Problems with the EC (Spiral Dynamics) framework
The more I study the EC framework and apply it, the more I think it is an inaccurate formulation of human values.
It is not that the framework does not work, it is just that I can’t help but feel there is a more accurate way of expressing it. In the same way that Relativity improved on Newtons understanding of gravity, I think there is a fuller, more accurate way of modelling human values.
I do not know what this is but I can point out the flaws and I have an idea for a way forward but do not yet know how to fully formulate it.
The main issue is essentially that the value systems do not represent people, they represent abstractions of aspects of people. A person has multiple value systems interacting and rarely expresses a strong nodal value system. Extending from this there are several of what I think of as mistakes in the interpretations that were made on the SD training that I attended. I don’t want to slate the courses, I learnt a great deal from them and as a result my understanding of FS, GT and HU has changed a great deal.
The first issue I have is with the concept of being open and closed. As described by Cowan and Todorovic on the course. People can be closed or open to the various value systems. For example, a manager can be centralised in DQ and not really understand ER, yet if they are open to ER they can work with people who are centralised at ER and manage them effectively in a DQ way even though they do not understand what it is they do. My problem with this definition is that it contains an inherent contradiction. DQ always sees ‘others’, i.e. those that do not belong to the system that they belong to, as outsiders, and thus the enemy.
One way of explaining this is to say that the manager can follow the absolute DQ law, which says that the ER people are good people who belong to a different ‘caste’. This might work if the ER people were higher up the hierarchy than the manager, but they are not, so I find it hard to believe that this would sit well.
I think there is another explanation: That the value systems do not really exist, they are artefacts of the data and the way in which our minds interpret it.
The method Cowan and Todorovic use to map a persons values is to ask them a series of questions along the lines of agreeing /disagreeing with statements that express particular value systems. They then use this as a starting point to further analyse the person through one on one conversation. The result of this is a series of graphs that show which value systems a person identifies and disagrees with. It also shows if they are closed (blind) to a value system. My problem with this method is that it flattens the complexity of someone’s values into an overly simplified top down view that I do not find useful. They, and Graves, say that this is just a jumping off point and that the experienced consultant learns how to interpret the nuances of a persons values while interacting with them. I agree with this, but it does not help in understanding the process that goes on. I want to make that process concious, to see what makes it work.
A stepping stone to a different way of interpreting the data would be to suggest we have in our minds multiple value systems and apply different systems to varying situations. Therefore a person can be centralised at DQ but have other aspects of their mind that can understand ER enough to be able to work with people who are centralised at it. In the example with the manager, he understands ER in terms of human relationship, but not in terms of business strategy and thus can work with ER people even though he can not define how they work in terms of business strategy. This is the kind of approach that Wilber takes when he discusses multiple streams. I think Cowan and Todorovic used this explanation as well, but memory does not serve me well. The problem I have with this is that the evidence for distinct multiple intelligences is very poor.
A further criticism I have of Cowan and Todorovics approach, is their explanation of values memes as being meta memes and that many people confuse a meme with the value system. For example, just because someone says they are passionate about protecting the environment, which is an FS meme, it does not mean that they have FS values. My criticism of this approach is ironic, because I really appreciated the way they explained it, however I think that the explanation may be overly simplified. Perhaps this person who is passionate about the environment is genuinely FS in their passion and the life process that led them to that understanding, but their knowledge of how to protect it comes from another value system. The system could be more complex than a simple hierarchy of memes to meta memes.
With the above examples I am trying to express how Graves value system consistently collapses into complex chaos whenever a microscope is placed over a particular area. For meaningful progress to be made in the way we examine the details in the interactions of human values I think we need a new approach, one that allows us to understand the microcosm of interactions. I suspect this understanding will grow out of bio-psychology.
I’ve recently been reading On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins. It is an interesting theory on how the brains neural network functions. I think it provides the beginning of a more comprehensive explanation for how human values have evolved. He explains that our brains are essentially self reinforcing pattern recognition and prediction devices. Each time we see an image, experience a feeling, hear a noise, it triggers neurons that fired the last time we had a similar experience. This pattern of experience triggers other associated patterns, so for example, when we hear the name of our mother an image of her appears in our minds eye.
I suspect that the values that Graves uncovered are explained by the increasing complexity of neural connections in the aspects of our brain that deals with social interaction.
Our values develop through these self reinforcing feedback mechanisms as an emergent property. This would explain the multiple values operating simultaneously, without fixing them into specific intelligences.
If this is true, then there is not a specific area of the brain that deals with values, but an emergent complexity in all areas. Unfortunately this may be hard to investigate and empirically verify as our brain imaging technology may not be advanced enough to pick this up. On the other hand it may be. When someone is expressing a particular set of values, a particular set of brain areas may light up because they are more heavily interconnected than others. I also wonder if this information may be useful in the development of AI. If true, it shows, for example, that the development of self aware conciousness is intrinsicly linked (at least in humans) to our oscillation between I centeredness and we centeredness . I also wonder if it is possible to make a simplified computer model of values development via simple interacting AI lifeforms that are competing for resource. Does the I/We oscillation naturally arise?