Criticism of spiral dynamics and ken wilber

[krockerman]

A couple of days ago I was looking for material to understand spiral dynamics better, then I came across 2 videos that come with constructive criticism of the model and ken. 
 

What do you guys think? 
 

Ps skip to 2:30 on the spiral dynamics video

Edited May 19, 2021 by krockerman

[k0ver]

A great clip - thank you for sharing @krockerman

I have a different critique of spiral dynamics so the video was a great addition to my bias ?

I have to agree with the argument that spiral dynamics being framed as a linear evolution falls victim to deterministic meandering about the "inevitable destination" one is hurling into.

In my view, the SD model is a perfect sandbox for creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that has a self-destroying "feature" built into it.

In the best case scenario, "spiral dynamics" is just a fancy term for saying "I'm on the path of getting better". And you often talk about SD when "actualising self" is not good enough term to impress your peers.

However in the worst case scenario, it is an invitation to a "spiral competition" with your fellow human beings. Namely, "who wears better colours" - a true recipe for a disaster.

The SD model can also hand you this "deterministic map" that your ego immediately latches on to and gives you a false reassurance that "everything will be alright as long as I quickly claim Tier 2".

Hopefully you will quickly realise that the map is incorrect and brings more confusion disguised in another fancy and egotistical term: "a high-level systems thinking" (as oppose to what? a "low-level thinking" pleb?)

- there is almost a rudimentary casting system built into that way of thinking...

Take note: by the time you reach something akin to "the Yellow Stage" in SD's own definition of that stage, the whole thing falls apart under the pressure of your growing understanding of relativity and non-linear, fractal and infinite nature of consciousness.

And the "growing complexity" (as oppose to "trimming the fat..."? ?) is a big problem not just with the SD model but, more importantly with the Actualized.org core content:

- for example, just because you took 16 hours to  ramble about one subject in 4 part series, and each one started with a mandatory disclaimer about how "extremely advanced and unique these ramblings are"... doesn't make the whole video "an extremely advanced and unique" for these hacky reasons alone.

[given the sheet volume of otherwise fantastic Actualized library of wisdom, this is rarely the case, mind you - but I have super high standards for Leo clips so I have to call that out...]

Although, I must say the Actualized Clips are a great turn into the right direction on that end ~ happy to see them coming!

Thanks again for the share!

[DocWatts]

While the above videos offer a valid critique of Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber, if you're interested in this topic, I would highly recommend the book The Listening Society by Hanzi Freinacht.  

The book is a Metamodern text on Developmental Psychology and Sociology, and deals quite explicitly with both Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber. The book points out some of the strengths and weaknesses of both models, and presents a more refined version of Spiral Dynamics that accounts for some of its weaknesses, a refinement that the author calls an Effective Value Meme.

Some of the problems about the Spiral Dynamics model which the author points out is that it attempts to merge several different areas of human development on to a single axis, and doesn't account for how people may have a level of cognitive complexity (or Wisdom) that's either below or above what Spiral Dynamics stage they've been imprinted with. It also points out that Turquoise is something that really doesn't exist at this point of time, and is more indicative of the limitations of Spiral Dynamics as a model to integrate people who have reached a level of wisdom and sophistication beyond their current SD-Stage.

A nice illustration of the limitations of SD as a model is that it doesn't provide a clear and unambiguous answer to the following question : Which of the following people is at a 'Higher' level of psychological and personal development - Aristotle (roughly SD-Blue), or a 15 year old contemporary hippy girl (roughly SD-Green)?

 

Edited May 20, 2021 by DocWatts

[Carl-Richard]

@k0ver What you're critiquing has more to do with models in general than SD itself. Models are supposed to categorize, idealize and not least simplify. There are possibilities of othering/demonization with any categorization of psychological qualities, not just developmental levels (examples like diagnoses of mental illnesses, personality disorders etc.), but also any framework in general (ideological, political, ethical, religious etc.) . These flaws are baked in the human psyche more than anything, but that shouldn't stop us from using these powerful tools. It's not the gun that shoots - it's the person. If you end up misusing SD, that's on you. If SD predicts anything, it's that these problems will be solved by people working on themselves.

[TheAlchemist]

On 5/20/2021 at 4:20 PM, DocWatts said:

 

"It is also my conviction that this book, if its ideas spread, will cause deep suffering and confusion to a lot of kind and intelligent people, in so many, so delicate and devious ways. ....... Over the years I have seen so much pain associated with wrestling the metamodern perspective. People get obsessed, they resist, they rage, they condemn, they belittle, they self-censor and find reasons to feel terribly affronted. I acknowledge that this is because my theories deeply insult the prevailing moral intuitions that people have. I spit straight in the face of their political identities, both on the Left and Right, from anarchists to conservatives. It is the solemn duty of the philosopher to piss on all that you hold dear and sacred, to show you that your gods are false." -Hanzi Freinacht

Lol. Already love this book, what a breath of fresh air. 

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by TheAlchemist

[Evoke]

That accent though..