What is Spiral Dynamics^®?

     Spiral Dynamics (SD) is a way of looking at different ways people think and then building systems which better match who we are and who we are likely to become, as individuals, organizations, and even societies. It is applicable in personal growth and coaching, organization development and leadership training, strategy and culture studies, social transformation, and many other domains and scales. Also called Levels of Existence theory, this point of view rooted in the psychology of human development seeks to differentiate how people think and value, then to connect them better with organization forms, educational methods, leadership models, governance approaches, and motivational packages which are congruent with who they are and will be. 

      SD is both a simplification and popular application of Dr. Clare W. Graves's remarkable 'emergent cyclical double-helix model of adult biopsychosocial systems development - 'Levels of Existence Theory' (EC) for short. SD is useful, therefore, because it forms a bridge across lines separating disciplines and knowledge sets to connect many ways of knowing and for exploring the 'dark matter' of the brain. It is both broadly accessible and eminently practical with just a bit of effort. (For a brief introduction and overview, click here)

     The work is rooted in systems theory and developmental psychology, and concentrates on the quest to describe the mature adult personality (audio) in operation with all its permutations, manifestations, positive and negative traits. Graves's very descriptive label, "biopsychosocial systems," suggests the imperative to integrate the bio- (biology, genetics, neurosciences) with the psychological factors and the sociocultural forces acting on people, all within a General Systems-oriented view. One reason good intentions often collapse in failure is that all these elements are not incorporated into the solutions and addressed simultaneously, a gap now beginning to close in the study of the mind and brain.  

      SD is a map to the nature of human natures drawn atop Graves's foundation. Thus, it has been called a "psychological map." It is also point of view and a way of thinking which provides a way to chart differences in leadership, learning, management, social structures, economics, and virtually every other area where human thinking has an impact. That's saying a lot because the perspective offers a broad view of who we are and who we might become as Homo sapiens moves through psychosocial space. 

      The "Spiral" part depicts how people develop diverse worldviews and the characteristics of those; it is a metaphor for the double-helix form used by the scholar on whose work SD is based, Dr. Clare Graves. It represents the building of new systems upon previous states through the interaction of the world outside with neurology inside while shifting focus between the inner self and the world outside. The "Dynamics" side explores the process of emergence and how living systems evolve, grow, and change. In this view, neither maturity nor human nature is fixed nor predetermined. SD is thus concerned with why we cooperate, collaborate, and conflict over differences in values and in the underlying Value Systems that shape them. It concentrates on human thinking systems - deep valuing structures - instead of the contents - the surface attitudes, values, and beliefs - which occupy them. 

     Those who really understand this model - and that's not all the people who claim expertise since urban legends about this work abound - recognize that it is not a typology, a stairway to godliness, a religion, a weapon, a cult, a panacea, a way of life, a hierarchy of intellectual capital, or a pedestal from which elitists can look down on the rest of us. Instead, it's a theory of how people frame the reality they experience; i.e., how people sense their worlds and build mental models, why they choose to do what they do from a set of distinct 'logics,' and what we can do because of that diversity of systems to deal with each other better. It seeks compassion and integration without dismissing differentiation, recognizing both strengths and weaknesses throughout. One thing we've discovered is that saying such things is sometimes framed as blasphemy and heresy by those devoted to the quest for true beliefs and gurus to lead them to salvation. (See the .pdf SD mini-course or the Spanish version, as well as the online brochure.)

      We (Cowan & Todorovic) are sometimes characterized as the Gravesian 'purists' because we insist on accuracy when talking about what Dr. Graves wrote and said. For some people, that's a pejorative and they use 'purist' as a put-down to suggest stuck in the past and unwilling to bend, as if we, too, are guru worshippers. With that we strongly disagree and propose its simply good and responsible scholarship. We fully recognize that Graves is only one contributor among many who have built our understanding of human nature. He makes that abundantly clear in his own work, the Never Ending Quest. But just as it is important to understand what James, Freud, Jung, Watson, Horney, Erikson, Piaget, or any of the other greats proposed before claiming expertise and then spinning off from it, we suggest that there is a lot in Gravesian theory which needs to recognized and tested before positioning one's self as a Gravesian authority. Because we're convinced his work is a significant contribution, we believe that people should know Graves's work first-hand and pretty well before either revering or dismissing it.

      Our aim here is to build a solid base with Graves and then to promote verification, expansion and further refinement of the point of view - to test it and see what's next in conjunction with many sources of knowing that reach far beyond his ground-breaking work. We would not provide as much information here, in our publications, and on our www.clarewgraves.com website if it were otherwise. Yet as we say, Graves is but one contributor to the evolution of psychological understanding. Our purism comes from an insistence that growth in this theory, when flying its flag, be from a solid and accurate footing and not one build on rumors, conjecture, or assumptions rooted more in projections, marketing, simplistic politics, and wishful thinking than rigorous investigation. If the work proves to be full of holes and the theory doesn't work, let's prove it. Clare Graves often said he was climbing out onto a fragile limb as he dropped this seed. On the other hand, if it does offer explanatory power and stands up, then let's build on that with integrity and precision instead of wild guesses and hype. In either case, having a common footing and agreed starting place is the best way to do that. So, perhaps, purists we be if that means respecting the work and then seeking to investigate it further.

     The SD application of Graves is conceptually rich, and many other useful theories, models, knowledge sets, and techniques can be sorted through its lens to better match therapists with clients, teachers and students, managers and employees, governance and governed, investigators with topics. Likewise, SD can be adopted to complement other ways of knowing, ranging from strategic approaches to personal growth. By using SD tools, business people can understand organizational culture with more finesse. Coaches can better work with clients in transition and maximize those at stability. Educators can design learning which makes better sense with more relevance to learners. Parents and their children can begin to recognize each others' needs and viewpoints. Managers can address human factors dilemmas because SD describes them in a language that reaches far beyond the usual demographics. Marketers can improve communications, and health care can reach patients more effectively. Religious leaders can tailor their efforts to serve a range of groups simultaneously, and the average person can find comfort in what sometimes feels like an incomprehensible world. Why? Because SD grants human beings the right to be who they are, a window to see how they might be, and a map to find where others are.

     SD is a way of thinking and making connections which, while not new or revolutionary in many respects, cumulatively gives more explanatory power than practically anything else by providing a means to pull lots of information and insight together and then to focus it. SD is not merely a color code of categories (see below) or a set of labels for behavior. It is, instead, a complex and, we believe, highly enriching way of thinking about things if the principles are understood and applied - a way of exploring human nature. It is not, however, a way of life, a path to follow toward enlightenment, or a club whose adherents conform to some set of standards or beliefs. It is a theory about how the human being emerges, stabilizes, and changes as an individual, an organization, and a species; all sorts of people find it interesting and of use and it can be accessed by almost anyone though the theory predicts that not everyone will grasp the whole of it. 

     Lastly, Spiral Dynamics® is a registered trademark of the National Values Center, Inc., and protected by international treaty; it is the title of the 1996 book which laid the groundwork for this (Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change, Blackwell Publishers); a brand for an application of Gravesian theory which has certain protections under law and decency; and a body of intellectual property (IP) including quite a lot of copyrighted and proprietary materials which we are obliged to protect to the best of our ability. Duplicating those items or copying pages from this site and reproducing them without authorization, and especially if copyright and authorship are removed or replaced with someone else's for use on their websites or handouts in courses, is reprehensible. Just because something is made available for public viewing does not mean it is in the public domain. 

      Many people fly the SD flag these days, some honorably and some not. We simply ask that they recognize the source; acknowledge all the owners and creators, not just their personal gurus; and abide by the normal conventions of trademark, copyrights, and permissions to reproduce materials since to do otherwise is a violation of both ethics and international law.

Is Spiral Dynamics^® about waves or particles?

     Both. There are two ways to approach this theory. One views the emergent systems like overlapping waves that roll across the shifting sands of human nature - waves arrive in a series. Each comes in gradually, breaks mightily, and then folds back to become part of the next surge. There is overlap, mixing, and interaction with as much emphasis given to reading the transitions as riding the peaks of the curves. The foaming waters of new thinking cause our world to be different; we become different and change our world.. In this view, the transitional states are apparent in the waves as they rise and fall. Graphics appropriate to this framing show overlapping curves, blended stacks, and multi-layered sequences as the point of centralization slides among a hierarchy of systems in a sequential flow. There is a certain fuzziness to this approach which is discomforting to those who demand precision, and which is reassuring to those who are uncomfortable with absolutes and categories. It does suggest a sequence, however, which is discomforting to those with a distaste for hierarchy.

     The other approach treats Graves's levels of psychological existence (or SD's ^vMemes) more like discrete particles with lives - almost consciousness - of their own. They all potentially exist at the same time. Closer to the memeticists' view of how ideas migrate, in this view the systems exist as quasi-independent entities which arrive and depart from human awareness as conditions change. (One reason quantum physics language is popular in discussing SD.) One can speak of the arrival of a ^vMeme, their brightenings and dimmings, and even how they can compete for prominence on the mindscape. In this approach, the ^vMeme is the focus with the person functioning more like a host. The idea of tracking ^vMeme migrations and monitoring their emergence fits this school. Graphics typical of this framing involve stacks of blobs, proportional onions, and even stair steps. Whereas the wave-like view is more of an emergent process with a prescribed hierarchy for the arriving waves but without guarantees of timing or details, this viewpoint allows discussions to center around proportions of ^vMemes, various combinations that disregard the sequence, and even talk of "skipping" a level to take short-cuts. (We disagree with much of this because it simply doesn't reflect Graves/SD theory which, like it or not, does describe a hierarchy of increasingly complex systems.)

    This dualistic nature of the model is sometimes confusing; yet it needn't be unless one takes either view as an extreme position. Much of Dr. Graves own original writing was more particle-like because it is far easier to be descriptive and concise when speaking of levels (and sub-levels) one-at-a-time. Indeed, most of the theories to which he compared his work involved stages and developmental sequences. That sometimes leads to such categorical language as: "4's do thus...," "an Orange would...," or "if an F-S personality were in charge, it would...", though phrases like "a person centralized in her E-R would tend to..." and "when the person is moving from C-P toward D-Q..." are more apt.

     Yet many of his graphics were efforts to depict the wave-like nature of human nature and how these "ways of thinking about a thing" do not represent all-encompassing typologies for people, but describe the level of thinking regards a given aspect of living as it relates to other aspects. Had computer graphics been available in his day, no doubt his illustrations would have been 3-D or holograms. The Spiral Dynamics book leans toward the particle view in some places, toward the wave-like in others. Readers/users simply need to be comfortable with both and recognize that they do, in fact, overlap.

Where did the colors in Spiral Dynamics^® come from?

1 BEIGE (A-N)   2 PURPLE (B-O)   3 RED (C-P)   4 BLUE (D-Q)   5 ORANGE (E-R)   6 GREEN (F-S)   7 YELLOW (G-T)   8 TURQUOISE (H-U)

     First of all, Dr. Clare W. Graves (upon whose work Spiral Dynamics is based - see our www.clarewgraves.com website for some original papers and books) didn't use the colors. Instead, Graves generally relied on his original letter-pairs, as well as numbers and names on occasion. The color scheme was applied to Dr. Graves's levels of existence in the 1970's by Chris Cowan for making title slides for use in teaching the theory. The particular color choices were made as a design element to make harsh black-and-white graphics more attractive and took about 15 minutes one afternoon - nothing esoteric, metaphysical, or inspirational about the process. It was as much for ease in sorting training materials as anything else, then turned into a common language when included as part of the publication of the Spiral Dynamics book by Beck and Cowan in 1996 because the letters seemed too complicated for the intended audience for that book which was expected to be more business-oriented. While there was a loose metaphor behind the color choices, there was certainly no metaphysical significance intended, nor was it derived from chakras or anything else (see below). The ordering was deliberately picked to differ from the visible light spectrum, though we've received complaints now and then from literal-minded folks asking if we can't recognize a rainbow when we see one, and why we don't revise the color scheme to 'fit' nature better. 

     The color code has taken on a life of its own, sometimes to the detriment of the model since it makes discussion of the transition states almost impossible. While one can now specify Windows colors in hexadecimal notation to represent subtler shades, that's going a bit far. The Gravesian letter pairs - admittedly somewhat tedious to learn at the outset - offer far more power with differentiations like CP/dq versus DQ/cp possible. Those who fall into the trap of "color-speak" jargon and then use it like a judgmental paint ball gun to attack or compliment foes and friends simply do not understand the theory very well. While it has become a lingua franca for some spin-off movements and spread widely by some unscrupulous knock-off artists who sell typology, we do not put much store in the colors and continue to emphasize with the letter-pair terminology which is closer to Gravesian roots than the pop-spirituality derivatives which prefer the chromatic labels. Click here for more details. 

      We are coming close to relegating the colors to describing stereotypical sets of values and behaviors and using the letter-pairs to describe the levels of existence within which they arise. Many of the growing number of SD fans fail to grasp (and have not been taught) the difference between content and process (see thema and schema). Thus, a good test of SD expertise is to listen for the person to differentiate between exploring how people come to assign value and describing what they value. Most can do the latter. Few concentrate on the former, and that is where the theory lives. 

Are the colors linked to the chakras or any other spectral pattern?

     No, only by coincidence. Nor is there a connection with color therapy or the seven rays of esoteric psychology. (Click here for a tongue-in-cheek narration of how the color code came about.) We wish we could claim some kind of mystical inspiration for the choices, but they were merely obvious metaphors suggesting aspects of the levels they represent. No colors have been assigned for nodal systems beyond Turquoise and Coral, though Teal and Aubergine are candidates, and Azure and Plum have a certain appeal, too. Recently, 'white' has become a candidate for the final, end state which, of course, does not exist within the Gravesian perspective even though it's the dream of many of the transpersonal and neo-spiritual set.

      Mix the colors of light and the result is white. (Mix dogs and they come out brown.) Thus appears a presupposition that 'white' must be some kind of transcendental, godlike state of whatever, just as the 'eventual' dog of dogs would be a brown mutt. That's tied to one of the misinterpretations of A'N' (Yellow) - that it's just a blending of all the systems and suddenly all things come clear once it's awakened. This is also part of the un-Gravesian notion of a finish and the need for a penultimate end state rather than a series of ongoing next levels. This if often a point of confusion when Graves's seventh level is equated with Abraham Maslow's 'self-acutalized' man. While Maslow was in search of a complete being who could capture peak experience and find an ultimate fulfillment only a step or so ahead, the Gravesian theory posits the need for completeness in a religious sense as characteristic of fourth level man who looks for salvation, and in the less religion-bounded quest for transcendence as a liberated being as a phenomenon of the fifth level in transition to the sixth. Because this point of view is open-ended, self-actualization is only another in the series of steps, the final destination of which is unknown and unknowable. (See Oct/Nov newsletter .pdf for more) 

     The colors are only a metaphor and symbolic code to make conversation easier. They were introduced for graphics to make training materials more attractive and have very limited relationship to Dr. Graves's work; he only used them in a few joint seminars as a courtesy (because slides onscreen were tinted) and stuck, for the most part, with the letter pair language. 

     If the cyclical pattern in the theory holds, then future color choices will require the alternation between the cool and warm families with swinging emphasis between the collective and the individual, a tendency to deny (sacrifice) self in favor of the group over to express self and self-interest apart from the group, i.e., the 'sacrificial' and 'expressive' systems. (Graves hypothesized this might also relate to brain hemisphere dominance. See NEQ.) The cool colors represent a more externalized locus of control (reinforcement generally expected from something outside of and beyond control of the self) with an inward-looking focus on coming to peace with self, others, and the universe - sacrificialness;  the warm colors would have more of an internal locus of control (reinforcement resulting from own efforts and decisions within the self) and a concurrent  focus outward to mastery and control of the external world - expressiveness. As that distinction softens, so might the tones since none of these distinctions are hard-edged. (See Julian Rotter's Social Learning Theory for more on locus of control.)

     Some people try to relate colors to consciousness and to create a spectrum in the visible light range as either a metaphor or a literal reflection of mind. (Frequency and consciousness are likely to be related, and frequency-speak has been popular for decades since the universe and our being ride on the electromagnetic spectrum.) While such pursuits in the visible range are interesting and entertaining as art, metaphor, and poetry, we remain skeptical that a particular wavelength in nanometers or a certain frequency in Hertz (single to tera- or greater) has much more to do with a mindscape than a set of letters or a number - or a dog. Perhaps energies of different frequencies do have an effect on the brain, as illustrated with the color temperature and frequency of ambient lighting as a mood setter in restaurants - dining or fast food? And perhaps the brain/mind complex vibrates in some very curious ways we don't yet understand in the realm of spirit. (See the work of Valerie Hunt and many others.) But trying to tie that to what the retina can perceive and then equating that with Gravesian levels strikes us, at this point, as rather silly and giving far more power to a  rather primitive eye which still produces an upside-down image that the brain must sort out than is its due. Thus, our attention to the assorted rainbow warriors out to prove that the paint chips of consciousness carry huge meaning and significance is limited, though any good science (not channeling or conjecture) would be welcome. Who knows for sure: perhaps 470nm really is the wavelength of DQ, and the frequency of A'N' is 510THz, and Greens at 500nm are different characters from those at 570; but we very seriously doubt it. 

What do the pairs of letters (A-N, B-O, C-P, etc.) mean and how do they relate to the colors? 

     The letter pairs were Dr. Graves's original terminology; colors were added for Spiral Dynamics. His double-helix notion included Conditions for Existence in the milieu (the Life Conditions in Spiral Dynamics) as the first letter - A, B, C, D, E, F, G (or A'), H (or B'), etc., and the neurobiological equipment in the brain - N, O, P, Q, R, S, T (or N'), U (or O'), etc.- that turns on to produce the Coping Systems. (Click here to view a chart describing the relationships.) Each Coping System or 'level of psychological existence' is the interaction product of those elements - the world outside with the neuronal systems inside - thus A-N, B-O, C-P, D-Q, E-R, and F-S (plus either a continuation - G-T, H-U, etc., or primes like A'-N', B'O'), describe them. The letter pair language is far superior to the colors because it conveys the interaction of the problems of existence outside with the mind/brain system within. Although Dr. Graves used numbers 1 through 8 on occasion, he relied primarily on the letter pairs. We teach this as the primary label set in certification courses, followed by colors as a short-hand, since the alphabet labels permit discussion of the critical entering and exiting transition states - a-n/B-O, B-O/c-p, b-o/C-P, etc. Of particular interest right now in the world are the D-Q/e-r, d-q/E-R, E-R/f-s, and e-r/F-S zones. See the discussion of tiers (below) and transitions for more.

     This idea of two interacting forces is actually central to Gravesian theory and the foundation of SD. The use of letter pairs (rather than colors or numbers) serves to emphasize this double-helix notion that sets this model apart from many others which simply rely on typologies and traits. We always use the letter pair language in more advanced trainings since it reminds the student of the work to consider both of the double-helix variables - life conditions (existential problems) in the milieu and coping means (neuronal systems) within the organism. That is to say that both genetic predisposition and neuronal systems and experiences accrued in living and learning contribute to shape who we are. Effective change engages both aspects, not just one of them. This interplay is frequently overlooked when the model is turned into typology, and that dilutes the worth of it considerably. 

      The alignment of A with N, B with O, etc., produces the nodal states (Levels of Existence) represented with the colors. (The letter pairs were originally derived from simply dividing the alphabet into two halves: A to M for Helix I and N to Z for Helix II; thus, A pairs with N, B with O, etc. In his later work when Graves was considering a 6 upon 6 pattern from which the tier notion is derived, the need for letters fell to only twelve with the inclusion of primes for repeating levels - A-N, A'-N', A''-N'', etc.) 

      When the helix letters are 'normally' aligned as above, the interaction produces stability in the the ^vMemes or coping systems described in Graves and SD: C-P, D-Q, E-R, etc. However, there can be 'slippage' as either the problems out-strip the thinking capacities awakened thus far (E with P or Q, for example), or the thinking expands and stretches beyond the demands of the situation (S or N' with D). In the first case the thinking is no match for the problems which increase; in the latter, the thinking is well beyond the demands of the problems which produces boredom in the human. 

     Generally, according to Graves, the problems lead the solutions; thus, the demands imposed by Helix I issues (generated by successful living at a level) stretch the thinking and cause more brain capacity to turn on to deal with them, either individually or collectively. However, it is also possible that the neurology can shift, thereby altering the perceptual field and the view of the externals; so it is the junction, rather than the sequence, which energizes the state. It is at this inflection point where the releasor/change conditions become relevant. In some cases, a disparity leads to constructive change toward a new congruent state with greater capacity brought in play. In others, it triggers misery and serious problems because the potential is not accessible or the barriers seem too profound despite insight into what could be. 

     When the neurology surges ahead of the existential field - the thinking is way ahead of the problems at hand - people are sometimes considered odd, outliers, prophets or heretics. Because of this shift in Helix II before changes in Helix I are widely recognized, many people today - especially young people - are very frustrated in both their jobs and when observing the political landscape when they recognize that their thinking is far beyond that of both their bosses, teachers, and political leaders. Sometimes this frustration is due to a falsely inflated sense of own capacities (common for C-P and E-R), and sometimes the cognitive capacity is simply far outside and ahead of the box.

       This interplay between the double-helix forces represented by the letters is one of the more powerful aspects of this model, and understanding the dynamics - conditions outside with systems inside - a key element in the theory. While there is a great deal to be done in the study in each of them, the energy of the convergence is also an area deserving considerable more investigation and rigorous research. 

Why are there only eight systems (colors)? 

     There are not just 8 systems, though there are only 8 decorative colors in the commonly used decorative palette. Actually, Dr. Graves's model is an open-ended theory with an unlimited number of systems ahead (thus the need for a spectrum rather than blobs). His original research picked up 8 nodal states which are like the peaks of overlapping curves, and we see little evidence of anything else thus far as evidence of a ninth (though lots of conjecture and wishful thinking about one). Between these Nodal points, represented by the 8 common colors, are Entering and Exiting sub-states where most of the energy lies. That's a basic trap of using the 8-band color code which those who are well trained in the theory avoid. Thus, there are at least 21 distinct stages in the emergent, cyclical model as it has developed thus far (entering, nodal, and exiting for each). 

      For many years, only seven levels sufficed to introduce the theory; we are not convinced that is still not so. While Graves found evidence of it, his data were scant and B'-O' / 8 / Turquoise has only recently been included widely. The eighth is emerging, though good research on its nature is still yet to be conducted. If the theory holds, then ninth, tenth, eleventh, and many more Levels of Psychological Existence lie ahead in the human repertoire. However, in our opinion, any attempts to describe them at this point are pure conjecture and, more often than not, based in extrapolations from D-Q religion, E-R self-empowerment and stretched individualism, and F-S neo-spirituality rooted in hopeful projections. The requisite existential problems needed to activate the more elaborated mind/brain systems have not appeared with sufficient clarity or urgency to produce widespread A'N', much less B'O', and efforts to fuse philosophical and metaphysical hierarchies into the Gravesian perspective miss the point of the levels of psychological existence theory. Yet these and more systems there surely will be. Click here for more details.

How do the ^vMemes in Spiral Dynamics^®, memetics, and Dr. Graves's work connect?

      First, Dr. Graves didn't speak of memes or memetics, nor of ^vMemes or colors. That terminology was all added with the Spiral Dynamics application in the 1990's, and Gravesian theory does quite fine without any of it. Unfortunately, memes and ^vMemes are now confused by people who should know better yet either refuse or incapable of recognizing the distinctions between systems and their ingredients. It's important for those serious about this work to understand the difference since each can contribute to the other, but to conflate them is to diminish both. Graves spoke of 'levels of psychological existence' - a.ka.LOE. Use of this term rather than ^vMeme can eliminate the confusion with memes. Thus, Gravesian systems are LOEs, memes are memes.

      Many of the findings of the memeticists help to explain how the ideas carried in ways of thinking in Spiral Dynamics migrate and spread among minds like viruses. At the same time, Spiral Dynamics provides a framework for analysis of memes and an understanding of why some attach to some minds, at some times, and not to others. Thus, memes are idea contents and ^vMemes the containers in our minds in which they fit. The two interact, and they are not the same thing. (See thema and schema, below)

     ^vMeme was coined with the writing of Spiral Dynamics to represent a Gravesian 'level of psychological existence' or coping system, a term we frequently use instead. In that book, they are described as meme attractors and a sort of meme-maker that anchors a coping or value system. The typography was built to suggest a value system-based (v) meme field (^vMeme) and to distinguish it from the more specific "memes" it might attract and which might bond congruently to it. 

      While some people, incredibly, still insist on confusing the terms as if they were synonyms, the two constructs are very different. This conflation builds semantic confusion and suggests all the terms refer to the same thing, an overlap which promotes imprecision and glib stereotypes. The meme is an idea chunk, a thought, an image. The ^vMeme a complex biopsychosocial system for conceptualizing existence - a tool for thinking about memes. 

      To add to the confusion, the color-code for SD levels - Green or Orange, for example - has taken on a memetic life of its own and spread. These eight colors, as packets of meaning, have become memes, memes which serve as surrogates for partial and often biased and inaccurate descriptions of ^vMemes. The color adjectives have become nouns for too many exploiters of this work who fail to differentiate exemplar memes - attractees - from the far more abstract and open ^vMemes - the attractors. Behaviors and beliefs are being identified as levels of existence, outcomes overlap their own causes. Now, even the relatively insignificant colors are being challenged and tweaked, a further step toward confusion rather than clarity. 

     Recent works by Susan Blackmore, one of the early authorities in memetics, and others formerly in the field of memetics, discuss consciousness and its variations. Some of this exploration moves closer to the Graves/Spiral Dynamics sense of a biopsychosocial energy field and framework for sensing and conceptualizing reality - how memes are handled in the mind. But for Blackmore and others, the original Dawkins notion of a virus-like meme as a self-replicating idea packet remains quite clear and useful, and a simplistic conflating of memes with ^vMemes (or whatever one might call Graves's levels) is befuddling and counterproductive. While the two things relate, they are not the same. We continue to argue that both constructs - memes and ^vMemes - are useful bits for analysis and that, as described in the 1996 Spiral Dynamics book, ^vMemes are like attractors and containers, and memes like floating ideas. (Click here for more on memes and ^vMemes)

Is Spiral Dynamics^® a typology? 

      Dr. Graves's theory is of an emergent process, not a set of categories or boxes for people, nor a series of essential developmental stages locked into chronology. These are systems within the person or group, not kinds of persons or groups. They are ways of thinking about a thing, not labels for thinkers. In theory, the potential for all of these systems lies within everyone with a normal brain, and that's the vast majority of people. However, all the systems aren't awakened because the theory is a process of interaction between the neurobiology of the person (or group) with existential problems and conditions in the external milieu. 

     In some of Dr. Graves's writing, he speaks of centralization with the idea that a personality can localize somewhere along the hierarchy of levels of psychological existence. It is this centralization which permits people to speak of "4s" or "Blues" and get some meaning across. However, reality is not so simple unless closedness is in play. Centralization is topical such that a person might be mostly localized, but think quite differently about another thing. And in some cases, the person might have multiple zones of centralization. It's that view which leads to the idea of ^vMemes expressed in Spiral Dynamics and the notion that they occupy a mind as much as the mind occupies a place on the spiral - clusters of systems, stacks, and complex profiles. 

     Don't ask, "How do you deal with this kind of person?" Instead, seek to understand how to manage the form of thinking and behavior as it is being exhibited by the person, regarding a particular thing, at this time, under these conditions. Thus, the informed SD user asks "How do I manage the Orange (E-R) in this person?" instead of "How do you deal with Orange people?"   For more, see Waves or Particles above, or click here. 

Is this model hierarchical?

     Yes, in several ways. Built into the theory are the notions of movement, expansion, and increase in conceptual space. Each new system subsumes the ones that came before, carrying forward elements of the past and putting a new face and new mind at the forefront. However, it is not a hierarchy in terms of most intelligences, or temperament, or many other dimensions which ebb and flow throughout the Spiral. Thus, it is both hierarchical to the extent that there is an additive sequence of problems and solutions and it is about hierarchy, suggesting that hierarchy-attenuating and hierarchy-enhancing systems alternate throughout. 

     The awakening of each system opens the opportunity for inclusion of more elements, but does not guarantee it. Click here for a .pdf version of Dr. Graves addressing this point. Although Graves frequently spoke of vertical directionality - 'up' to 'higher' levels - there's no reason whatsoever that the model can't as easily go sideways, downward, or layer like an onion. Indeed, he made it clear that appropriateness - "either higher or lower in the hierarchy" - is the key. The preference for verticality is more a cultural leaning than a theoretical factor, however, and the model may be seen as lateral movement or even increasing volume. 

      Hierarchy is part of Homo sapiens. How that characteristic is expressed varies among the Gravesian levels. This relates to the cyclic aspect of the theory as individual-oriented hierarchy exists in expressive levels, collectivized hierarchies in sacrificial ones. The rise of each cool-colored, deny-self system tempers the individualized hierarchy as it runs to the extreme: BO tempers AN instinctive, ape-like drives with kinship, symbols, and rituals to soften the pattern; DQ tempers CP's rugged hierarchy with overarching principles and laws, even a super-human being to oversee it all; FS tempers ER's avaricious hierarchy and 'masters of the universe' approach with shared interest; HU will probably temper some excess of A'N' individualism and the hierarchies that form of self-sufficiency will entail. The rise of hierarchy permits the escape from stagnation in customs, conformity, and community which excesses of the deny-self systems tend to produce. 

      Graves and, therefore, SD is an emergent systems theory. Thus, the 'hierarchy' is not a tidy linear sequence predicated on age levels or anything else. Each new system subsumes those which came before - they become part of the package - and adds new elements, generally unanticipated ones. There are also no guarantees for the duration of a system's efficacy in resolving existential problems, nor in the lifespan of those problems as predominant. The hypothesis is of a sequence because, in this view, systems arise from the failings of their predecessors and the necessity to activate more complex thinking. It is possible for systems to arise on a limited scale far apart from the means of their age, but the overall trend of both human nature and the development of individuals is to follow the rough sequence described in Graves's research (and that of many other developmental scholars who identify similar orderings). It is dangerous to take any of this as invariant, however; instead, one should view the hierarchy as a probability estimate and a directional guide. 

      This model is really not like a sack of marbles of different colors that can be sorted by size in a prescribed order. The bag-of-marbles metaphor is inadequate because marbles are rigid objects, not overlapping fields. It becomes far too easy to see the Gravesian levels, especially when couched as ^vMemes, as discrete particles that can be plinked individually rather than as interconnected elements in a whole that comprises personality. A more accurate image requires morphing - new marbles grow from old ones and the whole group spins like a top so that all the colors begin to form an overlapping pattern as the marbles become indistinct parts of a whole. That top, of course, becomes a spiral, and it does unexpected things. [listen to Graves on how people at 'lower' levels might perceive higher-level behavior]

Is there a timeline for systems emergence?

     This model is not chronological, though it is sequential. In other words, at age 3 one level doesn't appear, and at age 7 another, then a new one at 18 and something else at 25 or 45 or 95. Graves always deferred to Piaget and the child development theorists to understand what personality characteristics arise early on and can be correlated with developmental stages. His is a model of mature adult personality in operation which strives to explore differences in people after the hormonal and developmental stages of infancy, childhood, and puberty have finished. But there is a general sequence since, in this point of view, new thinking (neuronal systems) are activated to deal with existential problems created by successful living at a previous level. While some other theorists maintain there are definable phases in adulthood, the Gravesian timeline is quite fluid with systems rising and falling as people readjust to shifting life conditions and their neurology alters. There is little certainty about what happens when, only probabilities as to if and why. It is that flexibility - the interaction between life conditions and coping means to produce coping systems - which sets this point of view apart from many other conventional developmental models. 

     However, Graves did play with a historical sequence in the appearance of systems as they come to prominence as the leading edge in the species Homo sapiens. Some of this was borrowed from the work of John Calhoun, Lewis Mumford, and others who tried to explore the emergence of humankind. Many people cite the intervals Graves discussed, though he treated them more as metaphor and curiosity than a serious aspect of theory. The approximate times for the appearance of systems through history as reported in a graphic found in his 1981 summary paper are:  A-N >100,000 years ago, B-O 40,000; C-P 10,000; D-Q 4000; E-R 1400; F-S 80; A'-N' 30 years ago (as of 1980). Dr. Graves felt that B'-O' was just beginning to appear.

    Note the apparent acceleration of change in these numbers. The time curve, if plotted, rises steeply after E-R. Then comes the question whether it will continue to accelerate toward an ideal state and finish as many in the spirituo-religious community propose, or again level off, the view more congruent with Gravesian theory. Maintaining the view that human nature is an open-ended process (up to the evolutionary limits of the organism), Graves hypothesized that it would flatten with A'-N'. As a correlate of A-N, the time required for resolution of such profound survival problems of life on earth and the complexities presented by the previous six systems' coexistence which would take a while to sort out. Thus, he projected a relatively longer prominence for A'-N', somewhat shorter for B'-O', etc. Whether this is the case or not is yet to be discovered. 

What's the highest level? Coral?

     Dr. Graves's theory and Spiral Dynamics are open-ended processes. (See the colors discussion above.) There is no final state or "top" of the spiral, no stage of completeness for or perfection for human nature. One of the things that set Graves apart from many of his contemporaries in the humanistic and transpersonal schools was his view that each set of solutions - each discovery of 'the mature personality' - would only lead to new questions, new problems, and the need for yet more elaborated and complex solutions in mankind's quest for who we are. This is not a spiral toward ultimate spiritual revelation and transcendental being as some would like, or wish. The spiral opens up and widens; it does not focus down to a spot. The "future" from each level is the next in the sequence. The future for the Spiral is the passage more and more systems in the human repertoire. Unless we do something incredibly stupid or a cosmic accident occurs, the process will continue for a long, long time. Successful living at each level produces the new Existential Problems and energy to look to the next system. Graves's letter pairs include the basic A-N through F-S (First Tier), then the six primes A'-N' through F'-S' (Second Tier), the six double-primes (Third Tier), triple-primes, etc. In the SD color language, there's Yellow, then Turquoise, Coral, perhaps Teal, Plum, Aubergine, and a whole spectrum full of others. (Be aware that use of letter pairs is far superior to colors when describing the nuances of the theory as Graves's Helix I and Helix II forces interact.) We believe the "tier" language has become overblown and distorted and now tend to avoid it.

What do the terms "First Tier" and "Second Tier" signify?

      In his original work, Dr. Graves envisioned an open-ended continuum of emergent systems, numbered one through eight, etc., or designated with letter pairs A-N, B-O, C-P, D-Q, E-R, F-S, G-T, H-U, etc. However, later in his research (1973-1974) he noticed what he thought might be a break-point between the sixth and seventh levels. The data suggested a significant difference between F-S and G-T (Yellow and Turquoise in the color language of SD) with G-T being similar to A-N, the first level. On further study, Dr. Graves found a marked increase in "conceptual space," a new freedom from fear and compulsiveness, and an ability to learn from many sources in many ways. Rather than a focus on having and doing - subsistence issues - he found subjects in this range shifted toward a "being" approach to life with a degree of resignation to coping with the existential realities at hand. 

     Graves also hypothesized a move from a sense of plenty in the first rendition of the six basic coping systems to a concern with scarcity in the being levels to come next. Because of similarities between the first subsistence system and the first being-level system, and parallels between the second subsistence and second being, he concluded that human nature might well emerge in a series of six upon six upon six repeating systems, rather like recurring themes in a symphony. Thus, the terminology shifted from G-T and H-U to primes - A'-N', B'-O', etc. The next series would be double-primes - A''-N'', B''-O'', etc. The short-hand labels, First Tier and Second Tier, were created for the Spiral Dynamics book to describe this hypothetical jump from Subsistence levels to Being levels. It was given more than its due of attention there, an error now being exploited and misconstrued. 

      For example, some claim that only people centralized in the Second Tier can see the first. No, people centralized in each system, depending on their degrees of openness, can recognize at least parts of the preceding systems. Most can recognize aspects in those a step or so ahead, though their fullness will be hard to fathom. The idea was that Second Tier is capable, for the first time, of seeing all six of the preceding systems at once, as a whole. We are now unconvinced whether that is so much a characteristic of transition to A'N', or simply a mark of openness, and whether the shift from subsistence (deficit) to being levels so widely described is a phase shift or only appears to be. That said, it's important to note that in much of Dr. Graves's later work he did look at 6 basic systems - core themes - repeating at higher and higher levels.

     Actually, whether the 'tier' hypothesis is even supportable or not is yet to be established. Thus, too much attention to First Tier/Second Tier differences often injects more confusion than clarity into analysis. Just as turning ^vMemes into discrete particles is troublesome, so is a hard-line between tiers. Tierism has become something of a monster and red herring inflated far out of proportion to its importance. (See Dr. Graves's article in the Futurist magazine, April, 1974, for more. A table created for that paper is included here.) 

     The following remarks from The Never Ending Quest suggest the open-ended nature of the theory:

"And finally, there is the need to distinguish conceptually between certain gross classes of levels, between the levels of the first spiral of psychosocial development and those levels which appear later in psychological time. The first six together I will call THE SUBSISTENCE LEVEL SYSTEMS. Those of the second spiral I will name BEING LEVEL I SYSTEMS. Those of later spirals, should they come to be, would be designated as BEING LEVEL II SYSTEMS, BEING LEVEL III SYSTEMS, etc."

     From this it is clear that SD/Graves does not aim for a state of "self-actualization" or completeness of consciousness. (see Maslow discussion) Some people have been suggesting a "goal" for the emergent process and a finish to the process of awakening. Others see themselves as perching on higher levels and, in turn, use 'tierism' as a rather arrogant means to sort lesser mortals into classes. This 'tier-ranical' view assigns great superiority and spiritual cleverness onto the "Second Tier" and relegates the First Tier to second rate status - categories for greater and lesser mortals, with the greater heading nearer to transcendent being. It's an almost dichotomous perspective that is far from the intent of the theory and sometimes rings of stretched D-Q (Blue) aspirations for salvation and eternal life (Graves called this "the saintly existential state") with E-R (Orange) delusions of a universe revolving around an ultimate "me," all couched in post-New Age lingo while echoing the 17^th century. We suggest that readers be cautious of these 'tierants' because what is presented as SD theory may well be projections and dreams that have little to do with the model. That is not a proper use of this theory and turns it from a scientific/epistemological framework into an exclusionary quasi-religion for self-appointed elites. Yes, the spiral is hierarchical and expanding, so there are differences. But they're not so easy to grasp as the tierants would have us believe. And one word of caution: when someone displays a need to tell you they're "second tier," they probably are not. Read the Graves quote on "the never-ending quest." 

     Again, the idea of 6-on-6 themes in human nature was only a hypothesis, in Dr. Graves view, suggested by his data. (He'd also looked at 4 on 4 and 5 on 5 as possibilities.) He was not convinced of its validity and it appears only in his later papers and manuscript as a proposal worth further testing. Graves was certainly never so pretentious as to project what third, fourth, or further tiers might be like. Others who have looked at the theory have suggested clusters of three ("Triads of Consciousness"), and some suggest a logarithmic progression where the transition from each level to the next is a "quantum leap" in its own right. All of this to say that putting much emphasis with great certitude on First Tier, Second Tier distinctions may be following a false - at least unimportant - trail, and that projecting future tiers is an exercise in hubris. We suggest concentrating on a more functional human spiral rather than becoming distracted by 'tierist' nonsense of reaching an imaginary pinnacle.

     It is possible, you see, that the G-T state appeared to Dr. Graves as a momentous leap - an order of magnitude different sort of human being - because of the perch from which he observed. He lived in a world heavily dominated by D-Q and E-R. F-S was just rising to prominence in the 1960's and 1970's. G-T was clearly a stretch, indeed; H-U was barely imaginable. Today, however, the perch is somewhat expanded, though many retain their D-Q and E-R anchors without fully realizing it. Human nature has changed a bit in 40 years. The sixth level (F-S) is commonplace, though still not prevalent in policy decisions; the seventh (G-T) is becoming clear as part of a strong surging wave of attention to living systems and sustainable individualism. Explorations of the H-level existential problems are gaining attention and more thought is being devoted to them, as well. In the process, though, the differences between F-S and G-T have closed somewhat and the degree of overlap increased. It is now clear that the awakening of G-T is a profound change and liberates new ways of thinking and perceiving, but not of an "incredibly different sort of human being." It might well not be so vast a chasm to cross as it appeared to Dr. Graves since quite a few people are now in that transition as the F and G problems gain serious attention, though D and E remain largely in power.

     A suggestion is now floating around that the second tier consists of only A'-N' (Yellow) and B'-O' (Turquoise), and that C'-P' (Coral) is where the ego begins to dissolve toward grand unification with the godhead. That's not Graves or SD. Heaven help us, there's talk of awakening this "Third Tier" as the route to nirvana and blissful fulfillment and meshing with the all that is all, even suggestions of dropping in on it - rather than merely an ecstatic state - through drugs like the 1960's psychedelic dabblers hoped. OK. Perhaps the great becoming actually is just ahead. 

      Who knows what the future really holds? Such talk is not in line with this theory; it belongs in the realm of new-wave spirituality, esoteric psychology, and consciousness-speak. If this theory holds, then SD's "third tier," if tiers there are at all, should be the third playing of the six basic themes - the double primes - A''-N'', B''-O'', etc., and that's a long way off. An evolutionary shift might well happen before Homo sapiens gets there. 

Do people move up from one level to the next, like climbing stairs?

      First of all, people don't always move "up." This theory is a two-way street; people move up and down and sometimes they stabilize for a long time. (One can also turn the model sideways, reverse the "high" and "low" so expansion is downward, or even construct it like an onion with concentric, expanding shells; so movement could be "over," "down," or "out.") Remember that the system of behavior is based on the combination of Existential Problems from outside and Neurobiological Equipment on the inside. Sometimes the appropriate thing to do is to shift down to a lower level that better fits the realities at hand. "Up" (or to a next system in the hierarchy) is not invariably better, only a move to a more complex and elaborated system. (Dr. Graves used both "existential staircase" and "ladder of existence" in his writings, but found both inadequate to describe the emergent, cyclical double-helix.)

     Rather than steps and stages, this emergent point of view suggests that previous ways of thinking and behaving don't go away. Instead, they are subsumed beneath more complex systems which then form clusters. The older ways don't disappear as new capacities are activated; instead, they go into storage and, if the person is open, can be revived as necessary. They are also subject to alteration and 'updates' so that it's almost impossible 'to go home again' to the same place, functioning in the same way. The process of development reaches into previously dominant sub-systems as well as the present one(s). This is particularly the case when people approach the A'-N' (G-T or Yellow) range where they can tap into a wider behavioral repertoire with greater degrees of freedom. So, a person is not at a level as if standing on a developmental staircase with distinct, isolated steps. Instead, the person functions with regard to an aspect of living in a particular way, with different aspects potentially resting on different steps. Thus, there may be multiple sub-systems at work, and the person may change regarding one but not all. 

     It's also worth noting that either the life conditions (systems outside) or the neuronal system (systems inside) can shift with respect to each other so that while one "advances" or "recedes," the other does not. This aspect of the double-helix is better understood via Grave's letter-pair language than the SD color code and is very useful to those involved in individual coaching and organizational transformation.

How does intelligence relate to this theory?

     Intelligence doesn't relate very much. It's very hard even to define intelligence in a meaningful way. Work like Howard Gardner's best explains the breadth of the concept as it describes and legitimizes at least nine 'intelligences' that include physical, emotional, and intellectual aspects. The old notion of I.Q. isn't widely used any more, and even in Graves's day he found poor correlations between his work and intelligence measures then available except for seriously mentally challenged persons who rarely exhibited behavior beyond the B-O range. Instead, he discovered people of both high and relatively low intelligence (as he could measure it) centralized around the A'-N' (Yellow) level and all the rest. So, "up" the spiral is not a move to greater intelligence any more than it is a move up a spiritual ladder to higher consciousness, though it does describe a hierarchy of ways of thinking about consciousness and approaching explorations of self/others. The awakening of new levels adds to the behavioral repertoire and introduces new factors for consideration when making life's choices. Many scholars propose movement along continua of cognitive complexity and increasing ability to sort through more factors simultaneously - more elaborated thinking processes - but that's not the same as intelligence in the conventional sense. See the Graves: Levels of Human Existence book for more.

What about emotions and temperament factors?

     While there are relationships between emotional and temperament factors at the various levels of psychological existence, the theory does not offer an easy catalogue. Moreover, many of these characteristics seem to ebb and flow through the levels. Some track with the inner-outer cyclic nature of the model. Others rise or fall with movement in the hierarchy. For example, both rigidity and dogmatism are high at D-Q (Blue); both fall off in E-R (Orange); and rigidity rises without dogmatism at F-S (Green). Papers archived and made available by William Lee, the operators of this site, and others on the www.clarewgraves.com website elaborate on this. The model does not reflect a process of emotional "growth" or a mellowing of temperament, though some dimension undeniable 'soften' at higher levels as more factors enter life's equation. In addition, the personalities of individuals functioning at the various levels can vary markedly in respect to temperament with one person centralized around the C-P (Red) level operating in a quiet and passively aggressive way, while another similarly centralized is loud and assertively overbearing. One of these people could be warm and loving (in a C-P way), the other cold and distant (also in a C-P way). Likewise, two people can behave similarly and yet be coping with their realities in quite different levels. One aspect of the theory is that temperament, as an aspect of personality, may well not change as one moves to a different level of psychological existence. In terms of emotions, one should ask what the stimulus for the emotion is, what event or memory triggers it, and how the thinking about that thing factors into the sensations being felt since emotions are informational feedback, not stored baggage. 

What is "the Prime Directive?"

     Frankly, we have no idea, other than the one on the original Star Trek that prohibited tampering with other civilizations. (Since most people interested in this theory are, by nature, tamperers with the human condition, that must not be it.) Humans centralized at each level along the spiral will have a sense of priorities, so one can devise themes which might fit well with the thinking - directives to save people, control people, convert people, dominate people, grow people, know people, love people, transform people, etc. 

     Dr. Graves remarked:  "I do suggest…and this I deeply believe is so, that for the overall welfare of total man's existence in this world, over the long run of time, higher levels are better than lower levels and that the prime good of any society's governing figures should be to promote human movement up the levels of human existence." Thus, there is a sort of prime direction - namely, toward more elaborated systems, and even a prime director - namely, the mechanism built into human nature that causes the double-helix forces to interact, evolve, and grow.

     That's not the same as a "prime directive;" but the quote does suggest that Dr. Graves believed in proactive facilitation of transitions toward more complex systems when appropriate and feasible. (Remember, the SD change process goes both ways, though.) This view, in turn, should be put in the context of Dr. Graves's own time and circumstances, since what is "prime" lies in the mind of the beholder and where it rests along the spiral. People centralized in different ^vMemes will project their own intentions onto the theory and use it in ways that fit the world in which they exist. Statements like "for the good of the whole Spiral" and "so that each whorl of the spiral can be healthy and fulfilled" and "so people at each level can be the best they can within their circumstances" are all renditions of answers to the question.

     The following quotation from Dr. Graves clarifies his position on the D-Q through E-R transitions and the risk to human survival thinking and acting in those ways entails. Indeed, we are now observing the "fallout" of 4th/5th level existence with environmental and social systems nearing collapse on one hand while individual possibilities, personal opportunities, and the variety of choices are at a high point for many on the other. Extrapolations of this are sometimes couched as "Second Tier" thinking, but that is a delusion. Attacks on the next stage in the hierarchy - F-S (Green) - serve to slow, not to accelerate, this process since the door needs to be opened, not close. Most of the "leadership of man" - political, corporate, and religious - and despite much talk of enlightenment, higher consciousness, and spiritual enrichment, rests squarely in the range Dr. Graves addresses as follows:

     "No words that I shall ever pen will be more condemned or less hailed than those which I shall now commit to paper. But be that as it may they must be written for the future of mankind may rest upon man's ability to extricate himself from living within "The American Ways of Life," those states for existence which come to be when the E-R - the selfishly independent system of human behavior - begins to emerge. This statement will be heretical to some, communistic to others and anarchistic to many. But let me explain what is meant by the assertion. This world, as we all know, is full of paradoxes, but of all that exist, the most paradoxical, it seems to me, is the one which arises when man's need for independence begins to emerge. As man starts his transition from the absolutistic form for existence, the ordered, authoritarian, submissive way of life, and as man moves through the stage of independence on into the sociocentric ways for being, five definable and describable states of existence emerge one after another in our ordered hierarchical way. These five states, each of which has a strong flavor of selfish independence in them, have brought more that is good to man and more that is bad for him than all states of existence which preceded them. No states of existence, prior to these five, have given man more power over the physical universe, more verifiable knowledge or a greater increase in his material welfare than have they. But no states are more certain to pave the way for man's demise than these five unless we can move, at least the leadership of man, beyond these states where man believes that the epitome of human living lies somewhere with one or some of the E-R states of existence."

Did Dr. Graves come up with the name, "Spiral Dynamics?" 

     He did not. The term was actually coined several years after Dr. Graves's death in 1986. Before coming up with Spiral Dynamics® (a registered trademark, by the way, a fact which should be noted and not used commercially without permission of the owners), we called it Value Systems Theory and Coping Systems. The motivation for the name change was the need for a title for the 1996 book. Graves often referred to his theory as the Emergent, Cyclical Point of View; Emergent Cyclical Theory; or Emergent, Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory. On this site and in our work at NVCC and in Humergence^® materials, we frequently use ECLET™ (also the name of our publishing branch). The full name of Dr. Graves's approach can be expressed as "the emergent, cyclical, double-helix model of adult biopsychosocial systems development," and even "the Emergent, Cyclical Phenomenological-Existential, Double-Helix, Levels of Existence Conception of Adult Human Behavior."  For some elaboration on those terms click here. 

     The idea of a spiral comes from that name. It demonstrates emergence, though irregularity and unpredictability need be included. A spiral suggests the shape discovered by Franklin, Watson, and Crick as the structure of DNA, a form which shows the interplay between two sets of elements with connectors. In the case of SD, those are conditions outside and systems inside. More broadly, the metaphor of DNA is used to describe ^vMemes as agents moving human nature. 

     A somewhat flattened spiral gives a sense of the cyclical oscillation from a focus inward to outward and back with vertical movement possible in the process. This is the dynamic swing from I-orientation to a we-centered worldview - expressive and sacrificial systems - warm to cool colors. "Spiral Dynamics" refers to the spiral-like nature of the emergent process, well-illustrated in many of Dr. Graves's diagrams, and the dynamic energy of the process. It is a useful metaphor and a simplification that has gained some prominence. We simply caution readers not to stretch the metaphor too far, and not to fall into the mythology of 'the mind of the spiral' or 'the spiral' as a surrogate for a higher power. 

How do I learn more about Dr. Graves's original work?

     Go to the website we maintain dedicated to Dr. Graves at http://www.clarewgraves.com. There you will see the elements of the work-in-progress which is the Gravesian perspective. You will find a number of his papers and links to various organizations which apply the work. In addition, papers by William R Lee, the lead Gravesian archivist, and others elaborate on the original Gravesian point of view. Spiral Dynamics^® is an application of the theory. In addition to making more of his original work available to the public on the websites, we also offer periodic introductory and advanced courses in the work to the public as part of the certification program. Schedules for our events in the U.S., Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, and U.K. are posted on the opening page of this site and updated periodically. The book, Graves: Levels of Human Existence, is based on a transcription by William R. Lee of a presentation made by Dr. Graves at the Washington School of Psychiatry and provides a good introduction to the theory, the research, and a copy of a paper from the Journal of Humanistic Psychology which lays out an early version of the point of view elegantly. A preview hardbound edition of our new book, The Never Ending Quest: Dr. Clare W. Graves Explores Human Nature, is now available. It contains Dr. Graves's previously unpublished manuscript and a compilation of his remarks about the systems. (Academic adopters may request a preview copy on institutional letterhead.) 

Are there assessments available?

     Yes, there are several approaches to assessing people using this theory. Although Dr. Graves never devised a written test he was satisfied with and there is no "Graves test," per se, we have created several instruments which attempt to reflect both the levels and the change states. These are available on paper and online versions. However, we limit access to these profiles to people who have completed the SD Certification Training since it is important to understand the model for interpretation, and we believe it is improper and unethical to distribute powerful tools haphazardly or make them openly available to just anyone who wants to "test" people. The potential for abuse or honest errors rooted in ignorance are just too great. Users need a good sense of the limitations of these measures, both written and online, as well as what the theory does and does not say. Frankly, we believe it is problematic to put these instruments into the hands of people who have not completed some qualifying study and have agreed to adhere to certain standards for their use because the tools are still in development and subject to misuse by those who don't comprehend the underlying Gravesian point of view. Most look to traits and attitudes more than the underlying systems, creating types and rigid categories in the hands of the uninformed. Pulling the meaning out requires far more than merely looking at a chart.

      Colleagues and competitors have also built tools for exploring how people think about things in Gravesian terms, and interested persons can check the links on the Sources page of the Clare W. Graves website. We welcome new research methodologies and suggestions for improving the difficult process of measuring a moving picture.

     We should note that Dr. Graves was never convinced that simple pencil-and-paper profiling was feasible. 

"Those who have tried to develop instruments have based them on what people think, do or believe, which is not the proper base for assessment devices. They should be based not on what the person thinks but how s/he thinks, not on what people do or what they believe but how they do what they do, and how they believe that which they do believe."

     Although effort is underway to refine the methodology, including replicating some of Dr. Graves's original research, most current "tests" involve allocating points among statements, making choices among options, checking a position on a scale, etc. These actions all miss a key piece: why did the person make the choice he/she did? What was their intent? What about the semantics of the statements they were fed to chose among? Preferences and rankings are only suggestions of what might lie beneath. While that can be useful data as a starting point for discussion or entry in a management situation, it's better to let the person state what their world is like and then to analyze that data in conjunction with other measures. 

     Second, this model suggests ways of thinking about a thing, not types of personalities. Efforts to categorize people based on this work require inclusion of multiple sub-systems into a profile. Thus, statements like "37% of humans are Blues" based on a few simple questions asked to a sample are largely nonsense. Measuring values - what people think and believe - is fairly straight forward. Measuring how they think about those things - how the create their values - is considerably more difficult. Favoring law and order is not the same as thinking that there is only one right way to do something. 

     Finally, the model is a process in change, not a static snap-shot. Although criticism is possible, valid assessment of a moving picture is difficult. While there is a work underway to improve assessment in SD, it should be made clear that instruments are works in progress and only learning tools and indicators, not sure tests.

    Still, there are now several "Graves" and "Spiral Dynamics" assessments purporting to test for these levels, along with very profitable derivative works. We remain highly skeptical, since much of the research is weak, sometimes rooted in illicit borrowings from our old materials, or else predicated on semantic and linguistic sorts which have a very debatable link to Levels of Existence Theory. Testing literacy and familiarity with buzz words or, as Graves said, "existential jargon," is still not getting at how people think, how they conceptualize what they sense, and how they process their perceptions into action. Measuring opinions is relatively easy; determining levels of psychological existence is hard. There's a lot of work to be done in this area, and we'll be announcing a means to coordinate some of that soon. 

Are there other people applying this model?

     Many people are using "Spiral Dynamics®" in some form. (Only a few are using the original work of Dr. Graves, though many fly the Graves and SD flags.) There are now quite a few spin-offs derived from Spiral Dynamics - thus tertiary versions - of varying quality, along with reinterpretations and some genuine, first-rate nonsense. A roster with links for some individuals and organizations using the original Gravesian approach or their own derivations appears on the Clare W. Graves website. There is also a listing of a few people trained in Spiral Dynamics^® methodologies available through the "People" tab on this site. Although both are incomplete lists, they provide links to a sampling of students and developers of applications of the theory. The new International Spiral Dynamics Organization (ISDO) will provide some standards.

     Intensity of self-promotion and even sales volume are not a particularly good indicator of competence in this work. A web search will now lead you to many, many other groups and websites discussing the point of view. Some are better than others, and we suggest caution and doing some Gravesian homework first. Some prominent "experts" are only C students where this material is concerned, and some very successful adaptations are mediocre, at best. Others are using the material quite well and offer extremely useful services. We maintain the original, foundational materials (much available for online study) and offer the most extensive in-depth training in our SD1 and 2 certifications, as well as other courses for those seriously interested in the E-C theory as used in Spiral Dynamics®. Those interested can also read more about the Gravesian legacy and the thinking embedded in SD. 

Who can understand and apply this theory?

     Anybody with some sense. The SD theory is accessible to any human being of reasonable intelligence and a somewhat open mind. However, people will understand and use it in different ways, based on needs, interest, experience, intelligence and where they are thinking along the spiral. There are different ways of thinking about the theory, just like everything else. Applications can range from a set of basic how-to instructions for recognizing and managing differences to an elaborate schema for dealing with simultaneous change in complex systems. The more expansive the thinking, the more aspects of the point of view become useful, and the more possibilities open up. It does appear that this sort of inclusive perspective becomes more "natural" with the emergence of the post-Fifth Level systems, 6^th level (Green, FS) and 7^th (Yellow, A'N') thinking and easier to understand with greater Openness. 

      While a person operating at a lower level might have difficulty identifying with the worldview of someone operating at a higher level (audio), or even mischaracterize it entirely, that does not mean that the person cannot learn the means of dealing with such people and do so effectively, though not intuitively, with adequate training and coaching. At the same time, a person operating at a higher level might have difficult dealing with people operating in a lower zone because the pressing concerns and ways of adjusting that fit there are subsumed and even forgotten. Some re-learning often must occur so important aspects are not overlook or disrespected. In both cases, it is important that these persons be in Open conditions, or at the most mildly Arrested, since those who are Closed have great difficulty stepping outside their own boxes. It is also important that the person be open-minded to allow room for differences. 

      Most important to understanding and applying this theory is an attitude of curiosity, motivation and patience since it often takes a great deal of experience and learning to understand and apply it effectively. Sometimes years are required to go through the process: "Interesting idea." "This is way too complicated to be useful." "Hey, on the contrary, this is a piece of cake. Got it! Next?" "Don't quite have it, after all, but now I'm beginning to see how the pieces fit and where other chunks come together." "I see the world differently." It can be a lot of fun as well. 

      A final note is that people who understand this point of view cognitively are not necessarily role models of it in action. Unlike some spiritual schools wherein the upper echelon claim to be embodiments of their teachings and walk their talk or else, SD is a model derived from a theory that offers explanations and suggestions for action. It is a powerful tool for understanding, but not necessarily a way of being. The talk is easy with a little information. In fact, we often look with suspicion at those who claim to be 'Spiral Wizards' or somehow to have exalted position, spiral-wise - "since I am a Yellow" or "because of my perspective as a trans-Turquoise." More often than not that proves to be evidence of strong ER in the thinking since people who actually function at higher levels recognize both the complexity of human nature and the shortcomings of their own perceptions. Sometimes followers of the SD discussions are disappointed to see failings in the proponents, expecting them to exemplify the work in action. Alas, the 'do as I say, not as I do' school is widespread, and the world of Spiral Dynamics is no exception.  

Why don't the numbers in the table on pp. 300-301 of Spiral Dynamics add up to 100%?

     Because of an arithmetic mistake and deliberate effort not to suggest accuracy. The table was intended only as an illustration, not a report of research findings. The numbers in all three columns were fabricated to make a point about geopolitics. The word "estimated" heads the numerical column, though wild-ass guess - WAG - would be more appropriate. The table should have been labeled to make that clearer. Totals of 111.2%, 107%, and 107%, along with rounded-off numbers, were meant to indicate that it's symbolic, not an accurate representation. The point was to compare population with consumption and influence in world affairs. The broad proportions were derived from UN and other information interpreted through the SD lens. There is no vast database from which detailed conclusions can yet be drawn about humankind. As stated above, assessment of levels of psychological existence is very difficult, since they form a constantly moving picture full of mixes and transition states, and instruments rarely get at how and why a person thinks what s/he reports. It's actually contrary to the theory to think that only eight categories would suffice to describe human nature.

     Thus, an estimated population of 111.2% rather than something closer to 100 has been cited, and even reprinted, by people who don't notice the mistake, who try to cover it over with silly rationalizations rather than ask why the discrepancy exists, who are satisfied with the metaphor, or who suggest revisions to tweak the numbers to precision based on who knows what. The table was designed NOT to equal exactly 100%, since it was made-up numbers in the first place, and to suggest otherwise would have been deceptive. However, being off a full 10% was just sloppy addition that went uncorrected. 

     There was actually a discussion between the co-authors as to the propriety of inserting numbers at all, much less to suggest a precise 100%, since they could be misconstrued as valid research findings rather than educated guesses. The idea would have been better presented without numbers as a graphical soft-edged pie chart, fuzzy bars, or with overlapping waves more on the order of Dr. Graves's original diagrams similar to the adaptation on p.72 of the SD book.

Schema and thema?

      An ongoing dilemma in using and teaching Grave/SD is the differentiation of artifacts (memes playing out as schema - actions, beliefs, behaviors, mental scripts, and anchors for perceptions) from ^vMemes (the underlying thema - ways of thinking about things, worldviews, coping systems), then pulling them back together into a coherent picture of human nature in its various contexts. 
     For example, Dr. Graves described the first level of existence like this:  "As A and N interact, the resultant is the automatic psychosocial way of living. This is a general way (thema) which can be specified into many particular forms (schema) of problems A, and many variances in the N neurological system." Each level of existence (nodal color in SD language) has a unique thematic form which is both like and unlike others in the hierarchy. 
     Though many obviously disagree, we continue to believe that the meme / ^vMeme differentiation is important because using "meme" as a generic conflates the symptoms with the underlying causes - the thema with the schema - and leads us to miss nuance and generate troublesome stereotypes. It's very Korzybskian in its levels of abstraction and parallels the old problem of distinguishing values (as attitudes and content) from Value Systems (as cognitive structures). Click for more on memes.
      Research into both areas is important so that an even clearer sense of thema (per Graves and other theorists) can be derived, as well as applications dealing with the schema observable in individual and group behaviors. The definitional question is somewhat confounded by the use of the term 'schema' in the study of complex adaptive systems, a field which illuminates Gravesian studies considerably. In CAS, schema can exist in several levels and types and, like memes, compete for survival. They act as rule sets for building systems. As they change and mutate, schema can learn to performance under varied conditions, increase reliability of a system by opening alternatives, and increase 'requisite variety' so the system can adapt to a wider range of conditions. They contain the rules whereby the system ultimately behaves. (see emergent) 

What about the Third Tier (Double Prime) Levels - A''N'', B''O'', etc.? Where to read about them?

Is Spiral Dynamics^® a religion or cult?

     We get this question more and more. The answer is no - we hope. It is not the stairway to enlightenment any more than it is a front for a particular political ideology - left, right or middle. Spiral Dynamics is about how people think about religion, and how religiousness, spirituality, non-belief, etc., fit their conceptions of their worlds. The theory addresses how they go about asking the 'why?' of existence question, and how and why it matters differently to different people. SD does not offer the answer, or even a route to it (as if an it there were). Thus, SD is not about beliefs, but thinking about beliefs - the why's and wherefores; not a way of life, but a way to sort among ways of life. SD is used by people involved in churches (and even cults - see above) as a map to recognizing differences and building organizations - and organizing ideas - to better fit. It describes intrafaith pressures as much as interfaith forces in terms of how people approach their theologies and process the -isms they believe in, whether theistic or atheistic the same ways it is used by people working in business organizations, educational settings, and government agencies to improve understanding, management, and leadership because human factors are involved. (see memes / ^vMemes discussion)

     SD is about biopsychosocial containers - deep values - valuing systems - not the particular contents of a faith or disbelief structure. Thus it can be an aid in study of the religion/science interface, why the two are sometimes juxtaposed and where there is confluence and increasing overlap between physics and metaphysics, between biology and theology. Spiral Dynamics addresses the ways of thinking about these things; not the things, themselves. It is a theoretical model still in development, one which is constantly being refined, tested, explored, and adopted. But there is no central dogma, even though there is foundational research and accuracy to Gravesian theory. 

     SD is neither a theology nor an a-theology; instead, it is a framework for both that lays out how things religious are likely to be approached. There are many spiritual and religious paths, as well as paths to human growth without either, and a diverse range of people within all of them. This work looks at the differences among those people and the possibilities those variabilities open up. Each level has a way of thinking about things - a thema - and that will tend to shape the schematic form of a religion, one's response to a guru, or the conceptualization of self takes. SD is a way of looking at those schematic and thematic forces at work, a way of monitoring the waves. 

     Spiral Dynamics is not a cult or cultish property, nor an exclusive community of right-thinking elitist minds anxious to coordinate the activities of humankind, although some have unfortunately promoted it that way because of their own needs, not the characteristics of the theory. People become attracted to models like SD for various reasons and handle them in very different ways - SD people are a highly diverse lot. Recently, some have indeed tried to force-fit SD into their spirituality/theology/philosophy and suggest, because of who they are and not what the model is, that the quasi-religion which is thereby produced was inherent in the point of view all along, that it is a spiritual ladder to salvation (or enlightenment), and that heresy cannot be tolerated. Not so. This is not the Church of the Spiral, nor the Brotherhood of the Sacred Second Tier, nor the time-pay stairway to transcendence. For those who find comfort in that, OK; but it's not the whole or even a very large part of it. This is a theory of mature adult psychology and how individuals and cultures change their views of it - or not - and how there can be richness and power on many levels horizontally - many forms of enlightenment - as well as vertically, the hierarchy of complex conceptualizations. It is based in considerable research and a long tradition of scholarship in a range of  fields ranging from developmental psychology to anthropology and even General Systems Theory. Both science and religion fit within its frame quite well.

     But SD is not a faith, not a systematic theology or specific belief set (or political position - even ours), nor an exclusive club for a few elites or self-proclaimed wizards. Instead, this is a theoretical point of view and a perspective on the emergent processes in human nature, the intent of which is to provide bright and curious human beings of all stripes with another tool to recognize human differences, sort through them, and to aid them to act in ways that are as constructive and congruent as possible for the good of themselves, their societies, and the earth. If it shines some light as people explore their spiritual paths, that's magnificent. Just remember that this is a lantern, not the destination, and there are many ways of being in this world. As Graves liked to say, "Damn it all, a person has a right to be who he is." 

What is 'the design question?'

      A simple way to frame the elements in a Gravesian analysis of an activity - business, education, political, health care, or whatever - is to apply a simple question: "How should who manage (or teach or lead or coach or facilitate) whom to do what?" To add a temporal component, include "when?" This was one approach Dr. Graves advocated to make practical use of his point of view since each element can be broken out according to principles in ECLET theory. 

      'How' includes and inventory of the alternative models, means, and tools. It can range from hard, pragmatic realities to wild imagination and best-case guesswork. 'Who' defines the choices of teacher, manager, leader, etc. - the person who will best fit the people and situation, given the possibilities at hand. The verb - 'manage', etc. - is part of the work to be done - the facilitative function which causes action. It is important to engage the correct sort of action step, and to implement it in a way that is congruent with those being impacted and the task. The important aspect is the interface between teacher and learner, coach and client, manager and managed, colleague and colleague. The 'whom' element is the differentiation of thinking and capabilities, the recognition that people are different, analysis of their needs, and the levels of existence in play. 'To do' calls for an assessment of competencies and the requirements to perform successfully at the work to be done, whether physical, mental, or emotional. More than that, it is the way of thinking that the work to be done requires, that the situation presents, and which the milieu presents to those entering it. 'What' is the character of the work to be done, itself.  This includes complexity of work, repetitiveness, temperament required, intelligences demanded, risks and benefits, etc. Finally, the 'when' element recognizes that individuals and organizations change, so it is important to recognize where in their lifecycle stages the intervention is occurring with the recognition that events are sometimes loops, often spirals. This, then, is the timing question and suggests that what worked then might not work now, and what works not might not work tomorrow. 

      Putting all of these chunks together, the design question provides an elegant way to look at many factors impacting people in organizations and forces us to think about the various relationships among them. It provides strategists a useful tool to stretch across surface, hidden, and deep values, and anyone a reminder that elements connect across many variables. 

How do the 6 Conditions for Change and the Change States relate?

.

.     We're not fans of the 'Spiral Wizard' notion even though it is prominent in the 1996 SD book, having found that most people who lay claim to the title fall a wee bit short on grasping the intent of the theory or applying it ecologically. There's enough hypocrisy in the world without our adding more, so we make no claims to being psychologists, nor to wizardry, only students of human nature. 

      It's a far cry from cognitively understanding parts of a model to being the embodiment of what it represents. And placing expectations for behaving in the ways one advocates for others can be disappointing or worse. Describing is far simpler than being, and conflating theories with theorists is usually a bad mistake. When "do as I say, not as I do" is so commonplace, it's more honest not to be too grand. So, even though the Spiral Wizard business was included in the book, we prefer to leave the wizardry to Harry Potter and to suggest that there's much to be learned about human nature. This work is just another scratch at the surface, and one limb of a fast-growing tree. 

      Therefore, our mascot is the Spiral Lizard, a relatively mild-mannered creature that represents the merging of many colors, each contributing to the whole organism and with no pretension to knowing what color it truly is, only continuing to search around the field. 

  ..

.

Got a question that's not here, yet? 

Submit questions to info@spiraldynamics.org and we'll try to get an answer and post it in this space.

..