Seeking Deeper Understanding #100

SDTEST^® has 38 different VUCA polls that calculate the 13,643 correlation values between stages of development according to the theory of Spiral Dynamics and answer options of these 38 polls.

We invite curiosity about the systemic mechanisms behind this correlation. There may be hidden variables that provide alternative explanations.

In our analysis of the poll "Real freedom is," we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.1140 (Pearson) between the Real freedom is fighting for what I believe in, even if it means violence / Disagree strongly and the Purple stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.0793. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of -0.1140 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.  

This negative correlation of -0.1140 between "Real freedom is fighting for what I believe in, even if it means violence / Disagree strongly" and the Purple stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Purple value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Purple mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that freedom is closely tied to protecting sacred traditions and community harmony.
2. Confirmation that violence, when sanctioned by ancestral laws or a higher power, is sometimes necessary to preserve the group’s way of life.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that the community’s spiritual integrity and continuity may require decisive, even forceful, action.

These organizations might respond by:

• Framing any protective actions as sacred duties aligned with ancestral beliefs.
• Emphasizing rituals that honor the community’s protective actions.
• Prioritizing the group’s survival over individual moral judgments about violence.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Purple mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing violence as a last resort to protect the team’s shared values and kinship bonds.
2. Interpreting it as proof that loyalty to the group and its traditions can sometimes demand difficult actions.
3. Seeing it as validation that the team’s unity and spiritual alignment are worth preserving, even through hardship.

These teams might respond by:

• Creating strong in-group solidarity that distinguishes clearly between members and outsiders.
• Supporting members who act to defend the team’s values, provided their actions align with ancestral or spiritual guidelines.
• Using storytelling and ritual to reinforce the moral boundaries around when violence is acceptable.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Purple value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that their identity is deeply tied to the group’s well-being, making some forms of violence acceptable in the name of protection.
2. Evidence that rejecting violence outright could undermine their duty to their ancestors or community.
3. Proof that freedom, in their context, involves the responsibility to maintain the group’s spiritual and physical safety.

These individuals might respond by:

• Viewing acts of violence through the lens of intent, whether it honors ancestral laws or protects the community.
• Struggling internally with the moral weight of violence but ultimately deferring to the group’s or leader’s judgment.
• Finding ways to reconcile any violent actions with their spiritual beliefs through rituals or acts of penance.

This correlation, viewed through the Purple lens, suggests that individuals operating at the Purple level are less likely to universally condemn violence as incompatible with freedom. Instead, their understanding of freedom is deeply contextualized within their commitment to community, tradition, and spiritual laws. Their perspective acknowledges that violence, while serious, may sometimes be necessary to preserve the sacred order and well-being of the group.

The reasons why individuals with stronger Purple values might be less likely to disagree that freedom might involve violence could include:

1. Sacred Protection: Violence is sometimes seen as necessary to defend sacred traditions and communal harmony.
2. Ancestral Sanction: Actions are justified when they align with ancestral laws or the will of a higher power.
3. Group Survival: The community’s well-being is prioritized over individual moral judgments about violence.
4. Moral Context: Violence is contextualized as a protective measure rather than an absolute negative.
5. Spiritual Legitimacy: Belief that spiritual or ancestral legitimacy can sanctify actions taken in defense of the group.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems shape perceptions of freedom and morality. It raises questions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of a Purple approach to ethical dilemmas, particularly in contexts where communal cohesion and ancestral values are deeply intertwined with notions of freedom and protection. 

In our analysis of the poll "21 skills that pay you forever" (by Jeremiah Teo / 赵汉昇 [1]), we found an intriguing negative linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.1394 (Pearson) between the Ability to learn how to learn / Strongly Agree and the Red stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a non-normal distribution, by Spearman, is r = 0.0056. Nevertheless, this negative linear correlation of -0.1394 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.  

This negative correlation of -0.1394 between "Ability to learn how to learn / Strongly Agree" and the Red stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Red value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Red mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that direct action and immediate results are prioritized over long-term skill development.
2. Confirmation that employees should adapt quickly to assert dominance, not engage in reflective learning.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that power and resource control matter more than mastering meta-learning skills.

These organizations might respond by:

• Rewarding aggressive, results-driven behavior over collaborative learning initiatives.
• Minimizing investments in extended training, favoring quick tactical wins instead.
• Creating environments where power dynamics overshadow mentorship or skill-building.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Red mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing continuous learning as inefficient, as it slows down rapid decision-making and action.
2. Interpreting it as proof that assertiveness and quick adaptation are better than vulnerability (required for admitting growth needs).
3. Seeing it as validation that teams thrive on bold moves, not on reflective processes.

These teams might respond by:

• Prioritizing swift execution over learning loops or iterative improvement.
• Celebrating bold, aggressive actions that secure short-term advantages.
• Discouraging open discussions about skill gaps or development needs.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Red value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that self-expression and immediate impact matter more than long-term growth.
2. Evidence that reflecting on personal development feels like a weakness or delay in asserting power.
3. Proof that growth should be tied directly to power gains, not abstract self-improvement.

These individuals might respond by:

• Focusing solely on skills that enhance dominance or influence.
• Rejecting feedback or learning opportunities that don’t immediately boost their status.
• Viewing continuous learning as irrelevant unless it serves immediate power objectives.

This correlation, viewed through the Red lens, suggests that those operating at the Red level prioritize power and immediate results over reflective growth. It implies that in the Red value system, growth is redefined as quick adaptation for dominance rather than lifelong development.

The reasons why meta-learning might be de-prioritized in the Red stage could include:

1. Immediate Gratification: Red values prioritize instant victories over long-term skill development.
2. Power Over Reflection: Growth is seen as a weakness if it doesn’t directly enhance dominance.
3. Action-Oriented Mindset: Teams and individuals focus on bold moves rather than iterative learning.
4. Competition for Resources: Learning initiatives are viewed as distractions from power struggles.
5. Survival-First Mentality: Growth is sidelined in favor of securing short-term advantages.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems shape views on personal development. It raises questions about the benefits and drawbacks of a Red approach to growth, particularly in contexts requiring adaptability and long-term strategy. 

In our analysis of the poll "Why do people procrastinate?", we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

0.0767 (Pearson) between the Effective Prioritization: Difficulty in prioritizing tasks or determining which tasks to focus on first / Highly Applicable and the Blue stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.0624. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of 0.0767 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation. 

This positive correlation of 0.0767 between "Effective Prioritization: Difficulty in prioritizing tasks or determining which tasks to focus on first / Highly Applicable" and the Blue stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Blue value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Blue mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that strict adherence to predefined roles and hierarchies can sometimes lead to paralysis when priorities are unclear.
2. Confirmation that employees may struggle with autonomous decision-making if it deviates from established protocols.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that clearer, more rigid prioritization frameworks need to be implemented from the top.

These organizations might respond by:

• Developing even more detailed prioritization guidelines and checklists to reduce ambiguity.
• Training employees to follow hierarchical chains for task clarification strictly.
• Reinforcing the idea that deviation from prescribed priorities is a failure of duty.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Blue mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing difficulty in prioritization as a sign of weak leadership or unclear communication from superiors.
2. Interpreting it as evidence that team members need more explicit direction rather than autonomous decision-making skills.
3. Seeing it as validation that the team’s effectiveness relies heavily on externally imposed order.

These teams might respond by:

• Creating rigid rotation schedules for task assignment to avoid priority conflicts.
• Encouraging members to escalate prioritization questions up the hierarchy rather than resolving them internally.
• Celebrating adherence to prioritization protocols as a marker of good team citizenship.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Blue value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that their need for clear, externally validated priorities is widespread in their value system.
2. Evidence that struggling with task prioritization reflects a broader societal failure to provide moral and hierarchical clarity.
3. Proof that their identity as rule followers is threatened when priorities are ambiguous, leading to anxiety and procrastination.

These individuals might respond by:

• Actively seeking more detailed instructions from superiors before starting tasks.
• Viewing autonomous prioritization as a risky behavior that could lead to moral or hierarchical misalignment.
• Struggling with guilt when forced to prioritize independently, seeing it as a potential violation of duty.

This correlation, viewed through the Blue lens, suggests that individuals operating at the Blue level may struggle with task prioritization due to their reliance on external structures and fear of deviating from prescribed norms. Their tendency to view clear roles and duties as essential can create anxiety in ambiguous situations, leading to procrastination.

The reasons why difficulty in prioritizing tasks might be more prevalent in the Blue stage could include:

1. Hierarchical Dependency: Reliance on superiors to provide clear priorities, seeing independent judgment as risky.
2. Moral Clarity: Fear that choosing the "wrong" priority could violate a moral or organizational code.
3. Rule-Bound Mindset: Difficulty operating outside predefined protocols, leading to paralysis without explicit guidance.
4. Duty Over Autonomy: Belief that adhering to external prioritization is a fundamental duty, making independent decisions anxiety-inducing.
5. Cultural Expectation: Organizations and teams reinforce the idea that ambiguity is a problem to be solved by clearer rules, not a space for creativity.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems shape approaches to task management. It raises questions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of a Blue approach to prioritization, particularly in contexts requiring adaptability and autonomous decision-making. 

In our analysis of the poll "Reasons why people give up" (by Anna Vital [2]), we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

0.0531 (Pearson) between the Expect fast results and the Orange stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.0514. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of 0.0531 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation. 

This positive correlation of 0.0531 between "Expect fast results" and the Orange stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Orange value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Orange mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that fast results are critical markers of strategy effectiveness and resource efficiency.
2. Confirmation that delayed outcomes may signal misalignment with market demands or operational efficiency.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that adapting quickly to new information is a competitive advantage.

These organizations might respond by:

• Implementing agile methodologies to accelerate results and maintain alignment with goals.
• Using fast results as key performance indicators for team and project evaluations.
• Encouraging a culture of rapid iteration where quick feedback loops drive decision-making.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from an Orange mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing fast results as essential for maintaining motivation and focus on measurable outcomes.
2. Interpreting delays in results as opportunities to reassess strategies and reallocate resources.
3. Seeing the expectation of fast results as a driver of innovation and problem-solving agility.

These teams might respond by:

• Breaking down projects into shorter sprints to ensure regular milestones and momentum.
• Holding regular reviews to evaluate progress and make data-driven adjustments.
• Celebrating quick wins as indicators of effective execution and adaptability.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Orange value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that their results-oriented approach prioritizes efficiency and impact.
2. Evidence that expecting fast results reflects their commitment to logical problem-solving and pragmatism.
3. Proof that delayed feedback is not a lack of discipline but a prompt to reevaluate their approach.

These individuals might respond by:

• Setting shorter-term goals to maintain a sense of progress and accountability.
• Viewing delays in results as feedback signals rather than personal failures.
• Actively seeking new methods or tools to accelerate outcomes and maintain alignment with objectives.

This correlation, viewed through the Orange lens, suggests that individuals operating at the Orange level value fast results not out of impatience, but as a metric for strategic alignment and efficiency. Their focus on measurable outcomes and adaptability leads them to view delays in results as opportunities to refine their approach rather than as reasons to persevere blindly.

The reasons why expecting fast results might be more prevalent in the Orange stage could include:

1. Results-Orientation: Fast results are seen as indicators of successful strategy execution.
2. Feedback Loops: Quick feedback allows for rapid adjustments and maintains momentum.
3. Resource Efficiency: Delayed outcomes may suggest misallocation of time or effort.
4. Competitive Drive: Fast progress is essential for staying ahead in a results-driven environment.
5. Logical Pragmatism: Orange values practical, measurable outcomes over prolonged abstract efforts.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems shape perceptions of perseverance and adaptability. It raises questions about the benefits of an Orange approach to goal achievement, particularly in contexts where rapid iteration and strategic agility are crucial.

In our analysis of the poll "What will you do this week to look after your mental health?", we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

0.0996 (Pearson) between the Connect with others and the Green stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.0601. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of 0.0996 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation. 

This positive correlation of 0.0996 between "Connect with others" and the Green stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Green value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Green mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that fostering human connection aligns with their commitment to psychological safety and inclusive well-being.
2. Confirmation that prioritizing community and relationships is central to employee mental health.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that mental health initiatives should emphasize collaborative and empathetic environments.

These organizations might respond by:

• Implementing programs that encourage team bonding and community-building activities.
• Creating spaces for open dialogue and emotional support among employees.
• Prioritizing leadership training focused on empathy and relational skills.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Green mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing human connection as essential for creating psychologically safe spaces where members feel valued.
2. Interpreting it as proof that collaborative dynamics and mutual support enhance collective well-being.
3. Seeing it as validation that prioritizing relationships leads to healthier, more productive team environments.

These teams might respond by:

• Organizing regular check-ins focused on emotional well-being and relationship-building.
• Encouraging peer support and mentorship programs.
• Celebrating acts of empathy and connection as integral to team success.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Green value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that their emphasis on relationships is a healthy approach to mental well-being.
2. Evidence that valuing human connection aligns with their identity as compassionate and community-focused individuals.
3. Proof that their commitment to psychological safety through connection is supported by broader trends.

These individuals might respond by:

• Actively prioritizing time for meaningful connections in their routines.
• Viewing acts of connection as vital to both personal and communal health.
• Advocating for the importance of relational well-being in their social and professional circles.

This correlation, viewed through the Green lens, suggests that those operating at the Green level prioritize human connection as a cornerstone of mental health. Their focus on empathy, inclusion, and psychological safety makes relational practices central to well-being.

The reasons why human connection might be prioritized as a mental health practice in the Green stage could include:

1. Psychological Safety: Connection creates environments where individuals feel secure and valued.
2. Holistic Well-being: Mental health is seen as interconnected with relational and community health.
3. Empathy as Strength: Prioritizing relationships aligns with Green's focus on compassion and understanding.
4. Community-Centered Values: Mental health is supported through belonging and collaborative care.
5. Systems Thinking: Recognizing that individual well-being is deeply tied to relational and social systems.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems shape approaches to mental health. It raises questions about the benefits of a Green approach to well-being, particularly in contexts where community, empathy, and relational health are deeply valued.

In our analysis of the poll "Oxford Happiness Survey," we found an intriguing negative linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.1154 (Pearson) between the I am very happy / Strongly Agree and the Yellow stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.0487. Nevertheless, this negative linear correlation of -0.1154 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation. 

This negative correlation of -0.1154 between "I am very happy / Strongly Agree," and the Yellow stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Yellow value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Yellow mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that the pursuit of growth and complex problem-solving often takes precedence over simple measures of happiness.
2. Confirmation that employees may find more meaning in personal and professional development than in static contentment.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that a nuanced understanding of well-being, beyond just happiness, is critical for holistic development.

These organizations might respond by:

• Creating environments that prioritize continuous learning and development over mere satisfaction metrics.
• Encouraging cultures where challenges and growth opportunities are celebrated as part of the human experience.
• Framing happiness as one aspect of well-being rather than the ultimate goal of professional or personal life.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Yellow mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing happiness as a natural but temporary state that arises from meaningful collaboration and progress.
2. Interpreting it as proof that deeper fulfillment comes from navigating complexity and achieving collective growth.
3. Seeing it as validation that well-being is multifaceted, requiring balance between happiness and the struggles inherent in growth.

These teams might respond by:

• Fostering cultures where both positive achievements and challenging setbacks are acknowledged as part of the journey.
• Supporting members in understanding that temporary dissatisfaction can coexist with long-term purpose and fulfillment.
• Encouraging open dialogue about well-being that goes beyond superficial measures of happiness.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Yellow value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that their focus on growth and contextual understanding makes traditional measures of happiness less relevant.
2. Evidence that their identity is tied to ongoing development and impact, rather than static emotional states.
3. Proof that they prioritize depth of experience and meaningful contribution over simple contentment.

These individuals might respond by:

• Viewing moments of unhappiness as signals for growth rather than indicators of failure.
• Rejecting the notion that constant happiness is a realistic or even desirable goal.
• Finding fulfillment in the complexity of their experiences, including both joy and meaningful struggle.

This correlation, viewed through the Yellow lens, suggests that individuals operating at the Yellow level may prioritize growth, complexity, and holistic well-being over simple measures of happiness. Their integrative perspective leads them to see well-being as multifaceted, with happiness being just one component of a richer, more dynamic life experience.

The reasons why individuals with stronger Yellow values might be less likely to strongly agree they are "very happy" could include:

1. Growth Over Contentment: Yellow values prioritize continuous development, which can involve discomfort as part of the growth process.
2. Complex Understanding of Well-Being: Happiness is seen as one dimension of well-being, not the ultimate measure of success or fulfillment.
3. Acceptance of Struggle: Challenges and temporary unhappiness are viewed as natural parts of meaningful growth and depth of experience.
4. Holistic Balance: Well-being is understood as a balance between positive emotions and the resilience gained through navigating difficulties.
5. Contextual Fulfillment: Fulfillment is tied to impact and understanding, which may not always correlate with simple happiness.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems define well-being and fulfillment. It raises questions about the potential benefits of a Yellow approach to happiness, particularly in contexts where personal growth, complexity, and holistic development are deeply valued. 

In our analysis of the poll "Characteristics of a talented employee" (by TMI [3]), we found an intriguing negative linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.1413 (Pearson) between the Strong delivery commitment and work ethic and the Turquoise stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.1156. Nevertheless, this negative linear correlation of -0.1413 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This negative correlation of -0.1413 between "Strong delivery commitment and work ethic" and the Turquoise stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Turquoise value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Turquoise mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that talent extends beyond mere delivery to include holistic well-being and sustainable practices.
2. Confirmation that prioritizing employee health and ecological impact over relentless productivity aligns with their mission.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that long-term success depends on balancing productivity with compassion and systemic health.

These organizations might respond by:

• Redefining performance metrics to include ethical and sustainable contributions alongside traditional output measures.
• Creating cultures where well-being, work-life balance, and environmental stewardship are integral to talent assessment.
• Encouraging leadership that values empathy and systems thinking over unilateral focus on delivery commitments.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Turquoise mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing strong delivery commitment as potentially harmful if it sacrifices team well-being or ecological responsibility.
2. Interpreting it as proof that talent should be measured by adaptability and relational intelligence rather than sheer work ethic.
3. Seeing it as validation that sustainable collaboration and shared purpose matter more than individual productivity quotas.

These teams might respond by:

• Prioritizing work practices that respect personal boundaries and environmental limits.
• Celebrating members who contribute to holistic team health and ethical decision-making.
• Encouraging collective responsibility over individual delivery commitments.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Turquoise value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that their identity as compassionate, systems-oriented contributors extends beyond traditional productivity metrics.
2. Evidence that their rejection of overly rigid work ethics reflects a deeper commitment to well-being and interconnectedness.
3. Proof that their focus on sustainable living and holistic health is a more meaningful marker of talent than conventional measures.

These individuals might respond by:

• Actively resisting work cultures that demand unsustainable levels of commitment.
• Viewing talent as a combination of skill, ethical awareness, and capacity for meaningful collaboration.
• Prioritizing personal and community well-being in their professional choices.

This correlation, viewed through the Turquoise lens, suggests that individuals operating at the Turquoise level may prioritize holistic well-being and ethical alignment over traditional markers of talent like delivery commitment. Their perspective emphasizes that talent involves balancing productivity with compassion, sustainability, and interconnectedness.

The reasons why "strong delivery commitment" might be de-prioritized as a talent marker in the Turquoise stage could include:

1. Holistic Well-being: Talent is measured by contributions to systemic health, not just output.
2. Sustainability Over Exploitation: Relentless work ethic may conflict with ecological and human limits.
3. Systems Thinking: Value is placed on understanding interdependence rather than isolated productivity.
4. Ethical Balance: Talent includes ethical decision-making and environmental stewardship alongside results.
5. Compassionate Productivity: Success is redefined to include empathy and work-life harmony.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems define talent and productivity. It raises questions about the benefits of a Turquoise approach to talent management, particularly in contexts where sustainability, ethical awareness, and holistic health are deeply valued. 

What insights do you gain from today's correlation? How might we study this relationship more carefully before deducing causation? 

We welcome respectful and wise perspectives! Stay tuned every week as we share more results and insights. 

After login or registration, free access to the poll results in the FAQ section.

[1] www.linkedin.com/in/jeremiah-teo-charisma-business-coach
[2] www.linkedin.com/in/annavital
[3] www.linkedin.com/company/talent-management-institute

Valerii Kosenko

May-ari ng Produkto SaaS SDTEST®

Si Valerii ay kwalipikado bilang isang social pedagogue-psychologist noong 1993 at mula noon ay inilapat ang kanyang kaalaman sa pamamahala ng proyekto.
Nakakuha si Valerii ng Master's degree at ang project at program manager qualification noong 2013. Sa panahon ng kanyang Master's program, naging pamilyar siya sa Project Roadmap (GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement e. V.) at Spiral Dynamics.
Si Valerii ang may-akda ng paggalugad sa kawalan ng katiyakan ng V.U.C.A. konsepto gamit ang Spiral Dynamics at mathematical statistics sa psychology, at 38 international poll.