Question (Jim Bower):
Would you agree that the Tier 1 value basins (Red, Blue, Orange, Green) are essentially hardwired into people at the individual level, similar to intrinsic motives?
And those value basin biases generally do not morph / change much over a life time. ???
This is very tricky for me.
What I mean is you might say that… and like sausage be ok, but here’s how I would say it back in the sausage-making room.
Values are not hardwired per se.
But our adherence to those core values are durable over time.
Values are emergent from hardwired motives, so there is plasticity in that, as say a person like me motivated by self-confidence (low acceptance), competitiveness (vengeance), self-reliance (low family), independence, novelty (low order), expedience (low honor), and romance (lust), sloth (low physical exercise), trailer-park (low status), insular (low social contact), controlling (power) and curiousr grows up in Mitchell, NEBRASKA or Madison, Wisconsin, or San Diego, California (birthplace), or Manila, Philippines, each place dominated by a different core vMEME.
Now, throw in, nodal blue depression-era grandparents for the first 3 years, and a Marine Corporal father on top.
Is there any doubt that the CP-RED core serves the young Mitchell Mike well, and is both reinforced and “civilized” through the bounded conditions?
Without a doubt.
But, were those values hardwired?
Which means that the claim by Spiral Dynamics(R) channeling of Graves (SGD) that it is the interaction between neurology and conditions, both really big catch-all terms, remains valid.
But the spiraling–while largely depicted in current reality as unfolding developmentally in a more hierarchically complex form mirrors those societies that were left largely undisturbed and uninfluenced directly through connectedness to other more advanced cultures–to include interbreeding.
Those cultures–like Graves Talisay (Philippines), as example–claimed to be isolated and was not spiraling into a more complex form; although more recent depictions of the “Talisay” questions the validity of that example.
I have to bring this into the picture because I have not found in my studies any culture that is not hybridized by influences to the neurology and conditions in individuals or the broader constitution of the culture.
Individuals, as well as culture have a memory, however in different forms, such that those memories become part of what’s durable.
[The reason that the SGD values basins remains relevant to me is supported through the idea of Jungian Archetypes, fyi. While not a direct fit, emergent forms show hybridization potential of the core algorithms in and among the basins, so fewer core basins are required to emerge more archetypes which are durable in and of themselves but still remain coherent to the core algorithms of those basins).]
Rather than unfolding more hierarchically complex, the development is a network of “core values basins” whose algorithmic value is that certain neurology tends to favor particular conditions and vice versa where fit is unlikely to produce anything but hybrids retaining the core values.
Said more simply, certain problems are best solved by certain solutions.
[While all problem solving leaves areas of unsolved problems and creates areas where new problems couldn’t have emerged without partial solutions, certain problems are more efficiently, effectively and sustainably solved in certain ways, and that combination is what makes things both durable and hybrid in and over time.]
I named these core values “attractor basins” to bring them into sync with the smaller and larger worlds of quantum mechanics.
I believe that Spiral Dynamics did a good job in encapsulating Graves Research and life-long work hence I refer to this System as Spiral Gravesian Dynamics and try to retain Graves Notation which is responsible for the emergent vMEMEs or “colors” used in Spiral Dynamics. (For the record, I hesitate to use SD acronym because SD actually belongs to System Dynamics which was evolving prior to Spiral Dynamics and my LeaderW@RE meta System uses both to explain largely why core values are emergent from core motives, and the values are not hardwired, although it takes yards of explaining to say that!
Depending on the “stocks and flows” of your hardwiring and the stocks and flows of conditions, the emergent values will hold varying density and frequency, which at times may color the veneers showing up as emergent from the core value system, especially in those who have fewer motives hardwired–less energy according to Reiss (IMPORTANT IMHO)–and find fit with high density and frequency with their feet in a single basin and no need to dance around between them.
One unasked question remains for the uninitiated to this ENTP party–yes both Mike and Jim are ENTPs and each “classic” but why is their behavior so different; vastly different–and that is the central question of “plasticity” or genetic guidance?
Or are type dynamics yet another doorway into BIAS DYNAMICS which has to be considered as a major player in plasticity or genetic guidance…in typical ENTP fashion?
Here’s a note that is helpful as I leave the reader to further dangle….
SGD identifies 8 core vMEMES which I refer to as “core values attractor basins” where power laws exist as a part of network dynamics.
While the first depicts the simple emergence of values according to the SGD generator as a hierarchically more complex system, the other (a graphic of the internet) depicts what is more likely the network dynamics that reflects a non-hierarchical, yet more complex view of emergent values.
If you step back from SGD and realize that the values hierarchy is generated by the algorithms that shaped it, you realize that it’s a small fit to a large reality and while it helps us grok certain aspects of reality, it precludes us from understanding the bigger picture in detail.
If we do the iron man holographic sequence with Jarvis we toss away most of that which doesn’t fit and reinterpret the mechanics to get a much larger fit.
So dump the values hierarchy except as a theoretical notion that as cultures become older they tend to integrate more and are forced to cooperate due to size.
In the individual this is not true at all because, as the original question pointed out, the 1st tier values seem hardwired, and for practical purposes might seem so.
Yet, what do we keep?
[Unlike Wilber, a close Beck Coordinator, who “rewrote” the System by adding and changing and moving the colors to avoid the Spiral Dynamics copyright, technically ok, but morally repugnant to avoid mention of the ideas he appropriated, I chose to recognize the decades of work that Wilber dodged–and it’s important to call out his action for the uninformed, lest time credit Wilber with anything original;).]
Let’s keep and acknowledge the 8 vMEMES and reconfigure them as attractor basins.
Now, let’s discuss tiers, to unpack the assumptions behind Jim’s Question and Mike’s Answer.
Graves indicated that the Tiers were 6×6 and that was:
So why did Jim just ask about four?
Graves noted a distinct difference in intelligence between BO-PURPLE and CP-RED and stated there was NO INTELLECTUAL DIFFERENCE AMONG THE REST, this included GT-YELLOW, according to my knowledge.
However, I have found there IS AN INTELLECTUAL DIFFERENCE suggested between the tiers and because we are “iron (man) ing” out the differences and evolution, and me being a big fan of DNA, it made intuitive sense to separate the tiers differently. While it might appear that the Gravesian Octaves did return with the ability to attract and replicate density and frequency from an earlier tier, it was muted, such that GT-YELLOW is a warm basin, where it’s precursor CP-RED (in my rendition) is hot at the core.
At the demarcations (this is VERY IMPORTANT) between Tiers, intelligence, or at the minimum; hierarchical complexity of some significant difference exists. If you have lived in cultures where the dominant core Values Attractor Basins (cVAB) were not yet Tier 1 (in the Jay Re-Interpretation), you will not argue.
As to the debatable difference between Tier 1 and 2 (some have overreached with Tier 3 designations, but their need for height shows how short they are, IMHO) lies a hardwired difference in fluid intelligence or Hierarchical Complexity (HC). (I’ll wait for the question to come.)
While I could continue to answer Jim’s question, let’s see if Jim reframes or clarifies his next question.
If anyone else has a question, it’s time to start the book.
Now you know why the Bible starts at the beginning;)
Ps: I have the format for the ValuDYNAMICS Book now and I was inspired by how easy it is to frame my thinking in response to inquiry and as the Krishnamuti Dialogues proved with Bohm and the Interviews with Nisargadatta Maharaj showed that this mode can be very beneficial as a narrative, and it works well for me, so what will be key will be really hard questions and those questions that follow from the answers I construct.
Obviously this opens a can of worms, but I’m feeling like there is soul in soil these days, as Dr. Manya predicted from my astrology:)