Engage & Participate

Online Exercises

Quick Test: Are You Post-Progressive?

Are You A Developmentalist?
Take the Test

Take a 2-minute test of your political developmentalism, and see your “transcendence and inclusion score.”

This simple test asks you to select your level of agreement or disagreement with twelve political statements. The test results will indicate your inclusivity score, your transcendence score, and the overall extent of your developmental perspective.

Worldview Questionnaire

Worldview Questionnaire

What is your worldview? Take this 7-minute test and find out which “values frame” describes you best.

By answering these 17 questions you may learn more about your own worldview, as well as about the worldviews of others.

Character Development Exercise

Character Development Exercise

Become a better person through this brief exercise in character development—create your personal portrait of the good.

Answer 10 questions to create a personalized chart of what matters most to you. This chart—your Portrait of the Good—will be sent to your email address as a pdf file.

Community Comment

“I am grateful for the post-progressive way of thinking. It was totally new to me, and now that I have been exposed to it, I think it is the way forward. It is the future. If there is a way out of this terrible culture war, I think it will be something along these lines. I love the idea of taking the best of the different worldviews and bringing them together into a more inclusive post-progressive worldview. This is a brilliant approach, and I am going to try to share it with as many people who are willing to listen to me as possible.”

– Lucas Chasin

Community Comment

“Progressivism doesn’t work without a foundation of modernism and traditionalism. Post-Progressivism allows modernists and traditionalists to feel significant, to feel needed, and to have a foundational seat at the table. The reason I don’t identify as a progressive, even though I am a vegan, spiritual, conscious, burning man guy, is because I feel its rejection of these previous worldviews …”

– Thomas Waterman

Load More...
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons
2 days ago

I'm really missing Jeff Salzman's developmental/integral take on the news! And I'm betting other DP folks are too. Any plans to do more episodes and livestream them here? Tagging Steve McIntosh and Kevin Kretschmer since I don't think Jeff is on Facebook much. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Me too. Need more Jeff.

I’ve missed him, too! He’s helped to keep me sane during difficult periods with his humor, acceptance of all levels and integral optimism. I’ve been watching The Shrink and the Pundit which I also love.

2 weeks ago

An argument for individual and collective development from Bill Maher.

... See MoreSee Less

Video image

Comment on Facebook

Well done 👏

Hysterical. Just what is needed now a little bit of humor. Thanks for posting this.

Before I get into it, I want to say I get that this is comedic, and at the same time I recognize that there are legitimate attitudes and opinions animating the comedy. So, this isn’t about me not being able to take a joke, this is my critique of that which underlies the jokes. So, I think that Dr. James Sweet article on presentism and his concerns about the rigor of some current historians is a great catalyst for a nuanced discourse. Personally, I think Maher is missing some nuance in this take, and makes a meaningful error in his understanding of history. To begin, I would say that child-adult development is not a perfect parallel to societal development. His argument overlooks the historical figures and movements that opposed the injustice and atrocities while they were happening. To claim that it’s unfair of us to look back a few hundred years with moral clarity and condemn the harmful actions of people/governments because they were in a different paradigm and didn’t possess our moral clarity is to dismiss, downplay, or erase the people who did have the moral clarity and did challenge those actions at the time. They did exist. And I’m grateful for historians who highlight them. Maher’s comments about slavery make a pretty gross false equivalence. American chattel slavery was uniquely cruel and dehumanizing in several ways. And looking back at that historical period with sober honesty does not negate or deny all other horrible examples of slavery throughout history. It feels like what-about-ism to say “sure, America had 250 years of slavery, but slavery happened in other places and times too” Ok, but that doesn’t take away from the particular damage done here in the U.S. That doesn’t justify our unwillingness to repair the damage that continues to unfold generations later with profound disparities in wealth, opportunity, well-being, and criminal justice. Why wouldn’t we look at the sins of our past to consider the similarities to the sins of our present, and then take responsibility, repent, repair, and course-correct to avoid those kinds of sins in our future? What good is history as a discipline if it can’t be used as a reflective tool? I would argue that we can absolutely study history with rigor and integrity while also holding it up as a mirror, looking for patterns and similarities to our current human and social challenges. It appears to me that the objections really start rolling in when historians hold up history in ways that challenge our comfort with our status quo. I think that kind of reflection and analysis is healthy, and a necessary step towards a collective life of less suffering and greater freedom, harmony, and abundance. Maher and Sweet seem to think this goes too far. I think a good question to ask is why do they think that? How might their comfort with the status quo be upset by these kinds of historical reflections? How might their particular worldviews be challenged? Maher later says that history is factual, and implies that the “presentists” he and Sweet object to are changing, deleting or manipulating facts. But, that’s really not true of the many credible historians using critical lenses in their work. In fact, what they are typically doing is adding more factual content to our historical records and narratives. That necessarily complexifies our understanding of history. And those complications I think are really at the root of Mayer’s objections. I think he doesn’t want his worldview challenged by more complexity. In my opinion, his motivated reasoning is fairly tansluscent here. I think he doesn’t like these emerging movements of postmodern critical social justice thinkers. I imagine he has his reasons, and has already established their faults in his mind. Dr. Sweet’s article likely provoked some satisfying confirmation bias, and provided more ammunition to get a few shots off at them on his show. I could bring up more examples of the poor reasoning and misrepresentations I see in this clip, but, I’ve already brought more oppositional energy than I wanted to, and I need to bring this to a close. I think historian Jemar Tisby offers a healthy critique of Dr. James Sweets article here: jemartisby.substack.com/p/the-real-problem-with-historians My big zoomed out argument is simply that the postmodern critical lenses of progressive leftists in academia need not be denounced or transcended, by integral/developmental,2nd Tier thinkers. They can be quite usefully integrated. I say this with confidence because I am seeing that exemplified in people like Adrienne Maree Brown, Miriam Kaba, Valarie Kaur, and Brian McLaren.

I loved Bill Maher's and Trace Adkins' interactions in last week's show as well and in Overtime (after the show, available on YouTube), too. Brought tears to my eyes. There is no doubt in my mind that Bill Maher is a COG second-tier (Post-progressive/Yellow/Turquoise) thinker.

I read the James Sweet article and listened to the Jemar Tisby podcast, and I found persuasive arguments in each. I was disappointed that Sweet gave in to pressure and apologized for "causing harm" and "foreclosing" conversation. But it also got me thinking about presentism from modern/Orange, postmodern/Green, and developmental/integral perspectives. From Orange, practitioners and supporters of slavery should be understood within the moral standards of their time, not our time. From Green, we need to include the perspective of the enslaved, as well as the fact that some "white" Americans were opposed to slavery - so we shouldn't give slavers and slave owners a pass. But from an integral perspective, it seems to me that those abolitionists (of all skin tones) were early Green COG, many of whom might have benefited from slavery but couldn't justify it the way their less morally evolved peers could. They were the exception, not the rule; whereas today overt racism is the exception. So from that perspective it makes more sense to celebrate early objectors as the leading edge of a more inclusive morality more than to demonize their slavery-supporting peers as monsters. That's not to say that slavery itself is not monstrous, of course! Curious if this makes any sense - or perhaps it's obvious.

View more comments

Load more

Community Comment

“I really appreciated the use of gay marriage as an example of win-win-win policy solutions because it shows how people with different approaches to political issues can still align on values. In speaking to my friends about using this value integration technique I realized that it can be helpful to use value as a verb, rather than a noun. When you look at value as a verb, as in ‘what do we all value?’, it really does become possible for traditionalists, modernists, and progressives to value a lot of the same things.”

– Scott Kirby