Category: Spiral Dynamics

Coaching for the Brilliantly Wired and Uniquely Weird

  • Forward, Sideways, Backward

    James Lindsay claims that Woke is Maoism with Western characteristics. Mao himself called his theory Marxism with Chinese characteristics.

    He also uses biology to make this more clear. We have genus and species in the taxonomy of the biological universe.

    We could say that genus is the concept, while a specific species manifests the concept in one concrete form.

    We could call Marxism, communism, Maoism, Woke, Critical Race Theory, and Queer Theory species of a common genus.

    While “cats” is the genus, tiger, lion, and house cat are some species. We could now define cats as having a tail, but then there are lynx and bobcats.

    Thus, we can always expect that people will doubt the common genus by pointing to distinct differences between species.

    What, then, would be the characteristics of the genus that includes all these different species?

    Marx looked at culture and defined it as flawed and needing deconstruction. He identified economics as the driving and defining force of culture and the lever to change culture. Deprive the ruling class of its lever to power, and you can redefine culture.

    All the above theories have this in common: They see current culture needing deconstruction. They define a lever or means of power and then turn against the people with access to that power.

    Look at Critical Race Theory. The lever to power is whiteness or white privilege. For Queer Theory, it’s being straight, or as they call it, cis-gendered.

    To bind all these theories together, we have intersectionality. This allows white people to escape from the class of white privilege by defining themselves as non-cis.

    To call these theories destructive would not do them full justice. They all believe that once the class, race, or gender in power is deprived of their privilege, they would administrate and use the newly gained power in more mature, just and egalitarian ways. The new lever of power would be equity.

    Historical examples of utter failure, with revolution creating a new class of suppressors, are dismissed as poorly done or incorrectly identifying the problem and the lever.

    In short, Marx was wrong in saying it’s about capital, and thus the wrong kind of people came out on top in the aftermath of the revolution.

    Each of the above theories claims to know now, and therefore, they would succeed in ushering in the utopia of equity in two steps—a claim Jordan Peterson equates to narcissism.

    Which would be the two steps?

    First, we would see the benevolent dictatorship of those not in power before, which would automatically lead to an equity-based society without hierarchy and leadership.

    What makes these theories appealing to some is this:

    • They promise revenge on the privileged without calling it that.
    • They are often correct in their analysis of the problem.
    • They play with the compassion and need for belonging people have.

    People respond to these theories often by doubling down on their worldview, going to the trenches for it, and only acknowledging the correct analysis in part, if not outright denying it. It is easy to dismiss a problem if the proposed solution is illogical or inapplicable. But that results in the original problems not being addressed.

    I can’t help but think of the Theory of Positive Disintegration when I look at the proposed solution.

    Unilevel disintegration, as level II is called in TPD, in simple terms, is this: a person feels dissonance with their subculture and looks to solve it by looking for another qualitatively similar subculture.

    All of the above theories identify power distribution as the main problem with the existing culture. Their solution is the redistribution of power, a solution of similar quality.

    Granted, they hope this will prepare the culture to reach their ideal, but they have no plan. Sounds like an inkling of level III, multilevel spontaneous disintegration.

    To be fair, their opponents seem like people that try to draw back those that feel the dissonance into primary integration.

    The path forward would be to distill these elements from all these theories:

    • Where are they correct in their analysis of the problem?
    • Which elements of their solutions intuitively represent this inkling of an ideal that could constitute a higher path?

    To do so will need a lot of humility and courage because one will be between a rock and a hard place, hated by both camps. But it might be the only path to bring humanity into the next stage.

    Let me give you an example.

    Wokeism is trying to destroy the existing culture by stating that all truth is subjective, including things like 2+2=4.

    They use different ways to prove that depending on the species. Some say that math is a construct of white supremacy and forced on minorities.

    There are quite a few loopholes in that, as math is based on Arab numbers with the addition of zero from India. The other is that what is a minority in the US does not have to be one worldwide. But anyway.

    Others argue that we can never know absolute truth because as soon as we perceive it, we filter it through our own experience and distort it.

    This argument makes much more sense, but it makes something absolute that is not.

    Let’s have a look at subjective knowing. There are things that we can only know subjectively because there is no way to measure them against facts. Religions are subject to that on a grand scale. “There is a God” cannot be proven, only believed. Other kinds of subjective knowing are opinions and suppositions.

    My acceptance of the existence of God stems from my experience, and experience undoubtedly is subjective.

    Subjective knowing can become objective if there are means to measure what we believe or facts that can be tested.

    It is essential to recognize that the statement that there is a God carries an objective and even an absolute truth. It is either true or false, we just do not know.

    Subjective truth is the truth of which the subject is convinced. It is based on a mixture of objective and subjective knowledge. It is either objectively true or false.

    The fallacy of postmodern subjectivism is that it makes subjective knowing the only way of knowing, and as everything is socially constructed, even the only source of truth. Thus, all truth has to be subjective.

    I am sure I am oversimplifying and will leave a lot of room to be criticized. So be it.

    Just because postmodernity has made this leap of thought, turning subjective knowing into subjective truth as the only existing truth by a slide of hands, do we have to eliminate the concept of subjective knowing?

    Historically, starting in the 15th century, thinkers started to find new methods of finding objective truth, namely the scientific method. They wanted to gradually move away from the absolute truth given by the authorities.

    Soon after that, in romanticism, people started to add subjective value to the picture again, stating that reason is not everything. This led to many different developments.

    It became clear that we have subjective knowing, along with objective truths. And if we look at things like beauty, whether I find something beautiful or not is true, but does not constitute an objective truth about the object per se. We might call this a subjective truth.

    This insight and the criteria to distinguish objective from subjective knowing are crucial to our maturing as humanity. It points to the individuality and commonality of a human being.

    Throwing out postmodernity in its entirety would mean letting go of the concept of subjective truth. But it is essential to keep a moderate version of subjective truth.

    The same can be said about psychology, psychiatry, and many more developments of postmodernity. Eat the grapes and spit out the seeds.

    Do the same with capitalism as the manifestation of modernity. Then integrate them into a new worldview that transcends modernity and postmodernity.

    Spiral Dynamics has proven to be a valuable tool to analyze, heal, integrate, and transcend long-held beliefs and worldviews. I would love to help you. Why not get some coaching?

  • Where we are – most probably

    There has not been stagnation since then, and I certainly could only get back into the field with a significant effort.

    Today, we have several things that made the emergence of large language models and other versions of AI possible, not least the availability of a large body of text to train them on.

    I remember when cohorts of students formulated rules for rule-based knowledge systems, and now, AI teaches itself on readily available data.

    Right behind it, embodied AI in the form of robots is only lagging due to the challenge’s higher complexity.

    But what does that mean?

    A lot of work that humans do can be done with AI. The range is impressive.

    Do you need a complicated contract from a lawyer? The bylaws for a church? A press release for a new product? Ways to fold certain amino acids? An algorithm to calculate something? A deep fake video? A translation of your book into German? Who do you call? Human work busters, formerly called AI.

    But what does that mean?

    Capitalism is the predominant worldview in the West that captured the whole world. It consists basically of two forces or primary resources: capital and labor.

    Erich Weinstein points out that this motivational program gives people some meaning and a reason to get up in the morning without needing a dictator. We exchange capital for our labor.

    Capital is motivated to pay for labor in return for gain. This points to one problem of the model, as it has baked into itself the need for perpetual growth.

    It also falls short, as there are costs the model of capitalism externalizes, namely the cost of extraction of natural resources and recycling of products, that make the system unsustainable.

    But there is a more imminent threat to the system, as we can still go on for a while if the only problems are the destruction of our habitat due to perpetual growth facilitated by not paying for the consequences.

    AI just erased labor from the equation.

    We are not quite there yet, but progress in this field is fast and speeding up at rates we cannot imagine.

    Soon, human labor will be voluntary and mostly delegated to AI and robots. Even if we cannot delegate all labor, a large cohort of people will be out of their job. And not everybody is an artist or able to work in care.

    Capital will no longer depend on human labor to accomplish gain soon.

    Erich Weinstein again points to the fact that we should already be in the midst of discussing the next form of economy. I would say, even the next world we are going to build.

    Alasdair MacIntyre reminds us that

    I can only answer the question “What am I to do?” if I can answer the prior question “Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?”

    Capitalism has two major stories:

    • I go to work for a living
    • I send my capital to work for me for a living

    Captain Picard has another story.

    • We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity

    This is a steep hill to climb within a short time, and there might be a few intermediary steps and supporting tools necessary on the way.

    But we will never leap if we do not start talking about the story and the transition. Maybe, the ideal story we will formulate is different–who wants to believe that Gene Roddenberry discovered the future already?

    Kazimierz Dabrowski describes a path for personal development called positive disintegration (TPD). It resembles the change process of Spiral Dynamics (SD) that describes the evolution of consciousness in groups and societies. I will use language along the lines of TPD and SD to describe where we are as humanity.

    For a long time, we have been in primary integration. Our instincts and environment have proven we found the right way to live. Just listen to most arguments for capitalism, sounding something like “no other worldview has lifted so many people out of poverty.”

    Our children grow up to live in that system. Look at the school system, for example.

    The Prussians constructed our school system at a time when they lost their military supremacy. It was consciously set up to produce mindless obedient soldiers.

    This is why teaching is from the front, the desks are in line, and there are bells. This is why we divide students according to age and teach them the same stuff using the same methods.

    In the US and the UK, and later all over the world, the school system has been used to produce mindless obedient factory workers, people willing and capable of providing labor to capital.

    What now, that these laborers soon are not needed any longer? And even are not available any longer?

    In the West, there is a shortage of skilled workers. Western countries have drawn from other countries for ages to fill their need for skilled workers and accepted the brain drain in these other countries.

    Switzerland recruited doctors and nurses in Germany, and they, in turn, in Poland. A few days ago, Germany announced a program with Brazil to move their young people to Germany and educate them as nurses, hoping they would stay in Germany. Switzerland is looking to Africa for supply.

    This would be funny if it were not such a terrible thing to do. I am not using the word lightly, but could this be a new form of colonialism? Draining other countries of human resources this time, only to sustain the unsustainable?

    But even more than that, the lack of skilled workers, while real, is only temporary at best and conceals the more profound development we talk about here.

    Back to what is happening.

    We, as humanity, have seen behind the curtain and dismantled the Wizard of Oz. At least some of us have. We have reached level II, the place where we are uncomfortable with the status quo and look for qualitatively similar solutions we can join, and stories we can tell.

    We came up with the postmodern worldview, deconstructing everything. But since postmodernity does not offer a path to construct a new worldview but focuses on the tearing down of the old, we hit a wall.

    Here is what Martin Gurri says about this in his piece for unherd:

    Identity is the ruling orthodoxy of the day. Wesley Yang calls it the “successor ideology”, but it is less an ideology than a cockpit of grinding, wounding grievances contradicting one another: a perpetual conflict machine. Any piece of it, such as racial justice, can make perfect sense, but the whole dissolves into incoherence when it becomes clear that the highest ideal, equity, is a weasel word used to mask an inability to reconcile opposites.

    I refer you to the article to undergird the hypothesis of the last sentence.

    Let me say it in another way:

    Postmodernity tells us, again and again, in time and out of time, in fear-driven urgency, what is wrong with the old system, and mostly does not provide a consistent outlook on how to proceed.

    When we are most gracious, we can see parts of postmodernity as humanity’s attempt to stumble towards an ideal it only sees in part and perceives as through a glass dimly. This corresponds with level III in TPD: there is a qualitatively better solution, but we still need to figure out how to get there.

    Postmodernity provides insights and tools to eliminate limiting beliefs that have kept us from growing in the previous systems. The challenge we face is distinguishing the forward-pointing useful parts of postmodernism from the destructive and distracting parts. Plus, we have to abstract postmodernity from its unhealthy manifestation we see around us.

    The next level in TPD adds direction to our search and growth into our ideal. On a societal level, we might not talk about an ideal, which would sound like a utopia, but a worldview that better fits the challenges we face, brought forth not least by the shortcomings, errors, great inventions and progress of the previous worldview.

    It will take a lot of work to reach a new stable state called secondary integration by growing into this new worldview as a society.

    Jonathan Rowson from Perspectiva says, “we are living in a time between worlds.”

    The next step is to design, discover, and co-create the ideal, to formulate and tell the story of the next world.

    I would love to do my part in this endeavor as a coach and accompagnateur.

  • Change and how we navigate it

    Are you experiencing dissonance? I provide mentorships for people that are discovering and self-authoring new maps/worldviews to manage significant changes using tools like the Theory of Positive Disintegration and Spiral Dynamics.

    But first, let me tell you more about change.

    It may be necessary to remind readers of articles about change that people hate change. Change is a big challenge. But why is that?

    To understand, we need to look at our brains. Our brains are bicameral, with a clear cut in the middle. The two halves look different, as if they had been twisted. The right side emphasizes the frontal lobe, while the left has a more extensive posterior area. There are connections, but they inhibit rather than promote communication between the hemispheres.

    Iain McGilchrist has revived the study of brain lateralization after previous attempts were dismissed as pop culture. It is not an analytical and a creative half.

    Instead, the two hemispheres host something akin to two separate awarenesses that we experience as one. This can be seen in birds. Birds use their right eye, connected to their left brain, to distinguish food from pebbles, while their left eye, and therefore the right brain, is on the outlook for friend or foe. Without the first awareness, the bird would starve; without the second, it would become prey.

    Similar observations can be made with humans, as Iain McGilchrist beautifully points out in his two seminal works, “The Master and His Emissary” and “The Matter with Things.” Considering the size of these books, it may become apparent that I need help to prove what I am about to say in an article. I must stand on the shoulders of giants.

    With humans, the two awarenesses are “mapping the world to navigate and manipulate it” in the left hemisphere and “seeing the bigger picture and bringing order to chaos and the unknown” in the right hemisphere.

    Of course, most of what we do involves both hemispheres, but these two tasks are lateralized.

    People can overemphasize the left hemisphere and become rigid, detail-oriented, utilitarian, and closed or arrested in their thinking. It is as it is. Never change a working system, a winning team. We have always done things that way. The left hemisphere does not know what it does not know.

    The right hemisphere is different. It knows it needs the left to make sense of its intuition, imagination, unconscious reasoning, the big picture, and the unknown.

    The right brain knows it depends on the left because language synthesis can only be done in the left hemisphere. We struggle to express novel thoughts because we lack the vocabulary within our left-brain world model.

    The right passes its thoughts to the left for examination against the world model and expects the enriched interpretation back for further analysis and rumination.

    In left-brain-dominated societies, that will only sometimes happen because the left hemisphere acts immediately according to its model. It is convinced that it knows what it is doing.

    We are currently living in a left-brain-dominated society. We can see it in the tribalization of social media and the political landscape. Everybody knows exactly what to do according to their worldview.

    So what is change in this model?

    Small changes can be made within the current configuration of the brain. If that were not possible, we would not learn and complete these minor adjustments to the map we have in our left hemisphere to navigate and manipulate the world more successfully.

    Things get interesting when we experience significant changes. But what is a big change?

    There are moments in our lives when the big picture we feel and intuit with our right hemisphere is no longer congruent with our representation of the outside world in our left hemisphere. Dabrowski would have called this a “psychoneurotic conflict”. This dissonance causes great stress.

    There may be several reasons for these divergent interpretations. One could be the emergence of challenges we cannot solve with our familiar left hemisphere sensory tools. Another could be an ideal we want to achieve but must figure out how. The first is a significant change in the second factor, while the latter looks like a journey through the levels of TPD, especially level III, spontaneous multilevel disintegration.

    How do we respond to such dissonance? We need to change the world map we use radically. There are two main strategies for doing this. Both strategies can deal with radical environmental change, but it prefers one. An emerging self-authored ideal allows only the other strategy.

    What are these strategies?

    1. We adopt the worldview of our environment.
    2. We engage in a dialogue between the two hemispheres and gradually replace the left hemisphere’s map with the newly discovered map that results from this collaboration.

    We have all used the first strategy many times in our lives. Think of puberty. It was hard, and you would never have admitted it, but you shed the childlike worldview that served you well in the previous stage of development and replaced it with the dominant worldview of your environment.

    The second strategy is much less common. No one models the ideal for you. All you may get is company and tools. This is positive disintegration.

    How do these strategies compare?

    We now know the differences between the strategies, with one being externally motivated and the other self-created. But how are they similar?

    First, let’s describe the Spiral Dynamics model of change as a model that describes change in general.

    Spiral Dynamics calls a worldview a value meme because values are at the core of our sense-making, and memes are copied and can go viral. A value meme is a hierarchy of values that others can adopt. Even the name points to the first strategy, where we copy the worldview of others and make it our own. The result also reminds us of primary integration described in TPD: a worldview caused by nature and nurture.

    So how does this change process work according to the model?

    First, we are in a value meme and feel very comfortable. Let’s call it α.

    But after some time, there are the first showers of rain. Certain things are wrong now. It’s not so comfortable anymore. We call this state β. Minor adjustments or simple ignorance help to get back to α.

    However, the storms become more significant at some point, and we cannot return quickly. γ is reached. But it’s not all forward, either. The old patterns of thinking and the misconceptions about the future block our way like a wall.

    Now we have two options: we reject the new and fall back into patterns we have long since left behind: regression. We seek protection in value memes that we once found valuable. The world was okay then.

    Or we break through the wall to the new: revolution.

    After the breakthrough, we focus on the new value meme. We call this phase δ. It leads to a new α and thus to new stability.

    There is a shortcut to change called flex. It leads directly from β to the new α without blockages, revolutions and the danger of a crash.

    Can we force the change process on others? Or at least help it?

    No, but we can create living conditions that help them start the process.

    This process also describes small changes that do not create a new value meme. Flex is usually only possible in small changes that do not lead to new worldviews.

    Here is a summary:

    Change stateDescriptionTPD
    Alpha (α) – orderHealthy dynamic tension to the prevailing living conditionsPrimary integration
    Beta (β) – doubts about the oldFirst, we try to do more of the usual. This reinforces the anxious beta phase.Unilevel disintegration
    Gamma (γ) – ChaosEither we find the way out through a possibility of reform, or we are trapped. 
    Delta (δ) – Recovery toward the new system But beware: just because I got rid of what was old does not mean I have grasped what is new.Spontaneous and directed multilevel disintegration
    Alpha (α) – consolidation in a new phase of healthy dynamic tensionThe world is fine.Secondary integration
    Flex – the abbreviation From β to the new α for those willing to change. If we look at the different stages in this model, they resemble the stages of TPD. They can be assigned as follows: α Primary Integration, β Stage II, δ Stages III and IV, and α Secondary Integration. γ represents the breakthrough from Stage II to Stage III.

    This led me to realize that positive disintegration is a particular case of change that uses the second strategy because it is intrinsically motivated.

    What it takes to change

    The theory of positive disintegration also explains the prerequisites for a journey through the levels, emphasizing the breakthrough from Level II to Level III. These make the significant difference between the two strategies for change. These prerequisites constitute a strong developmental potential.

    A high developmental potential consists of the five overexcitabilities, special talents and abilities, and a high IQ.

    These overexcitabilities (OE) are characterized by a small stimulus that triggers an above-average response, a firework. These are:

    • Intellectual OE: the extreme urge for understanding, knowledge, and truth.
    • Imaginative OE: strong associations and metaphors, fantasy, (lucid) dreams, and visions.
    • Emotional OE: intense feelings, complex emotions, empathy.
    • Sensory OE: intense experience of the stimuli of the five senses up to sensory overload.
    • Psychomotor OE: enormous energy, urge to move.

    Recent research includes Existential or Spiritual OE: spontaneous meditation, extraordinary intuition, spiritual experiences, perceiving the world as one, ‘peak experiences,’ feeling all-encompassing vibrating energy, connection with nature, people, and everything around you, wisdom, compassion, and grace.

    OE is about intensity, not complexity. Thus, the intellectual OE is the urge for knowledge, but not intelligence per se, as measured by IQ.

    In particular, the first three OEs (intellectual, imaginative, and emotional) strongly support the third factor.

    I would include the multiple intelligences, or rather complexities, that have since been discovered and subsume them under “special talents.” Some examples are intellectual (IQ), creative, emotional, sensual, physical, and existential intelligence. Can you see the parallels to the OEs?

    If these are the requirements for the particular case of positive disintegration, what are the criteria for worldview change in general? There are six.

    Potential: open, blocked, closed – Openness refers to the willingness to take a new path of being. Being blocked is where I want to be open but shy away from the risks of what effects openness might have. In both states, openness and being blocked include the possibility of engaging with a new meme. The closed state has no such option and refuses change. We have learned that a closed state corresponds to left-brain dominance.

    We can be in different states in different areas of our lives. We can be open at work, blocked in the family, and closed in faith. (We can also be in various value memes in different areas: professionally modern, tribal in family life, and religiously traditional).

    This has nothing to do with an open or closed mindset. Open and closed mindsets are fundamental states of mind and do not depend on life domain and memes.

    All problems of the current Value Meme have been solved. — If there are still open problems that can only be solved with the tools of the current meme, it is impossible to go further. Have I learned the great lessons this value meme has in store?

    Dissonance — New problems cannot be solved with the current tools.

    For example, the traditional tools of the church are no longer sufficient to meet the needs of people in modernity or postmodernity.

    Understanding the causes of dissonance — What causes dissonance, and what new tools are needed to solve them? I need to know these new tools or at least have a qualified idea.

    Remove obstacles — Obstacles that stand in the way of the new value meme must be identified, bypassed, eliminated, neutralized, or transformed.

    Confusion — A transition to a new value meme will bring a period of chaos that must be endured and traversed.

    And the application?

    Are you experiencing dissonance? What can you do now?

    It helps me to know what is going on. That is why I wrote this article, which may only be for some. But it tells me that what I am experiencing is normal, well understood, and has little to do with going nuts or being crazy. In most cases. Even if it feels that way.

    A quick aside on this. Even specialists and professionals may misunderstand your challenge. Psychiatrists, psychologists, psychoanalysts, and psychotherapists usually find it their job to bring people from the second level back into primary integration.

    But back to the good news.

    OK, you are experiencing dissonance. This means that you have already met one requirement for change. Now let’s look at this dissonance. What are areas of your life involved?

    You can find out by listing the areas. Some examples are your personal situation (physical, emotional), relationships, job, organizations, living environment, and society.

    Now ask yourself these questions for each of these areas:

    • Am I satisfied with my situation? Is it stable and harmonious? (α)
    • If things are not going well, am I working hard to get back on track? (β)
    • Do I feel stuck? (γ)
    • Am I doing what is necessary and having fun amid the chaos? FLEX
    • Am I hopeful because I can see the light at the end of the tunnel? (δ)
    • Has the storm calmed down, and is my life back on track? NEW (α)

    Once you have done this and identified the areas that need your attention (which are all those that are not in any of the (α) states, but especially those in (γ)), ask yourself what is holding you back.

    • What is causing the dissonance?
    • Are there any outstanding issues I need to resolve before moving forward?
    • Is there anything else in my way?

    In areas that are in (β) state, you might ask yourself if you have the openness to proceed. If not, ask yourself what it will take to get back to the stable state you were in.

    Make sure you understand that confusion is typical in times of change. Your hierarchy of values is in turmoil, which makes it hard to make sense of things, which makes it hard to act. But this, too, will pass.

    And remember, this is easier to do in a community. The first strategy is only possible with a community because we copy its hierarchy of values and make it our own. The second strategy is used when there is usually no welcoming community, but we can find peers or mentors.

    I would love to mentor you.

  • A Spiritual Journey

    I just had another article published called A Spiritual Journey. It recollects how Spiral Dynamics and the Theory of Positive Disintegration have helped me in my spiritual development.

    Together with a fine young lady from Pennsylvania, I will also facilitate a small online group to accompany others on their journey.

    Enjoy the read, and maybe we can meet again in the ThirdFactor Community or the group.

  • Spiral Dynamics and CliftonStrengths

    In our time, all the right conditions and contradictions for the Integral value meme of Spiral Dynamics have finally emerged — a cascade of “wicked problems” that can only be fully recognized and solved from an Integral perspective.

    Some have been around for a while, like racism, abortion, and power, and some have risen to general awareness lately, like free speech, disinformation, and artificial intelligence. Add to this list the pandemic, war, and climate change, and we have ourselves a systemic, complex situation that overwhelms previous value memes. And I have yet to mention the education crisis, and even then, the list is not exhaustive.

    Integral was ahead of its time. It emerged decades before the world really needed it. This gave us some time to lay some theoretical and social groundwork.

    On the other hand, new work has its own set of challenges. Silent quitting, flexibility around remote work, managers becoming coaches, and all new management forms like self-managing teams come to mind. And we can add the shift in the workplace caused by artificial intelligence and automation, which results in new professions and a loss of work for many.

    CliftonStrengths gives us tools to navigate this new work situation. It provides insight into ourselves and co-workers for more efficient teams. But not only that, it allows for whole new, individualized management practices and ways of working together.

    Spiral Dynamics and CliftonStrengths together are powerful in generating company and community cultures, a whole new set of solutions, and an integrative way of living together past mere acceptance of diversity.

    I will provide training for Spiral Dynamics coaches starting this year.

  • Spiral Dynamics and Positive Disintegration

    We are living in chaotic times. Thanks to Steven Pinker, we know that it is the most peaceful time in known human history, yet it certainly does not feel like it.

    Warfare is different today. More often than not, it is more of a culture war, a war of different worldviews, different ways of sense-making of our times.

    TPD (the Theory of Positive Disintegration) was developed by Dabrowski in a time of great bloodshed during, between, and after the two most horrible recent wars. Looking at our situation in the West, I came to believe that there is ample possibility for similar reactions to the ongoing culture war as there was to physical war. The change of worldview is traumatic and stressful and includes loss just as war does.

    Do not get me wrong: I am not belittling physical war. All I want is to show that TPD can help as much in overcoming PTSD from culture war as it did for many from physical war.

    Culture War 2.0

    Peter Limberg did a great treatise on culture war 2.0 in Welcome to Culture War 2.0

    If you are more a visual type, you can see an interview about it here: Culture War 2.0, Rebel Wisdom and Peter Limberg.

    There are three major sense-making strategies at work at the moment in the West. We usually call them traditionalism, modernity, and post-modernity.

    Several models try to explain why there is so much friction between the three. I think of models from people like Robert Kegan, Ken Wilber, Susanne Cook-Greuter, Jean Gebser, and the one I want to have a look at today, by Clare W. Graves and Don Beck.

    Their model is called Spiral Dynamics® and it states that humanity and individuals evolve through the same set of open-ended stages during their existence. For an explanation of the theory, visit the website of a partner of mine in the Netherlands, ValueMatch.

    This much here to understand the main players of culture war 2.0:

    Traditionalism has been coded Blue in Spiral Dynamics. It believes in absolute truth as seen in evangelical Christianity, Mormonism, and Islam. It is organized hierarchically by a higher power.

    Modernity, Orange in Spiral Dynamics, doubts god-given absolute truth and replaces it with scientific search and power of the human mind, strives for individual success, and has set up a materialistic worldview.

    But Orange with its idea of “everything is possible” did not think about the consequences. The exploitation of the earth, but also cheap labor, and the exclusion of the unsuccessful are direct consequences.

    Post-Modernity, coded Green, differs from Blue in that it no longer believes in the only truth, neither in the sense of religion nor in the sense of Orange science. Truth is subjective.

    Let’s have, just as an example, a deeper look into Green:

    Teamwork, harmonious joint decision-making, self-fulfillment, personal growth, psychology, psychiatry, personality testing, ecology, NGOs, people managers, and tolerance towards everybody but the intolerant are keywords.

    Green is often called the first trans-rational level, not solely relying on reason to solve problems. It is anti-hierarchical as well: while Red – an earlier worldview that we could dub “law of the jungle” – had power structures, Blue had its anointed ones, and Orange had meritocracies, Green abhors any kind of hierarchy.

    On its dark side, mean Green, as it often is called with a term coined by Ken Wilber, develops identity politics and intersectionality. It de-platforms people with different views, as it sees speech and opinion as possible violence.

    Interestingly enough, through intersectionality valuing victims over seeming oppressors, Green introduces a new hierarchy through the back door. The more groups of victims somebody belongs to, the more their understanding of truth is valued.

    Mean Green is a poster child for the problems of all worldviews so far: once I have battled through leaving one and growing into the next, I find those values and worldviews I just left childish, simple, and limited. Why can’t they see?

    Let us recap:

    Blue developed from Red to handle the egotistical power struggle through god-given laws and order. Only that way even the king has to subordinate himself to the law.

    Orange developed from Blue as it saw the problems Blue introduced in this world: a rigid system of law and order, not allowing for personal growth outside its parameters on one hand and stifling, even condemning all truth outside its own.

    Green developed from Orange because its value for individual strive and meritocracy almost destroyed our habitat.

    I wonder what kind of problems Green introduces it is not conscious of. Could it be said culture war, trying to push their values on previous worldviews? Just thinking aloud here.

    Then, the question would be: what is next? But not in this article, sorry. If you are interested in my thoughts about that, let me know, and I will gladly write something about it. Just a hint: we need to see that those worldviews, though they show an evolution, are not any hierarchy. None is better than the other, and each has solutions fit for the problems it evolved to solve in the first place.

    What I would like to look at is how it is that people grow from one worldview to the next.

    Or, as Spiral Dynamics would put it: how do people evolve in their consciousness and ability for complex thinking?

    The Change Process

    As you might know from other blog entries here, I also work with the theory of positive disintegration TPD, of which I make only a short recap here. After that, I will introduce the Spiral Dynamics model of change and show the parallels.

    Positive personal Disintegration

    Dabrowski saw psychological problems induced by trauma as a possible chance for growth of a person’s personality.

    Change in his theory is induced mainly by three thrives or factors:

    1. Factor 1: basic instincts like survival
    2. Factor 2: external influences from a social environment
    3. Factor 3: autonomous values

    A person can undergo 5 steps of change:

    1. Primary Integration: This is integration driven by the first two factors. Integration is basically instinctual or social. It builds the platform the person will develop from.
    2. Unilevel Disintegration: Initial brief and more or less intense crisis leads to discomfort and ambivalent thinking. According to Dabrowski, from this level there are three ways to proceed. (The third option will require great energy.)
      1. Fall back on an earlier level
      2. Suicide or psychosis
      3. Proceed to the next step.
    3. Spontaneous Multilevel Disintegration: Conflicts here are not only based on dis-ease with the former primary integration but with the hunch of a new paradigm. You start seeing things differently.
    4. Directed Multilevel Disintegration: This is the step beyond return. You now start to directly, consciously and deliberately review your interpretation of life instead of the involuntary spontaneous development at the previous step. This involves the conscious outworking of a new worldview or paradigm.
    5. Secondary Integration: At this step, one has found new harmony and integration and settled in a new paradigm.

    The third aspect of the theory: some people are more prone to successfully undergo the process of disintegration and reintegration through those 5 steps. According to Dabrowski, those people share a strong third factor due to what he called over-excitability.

    Over-excitability in short can be defined as a strong reaction or responsiveness to small triggers or stimuli. This can be true in five areas: psychomotor, emotional, sensual, imaginary, and intellectual over-excitability.

    Such over-excitability will reinforce the factors driving change, especially the third factor, if it is available.

    Spiral Dynamics Model of Change

    Spiral Dynamics has a five-stage change process as well, just as we have the levels in TPD.

    Level α: everything is pure sunshine. I share the values and worldview of my surroundings.

    Level β: I experience certain disagreements and see some shortcomings in the sense-making of level α. For a while, I manage with small changes to go back to my former comfort, but at some point, that is no longer possible.

    Level γ: I am deconstructing my former belief system, but hit a roadblock. To go further means to lose belonging as well as sense-making. The new is calling, but very distant and blurry.

    Level δ: After breaking through, there is no way back. I have not yet arrived at a new stable worldview quite yet but broke free from the old.

    New level α: I have settled in the new way of sense-making and found a new home.

    If you compare the model to Dabrowski’s levels, you see the parallels very easily – it’s basically Greek letters for numbers.

    To be precise, Spiral Dynamics has a shortcut from β to the new α called Flex. It is a rare route taken where somebody easily leaves the old and goes into the new.

    Since the Spiral Dynamics model of change is applicable for small changes as well, the smaller the problem and the possible loss caused by a decision, the more likely somebody will take the Flex route.

    It is very rarely taken in case of changes of worldview, with one exception.

    We saw that all humanity evolves through the different worldviews of Spiral Dynamics. When you look at the medieval age, you will find but Blue and previous worldviews. The reformation and industrial evolution brought about Orange, and the sixties are the breakthrough time for Green.

    If I, in my natural growth, change into a worldview that is already available for my surroundings, I might at times use the Flex route. To break through into something that my habitat does not yet have access to is much harder and will most probably involve the roadblock of γ, that is disintegration.

    The Third Factor

    Spiral Dynamics states that changes are brought about by life circumstances and instinctual drives. That maps to the first and second factors by Dabrowski respectively.

    Spiral Dynamics allows for those two factors only because these factors are present at every change of worldview, even those before Blue, which we have not talked about apart from Red.

    Dabrowski lived in Poland and later in Canada, was born in 1902. During his time in Poland, the country went through some drastic changes in sense-making.

    Poland before WWI was a very traditional Blue society that had access to Orange scientific and industrial thinking. WWI had the country digress, along with almost all Europe, into what Spiral Dynamics calls Red, a worldview dominated by the laws of the jungles, and the same happened again in WWII. In between and after, we see the resurrection of Blue and Orange values.

    In my opinion, Blue as the first rational worldview gives birth to a new drive Dabrowski calls the Third Factor. Jessie Mannisto in her piece Authentic Conscience: Unpacking Dabrowski’s Third Factor shows that the Third Factor can be likened to conscience. In the words of Dabrowski, quoting from said article:

    I have come to understand the following: If the first factor is ego-centric; the second factor is ethno/socio-centric; then I would term the third factor as conscience-centric.

    It is only when mankind has evolved to understand obedience and guilt that conscience is even possible. And though our modern interpretation puts this evolutionary step and revelation into the creation story, it does not show up there if read carefully.

    Adam and Eve had no idea of right and wrong and thus did not make a moral or legal mistake when biting into the forbidden fruit. The result was not guilt either, but shame and consciousness: “their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked.” If you are interested, I wrote about this here: From Beige to Purple: Consciousness.

    The apostle Paul in the New Testament tells us that guilt is made possible by the law. And the law was the big attainment of Blue. Only a law given by a higher being can tame the law-of-the-jungle tyrants of Red, as we previously mentioned.

    Conscience has become a strong force in Blue. The third factor was born.

    That fits into the observations of Dabrowski. Polish people had access to Blue before the wars, and had not lost it during, but had their center of gravity in Red for survival and protection. The big changes of worldview necessary in the time were such from resurrected Blue into Orange. Most of Dabrowski’s patients would have fallen into that category, and therefore, the third factor was available to them.

    I now propose that the third factor is a major force for some in the change of all worldviews and sense-making systems past Blue, especially when somebody breaks through into a worldview not available to their surroundings.

    Conclusion

    Now is the time to have a look into the future.

    Clare W. Graves and Don Beck in their research for Spiral Dynamics saw individuals that had evolved from Green into a new worldview called Yellow or integral.

    The breakthrough of Yellow thinking? It for the first time sees the necessity of all prior complexities of thinking and toolboxes of solutions and combines them into integral sets of solutions for complex problems.

    It is also capable of talking to proponents of each worldview in their language, from the Red Hell’s Angel chapter to the Blue evangelical Christian, the Orange scientist, and the Green climate change activist – and translating between them.

    Clare W. Graves called this change to Yellow The Momentous Leap.

    This leap will require individuals that have strong third factors.

    The first people to undergo such change probably are over-excitable in one or the other fashion, as the stimuli for change are available and emergent, but not dominant. Stimuli for change of value systems are living conditions. Only dominant living conditions stimulate the first and second factors enough to undergo such a change.

    Dabrowski, a friend of Maslow’s and contemporary of Clare Graves, has developed a framework for change that in my opinion can be mapped easily to the change framework of Spiral Dynamics, but sheds light on especially one period of development, the shift from Blue to Orange, as it was at play in Dabrowski’s time. Spiral Dynamics gives us a model to apply this for upcoming necessary changes, giving us a language to name the forces behind and solutions for the ongoing culture war.

    There are further parallels between the two models which need us to dive a little further into Spiral Dynamics. And there are assessments and tools if you want to see the mix of worldviews that drive you. I would certainly be interested in a dialog.