by I had the luxury of a free Sunday morning to soak in the New York Times (yes, it should be a necessity!) and came across an interesting story “Don’t Mess with My ‘Sacred Values.” Sacred values are defined as moral imperatives that we’re unwilling to compromise on, be they political, religious, or personal. In the story, Iranian President Rouhani has claimed a “right” to enrich uranium, essentially making a sacred values case for it. There’s an interesting historical discussion of research done on sacred values (yes, there is research on it). The discussion shifts to a focus on whether offering money would persuade one to compromise on a sacred value, with the conclusion being that “money is a subject best avoided” when sacred values are in play. It is offensive if a truly sacred value is in play. Of course, the question becomes how do you know if a sacred value is really in play? It could be a negotiating ploy. The piece suggests that a brain scan might reveal the truth, as sacred values seems to “light up” in a certain area of the brain. Interesting stuff!
A question I was left with in light of the research in ConsumerShift (and drawing on Spiral Dynamics in this case): is a “sacred value” a characteristic of Tier 1 thinking, in which each value system believes its system is the correct one, thus exhibiting a tendency to an uncompromising view? It also seems that a “sacred value” would more likely be characteristic of traditional values, less likely of modern, and less likely yet again with postmodern? One might argue the more individualistic tendency of moderns might make them more willing to compromise than the more communitarian postmoderns, but I’ll stick with the tendency that evolution would be toward less strongly held values over time. So Integrals, as the first second-tier values system holders, would perhaps not be inclined to hold sacred values such that they would not be open to compromise under any circumstance. Keep in mind that my sense of this is that being open to compromise, doesn’t necessarily mean that one would – just that one wouldn’t rule it out. Studying sacred values and the types would be an interesting research question — hmmmm. Andy Hines
Andy, the answer to question one is ‘no’ as is demonstrated in the SD model.
For instance the CP system holds sacred ‘whatever the F* I say it is’ (compromise through time and space). DQ system says whatever the ‘book’ says it is (VERY rare compromise) ; ER ‘whatever best fits the current needs right now based on what I know’ (compromise to context and intentions) and FS is ‘whatever we the collective agree are the sacred values and we’re open to change if we learn and understand more.’ (compromise to group context and purpose)
As to ‘Integrals being the first second tier value systems holders’, mmm