Is Stage Theory BS? - Nora Bateson's Critique

[Nilsi]

On 26.7.2023 at 4:03 PM, Carl-Richard said:

 

Barbara Rogoff (2003). The cultural nature of human development (page 240). Oxford university press.

Right, I dimly remember this from my developmental psychology classes. So much the better. 

So what can be said about human development that holds across all cultures?

[Scholar]

She is basically like "I don't like this!", and that's it for the most part. I'm sorry to say but academics are infested with moralistic brainrot, and this is just one example of many.

 

This model is much better to frame as evolutionary rather than linear stage development, that is true. Evolution obviously is not random and is subject to certain dynamics resulting from the metaphysical nature of the universe, and in the same way human development, both in terms of individual and collective minds evolving throughout time, will be subject to certain dynamics which will yield predictable patterns.

 

What is true in my view is that you cannot really have "one" model that describes human evolution, because the dynamics change via environmental inputs. So, really, spiral dynamics described human evolution in a particular context, which only seems universal because of how prevalent that context is.

The internet alone has changed that context, so we already would require new models to adjust to the new flow of human evolution. It could be the case that in the current environment, complexity cannot be sustained at certained levels.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Nilsi said:

So what can be said about human development that holds across all cultures?

"Life's a bitch and then you die". Jking. Models that map "developmental contexts" (e.g. Bronfenbrenner) seem to be better off in terms universality, as they don't assume one shared "developmental path", and the different "levels" have extremely generalized systemic definitions. Contextual models only need to articulate the developmental pressures that exist around an individual at all times, which is much simpler than laying out a step-by-step path of changing pressures. Of course, the problem is that you lose some specificity. If you want to use more specific models, just use them in the contexts where they apply and don't try to force some expectation of universality onto them (e.g. let SD and Piaget be eurocentric/WEIRD models).

Edited July 29, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

57 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Life's a bitch and then you die". Jking. Models that map "developmental contexts" (e.g. Bronfenbrenner) seem to be better off in terms universality, as they don't assume one shared "developmental path", and the different "levels" have extremely generalized systemic definitions. Contextual models only need to articulate the developmental pressures that exist around an individual at all times, which is much simpler than laying out a step-by-step path of changing pressures. Of course, the problem is that you lose some specificity. If you want to use more specific models, just use them in the contexts where they apply and don't try to force some expectation of universality onto them (e.g. let SD and Piaget be eurocentric/WEIRD models).

So you basically develop according to the challenges and opportunities you face in life?

I‘m still intrigued in what is universal among all human development…

Do you think development in say dialectical reasoning, playing the piano, spiritual attunement and hunting animals is comparable in any meaningful way and can be explicated (in stages of whatever else)?

Also, do you see any convincing evidence for a teleology to human development? 

As much as I dislike teleological systems, looking at any developmental process, it is quite obvious that things get more „complex“ over time.

I guess my question is, can we meassure complexity (universally) ?

Edited July 29, 2023 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

22 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

So you basically develop according to the challenges and opportunities you face in life?

Yes, and Bronfenbrenner maps out the arena where these different challenges and oppurtunities occur, in different concentric layers (like an onion). The layers are defined in an almost mathematical way, so it's hard to make a case that it doesn't apply in some way to all cultures. Although you could actually problematize the universality of the third layer ("exosystem"), as it describes pressures from people or structures that the individual is not directly involved with (e.g. politicians, judicial systems), which could be a problem for sub-Dunbar number tribes where you're technically able to be directly involved with everybody in the society.

[Carl-Richard]

45 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I‘m still intrigued in what is universal among all human development…

Do you think development in say dialectical reasoning, playing the piano, spiritual attunement and hunting animals is comparable in any meaningful way and can be explicated (in stages of whatever else)?

Also, do you see any convincing evidence for a teleology to human development? 

As much as I dislike teleological systems, looking at any developmental process, it is quite obvious that things get more „complex“ over time.

I guess my question is, can we meassure complexity (universally) ?

Model of Hierarchical Complexity comes to mind, but it's considered a Neo-Piagetian model, so I don't know.

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

Edited July 29, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yes, and Bronfenbrenner maps out the arena where these different challenges and oppurtunities occur, in different concentric layers (like an onion). The layers are defined in an almost mathematical way, so it's hard to make a case that it doesn't apply in some way to all cultures. Although you could actually problematize the universality of the third layer ("exosystem"), as it describes pressures from people or structures that the individual is not directly involved with (e.g. politicians, judicial systems), which could be a problem for sub-Dunbar number tribes where you're technically able to be directly involved with everybody in the society.

Why do some people develop way beyond what is „demanded“ from their environment?

[Nilsi]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Model of Hierarchical Complexity comes to mind.

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

It's a pretty value-independent model of the complexity of human behavior.

But what about a hunter-gatherer or an artist? They can be Masters of their domain and still score low in cognitive tests (and vice versa, just operating at a high level of complexity doesnt make you a great painter or salesman).

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Nilsi said:

But what about a hunter-gatherer or an artist? They can be Masters of their domain and still score low in cognitive tests (and vice versa, just operating at a high level of complexity doesnt make you a great painter or salesman).

I'm sorry, I forgot that MHC is a Neo-Piagetian model. It's not really value-independent at all ? Let's forget I ever said that.

Back to the idea of an universal ladder of human complexity:

We should clarify what we mean by "universality" in this discussion. So far (if we're following what the academics are saying), we've been talking about the development of individuals, and "universality" refers to the kind of development of individuals that exists irrespective of any culture. In other words, it's the type of development that is shared between an uncontacted Amazonian tribes person and a kid scrolling TikTok. Now, it's a different thing to talk about the development of the cultures themselves: what if all cultures, given enough time, eventually end up going through these higher levels of complexity postulated by Piaget, SD and Neo-Piagetian models? Maybe that is the question you should be asking.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

29 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Why do some people develop way beyond what is „demanded“ from their environment?

Do they? ?

[Nilsi]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

what if all cultures, given enough time, eventually end up going through these higher levels of complexity postulated by Piaget, SD and Neo-Piagetian models?

They probably do.
 

So these models somehow meassure a „meta-complexity,“ within which the development of different „lines“ can vary greatly.

If that‘s true, it basically means that an „intellectual“ is necessarily more developed than a hunter or a dancer or a salesman - because the intellectual engages in „higher“ faculties (dialectic, multiple paradigms, etc.).

I guess that‘s fair, but it‘s probably what Nora Bateson was criticizing.

[Nilsi]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Do they? ?

As far as some people being way more developed than others - that much should be obvious.

When I look at myself, it’s not environmental pressures that allow me to develop faster and further than is usual, but my capacity for abstraction and imagination.

It‘s almost as with AI, in that the development exponentiates itself, the further it goes. 
 

So what these „meta-models“ are meassuring is basically the capacity to develop/evolve? - the more developed you are, the easier it is to develop in all other areas and to develop further evolvability?

And the ultimate development is purely formless consciousness that can take any form whatsoever?

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by Nilsi

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Nilsi said:

As far as some people being way more developed than others - that much should be obvious.

When I look at myself, it’s not environmental pressures that allow me to develop faster and further than is usual, but my capacity for abstraction and imagination.

That makes me think about this idea that tying the concept of universality to culture or societal context is actually an incomplete version of universality. For example, we know that things like genes or personality traits also impact behavior and thus development (it's obviously not just culture/society that does that). So why are we not concerned about controlling for specific genes or personality traits ("cross-genetic research")? And why stop there? There are probably millions of such biological or psychological factors that we can control for. Have we truly found an universal model before we have ruled out the variation produced by these factors?

This also ties into another idea I've had about the future of developmental psychology, which uses heavy computer models to create highly detailed simulated realities where you can tweak each factor (biological, psychological, cultural, etc.) and see the possible developmental paths that arise for each individual (or each culture for that sake). Now, we're of course nowhere near creating these highly specific models, and even when we get there, we're inevitably stuck with some limits on specificity (because there are limits on which inputs we're bothered to plug into the computer and investigate). It's kinda like how the AI chatbots are limited by the prompts that the humans feed them.

So again, we probably shouldn't care too much about finding a truly universal model for development, not just because it's virtually impossible, but because you can still use existing models in their limited contexts. There is nothing wrong with using SD or Piaget as long as you have some decent knowledge about where the model applies and where it doesn't.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Samjc543]

• Read time: 10 mins
• There are some positives to SD, but I will focus on critiques for this post. If you're a fan, then you should listen very closely to critiques in order to make your arguments more robust. I've ranted on this post but would love to have constructive conversations on this.
• Be careful of throwing these away in ways such as "That's just such a green thing to say", or "Oh that's just a criticism from below, so I don't have to listen". These may well be coming from bias, rather than robust understanding. The critiques will be half-baked as this is an internet forum and I'm not being paid for this.
• I may jump between SD and integral theory at points but I want to critique this whole ideological space from a meta-perspective and have missed some of the more granular detail.

 

Stage Theory's Links to colonialism

• 90-95% of the spiral dynamics discourse stinks of ableism, western exceptionalism and paternalism. I believe that this is a feature, not a bug.
• It should make you suspicious that the financial, cultural, economic and military centres of the global (US-led) empire / civilisation are the most 'highly evolved', and therefore the most important people in society who are in the best position to make the decisions for the rest of the world. Huge undertones of the "white man's burden" to civilise the rest of the world. Almost justification for the West continuing to rule the world, when in reality it has no right to whatsoever. Ask people in the global south whether or not they chose Western countries to run things, and if they'd like a little more ability to decide for themselves what they need.
• A minimising of the west's negative impact on the world. There is no such thing as post-colonialism, just neo-colonialism. The west is still facilitating massive wealth transfer to the west both in terms of unfair trade agreements, tax avoidance facilitation, costs of environmental pollution, propping up corrupt regimes, exploiting labour etc. Remember that there is no justification for a Western company to pay labourers in the DRC less than someone in the West - and it is currently justified socially by nothing but racism (and economically by neoliberalism) - they don't deserve as much because they're from (insert country here). A lot of the discourse about countries being 'lower stage' crucially misses out the abuse of the rest of world / global south is inflicted by the west. The west has the boot on the necks of the rest of the world, forcing more difficult and hostile living conditions, and then has the nerve to call them 'less evolved'. A big justification and minimising of the abuses of capitalism in here too. SD is a continuation of this centuries-old colonial shadow.
• Following on from that, many of the benefits that have afforded the west less authoritarian and corrupt societies have been subsidised by stepping on the necks of the rest of the world in all the worst ways you can imagine. There is a certain attempt to justify colonialism in here, which was and still is theft and exploitation at its core. Nobody ever colonised places for the benefit of the colonised.
• The notion that we should be careful of 'lower stage' people coming into a country and polluting the country with their 'lesser values' is dangerously close to the racist replacement theory. This can and will be weaponised, and has no empirical backing. Yes, individuals adapted to a particular tough environment (say Somalia or North Korea) will have a lot of adapting to do if they moved to the UK, but there is no reason to say they will not match the people living there. This kind of logic has already been used to justify BS prejudice notions of Muslims not adapting to British culture here in the UK, when they are doing just fine. It also insinuates that it is the immigrant failing to assimilate and minimises the prejudices and obstacles they often face.
• It also misses the benefits to, say, white British people of the cultural diversity gained through having a multicultural society and how the process of immigration can also benefit the host nation. I have seen this first-hand how in-person exposure to other cultures in this way can go a long way to promoting a world-centric view over ethnocentric. This is to say it is completely  unsubstantiated that immigrants from 'lower stages' will bring down the stage centre of gravity of a country They may even bring it up (using the SD lens). There is no empirical backing for this. Bigots may not like immigrants, but we can't always wait until they're ready to change their minds - it's okay to upset them and deal with any backlash /violence appropriately.

 

 

Research

 

• The empirical evidence for spiral dynamics is surprisingly weak. Psychometric tests (the basis of SD) don't generalise to an person's entire reality from which prescriptive measures can then be made. Myers-Briggs and the Enneagram tests are not taken seriously in modern psychology partly for this reason (also not taken seriously because they aren't backed empirically). In a similar way, nobody is given therapeutic treatment based on their OCEAN personality tests.
• Problems with falsifiability - where you can't disprove a theory due to it being far too flexible. E.g. People who don't fit into the model are typed as "centre of gravity green with red blue and orange shadows". You can fit any person into the model with enough modifications to the theory. I see SD as a model that often ends up really over-simplifying the complexity of reality, and doesn't end up being useful. It's not that groupings of values etc can't and don't exist, but putting people into this hierarchical evolution process is not as helpful as seeing people more in the context of their own (internally and externally) complex environment, and the value groupings can be examples of similarities and differences on a collective level. I see no need to make this hierarchical. A "stage yellow" perspective is just a human who exists within a particular complex environment, whereas a "red" person has adapted to a different reality. Difference-  yes, Hierarchy - unclear and unnecessary.
• There is also a lack of sensitivity that the 'progression of the stages' is basically a reduction in fundamental, civilisation-induced trauma. Discourse tends to be very intellectual and quite divorced from the heartbreak of all this trauma. Taking a trauma-informed and person-centred approach to somebody's development, embracing their complexity, has been more fruitful in my work (in mental health) and personal life than prescribing a path to development based on a highly biased and abstract theory.

 

Bigger Picture

 

• SD / integral theory falls into the trap of anthropocentrism in quite a strong way. There is still a strong undercurrent of the "humans are the natural, peak end point of evolution, and the universe has unfolded especially to this crucial point". From a material universe perspective, there have likely been millions of instances of complex life and conscious beings in the last 14 billion years (across the hundreds of billions of galaxies), and there will be many more in the future. Humans are not the apex or centre, spatially and temporally, and it may be more helpful to see humans as just a flowering of the complexity of the universe instead of central to the universe's story.
• On the deepest levels of physics and mysticism, time and causality break down. Remember, we don't know what the big bang was, what caused it, what context the universe as a whole exists within, and many unanswered questions in quantum mechanics on the smallest scale. So Wilbur's linear notion that the big bang was spirit devolving into matter and the universe then is matter evolving into spirit is a complete jump from anything that can be empirically proven, and I personal feel can be experientially proven. It's a story without real backing and should be viewed with the utmost criticism.
• With all the 'advancements' in modern science, we may know more about some of the relative truths in the universe, but ultimately don't know more than hunter-gatherers. Our perception of reality is certainly not any more sensitive or more complex. Do you even know the birds in your local environment, or anything about how they live? We are far less sensitive to our environments and to other people and hedge all our bets in fancy conceptual ideas, and call ourselves smarter. There's a saying that in modern societies, we don't know anyone as well as a hunter-gatherer knew everyone in their society.
• Also on a bigger picture, I feel like SD falls into the ideological trap of human civilisation, as opposed to indigenous hunter-gatherer society, being a good thing. This is not something that is immediately obvious if you can zoom out far enough. Civilisations at their core are about colonisation, war (against humans and nature) and wealth transfer to the centre by any means. They are by their nature based on expansion and are unsustainable. History and culture are always written by the victors - why should this new story of why our present society / condition is the best and most important version of humans living to date?
• SD follows on from all civilisation ideologies in that their particular brand of civilisation is justified and good. Remember, the continuation of civilisation is not guaranteed at all. There are reasonable extinction risks (nuclear war, bioweapons, pandemics, climate change, environmental destruction) that could well cause global civilisation to self-terminate. If that were to happen tomorrow, and you could zoom out far enough, would you say that this whole civilisation experiment was a success? Interesting, sure, but good? Compared to some indigenous cultures (pre-civilisation) that have been around (not that they've stayed the same completely) for much longer and had a much less detrimental impact on life on Earth as a whole. SD contends that we've never been more evolved, precisely at the time when humanity as a whole has never been more destructive to the biosphere upon which it depends, and potentially other humans if you account for the sheer numbers of suffering humans on Earth at the moment. Take a moment to look at that through the lens of mental gymnastics.

 

Final Comments

Ableism is the ultimate dominator hierarchy ranking that stage theory loves: those who are the most able are the most important in society. And we control the definition of what 'able' means. SD and integral are products of this dominator hierarchy, and will continue to perpetuate it. We don't need it, and I think it holds a lot of intelligent, well-meaning people back.

Overall I see SD and integral as quite a reactionary ideology. I've noticed that it's especially popular with men compared to other genders, hyper-logical minds, techno-optimists, and people who lean more conservative socially and economically. Nearly everyone who talks about stage theory on a public stage has these traits, and often brands themselves as a "sensible, rational progressive". This is contrast to the 'hysterical' progressives who are villainised in a way that maps well onto old misogynistic tropes. But they continue to hold patriarchal, cis-hetero normative, ableist, pro-capitalist biases in a way that is much more similar to old-style centrist liberalism than any sort of post-progressivism. 

Taking on old biases and simping to conservatives out of fear of retaliation doesn't seem that progressive to me.

I don't think Leo is ableist but there has been some serious unconscious bias in his content. It's only been a year or so since he stopped saying people were "re****ed" on his videos. There are still constant rebukes for people being "idiots" and "stupid" and "dumb as doorknobs" littered in his content, and there are frequent reminders of how much more able he is than others. Stage theory is a huge aspect of the content of actualized, and I don't think stage theory and ableist biases can be very easily pulled apart. 

I don't see the "tier 2 - stage yellow" move to intellectualism as a linear improvement in consciousness. I see it as a fearful intellectual withdrawal from an immersing of one's heart fully into themselves and the world around them. Which is okay, but let's just be honest here. A fear of fully embracing the feminine and the deepest levels of intra- and inter-personal and nature connection.

This is me really winging it now but my hunch is that in general, SD and stage theory is popular for people who are scared to decolonialise their minds and deconstruct civilisation in its totality. It certainly was for me. This includes fully but critically embracing feminism, gender theory, queer theory, anti/post-capitalist theory, decolonialism, indigenous perspectives, deconstructing science and materialism. All the way to the core of how civilisation has defined (through violence) who you think you are on the deepest levels. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Samjc543
Adding to the conclusion

[Samjc543]

See this video from Dave Snowden which is probably one of the most hard-hitting critiques of stage theory I've seen. Essential viewing for anyone who wants to use stage theory etc in their worldview. You can still pick up the stage-theory beliefs back up at the end of the video, and if you do your understanding will be much more robust. Don't call yourself open-minded and non-ideological if you aren't willing to put in the time to analyse critiques of your favourite theories.

 

Also here is an interesting conversation between Nora and Daniel Goertz where they debate this further. There are no easy answers in this conversation.

 

[DocWatts]

On 8/17/2023 at 10:59 AM, Samjc543 said:

 

 

Also here is an interesting conversation between Nora and Daniel Goertz where they debate this further. There are no easy answers in this conversation.

 

Thanks for the share! Haven't gotten around to watching to Dave Snowden's critique just yet, but I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion between Daniel and Nora. It was interesting to see what Ken Wilber calls the 'performative contradiction' of postmodern relativism in full effect in Nora's critiques (i.e, "hierarchal qualitative distinctions are bad, except for my own view which is qualitatively better than the hierarchal views that I'm critiquing") - as Daniel (correctly) points out.

While I do think that postmodernism has some substantive critiques on how stage theory can be misused, it seems like a rather severe case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Kind of like throwing out science because of scientism, or sprituality because of religious fundamentalism.

Edited August 25, 2023 by DocWatts

[Nilsi]

On 17.8.2023 at 4:52 PM, Samjc543 said:

• Ableism is the ultimate dominator hierarchy ranking that stage theory loves: those who are the most able are the most important in society. And we control the definition of what 'able' means.

Even within the framework of a Deleuzian Rhizomatic society, where hierarchical structures supposedly yield to interconnected networks, there are certain fundamental principles we can not get around. Think about the laws of economics, game theory, evolution, and other systems dynamics.

It is undeniable that inherent disparities in genetics and upbringing persist and privilege few individuals with an initial advantage. These advantages are only reinforced by the laws of economics. Power differentials always grow and further the divide.

Evolution works by way of the occasional emergence of advantageous mutations, but operates in such a way that these traits remain scarce initially. This deliberate scarcity prevents the risk of destabilizing the entire system.

Even in an era of democratized exponential technology, which would empower humanity to influence the course of evolution, the propensity for arms races persists. First movers and the less risk-averse will always outrace the herd, producing runaway effects that ripple through the network.

The only people talking about „ableism“ are the unable that got dealt a bad hand by life. Slave morality all over again.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Nilsi