Is Stage Theory BS? - Nora Bateson's Critique

[Leo Gura]

Enlightenment certainly does not obviate stage development. Ken Wilber is right to stress this point.

[Thought Art]

12 hours ago, SeaMonster said:

 

The fundamental paradox is that stage development is pointless until you're fully enlightened and unnecessary if you are.  Wilber DOES NOT KNOW THIS.

 

Hey, this stuck out to me. Can you explain this in more detail? 
 

For me… Ken Wilber’s quadrant model comes to mind which definitely accounts for things like, your level of awakening vs your level of “Growing Up” which is essentially what spiral dynamics and Susan’s Ego model measures. Because humans have different lines of development, different models are useful. 
 

Wilber talks about each quadrant:

1. Waking Up = Enlightenment, increasing consciousness, awakening 

2. Growing up = Maturity/ Wisdom, Love, Education, values…

3. Cleaning Up = Shadow Work, cleaning up trauma and unifying the mind

4. Showing Up = How you embody your development 

 

I think you are underestimating Wilbur. Many of us here have yet to dive deeply into his readings… me included. Though, I have done some reading and I’ve listen to many of his lectures. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura

Does the research from the world value survey match the observations of Spiral Dynamics and Susan’s Ego developmental model?

[DocWatts]

Since Ken Wilber was brought up, Stage Theories just like any other dialectical model are best thought of as 'orienting generalizations'. In that they can be quite helpful for understanding the broad strokes of a particular domain, but run into trouble when they get Absolutized into an iron law of Reality.

This is of course also true of postmodernism (where critiques of Stage Theory come from), in that it's true in some important ways but is also a very partial understanding of Reality.

For my own part, my experience has been that Stage Theories are useful for thier ability to contextualize some of the dynamics of a given domain, but become problematic when used as the primary lens one uses to understand Reality, in that Stage Models are especially susceptible to being used as a form of epistemic bypassing.

When not used with care they can tempt us into thinking that we understand far more about Reality than we actually do; which is why it's important to cultivate epistemic humility, especially when one is using dialectical models.

Edited July 17, 2023 by DocWatts

[Nilsi]

2 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Since Ken Wilber was brought up, Stage Theories just like any other dialectical model are best thought of as 'orienting generalizations'. In that they can be quite helpful for understanding the broad strokes of a particular domain, but run into trouble when they get Absolutized into an iron law of Reality.

This is of course also true of postmodernism (where critiques of Stage Theory come from), in that it's true in some important ways but is also a very partial understanding of Reality.

For my own part, my experience has been that Stage Theories are useful for thier ability to contextualize some of the dynamics of a given domain, but become problematic when used as the primary lens one uses to understand Reality, in that Stage Models are especially susceptible to being used as a form of epistemic bypassing.

That much should be obvious.

The even deeper problem is the implicit teleology in such models.

Such an all encompassing and universalized ideal like "Stage TURQOISE" is the most dangerous of ideas. This is Marx's utopia all over again - literally! 

In some parallel universe, Ken Wilber went on to enact a Spiral Dynamics Stalinism, while people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate are suffocating away in the gulag.

[CARDOZZO]

The map is not the territory.

But there are more accurate maps than others.

One thing that just keeps me thinking about stages is the behaviors, emotions and perspectives on reality within each stage.

Assuming that a human can become "100% Turquoise" is pure nonsense.  

It's more realistic to teach people how to move within the spectrum and manage themselves within each stage without attaching a human to a specific stage.

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, Nilsi said:

That much should be obvious.

The even deeper problem is the implicit teleology in such models.

Such an all encompassing and universalized ideal like "Stage TURQOISE" is the most dangerous of ideas. This is Marx's utopia all over again - literally! 

In some parallel universe, Ken Wilber went on to enact a Spiral Dynamics Stalinism, while people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate are suffocating away in the gulag.

Here's the thing though, for someone who jumps into Stage Theory without a solid epistemological foundation, it's not obvious. For someone to even recognize that they're absolutizing a Stage Model requires a good understanding of how paradigms work, which is far from a given.

I agree with you about the problematic implicit teleology of such models. For Spiral Dynamics in particular, my view is that model would be much better off without the Turquoise Stage, since there's not a cultural paradigm for it to be expressed through (like there is in modernism, postmodernism, and metamodernism)

Edited July 17, 2023 by DocWatts

[CARDOZZO]

Some models that I find interesting:

• Levels of Consciousness by Frederick Dodson.
• Meta-States Model by Michael Hall.
• Matrix Model by Michael Hall.

[Leo Gura]

On 7/16/2023 at 6:01 PM, Thought Art said:

@Leo Gura

Does the research from the world value survey match the observations of Spiral Dynamics and Susan’s Ego developmental model?

I doubt you can match them up like that.

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura huh… should be some kinda trend there. I think there is anyway.

[Leo Gura]

There are trends but getting the data to line up is another matter.

[PlayOnWords]

What are the essential Ken Wilber books for studying his Integral Theory? After a quick google search it seems there isn't just one book, want to make sure I don't miss a beat.

@Thought Art @Leo Gura

[DocWatts]

2 minutes ago, PlayOnWords said:

What are the essential Ken Wilber books for studying his Integral Theory? After a quick google search it seems there isn't just one book, want to make sure I don't miss a beat.

@Thought Art @Leo Gura

Sex, Ecology, Spirituality is his most comprehensive book on the subject. While A Theory of Everything is a good, short introduction to Integral Theory.

[PlayOnWords]

Thanks, @DocWatts.

[Jacob Morres]

According to the book, many greens don't like spiral dynamics bc the model looks like its in a hierarchy (but it's not really, it's more of a map) 

There's a story Don beck writes in the book about this. 

I agree with the point tho, treating it as a hierarchy would be a trap

Edited July 20, 2023 by Jacob Morres

[Carl-Richard]

On 16.7.2023 at 0:15 AM, UnbornTao said:

Nora Bateson criticized stage theory a few years ago.

Of course. It's Gregory Bateson's daughter

[UnbornTao]

On 7/25/2023 at 1:17 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Of course. It's Gregory Bateson's daughter

I'm not familiar with them. What makes it obvious?

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

I'm not familiar with them. What makes it obvious?

Gregory Bateson's work (which spans many different fields) generally challenges reductionistic or linear ways of thinking. For example, in communication theory, he emphasizes how communication is a circular rather than a linear process, and that the meaning of an utterance is constructed as a result of what the interpreter brings to the table (their personal dispositions) and other contextual factors (e.g. time, place, past events). So a Bateson will be predisposed to making context aware critiques of stage theory, which is a field that generally lacks context awareness (as it's an older field). Pointing to a lack of cross-cultural validation is one example of a context aware critique. Barbara Rogoff has made similar critiques.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

On 16.7.2023 at 6:33 AM, Nilsi said:

Piaget's developmental theory has been validated cross culturally (and I'm sure many more models have).

 

Quote

Researchers noticed that lack of generality was especially apparent in tasks used for Piaget’s “formal operational stage,” which involves reasoning systematically about physical and mathematical properties even when no concrete objects are present to manipulate. People in many cultural communities did not seem to “reach” Piaget’s formal operational stage at all without extensive schooling (Ashton, 1975; Goodnow, 1962; LaurendeauBendavid, 1977; Super, 1979).

These observations led Piaget in 1972 to conclude that formal operational thinking was tied to people’s experience with the specific kind of scientific thinking of this stage, such as the kind of hypothesis testing used in high school science classes. Thus, when the cultural research drew attention to the problems of assuming that the stages were general, Piaget revised his claim of universal stages to say that this stage was contextually variable, depending on experience in particular domains.

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

Edited July 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Gregory Bateson's work (which spans many different fields) generally challenges reductionistic or linear ways of thinking. For example, in communication theory, he emphasizes how communication is a circular rather than a linear process, and that the meaning of an utterance is constructed as a result of what the interpreter brings to the table (their personal dispositions) and other contextual factors (e.g. time, place, past events). So a Bateson will be predisposed to making context aware critiques of stage theory, which is a field that generally lacks context awareness (as it's an older field). Pointing to a lack of cross-cultural validation is one example of a context aware critique. Barbara Rogoff has made similar critiques.

Nice, thank you.