Carl-Richard

I have the exact same experience. I just fear it too much.

If I lay on my back, I will never fall asleep but instead enter a dreamless void state which freaks me out.

Systems thinking as a technical term isn't necessarily Tier 2. It's rather about having a "mature systems view of life" (context awareness, construct awareness and theory pluralism). The concepts from systems thinking are nevertheless useful for conceptualizing this view.

I think the most interesting thing would be to apply it to cross-cultural persons, because that's how you can truly start to isolate universal attributes from cultural context. It's not enough to just look at different cultures, but also the interactions between cultures. Like Leo says, it's true that some developmental models have been tested in non-Western contexts, but there is still a general gap in cross-cultural developmental research that needs to be filled before we come close to something resembling true universality, especially in a growing techo-globalized world (the internet is technically a cross-cultural phenomena).

Work out with music on ?

My brain is permanently changed.

I like the parallels between normal science's closemindedness to intuitive insight (metaphysics) and psychic phenomena (clairvoyance) when that is essentially all that the revolutionary scientists/philosophers are doing (somehow predicting the next empirically accepted, dominant scientific framework) The individual-collective connection was already well-established with Bronfenbrenner in 1979 (a stage-less, systemic developmental theory). Also, other adult developmental theories (defined as 18-and-up, or just unrelated to age) were also popping up in various places. I think most of the intuitive innovation in the case of SD came down to simply connecting stage theory to value systems, which is thanks to Graves' student essay methodology and Beck & Cowan's application of memetics to create vMEMEs (and other things of course). I believe the dialectical framework is inherently baked-in to all of the structural stage theories (not just SD), mainly starting with Piaget and his logical constructivism, because they're constructivist theories that place the transaction principle (organism-environment interactions) across a developmental line: interactions forming new interactions etc., i.e. thesis, antithesis, synthesis etc.. It also applies to stage-less developmental theories like Vygotsky and Bronfenbrenner, which have a more "horizontal", social bent (focus on modelling person-person interactions). You could say that Bronfenbrenner's theory gives a more specific account of the individual-collective connection, which can help give an expanded understanding of this aspect of SD, just like SD can give an expanded understanding of the undifferentiated developmental aspect of Bronfenbrenner's theory ("chronosystem").

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/serious-covid-cases-spike-as-omicron-wave-engulfs-israel-1.10524711 The vaccines work.

So if I understand you correctly, the way you interpret the data and create the structure for the model first requires an intuitive framework, but the quantity and order of each stage (the content) is what the empirical data is for. So Clare Graves had to first have the intuition that he could structure the student's value systems into a developmental hierarchy before he could start gathering the data, and then when he got the data, he could fill that structure with specific content. Basically, it's one example of how empirical investigation is always guided by an a priori framework of interpretation (it tells you where to look and how to look at it).

Are they absolutist literalists or pluralist non-literalists? The former is Blue, the latter is compatible with Orange/Green. I guess my example doesn't take that into account.

I guess my point is that once you choose the empirical route, you might as well go all the way. Then again, I'm not exactly against rationalist intuition as a methodology (as with Hegel or Plato for example).

Are you another one of those who doesn't understand the concept of probabilistic preventative measures? Things like seatbelts, government safety inspections, condoms?

I feel there is something not healthy about viewing a natural bodily function as negative. The way I see it is if you don't feel like fapping, that's fine, and if you feel like fapping, that's fine as well. I think unhealthy fapping is when you're doing in spite of not feeling horny, as an emotional band-aid or just as a mindless habit.

It's called sarcasm.

People might've been pregnant, but that is mostly hearsay. I don't believe people are pregnant today to the extent that it's portrayed in the media. How come I don't know any? You can always find single studies, but there are new studies everyday. Besides, I don't trust the mainstream narrative in medicine that pregnancies are very prevalent in the first place.

Completely irrelevant. I don't know anybody who is pregnant.

I don't see how that is possible. I think of Yellow as Green 2.0.

The response to criticizing SD shouldn't be "think less." That's a problem. By empirical standards, it's definitionally not universal, but it might not matter.

Ah, I forgot about the shared ontogeny aspect of SDi. I guess that limits the problem to just the value systems aspect from the original SD (vMEMEs), which is mainly what my question is about. In other words, how do we know that vMEMEs specifically correlate with other developmental models in cross-cultural contexts? Is it just sufficient to say "oh, the ontogeny seems to line up with the overall trend of the other developmental lines, so that's proof enough", or should we expect a possible deviation from that pattern? I think that might be a possibility considering how value systems might be more adaptable than say the computational complexity of cognitive processes (Piagetian or Neo-Piagetian models), hence my Muslim scholar example. Maybe I'm just way out of my depth as usual

It's one thing to take a model and try to verify it in a particular environment (a flawed process, especially on the level of personal anecdotes and self-report from memory; confirmation bias etc.). It's another thing to reconstruct the model based on that environment.

Nice. Imma find the VOD I like the Tool quote btw

That's a WEIRD joke

It fits pretty well for me too, which is not surprising coming from a Western culture. I'm mainly interested in how they justify applying it to non-Western cultures (and cross-cultural people).

@SonataAllegro The stages were derived from empirical data. If the data only consists of American college students, it's at best an American developmental model, and therefore you can't apply it to non-American individuals or cultures without justifying that somehow (which is what I'm asking for).

Are you up-to-date with the latest health legislation? At least in Norway where I live, it's almost all about systemic approaches to preventive healthcare (primary, secondary, tertiary), health promotion (salutogenesis), better coordination between health services, and patient participation.