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 22 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 -
Replying to @Meaningness
I really enjoyed https://medium.com/@byrnehobart/the-socially-awkward-social-network-paradox-efc3e3716843 … by
@ByrneHobart as a narrative frame for why we may see this strangeness among rationalist STEM types. Seems to match up well with my own experience of social developmental delay, (tho I have no idea what 'stage' I'm in... and don't care)1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ultimape @Meaningness
Would be fun to find out if Kegan's models are off for the same reason why most of social science is off: too much bias among subgroups in the research. So the "WEIRD" effect? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/western-mind-too-weird-study … Suggests it may also be a large part cultural?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I have a nagging suspicion that Kegan's theory is more a psychological and philosophical framework than a model of development
-
-
I'd be really interested in hearing you say more about this--I think I agree with you.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @Meaningness
🐜 🐻 Retweeted Adam Strandberg
🐜 🐻 added,
0 replies 0 retweets 0 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.
