The pioneers of quantum mechanics began to undermine this paradigm early last century through their investigation of the wave-like nature of reality at a quantum particle level.  Their investigations suggested that reality relies on an observer to trigger a collapse from an uncertain state of multiple possibilities (probabilities) into a finite state that we observe as ‘real’ or ‘true’.  In quantum theory, different observers may see different versions of the ‘truth’ depending upon their knowledge of the system.  Metaphysical theories take this one step further and suggest that the intent of the observer, ie what the observer intends to see by prior choice (conscious or subconscious), will influence what’s seen.

And now the global climate change debate has shone a bright light on the old scientific paradigm, highlighting its unreliability.  A quick Google and you can find scientists claiming to have evidence both for and against the human influences on climate change.  The strong push to prevent further human damage to our climate seems to have been undermined by revelations that much of the science is apparently ‘biased’ one way or the other.  So here is the impact of the observer creating the ‘truth’, right on centre stage.  Perhaps this is the tipping point for our mainstream scientists, inviting them to move on from the old paradigm?

While the degree of human influence on climate change remains uncertain for many people, the degree of human influence on the science is hard to ignore.

The operation against the Taliban has failed to appreciate the likely motivations that are fuelling aggression against the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition.  Based on an understanding of the current life conditions in Afghanistan and on an understanding of human nature using Graves’ model, here’s what I think the US and allies are facing…

I’ll attempt to simplify this as best I can, but the fact is that human nature is highly complex and dynamic – always changing.  The strongest themes likely to be found in Afghanistan are that of Tribalism, with its emphasis on kin connections, sacred tribal land and the safety of the tribal group. This worldview alone is enough to trigger aggression against anyone who would trespass on sacred land and threaten the safety of the tribe. Simply by being there uninvited, the coalition forces are generating hatred amongst the general population.

A second strong theme is that of Powerful Empires, which is reflected in the warlords and power struggles among factions and tribes in the country.  In an evolutionary sense, this theme is the next natural step after tribalism. History is our witness to that; any tribal people will eventually move into a power based society complete with violence and domination. This may look ugly to westerners but it’s normal human behaviour in these circumstances. By invading and attempting to dominate by power, the coalition forces are declaring themselves players in the local power struggles and will attract aggression from those whose territory they invade.

A third theme overlaid on these first two is that of Authoritarian Order, characterised by the fundamentalist belief systems of the Taliban.  This worldview typically uses ‘absolute truths’ such as religion to justify rigid adherence to rules and sacrifice in the name of duty to a higher cause.  When combined with the motivations of tribalism and power plays, this third theme can justify and fuel suicidal sacrifice for a cause.

These three themes represent natural, sequential stages of development for countries like Afghanistan.  Whether the Taliban is present or not, the first two themes are virtually guaranteed to fuel aggression against an invader.  There are many other complex issues at play as well, including the opium trade and cross border dynamics with neighbouring countries.

Unfortunately the US administration has failed to appreciate the complexity of the situation and the motivations of its opponents, and has failed to learn from history – particularly the unsuccessful attempt by the USSR to pacify Afghanistan 1979-1989.

Another 30,000 US troops will simply invite greater opposition from the locals, and by announcing an exit strategy it signals that the goal of ejecting the invading forces is within reach.  For Obama, who has inherited this mess, I suspect the main aim is to achieve a short term win and then exit while it looks good, thus saving political face.

Seashells in the desert. A clue?

Whatever your opinion, you can Google it and find support for it, including quoted scientific evidence.  Whatever you look for you will find. One thing I’m sure of is that the climate is changing.  It has never stopped changing in fact.  It always was, long before the arrival of Homo Sapiens and it and always will be.  Hence we find seashells in deserts and rainforest remnants under the ice in various parts of the world.  Really, we shouldn’t be surprised.

An increasing number of people on the planet are voicing their concerns about our impact on Mother Earth and this suggests that they’ve reached the sixth stage of human development, as mapped by Dr Clare W Graves.  This means that more people are thinking in more complex ways.

As this new worldview grows, it’s becoming increasingly evident that many of the world’s powerbrokers are still at less complex stages of development.  The evidence lies in their materialistic priorities and the placing of financial profit over and above issues that could threaten the continued stable existence of the human race.  Some of these issues include over population, the availability of drinking water, food and adequate healthcare, and natural resource depletion.

The upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is unlikely to result in any meaningful global action to cope with climate change.  The primary reason is that the political decision makers who will attend face conflicting opinions from powerbrokers in industry and from within their voting constituencies. Few will have the courage to go with their own feelings at the risk of a voter backlash.  Most will look for a nice comfortable compromise.

At the very heart of the climate change matter, the wrong questions are being asked. Namely, is climate change our fault and if so what should we stop doing?  Anyone who has trained in NLP will know that negative messages often bring the opposite of the desired result.  Hence the failure of programs that ask people to stop or reduce their carbon emissions.  We need to focus on positive messages if we want results.

Anyone who knows human nature will realise that people respond to signals in their immediate environment.  If everything feels fine, why should we reduce carbon emissions?  The impression of the majority is that more immediate hurt will come from reducing carbon emissions than from continuing to live the way we do.

So what’s the alternative then?  Firstly, to stop arguing about whether humans are causing climate change.  The climate has always been changing.  Secondly to focus on what the world needs ‘to do’ (positive language) to help humans cope with climate change.  Some regions on Earth can no longer support the agriculture they once did, because of climate change.  Other places are being inundated with sea water as levels rise.  These are immediate and very real impacts, not scientific postulations.

A more subtle message hidden within the problem of dealing with climate change is that our democratic system of government is in the early stages of failing.  As the world’s problems become more complex and our capacity to have global influence increases, we need our very best leaders and problem solvers driving the bus.  These people are rarely the ones elected by a majority vote.  This is a very challenging issue and one that the world isn’t quite ready to deal with yet.  I suspect things will need to get a lot worse before we start looking at options other than one-vote-one-value democracy, but eventually we will need to.

For adaptive change to occur in a sustainable way, six conditions are required according to Graves.  By looking for these six conditions we can assess whether major change is viable, or not.  This simple assessment is potentially worth a fortune when you look at how much is spent on unsuccessful change initiatives.  So here are the six conditions needed for sustainable developmental change.

1. Potential

The individual, organisation or community must have the inherent potential to undergo developmental change.  Sometimes as a result of our personal potential, our past experiences or the current environment, we may not be open to change.  Graves documented examples where people were temporarily arrested and others where people were closed to change as a result of these factors.  People who are arrested have the capacity to change back (regress) to previous ways of coping, but not forwards.  People who are closed rigidly apply one way of coping, unable to change their thinking or behaviour.

2. Solutions

Solutions must be found to life’s more basic problems before developmental change can occur.   Graves demonstrated that development is a staged process and progression to higher stages requires the resolution of problems specific to the preceding stages.  Put simply, while our basic needs are unmet we’re unlikely to allocate energy to solving more complex problems.  Free energy is needed to fuel the change process.

3. Dissonance

Dissonance means feeling that something isn’t quite right.  Over time this feeling can precipitate a crisis.  Some of Graves’ research subjects referred to this as having their ‘complacency disturbed’.  Without it, there’s no reason to change.  Dissonance triggers a regressive search through old behaviours for something that might re-establish stability.  We often hear people say things like ‘let’s get back to basics’.  The regressive search will end in arrest (getting stuck), regression to the old ways, or in the eventual emergence of a new worldview (ie developmental stage).

4. Insights

Insights into viable alternatives must be available.  In an individual these result from chemical changes in the brain which activate the next most complex neuropsychological system, bringing new ways of thinking.  The chemical changes are fuelled by dissonance and the resulting crisis (this is the proverbial alchemist’s furnace).  These are the classic innovative ‘light bulb’ moments when we suddenly think outside the box, opening up access to entirely new worldviews and behaviours.

5. Barriers

Any barriers to the implementation of insights must be identified and dealt with for change to proceed.   Barriers may be external, such as organisational or social designs and systems, or internal such as ways of thinking, social taboos and perceived cultural norms.

6. Support for consolidation

Once new ways of thinking and behaving have successfully emerged, a period of consolidation is needed to embed these new ways as the new ‘normal’.  This requires the persistence of the life conditions (problems of existence) that drove the change and the continued success of the new ways of coping.

It’s complex!

One of the complications Graves found in applying the six conditions was that different kinds of dissonance, insights and barriers (etc) showed up at different stages of development.  For example people who were changing from the Authoritarian to the Enterprising worldview (see the change map) required different insights and faced different barriers than someone who might be changing from Enterprising to Humanistic.  This is an extremely important point for change facilitators.

In unsuccessful change projects, too often the insights and support being provided are inappropriate, resulting from little or no understanding of the staged development process.  Many classic examples are available in the media right now, where highly developed countries are (at enormous expense) attempting to change less developed countries or communities, but are using largely inappropriate strategies.  For example, both the intervention in Afghanistan and the Australian Government’s intervention in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory reflect an inadequate understanding of developmental change.

Look for the six conditions

So when planning and facilitating change, look to see which of the six conditions are present (or possible) and understand your starting point on the change map.  Only then can you help provide the insights and support needed for natural, sustainable change to occur.

Reference:
Graves, C. (2005). The Never Ending Quest, Christopher. C. Cowan and N. Todorovic, eds. Santa Barbara, USA: ECLET Publishing.