Tim on the LW Slack gave an impressive illustration of the different levels the refugee crisis can be seen. He was referring to Constructive Development Theory which you might want to look up for further context.
I quote verbatim with his permission:
As an example of different thinking at different levels consider the “boat people” issue here in Australia. Australia is an Island so the only way to get here is by boat or by air. We fine airlines and commercial ships who bring people without valid visas. People get a tourist visa and overstay (thus we may it hard for people from poor countries to get tourist visas as my sister in law can attest) or they come here by boat without a visa. Many of the people who arrive by boat are refugees according to the UN definition, and others are economic migrants.
Initially the government did not know what to do. Then they implemented a solution to turn back the boats. Then this policy was rescinded to great fanfare and the boats resumed. Many people drowned in these leaky un-seaworthy boats. Then the policy was resumed again. Currently the boats are diverted to various remote islands and the people are resettled in various places that are not first world countries and are usually not considered desirable places to live eg Papua New Guinea. Before resettlement, which can take years, people are placed in detention. This includes children. Conditions are unpleasant.
This policy is very controversial. Many people regard it as morally indefensible. The detention of children is a particularly hot issue. The Uniting Church around the corner has a sign saying “children do not belong in detention”.
I will try to describe how level 2 3 4 and 5 people might approach the issue. Please bear in mind I am not trying to argue a position on the issue but just to illustrate how people might approach it. You will see they often use the same word to mean very different things. Also, you will see that people tend to misinterpret the thinking of people at a higher level, in terms they understand. This usually means they map the higher level thinking into a lower level.
Level 2 (primary school / gangster):
This migrants might take my job, or compete for government money or scarce housing. So I don’t want them.
I might have to pay higher taxes to support them. So I don’t want them.
I don’t like people who look or act different from me. They smell funny and talk funny so I don’t want them.
The migrants will boost demand for housing and infrastructure which will be good for my company and I will make more money. So I want them.
Level 3 (teenage idealist or person with ‘tribal’ loyalties): (eg IMHO http://greens.org.au/policies/immigration-refugees)
Jesus himself was a refugee. We should be compassionate and let them stay.
If people came all this way they must have a good reason so we should let them stay.
This policy is cruel and must end.
You simply cannot have children in detention.
This is not an issue of defense or border security.
This problem is our fault because we participated in .
Level 2 people tend to think of Level 3 people as bleeding hearts, out of touch with the real world. They can also get very angry because the migrants tend to end up in the suburbs where level 2 people live rather than level 3 people. See this trenchant satire of singer and social activist Joan Baez (from the 1960s -may offend!) “pull the triggers we’re with you all the way—all the way across the bay”.
Level 4 (full modern adult / systematic thinker):
Indeed we should be kind to vulnerable people. Let’s see how we can best do that. Perhaps we should increase our refugee quota which is quite low.
People often drown when they come by boat so we should discourage that. Unfortunately this may involve some people being detained—I feel sad about that. If we can get the message out, people will stop coming by boat and the drownings and the need for detention will end though. We hope this will be a temporary situation.
Rather let’s select the best way we know how from the 40,000,000 refugees around the world and bring them in safely by air.
We need measures to discourage economic migration as we cannot take 40m refugees let alone 2b people from poorer countries.
Foreign aid is far more cost effective at improving people’s lives than economic migration. We should substantially increase foreign aid.
Also we need to ensure that the people who come in are not extremists or criminals. So we need to assess people before we bring them in.
In my experience people at level 3 tend to interpret level 4 arguments as being at level 2. There is a sub-second delay before accusations of racism etc are leveled.
Level 2 people tend to think level 4 people are stupid.
Level 5 (post-modern):
What does this debate and how rancorous it is tell us about ourselves?
How do we deal with a situation where millions of people live in abject poverty while we live in relative luxury? Given that evidently people are not prepared to share the wealth evenly?
Can there be a way to bring people with level 2 / 3 thinking and with very different belief systems into our community in a way that will work?
What can we learn from people with very different world views?
Can we look at migrant groups who have done well and those who have not and see what we can learn from this—about them and about us?
Can we look at root causes for why countries are poor and why there are wars? Can we attack the problems at a higher level? Maybe our thinking about these problems is part of the problem?
People at lower levels tend to think level 5 people are off with the fairies.
Is there a implication of ranking with the way the levels are numbered? Are Level 5 people “more advanced” than lower levels and should one strive to move up levels?
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see post-modernists as the ultimate peak of human thinking.
In the original, there’s an observable pattern to these “levels”, alternating between multiple contradictory models, and then a new model in which the various previously-contradictory models are reconciled into a unified framework. Even numbers are a cohesive framework, odd numbers are multiple-competing-model frameworks.
This pattern is conspicuously absent from Tim’s reconstruction. The level 3 people don’t share or understand the level 2 people’s concerns; in truth, they’re merely level 2 people of Tim’s favored tribe. The Level 4 described is just Tim’s level 3 with a hint of understanding of level 2 concerns; in truth, they’re level 3 people of Tim’s disfavored tribe. Tim’s level 5, Postermodernism, is a Level 3 of Tim’s-favored-tribe understanding of Level 5.
IOW, this farming is just predictable and blatant tribalism of the form of placing your own way of thinking as being “superior” to the opposing tribe’s way of thinking.
This was part of a much larger discussion so a lot is omitted here.
In kegan’s books, people at ‘higher’ levels sometimes lose something that the lower levels have. Level 4 people can lose a sense of intimacy and connection with other people, God etc. Level 3 people often fail to appreciate level 2 people’s mindset. Level 4 people can lack a sense of immediacy that level 2 people have.
The progression in Kegan’s book is really about the fact that what you are subject to at one level becomes object at the next level. It does not require that Level X people fully understand people at ‘lower’ levels.
I guess in one sense I have succeeded because your guess at my favored view is entirely wrong. I was trying not to make an argument about refugee policy but to illustrate various kinds of thinking.
The progression in Kegan’s book is really about the fact that what you are subject to at one level becomes object at the next level. It does not require that Level X people fully understand people at ‘lower’ levels.
No, that is not what the progression is “really about”. And yes, you have to be able to understand people at “lower levels” in order to be at a higher level. A Level 4 Person might not have a sense of intimacy or connection—but they have to be able to understand that other people have intimacy and connections.
I guess in one sense I have succeeded because your guess at my favored view is entirely wrong. I was trying not to make an argument about refugee policy but to illustrate various kinds of thinking.
So what is your favored view, and how does it meaningfully differ from the Postmodern view you espouse as the Level 5 solution?
Kegan points out that many who fancy themselves as postmodernists are actually trapped in level 3. They have been told that modernism has its flaws and there therefore reject it and stay at level 3. This fits some young people in college.
A level 5 would be post-modern in the sense that they have mastered modernist ideas but are not trapped within them.
Is there a implication of ranking with the way the levels are numbered? Are Level 5 people “more advanced” than lower levels and should one strive to move up levels?
The linked post gives a brief overview. The higher levels are ‘more advanced’ in that there is an asymmetry; the level 5 can emulate a level 4 more easily than a level 4 can emulate a level 5. But that doesn’t translate to ‘more advanced’ in all possible meanings. A relevant quote from the link:
Kegan likes to make the analogy of comparing drivers who can drive a stick-shift with drivers who only drive an automatic. Can we say that someone is a “better driver” simply because they can drive a stick?
My experience is that it’s related to, but distinct from, g. High g and more mature age make the higher levels easier but don’t create them on their own.
Why would a high-IQ level 4 person have trouble emulating level 5? See e.g. Sokal, etc.
ETA: I looked through the linked article and I stick by my impression that this is a straightforward IQ ladder modified by “maturity” (appropriate socio-emotional development, I guess?) In particular, I expect that levels have pretty hard IQ requirements, e.g. a person with the IQ of 80 just won’t make it to Level 4.
I think it is partly linked to IQ. I agree that there are probably limits to the levels people at low IQs can achieve,
But there is also a development process that takes time. Few teenagers, no matter how smart, are at level 5 Think by analogy that few 15 year old people have mastered quantum field theory. No matter how smart you are it takes time
Sokal is emulating level 3 people who think they are level 5. These people are anti-modern not post-modern. Most post-modernists are at level 3 as far as I can tell. I have been trawling through their works to assess this.
A level 5 physicist might be someone like say Robert Laughlin a Nobel Physicist who wrote a book “A Different Universe” questioning how fundamental ‘fundamental’ physics is. He has mastered modernist physics and is now building on this. This is very different from a Deepak Chopra type who doesn’t even get to first base in this enterprise.
I don’t think Sokal is an example of systems of systems thinking. (The post-modernist label is not a particularly useful one; here it means the level after the modernist level, and is only partly connected to other things called post-modernist.)
Why would a high-IQ person have trouble emulating someone of the opposite sex? (There doesn’t appear to be the same asymmetry—both men and women seem bad at modeling each other—but hopefully this will point out the sort of features that might be relevant.)
Some charitable reading is required; the labels are oversimplifications.
I agree that most post-modernists are merely pretending to be at some high level of thinking, and the reason it works for them is that most of their colleagues are in exactly the same situation, so they pass the “peer review”. But we can still use them as a pointer towards the real thing. What would be the useful mental skills that these people are pretending to have?
I remember reading somewhere about a similar model, but for the given question, on each level both “pro” and “con” positions were provided. That made it easier for the reader to focus on the difference between the levels.
Tim on the LW Slack gave an impressive illustration of the different levels the refugee crisis can be seen. He was referring to Constructive Development Theory which you might want to look up for further context. I quote verbatim with his permission:
Is there a implication of ranking with the way the levels are numbered? Are Level 5 people “more advanced” than lower levels and should one strive to move up levels?
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see post-modernists as the ultimate peak of human thinking.
In the original, there’s an observable pattern to these “levels”, alternating between multiple contradictory models, and then a new model in which the various previously-contradictory models are reconciled into a unified framework. Even numbers are a cohesive framework, odd numbers are multiple-competing-model frameworks.
This pattern is conspicuously absent from Tim’s reconstruction. The level 3 people don’t share or understand the level 2 people’s concerns; in truth, they’re merely level 2 people of Tim’s favored tribe. The Level 4 described is just Tim’s level 3 with a hint of understanding of level 2 concerns; in truth, they’re level 3 people of Tim’s disfavored tribe. Tim’s level 5, Postermodernism, is a Level 3 of Tim’s-favored-tribe understanding of Level 5.
IOW, this farming is just predictable and blatant tribalism of the form of placing your own way of thinking as being “superior” to the opposing tribe’s way of thinking.
This was part of a much larger discussion so a lot is omitted here.
In kegan’s books, people at ‘higher’ levels sometimes lose something that the lower levels have. Level 4 people can lose a sense of intimacy and connection with other people, God etc. Level 3 people often fail to appreciate level 2 people’s mindset. Level 4 people can lack a sense of immediacy that level 2 people have.
The progression in Kegan’s book is really about the fact that what you are subject to at one level becomes object at the next level. It does not require that Level X people fully understand people at ‘lower’ levels.
I guess in one sense I have succeeded because your guess at my favored view is entirely wrong. I was trying not to make an argument about refugee policy but to illustrate various kinds of thinking.
No, that is not what the progression is “really about”. And yes, you have to be able to understand people at “lower levels” in order to be at a higher level. A Level 4 Person might not have a sense of intimacy or connection—but they have to be able to understand that other people have intimacy and connections.
So what is your favored view, and how does it meaningfully differ from the Postmodern view you espouse as the Level 5 solution?
Kegan points out that many who fancy themselves as postmodernists are actually trapped in level 3. They have been told that modernism has its flaws and there therefore reject it and stay at level 3. This fits some young people in college.
A level 5 would be post-modern in the sense that they have mastered modernist ideas but are not trapped within them.
The linked post gives a brief overview. The higher levels are ‘more advanced’ in that there is an asymmetry; the level 5 can emulate a level 4 more easily than a level 4 can emulate a level 5. But that doesn’t translate to ‘more advanced’ in all possible meanings. A relevant quote from the link:
So the implication is that’s a straight IQ ladder, then. My original objection stands.
My experience is that it’s related to, but distinct from, g. High g and more mature age make the higher levels easier but don’t create them on their own.
Why would a high-IQ level 4 person have trouble emulating level 5? See e.g. Sokal, etc.
ETA: I looked through the linked article and I stick by my impression that this is a straightforward IQ ladder modified by “maturity” (appropriate socio-emotional development, I guess?) In particular, I expect that levels have pretty hard IQ requirements, e.g. a person with the IQ of 80 just won’t make it to Level 4.
I think it is partly linked to IQ. I agree that there are probably limits to the levels people at low IQs can achieve,
But there is also a development process that takes time. Few teenagers, no matter how smart, are at level 5 Think by analogy that few 15 year old people have mastered quantum field theory. No matter how smart you are it takes time
Sokal is emulating level 3 people who think they are level 5. These people are anti-modern not post-modern. Most post-modernists are at level 3 as far as I can tell. I have been trawling through their works to assess this.
A level 5 physicist might be someone like say Robert Laughlin a Nobel Physicist who wrote a book “A Different Universe” questioning how fundamental ‘fundamental’ physics is. He has mastered modernist physics and is now building on this. This is very different from a Deepak Chopra type who doesn’t even get to first base in this enterprise.
I don’t think Sokal is an example of systems of systems thinking. (The post-modernist label is not a particularly useful one; here it means the level after the modernist level, and is only partly connected to other things called post-modernist.)
Why would a high-IQ person have trouble emulating someone of the opposite sex? (There doesn’t appear to be the same asymmetry—both men and women seem bad at modeling each other—but hopefully this will point out the sort of features that might be relevant.)
Some charitable reading is required; the labels are oversimplifications.
I agree that most post-modernists are merely pretending to be at some high level of thinking, and the reason it works for them is that most of their colleagues are in exactly the same situation, so they pass the “peer review”. But we can still use them as a pointer towards the real thing. What would be the useful mental skills that these people are pretending to have?
I remember reading somewhere about a similar model, but for the given question, on each level both “pro” and “con” positions were provided. That made it easier for the reader to focus on the difference between the levels.
Some things to bear in mind in relation to Kegan’s work are
Pretty well everyone thinks that they are 1-2 levels higher than they are actually at. This may include you. It certainly included me.
Most people are at level 3 or below.
Very few people under 30 are at level 4.
Hardly anyone is at level 5.
This from Kegan.
This may also help—a more systematic description of the levels. The right two columns are mine, from memory the others are by Kegan,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_hpownP1A4PaXN1Tjg2RFd6N0E/view?usp=sharing