Talk:Spiral Dynamics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Yet to be integrated
- there are several variations of Spiral Dynamics: cfr. the Don Beck site (SDi is influenced by the work of Ken Wilber)
-- pweemeeuw, Mar 28 2004
This page violates both advertising and NPOV restrictions. There is not one word about the relationship of this small, vocal, but definitely heterodox self-help movement and the rest of the world of knowledge. Basically this is boilerplate off of the numerous websites that the company selling the book owns. Lots of google hits, almost all trace back to the same owners. Stirling Newberry 21:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The colors do have a meaning - they are mnemonic devices (memory aides) to help people remember the meaning-making system of that stage of development. For example: Beige = the african savannah in dry season. Reminds us that Africa is where we believe human life began AND the core issue of Beige value system is SURVIVAL - a core issue during the dry season as well. The levels had labels which were too hard to remember when Clare Graves created theory...so Don Beck and Chris Cowan converted to colors (with Graves' permission) so people could remember the theory and the stages better. Graves had a knack for creating hard to remember labels: he originally called this theory "The Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult Biopsychosocial Systems Development." That is why Beck and Cowan renamed it Spiral Dynamics...two words that capture the essence of what Graves was saying in a way that we can remember. If this article lacks anything it is length. I do not see a POV issue. If any of the developmental theories such as Abraham Maslow, Lawrence Kohlberg or Robert Kegan deserve to be in Wikipedia - then Clare Graves does as well. The link to Graves and his research should be more fleshed out and more explanation of the theory itself should be added. You don't have to agree with Graves' theory any more than you have to agree with Freud's or Jung's - but major contributors to the field of Psychology should be accessible in the encyclopedia. CSWigglesworth.
[edit] Spiral dynamics
While I believe the term spiral dynamics has been registered or copyrighted, it is also true that the body of theory and practice that has been building for several years based on the work of Beck and Cowan is very real. Their concepts have begun showing up in academic journals (see Ron Cacioppe and Mark G. Edwards, "Adjusting blurred visions: A typology of integral approaches to organizations," Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18, 3 2005). In addition, it seems that Ken Wilber has departed from the scheme with his own stage model using color indicators. Perhaps what is important is not the colors — which Chris Cowan indicated was the creation of a graphic artist in service of the publication of the book (see http://www.leadcoach.com/archives/interview/chris_cowan.html) and had no other direct significance to the theory built from the work of Clare Graves.
Integral theory includes the premise of stages of development. Several models of psychological stage development have been and are being considered in the evolution of integral theory. This includes the work of Jean Gebser, Robert Kegan, Jane Loevinger, Jenny Wade, Susanne Cook-Greuter, William Perry, Michae Commons, Kurt Fischer and others, in addition to the work of Clare Graves and Beck and Cowan's presentation of that work. There are theorists and practitioners around the world who are working with these concepts. It would seem to this student of the theory that removing access to these ideas would not be a case of protecting a copyright, but would be to destroy an important connection to growing efforts and supporting development in a world sorely in need of it.
Russ Volckmann 8.3.05
I see no reason that this page should be deleted. I am somewhat familiar with Spiral Dynamics theory and what I see on this page appears to accurately reflect that theory. That some might not buy in to Spiral Dynamics theory is no reason to delete the page. Should we delete Sigmund Freud because some of us are not Freuidians?
Dave Watkins 8/3/2005
Both of the premises in pwee's posting are invalid.
Assuming there are several versions of SD, does that mean it should be excluded from Wikipedia? Well, there are "versions" of most ideas in the social sciences. Should we exclude them all? What would be left? Actually, there is only one SD. SDi, as i understand it, adds to SD as developed by Claire Graves but does not change it. It is instructive to make people aware of a major offshoot of the theory, as it would be to familiarize people with any theory. Rarely does a theory persist without further development.
As for the colors and meaning, yes there are some general associations. The Green level is very much consistant with, say, the Green Party in Germany. Red, if we think about its association with child rearing and the "terrible twos" is a perfect color for that level.
Considering "advertising restrictions", it should be noted that many concepts in the behavioral sciences have been copyrighted. Why shouldn't authors' intellectual property be protected? Again, if we deleted every copyrighted concept from Wikipedia, we would be eliminating valuable information.
That SD has no relationship to "the rest of the world of knowledge" is a patently false assertion. If you look at the book, Spiral Dynamics, pages 323-331, you will find 200 references organized according to a specific aspect of sprial dynamics theory. Authors include and are as diverse as Howard Bloom, Kenneth Boulding, Peter Senge, Tom Peters, Jean Auel and Ken Wilber. The relationship of spiral dynamics to other research and ideas is also noted throughout the book.
bill hajdu/firepig 8/4/2005
[edit] Vote for Deletion
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 18:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for making a second posting, but in my first i only discussed why SD should not be deleted and not why it should be included in Wikipedia. I have ten years of graduate level study in the social sciences. I've taken courses at the U of Wisconsin, USC, Georgetown, London School of Economics and Cambridge. I can with confidence say Spiral Dynamics is the most powerful tool for analyzing and understanding human behavior that i have ever encountered in any of my studies. It is to Wikepedia's credit that it is exposing more people to the theory of the spiral.
bill hajdu/firepig
- So help me re-write the article in a way that is acceptable both to advocates of the theory, its critics, and those who dismiss it unthinkingly. --goethean ॐ 19:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I have added a section setting out the more recent developments from a non-biased point-of-view and removed the npov tag accordingly. I believe this now gives sufficient information about the differing approaches of the two founders without bias to one or the other. The disagreements are personal as well as professional and, although this may contribute to the noise from one camp or another, this does not need to be reflected here.
Muswellhillbilly
[edit] Reorganize?
It seems it would be better if rather then having a single sub-section for each table (values, expressions, goal) that this needs to be reorganized so that each subsection is for the color meme instead. It would be easier to read and grasp what the meme means in this way. In this way you could go to the Green subsection and see the values,expressions,goals of green. Let me know what your opinion is. Stevenwagner 08:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Steve, I'm removing your additions. You can't just copy and paste text from the spiral dynamics website into this article. That's a copyright violation. — goethean ॐ 19:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] beware adding examples
Someone went to great trouble to add some entertaining examples trying to flesh out the various vMemes (not memes). Unfortunately, many of them were way off base. Thus, I've deleted them and inserted some generic thematic descriptions, instead. As I noted on the page, itself, trying to attach labels to people is pretty treacherous and often misleading. Some of the examples reflected some of the most common misconceptions about the model, and others were simply bizarre. It's a trap people new to the theory or with only a superficial view often fall into, and one which shouldn't be passed forward for others to model.
Human beings are rarely pure tones, and it's difficult to interpret motives and intentions without coming to know the person. That's especially true with celebrities whose personal lives and thinking might not relate to a public persona well at all. One of the mistakes I made in the 1996 book, Spiral Dynamics, was including a bunch of examples, many of which are naive and others simply awful (pp 45-47, among others). They should have been deleted from the paperback, but were not.
Tagging people just isn't all that simple, and using colors to stick them into boxes is simplistic. One of the things learned since writing that book is how important it is to distinguish between what people do and why they do it, what they say they believe and how they think about what they believe, both differentiations not easily made from press reports. This is a theory about ways of thinking about things, not a typology for people nor a catalogue of values.
I'd strongly suggest people do their homework before popping too much onto these pages. There are websites devoted to Spiral Dynamics (we maintain .org and .com) and Dr. Graves's work (clarewgraves.com) which will clarify a great many misconceptions and Wiki-poo that gets posted with good intentions but scant knowledge. I also appreciate whoever made the remark about respecting copyright and not merely lifting sections from the book.
Chris Cowan co-author, Spiral Dynamics co-owner, Spiral Dynamics trademarks --added by User:71.102.150.48, 7 January 2006
[edit] What exactly is it?
Does Spiral dynamics claim to be a science, or a paradigm, or a tool, or a spiritual truth? I.e. is it a parallel to Hinduism, or is it more like Edward de Bono's 'deliberate thinking methods' such as his colored hats technique? This is not clear from the article. My initial reaction was that I'd like to see something from a skeptic's point of view, for balance; but I can't figure out to what extent scientific skepticism is applicable. --Singkong2005 talk 04:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Although it does have some (fairly future-oriented) scientific pretensions, Spyral Dynamics is very much an empirical tool; in fact, it was originally and is still for the most part a resource for managers to administrate their human resources. Ken Wilber and many others find such a language useful for describing matters of spiritual significance, but they do so at their own advice and risk. Luis Dantas 12:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] OR tag
Forrestlane42. There appears to be no OR or unverified claims in the opening section, and you have not commented on why you believe there is. Are you sure this is what you meant? --Backface 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Backface, the section on Memes seems to be taken out of Wilber's books, or possibly from the Net, thats why it was tagged. It should at least referenced where they were copying the info from. -ForrestLane42 22:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)ForrestLane42
I put the not verified tag because it seems again that especially in the Memes section that its taken either from Wilber's book or another website, either way, it just needs a citation for them. Where did everyone get this information? It is a basic desire of an essay entry. ForrestLane42 17:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42
[edit] Lavender, Silver, Platinum
Three levels were added to the second tier, without reference (as far as I could tell)
Could someone please explain this?--Quizoid (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, what happened to Teal, Plum etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.5.29.142 (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
