Stein on Development

I agree that this article is important and raises some difficult and delicate issues. I like, for example, how Zack points out that we can, basically, be higher or lower on the levels with regards to the situation we are in. This is much more complex than we normally think, and we probably tend to generalize too much. Although I would add that we can say we have an average score, or our center of gravity is around one level or another. That ought to be okay.

BUT, I read this paragraph:

"Many who consider themselves developmentalists think it is valid to make holistic developmental assessments that determine the essence of a person. Moreover, because higher-levels are hypertrophied it is thought that more developed people are better people. Generally, it is thought that we use developmental assessments to find out how good people are so that we can then give them the acclaim, trust, and responsibility they deserve. Even a cursory familiarity with the current discourse surrounding the practice of developmental assessment reveals that it looks like a lot like the myth of the metals."

this seems like obvious (to me at least) that we can't really make any truly "holistic" assessments to determine any "essence" of a person. But on the other hand, more developed people (in some lines I would add, and in some situations/contexts) really are "better" or perhaps more suited or preferable. If we go too far in the argument Zack raises, wouldn't that be almost like saying that developmental studies are essentially worthless or at best, something to play games with??

I see it as actually possible to make value statements (although it's incredibly hard, and at best, only probable statements) because we have so many developmental models to use and so many different lines or intelligences to take into account.

Oh well, I would love some response this... I may be all wrong about my views :-)