Sterotypes are for the cognitively challenged

Continuing this post, a general theme in the first discussion was that there was a wide range of interpretations of AQAL depending on one's hierarchical complexity in a given domain and context. Along that line is this 2010 Stein report of students in the JFKU integral theory department and integral theory center. It measured level of conceptual complexity and development on a variety of issues. It used levels 10 through 12 in the Lectical Assessment System (LAS): abstract mappings, abstract systems and single principles, including steps withing those broad levels. See the paper for the results.

One finding of particular interest is the following:

"The altitude colors and the levels definitions to which they are attached appear to be particularly problematic. They continue to function as stereotypes and shorthand after most other concepts have richly textured and context sensitive. [...] The altitude colors are not typically used at the higher levels as a part of complex considerations and characterizations, but rather remain disconnected from more elaboration considerations of levels. [...] Instead of growing with people's understanding, the colors may actually limit growth by masking what is poorly understood, under-elaborated or vague" (18).

As an aside, in table 2 of this Stein paper he compares the LAS levels with Commons: level 10 with formal; level 11 with systematic, level 12 with metasystematic. And like with Commons' MHC, LAS has transition steps w/in levels.