And there we have our completed model of inclusive development. Remember: that is just a metaphor. These represent relationships. With that said I am going to indulge in some speculation. Those of you who were just here for the sciencey-math bits can just hit the jump.
I have been trying to avoid metaphysical assertions here, and so have avoided the concept of spiritual development. While I have been working on this model, there have been those who have suggested that this is a critical oversight. As an example of how spiritual development could fit into a model similar to this one, I could consider our spiritual development as the gradual process of an individual coming to understand and accept their need to believe in and relate to something greater than themselves. This appears to be a kind of internalization of the same drive as our sexual self, so I would represent it in the model as a forward-pulling force supporting further self-development, which seems to reflect the role that spirituality appears to play in the lives of actual people. Ken Wilber has done a lot of interesting work trying to integrate spiritual development, and as we noticed with some of our particular aspects, the highest stages of spiritual development are not commonly reached. The model would suggest that this full development might serve as a stabilizing factor in the All-of-Us space, and if we wanted to get really carried away we would carry the metaphor to suggest the transition of the All-of-Us concept from a gaseous to a liquid state, less combustible. The optimist might start talking about the possibilities of a hive-mind, but then we are writing a science fiction novel, not a guide to reality, so we will stop the speculation there.
Ok, sciencey-math types, you can come back. What's that? I had you at hive-mind? Nice.
So that is it. You are here, you are this complicated and this unique. This is the rest of us. We are here, and just like you we each are complicated and unique, and collectively we are this big and can do things like this. We are all here together in this crazy huge universe, and we are all dying, but we get a little bit better at not doing that with each passing generation. This is the future. We live here.
To be clear, this model is a consideration of the historical psychological theories, and how they might be considered in relation to each other. Most of these theories represent the state of the field of developmental psychology in its very infancy. Since then, a lot of brilliant people have been working on developing these theories through some rough periods in early childhood. I'm looking at you, Millgram. We could consider the relatively recent addition of Cognition Theory as the development of the collective cognition to the formal operational equivalent. To stretch a weak metaphor a bit further, I would just say that a description of the state of the field in its infancy should be expected, even if perfectly accurate which I would not claim, to have exactly as much relation to the current understanding of the field of developmental psychology as the habits of a new born resemble the rich and complex life of, say, a collegiate senior. Just as when we consider a human we have to consider their past in order to understand their present, we want to consider the context out of which the current field of psychological understanding grew. Again, we cannot forget, or assume, Time.
Again, this is not our hitchhiker's guide to reality, in the way that the map is not the territory. I have provided a cursory annotated bibliography of work presented at the most recent biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development in Appendix X. A good start in developing a similar model of the current representation of the field of developmental psychology would be to take those papers, build a representation of each particular aspect of development, and then consider the holistic relation of each of those aspects to the others. I would also like to try and include hedonic psychology, and the positive psychology field into the more current model. What I hope this model accomplishes is two-fold. First I would like to suggest that such a holistic model is possible. I am hoping to spend sometime looking into it further, and I could really appreciate some help. I set up a website that includes all the information in this paper, and the appendices. I would appreciate as much feedback as you are willing to give me, and if you think that there is something that literally everyone should probably know either about ourselves or the world in order to get along better you can send those in to firstname.lastname@example.org. Second, I hope to share with a broader audience a better understanding of what psychology has to offer. To that end I am sure that I did not say everything as clearly as I could have, and I'll gladly field whatever questions you might have about what I have presented. You can send those to email@example.com. While the title of this site is mostly a tongue in cheek homage to one of my favorite authors, it is also my hope that in the not to distant future psychology could in fact provide us with our own hitchhiker's guide to reality. So don't panic. We got this.