![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Ken Wilber Critique, Part 3
The Burden of Evidence
Throughout A Theory of Everything (and I’m only 40 pages in), Ken Wilber keeps referring to all the “evidence” that supports his system. Sometimes he even calls it “empirical evidence” in an attempt to dress it up and take it to town. If you actually examine what he’s talking about when he says evidence though, it doesn’t seem to hold up at all - at least not according to any definition I’ve ever heard.
On page 23, he’s talking about the dichotomy between pre- & post- conventional attitudes (which I’ll address separately) as they appeared in the hippy generation of the 60’s, the people who are now considered “baby-boomers”. The basis of his argument seems to be that you can rebellious in a good way or a bad way. A bad way is “pre-conventional” meaning simply egocentric resistance to authority. Or a good way is when you have transcended egotism and are “post-conventional.” Nevermind that these are words and not things - labels and not true states of mind. Wilber believes he has “hard evidence” for them, as some snippets from that page show:
But just as surely - and we have much empirical evidence for this - an alarmingly large chunk of that rebellious attitude has come from preconventional impulses that are having a great deal of difficulty making it up to conventional realities. […]
The classic case study is the Berkeley student protests of the late sixties (protesting the Vietnam war). The students claimed, in one voice, that they were acting from a position of higher morals. But when given actual tests of moral development, the vast majority scored at preconventional, not postconventional, levels. […]
The most fascinating item about such empirical studies is something that is often seen with “pre” and “post” situations - namely both pre-X and post-X are non-X […]
In the Berkeley protests, virtually all of the students claimed they were acting from universal moral principles […]. But tests showed unequivocally that only a minority were acting from postconventional moral principles; the majority were acting from preconventional egocentric drives. […]
It appears that in this case very high-minded moral ideals were used to support what were in fact much lower-minded impulses.
Wilber here has thrown up yet another classic smokescreen. While presenting you “evidence” he’s actually mixing you up in an argument about the relative worth of human motivations. You’re supposed to feel shocked that protestors who seem noble are actually egocentric preconventionalists. And if you feel that way, then you’ve swallowed his trick hook, line and sinker. You’ve accepted his conclusions uncritically while ignoring the actual “evidence” upon which they are supported.
Wilber’s idea of evidence for his theory consists of what he describes as an “empirical study” at Berkeley. But let’s look at that study. What it consisted of was administering a “morality test” to a cross-section of a larger group. First of all, what the hell is a morality test? Who designed it? Who administered it? Can we see what kinds of questions were on it? The 1960’s idea of morality coming from an institutional test, however high-minded, is necessarily going to be drastically different from what many of us would consider moral by today’s standards. Remember that in the early part of the 60’s, the inferior status of both blacks and women was commonly accepted. We simply can’t accept this as evidence on that ground alone. Nevermind the fact that a morality test in an institutionalized setting will never even come close to duplicating the ethical decisions that a person makes in the real world on an every day basis. Strike two. Further, these tests seem to indicate a difference between pre- and postconventional behavior and motivation. But who says that is a valid theory? I certainly don’t see it as one. And more importantly, it’s just a theory; it’s not reality. No theory, however good, will ever be reality. A theory does also not constitute empirical evidence. You can’t support a theory with another theory which is also based upon theory and claim to be rooted in evidence. Strike three.
Again, this is not an isolated case in the book. Wilber frequently suggests that “the evidence supports” or “studies have shown” that his ideas are somehow accurate. So far, he has not provided a single solid bit of evidence or anything close to an empirical study. I’m not trying to say this invalidates his work altogether, but I do see it as a big stumbling block. If your theory is based on evidence, then show me evidence that will stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. And if it’s not based on evidence, then stop suggesting that it is.
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 5
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 7
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 4
- Ken Wilber Critique, Part 8
- Moral Relativism
- Prev: Ken Wilber Critique, Part 2
- Next: Sagan on Skepticism
July 18th, 2005 at 5:28 pm
I think you’re partly right here, partly a little unfair. I’d say that Wilber is addressing “those in the know” in the scientific fields of psychology, sociology, neuroscience, even psychodynamics (if allowed), etc. The evidence in those fields is massive and it does support his main thesis on pre- and post-conventional morality.
I find useful the 4 stages formulation of M. Scott Peck (”The Different Drum”) via James W. Fowler (”Stages of Faith : The Psychology of Human Development”), which are:
* Stage I: Chaotic, antisocial (=pre-conventional)
* Stage II: Formal, institutional (=conventional)
* Stage III: Skeptic, individual (=post-conventional)
* Stage IV: Mystic, communal (beyond frameworks)
See, for example: A Holistic Model for Assessment of Spiritual Maturity
I find it useful to use this framework but then discard it, so to speak. As you know, I like to see individuals as containing all those stages within them with their energies being at different levels on different issues. I also see great value in returning to Stage I, again and again, essentially the “child within”. There is always a sense in which person A is “superior” (on a higher stage) than person B and vice versa. However, when taking it all into account (something that only God can do), person A is actually no higher or lower than person B. Well, I’m not being God taking it all into account here, lol. I’m just saying that this should be treated as the case because none of us is in a position to clearly judge otherwise.
And I guess this is pretty close to what you’re trying to say yourself. (Not to mention Jesus according to John 8:7.)
July 18th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Arizona, you always have great comments and I’m happy that you put up with my sometimes-shenanigans to leave them.
I still sort of disagree that there is any evidence to support pre/post-conventionality. It just doesn’t seem to me to be something that can be backed up by what might be classified as “scientific” evidence (which I know I’ve lambasted elswhere).
I definitely agree that whenever you move into realms like this, you inadvertently introduce the burden of labelling one person as superior to another. You can either choose to cast aside the framework before or when that happens, or you can cling to the framework at all costs. I feel that Wilber’s work seems to do the latter much more often.
More importantly though, I still don’t quite see why we would necessarily *need* “A Holistic Model for Assessment of Spiritual Maturity”. What advantage does this give us to judge whether or not somebody fits into a model of spiritual maturity? What business do we even have of guaging somebody’s spiritual maturity in the first place? This seems to tread on the same thin ice that a lot of Christians get into when they are trying to intervene on the state of your soul.
July 18th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
I’m not neccisarily inclined to launch a full blown defence of wilber, partly becasue I’m outnumbered and partly cause I’m not sure I’d get anywhere.
I think it’s easy to walk into a body of work with preconceived notions and find lots of faults in it, regardless of who wrote it. I could find plenty of faults in wilber if i felt like it, but i’d preffer to find the usefull stuff and leave the rest.
What kind of suprises me is the genral tone of resitance to qualitative assesments of moral/ethical development. true, no one wants to be on the short end of that stick, but the fact is we make those distinctions all the time.
we all make calls on how honest, compassionate, openminded, or loving somone seems to be. it’s easy to see how egotistical, self centered, or arrogant someone is.
the sheer fact that everyone seems comfortable labeling wilber as an egocentric narcissist with delusions of granduer, only shows that those people are perfectly willing to rank people’s motivations or personal presentation in exactly the way wilber is accused of doing.
his hierarchies are based mostly on a consensus of developmental researchers like jane lovenger, or robert keegan which at least aspire to objectivity. ‘Our’s’ are based on whatever biases, peer group moods, or personal prejudices we feel alright laying claim to.
no one here hesitates to rank ‘egocentric’ or ‘ranking’ behavior as inferior to ‘humble’ or ‘non ranking’ behavior. it’s implicit in the critique. in order to critique you have to make some kind of qualitative judgement. everyone does it, so why is it a scandal when someone tries to draw a consensus around research into interior development?
July 18th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
Good questions Zac, and that’s precisely why I’ve tried to lay off my earlier attacks of calling Wilber names and trying to decide his level of spiritual development.
I’m trying my damnedest to find something in his work that is useful to me. That’s why I’m actually reading through it rather than just dismissing it out of hand, which I was admittedly doing before this. So far I haven’t found anything I personally can use in his work. Or rather, maybe this is it. Maybe me sharpening my knife against his ideas is the thing that’s useful to me. Who knows, maybe he’s right and I’m just acting out my egalitarian “green meme” fantasies against him who’s on some other magnificent spiritual plane of development. I’m willing to admit that as a possibility, even if I don’t feel it’s particularly likely.
PS. Why does everybody always back down from defending Wilber’s ideas? Seems to happen again and again and it makes me highly suspicious.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
maybe cause they can stand in thier own merits.. or not.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
I feel like it’s cause nobody can really pin-point (1) what the hell he’s saying, (2) why it’s important, (3) or what to do with it? Or at least those are my own hang-ups.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Yeah, his system sounds pretty circular to me. Change the language a bit and he’s saying “There are Wilberists and non-Wilberists, where Wilberist is defined as having test results that Wilber likes.” The problem is it’s difficult or impossible to find empirical evidence for value, and that seems to be what Wilber is trying to do.
Also, even if you were to grant everything he’s saying, it’s still the case that the Berkeley protests had political effects that I really like, so who cares about the motivations? “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
July 18th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
well okay.
1) he’s creating a framework that will incorporate the understandings of as many traditions, religions, worldviews, cultures and developmental levels as possible, because of 2) the long long long history of people apparently ‘misunderstanding’ each other. so that 3) people who might not otherwise be able to understand where someone else is coming from or what experiences they are describing, can use a shared framework and a common terminology that is as neutral as possible and honors as much diversity as possible, to communicate effectively.
he’s not trying to substitute his ideas for anything. he’s adding a translation mechanism on top of as much as he can fit underneath it.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
why do we need to be able to quantify a level of spiritual maturity? that`s a game rule of an insidious game of judgement. like wieghing a witch against a duck to see if she should be burned. it is the will to metrics that makes science a good and a bad thing. measuring, not unlike naming, stops the game. what game is ken trying to stop? he`s not the only one, by the way. he just happens to be the one we`re discussing now. criticism is the gateway to dialog which is the gateway to insight and breakthroughs unimaginable through consensus. i don`t know ken wilber except through his writing so any ad hominem comments are unwarranted, but he does seem, well, you know…………….lofty.
July 18th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
…and true, you cannot find empirical evidence for value, but you can find empirical evidence for commonalities in what people say and do in response to ‘value’
July 18th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Zac, those were useful talking points you outlined above. I appreciate it.
I do agree with Ran though - if the Berkeley protests had good effects, then what’s the point of retroactively analyzing and categorizing people’s motivations?
July 18th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Anyway, the reason I’m jumping up and down on Wilber is not that I think he’s a bad guy or that his work is invalid. It’s that he seems to represent the quintessence of applying systems-thinking to spirituality. This can be good or bad. It’s something I’ve struggled with a lot myself in the past, and something I’d like to find a way to leave behind. If I can’t leave it behind, I’d like to be able to put it into a form that works best for me. Going straight through the thick of things is the only way I can see to do that.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:50 am
well in the case of the berkley thing, i think he was trying to point out that at the core of a movement that expresed itself in terms of peace love and social justice were a lot of people who were mostly interested in turning society upside down and raising hell for it’s own sake, and not to any higher end except pissing off the mommy/daddy control structure.
incidentally, to the best of my knowledge there’s nothing in wilber about burning witches, or imposing systems thinking inappropriately, or denigrating or supressing a value system of any kind. to the best of my knowledge all he’s ever done was try to build bridges of understanding, and incorporating as much understanding into his personal framework as possible.
but anyway. bed time
July 19th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Rather than study Wilber, it would be more meaningful to study Dr Clare Graves whose Spiral Dynamics theory, Wilber has shamelessly reconstructed to suit his own agenda. jmho
July 19th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
So what’s wrong with that? If it’s truly a more “primitive” drive, then that must mean it’s closer to nature, because it takes less development to get there. And thus it’s more powerful, more useful, more energetic. The point was change
July 25th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
[…]
Ken Wilber Critique, Part 5
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 Good Question Actually, this isn’t really a crit […]
July 25th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
[…]
Ken Wilber Critique, Part 4
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 Buy My Other Books! Zac made some […]