Patterns of Misperception Between Chapman's Stages of Moral Competence

David Chapman has developed a very interesting framework, elaborating moral psychology developed by Kegan and Kohlberg, to address the differing ability of humans to co-exist in groups at varying levels of complexity, through their ways of finding meaning. This can be seen in their moral competence, a phrase which Chapman often uses.

If you're not already familiar with Chapman's stage, I suggest you first visit his pages, then return here for this additional detail. Part of the interest is that the stages correlate fairly well with modes of civilization over time, including states, religions, and art.

The theory, if that's the right term, is a rich one in that it rewards interrogation with further insights. For example - yes, people do vary in their achievable levels of competence, an uncomfortable realization which Chapman emphasizes less than Kegan.


Another observation Chapman makes is that to a person at level X, level X+1 is indistinguishable from level X-1. (The following will make no sense if you haven't read his work, so if you haven't, please do.) Let's call this misperception pattern A, or "they're all the same."

Example A-1: to a communal level 3 person who cannot function at level 4, the institutional-minded level 4 boss who fires her for constantly missing work due to family obligations just seems like a level 2 psychopath. She can't tell the difference from her stage of moral competence. (Concrete example: think immigrant to Western country living with their family, or J.D. Vance's hillbillies, working for a large corporation.)

Example A-2: to a level 4 institutionalist, the level 5 person just seems like a tribalist/communitarian. Think of that same corporate manager, watching with frustration as their kids participate in a gig economy, maybe program part-time, live in a co-op, have polyamorous relationships - to the corporate manager, this is responsibility-shirking, sloppy living just like the hillbillies.


I'd like to propose another pattern: People at level X can function superficially at level X+2. This is misperception pattern B, or "superficial skipping levels."

Example B-1: a level 1 person (who is dependent on others and cannot even provide the basics of their life) survive in level 3 settings, but are not net contributors and do not truly find meaning through their family or communal settings. Children are level one briefly as infants and toddlers; disabled people may be level 1 throughout their lives.

Example B-2: a level 2 psychopath (my term) can, for a time, survive in an institutional (level 4) setting. Their mechanical transactionalism superficially is a good fit for the rule-based world of the institution. However, in a good (high-functioning, rational, mission-driven) institution, their behavior is not sustainable. (Unfortunately for many of us it is not hard to imagine this. See here for the emergent behavior of institutions - they are neither constellations of individuals, nor collectives.)

Example B-3: a level 3 communalist can seem to fit into a level 5 setting. Ultimately they will find the shifting modes of meaning incomprehensible and frustrating, and split off into an actual communal splinter from the level 5's around them, or return to their level 3 community of origin. Think of the level 5 son. Hey may have met someone who he thought would be an interesting person to start an intentional community with, a guy from Guatemala playing the guitar in a park, and invited him to come out to the desert for a while. The guy tries, but finds it all very weird, and would just rather be with his family.


For an overview of Chapman's stages, start here.