States and Stages - Where's the Beef?

Research has shown and studies show are familiar phrases to those in the integral crowd that read Ken Wilber’s books. But often I’m left wondering – where’s the beef Wilber? As I contemplate Wilber’s style and I’m getting wiser in terms of figuring out his MO for theorizing and asserting his opinions with “research.” I find myself asking that question often.

Tim Boucher made a great observation in his Critique of Ken Wilber when he noted the following regarding Wilber’s book A Theory of Everything:

Wilber frequently suggests that “the evidence supports” or “studies have shown” that his ideas are somehow accurate. So far, he has not provided a single solid bit of evidence or anything close to an empirical study. I’m not trying to say this invalidates his work altogether, but I do see it as a big stumbling block. If your theory is based on evidence, then show me evidence that will stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. And if it’s not based on evidence, then stop suggesting that it is.

I think the crux of Wilber’s technique is in his reliance on developmental psychology and its research. I think a lot of people getting into Wilber should know from the get go that he is basically a developmentalist or at least uses developmental psychology as the basis of his theory which is then applied to…well everything. Allan Combs (of the infamous Wilber-Combs Matrix) noted in his book Radiance of Being that the key to understanding Wilber is to understand that he is a developmentalist at heart. But what Wilber often does with this research is more of a slight of hand trick - if that is, he actually references research at all (see Jim Andrew’s Ken Wilber On Meditation).

Case in point – in the What Is Altitude? explanation that is a part of the Holons I-I newsletter we have this:

"States and stages, however, are deeply interrelated: research has shown that continued development through stages can help convert passing states into permanent traits, which is one of the more exciting findings of an Integral Approach....)"

Wilber has been throwing around that "research shows" passing states to traits for years now but I wish he would say what research. Yes it may make sense intuitively and fit his model but I want to read about how this happens and where all the research is that delves deeper into it besides just "states to stages".

The closest I've come to finding anything is by digging through Wilber's endnotes in Integral Psychology where he discusses the roles of the self. One of these roles is metabolism or the process of the conversion of states to stages (or the self "metabolizes experience to build structure".) He lists a reference (see his endnote #8 for Chapter 3 which sends you to endnote #4 for Chapter 10) to Blanck and Blanck's work on self-psychology and says they "have summarized a century of psychoanalytic theory and research on the development of the self by saying that the self metabolizes experience to build structure." Wilber also says it is “consonant with Piaget’s work on constructivism (and thought as internalized action).”

Ok - well something more substantive and some research studies to back it up in his books that constantly reinforce his “states to stages” mantra would be nice, but this is a start. I think all we need to look into Blanck and Blanck's work and see if it holds up and if their research is supportive of Wilber's assertions. But if it does hold up cool – the self metabolizes experiences and then builds enduring structures as we development.

The slight of hand Wilber uses though is what bugs me, which is this - in that endnote Wilber takes a leap and asserts that he thinks the process that Blanck and Blanck summarize for early development also holds true for the conversion of temporary peak experiences and altered states to enduring structures/stages of consciousness – states and stages that are beyond the scope of those researched in mainstream developmental psychology. Is that a fair leap to make? Is it fair to use their research as support for his contentions about as yet studied states and stages assertions? I am certainly not saying that Wilber can’t theorize about these things but I do not think he should throw out the “research shows” and evidence cards for them if it doesn’t actually support that theorizing.

In the appendix to Radiance of Being there is a conversation between Wilber and Combs. In that conversation they state that there really is nobody doing research in the area of states and stages besides Wilber and Combs (they mention Charles Tart but Wilber comments that he really only work with states.) As far as I know none of their research has be released or published so if “research shows” this or that regarding states and stages relationships who is doing it and where is it? Yes we have the Wilber-Combs matrix but is that it? I’m sure when IU is up there will be some research on this and I look forward to reading it. Or will there be?

Of course, Wilber also often states that exposure to altered states can speed up development through the stages of development. So meditation, using brain-mind machines like Holo-Sync and other consciousness altering activities may speed up this self-driven metabolism of states to stages. Now Wilber does state that only meditation has been proven to speed development but there may be other methods like those I listed. So to be fair, Wilber only asserts that meditation speeds this metabolism but how this happens is not addressed. I believe the only research given to support this claim is various studies by Skip Alexander and Jane Loevinger – studies which themselves have various issues in terms of validity and reliability (again see Andrews). I do hope research is being done by I-I and IU to really flesh out this process so that Wilber can one day actually site evidence for these claims. Until then I think people should always ask where's the beef? - do their homework and always question when Wilber or anyone begins a sentence with research shows.

Comments

[kate]

. . . this has nothing to do with wilber or beef or anything . . . this has to do with LOST. As in: is it just me or are you aghast that they just killed off The Hatch with very little fanfare? The Hatch. It is gone. This is a strange strange twist this tale has taken. Fish biscuits and scientific tortures . . . so weird . . . :) kate

[Bob D.]

Wilber's sleight of hand about supporting research has been a concern to me as well. I've read most of his work, and it seems that his theories are based on his own creative intuition and not on research of any kind. The theory comes first, then any relevant research is brought in to buttress his ideas. Nothing wrong with that, if one is honest about it. But because "empiricism" is such a fundamental aspect of the theory itself, I think KW feels pressure to ground his ideas in empirical data. But studies show that ninety percent of all research is bogus, so why bother with it. : )

[joe perez]

You make very good points ... in fact, on the specific topic of evidence for states leading to changes in stages, I've been frustrated by the difficulty in tracking down research to investigate the claims (not that this particular claim is really crucial to Wilber's integral theory, but it's a mighty important issue). However, I am somewhat disappointed in your choice to characterize Wilber's wordsmithing in rather dubious, almost dishonest terms. You put snark marks around "research"; you call it "slight of hand." What exactly is your issue with his exact words? They seem accurate enough. He doesn't make exaggerated claims or use stronger verbs such as "demonstrates," "proves," etc. or modifiers such as "conclusively." Do you want him to add "tentatively," is that all? Well, sorry but the verb "shows" is fairly soft and squishy. I don't think Wilber's trying to hide the fact that more research needs to be done before firm conclusions can be drawn, despite your insinuations that he's playing some sort of illusionist.

[joe perez]

oops. in above comment, please read "I am somewhat disappointed in your choice to characterize Wilber's wordsmithing in rather dubious, almost dishonest terms..." as "I am somewhat disappointed in your choice to characterize Wilber's wordsmithing AS dubious, almost dishonest (i.e., "slight of hand"). I dispute your assessment of the accuracy of Wilber's scholarship, but did not want to convey that you were "almost dishonest." Charges of misrepresentation or falsification in a scholar's writing should be made with seriousness, otherwise they are libelous. sorry for the poor phrasing and to reiterate, I do think your point that readers should take caution with statements like "research shows" is quite sound. best to you, joe

[timbomb]

Blanck & Blanck or one of them anyway, in case anyone wants to spring for a copy.

[Shawn]

Hello Joe,

Thanks for the comments! It is always nice to be challenged because it helps me to rethink and assess my arguments. I guess I don't feel Wilber is being dishonest but I do feel he is trying to be persuasive (i.e., slight of hand) with the many assertions he makes about states and stages. (Particularily when it comes to meditation research and Jim Andrews critique is well done in this area in my opinion.)

My point was to encourage myself and others to think critically about what any author says - to ask why or how if you will - and seek further evidence. Wilber is now a marketeer and has an interested in selling his ILP - not just for money but to help others live a fuller life. So as a product, people just want to know why I should practice an ILP...is there research to show how this stuff can help me? Will using a brain mind machine really speed my development or will it just lead to a seizure or brain damage?!?

So I think Wilber gets sloppy at times with references and throws around research shows a lot and it would be nice to really find it and evaluate just what is shows. I have no doubt that Wilber knows further research is needed in many of these areas and I hope he is pursuing that with IU and I look forward to seeing it in the future.