Why such linear models?

[Unio]

Why is it that most of the models that we use commonly in these types of circles are so reductive? There are only 9 stages in the Susane Cook Groiter model and like 7 colors in spiral dynamics. We spend so much time studying these and it becomes obvious that a ton of diversity gets lumped into one stage. I get that using multiple models is always the best way but do we have to limit ourselves to simplistic models only to encourage multi-perspectival thinking because of how limited one of them is on its own? We get these super odd clashes where someone can be blue and green or orange and yellow. There are many different areas where you can be developed, for example; emotionally, cognitively, or creatively only to name a few and they very rarely seem to develop in sync. Even though of course there is also some clear regularity. Why not have a model with 40-60 or maybe even 100 different stages of development? It could be more like a root system or a 3D model rather than a linear model like spiral dynamics. We spend so much time studying these that I don't think it would be an issue to memorize that many. 

From a meta-perspective, really what this would mean would be making finer distinctions. Then the question arises what the utility would be of this model. since the distinctions can already be made within the stages without putting them in separate categories. But wasn't the whole reason why spiral dynamics was so useful and so mind-opening (at least for me) because what it did was it made finer distinctions between stages of development? Maybe I'm the linear one for thinking that making more and finer distinctions will automatically be better. My intuition tells me that there is a clear reason for the design of these models and why this is going over my head but I struggle to make sense of why. 

[Leo Gura]

Most people cannot even wrap their mind around Spiral Dynamics, and you want something more complicated?

Get real. It takes 50+ hrs just to properly understand SD.

The kind of things were are modeling and explaining: all of human behavior, is impossibly difficult to model or map at all.

[Unio]

@Leo Gura Don't you think the fact that there can be such diversity within one stage is what maybe is making it so hard to grasp? Also, people can of course start off with spiral dynamics if that is challenging enough for them but to me, SD seems very crude. Not that it wasn't useful for me when I first watched your videos on it. I just see the untapped potential.

[Leo Gura]

@Unio Then you invent a better model and teach it to the world.

It's easy to talk a big game. Much harder to make it happen.

Just teaching the world SD is a major obstacle that will take 100 years to overcome.

[Preety_India]

No.

SD model is pretty simple and good for emulation.

[Unio]

@Leo Gura What if we made a model that was even more simple than spiral dynamics and taught that to noobs. Maybe with only 3 stages or something.

[Leo Gura]

@Unio SD is not just something I pulled out of my ass. It's been in development for 50 years. It has lots of research behind it. You can't just make up your own willy-nilly. That would require a lifetime of research.

[Preety_India]

3 stages are never enough to explain humanity.

 

[Carl-Richard]

Models are supposed to simplify. That is not a mistake. There is always a balance between comprehensiveness, validity and neatness.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Carl-Richard