Sometimes the subject of Kegan Levels comes up and it actually matters a) that a developmental framework called “kegan levels” exists and is meaningful, b) that it applies somehow to The Situation You’re In.
But, almost always when it comes up in my circles, the thing under discussion is something like “does a person have the ability to take their systems as object, move between frames, etc.” And AFAICT this doesn’t really need to invoke developmental frameworks at all. You can just ask if a person has a the “move between frames” skill.*
This still suffers a bit from the problem where, if you’re having an argument with someone, and you think the problem is that they’re lacking a cognitive skill, it’s a dicey social move to say “hey, your problem is that you lack a cognitive skill.” But, this seems a lot easier to navigate than “you are a Level 4 Person in this 5 Level Scale”.
(I have some vague sense that Kegan 5 is supposed to mean something more than “take systems as object”, but no one has made a great case for this yet, and in case it hasn’t been the thing I’m personally running into)
Seems to me that the main problem with linear systems where you put yourself at the top (because, who doesn’t?), is that the only choice it gives everyone else is either to be the same as you, or to be inferior. Disagreeing with the system probably makes one inferior, too.
Feels a bit ironic, if this is considered to be a pinnacle of emotional development...
But of course now I am constructing a frame where I am at the top and those people who like the Kegan scale are silly, so… I guess this is simply what humans do: invent classifications that put them on the top. ;)
And it doesn’t even mean that those frames are wrong; if there is a way to put people on a linear scale, then technically, someone has to be on the top. And if the scale is related to understanding, then your understanding of the scale itself probably should correlate with your position on it.
So, yes, it is better to not talk about the system itself, and just tell people where specifically they made a mistake.
The original formulation definitely mixes in a bunch of stuff along with it, the systems as object thing is meant to be characteric, but it’s not all of the expected stuff. Most people don’t push the hard version that taking systems as object is not just characteric but causally important (I say this even though I do push this version of the theory).
It is actually kinda rude to psychologize other people, especially if you miss the mark, and especially especially if you hit the mark and they don’t like it, so it’s probably best to just keep your assessment of their Kegan level to yourself unless it’s explicitly relevant since bringing it up will probably work against you even if in a high-trust environment it wouldn’t (and you are unlikely to be in a high-trust enough environment for it to work even if you think you are).
As for asking people if they have the skill, I don’t expect that to work since it’s easy to delude yourself that you do because you can imagine doing it or can do it in an intellectual way, which is better than not being able to do it at all but is also not the real deal and will fall apart the moment anything overloads global memory or otherwise overtaxes the brain.
I actually was not expecting the process to be “ask if they have the skill”, I was expecting the sequence to be:
get into an argument
notice it feels stuck
notice that your conversation partner seems stuck in a system
make some effort to convey that you’re trying to talk about a different system
say (some version of) “hey man, it looks like you don’t have the ‘step outside your current frame’ skill, and I don’t think the argument is worth having until you do.”
(well, that’s probably an unproductive way to go about it, but, I’m assuming the ‘notice they don’t have the skill’ part comes from observations while arguing rather than something you ask them and they tell you about.’)
say (some version of) “hey man, it looks like you don’t have the ‘step outside your current frame’ skill, and I don’t think the argument is worth having until you do.”
Maybe a more diplomatic way could be: “hey man, for the sake of thought experiment, could we for a moment consider this thing from a different frame?” They may agree or refuse, but probably won’t feel offended.
Something about this feels like what I used to do but don’t do now, and I realized what it is.
If they’re stuck I don’t see it as their problem, I see it as my problem that I can’t find a way to take my thing and make it sensible to them within their system, or at least find an entry point, since all systems are brittle and you just have to find the right thread to pull if you want to untangle it so they can move towards seeing things in ways beyond what their current worldview permits.
But maybe my response looks the same if I can’t figure it out and/or don’t feel like putting in the energy to do that, which is some version of “hey, looks like we just disagree in some fundamental way here I’m not interested in trying to resolve, sorry”, which I regret is kinda rude still and wish I could find a way to be less rude about.
I think I don’t feel too bad about “hey, looks like we just disagree in some fundamental way here I’m not interested in trying to resolve, sorry”. It might be rude in some circles but I think I’m willing to bite the bullet on “it’s pretty necessary for that to be an okay-move to pull on LW and in rationalist spaces.”
I think “we disagree in a fundamental way” isn’t quite accurate, and there’s a better version that’s something like “I think we’re thinking in pretty different frames/paradigms and I don’t think it makes sense to bridge that disconnect.”
A thing making it tricky (also relevant to Viliam’s comment) is that up until recently there wasn’t even a consensus that different-frames were a thing, that you might need to translate between.
Sometimes the subject of Kegan Levels comes up and it actually matters a) that a developmental framework called “kegan levels” exists and is meaningful, b) that it applies somehow to The Situation You’re In.
But, almost always when it comes up in my circles, the thing under discussion is something like “does a person have the ability to take their systems as object, move between frames, etc.” And AFAICT this doesn’t really need to invoke developmental frameworks at all. You can just ask if a person has a the “move between frames” skill.*
This still suffers a bit from the problem where, if you’re having an argument with someone, and you think the problem is that they’re lacking a cognitive skill, it’s a dicey social move to say “hey, your problem is that you lack a cognitive skill.” But, this seems a lot easier to navigate than “you are a Level 4 Person in this 5 Level Scale”.
(I have some vague sense that Kegan 5 is supposed to mean something more than “take systems as object”, but no one has made a great case for this yet, and in case it hasn’t been the thing I’m personally running into)
Kegan levels lend themselves to being used like one of those irregular verbs, like “I am strong minded, you are stubborn, he is a pig-headed fool.”
“I am Kegan level 5, you are stuck on Kegan level 4, and all those dreadful normies and muggles around us are Kegan 3 or worse.”
Seems to me that the main problem with linear systems where you put yourself at the top (because, who doesn’t?), is that the only choice it gives everyone else is either to be the same as you, or to be inferior. Disagreeing with the system probably makes one inferior, too.
Feels a bit ironic, if this is considered to be a pinnacle of emotional development...
But of course now I am constructing a frame where I am at the top and those people who like the Kegan scale are silly, so… I guess this is simply what humans do: invent classifications that put them on the top. ;)
And it doesn’t even mean that those frames are wrong; if there is a way to put people on a linear scale, then technically, someone has to be on the top. And if the scale is related to understanding, then your understanding of the scale itself probably should correlate with your position on it.
So, yes, it is better to not talk about the system itself, and just tell people where specifically they made a mistake.
The original formulation definitely mixes in a bunch of stuff along with it, the systems as object thing is meant to be characteric, but it’s not all of the expected stuff. Most people don’t push the hard version that taking systems as object is not just characteric but causally important (I say this even though I do push this version of the theory).
It is actually kinda rude to psychologize other people, especially if you miss the mark, and especially especially if you hit the mark and they don’t like it, so it’s probably best to just keep your assessment of their Kegan level to yourself unless it’s explicitly relevant since bringing it up will probably work against you even if in a high-trust environment it wouldn’t (and you are unlikely to be in a high-trust enough environment for it to work even if you think you are).
As for asking people if they have the skill, I don’t expect that to work since it’s easy to delude yourself that you do because you can imagine doing it or can do it in an intellectual way, which is better than not being able to do it at all but is also not the real deal and will fall apart the moment anything overloads global memory or otherwise overtaxes the brain.
I actually was not expecting the process to be “ask if they have the skill”, I was expecting the sequence to be:
get into an argument
notice it feels stuck
notice that your conversation partner seems stuck in a system
make some effort to convey that you’re trying to talk about a different system
say (some version of) “hey man, it looks like you don’t have the ‘step outside your current frame’ skill, and I don’t think the argument is worth having until you do.”
(well, that’s probably an unproductive way to go about it, but, I’m assuming the ‘notice they don’t have the skill’ part comes from observations while arguing rather than something you ask them and they tell you about.’)
Maybe a more diplomatic way could be: “hey man, for the sake of thought experiment, could we for a moment consider this thing from a different frame?” They may agree or refuse, but probably won’t feel offended.
Something about this feels like what I used to do but don’t do now, and I realized what it is.
If they’re stuck I don’t see it as their problem, I see it as my problem that I can’t find a way to take my thing and make it sensible to them within their system, or at least find an entry point, since all systems are brittle and you just have to find the right thread to pull if you want to untangle it so they can move towards seeing things in ways beyond what their current worldview permits.
But maybe my response looks the same if I can’t figure it out and/or don’t feel like putting in the energy to do that, which is some version of “hey, looks like we just disagree in some fundamental way here I’m not interested in trying to resolve, sorry”, which I regret is kinda rude still and wish I could find a way to be less rude about.
I think I don’t feel too bad about “hey, looks like we just disagree in some fundamental way here I’m not interested in trying to resolve, sorry”. It might be rude in some circles but I think I’m willing to bite the bullet on “it’s pretty necessary for that to be an okay-move to pull on LW and in rationalist spaces.”
I think “we disagree in a fundamental way” isn’t quite accurate, and there’s a better version that’s something like “I think we’re thinking in pretty different frames/paradigms and I don’t think it makes sense to bridge that disconnect.”
A thing making it tricky (also relevant to Viliam’s comment) is that up until recently there wasn’t even a consensus that different-frames were a thing, that you might need to translate between.