The static-character research is typically
based on a definition of personality comprising five features, called
the five-factor model, including openness to experience,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
While
these factors are important to a person's character, Dweck argues they
aren't the definitive word, and results generated from the model could
be missing subtle, yet critical, aspects of personality. She will
present her research this week at an annual meeting of the Association
for Psychological Science in Washington, D.C.
"My
point is that there's a really big in-between area that they don't talk
about, and these are the crucial beliefs that people develop as they
grow and learn," Dweck told LiveScience in a telephone interview.
From the always must-read Integral Options. Bill is simply a monster (in a good way), both physically and in terms of his prodigious blog output, as well as his constantly valuable speedlinking.
The rest of us simply are not worthy. But I'm cool with that.
“The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?’ ”
This meshes of course, with Integral Practice. Once Google - or I-Google, the individualized version for me - has enough information about me - I can use google's handy little search box to ask:
a. What type of exercise is right for my body? (google will already have my DNA, height, weight, and medical history). b. What diet is right for me? (same as above) c. What job should I have? (google will already have, and be able to produce an analysis on, both my interests and my skills. In fact, I can hardly wait for "google portfolio"!) d. What spiritual path is right for me? (Google will have again, my interests, a fairly detailed psychological profile, with my various psychological types, whether I'm more of a mind or body person. e. Who should I marry? (Google will have a much cooler and complicated algorhythm to match me up with others whose profiles will be compatible. It will blow match.com out of the water! And then of course, will manage the introductions, through Google Twitter or Google Jabber.) f. What volunteering should I do? (Again, based on where I am, my psychological profile, and where I live, my social networks, this will be easy to calculate).
The Assault on Reason will be hailed and condemned as Gore's return to political combat. But at heart, it is a patient, meticulous examination of how the participatory democracy envisioned by our founders has gone awry—how the American marketplace of ideas has gradually devolved into a home-shopping network of 30-second ads and mall-tested phrases, a huckster's paradise that sells simulated participation to a public that has all but lost the ability to engage. Gore builds his argument from deep drafts of political and social history and trenchant bits of information theory, media criticism, computer science and neurobiology, and reading him is by turns exhausting and exhilarating. One moment he is lecturing you about something you think you know pretty well, and the next moment he's making a connection you had never considered. The associative leaps are dazzling, but what will stoke the Democratic faithful are his successive chapters on the Iraq war, each one strafing the Administration for a different set of misdeeds: exploiting the politics of fear, misusing the politics of faith, misleading the American people, throwing out the checks and balances at the heart of our democracy, undermining the national security and degrading the nation's image in the world. For anyone who stepped into the Oval Office now and tried to end the war, he says, "it would be like grabbing the wheel of a car that's in mid-skid. You're just trying to work the wheel to see what pulls you out of it." But the mess we're in can't be blamed solely on the President or the Vice President or the post-9/11 distortion field that muzzled the media, immobilized Congress and magnified Executive power. "I think this started before 9/11, and I think it's continued long after the penumbra of 9/11 became less dominant," he says. "I think it is part of a larger shift driven by powerful forces"—print giving way to television as our dominant medium for examining ideas, television acting on our brains in ways that scientists are just beginning to unlock. As such, it's not the sort of problem that legislation is going to fix. Gore hopes that the Internet, which is so good at inviting people back into the conversation, will be the key to restoring American democracy. "It's going to take time," he says. "After all, we've been veering off course for a while."
Now first off, I'm going to buy the new Gore book, An assault on reason - but take the paragraph above DESCRIBING Gore's book, and compare it to the shallow analysis given by Wilber above. (And again, I'll have more on this later.)
Which sounds deeper, more true, more resonant, more attendant to the facts as they are happening, not generalizations that fit a theory?
a. Ken can't seem to write "lingo" very well. Very stilted, cardboard, and silly, all of the people, and all of the dialogue between people. b. The bringing in of integral theory, seems to be acting as a sort of deus ex machina. The concepts and explanations are brought in, but aren't actually hooked up with any real time practicalities. c. Left and right are reduced to generalities that are basically content free. This is then expanded into the typical integral rap - levels and lines, etc. But nothing really to sink one's teeth into, outside of the integral concepts.
For example, there is exactly ONE reference to power, almost as an aside, when referencing Nietzsche.
Probably the only reference to any current situation (and I'm skimming now) is this quote: "The single greatest problem was stated this way. When green attacks orange, amber wins. And believe me, amber is winning, just ask Karl Rove. Despite a democratic victory here or there, the ranks of voters have downshifted towards amber, unmistakably and strongly. All of this thanks to the likes of green Harvard, which has finally succeeded in deconstructing it's own deconstructionists."
Umm...Harvard? That's the problem? That caused Karl Rove?
There's quite a lot of undisciplined thinking in this piece, that I've read so far. Really, you get better analysis at the smarter liberal and conservative blogs, frankly.
I hate to say it, but this type of piece is nothing so much as...silly. I don't even find much to be outraged about, as the piece is so clearly lacking in any substantive content, it could have been written by a particularly bright, 1st year political science student, exploring integral concepts.
I'm again skimming (this is realtime, I'm reading then writing), and it looks to get a little better towards the end. A few more distinctions brought in, that are useful. What do other people think of this piece?
What can be done when the highest officials in the land, treat respecting and obeying the law, as only one option among many?
There have been lots of ways that the Bush administration has gone "beyond" the law. But this most recent one, involving the former Deputy Attorney General, perhaps should not be a shock, but still somehow is.
Last year, when all the crazy-ness around Ken Wilber's Wyatt Earpy posts began, I had been looking for the criteria checklist for "cultish" behavior. I had found one checklist, and blogged on that, but I knew there was one out there that was more comprehensive. (It's clear that ANY checklist would have some points, as organizations have analogous interests, such as a cause, or getting new members, etc. Where is gets dangerous is if nearly every item on the checklist test, is "yes". )
Today, quite by accident, I ran into it the checklist. So I thought it would be interesting to go through each check box, one at a time:
1, The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its
leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology,
and practices as the Truth, as law.
Well, certainly SOME people feel this way about Ken Wilber. But in my estimation, not many. Since this a on/off judgment call, I'm going with "no".
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
This one isn't even close - definite "no".
3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
While meditation is encouraged, as is the ILP, this is still a definite no.
4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
Umm...nope.
5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
There is definitely this going on, because, you know, integral is the highest form of being! . Given the terms of this checklist, I'll give this a "yes". Although, it must be said, most groups consider themselves on a "special mission".
6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
If the "us" is the 2nd tier, versus 1st tier, then yes. While I think, most of the time, in practice, people aren't evaluated as "1st tier" or "2nd Tier", the philosophy as such, DOES easily lead to an "us" versus "them" mentality. I'm going to go with "yes", but with caveats. Still counts as a yes though, for these purposes. 7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
This is true. While there is a new CEO, and a board, as was seen last year, Ken isn't really accountable to anyone - the power structure rests with him solely. It must be said, for any founder of a company, this is usually the case. It is the case for Anthony Robbins, or Chopra, or any single proprietor with employees. But still, this would be "yes", on the checklist.
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
No.
9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
You have a little bit of this, in the 1st tier/2nd tier distinction, but not enough for a "yes". No on the checklist.
10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
No, clearly not.
11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Isn't nearly EVERY group preoccupied with bringing in new members, from the democratic party, to the local rotary club? Not much evidence, but the checklist would be yes. Doesn't really prove anything though. "yes".
12. The group is preoccupied with making money.
Again, most groups are preoccupied with making enough money to function. In terms of an 'extraordinary' desire to make money - ponzi schemes or multi-level marketing, working on your friends - that would be a "no".
13.Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Nope.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
Nope.
15. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
No.
So - what's the total?
11 No's 4 Yes's.
Given the fact that at least 2 of the Yes's in question have caveats to them, I think we can clearly, unequivocally, and authoritatively say that, Integral Institute is in no shape, way or form, a cult. Just an organization, with an enthusiastic mission to spread one philosopher's views.
Now, as an alternative, if this same checklist were to be utilized for Andrew Cohen the Guru - my, my my, how quickly we get more yes's! Very quickly you find out that yes, Cohen as Guru groups are, organizationally, a cult.
If I created reality, this is what would be happening:
1. I'd have won at least two lotteries
2. I would be a linux expert/programming expert.
3. I would have started Zaadz - myself!
4. I would have the abs of Brad Pitt.
5. I'd live next to the Playboy mansion - and be invited to all the best parties.
6. George Bush woudl be a failed baseball commissioner, already forced to give up the job.
7. I would be on the Dalai Lama's top ten speed dial, and he would bunk at my place, when he was in town. 8. Not to mention, I'd be running an Integral Community Center. 9. I would be an excellent guitar player - I'd play once a week at my club, and Eddie, John McLaughlin, Jimmy, Stevie Ray, they'd all stop by occasionally to shoot the sh*t, compare notes. 10. I'd have visitied 200 countries. 11. Did I mention living next to the Playboy mansion?
(Okay, okay, that's 11. Some items are worth mentioning twice.)
And through automation, I’ve been able to cut 15 to 20 minute tasks
down to 60 seconds. It’s safe to say that I’ve caught the automation
bug. I find myself noticing the tasks I do everyday and asking myself
how can I automate this or at least reduce the steps to completion.
Another benefit to automation is creating a frictionless environment
in which to be productive. For example, I’ve always wanted to keep a
journal. But the way I chunked the process of keeping a journal was a
major de-motivator for me. If I was going to keep a journal, I had to
look at the time it would require and figure out what I was going to
give up. 15 minutes to an hour a day is a serious commitment. What did
I do? I scripted a journal with built in reminders. Now I don’t have to think about it. My journal just runs in the background.
Okay, I'm making Graham my personal integral productivity counselor. GTD plus integral. You think he will fly out to the U.S. for $60 integral coaching sessions?
Upon hearing some anecdote about the VA, we should always ask,
“Compared to what?” As a system, the VA outperforms the rest of the
health care sector by every conceivable metric, including wait times
and, of course, protection from catastrophic medical bills. And it is
more cost-effective: for every patient who switched from Medicare to
the VA, the taxpayers would save about one-half to two-thirds in
medical costs, while the patients themselves would receive demonstrably
higher-quality care. Step one on the road to true health reform should
be to allow all veterans on Medicare to use their entitlement for VA
care, and then gradually expand access to the VA model of care for all
Americans.
For one, he truly continues a level of self-depracation of what he does, that I find admirable. Two, his general analysis, say, of the Gonzales administration, is very right on. Three, regarding Virginia Tech - near the end of this interview with Bill Moyers, there is a segment showing Stewart interviewing Allawi, and commenting on the fact that, in Iraq, there is a Virginia Tech massacre, "every day". In that, this is similar to my thoughts on the subject.
I haven't written anything on Virginia Tech. The truth is, for, me, I've been, choosing, in a way, to hear about massacres for the last 4 years.
I have an RSS feed for Iraq Coalition Casualities. It brings all the updates to the "news" portion, on the right side. (The feed is down below).
As such, for the past 4 years, I've gotten messages of new bombings, mass graves, etc, filling up my Reader, on a daily basis.
And actually, within a week, the number of casualties in Iraq were 10 times the number of people killed due to violence, than were killed in the VA Tech massacre. And 11 american troops on Apirl 23rd.
Maybe I should stop receiving the feed?
I can't help but view this, as simply another tragedy, yes, horrible, and yes, deeply sad. I can't make it "bigger" than tragedies that happen across the globe, or more meaningful than those either.
In this sense, it seems I am clearly in the minority. Even in integral circles.
Nevertheless, that is what is noticed, from this perspective, and this pair of eyes.
I can fully understand this, as at some point, you simply deal with - as much as possible - any abusive tactics thrown at you by an abusive guru, step away from the PAST, and then continue on into the now.
Still, lots of gratitude for the exposure, to Hal and friends. A quote:
Three former editors of What Is Enlightenment? magazine, including myself, spoke out strongly here about the abuses in Andrew Cohen's community. Other close students have also put their names on the line to attest to what went wrong with the community's beautiful dream of creating heaven on earth. The woman who financed Cohen's Foxhollow EnlightenNext world center wrote about how he unfairly took advantage of her vulnerability and largesse. Numerous other students have also contributed here, both named and anonymous, shedding light on the authoritarian abuses around Cohen, their causes and their harmful effects. In contrast, not one specific or credible factual denial has emerged from Andrew or anyone associated with him about what has been reported here in great detail and depth. Instead, we have only heard the refrain that we have failed to include the "context," as if any overarching purpose could justify the abuses described here and the pain they caused. No cry of "context" could obscure the devastating truth that the participants in this blog have had the courage to reveal.
The number of individuals alone, involved for many many years, high up in the organization, speak the tale, not to mention previous exposes, such as Mother of God, and Enlightenment Blues. That much smoke, over more than a decade, it speaks for itself. (When your mother outs you as an abusive control freak, while at one time an enthusiastic supporter, that is really strong evidence.)
Hal hopes for a final exposure, but this isn't usually how this happens. Most of the time, there is no "final exposure" for a guru. The guru or other followers, modulate their tactics a bit (which has happened with Cohen in this case, after the outing by WhatEnlightenment, and that is to the good), but the charisma, speaking ability, writing skills, etc, that initially attracted people, still operates, and still continues to attract people. How many older cult leaders, and their cults, still exist? Quite a lot, even after exposure.
And so it goes.
My own interest remains is to not have Cohen's spirit and energy contaminate Integral Institute, or Zaadz, but clearly both these organizations have taken a neutral "I see nothing! I know nothing!" mentality regarding Cohen, and do the branding thing together. Luckily, Cohen is fairly easy to avoid on Zaadz.
It's been demonstrated to my satisfaction that What Is Enlightenment magazine, doesn't have independence from Cohen. No "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to WRITE it to the death" at What Is Enlightenment. As long as you know that, you are good to go.
And I had an "aha!" moment, in regards to one of my frustrations with how holistic/integral "products and services", seem to be continually re-inventing the wheel.
In various bodywork services, it seems, there is always a new naming - rolfing, heller, network, etc, etc - when it is pretty clear that the base of the services, is very similar, and builds on each other.
Same thing with various movements. People who are "following" a various movement, whatever that may be, constantly and continually "re-invent" the movement, with some small little advance, and then claim a revolution.
I think this can be cynically understood, by looking at the concpet of branding. There is no branding "cachet" in advancing massage, WITHIN massage. If you refine a movement, well, you may get a note at the college course, but no other credit goes to you.
This same thing happens with various meditations. You look at Tibetan Buddhism, and the vast realm of meditations practiced, still are UNDER the rubric of Tibetan Buddhism.
But people take those basic meditations, do a little song and dance change, and, presto-chango, they are the "originator" of an entirely new brand, with the books, tapes, videos, instructions, that come from that.
Sometimes I despair, around the label of "integral". For myself, I've been reflecting - and my integral interests flow in LIVING, and PRACTICING around the following themes:
Spiritual realization/non-dual Meditation Holistic living (right food, right exercise, right service) Right livelihood, productive and practical Heart-centered full embodiment (energetic, emotional, psychological) Creative interests
Is that "integral?" Is that "western Buddhism?" Is that "holistic"? Is that a "cultural creative"?
It could be any of the above, correct?
Also, that's pretty encompassing. Ken Wilber and theory is, perhaps, a philosophical framework for embracing the above LIVED qualities, but I would suggest that integral per se, is limiting. Integral is great, because that compartmentalization is absent - the body/mind/soul is embraced, but could be limiting as well, given that the philosophical framework is intimidating, and associated for better and for worse with one guy (Wilber).
Zaadz is, in a sense, the community activity around the above interests - I should interact there more, one would think!
At any rate, as a branding exercise - given the above interests, how would you describe the interests above? Integral, or something else?
An article about a new database online application, Coghead.
I'm specifically looking at how to create a web 2.0 assessments application, but the point of the article is summed up in this:
Coghead is playing in an important and new market. There are interesting competitors here, including online suite maker Zoho, the pure-play online database DabbleDB, and Intuit's venerable QuickBase. Coghead CEO Paul McNamara also sees SalesForce.com's AppExchange as a competitor. Startups are still coming into this space, too: I saw a new online database, MyWebDB, at the Web 2.0 Expo.
This type of functionality will make it easier to do things I'd like to do, and involve others in the process.
I've been traveling, and have had no access to the internet for about a week. Today's the first day I am in a room with internet access.
Lots of stuff to ponder, when you have been away from the internet for a week.
At any rate, one important note, that I've seen from Hokai, is that Daniel Ingram has put his book, Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, in blog format.
. Given the terms of this checklist, I'll give this a "yes". Although, it must be said, most groups consider themselves on a "special mission".