Spiral Dynamics, Quadras, and Evolution of Society

[machintruc]

I've done some research on the relationships between Spiral Dynamics and Socionic Quadras.

More info on SD : http://spiraldynamics.org/

If this hypothesis is true, Gulenko's Law of the Removability of Quadras is wrong.

I read of that Law, and percieved that correlations :

Alpha : Level-2
Beta : Level-3
Gamma : Level-5
Delta : Level-6

So where's Level-4 ?

Quadras and SD Levels are more correlated like this IMO :

Alpha : Levels 2 and 6
Beta : Levels 3 and 7
Gamma : Levels 1 and 5
Delta : Levels 4 and 8

Judicious/Resolute (or Peripheral/Central) seems to correlate with the SD definition of Sacrificial/Expressive (even/odd levels).
Objectivist/Subjectivist correlates with Levels 1458 / 2367.
Democratic/Aristocratic correlates with Levels 1256 / 3478.

Society's evolution would have the pattern Gamma => Alpha => Beta => Delta, instead of Alpha => Beta => Gamma => Delta. Gulenko's Law of the Removability of Quadras is possibly wrong.

Let's suppose that society has 4 evolutory channels ; one for each jungian function. It would give this pattern (+/- is process/result) :

            15 26 37 48
  Sensing : E+ I+ I- E-
Intuition : I+ E+ E- I-
   Ethics : I- E- E+ I+
    Logic : E- I- I+ E+

It would give some circulary pattern

If this hypothesis is true, society evolves more according to Octaves than Quadras ; it could also be seen like Perception and Judgement with + and - alternating.

[tcaudilllg]

This looks complicated. I probably can't help with this. :\

Anyway, my opinion on social evolution is that it happens pretty well within temperaments. Although maybe ideological evolution would be a better word in that respect.

From what I can tell, quadras do little more than offer... comfort...?

[machintruc]

This looks complicated. I probably can't help with this. :\

Anyway, my opinion on social evolution is that it happens pretty well within temperaments. Although maybe ideological evolution would be a better word in that respect.

From what I can tell, quadras do little more than offer... comfort...?

You should habituate yourself, most of socionic research articles are very difficult to understand.

I read once on Model M and didn't understand a thing.

So, can you explain how social evolution happens, in your opinion ?

[tcaudilllg]

It's so complicated... but you need more than Model-A. I think exertion plays a big role. In particular, an idea must be exerted for it be "out there"; it is not enough to accept it or produce it. It must be more than psychological information: it must be given form and substance.

I just avoid complex Ni-like discussions of abstract inner natures of things, that's all. Like most INTjs, perhaps.... I've got a good knack for inferring the content of a paper from its abstract. If something very important is in there, I'll be able to tell it from the abstract if said important thing is not a mathematical code....

I might be enabled to agree with you as regards your model (if it is sound) if you were to explain it in less technical terms. Structuring an idea in depth often leads to a better understanding of the idea itself, in my experience.

[machintruc]

I might be enabled to agree with you as regards your model (if it is sound) if you were to explain it in less technical terms. Structuring an idea in depth often leads to a better understanding of the idea itself, in my experience.

(btw, I'm suggesting you to verify your position on the logical/ethical scale one more time...)

http://www.clarewgraves.com/theory_c...uristTable.htm earlier but simpler to understand.

SD is an evolutionary model which has 8 systems of thinking. They can have numbers 1 to 8 but can also be named AN, BO, CP, DQ, ER, FS, GT, and HU.

Society evolves and changes. All systems exist, but at different degrees. For example USA is currently dominated by levels 5 and 6.

The Law of Quadra Succession stipulates that societies evolve by changing their dominant Quadras.

Evolution is : Alpha => Beta => Gamma => Delta => Alpha and so on. For example, USA is currently somehow more Gamma-Alpha than Delta-Beta.

Society can be taken has having a dynamic psyche. Society is more delivered information on some aspects than others. This generates abundance and lack of information. To make society have balanced information, it should evolve.

Imagine a society which is lacking (sensing channel lacking introversion) or (logical channel lacking extroversion) for example...

This 4-channel model has 4 channels which have a circular movement.

According to that table, Sensing evolves like : + => + => - => - => + and so on.

You see the "circular" thing... Sensing and Ethics rotate clockwise ; Intuition and Logic rotate anti-clockwise.

If society is on Level-5, Sensing channel has + dominant in the Sensing channel, so it lacks mainly -.

You'll easily understand...

[tcaudilllg]

Interesting... this is a exertion base theory, of that much I am certain. It tries to deny any definite encapsulation, any definite structure... only a progressive "spiral" of constructionism.

And the use of colors is interesting... sounds . The reason groups from different fields of the same discipline can't communicate with each other is primarily a factor of static kineticism: such interactions are not well understood and static kinetists prefer to go "by the book." (Or well, the "paleoconservative"/aristocratic half of them does anyway) Fields of study are shared by many viewpoints, and when overtures are made by members of one group to another for research purposes then the aristocrats will protest if such a relation has not been researched by a "suitable authority". Only when a reformer/dynamic kinetist overcomes the aristocrats by force of will do you get new progress, because only at that point does a new method of conduct between the fields become normal and accepted.

For this reason alone I could see the use for a field of study that researched relational potentials betweeen groups. And I think Fs would be its exemplars. (and I should note, I mean hard data studies between groups that now exist, as opposed to strictly theoretic modeling.)

...I think of myself as right now hovering between levels 6 and 7... and trying to move toward 8. I have some level of confidence my research (transcendence theory, dual-type theory, aspect theory) can succeed in moving most of society firmly into 7... if only I can make people aware of and understanding of it. People need to understand that the "ordinary" is not at all ordinary.

[machintruc]

is this coincidence ?

Graves said that for those levels, Thinking is :

Level 3 CP (RED) - egocentric
Level 4 DQ (BLUE) - absolutistic
Level 5 ER (ORANGE) - multiplistic
Level 6 FS (GREEN) - relativistic

Let's suppose :

+ simple
- multiple
E absolute
I relative

Thinking channel is :

Level 3 : + relative simple
Level 4 : + absolute simple
Level 5 : - absolute multiple
Level 6 : - relative multiple