= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SquirrelInHell comments on Mental models - giving people personhood and taking it away - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (9)
OK, let's think about some predictions I can make from Kegan's model, about things I have no idea if they are true:
There are significantly more people who go from caring emotionally about relations with colleagues at work to not caring, than the other way round.
When adolescents become able to resist peer pressure, it is correlated with increased tendency to make commitments to themselves and others.
In politicians who in their lifetimes change from being idealistic to being self-serving and calculated, we will observe a period of backing off from politics in the middle of the change.
People who have trouble with social relationships, will also have trouble dealing with situations where the society formulated formal rules, but the optimal solution lies outside of those rules (such as law etc.).
I know that these are kind of vague, but that's what I could think of on the spot.
Why do you think that Kegan's model makes that prediction?
I don't think it's fair to say that "Kegan's model makes that prediction" - the model itself (in the form I know it) is a little bit too vague for this. I'd rather say that I'm making that prediction USING Kegan's model, and I apply it to politics in this way:
To me that seems like a misapplication. The politician who makes sure that his friends get forward can be at stage 3 without being idealistic.
A politician who is in a party because they want to advance capitalism or because they want to advance liberalism would likely be in stage 4 because their loyality is to the institution and not to people.
I have an impression of some politician who operate at the city level in Berlin that doesn't come through the media. I would categories those people mostly as stage 3 or stage 4.
How would you characterize yourself in Kagan's framework?
I'm not going to argue about this - as I said, I think the Kegan's model by itself is underspecified, and you can apply it in various ways to the same situation. Quite possible your application to politics makes more sense.
If you are asking this question, you don't understand some critical things. Never ask this question.
That might very well be true. I have invested a bit more thought into the Spiral Dynamics model of developmental psychology and extrpolate on that basis with the information that Wikipedia provides about Kegan's model.
But when it comes to polticians Wikipedia lists "Culture of mutuality. Mutually reciprocal one-to-one relationships." for stage 3 and "Culture of identity or self-authorship (in love or work). Typically: group involvement in career, admission to public arena." for stage 4. Being driven by wanting to increase the wellness of people in general seems to fall more into stage 4 than in stage 3.
That could constitute anything from "lives by a tit-for-tat system" and so has difficulty with society, to "does not understand being considerate for other people", and so has difficulty making friends. But these two social relationship troubles potentially land in different ways at stage 2 and stage 3 (or both stage 2). Where I expect tit-for-tat will have trouble with the law, consideration for other people will not.