I believe I should point out that I do not aim to present Spiral Dynamics as an absolute truth. I only ask that this idea is entertained. Spiral Dynamics is still just a perspective, but everyone can extract the truth value to be found within.
I think Spiral Dynamics is worth serious consideration because it provides a reasonable and practical explanation for many problems in the world which are convoluted and divisive, based on prior explanations.
I would also like to point out that the motives you presume Spiral Dynamics exhibits are frankly, false. I do not believe myself to be at the top of a hierarchy. No stage in the spiral is "better" or "worse". Every stage is applicable and valid depending on the challenges of the environment. If one is lost in the wilderness and needs to focus on bare survival, then beige is the ideal stage. If one is attempting to solve a complex political issue, yellow would be a more viable mindset.
Let me provide some historical examples which may help you see the value of Spiral Dynamics.
Why is it that religious freedom, women's rights, and racial equality first occured in the Western World? Today, in most societies women are second-class citizens, and Western influence has failed to mitigate this issue. Religion is still the strongest force in society that isn't aroused by survival in the middle East and Africa.
Why is it that when the United States removes an authoritarian regime such as Iraq, Libya, Iran, etc. Religious Fundamentalists consistently gain popular support and install a new authoritative theocracy? People in this part of the world have difficulty accepting democracy and are consistently more receptive to a theocratic regime. Spiral Dynamics provides the explanation that these people are at stage Blue, therefore they value spiritual leadership and nationhood over freedom, democracy, and capitalism. For people in the Middle East, the most just and fair government is sharia law, because to them it's based on the Truth delivered from Allah.
Why is it that in continents like Africa, there has been very little if any cultural or technological development throughout human history until very recently? The same applies to the Americas and Australia.
Why did the Industrial Revolution occur in Western Countries (England, Belgium, Germany, United States, etc.) and not in China, Africa, or America? Why did the scientific revolution and the enlightenment occur in Western Europe and nowhere else? These ideas were exported from Europe all over the world, but why did Europe attain such success in the past 300 years while other civilizations lagged behind? There are two explanations for this occurence.
The first is that Europeans are genetically superior and have vastly superior intelligence, a theory that is disregarded by most of society today. The second is Spiral Dynamics. Western Europe was the first civilization to reach stage orange, which was due to many different variables from the environment. Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond discusses many of these variables.
Spiral Dynamics can even explain the differing viewpoints on this thread.
Nobody can choose their level, it's due to environment and upbringing.
When two people are at different developmental levels, when one points something out the other simply will not see it.
What may be an obvious proposition to one stage may be irrational or even insane to another. But every stage is correct to an extent.
@Serac Your disdain towards religion, "New Agers" and what you consider to be irrational strongly suggests you are Stage Orange, which is not a bad thing, it's the most common stage among English speakers.
From this thread I see Stage 5's arguing with Stage 6 and possibly stage 7 as well. All intelligent individuals with sound reason, but are at different stages.
@SlipperyQ I'm not in this business of trying to put people into these boxes based on whatever silly little ideas some woo-woo crank had in his mind. I'm looking at this from an epistemological perspective, according to which rigorous and scientific principles don't exclude any of the goals described in the green or yellow box or whatever. You can have very strict epistemic/scientific standards yet be very much concerned with love for humanity. Whereas you're telling me: since I am applying certain epistemic principles, I'm in a lower state of consciousness or whatever. Meanwhile, ironically, the people behind this stuff are pretending to apply scientific principles, while in fact they are just doing pseudo-science and ascribing their flawed methods to a higher plane of consciousness.
And regarding the model: if its only use is to "explain" past events while not having any method of validating or corroborating it (e.g. by making repeatable successful forecasts), then this "model" is worth shit.
What's the argument? This is something they show you if you take a psychology class at, say, a community college. Unless there's anything new, I don't get the point.
What you should do is provide more of a guide or some other external sources like a how to. It's basically trying to connect humanity with some higher purpose or a guide to self enlightenment? That would be the science behind it. Well, honestly, it's another way of saying the same thing. Most people aren't ready. America is for people who want to remain steeped in gluttony and give in to their pleasurable urges like sin with no regard for fancy whimsy. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
No, this isn't what you're shown in psych classes. It's largely been ignored in academia. But still people claim it's science, which takes it from being an exploratory idea to a probable sham, which is one of the reasons people are taking issue.
Another issue is that people who bring up the science issue who have dedicated years of their lives to scientific training, are being dismissed as being less developed. I can basically guarantee you that a lot of the people who subscribe to this stuff somehow managed to "skip" that stage, while giving a pretty solid performance of never having reached it.
I'm pretty sure [either race realism or spiral dynamics] is a false dichotomy. We know societies can advance technologically, but it's a completely different question whether spiral dynamics is a good description of them doing so.
Generally speaking, I’m disappointed with this thread because both the presentation and response could have been better, imo, but that’s in the past and can’t be undone.
Apparently I'm at least "turquoise" according to SD. Woo. It's not particularly meaningful to me. I also doubt the purported rarity of top tier occupants because it's not that difficult to learn to see the world through holarchical glasses (or to teach others), and I dislike the tiered system because even though colors were intentionally chosen over numbers to avoid elevating some levels over others, it doesn't function that way. And to keep up with my trend of complaining, I think Ken Wilber is a false messiah.
I don’t like the idea of applying SD to individuals, but I don’t think it should be that hard to agree that humans follow a developmental pattern, regardless of the model used to explain it. They’re all fucked up in their own way; Anna Karenina. Identifying correlations between them is cool though.
I do like SD on the societal level, because there’s actually a bit of relatively modern data on it instead of painting a pattern around history, but the validity is limited due to lack of replication because we don’t exactly have cages of societies to screw around with, and the implications are limited because of the observer effect: http://evonomics.com/science-predicting-rise-fall-societies-turchin/
I can no longer find a free full text version of "Arise Cliodynamics" so here's two images and a TLDR re: the relevance to spiral dynamics:
There are several other correlations that additively contribute to the bigger picture, but I don’t want to assume what you or others want to see and basically spam you.
The latter in particular shows the pattern, which might be more difficult for non-Americans to grasp. Quick and dirty: Stage 3 predominated as "purple" and "red" Native American tribes were overtaken by "red" caucasians. And of course there was that slavery thing. The missing spike is missing because the violence was enacted upon the losers and the victors write the history books. Once the "others" were sufficiently destroyed or contained, blue proliferated, making its first major appearance during the civil war. Blue continued to predominate until WWII, when the military industrial complex shifted the balance and allowed orange to become dominant. Green first appeared in the 60s, and persists today in the form of postmodern social justice complexes and other -isms, but it's dominance is delayed because early green leadership (MLK, Malcolm X, Kennedy 1, Kennedy 2) was assassinated.
I could give more detailed examples, but given the reception, I guess if you're interested, you'll pursue it on your own. I kind of expect the observer effect to either break the cycle, or make the spike in violence much higher. And of course, if the cycle continues as predicted, we have more evidence.
Here is a good Book which also goes where spiral dynamics goes but using a different approach. One of my favorite great works in psychology, and it contains knowledge that I find can be easily connected to Spiral Dynamics.