Here you can download the first Topic of my ongoing scoring training. It explicates how Homeostatic Hierarchical Integration (HHI) integrates basic dichotomies within conceptions of human development. Since it is a beta-training this is a partly unordered draft of this first lesson. You will learn about:
- Metaphysics of Morals within Developmental Psychology and Sociology;
- Different polar assumptions that guide the idea of human development;
- Integration of these polar assumptions within HHI including:
- the difference of media and form within development,
- the inner and outer being of human development,
- homeostasis, communication, and objective spirit,
- how natural theories, lines, and webs in development fit together,
- ideas of stage transition and neural layering,
- mystical types, state experiences, and development,
- the interplay of feeling awareness and cognition in transition,
- purification as anti-oscillation in development,
- different sets of polarities within anti-oscillation,
- object independence of development.
Please stay aware that the correlation of those stages I depict, though partly sounding like those depicted by Loevinger and Cook-Greuter, is not perfect but shows the same tendency of increased hierarchical complexity and integration. However, O`Fallon`s model seems to only partly correlate even at the earlier stages (e.g. conscientious, pluralist, autonomous). It seems that this is due to a generalized assessment – sometimes ago framed as unfolding along Wilber`s Quadrants – that seems highly prone towards misallocation, e.g. systems within a sentence completion, even if it would have been assessed at Conscientious/Achiever by Loevinger, leads to a score at 4.5 Autonomous/Strategist or an „it depends“ within a sentence completion assessed at Expert/Self-Aware by Loevinger makes it automatically 4.0 Pluralist irrespective of hierarchical complexity and integration. This might ease up the scoring procedure and makes the model appear simple within all its complexity but simultaneously, from my personal perspective, it seems to be a regression in our collective understanding of development in terms of metrics and measures, especially in regards to accuracy in distinguishing earlier from later compared to Loevinger, Cook-Greuter, Kohlberg, Kegan, Fischer/Dawson however, a highly creative advance on the side of ontogeny (the model aspect). Nevertheless, you can download an approximate stage correlation where O`Fallon is included as well.