Panel: Development and Ethics: Katie Heikinnen, Zak Stein, Elliott Ingersoll, Susanne Cook-Greuter, Roger Walsh
This is part one of two - part two will be up tomorrow.
We started with a 10-minutes guided meditation led by Roger. He slowly and progressively moved us into a boundless state and had us find the questions that move us about this panel - these were mine: (1) How do we disconnect development scores from self-esteem/identity? (2) How do we care for the individual while applying these models and measures?
[PLEASE NOTE: These are not direct quotes - they are my best effort at recording and paraphrasing the conversation.]
Katie (the moderator) then had each panelist introduce themselves in terms of what they want to say about the up side of developmental & psychometric testing and models. I'm going to abbreviate these a bit, simply because I'm really tired and this was a bit less interesting than the rest of the conversation.
Elliott: First, do no harm. Great koan, and so hard to actually do it. People attach meaning to numbers and scores in the subjects - people's expectations are a challenge. Post-test debriefing is essential, and it doesn't often happen.
Susanne: I have no experience in ethics, so I am not sure why I am here. But I am a person who cares about other people, about scoring tests with fairness and compassion. I resist the impulse to transform everyone. And yet I am a developmental psychologist. This is also a business - how to maintain ethics in that marketplace. maybe staying small is the answer? Is that silly?
Zak: The state of the education in the US is the biggest ethics issue in human development. Models and metrics. Education is for profit. We test the hell out of people/kids and we measure little of any value. And the models are not useful. We need a bio-psycho-social model. Too many kids are taking drugs just to stay in school when we would be better off looking at the classroom culture, their environment.
Roger: (He kind of just listed a series a huge issues that concern him, so that is how I will present them.)
- I'm not an ethicist, not a developmentalist
- We need to consider the ethics of the test, and the validity, and also how the details are used
- We have to be careful - reading about higher meditation states derailed my practice for at least two years while I tried to reach those higher levels
- Also, we need to watch issues of specialness - seeing ourselves as a stage/color - comparing mind is a big trap, as well as elevationism
- Uncomfortable with efforts to map groups or cultures as any stage
- Trap of pigeon-holing - intolerance of ambiguity - results in stereotyping
- We must be values-aware since we can't be values-free
- Why do we do developmental assessments and hold developmental views?
- What are the dangers and risks?
- What does it do to our sense of self?
- What does it do to our sense of other?
- Why do we believe in a developmental perspective?
- Believe = fervently hope.
- Value comes in the discussion after the test as administered.
- Insight into their meaning-making - better relationship, better therapy experience.
- We need to not be sure . . .
- We need to wonder about how they (clients) explore their experience of self
- Feedback = test of the test, not the person
- Constant questioning is important
- Development is not stable and people are not static - even the theory is not static
- We must leave space in the methodology of testing for its growth
- I believe in development because it's there - it's really happening - maybe I'm young enough to still believe - Evolution happens
- It's about trying to create conditions that generate autonomy in the deepest sense
- Standardized testing is designed to monitor return on investment, not in the best interest of the growth and education of children
- Opening new possibilities
- I have a faith that truth will set us free - that truth is an on-going exploration - helping us recognize and invoke potentials within us
- Pitfalls - money in the equation?
- Types . . . not a fan - none of them have proven reliable (Enneagram, Myers-Briggs)
- But as a metaphor of a style, you get a sense of the client, and where they are
- BUT, the risk is that clients will use the results of a test they request to beat themselves up (not advanced enough OR not living up to potential) - not useful in that sense
- Pop psych/self-help books (we buy other people's books to help ourselves?) - no feedback from the quizzes, no context - no debriefing, which is crucial
- These tests and models create an illusion of certainty where there is none - "Word Magic"
- Very few scorers due to the stringent requirements we hold for people
- Testing is never the first option for our coaches - maybe down the road, but only if indicated
- Must be cautious because testing can create harm, wounding
- Integral is guilty of of this in its arrogance - not valuing how hard it is to be an adult
- Being a part of integral is a great gift, but it has also given me 50 more ways to be neurotic, at every level, in every state
- Regarding the educational crisis - we are in over our heads
- Just choosing a cell phone plan, actually comparing and choosing one, is a Level 11 (in our model) task demand - life is so complex - we are often not competent to life's demands
- But this is now a knowledge based economy - huge demand for psychometrics means no standards, no limits on their use
- Testing is crucial in education - but we rank and sort, we regulate self-esteem based on test scores that do nothing to help kids learn - tests should be diagnostic, not prescriptive
- Based on some recent journal articles:
- Psychological testing is the most important contribution of behavior science to the culture
- No discussion of ethics
- There's a sense of the test knowing us better than we do, better than we know ourselves
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment