daylen wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:19 am
I don't think anyone reading here is too dumb for these models. More that it just isn't all that clear why one should learn them. Though, once the patterns are "seen" then they reappear over and over. People are always reinventing this stuff in their own way to make sense of all the different preferences and motivations humans have. I suggest to those who are uncertain about these models to try to make connections to what they have already felt but haven't expressed much.
Like learning algebra.. it is a bit tricky to project its worth in the long run. Once you learn and internalize what it means to manipulate an algebraic equation in various contexts, it becomes easy and allows you to spot such patterns where ever they may find a use. Enough practice and you can do it in your head without jargon. Jargon is most helpful along the steepest sections of the S-curve to help figure about what to do next.
Much of the utility comes from making sense of the bigger picture of human relations and histories. If you already feel as though you are connected to this bigger picture than great! Though, perhaps some might seek a system of jargon to help absorb broad societal patterns which are indirectly useful for investing or portfolio management.
Agreeing with all this and just adding my two bits.
These (Wheaton, Spiral, MBTI, Cook-Greuter, ...) models come about from some researcher(s) having talked to a large number of very different people and eventually realizing one or two things.
First, as one talks to more and more people---and I've seen a few thousand pass through the forum over the past 12 years---patterns begin to appear. Someone whose focus in life is A is more likely than not also focused on B and C and vice versa. Someone focused on X is more than likely also focused on Y and Z and vice versa. This does not mean that someone who is interested in B doesn't care about Z, but they are less likely to do so. It's not a matter of 0/100 stereotyping ... more like 30/70.
These patterns provide a starting point for understanding another person (how they think, what they've thought about, how they're influenced by their culture, ... ). If you see A, B, or C in someone, you can assume with some enhanced rate of success that they also have the other two. Having the right starting point makes it easier to make progress when conversing. Corrections are made from there. Whereas having the wrong starting point (making the wrong assumptions) can lead to misunderstanding, social faux-pais, getting ignored, or worse...
After learning these models, I'm much better at talking to random people than I used to be. (I used to be a walking disaster. I'm now able to step in and out of different perspectives and occasionally build bridges between ann and bob. This is not due to knowing ann and knowing bob but identifying ann and bob's types and what already knowing what the most effective/likely to succeed bridge between their respective types look like. My batting average has gone up significantly using this framework compared to basing my behavior on what I thought I knew about ann or bob based on my meandering conversations with them. I was often wrong.)
Second, if there's some kind of developmental curve involved like with Wheaton levels, Cook-Greuter, and Kegan ... but not with MBTI ... and maybe with Spiral as the collective level. Someone who has talked to lots of different people and who has also watched them change over the years also begins to notice that change tends to happen in the same way more often than not. Being focused on A, B, C usually happens before focusing on D, E, F, ... and talking about X, Y, Z to A, B, C usually leads to complaints about "overcomplicating" what according to the A, B, C perspective should be relatively simple stuff. (Yes,
relatively, young grasshopper.)
People tend to exhibit WL1 patterns before they exhibit WL2 patterns ... cultures tend to exhibit red before blue and blue before orange... people tend to focus on becoming experts before they start planning for careers and that happens before they start questioning their role in the universe ... and this is followed by them beginning to strategize about it. And so on.
Thus if you're trying to explain something to anyone, it helps to know a) where they are coming from; and b) where they are going. This is what all these systems are for. The jargon is just short hand for about 5-15 different types depending on the framework. Once you see it, it becomes hard to unsee.
It's likely useless for those who care more about the process of explanation, like "we're just hanging out and talking"/"I enjoy learning about ann, bob, and carl by talking to them". "I don't care about having to study stuff. I'm just having fun here." However, if you care about results AT SCALE or want to know how you can best explain ERE (or anything else for that matter) to anyone rather than just the people you actually know extremely well, it's quite useful and effective. It is perhaps too effective. I can see how it can turn people off to be given a diagnosis followed by the prescription that is most likely to solve their issue. "But doctor, I think my situation is unique and that we should maybe talk a bit more about this? Run some tests?" "Sorry, I'm a busy doctor and I have other patients to see. Look I've seen hundreds of cases like yours and yours is really quite common. So if you want to solve your problem, I suggest you follow my advice."
It gets even more important for those who are designing a curriculum, writing textbooks, and reaching more people. (This is ERE2.) It would be almost impossible to do this deliberately without some understanding of the underlying psychology/sociology/etc. It would be like throwing mud on the wall. I should say that those of us who do this systematically are looking at the mud on the wall to see what works and what doesn't, so by all means continue doing so if one enjoys that process. It provides data
I understand that insofar one's [social] focus is mostly defined by keeping to oneself and/or making pleasant small-talk with one's own in-group or bloviating on social media w/o concern for the consequences, all these social psychology models are useless.