Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Using the Quadrants

Posted October 24th, 2009 by Lynn C
In Reference to:
Better Relationships: Who Are You Talking To?

I have to say that I feel a certain amount of confusion in using the quadrants in this way, as a measurement of individual differences, and sense that others may be confused as well, judging by the posted comments.  I'd like someone with knowledge of the development of the Native Perspectives coaching tool to, first, lead me to a reference in which Ken Wilber specifically talks about the possibility that individuals may have preferences about which quadrant to use as a lens, and how this might be understood.  I haven't, so far, been able to find such a discussion by Ken.  Up until now I have understood Ken's quadrants as a comprehensive map of all the perspectives all humans CAN use in apprehending reality, not as differentiators of perspectives that individuals DO use in a preferential manner.   Secondly, I would be very grateful to learn what the developers of this instrument are hypothesizing as the two potentially measurable dimensions of human personality whose intersections form each of the four quadrants.  In order to be meaningful as components of a personality measure such as this one, it seems to me that each of these two dimensions must be relatively clear-cut, valid, and independently measurable. At the moment, to me, the vertical dimension of the Native Perspectives matrix resembles the Myers-Briggs N-S dimension (Intuition-Sensing) and the horizontal dimension the I-E (Introversion-Extraversion).  Could this be what the developers had in mind?  I think that answers to my two questions are what I need to enrich my understanding of this instrument and any further use I may make of it.  Until I know what these dimensions are, in my efforts to figure them out I am throwing in what is probably a lot of extraneous material that belongs to discussions of Wilber's quadrants as lenses, but not to the individual differences quadrant discussion.  I noticed others doing that too, e.g.,"inner and outer within each quadrant."  Also, some are inferring differentiation between preferences for emotion vs thought (which I don't think is even included in the Native Perspective quadrants or Wilber's matrix either for that matter). On the other hand, my questions may be impertinent, I am not thinking integrally,  and  I am missing something fundamental. If so, I would welcome any comments that might make the light bulb go on in my head. 

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Hey Lynn

Posted October 25th, 2009 by Brendan LaChance

This is in no way a complete response to what you are saying.   I also would appreciate a better explanation of this.

But here is my understanding.

The native perspectives are not meant to suggest that we can not access the other perspectives.  I understand the "native" perspective as being one's emphasized perspective.  When I understand it this way, I find it to be a very helpful tool. 

Additionally, if we consider that the goal of a "2nd tier" individual in relation to the AQAL map is to utilize all these perspectives, I think we should keep in mind that any "2nd" tier individual got there through a history of "1st tier."  What perspectives did we emphasize throughout our lives?  If we are trying to expand this limited perspective, where have we historically/developmentally been weak? 

I did a beta session of the Integral coaching.  My "native" perspective was (is) Upper Left.  My coach then assigned me a metaphor: the tracker in the wilderness of my mind.  This perspective is always looking for something new and always for meaning.  Emphasizing this perspective alone had me running into a lot of walls.  My coach helped me start to exercize a new perspective (in my case more of an Upper Right perspective) by creating a new metaphor for me.

In my experience with working with these perspectives and metaphors so far, it isn't that they are inseperable and yet I do find there to be a totally different feel when one is emphasized over another.  When I am in my tracker (UL) perspective, I am trying to always find meaning from everything.  Certainly, this is taking in information from other perspectives but it is like I have located the eye of the hurricane over the UL ( to visualize it on a map).  When I am able to successfully start emphasizing my Upper Right metaphor, the center of the hurricane is no longer focused on pulling meaning from all of the perspectives that are present.  The emphasis there is more just about noticing and acting.  This perspective still draws on my "native" perspective but the native perspective is no longer sort of the last filter.  For me, it is very much an exercize in shifting where the frontal self is residing.  Certainly, I think any perspective is a filter on an infinite, wholistic Self.  It is just that this infinite Self in particular individuals, particularly early in development, emphasizes a particular perspective.  The "native" perspective exercize is about becoming aware of what we tend to emphasize.  This begins to allow for a bit more breathing room and flexibility to shift into other perspectives. 

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Subjective Quadrant Orientation

Posted October 25th, 2009 by Nathan Woogums

Hi Lynn,

The concept and method of using the quadrant model as a personal typing lens was developed by Joanne Hunt and Laura Divine. Ken hasn't written anything about it, but they have, particularly in the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, Spring 2009(vol.4 no.1). Their understandings come from twenty-year long careers in corporate and personal coaching. As Laura said in their talks with Ken, she and Joanne are very pragmatic, and are primarily concerned with applying the Integral Model and theory in a way that works in the real world. 

An important distinction to make is that when there is talk about which quadrant a person orients from, the orientation is always happening through the upper left - a subjective assessment of what a person pays attention to and considers important when making sense of what is being experienced. This can be modelled by drawing two intersecting lines on a blank sheet of paper to represent the quadrants, and then drawing two more intersecting lines in the upper left quadrant to represent the various quadrant orientations that a person can draw upon to inform their own subjective sense of meaning. 

At no time is the map to be confused with the territory, and you're right - people are always being informed through all of the quadrants, but will tend to filter what they perceive through a particular quadrant orientation, and express it as such. Your insistence on "validation" may indicate an UR predisposition on your part.

For instance, I am LR dominant, UR secondary. A few years ago I was out for a walk with a friend. It had just rained, and we came across a mud puddle with an oil slick on it, reflecting every colour of the rainbow. I made a comment about how the volatile hydrocarbons were on their way into our water supply through the hydrological cycle, which would increase the chances of cancer and birth defects for anyone who drank it. 

My friend (UL dominant) didn't take her eyes off the puddle while she said, "It's so beautiful". 

Both of us were right, and each of us was habitually looking through a different "quadrant lens". While each of us could understand the other's orientation, we each made very different habitual assessments about the same experience, and arrived at very different places in terms of what that particular mud puddle meant. 

I hope this helps,

 

Nathan