I’m someone from a background of the neobehaviorist perspective in psychology with some cognitivist leanings. I usually just dismiss work like this offhand as most likely pseudoscience. Strike one is that this work is partially derived from theories which I already know to be pseudoscience such as Maslow’s theory of self-actualization. Strike two is that he is dismissive of many elements of behaviorism. However, I’m willing to be persuaded. What are the key elements of falsifiability within these theories? What experimental research has been conducted to test the validity of these theories; either in whole or in part? It doesn’t help your cause that your in-depth link contains in the abstract:
Although the literature has produced a number of propositions, the notion
that a leader’s order of development should impact his or her leadership effectiveness or managerial performance has generated the
most research. We found mixed support for this proposition as well as a number of limitations in the research in general. To have a
greater impact on the leadership field, constructive-developmental theory needs to generate more robust research, to link more
clearly with on-going streams of leadership research, and to explore the contribution of aspects of the theory beyond individual
order of development.
Ok, I’m sorry if this post looks like it’s speaking for CDT being correct. As listed in the header this is written based on Gwerley’s post, and was intended to simplify the idea. (and add context to better imagine it)
I felt the idea sounded like it would be something to look into, as at least the first two levels seem like they are (more or less) correct. (I still wouldn’t think this would be a terribly useful theory if applied to humans only, as the orders of mind seem like they’re more evolutionary (notes 3 and 4) than developmental.)
I’m the dumb kid on the block when it comes to less wrong. (If any of the census or my behavior in posting something that signals against the Less Wrong tribal stance are any indicators.)
I’m not (yet) a scientist, and I couldn’t find any studies on this. Take into account that less wrong is “heavier” in scientists than usual for an online community, and I hoped that it would be something someone would either know about or find interesting.
This is the discussion forum, and I was hoping that there might be just that, discussion.
You make hard statements like “35% of adults are on this level (The Self-Authoring Mind)” without indicating where the number comes from. Is this a number from a study based done in the US? Europe? Is the number simply made up?
Use of numbers like that is a mark of pseudoscience. It seems like you simply believe those numbers without critical reflection.
You find that there are well received posts on LW about psychological issues such as Brianne’s post What its like to notice things that are coming directly out of academic psychology and scientific studies. Posts like that are still welcome because they are based on Brianne’s own empiric experience. Brianne doesn’t try to put numbers on things that can’t be well supported.
There’s no use to talk about models that don’t have personal experience of the author that indicates the usefulness of the model or scientific experiments that back up the model.
I’m someone from a background of the neobehaviorist perspective in psychology with some cognitivist leanings. I usually just dismiss work like this offhand as most likely pseudoscience. Strike one is that this work is partially derived from theories which I already know to be pseudoscience such as Maslow’s theory of self-actualization. Strike two is that he is dismissive of many elements of behaviorism. However, I’m willing to be persuaded. What are the key elements of falsifiability within these theories? What experimental research has been conducted to test the validity of these theories; either in whole or in part? It doesn’t help your cause that your in-depth link contains in the abstract:
Ok, I’m sorry if this post looks like it’s speaking for CDT being correct. As listed in the header this is written based on Gwerley’s post, and was intended to simplify the idea. (and add context to better imagine it)
I felt the idea sounded like it would be something to look into, as at least the first two levels seem like they are (more or less) correct. (I still wouldn’t think this would be a terribly useful theory if applied to humans only, as the orders of mind seem like they’re more evolutionary (notes 3 and 4) than developmental.)
Then why didn’t you look into the evidence for it before writing a post?
3 reasons:
I’m the dumb kid on the block when it comes to less wrong. (If any of the census or my behavior in posting something that signals against the Less Wrong tribal stance are any indicators.)
I’m not (yet) a scientist, and I couldn’t find any studies on this. Take into account that less wrong is “heavier” in scientists than usual for an online community, and I hoped that it would be something someone would either know about or find interesting.
This is the discussion forum, and I was hoping that there might be just that, discussion.
In this case, the problem is that you accept the theory based on it seeming reasonable and not based on it making any useful empiric predictions.
You also haven’t make another case for the usefulness of the model.
Beliefs have to pay rent and you haven’t demostrated how this model pays it’s rent.
You make hard statements like “35% of adults are on this level (The Self-Authoring Mind)” without indicating where the number comes from. Is this a number from a study based done in the US? Europe? Is the number simply made up?
Use of numbers like that is a mark of pseudoscience. It seems like you simply believe those numbers without critical reflection.
You find that there are well received posts on LW about psychological issues such as Brianne’s post What its like to notice things that are coming directly out of academic psychology and scientific studies. Posts like that are still welcome because they are based on Brianne’s own empiric experience. Brianne doesn’t try to put numbers on things that can’t be well supported.
There’s no use to talk about models that don’t have personal experience of the author that indicates the usefulness of the model or scientific experiments that back up the model.