Minor point: The colloquial use of "deconstruction" is very vague. I suggest "analysis" or "description".
Are there really good statistics about what proportion of people are at these levels?
Shouldn't there be something about how consistently a person can maintain one of the higher-numbered points of view?
Fixed, thank you.
In a recent post Gwerley covered Constructive Developmental Theory, and Subject-Object Notation. I'll be going through a basic description of the ideas, as well as adding related ideas from the Four Player Model.
Constructive Developmental Theory:
Constructive Developmental Theory is a Theory of Mind that splits the development of people into five levels, though the levels each have a unique set of advantages/disadvantages, not being "better" or "worse" than one another.1 This theory is largely based on if the individual is subject to something or able to hold it as an object using meta cognition, such that each level holds the previous levels as special cases.2 This progress makes it so a higher order mind will notice things a lower order cannot.
First Order/The Impulsive Mind
Second Order/The Instrumental Mind
Third Order/The Socialized Mind
*With the bulk of people being on this level it's important to keep status with them. Failure to do so risks loosing momentum on any movement you're working on. (Trans humanism, Cryonics or FAI being the three that jump to mind with this community.)
Fourth Order/The Self-Authoring Mind
*While less essential than Socialized Minds, Self-Authoring Minds are a good indicator that your movement is healthy and still able to adapt to changes. Being the primary source of said changes fourth order minds are important in order to avoid things like an Ann Rand cult.
Fifth Order/The Self-Transforming Mind
*The most useful and the least essential of the groups. They are able to fill any role needed, but are made fully redundant by a enough lower order minds in the necessary roles.
5I was unable to find the six percent not accounted for above.
Subject Object Notation:
Subject-Object Notation is a way of showing where relative to two incompatible ideas you are. For example:
The Instrumental Mind (2) and The Socialized Mind (3)
Using Subject-Object Notation on Constructive Developmental Theory yields 21 unique "levels" of development.
1 1(2) 1/2 2/1 2(1)
2 2(3) 2/3 3/2 3(2)
3 3(4) 3/4 4/3 4(3)
4 4(5) 4/5 5/4 5(4)
5
Four Player Model:
Movers: The ones making changes to the current group behaviour.
Follower: Those who are continuing the current move.
Opposers: Those correcting the current move.
Bystanders: The ones watching for anything else the group should be looking out for.
Socialized Mind
Self-Authoring Mind
Self-Transforming Mind
Moving
This a rare state for a Socialized Mind. The inherent risk to status makes even potentially large gains less appealing.
A natural role for a Self-Authoring Mind, being independent of the group allows them to propose changes, though that is limited by their beliefs and ideologies.
Much the same as Self-Authors Self-Transformers are suitable for filling the role of mover, though with larger amounts of resources to draw from.
Following
At this level people are defined by tribal status making them excellent followers.
Following is not a role a level 4 will fall into unless they arrive at the conclusion on their own.
While not as difficult as it was as a Self-Author following is still the weakest point of the higher levels due largely to the absence of cultural influence in personal thought.
Opposing
Individuals at this level do not oppose without prompting, and will likely try to smooth over any mover/Opposer conflict.
At least as much as Moving, Opposing suits a 4th order mind, because even if they agree they are able to play Devil's Advocate as disagreement doesn't undermine their sense of self.
Bystanding
Similar to opposing third order minds don't make very good bystanders, as that would necessitate leaving the group thought process that defines them.
A Self-Author is a suitable, if slightly biased, Bystander for much the same reason they are good Opposers.
Authors Notes:
1The lack of "better" levels seems to indicate that each level is a local optima with at least a few required for a stable society.
2This would seem to indicate that higher orders are capable of everything that a lower order is, motivation not withstanding.
3This level includes both human babies and animals.
4In addition to children some animals have pack/herd/pod mentalities that would appear to be at least 2(3).
5I would predict 5+ percent in level 2, and only the wild children in level 1, (those children who are raised by wild animals) with even some of them as level 2.
*This is the relation to Four Player Model
Attributions:
http://developmentalobserver.blog.com/2010/06/09/an-overview-of-constructive-developmental-theory-cdt/ - Three highest levels of CDT
http://sustainabilitythinking.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/constructive-developmental-theory/ - less detailed description of all five
http://developmentalobserver.blog.com/2011/06/08/additional-resources-on-adult-development/ - Assorted links
http://developmentalobserver.blog.com/2011/02/21/kantors-four-player-model-through-the-lens-of-cdt/ - Kantor's Four Player Model
http://malcolmocean.com/2014/10/subject-object-notation/ - Subject-Object Notation
http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/landing/constructivedevtheory.pdf - CDT more in depth