Robert Kegan explaining his adult developmental theory, with @dthorson
“If you want to be Stage 5 because all the cool kids are, that’s a Stage 3 aspiration. If you want it because Stage 5 is the Correct way of thinking, that’s a Stage 4 aspiration.”https://anchor.fm/emerge/episodes/Robert-Kegan---The-Five-Stages-of-Adult-Development-And-Why-You-Probably-Arent-Stage-5-eb8gug …
-
Show this thread
-
Daniel asked Kegan about his claim that no one reaches Stage 5 before age 40. Kegan said that’s what’s in the data from their measurement process: zero cases. This is somewhat puzzling…
2 replies 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
Other researchers using similar but not identical measures find “meta-systematic cognition,” seemingly analogous to Kegan’s Stage 5 thinking, starting for some in late 20s (partial intellectual understanding of it sometimes starting early 20s). Informally I think I see this too.
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
The stuff I write about meta-rationality seems to appeal most to people who are ~28: having worked through the limits of rationalism, with the more complex alternative coming into view on the horizon.
2 replies 0 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
Why this discrepancy? I can think of quite a few possibilities. However, it’s hard to know, because: As far as I can determine, Kegan and his collaborators have never published their empirical work, much less made data available.
2 replies 0 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
Their citation chains always eventually root in their SOI Guide, which just has some summary statistics in an appendix. This is a self-published book. Nothing has been peer reviewed. It was written in 1988, and kept private until self-publication in 2011 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1461128803/?tag=meaningness-20 …
3 replies 0 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
Possible there’s been no serious data collection since the mid-80s, and Kegan’s “not before 40” assertion rests on that single old study. Results might be different 35 years later. Also I see meta-rationality showing up at ~28 in STEM geeks, who were not in his sample afaik.
3 replies 0 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
Alternatively, it’s plausible that Kegan &co’s instrument measures something different than other developmental theorists’. They emphasize emotional and relational complexity, where others emphasize reasoning complexity, although both include both and see them as linked.
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
It’s a common observation that STEM geeks develop cognitive skills fast and lag in emotional & relational skills. Developing in different domains at different rates is called “décallage” (lag) in the literature. Kegan seems less willing to acknowledge décallage than some others.
6 replies 2 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Maybe you really can’t be emotionally and relationally meta-systematic before age 40, although you can develop meta-rationality over a few years starting mid/late 20s. (Research suggests developing cognitive meta-systematicity (= meta-rationality) takes 6-10 years to complete.)
6 replies 0 retweets 23 likesShow this thread
Understanding how adults continue to develop new, deeper, more powerful cognitive skills, through their 30s at minimum, seems enormously important. Research on this is scarce, and—to be blunt—much of it is low-quality. I’d love for this to change. Big opportunity!
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
This is really interesting and closely tracks with the personal experience I’ve had—I think 29-30 was when I hit the growth point you mention at 28 of growing out of rationality Huh Would love to see more about this
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.