Talk:Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence

New page under construction

This page has been split out of the Clare W. Graves page per the plan for Graves, Don Edward Beck, and Spiral Dynamics proposed and discussed at Talk:Don Edward Beck#Spiral Dynamics.

Additional work on this page will follow as described there, and also regarding improving the percentage of secondary sources along the lines discussed at Talk:Clare W. Graves#Sorting through references, mainstream academia, etc.

The balance of the discussion of the theory (currently lots on the experimental set-up, and much less on everything else) will be evened out, highlighting what is distinct from later theories that built on it, and again with the goal of improving the ratio of secondary over primary sources.

--Ixat totep (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Name of this page

Some folks outside of Wikipedia have raised concerns about the naming of this page, which is a valid topic given the plethora of names used by Graves, the lack of an agreed-upon standard name amongst Gravesians in general, and the association of certain names with different warring Spiral Dynamics factions. I particularly want to keep this page and the page on Graves himself as far outside of that battle as possible. I also want to avoid a promotional tone, and keep this page scientifically focused, as that is how Graves presented his work.

• There is concern over the genericness of the phrase.
  • Should Graves's name prefix it a la Maslow's hierarchy of needs? The theory is certainly associated with Graves as strongly as the hierarchy is with Maslow.
  • Alternatively social judgment theory is a theory associated with specific psychologists but named generically.
• There is debate over what to emphasize
  • Most people know of the theory due to the levels of existence aspect, and Graves frequently used that phrase when describing it
  • Graves also considered the levels to be an artifact of the core theory, which concerned the emergent and cyclical aspects of the bio-psycho-social systems and the result ing levels. This is noted in the introduction to the Never Ending Quest as the reason why Graves completed part I (derivation of the theory) and part III (verification of the theory), but never wrote a complete draft of part II (description of the levels).

I would be fine with any of the following

• Graves's emergent cyclical theory
• Graves's levels of existence
• Graves's levels of existence theory
• emergent cyclical theory
• levels of existence theory
• Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence
• emergent cyclical levels of existence

The last option is slightly less desirable as it, through the ECLET acronym, is associated with a specific publishing company and specific successor line of Gravesian thought. On the other hand, "emergent cyclical levels of existence" ends up covering both core aspects so maybe it's best to just go with that as avoiding the most suitable name due to factional conflicts seems like a questionable decision as well.

Opinions? Paging Snowded.

--Ixat totep (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Leaning towards "Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence"

--Ixat totep (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Just back from week walking SWCP - will try and catch up tomorrow -----Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Upon another week's worth of further reflection, and reading of Wikipedia:Moving a page#Reasons for moving a page and Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation, I have settled on "Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence."

Regarding precision, it is definitely possible for there to be other "emergent cyclical" theories. While not a common phrase, both words are in general use, and are not even specific to fields at hand (psychology, sociology, philosophy). Therefore applying Graves's name clarifies that it is his "emergent cyclical theory" that we are discussing.

Regarding "common name," as noted above, there isn't one, although there are some that are used more than others. Discussion with various users of the theory has convinced me that while Graves himself emphasized "emergent cyclical," most practitioners would emphasize "levels of existence." And some (notably ECLET Publishing, through which Graves's posthumous publications have been produced) use both (the "T" at the end is for Theory).

While "emergent cyclical levels of existence" seems highly unlikely to be re-used by anyone else, again, these are all common words without meaning specific to the field. I imagine "hierarchy of needs" was also not the subject of intense competition, and in fact Hierarchy of needs redirects to Maslow's hierarchy of needs without disambiguation.

"Maslow's hierarchy of needs" seems to be the correct precedent, so "Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence" it is. Both theories are titled with an uncommon phrase made from common words, and both are strongly associated with their creator. As opposed to more broadly developed theories e.g. quantum mechanics which arose from the efforts of various researchers. Plus, Graves and Maslow were colleagues, with Graves standing in as a lecturer for Maslow on at least one occasion when the latter was ill. That has nothing to do with Wikipedia naming policies whatsoever, but I admit the symmetry appeals to me. --Ixat totep (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Further improvement

@Autarch: could you please go into a bit of detail on why you put all of those tags on the page just now? I'm happy to improve things but I don't understand what about the article reads like a press release, for example (also paging @Snowded: for feedback on this). I do agree that the sources need further diversification- I have been collecting academic and other sources and gradually working those in and (when possible) replacing references to Graves's own writing, or to web sites. This includes references to expand the "Criticism" section, which is still a bit light. I am unclear on what additional (as opposed to better) citations are needed for verification, though.

Regarding tone and neutrality, some specifics of what is currently problematic would be most helpful. My goal in splitting this into its own page is to make the theory clear and show its context within academic and applied psychology at the time (1950s-1970s), as well as it's ongoing influence and relevance as established by recent peer-reviewed academic citations and books from mainstream publishers. I am not interested in "selling" the theory, and would be happy to rewrite any passages that read that way.

Ixat totep (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Autarch: While I appreciate the "thanks" on my most recent edit, I would be even more grateful for some indication of why you have tagged the article in the first place. That edit was part of my existing planned work and not in response to your tags, which I still mostly do not understand.

Per WP:TC: Tags must either be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter (available in some templates) as shown below. At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion. I am asking that you please follow through with these tags. Per WP:BRD I am trying to chart a course forward rather than remove the unexplained tags simply because I don't see why most of them should be here. While I do not have a WP:CONFLICT on this topic, as the primary recent editor of the page I am very open to the possibility that the problems are blind spots for me, and appreciate the opportunity to improve any such blind spots.

I have read back through the article after reading up on the various tags and associated policies. Please see subsections below for individual tags and explain what motivated each of them in actionable terms. If I can fix them, I will. If they require another editor's involvement for additional perspective or some other reason, I can try to recruit someone. If there's nothing I can do to fix the problems, I'm happy to leave the tags in place pointing here for others to pick up. But I do need to understand the problems in order to do any of those things. Ixat totep (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards.

This is a pretty drastic tag to use without any guidance or context or prior discussion. When I found the Clare W. Graves page (where a short version of this material was previously located), it was essentially in that state. I consulted with another editor (see above for details) and while I realize that does not guarantee high quality, it does mean that I've done what I would normally do in response to this tag.

Autarch why do you think this page needs a total rewrite? Most of the other tags are similarly vague so they don't help all that much. I'm happy to leave this tag up with some guidance, but without further guidance I feel that this should be removed as non-actionable.

Ixat totep (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This article reads like a press release or a news article and is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism.

The documentation for this tag refers to WP:PROMO. Taking the points in that policy one at a time:

• Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment: I really don't think any part the article falls into this category. The theory is laid out in detail, but AFAICT avoids advocacy. I made the Influence section pretty minimal to avoid promoting the theory by talking up its uses, and part of the Influence section is about a usage that includes criticism. Plus there is the Criticsm section, which is larger than the Influence section.
• Opinion pieces: I think it's pretty self-evident that this is not an opinion piece.
• Scandal mongering: Likewise, this clearly does not apply.
• Self-promotion: I am not the originator of this theory or its notable derivations, so this is not a concern.
• Advertising, marketing or public relations: If you think this applies, please let me know what product/service is being promoted. While some of the references are from people who offer consulting services regarding the theory, I believe I have avoided directly linking their promotional material. For example, the late Christopher Cowan's writing from his old site's FAQ (spiral-dynamics.com) is not part of the promotional material for selling NVC Consulting's services, which is now on a different site (spiraldynamics.org).

Ixat totep (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Similar to what I wrote below for the WP:Peacock tag, I determined that the Assessment and Typology sections (e.g. the wave/particle stuff), as well as the introductory portion of the "Development of the Theory" section, were the closest to being a problem for WP:Promo, although as promotional material they weren't exactly compelling or clear on what action they were trying to promote. Regardless, I rewrote or changed them as my best guess as to how to address this tag.

Given the lack of further feedback, I am considering this sufficient and removing the tag – please feel free to re-tag if you disagree, but do be sure to indicate why in this section.

Ixat totep (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.

I grepped the page text for all of the words listed under WP:PEACOCK. There were not many matches, and most were relaying something from a source (Graves considering two stages to have a "remarkable" similarity; Graves considered the human mind to have "greater" potential, etc.) or appropriately descriptive (Graves's choice to validate by comparing with the "leading" theories of the time).

I think it is self-evident that real information is imparted in the article.

I realize there are many other possible ways the article could run afoul of WP:PEACOCK but nothing is jumping out at me. I think this template should be removed unless you can provide some guidance on specific problematic wording. A few examples would do, I do not need a sentence-by-sentence account.

Ixat totep (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

After scouring the page for possible "peacock" language, I determined that the Assessment and Typology sections (e.g. the wave/particle stuff), as well as the introductory portion of the "Development of the Theory" section, were the closest to such language. I completely rewrote Assessment and Typology, in a different style and with citations to a broader range of sources who are more distant from Graves. I made similar but less extensive changes to "Development of the Theory", some of which was fine as it was.

Given the lack of further feedback, I am considering this sufficient and removing the tag – please feel free to re-tag if you disagree, but do be sure to indicate why in this section.

Ixat totep (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Autarch, this tag's documentation states: Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.

WP:NPOV is extremely important to me, particularly because some who build on Graves's work tend to use superlative promotional language. As noted above, I don't see the article as promotional or indulging in puffery, although examples of that would help sort this tag out as well. As you saw with my last edit, I continue to expand the Criticism section. It could use more work, but I think it is sufficient to show balance. Autarch, if you disagree, could you indicate how much or what sort of additional work is needed?

Ixat totep (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have made significant changes to ECLET#Criticism and ECLET#Influence in response to this. I'll leave the tag up until at least tomorrow, but in the absence of further guidance I will remove the tag as addressed. Of course, re-tagging is welcome as long as this section is updated to indicate what exactly is thought to violate WP:NPOV.

Regarding the Influence section, I have clarified that Graves is not broadly influential in developmental psychology (although neither is he entirely ignored). This is probably the biggest potentially-misleading-by-omission thing I could find, given that ECLET is a developmental theory. I have separated the Integral and Metamodern influence from mainstream psychology or philosophy (although metamodernism is arguably becoming mainstream- that can be updated later if appropriate).

Still in the Influence section, I have removed a number of fields in which there was scant support for real influence, and also fields where the examples cited were more Spiral Dynamics than Graves's ECLET. The remaining fields (significant influence in business management and leadership, minor application in education) are supported by improved citations, specifically journal articles where Graves's theory (not Spiral Dynamics) is the focus, as is clear from the title and/or abstract. Plus one article in which Graves's work was used in the design of neurology research, as that addresses an otherwise overlooked area of ECLET. I would prefer a citation to something that assesses Graves's overall influence in management theory rather than a plethora of journal articles, but have not yet found such as source. It was, however, surprisingly easy to find management journal articles building on Graves.

Regarding the Criticism section, on top of other recent improvements I added a quotation that I think really nails what bothers a lot of people about Graves's work: that it is often discussed and used uncritically, and that this is the result of Graves's choices around not publishing his data.

I think these changes, taken together, make Graves's place in the broader context of applied and theoretical developmental psychology significantly more clear.

Ixat totep (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have made a further change to the Verification section, including both positive and significantly negative reactions to Graves's approach to verification, which further completes the critical appraisal of Graves's work.

Ixat totep (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification.

I'm very confused over this tag. Every paragraph, and often every sentence, has a citation. The large table of levels is cited in general terms rather than citing every cell, which seemed like a good balance to me. There are no "citation needed" tags. What is missing? I am inclined to remove this tag as it is a fairly objective one, and objectively there are 75 footnotes and zero unsupported paragraphs.

Ixat totep (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.

This tag seems pretty plausible, but I could still use some assistance in figuring out what is needed in order to remove it. I do not think it is as simple as counting the references to Graves vs other sources.

Most of the citations to Graves are for the description of the theory itself or the process of constructing it. Specifically, the sections ECLET#Names, ECLET#Experimental design ECLET#Development of the theory, and ECLET#The levels of existence, although each of these also cites other sources at least once. These sections are not matters of opinion, but are factual statements of the subject of the article. Looking at pages for other theories, this seems common (e.g. Model of Hierarchical Complexity cites Michael Commons's papers for the theoretical description, Erikson's stages of psychosocial development cites Erikson's writing (sometimes with his wife and collaborator) for various elements of the theory).

All of the remaining sections cite a diverse range of sources.

While Beck, Cowan, and Todorovic are all advocates of Graves's work, and are clearly not objective in the sense that their careers have been based on it, I have cited them for factual description rather than value judgements, which I believe is acceptable. The most questionable citations would be the ones to writings on Cowan and Todorovic's old site (spiral-dynamics.com), which are easy to check as they are online. I chose them as those writings are both easy to check and less promotional than many other options (even the 1996 Spiral Dynamics book which would normally be considered more reliable as it was published by a mainstream publisher). Autarch if you find those (or others) objectionable, could you please note the specific problems?

Ixat totep (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have done the following:

• Generally shifted more to three sources (Combs, Cook, and Reitter), which are academic or book review sources, all of whom discuss Graves in detail with substantial criticism included. It is clear from all three sources that they are not promoting Graves for personal gain.
• Eliminated as many citations to Beck and Cowan's Spiral Dynamics, Cowan and Todorovic's web site FAQs, and Keith Rice's web site. Some have been kept where important and I have not (yet) been able to find a replacement. But the remaining citations are directly relevant (e.g. cite the SD book for SD saying it is built on Graves). I'll note that the tag documentation says This template is used in articles to identify articles that name sources, but that are biased because every source named has a very close connection to the subject, such as the manufacturer of a product., so it is not necessary to remove all potentially biased sources- having a few when they are the best available, and are cited for factual information, should be fine.
• I have somewhat reduced citations to Cowan and Todorovic's forward to The Never Ending Quest, but it is a key source of information on Graves and his research, and unlike the Spiral Dynamics book or their consulting material, the tone is very factual. The other biographical source is a self-published Graves biography written by a different person with a Graves-derived consulting business. I think C&T's forward is the better option of the two. Most of the remaining citations are about terminology (which they had to describe regarding their choices in the book), or are also partially backed up by other sources (that just don't have all of the details needed).
• I have somewhat reduced the citations of Graves himself. Nearly all of the remaining ones are in the description of the theory, which as noted above I think is appropriate based on other developmental theory articles. Perhaps not ideal, but use of primary sources is not the main focus of this tag anyway.
• Removed Wilber as a source, and restricted Wilberian Integral sources to commenting on Wilber's work with Graves-derived ideas. Note that the California Institute of Integral Studies predates Wilber by decades and is not directly related to him or to his defunct Integral Institute (they do share some influences), so the Journal of Consciousness is not a Wilberian publication.
• Removed various SDi practitioners, most of whom were close with Beck and/or Wilber, as citation sources. Most of them were not being cited for important things to this article anyway.
• As noted in the section addressing point of view above, the citations around both influence and critique (and verification) are now much stronger (more directly relevant) and more distant from the more controversial people.

While I'm sure there could always be more improvements, I think this is a substantial change and warrants removing the tag, especially as no further guidance has been provided. Of course, re-tagging is welcome with guidance.

Ixat totep (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)