Two people who are at Kegan level 4 are likely to have a debate that is at it’s core about which ideas are better.
Two people at Kegan level 2 or 3 are going to put more value in their tribe winning than in the inherent quality of the ideas that are under discussion.
It’s a description of the effects had by progressives/liberals typically having a disproportionately progressive/liberal social media bubble, and respectively likewise for conservatives.
It’s largely a non-evidence based description of effects. Horoscopes are also descriptions of effects of people being classified in a certain way.
I think he common narrative about filter bubbles makes assumptions about effect sizes that aren’t well backed by empirical data even if I grant that the effects aren’t zero.
Upvoted. Those are good points. I still don’t know enough about how to evaluate the quality of the ‘Kegan levels’ framework, so I’m not sure what I should make of its application in this context.
I’m personally unsure about how reliable Kegan’s framework is. But in this case I think there’s a basic idea that I believe to be true:
Considering signaling and whether one’s tribe wins to be the most important is not an human universal. It takes a certain amount of mental maturity to move past it and the humanities are at the moment not teaching mental maturity at the quality they used to. The democratization through the internet additionally moved power about the public narrative to people with less mental maturity.
I don’t like the Kegan framework, as I think it’s missing an important factor about what level of map is important to correct decision-making. And it tends to ignore actual value divergence between individuals.
Keep in mind that it takes both “mental maturity” AND trust in your correspondents’ maturity to focus on communication and truth rather than personal and tribal signaling. As trust erodes, training and encouragement of individual maturity is reduced in value, which further erodes trust. It’s not clear that either one (education reduction or trust erosion) caused the other.
Two people who are at Kegan level 4 are likely to have a debate that is at it’s core about which ideas are better.
Two people at Kegan level 2 or 3 are going to put more value in their tribe winning than in the inherent quality of the ideas that are under discussion.
It’s largely a non-evidence based description of effects. Horoscopes are also descriptions of effects of people being classified in a certain way.
I think he common narrative about filter bubbles makes assumptions about effect sizes that aren’t well backed by empirical data even if I grant that the effects aren’t zero.
Upvoted. Those are good points. I still don’t know enough about how to evaluate the quality of the ‘Kegan levels’ framework, so I’m not sure what I should make of its application in this context.
I’m personally unsure about how reliable Kegan’s framework is. But in this case I think there’s a basic idea that I believe to be true:
Considering signaling and whether one’s tribe wins to be the most important is not an human universal. It takes a certain amount of mental maturity to move past it and the humanities are at the moment not teaching mental maturity at the quality they used to. The democratization through the internet additionally moved power about the public narrative to people with less mental maturity.
I don’t like the Kegan framework, as I think it’s missing an important factor about what level of map is important to correct decision-making. And it tends to ignore actual value divergence between individuals.
Keep in mind that it takes both “mental maturity” AND trust in your correspondents’ maturity to focus on communication and truth rather than personal and tribal signaling. As trust erodes, training and encouragement of individual maturity is reduced in value, which further erodes trust. It’s not clear that either one (education reduction or trust erosion) caused the other.
Is there a “not” missing from this?
Yes.