Don’t let one strong line pass for overall maturity
When someone is outstanding in one capacity — usually intelligence or charisma — check the other lines separately before trusting their judgment in areas that need them.
Why it works
Intelligence and maturity are related but not interchangeable: a meta-analysis of 42 studies found modest correlations between intelligence and ego development, and ego level still predicted outcomes after intelligence was controlled for. Cognitive sophistication also does not protect against seeing bias in others more easily than in oneself. Because a leading line is the most visible one, it tends to be read as the whole person; checking lines one at a time breaks that halo.
How to do it
- Think of someone whose judgment you are deferring to because they are clearly strong in one area — brilliant, articulate, spiritually advanced, highly successful.
- Name the area you are actually relying on them for: managing people, handling conflict, making a moral call, caring for someone.
- Ask what evidence you have about that specific capacity, separate from the one they shine in. Look for how they behave when they are wrong, criticised or not in charge.
- Apply the same check to yourself: where are you leaning on a strength to stand in for a capacity you have not actually built?
Evidence
Cohn and Westenberg (2004) meta-analysed 52 correlations from 42 studies (5,648 participants) and found correlations of .20 to .34 between ego level and intelligence; in 94% of tests ego level still related to criteria such as aggressive behaviour after controlling for intelligence. West, Meserve and Stanovich (2012) found bias blind spots were not reduced by cognitive ability, and if anything were larger with higher ability. Meyerhoff’s summary of Wilber’s model gives the integral version: a person can be well developed on one line, such as the spiritual, and poorly developed on another, such as the moral. (observational)
These findings show that intelligence and maturity are separable on average; they do not tell you anything certain about a particular person, and the practice itself has not been tested.
Sources
- Cohn, L. D., & Westenberg, P. M. (2004). Intelligence and maturity: Meta-analytic evidence for the incremental and discriminant validity of Loevinger’s measure of ego development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 760–772.
- West, R. F., Meserve, R. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (2012). Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 506–519.
- Meyerhoff, J. (2010). Bald Ambition: A Critique of Ken Wilber’s Theory of Everything, Chapter 2. Inside the Curtain Press.
Common mistake
Swinging to the opposite error and distrusting anyone gifted. The point is to check each capacity on its own evidence, not to assume the strong line hides a weak one.
Practice this with IX Coach
More practices for Lines of Development: Why People Grow Unevenly
- Find which capacity drops out in one recurring situation
Instead of asking where you are "undeveloped" in general, pin down the one situation where you reliably act younger and name the capacity that goes missing there.
- Sketch your psychograph from evidence, with someone who knows you
Rate each capacity from recent incidents rather than self-image, have someone who knows you rate it blind, and decide line by line whose view to trust more.
- Work the gap between what you can do with support and alone
Find a capacity you show only when someone scaffolds you, practise it with that support, and then thin the support out in steps.
- Check which prerequisite is missing when knowing doesn’t become doing
When you understand a principle and still don’t live it, check separately whether you can reason it through, see the other person’s side, and act on it under pressure.
- Ask for feedback one domain at a time
Replace "How am I doing?" with one specific question per capacity, asked of the people who see that capacity most.
- Treat "I’m just not that kind of person" as an unpractised skill, not a fixed line
When you write yourself off in a whole domain, restate it as a specific skill you have not built in specific situations, and test that.
Related concepts
- Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory (AQAL), Made Practical
Five elements for catching what your view of a situation leaves out, held as a map rather than a truth
- Kegan’s Subject-Object Theory, Made Practical
Moving from being run by your assumptions to being able to examine them
- Terri O’Fallon’s STAGES Model, Made Practical
Twelve stages built from three repeating questions, and how to work with the one you are in
- Ego Development Theory: What It Is and How It Is Measured
The frame you make meaning through, how researchers measure it, and how to work with it without ranking anyone
Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0: cite or embed this practice · more practices graded Observational studies