Matt Goldenberg's Short Form Feed

I've had a similar conversation many times recently related to Kegan's levels of development and Constructive-developmental theory:

X: Okay, but isn't this just pseudoscience like Myers-Briggs?

Me: No, there's been a lot of scientific research into constructive-developmental theory.

X: Yeah, but does it have strong inter-rater reliablity?

Me: Yes, it has both strong inter-rater reliablity and test retest reliablity. In addition, it has strong correlation with other measures of adult development that themselves have a strong evidence base.

X... (read more)

Showing 3 of 18 replies (Click to show all)
2Said Achmiz5moFair enough. Assuming that’s the case, then anyone proposing to defend that particular theory is exempt from that particular question.
3mr-hire5moJust in case it isn't clear, constructive-developmental theory and "kegan's levels of development" are two names for the same thing.

Ah, my mistake.

However, in that case I don’t really understand what you mean. But, in any case, the rest of my original comment stands.

I look forward to any such detailed commentary on the fact-based motivation for any sort of developmental theory, from anyone who feels up to the task of providing such.

Matt Goldenberg's Short Form Feed

by mr-hire 1 min read21st Jun 2019110 comments


Where I write up some small ideas that I've been happening that may eventually become their own top level posts. I'll start populating with a few ideas I've posted up as twitter/Facebook thoughts.