Treat a contradiction as information, not a problem to close
When two frameworks you trust contradict each other, study the contradiction before choosing a side.
Why it works
Michael Basseches described dialectical thinking as a form of adult thought that can use closed-system models for what they are worth while also seeing their limits, treating each model as a moment in a larger process of contradiction and transformation. In his account, adults move toward this as they run into the limitations of, or contradictions among, the closed systems they rely on. Staying with a contradiction long enough to ask what each side is built to see turns the clash into evidence about both frameworks, rather than a threat to be resolved as fast as possible.
How to do it
- Pick a real contradiction between two frameworks you trust — two theories, two traditions, two mentors who would advise opposite things.
- Write each framework’s answer in its own terms, as a believer in it would.
- For each, ask: what does this framework treat as fixed that the other treats as changeable?
- Ask what a larger picture would have to look like for both to be partly right in their own domain.
- Only then decide what to do in this situation, and note what the decision leaves unresolved.
Evidence
Basseches (1980) coded 27 interviews with college freshmen, seniors and faculty for 24 "dialectical schemata" and found faculty used a significantly broader range than seniors, and seniors than freshmen, supporting a post-formal form of thought that develops in adulthood. Veraksa, Basseches and Brandão (2022) describe the fuller account in Basseches (1984): dialectical thinking keeps the power of closed-system analysis while articulating its limits, and adults move toward it as they meet contradictions among closed-system models. This research line is parallel to Kegan’s, not part of it; the practice applies it rather than testing it. (observational)
The 1980 study is a small, cross-sectional sample from one selective college; it shows differences between groups, not that practicing with contradictions produces development.
Sources
- Basseches, M. (1980). Dialectical schemata: A framework for the empirical study of the development of dialectical thinking. Human Development, 23, 400–421.
- Basseches, M. (1984). Dialectical Thinking and Adult Development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
- Veraksa, N., Basseches, M., & Brandão, A. (2022). Dialectical Thinking: A Proposed Foundation for a Post-modern Psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 710815.
Common mistake
Resolving the contradiction by averaging the two sides into a mild compromise. A split-the-difference answer usually hides what each framework actually sees; the work is to understand why they conflict.
Practice this with IX Coach
More practices for The Self-Transforming Mind: Kegan’s Fifth Order, Made Practical
- Come back to something real right now, not a worldview
Stop mapping your own mind and let the floor, your breath and one ordinary task tell you what is real today.
- Reach a person now if nothing feels real or worth doing
If nothing feels real or worth doing, and you think about not being here, call or text a person now rather than trying to rebuild meaning alone.
- Ask what your own system leaves out
Take the framework you live by and look at it as one partial system: what does it see well, and what is it built not to see?
- Catch yourself owning one side of an opposite completely
Notice when you have put all the good qualities on your side of a split and all the bad ones on the other.
- Talk across whole ways of seeing, not just positions
In a deep disagreement, try to understand the other person’s whole framework and let it question yours.
- Notice when the self you authored starts defending itself
Watch for the moment a challenge to your principles lands as an attack on you, and name it.
- Hold the developmental map — and your place on it — lightly
Notice when knowing about later stages has become another way to feel ahead of other people.
- Laugh at how seriously you take your own growth
Practice light-heartedness about the effort to get yourself right, as a way of loosening the grip of the self you are building.
- Stay with the unsettled stretch between selves
When the identity you authored stops holding, expect an in-between period and get support rather than rushing to rebuild.
Related concepts
- Kegan’s Subject-Object Theory, Made Practical
Moving from being run by your assumptions to being able to examine them
- Self-Authorship: Moving From the Socialized to the Self-Authored Mind
Kegan’s stages, subject-object moves, and authoring your own life
- 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
- 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
- The Immunity to Change Process, Step by Step
Why a change you truly want keeps not happening, and the step-by-step way Kegan and Lahey take it apart
- Torbert’s Seven Action Logics of Leadership
Seven ways leaders make sense of pressure, how common each is, and how to work with your own
Free to reuse under CC BY 4.0: cite or embed this practice · more practices graded Observational studies