SD: Self-identity

The "other" ERE. Societal aspects of the ERE philosophy. Emergent change-making, scale-effects,...
jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13596
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

Papers of Indenture wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:57 pm
Have you talked with the Consilience Project? You're probably familiar with Daniel Schmachtenberger. Relevant to bullet points 2 and 5 above.
I have made a few contacts in the space although not with CP. My two concerns are 1) Imposter syndrome---lacking any formal education in these areas, it's hard to tell whether I'm adding actual insight yet or whether I'm just at the top of Mt Stupid and entering crankhood with these ideas/this approach; 2) I see the very same fragmentation problem I discussed in Stoa2 in this space already. Everybody is working on their own thing. Everybody has a website. Efforts are divided and conquered and it's simply impossible to participate in multiple different website forums due to finite time-energy. Obviously I'm adding to that problem here.
oldbeyond wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:08 pm
Any system like SD will be map, not territory. But the alternative realistically isn’t complete free-form insight but the naive realism per jacob’s link. SD/WL attempt to create useful models, but aren’t The Truth.
This is basically my stance too. I don't think I can say it any better than that.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13596
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

I'd like to revisit the difference between cold and warm colors on an individual basis.

Example without loss of generalization:
If the environment is Orange (warm color) then socially-oriented (cold color) will NOT become (warm color) individualists but rather manifest either regressively in the form of Blue or progressively in the form of Green. They may tentatively try to switch from cold->warm but isn't it also possible that they will simply regress to a previous level in the spiral or try to progress it forward? Likewise, individualists (warm) failing in Orange would also either double-regress to Red or double-progress to Yellow.

Loss of generalization caveat: Yellow is somewhat special in being the first Tier2. SD breaks form between Tier1 and Tier2. I don't see the virtue of the Tiers. Tier2 simply mean that people are finally beginning to hold a 5th-person perspective(*). Let me rephrase this ... Yellow and beyond considers 5th-person perspectives. Green and below do not. (Doesn't mean they can't. It's just that they don't.)

Quick perspectival key:
Beige: 1
Purple: 2
Red: 2.5
Blue: 3
Orange: 3.5
Green: 4
Yellow: 4.5
Turquoise: 5

(*) One objection would be whether it's possible to go beyond a 4th person perspective without erasing/transcending the effects of typology.

GandK
Posts: 2034
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by GandK »

Upon mature deliberation, I believe my self-identification would look like this: orange, trying to get to yellow without going through Green Valley because most people do in fact annoy me... IOW I'd like spend time helping the world and helping humanity each day without interacting with all those pesky humans.

The restrictions of Covid have not been burdensome to all of us... :twisted:

And yes, my faith and my heart are both in direct conflict with my actual lived experience here.

But I still do not see the utility of this particular label (Orange-->yellow).

bottlerocks
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:51 pm
Location: Magicant (WalkScore: Pajamas)

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by bottlerocks »

I find myself....protective (?) of self-identify as I age in a way that is not comparable with WL framework application. Maybe it's the ego-death inducing drugs but I can clearly see where I fall on this spectrum, but sort of don't care and sort of don't want to share it at all? Lest other colors project their own desires/resistances (G&J insight) onto our interactions? I've never liked answering "what do you do?" or "who are you?" even if I see the utility to the question asker. This thread is making me itchy in a place I can't scratch.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 889
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by Jin+Guice »

@jacob: I want to push back on the idea that one must not go through all of the colors and that the model still holds. My understanding of the model is the pull between socially and individual orientation is what drives discomfort at the current level and pushes an individual to move towards the next.

On this forum, it feels like a way for a group that is strongly biased towards individual/ introverted temperaments to claim they can "progress" up the color wheel without considering the next socially (which on a forum with an Orange carrot, will be overwhelmingly Green) minded temperament. I don't see how this conforms to the original model or how this is helpful to a group of individualists who could benefit from understanding socially minded perspectives.





The circle I was originally trying to square in pointing out that there are two different tracks between warm (individually minded) and cold (socially minded) colors was the individual (Orange or I guess Yellows?) hatred of Green. I think moving "up" a color pushes you towards behavior that mirrors n-2 colors. So people who are Green often exhibit Blue behavior, which is annoying to those in a warm color. I see this manifesting as those who want to enact social change falling black on blind group allegiance (which is Blue, no?) rather than actually integrating different perspectives into building community. Green also faces the challenge of Blue masquerading as Green and living in an Orange society which wants very badly to put them in a Blue box. We can see this "regression" in Orange individuals who exhibit Red behaviors as well, such as someone who cares very deeply about their position in the career ladder using that to justify stepping on other people to get to the top of the pile.


I guess what I'm trying to get at, is that Green is ABOVE Orange, but it feels to me like it's being treated as a regression back to Blue, bc individually minded people would like very much to claim that Green people would be seduced by anything with the word "community" in it, which to me, is a Blue (Thank you for your Community Service) perspective.

mountainFrugal
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 2:26 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by mountainFrugal »

I have been pondering this as well. It is my understanding that it is possible for everyone to occupy a level at any given moment. Each level is available to all, but it will be interpreted where you are centered. Each new level "expands and includes the level below it" if I am remembering my mid-2000s Wilber notes correctly. The depth at which a perspective can be taken for each level better allows it to be included from the "higher" perspective at yellow and beyond. So in the instance of orange seemingly jumping straight past green to get to yellow, this is possible for a "state" experience, but it is fragile and will ultimately lead to a limited integration/understanding of the green level. One test for understanding the depth of each level might be to passionately argue a position by "inhabiting" that level.

An orange perspective that only includes a little bit of intellectual understanding of green without being able to inhabit it will likely be moving vertically to yellow on a narrow foundation of green. This in-turn might hinder further growth vertically as the ability for perspective taking is limited to a few canned thought experiments rather than having lived that level (or being able to fully inhabit it). Or using the spiral as a physical object for the orange to yellow jump past green... it will produce a lopsided and top heavy spiral that is more likely to topple over towards the warm side instead of moving upwards. Inhabiting a green viewpoint does not mean one has to take in all the downsides of a green perspective.

I think it is very difficult indeed to integrate perspectives.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7657
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer.
E.M. Forster “Howard’s End”

Written in 1910. Such a genius.

GandK
Posts: 2034
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by GandK »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 9:05 am
I guess what I'm trying to get at, is that Green is ABOVE Orange, but it feels to me like it's being treated as a regression back to Blue, bc individually minded people would like very much to claim that Green people would be seduced by anything with the word "community" in it, which to me, is a Blue (Thank you for your Community Service) perspective.
As one of the folks you're talking about: I believe my heart is in the right place. I do in fact want to help others, and I live this out daily. It's what I perceive Green culture to be that I find anathema... perhaps that's the underlying conflict here. It is possible to spend too much time focused on feelings and speaking for the trees (says the NF, lol). There is a certain type of person who talks constantly about how we need to help others - that IS their primary social focus, which is good - but to whom it never occurs to e.g. give to charity or work in a soup kitchen for a few hours... to these folks, whom I perceive as Green, "we need to do something" means the government or some other person, charity, agency, etc. If they've talked and otherwise signaled their team membership, they've done their bit.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 889
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by Jin+Guice »

@GandK: I think that is Blue masquerading as Green. They are trying to signal group identity, which is a Blue characteristic. Green is supposed to have transcended Orange so they should be able to be socially conscious without strictly adhering to the group, bc they have already gone through a social achiever stage that rejected strict group allegiance.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding? I don't see how people who are just like "blah, blah, blah is really bad, the government should fix it" are more advanced than Orange, to me they are below Orange, bc they can't break from the group identity yet and do anything for themselves.


This is a bit where I think living in a predominately Orange society makes the cold colors a bit of a struggle. It was hard for me to see Green before I found ERE, bc the system is just so stacked against you. Like when everyone you know who is trying to help is driving their SUV to fight the oil pipeline, it's hard not to throw your hands up a bit. So I could see someone regressing back to Blue, simply because it is difficult to find examples of effective Green, so signaling group membership seems like the only thing that can be done. I'm not sure what color thinking this counts as.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7657
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I tend to think of Green as being more composed of interesting artistic Bohemian types who revel in the ridiculous than boring types who love nothing better than attending committee meetings towards social control. Like if some cultural issue is already a matter for two party political dissension, it is long past belonging to the Greens, and is already well in the possession of the Blue.

The main difference between Green and Yellow would be that once Green has deconstructed convention at the chaotic edge and paraded it backwards walking naked down the boulevard, Yellow now has all the pieces it needs to conceivably tweak or create a better overall model.

GandK
Posts: 2034
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by GandK »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 5:26 am
I tend to think of Green as being more composed of interesting artistic Bohemian types who revel in the ridiculous than boring types who love nothing better than attending committee meetings towards social control. Like if some cultural issue is already a matter for two party political dissension, it is long past belonging to the Greens, and is already well in the possession of the Blue.

The main difference between Green and Yellow would be that once Green has deconstructed convention at the chaotic edge and paraded it backwards walking naked down the boulevard, Yellow now has all the pieces it needs to conceivably tweak or create a better overall model.
Ah. This makes perfect sense to me. Thanks.

I am still trying to find use cases for the model, but at least I understand the model.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13596
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

Ultimately Color derives from how the self ("ego") expresses itself socially. The motivations or expressions of the self derives from adult ego development. These motivations can then be manifested socially in particular forms according to what's possible in a given society.

I think the last sentence is what causes the disagreement because Green manifestations in a capitalist market economy (Orange US) does not have the same form as Green manifestations in a social democracy (Green Scandinavia). A movement does not manifest the same way when it is old compared to when it is new.

Basically, those whose ego development matches that of society (the majority of people where they live) will have a much easier life. They fit right in. Their ego development matches that of society so they spontaneously behave like the majority. For example, living in the US is easy if you have the ego development level of an Expert or an Achiever but kinda jarring if you've moved beyond to Pluralistic. Conversely, living in Scandinavia is easy if you're socialized to a Pluralistic level but hard if your ego is stuck in Achiever mode. As such standing out from the norm takes different forms.

Cheat sheet for motivations of the self:
  • Beige ego seeks to meet own needs through physiological instinct. (brute hungry, brute eats)
  • Purple ego ritually sacrifices physiological needs to traditions to become part of group.
  • Red ego expresses self for its own ends and breaks with traditions without shame.
  • Blue ego's own ends are sacrificed for eternal rewards through obedience and worship of a hierarchy.
  • Orange ego is expressed in order to climb the hierarchy without annoying important others.
  • Green ego is sacrificed to gain acceptance from others and increase group harmony.
So ends Tier1. The spiral now restarts in a parallel fashion but with holistic perspective rather than personal one. IOW, Yellow is a kind of Beige but with much greater capacity for perspective (Kegan4+ vs Kegan1).
  • Yellow ego seeks to meet needs through win-win-win-win-... strategies. (Strategist or Alchemist)
  • Turquoise ego sacrifices needs to become part of "Universal Being" (lots of transcendental meditation here..a new kind of "ritual" to join something vastly larger than a tribe)
  • Coral ego expresses self for its own ...


A pathology like Boomeritis (Green with Red) is rather young or immature Kegan2 (impulsive self-protective) people that are rebelling against society (whatever color it is) by using Green slogans without really understanding that Green is about group harmony by adapting/sacrificing the self to others in the group (Kegan4). A militant expression of Green would be to claim that "there's no self at all, only the group". This leads to all kinds of crazy constructivism in which reality is determined strictly by whatever the group has decided is true. You can see how this can go wrong---it's not hard to find examples after social media became widespread.

Anyhoo ... I think the confusion/disagreement stems from using color coding to describe both societal development and adult ego development which it wasn't meant to do. SD meant to describe how society evolves (collective exterior in AQAL) and how individuals interact in society (individual exterior in AQAL), not the internal ego development of individuals (individual interior in AQAL). (That internal ego development is somewhat limited beyond the top level of society is a complication.)

mountainFrugal
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri May 07, 2021 2:26 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by mountainFrugal »

jacob wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 9:12 am
I think the confusion/disagreement stems from using color coding to describe both societal development and adult ego development which it wasn't meant to do.
Ah! This is where it was fuzzy for me. I had not spent as much time on SD proper to understand the difference with AQAL. Using the terms interchangeably in these various threads (myself included) further added to the confusion.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13596
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

jacob wrote:
Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:35 am
Quick perspectival key:
Beige: 1
Purple: 2
Red: 2.5
Blue: 3
Orange: 3.5
Green: 4
Yellow: 4.5
Turquoise: 5
The above shows what I believe to be the minimal Kegan level to properly function at a societal level or appreciate a societal goal without expressing the values of a given color in a "pathological way".

Any culture has relics from previous colors expressed in a path-dependent way.

For example, sports matches are still determined in a win-lose manner given a set of rules. This means that sports can be appreciated and played properly around Kegan2-3. Playing by the rules. Team loyalty from fans.

Wars exist at an earlier level. Win-lose without rules. This only requires Kegan2.

Participatory democracy is a Green invention. Democracy is about reaching a compromise between multiple different viewpoints and requires an understanding that views can be different and still be valid. This requires a minimum of Kegan4 (the ability to take a third-person perspective).

Representative democracy is an Orange invention. This only requires that you vote for someone and then "They" try to negotiate stuff in your favor.

However, bringing a sportsball (Red/Blue/Kegan2.5) mentality to democracy, that is, thinking that democracy is about winning and losing brings a societal pathological quality to the democratic process.

Similarly identity politics, that is "introducing a tribal power dynamics to the idea of acceptance" is also a pathological expression of Green values.

Being able to see why an idea would create societal dysfunction is what makes SD useful!

Society with its idiosyncratic path-dependent construction of various historical societal inventions carry the legacy of almost all previous colors but in different forms in different societies. As such one can develop one's adult ego by engaging with these institutions and thus learn to kenn the values and societal behavior associated with a different color.

For example, team-sports (Red/Blue) can teach children about the value of second-person perspective, loyalty, and working as part of a group thereby introducing a Kegan3 perspective. Inverting, it is very hard to enjoy playing team-sports or being a loyal fan below Kegan3, because it simply does not make sense to Kegan2 why they should subordinate their interests and talents to support the team instead of impulsively doing whatever they want. Doesn't mean they can't make good players, they just don't make good team-players. Kegan2 simply lacks the perspective to see beyond their own nose-tip.

However, you'll be hard-pressed to use Red/Blue to generate internal growth beyond Kegan3 because it is simply not required. If internal development is not required, its emergence goes way down. It rarely happens spontaneously.

Similarly, in order to succeed in an Orange world, one needs to develop the internal capacity to "see where you are in 5 years" in order to have a career. That's just one example. If you're Kegan3.5 you have the ability to do that. You also need to be able to modify your behavior and play different roles given how you realize other people see you (Kegan4). Otherwise it will be difficult to play the political games to advance through a corporate ladder that is NOT based on merit but connections. As such Kegan3 will be hard pressed to advance in a faceless corp. Kegan3 will only rise where loyalty is rewarded and that's practically nowhere in corporate America anymore.

It should be increasingly clear how certain social behaviors require at minimum a certain level of adult ego development to deploy properly.

However, this does not mean that we can just give everybody a corporate job, promote them, and guarantee Kegan4. Only Kegan3.5 will grok Kegan4. This means that an individual must learn the lessons of Kegan3.5 BEFORE they get thrown into a Color that requires Kegan4. And so on.

The brilliant part about SD is that it recognizes the existence and necessity of an unbroken chain of development. (This is where I think J+G and I are cross-talking?!).

To see how this works in terms of an individual American aspiring to Green values, it may work in the following way. H/T paraphrasing Marcus Aurelius's Meditations:
From the Red school playground I learned to stand up for myself and punch the bullies (Kegan2)
From Blue high school soccer practice, I learned to be a team player (Kegan3)
From my first few Orange jobs I learned the importance of having a plan and fitting into new work environments (Kegan3.5)
From this I realized that different teams have different traditions and ways of doing things and none are necessarily better than others (Kegan4)

But it could also develop pathologically in the following ways if the Kegan chain is broken by lessons that are too advanced relative to personal ego development:
From the Red school playground I learned to stand up for myself and punch the bullies (Kegan2)
From going to Green liberal arts college and learned that minorities have been and are still bullied to this day, so now I'm an ally who will punch back (Kegan2.5).

or

From the Red school playground I learned to stand up for myself and punch the bullies (Kegan2)
From my Red/Blue military experience I learned the values of loyalty to my fellow soldier (Kegan2.5)
From facebook university I learned that democracy is about defeating the opposition (Kegan2.5).

---

If the personal ego development chain is broken, pathologies obtain. That is the key lesson of SD. Specifically, even if you (Tier1 thinking) may not agree with the particular values and thinking of some institution (sports, church, school, politics) they still serve important functions to develop people and increase their Kegan level.

Important conclusion:
Different societies offers different ways of learning the lessons that will increase your Kegan level. A Green society has a different ways of teaching Kegan4 than an Orange society has for teaching Kegan4. However, all individuals need an unbroken adult ego development curriculum through Kegan1-2-3-4-5 and beyond and all individuals need to learn these lessons when they are ready for them from whatever exists in society to provide these lessons in order to move on to the next level. IFF you remove some of the institutions or traditions or functions that serve as BRIDGES, you WILL develop pathological behavior---people will start manifesting behavior and values w/o understanding them. That is the key lesson(*). In particular (listen up Tier1), even if you don't like the values of some system, please realize how they each do serve the purpose of bridging some Kegan level. Different countries have different systems for doing so. The important part is that all systems are present. Otherwise people get stuck or blow up in inappropriate ways.

(*) For example, Green politicians dunking on Blue church people or Law&Order people is such a bad idea. In short, SD makes it possible to avoid committing political idiocy.

I'll leave you with this: https://youtu.be/7SgDS-16UFA?t=31 (they all play important roles)

enigmaT120
Posts: 1235
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by enigmaT120 »

I dislike team sports. If I'm going to be part of a group project it's going to be building mountain bike (or trail running) trails, stuff like that.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13596
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

enigmaT120 wrote:
Thu Nov 11, 2021 1:57 pm
I dislike team sports. If I'm going to be part of a group project it's going to be building mountain bike (or trail running) trails, stuff like that.
That's fine. The point of SD is that there are different societal mechanisms to teach individual ego development. That development happens continuously. Therefore the availability of the teaching platforms can't have a gap lest society develop pathological behavior.

For example, you can't transition from tribal-minded power gang culture to an inclusive culture of acceptance for maximum harmony w/o learning that "rules and order" matter.

Basically, part of growing up (thesis/antithesis/synthesis) is how issues are externalized with guidelines ... but then those guidelines eventually get internalized.

Alifelongme
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 5:12 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by Alifelongme »

It looks like I have a hard time with really understanding / groking this SD stuff. It’s not that I don’t get the model, I do. And I want to like it.

However what bothers me is that it hinges on the underlying assumptions that 1) evolution = progress and 2) that societies evolve in the same way. It depends on the view of time as an arrow that extends from dark, ignorant past into the bright enlightened future. And as individuals “evolve” to higher levels so will societies.

But without that third dimension of progress, the spiral collapses into two-dimensional circle endlessly cycling between Red and Blue.
It could be even argued that there is only one dimension with Red and Blue at the extremes (individual vs collective) and individuals as well as societies endlessly oscillate between Red and Blue. What gives the rise to the *appearance* of different colors is in fact only the context in which Red/Blue is manifest, i.e. time, geography, culture, economic development, technology, and the like. So, Orange is the modern upper middle class version of Red, and Green is just comfortable classes’ version of Blue, and so on.

Moreover, so called “progress” is only possible in the context of modernity with its heavy reliance on fossil fuel energy. Take that away and we are all back to much cruder version of Red and Blue (if not purple ;)

Finally, changes/ progress on individual level does not translate to changes in society in a simple linear manner. It is well known aggregation problem in economics: Micro * n =/= Macro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregation_problem

Don’t know if all that make sense though. Overthinking?

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 13596
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by jacob »

Alifelongme wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:28 pm
However what bothers me is that it hinges on the underlying assumptions that 1) evolution = progress and 2) that societies evolve in the same way. It depends on the view of time as an arrow that extends from dark, ignorant past into the bright enlightened future. And as individuals “evolve” to higher levels so will societies.

But without that third dimension of progress, the spiral collapses into two-dimensional circle endlessly cycling between Red and Blue.
(my bold)

In SD that's a feature not a bug. Societies do not evolve in the same way but the assertion is that cultures do. SD will say that gang-culture (Red) can not end by a method of "dialogue and raising awareness" (Green) but rather than needs Blue institutions (whether it's in the form of church, school, military service) followed by Orange institutions (e.g. career, promotion, awards, ...) before "dialogue and awareness" will register as important. Otherwise these methods just look weak. This also means, from the SD perspective, that it's counterproductive to "social justice" to simply take out the Blue and Orange institutions and replace them with Green. Rather, solving the gang problem would begin by reforming Blue and Orange.

The spiral can certainly regress again. You can block the formation of the top rung of the ladder (for example by burning books) and halt progress. Or you can shoot out rungs and thereby regress a societies substantially. For example Orange/Green society invades Red/Blue theocratic tribal society on the verge of Orange and takes out the Blue leadership replacing it with Orange infrastructure projects (as a gift) to "bring democracy". Failing to control the Red tribes by building schools and waterplants, the invaders leave again. Whatever the country had in terms of Orange flee and become refuges and the country reverts to Red.

This outcome is easy to understand in the SD model. It makes no sense from a purely Green or Orange perspective. Why don't they want technological progress or education for all?

guitarplayer
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:43 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by guitarplayer »

This is cool @jacob, are you aware of any psychometric studies/tool on SD that try to quantify proportion of colours in various populations? Read the beginning of one of Wilber's books and they talk percentages which makes me think there is some sort of questionnaire (psychologists love questionnaires).

Alifelongme
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 26, 2021 5:12 pm

Re: SD: Self-identity

Post by Alifelongme »

@Jacob I guess my main objection to the model is not as much as assumed isomorphism between the individual and society/culture but rather the assumption of progress that is not explicitly stated at the beginning of this framework. Any system/framework/model requires explicit presentation of its underlying assumptions so that they could be relaxed later to explore their role in the model.

For example, neoclassical economics relies on the following assumptions:
1. People have rational preferences between outcomes that can be identified and associated with values.
2. Individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profits.
3. People act independently on the basis of full and relevant information.
Later, each of these assumptions could be relaxed, e.g. people are not rational as per behavioral economics and the like utilizing work of Kahneman and Tversky.

So, one of the SD model’s main assumptions is *progress*. Relax that assumption and you get only oscillations between Red and Blue, in different disguise but being fundamentally the same. Red would manifest as Orange or Yellow in the context of wealthy technologically advanced industrial societies. Similarly, Blue will appear as Green or Turquoise with even more wealth available for everyone so that resources appear less scares and people can afford to be generous with each other.

But as soon as the industrial base is pulled away both Red and Blue would reveal their true colors.
And depending on the particular culture/tradition and the severity of the resources scarcity at the time of collapse, it could be geared more towards Red or Blue. The greater is the shock the more it will require Blue approach for survival. At the initial shock and transition time Red would prevail though. Societies that are unable to find an appealing Blue ideology/religion to channel Red temptations/impulses of its members into productive venues - disintegrate.

So far ALL civilizations went through these cycles of *progress* and collapse. Why would ours be any different?

Post Reply