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 -
Replying to @Meaningness
it feels like one of those cases where you buy the map and the flashlight from the same store.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Interesting analogy—I’m not quite sure I understand it—can you explain more?
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.