On measuring interpretations of integral theory and practice

Continuing this post, this Mascolo article compares neo-Piagetian approaches. I like this from p. 6  discussing Fischer's dynamic skill theory:

"It follows that individuals never operate at any single level of development. Instead, they operate within a developmental range – a series of levels that vary with task, domain, context, emotional state, and so forth. Given such dynamic variation, there can be no broad-based stages of development. It is thus not helpful to think of a person or a person’s abilities as being 'in a stage' of development. Development does not move through a series of fixed steps; development operates more like a constructive Web."

If so for an individual, how less so for an entire culture?

And this from p. 9, which reminds me there is no sky hook, even if it is a nebulous morphogenetic gradient. And that there is no predetermined way for everyone to develop along a single pathway or by following a single metatheoretical model. To paraphrase an old but accurate adage: the metamap is not the territory. Helpful, but when you walk it there will be ideosyncratic variations not seen the the map. And in the case of human development, just knowing the map doesn't substitute for, or help with, actually working the skill tasks.

"Psychological structures self-organize in both real and developmental time. To say that they self-organize implies that there is no single, fixed or isolated genetic, psychological or sociocultural plan that directs the course of development. The pathways of development are neither fixed nor predetermined. Instead, they emerge over time as a product of richly interactive person – environment interactions. Novel skills coevolve with the formation of novel forms of cultural life. Rather than thinking of development in terms of fixed pathways, it is better to think of developmental pathways themselves as emergent outcomes. That is, while we sometimes walk along pathways that have already been paved for us, in development, we typically forge our own unique paths as we walk."


Also recall this 2010 Stein study of JFK graduate students in integral programs. This from p. 8 is interesting: "Also examined was the relation between Integral Life Practice and Lectical Level. Level scores were neither correlated with with any meditative, body, or shadow practices, nor the number of Ken Wilber books read." 

Remember this study was on grad students in integral theory on the AQAL model. The following indicates that the model itself does not generate higher order understanding. E.g., from p. 15: "There are clear developmental differences in the ways in which individuals in this sample understand integral theory and practice."

And akin to the Mascolo article, one area of the study was significant: Those who stereotype individuals, or worse cultures, within a particular level or color is antithetical to higher cognitive complexity, and if fact inhibits it (18).