Why Is Any Of This Important ... Values|Part 5:

Morning, I had some time this morning so I thought at least a quick post would be in order ... Two of the most interesting distinctions I find between folks operating from a Graves Five vs. a Graves Six position are:

When someone operates from a Graves Five position they are usually quick to recognize and acknowledge themselves as operating from a Graves Five position (in context of course) ... and I almost always find that they are interested in the idea of the Graves Model because they think they can use it to understand people and gain an advantage ... e.g.: many of my business clients get immediately how valuable understanding the Graves Model will be in enhancing any marketing efforts they might undertake

When someone operates from a Graves Six position they are typically unwilling to acknowledge they operate from any position at all, claiming that they are beyond or outside of position ... immediately present to the world you might say ... and I often find that they express a real resistance, if not outright resentment, at the entire idea of typing ... "Why do we have to have categories for people?" ... it seems that rather than taking the model as one way of understanding where a person/culture/society/organization might be in a moment, they perceive the model as trying to limit and/or lock a person into a fixed description (which just isn't what Dr. Graves wrote about at all IMO)

Of course these distinctions are broad generalizations, and I'd be loathe to apply them specifically without evidence. I find it interesting though that I can usually identify the pattern typical of Fives or Sixes simply by their response to the introduction of the Graves Model at all. Since I've outlined the Five position a bit it seems like it would be useful to spend a bit more time on outlining the Six value set. Before I begin it would be useful to add that I am using two source of information when I present this model:

Written information by Dr. Graves himself (primary source material and the material I value most) as well as that written by students/scholars of Dr. Graves/Graves Model (secondary sources and derivitive sources - anything that I write about in regard to what I learned from others, including Dr. Graves himself, would fall into this secondary category of information)

Direct observation and practical application, i.e.: empirical knowledge ... since I was introduced to this model it has captured my fascination and I pursued learning about it, learning from it and applying it directly myself, in this pursuit I have become at the very least familiar with the model personally

I state all this because I tend to present aspects of the model in an unusal or unique way in comparison to some others who are writing about and/or using the Graves Model. So with fair and fore warning ... What I find to be true of Graves Sixes (i.e.: individuals/cultures/societies/organizations operating from a Graves Six position in the moment) includes a tendency to look for commonalities first. The obvious compliment to this will be an immediate exposure of difference as well, i.e.: "If we're not the same, we must be different." And, I find anyone operating from this position tends to be highly inclusive ... as long as the folks they are including are already like them. RED FLAG WARNING: (This next bit reflects my personal observation only, and should not be construed to be absolute nor based on exhaustive research.) Along with this positon of selective inclusiveness comes a highly developed and expressed exclusiveness. While there can be a great deal of intellectual tolerance expressed in the Six position, the manifestation of this often runs to extreme and intellectually violent intolerance of positions that are unlike their own. Think the accusations made about intellectual liberal elitists. This will often be the way highly educated Sixes will be seen by Fours and Fives ... even those that are highly educated themselves. I think this becomes extremely important for two reasons I'd like to point out:

I believe from the evidence that the Graves Six position truly does demonstrate more inclusiveness and tolerance than either the Graves Four or Five position - remember Fours believe they know the singular right way ... and Fives don't really care beyond how it impacts them personally in terms of their self-interest

The Graves Six postion evolved after both the Graves Four and Graves Five position as a set of values which includes access to the values of both Fours and Fives, while Fours and Fives DO NOT have access to the value set used by Sixes

When folks who have evolved to the postion where the Graves Six value set becomes available to them the can choose to use this expanded value set (expanded beyond the value sets of Fours and Fives) to actually create a more inclusive community. By example I tend to work with what could be called Conscious Executives, Entrepreneurs and Professionals as my core client group. In fact those I work with are more often than not highly aware and creative individuals who are leading businesses with an intention to promote conscious (and I'd add - compassionate) capitalism. These folks truly want to change the world for the better ... Creating Futures That Work ... as a tagline I use in my business says. These folks are often found in the LOHAS marketplace, and most are Cultural Creatives themselves. All of these demographic labels are highly recognized by virtually every one of my clients, yet many of them will initially resist the idea of using a value set template like the Graves Model when I initially present it to them. One of the things I also see frequently will be the attitude being expressed that: "We get it and they just don't." E.g.: "We get that if we don't do something about the environment the whole thing could crash ... those other folks keep polluting and trashing the world just to make money at whatever cost ... they don't really care about anyone but themselves." I know this might/can sound harsh, yet I also find it to be a common value position among even some of my most aware and highly evolved clients. What shifts once these clients begin to get that these are value positions, NOT the way people intrinscally are ... or a position of BEING, they relax their exclusionary stance and the expressions that emerge from holding onto it. It becomes possible to build a more inclusionary (i.e.: larger) frame for interacting with people successfully ... they get more of what they want, and you get more of what you want. From the position of recognition of differnences of the value sets that various individual/cultures/societies/organization operate out of the true value of the Graves Six position becomes most evident ... the ability to operate at multiple levels of consideration simultaneously.

At their best Sixes create solutions that attend to the desires and needs for the plaurality of constituents in any given context. When they do this they serve both themselves and others brilliantlly ... creating greater value that becomes increasingly available and accessible in many diverse domains of consideration ... commerce, science, art ... virtually anywhere they choose to put their attention.

We are seeing in communities like this one here at *zaadz the evolution of inclusiveness and awareness about how the social networks we build can be used to serve the greatest common good, while at the same time supporting the individuals who comprise them ... and even those beyond the net of the community itself. From my point of view this represents a movement from self-interest to the beginnings of a true position of social-interest that begins at the Graves Six level of social values. Wow ... once again I took a bit of time laying out an idea that I wanted to share. I hope at least some find it informative ... useful ... entertaining ... or maybe even all three. Best regards, Joseph Riggio, Social Ontologist Princeton, NJ PS - I feel inspired to spend a bit of time next time around the idea of business as a social mechanism ... and how business can be used to lead the way as a positive social force ... until then ...