Spiral dynamics seems another Maslow's pyramid for neurotypical individuals, but covered into evolutionism. I think, main problems with it are:
1. What is "definition of done" for each level of compl...
I'm glad you found it interesting to give a look! I'm not sure whether I understood your post correctly though, because I didn't perceive problems you've mentioned as conflicts with SD.
> Spiral dynamics seems another Maslow's pyramid for neurotypical individuals
Kind of, not exactly. There's some similarity with Maslow's work, however it focuses on a different thing: it attempts to answer why people behave in certain ways (vs what's the best way to prioritize needs satisfaction in order to live a sustainable life).
It attempts to model the common progression of values development but not for individuals with significant psychiatric conditions (probably not that useful in case of schizophrenia; my limited understanding that there's indeed still divergence of the model in case of autism but with different magnitude, still usable).
> What if previous "levels" is developed for more after new level reaches its local maxima?
It's possible, it's the way it is. The development is described as non-linear: we don't discretely jump to the next levels; multiple of them keep maturing in parallel. They are constrained by distinct phases though: full maturing of level is possible when previous levels also have finished this cycle (up to the exiting phase).
> What is "definition of done" for each level of complexity until it can leverage to new level of complexity?
If you're curious it's defined in some detail for each level for instance in "Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change" (1996, Don Beck, Christopher Cowan); see "Exiting Phase" for each level/value system/vMEME.
> Worldview complexity is not cognitive and functional complexities. The former may be ahead of the latter and vice versa.
Most likely I'm hallucinating. Do you mean that SD attempts to describe anything in relation to cognitive development? If yes—it doesn't attempt to do that. One indeed can be cognitively complex enough (to design spacecrafts for example) but still live from very simple values (merge with some Pirahã-like tribe and live according to what they value for example). And, rarely, vice versa too (one can invest into Bitcoin/Nostr-like projects and still not have a clue what they're actually doing, what impact on systems is that really).
This is the most confusing thing in psychological development though IMO. Most likely cognitive development constrains other lines of development in some way (you can't really do moral enough things if you don't understand the consequences of your actions). Still one can compensate to some degree cognitive development, for instance with high interpersonal development (just have relationships with highly developed people and mimic their, for instance, moral standards).
> Spiral dynamics seems another Maslow's pyramid for neurotypical individuals
Kind of, not exactly. There's some similarity with Maslow's work, however it focuses on a different thing: it attempts to answer why people behave in certain ways (vs what's the best way to prioritize needs satisfaction in order to live a sustainable life).
It attempts to model the common progression of values development but not for individuals with significant psychiatric conditions (probably not that useful in case of schizophrenia; my limited understanding that there's indeed still divergence of the model in case of autism but with different magnitude, still usable).
> What if previous "levels" is developed for more after new level reaches its local maxima?
It's possible, it's the way it is. The development is described as non-linear: we don't discretely jump to the next levels; multiple of them keep maturing in parallel. They are constrained by distinct phases though: full maturing of level is possible when previous levels also have finished this cycle (up to the exiting phase).
> What is "definition of done" for each level of complexity until it can leverage to new level of complexity?
If you're curious it's defined in some detail for each level for instance in "Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change" (1996, Don Beck, Christopher Cowan); see "Exiting Phase" for each level/value system/vMEME.
> Worldview complexity is not cognitive and functional complexities. The former may be ahead of the latter and vice versa.
Most likely I'm hallucinating. Do you mean that SD attempts to describe anything in relation to cognitive development? If yes—it doesn't attempt to do that. One indeed can be cognitively complex enough (to design spacecrafts for example) but still live from very simple values (merge with some Pirahã-like tribe and live according to what they value for example). And, rarely, vice versa too (one can invest into Bitcoin/Nostr-like projects and still not have a clue what they're actually doing, what impact on systems is that really).
This is the most confusing thing in psychological development though IMO. Most likely cognitive development constrains other lines of development in some way (you can't really do moral enough things if you don't understand the consequences of your actions). Still one can compensate to some degree cognitive development, for instance with high interpersonal development (just have relationships with highly developed people and mimic their, for instance, moral standards).
2