Spiraling Concerns - Part II

To continue with the SD concerns, I feel that people interested in development, Spiral Dynamics and integral theories really need to start flexing their critical thinking skills. I am slowly becoming more aware of this need and I’m working on this since a goal of mine is to pursue graduate studies in the area of developmental psychology. Along that line, I have found several voices that are helping me to become more diligent and less naïve when it comes to theories and applications within the integral community. One of those voices is Ray Harris, a contributor of many insightful essays at IntegralWorld.

In particular, Harris’ perspective regarding Spiral Dynamics has inspired me to take a step back and think about things more critically. Harris, along with myself and several others, are members of the Ken Wilber Cohort Yahoo group, which is an invite only group formed after the end of the Intro to Integral Theory course offered by IU/IUP. Most of the members are from the course along with many others that have been invited to participate in various discussions. Harris’ posts always get me thinking and with his permission I wanted to share with ya’ll some of his posts to the group regarding his perspective on SD to stimulate further critical reflection on the so-called “perspective that changes everything”:

Harris on SD research:

I'm in contact with the Society for Research into Adult Development and as far as I am aware the Graves, Beck, Cowan and Wilber 'systems' are marginal at best. And there seems to have been little confirmation of Graves' original findings outside of Beck and Cowan - and they disagree.

Beck and Wilber say that some independent research has been done. This research was done by the Arlington Institute, who are futurists and not trained developmental psychologists. The research did not test the assumptions of SD but simply applied it as a model to existing data. How do I know? John Petersen, the director of the Arlington Institute told me this in the boardroom of the Arlington Institute. I have it from the horse's mouth. If I were a developmental psychologist I would want to do a peer review of the methodology and data of the Arlington Institute research (I'm guessing the answer is that the data is proprietary).

I do not regard the premises of the Graves system and the subsequent SD formulations to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Whilst some of it is intuitive, sections of it are, imo, entirely speculative.

There are still many questions to be answered. Are the values Graves discovered related to cognitive and moral reasoning development? Are the values really an independent stream? How much are the values a product of moral reasoning? How much are the values a product of localised socio-economic factors? (remember that the supposed universality of SD is based on the Arlington research - unless there is other research I am unaware of, or Petersen was lying).

Harris on Cowan, Beck and Wilber’s interpretations of SD:

There is a fundamental disagreement between Beck and Cowan on how to interpret Graves. Both claim to have the right interpretation and both claim the other has got it wrong. Anyone trying to sort this out has to read all three.

As I understand the difference between Beck and Cowan - Cowan seems to take the view that Beck has speculated beyond what the original research can sustain. Beck argues from 'authority' by saying that he was a student of Graves and knows what he meant. Cowan worked closely with Beck and also argues from 'authority'. My personal view is that Beck is speculating and his version of SD is essentially his personal opinion.

I would like to see Graves' original research repeated by developmental psychologists who are independent of both Beck and Cowan. This is what is done with other developmental tests. In other words, let's have independent verification and let's separate valid observations from speculation and opinion.

Wilber uses SD terminology in a variety of ways. On the one hand he can be very precise and state that SD only maps a 'values' stream. On the other hand he uses SD terminology as a code that refers to the fulcrums in general. The way to decode this is to refer to comparative tables at the back of Integral Psychology. So when Wilber says that Rove has a 'turquoise mind' he means to suggest that Rove is cognitively metasystematic. I'm critical of the way Wilber uses SD terminology. I think he often confuses things and makes a number of category errors.

Harris’ general concerns with SD:

I have a fair amount to say on this topic. I'll begin by stating my concerns about SD.

1. Unlike the tradition of cognitive development (Piaget to Commons), moral reasoning (Kohlberg) and other developmental psychologies, the original work of Graves seems not to have been subject to verification from multiple independent nodes. Cognitive development has been tested, retested and turned inside out by developmental psychologists in many countries. I am unaware of any research node outside of Beck and Cowan working with the Gravesian model. How do we know his original work still stands up?

2. The system of SD was developed by Beck and Cowan. These two have since parted ways and sharp differences of opinion about Graves have arisen. Why does Ken seemingly ignore this problem? Surely fundamental disagreements between the two leading researchers about what Graves meant suggest a problem with the theory and ought to be investigated without choosing sides, that is, if one were 'integral'? As I understand it Cowan is publishing all of Graves' original research, including his last, unpublished manuscript. Shouldn't this be of interest? I note here that both Cowan and his partner, Natasha Todorovich, have been very critical of the MGM and 2nd Tier notions. In other words, they disagree with Beck's interpretation of Graves.

3. This suggests that SD and SDi is essentially the interpretation of just one researcher, Don Beck. Where is the independent verification of his ideas? And given the sharp differences of opinion between Beck and Cowan shouldn't we treat SD with considerable critical distance?

4. Beck claims that the SD system has been subject to global research to test its universality. This research was done by the Arlington Institute, a private group in Washington (as admitted to me face to face by the director, John Petersen). Is the research data and methodology open to peer review as might be expected as part of the normal academic process?

5. Whilst I understand the need to make a living Don Beck has taken SD and SDi out of the normal peer review process of the academy. Placing it in the private sphere places particular pressures on the system's neutrality and independence. Despite everyone's best intentions ordinary commercial pressure (need to maintain an income, need to please clients) can prevent a free and fearless use of the SD system. If key concepts are closely guarded 'intellectual property' how can independent verification occur?

6. The undisciplined use of SD terminolgy turns discussion into intellectual mush, incoherent trash. Whilst I sympathise with its attractiveness as convenient shorthand its misuse severly blunts the integral community's ability to analyse situations to any integral depth. It dumbs things down. Hence Ken can say Rove has a turquoise mind but a blue heart (in other words - Rove is a metasystematic conservative. Btw, no-one thinks he's stupid).

7. The undisciplined use of SD leads to the labelling of people and situations without having to offer any substantiation. Rather than be an analytical tool it easily becomes a pejorative - as in, so and so is green (and ought to be disregarded).

8. There is a very old rhetorical device. It was used during the witch trials. If you did not believe the church's position in regard to witchcraft then this proved you were a witch. It also appears in child abuse hysteria. If you deny the abuse you must therefore also be a part of the abuse cycle. In SD circles this becomes, if you do not believe in MGM this necessarily means you suffer from MGM.

What's the saying - if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Hmmm, quackery or legitimate developmental theory? What are the indicators here? The checklist -

1. No independent verification
2. Substantial disagreements between the co-authors
3. Undisciplined use of the core concepts
4. Pejorative use of the core concepts

Quack, quack?

Things that certainly make me go hmmm…how about you?

Comments

[Tuff Ghost]

I think that Harris article is great, and sums up all the problems nicely. I just hope that there's some kind of response from the I-I crowd; Wilber has 'sorta kinda but not really' distanced himself from SD in the new Integral spirituality essay, but I'd like to see Beck stand up for himself and address 1)His split with Cowan 2) the lack of SD/SDi verification.

It feels like Wilber's adaptation of SD hasn't really added much that wasn't already there, whilst bringing with it a whole host of problems.