Lerxst
Well-known member
- MBTI
- INFJ
You can read about it here. People don't get it when I say I'm not Liberal and not a Conservative. They don't seem to understand that you can pick and choose from each without having to lock yourself down into one set system of beliefs. On the rare occasion I say I believe in the Integral approach, I get blank stares. So here it is in a nut shell.
View attachment 10273
Not everyone is always right, or relevant to every situation.
The important part of that chart is on the left. It basically takes the standard development chart that Psychologists have used for decades (I studied it for my Education classes for that matter) and applies it to entire groups of people, towns, cities, states, countries and other organizations. Being on one level doesn't make you better than another, like the MBTI types, it acts as mostly a guide so you can tell what and where people are in their values.
The key to Integral Theory is to take these different levels and create a functional solution to an issue. Not every situation is going to call for a person who is "Green" for instance. Things like Law Enforcement, you would need a person who has a solid "Blue" foundation to work with, while matters of science and technology, should be left in the hands of people who have a firm "Orange" background.
The levels alternate between individual values and group values. Purple, Blue & Green, for instance represent values that benefit groups of people while beige, red and orange represent the more individual values.
People and societies can move either up or down one level on the chart at any given point in time. Values that are one level apart from one another are usually the ones that have the most interconnected dynamics - for instance, Blues are generally the devoutly religious types, while Oranges are usually the scientific minds. That debate has been playing out for centuries now.
Values that are two levels apart from each other are almost alien to one another. They're the types of arguments that people throw their hands up and walk away from in frustration... or start wars over!
The most difficult part to all of this is looking at an opposing view and realizing that it's not entirely wrong...
The even colors/numbers are the ones that generally represent governments and play the largest role in politics. The odd values are the ones that the people within those other groups usually favor in one way or another.
What's happened in the US for the past 10 years or so is a slow decline from the Orange-Green border to the Blue-Orange border. After 9/11 things like heightened security and the Patriot Act have created a more Police-state, which falls back in line with the Blue a values. Bush's campaign adviser for his initial election was also an Integral Theorist, so there's a lot of debate in these circles as to whether or not that shift was intentional since he had people working for him that were well aware of this theory.
"Greens" aren't all that wonderful either. As with any development phase, people and groups can stagnate and start to fall into the "dark side" of it all... to quote Star Wars. The pros to a Blue society, for instance, would be typical 1950's America - clean, structured, orderly. The cons though, are a police-state that censors and controls everything.
The cons to the Green level are negativity, bureaucracy and callousness. We also like to refer to it as the "mean green meme". Too much "Green" being forced on them and people start to wonder if they really matter and feel neglected by society. I've worked for a lot of "Green" organizations and the theory behind them sounds solid and wonderful, the reality of being in one, though, can be a cold, heartless emptiness existence.
One shortcoming to the Integral approach, especially in politics, is that it requires people to actually be honest about their intentions, but if they are, then a solution can usually be found. For instance, if you wanted to find a solution to the energy/oil crisis, you would need to find out why each side is in favor or opposed to them in the first place. The problem is, if one side is in favor of or against fossil fuels because of an ulterior motive they don't share with the others, then finding a viable solution goes out the window.
View attachment 10273
Not everyone is always right, or relevant to every situation.
The important part of that chart is on the left. It basically takes the standard development chart that Psychologists have used for decades (I studied it for my Education classes for that matter) and applies it to entire groups of people, towns, cities, states, countries and other organizations. Being on one level doesn't make you better than another, like the MBTI types, it acts as mostly a guide so you can tell what and where people are in their values.
The key to Integral Theory is to take these different levels and create a functional solution to an issue. Not every situation is going to call for a person who is "Green" for instance. Things like Law Enforcement, you would need a person who has a solid "Blue" foundation to work with, while matters of science and technology, should be left in the hands of people who have a firm "Orange" background.
The levels alternate between individual values and group values. Purple, Blue & Green, for instance represent values that benefit groups of people while beige, red and orange represent the more individual values.
People and societies can move either up or down one level on the chart at any given point in time. Values that are one level apart from one another are usually the ones that have the most interconnected dynamics - for instance, Blues are generally the devoutly religious types, while Oranges are usually the scientific minds. That debate has been playing out for centuries now.
Values that are two levels apart from each other are almost alien to one another. They're the types of arguments that people throw their hands up and walk away from in frustration... or start wars over!
The most difficult part to all of this is looking at an opposing view and realizing that it's not entirely wrong...
The even colors/numbers are the ones that generally represent governments and play the largest role in politics. The odd values are the ones that the people within those other groups usually favor in one way or another.
What's happened in the US for the past 10 years or so is a slow decline from the Orange-Green border to the Blue-Orange border. After 9/11 things like heightened security and the Patriot Act have created a more Police-state, which falls back in line with the Blue a values. Bush's campaign adviser for his initial election was also an Integral Theorist, so there's a lot of debate in these circles as to whether or not that shift was intentional since he had people working for him that were well aware of this theory.
"Greens" aren't all that wonderful either. As with any development phase, people and groups can stagnate and start to fall into the "dark side" of it all... to quote Star Wars. The pros to a Blue society, for instance, would be typical 1950's America - clean, structured, orderly. The cons though, are a police-state that censors and controls everything.
The cons to the Green level are negativity, bureaucracy and callousness. We also like to refer to it as the "mean green meme". Too much "Green" being forced on them and people start to wonder if they really matter and feel neglected by society. I've worked for a lot of "Green" organizations and the theory behind them sounds solid and wonderful, the reality of being in one, though, can be a cold, heartless emptiness existence.
One shortcoming to the Integral approach, especially in politics, is that it requires people to actually be honest about their intentions, but if they are, then a solution can usually be found. For instance, if you wanted to find a solution to the energy/oil crisis, you would need to find out why each side is in favor or opposed to them in the first place. The problem is, if one side is in favor of or against fossil fuels because of an ulterior motive they don't share with the others, then finding a viable solution goes out the window.
