Question regarding Susann Cook-Greuter's ego development model

[Vynce]

The following question can also be asked about "Spiral Dynamics", but I'm reading Susann Cook-Greuter's model right now. Their structure is largely the same.

How did the researchers of this model figure out the characteristics of different "ego groups"?. Is there any information HOW they came to the conclusions on ego development?

For example, my father shares frighteningly many aspects of the "Expert stage" or "Stage orange" (in Spiral Dynamics). Here is an example (My responses = blue):

"They (experts) cannot yet conceive of the possibility that things could be done well in more than one way or that others could also do them adequately."

I mean it's absolutely true. My father can be described exactly like that. He refuses to see how his style of work can be made 1% better. But how can you figure that out just by asking? No real expert would admit this deficit by himself. 

or

"Having the last word or one-upmanship - that is, listening to the other and then adding one’s own opinion to remain on top - is typical."

This one is easier to sense, but still, it's so incredible to believe how scientists came up with these models just by asking people questions. 

or

"Having just recently discovered their own separate personhood, Experts fear losing this sense of specialness. Moreover, they fear being reabsorbed and getting drawn back into the fold, into the mass of others. (previous stage)"

This conclusion is just amazing. It's so true, yet impossible for me to see how someone would reveal this truth for you in the form of spoken word answers.

Any ideas?

[Matt23]

How.

From what I heard, at least for Susan's model, they used largely sentence completion tests with many people.  Basically, they started giving people sentence stems (starts of sentences) which they had people fill out on their own.  The completions they wrote could be whatever they wanted. 

I guess they basically just compiled all the responses from people and saw perhaps certain patterns and types of responses.  This is my understanding.  Which they could then base certain groupings around and typologies.  etc.. 

I think there's more to it probably, perhaps, but this is my little understanding of it.  

Look it up. 

Check wiki etc..

For Spiral Dynamics, the originator actually used his college psychology students, and even observed them through a secret mirror so they didn't know he was doing the tests/observations.  Obviously these days that wouldn't fly, but I suppose it at least lends credibility. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Matt23

[Vynce]

@Matt23 Thats sounds doable. My "secret" agenda of this thread is it to find ways, how to interview people, without "interviewing" them. I want to know someones ego development, without making them feel like a lab rat. Sentence completions are probably not really "real life" like. But there are ways to questions someones believe in a similar fashion. 

[Matt23]

Honestly sounds like getting to know people... like just sort of counselling in a way.  As in just asking people about themselves, their lives, how they seen things, etc.. 

...

Do you want to know cuz you want to do some sort of coaching or counselling?  Or just curiosity?

Either way, these models could be general psychological heuristics... but I doubt that an effective coaching or counselling session will play that too much.  I think effective coaching or counselling is mostly about how well the coach or therapist can listen, reflect, ask key questions at perfect times, and basically be able to elicit a change within the other person rather than feeding advice, theories, etc..  Not that you wouldn't offer advice or theories, but I don't think those are usually very effective.  

[Eph75]

11 hours ago, Vynce said:

@Matt23 Thats sounds doable. My "secret" agenda of this thread is it to find ways, how to interview people, without "interviewing" them. I want to know someones ego development, without making them feel like a lab rat. Sentence completions are probably not really "real life" like. But there are ways to questions someones believe in a similar fashion. 

A question that comes up for me is "why?".

Why do you want to measure this, what's the desired outcome that you want to reach by being able to assess the stage of someone else. 

Sentence completion tests is just a way to assess the complexity in someone's sense-making that is behind what shows up in the sentences themselves. 

You can sense the complexity in someone's reasoning by having a conversation where you take more of a coaching stance, ask open-ended questions, listen actively to not just the words but the holistic expression of the person. 

Coaching is in essence a way to help people structure themselves in such ways that they might learn how to get themselves unstuck from, and creating shifts in their current ways of seeing things. 

The complexity in their answers mirrors the ability to see multiple perspectives, hold contradictory information, and so on.

This will be expressed through ever changing values and believes, into something increasingly complex. Which shows up in for example the sentences test. 

In that sense, a coaching conversation aim to be a developmental conversation, helping to grow someone developmentally.

It doesn't have an agenda of itself, and what kind of development might be the result depends on the person and agenda.

Think developmental lines from integral theory, or development being different fields, in which cognitive and ego development helps us create and develop how we see our version of the world. 

Assessing others is meaningless unless the purpose is to help them to grow, or to help yourself to grow by adding complexity to how you perceive them, without demanding them to change (futile) - which doesn't need an assessment but it helps with structuring your own thoughts, as long as you recognize that you are always more or less incorrect and that placing hard labels will lock perspectives down - which is the opposite of what we'd want. 

The need to assess someone, and the underlying reasons why, in itself says something about how your own sense-making is formed, and now it gets interesting, when turning the mirror onto ourselves. 

Or possibly when trying to solve a problem in which people are part of the equation, and the complexity that people brings into it, to see it from a more systemic perspective and how the parts interact to create something that is perceived as "problematic" (which would be defined by the level of complexity of your sense-making). 

When looked at from a point of higher complexity these levels or stages are easier to see, where people show up, and some people are quite "stereotypical", but many people are hard to assess, and you might very well misunderstand the underlying complexity by forcing it into your "frame" of thinking.

It's easier when "interviewing" and observe a sequence of questions that "disects" the previous answers to see what is just words and expression and what the underlying, dynamic, sense-making looks like.

Notice how something with a higher complexity can be perceived as "nonsense". 

The ego is great at making you think that you understand it, by effectively forcing something more complex into a less complex "box". 

Edited April 9, 2022 by Eph75

[Vynce]

1 hour ago, Eph75 said:

A question that comes up for me is "why?".

Understanding is my highest value. Understanding a situation or person is deeply satisfying. Especially if it is hard and complex.

Emotions like hate, ignorance, fear, envy are all product "not understanding/ not appreciating". Understanding is the gate way to love. 

1 hour ago, Eph75 said:

what's the desired outcome that you want to reach by being able to assess the stage of someone else. 

 

This is typical stage orange thinking, to classify someones stage and feel superior. I have to be careful about that. Such as motive would be too ignorant. 

1 hour ago, Eph75 said:

many people are hard to assess, and you might very well misunderstand the underlying complexity by forcing it into your "frame" of thinking.

Exactly. If living in truth means to dumb all the models and maps, fine. But somehow people figured it out, how to assess someone values and worldviews. This "somehow" interests me. It interests me, because of this mysterious motivation to understand. No hidden agenda. 

 

[Eph75]

@Vynce??

[Matt23]

After studying these few theories a bit over the years, I eventually got to the point where I became more interested to see how they were constructed and developed and looked into the methods in which the theories were created in order to get a better understanding and idea about how these theories work and make sense.  Therefore I could see what assumptions and possible areas for misconceptions, inaccuracies, and falsities could lie.   I definitely didn't do a huge amount of research, not nearly enough probably to get a great hold of it.  But just enough to be like "Well... maybe it's useful for certain things... but like it's not the whole story".

I think this gave me a more realistic and grounded frame in which to view these theories, and now I think I hold them with a lot more skepticism and lightness.  Almost more like seeing through them as just another "fake" model etc.. 

Also seeing criticisms of the models helps too.  

At the very least it allows you to hold them less tightly, thus enabling you to use other lenses.  

Edited April 9, 2022 by Matt23

[Vynce]

9 hours ago, Matt23 said:

Also seeing criticisms of the models helps too.  

What would you personally consider to be valid criticism of Spiral Dynamics and 9 Level Ego Development model? 

[Matt23]

Spiral Dynamics: 

• Probably it's simplicity.  Meaning that, though it may track something in reality (i.e. values), I don't think and doubt that it tracks and is able to capture a lot of what's happening in culture and within individuals.  Like I just think there's a lot more going on. For example, what about...; sub-personality models of the psyche, waking up, psychodynamics, transpersonal psychology, personality theories (MBTI, Enneagram, Objective Personality), jungian archetypal psychology and shadow, dreams, cognitive psychology, many social theories, and I'm sure many other ways (John Verveake and Gregg Henriques' work on the psyche is quite complex and interesting). 
• Obviously methods: I've heard it's been tested elsewhere and cross-culturally (I remembering hearing Leo mention this).  I haven't seen those studies, but the original studies were done to a cohort of Clare Graves' psychology students... so you get the issue of sampling biases and errors.
• Seeing other models: Seeing other models of psychology helped me see how it's not that simple and more is happening, leading me to believe and see SD as being a bit too partial to be used only by itself without using many other models n stuff to capture the reality of a group or person.  I think Bonnitta Roy's model of the self (she discusses it on the stoa-- ) is a good example of how much more could be happening, as well as not just the testing n stuff, but the very philosophical ways of thinking which these theories were brought up in could cause biases n stuff.  
• Starting from the previous point I made, the idea that much, or all, of developmental psychology came from a European perspective.  I'm not saying development doesn't occur, or they aren't tracking stuff in reality rather than seeing their philosophies projected outwardly, but that it's worth considering when evaluating the truthfulness of a model since it lends one to be open and consider the possibilities for biases, blind spots, assumptions, etc.. 

Ego Development:

• Much of the same to be honest:
  • The Euro-centric critique (again, not saying it's a model-destroyer, just that "hey, look, it's a thing and worth being cognizant of cuz maybe some shit gets sorted out we aren't aware of).
  • Methods: they used sentence completion tests to do their data collection (as far as I know), and I dunno how accurate you can get with those and not to mention how much interpretation is done which obviously can be messy... but ya. just that it's probably not fool-proof.  So keep that in mind I suppose. 

At the end of it and currently, I mostly see SD, and perhaps even Susan-Cook's model (though this one seems a bit more nuanced and complex) as almost more like I used to see the original MBTI or horoscopes in a way... quaint little heauristic models that may be too simple to be that accurate... I mean, they are fun n stuff... But I duno if they do reality justice.  Maybe they still useful... sure, ya, but like just talking with people it seems people are more complex. 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Matt23