

6 hours ago, fluffy said:

@Leo Gura @Scholar

Also, in Europe (extreme) right-wing parties garner the most votes from the youth. 

shouldn't this part of the population be more "evolved"?

This model is big picture understanding of human development over thousands of years, it makes no guarantees over exactly how one human develops in his lifetime or exactly who is what in the year 2020.

Also, vast majority of european youth is hard green lol what are you talking about

[Carl-Richard]

44 minutes ago, Display_Name said:

Also, vast majority of european youth is hard green lol what are you talking about

Fluffy doesn't like SD, so many of his arguments are confirmation bias - what'd you expect? 

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, fluffy said:

 

 Then why do people become more conservative as they age?

 

7 hours ago, fluffy said:

Also, in Europe (extreme) right-wing parties garner the most votes from the youth. 

 

Do you see the contradiction there?

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, fluffy said:

@Leo Gura @Scholar

Then why do people become more conservative as they age? Isn’t that the complete opposite of what the model says? These logical inconsistencies really make me question the model.

You have to be careful with how you measure things, your personal selection biases, and how you define terms like "conservative" since it is all relative.

A) Even old people today are still more liberal on many issues than they were 40 years ago. For example, 40 years ago most people viewed homosexuality as wrong/a mental illness, most people were openly racist and sexist, and would freak out over talk of socialism. Today, the culture has evolved so much that same people have come to accept many liberal positions like gay rights, women's equality, anti-racism, etc.

B) Most people don't do any serious inner growth after they hit 25. They get stuck at whatever stage they are at at 25. Such people will get entrenched in their worldview and double-down on it. This is explains why they become conservative. They just stay in place while culture around them evolves. It's a relativistic thing. If culture evolves but you don't, you will look like a dinosaur even though you haven't really changed. If you were born in the 1950's and you got stuck in your development, then by the standards of 2020 you will look like a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. Because your mind is still living in the 1960's.

C) The majority of people do not advance even one stage after their 20's. Because they do no inner work. So most Spiral evolution happens generationallly and collectively, not at the individual level. That guy born in the 50's may still be conservative today but his children and their children will be a lot more liberal because culture has evolved a lot and their minds were not stuck in the 60's.

8 hours ago, fluffy said:

@Leo Gura @Scholar

Also, in Europe (extreme) right-wing parties garner the most votes from the youth. 

shouldn't this part of the population be more "evolved"?

I doubt this is statistically valid. This is probably just your selection bias because you are young yourself.

Also, youth are easily influenced by trends and propaganda. Their is a significant chunk of American youth which is brainwashed and radicalized by right-wing propaganda and ideology. Christian youth, young conservatives, incels, alt-right, white nationalism, people who follow Jordan Peterson, etc. Even today many youth are raised by stage Blue conservative parents who indoctrinate them.

But overall I think if you do careful statistics you will see that youth are far more liberal than their parents. Even conservative youth is still gonna be more liberal than their conservative parents. You just don't appreciate how bad their conservative parents were.

Today's conservative youth is still far more liberal than people were in the 1950's. Almost no conservative today would say that schools should be segregated by race, that blacks shouldn't have a right to vote, that it's okay to beat women if they act up, that gays should be put in jail, and that socialists should be put on trial as traitors and blacklisted. Yet these were all common positions in the 1950's.

You'd have to be almost blind not to see how much society/culture has liberalized in the last 70 years. It's a shocking rate of evolution. People just take it for granted.

[fluffy]

@Leo Gura

Of course society has liberalized, that's what new technology does and a free society do.

But let's not take this expansion of freedom for granted, we see many worrisome trends - like rise in homophobia (52% of British muslims think homosexuality should be illegal), political polarization and decline in real wages. 

sources:https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/index.html

               https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/figures-reveal-a-shocking-rise-in-homophobic-hate-crimes-a6692991.html

                https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-03-20/is-social-media-to-blame-for-political-polarization-in-america

I loathe your teleological worldview, like everything will be more "evolved" and "good" in the end, a virus or ecological disaster could reduce us back to the stone age in no time. You are really naive in believing in that loony quasi intelligent design stuff. Do not think that liberal "more evolved" politics will fix all this, many of their so called truths and "intuitions" are just flat out wrong. 

Let's take a few liberal axioms:

-Immigration causes a society to be more strongly connected and less polarized

Wrong, look at Robert Putnam's (a democratic public policy professor at Harvard) research, immigration less social connection to the in and the out-group, it leads to a total loss of social capital, and a weakening of the society's social fiber.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663

-Differences in SES are mainly sociological in nature, not at all biological

Wrong, IQ and conscientiousness the two biggest facets of succes are highly heritable and genetic, IQ is about 80% genetic, about as much as height. I do not believe in IQ differences between races, however i do believe in IQ differences between individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk8sdMGJ3m4

-Differences between men and women are purely sociological in nature, there are no biological differences.

Wrong, Differences between men and women are highly genetic, they show up in all societies and are even bigger in more equal societies, killing the constructivist paradigm.

http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1779.pdf

 

You'll be hard pressed showing these facts to a bunch of lefties, they will burn you at te stake, it's modern fundamentalism.

Now try to deconstruct this.

 

[Leo Gura]

@fluffy Your perspective is too little-picture and short-term.

My perspective is big-picture and long-term.

In the short term devilry will always be the case. In the long-term, Truth and Love will crush every devil.

[fluffy]

@Leo Gura

Believe me, I hope with all of my heart that you are right.

[TrustTheProcess]

7 minutes ago, fluffy said:

@Leo Gura

-Immigration causes a society to be more strongly connected and less polarized

Wrong, look at Robert Putnam's (a democratic public policy professor at Harvard) research, immigration less social connection to the in and the out-group, it leads to a total loss of social capital, and a weakening of the society's social fiber.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663

 

It depends on how immigrants are accommodated. My parents are both immigrants and they have assimilated to america pretty damn well. 

7 minutes ago, fluffy said:

-Differences in SES are mainly sociological in nature, not at all biological

Wrong, IQ and conscientiousness the two biggest facets of succes are highly heritable and genetic, IQ is about 80% genetic, about as much as height. I do not believe in IQ differences between races, however i do believe in IQ differences between individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk8sdMGJ3m4

 

This is honestly a dog whistle to white supremecy if you apply that to what is happening in america right now... look up epigenetics, generational trauma, educational inequality, school to prison pipeline, etc...

 

7 minutes ago, fluffy said:

 

-Differences between men and women are purely sociological in nature, there are no biological differences.

Wrong, Differences between men and women are highly genetic, they show up in all societies and are even bigger in more equal societies, killing the constructivist paradigm.

http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1779.pdf

 

You'll be hard pressed showing these facts to a bunch of lefties, they will burn you at te stake, it's modern fundamentalism.

Now try to deconstruct this.

 

There are obviously biological differences... the problem is when men try to confine women to specific roles and say they can't be leaders because "biology"...

Edited July 16, 2020 by louhad