Seeking Deeper Understanding #098

SDTEST^® has 38 different VUCA polls that calculate the 13,643 correlation values between stages of development according to the theory of Spiral Dynamics and answer options of these 38 polls.

We invite curiosity about the systemic mechanisms behind this correlation. There may be hidden variables that provide alternative explanations.

In our analysis of the poll "My greatest fears," we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

0.0797 (Pearson) between the HIV/AIDS and the Purple stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a non-normal distribution by Spearman is r = 0.0012. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of 0.0797 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This positive correlation of 0.0797 between "HIV/AIDS" and the Purple stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Purple value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Purple mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that HIV/AIDS is perceived as a violation of spiritual and ritual purity, potentially seen as a curse or divine punishment for straying from ancestral laws.
2. Confirmation that the disease disrupts the harmony and kinship bonds that are central to community well-being.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that safeguarding against such threats requires adherence to traditional protective rituals and taboos.

These organizations might respond by:

• Enforcing strict codes of conduct rooted in ancestral beliefs to prevent behaviors perceived as inviting the disease.
• Organizing communal rituals or purification ceremonies to protect against spiritual contamination.
• Stigmatizing those affected by HIV/AIDS, viewing them as sources of spiritual imbalance.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Purple mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing HIV/AIDS as a threat to the sacred bonds of kinship and loyalty that hold the team together.
2. Interpreting the disease as a sign of moral or spiritual weakness within the group.
3. Seeing it as validation that adherence to traditional values and practices is essential for group safety and cohesion.

These teams might respond by:

• Creating barriers to protect against perceived spiritual contamination, potentially isolating affected members.
• Using the fear of HIV/AIDS to reinforce group solidarity and adherence to communal norms.
• Encouraging members to avoid behaviors or interactions that could be seen as violating ancestral taboos.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Purple value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that HIV/AIDS is a manifestation of spiritual disfavor or a break from ancestral guidance.
2. Evidence that their fear aligns with communal values and protects them from spiritual harm.
3. Proof that their identity and well-being are deeply tied to preserving traditional purity and avoiding contamination.

These individuals might respond by:

• Strictly avoiding behaviors or people associated with the disease to maintain spiritual alignment.
• Participating in communal rituals to protect against spiritual contamination.
• Viewing those affected by HIV/AIDS with a mix of pity and fear, seeing them as both victims and carriers of spiritual imbalance.

This correlation, viewed through the Purple lens, suggests that those operating at the Purple level may fear HIV/AIDS not just for health reasons but as a profound spiritual and communal threat. It implies that in the Purple value system, the disease is understood through the framework of tradition, spiritual purity, and community harmony.

The reasons why HIV/AIDS might be seen as a profound fear in the Purple stage could include:

1. Spiritual Contamination: Belief that the disease carries spiritual impurity or curses.
2. Communal Harmony: Fear that the disease disrupts kinship bonds and community well-being.
3. Ancestral Taboos: Concern that contracting the disease violates ancestral laws and protections.
4. Ritual Purity: Association of the disease with behaviors or conditions that violate ritual cleanliness.
5. Divine Punishment: Interpretation of the disease as a sign of moral or spiritual failure deserving of fear and avoidance.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems perceive health threats. It raises questions about the potential benefits and drawbacks of a Purple approach to health issues, particularly in contexts where spiritual and communal well-being are closely intertwined with physical health.

In our analysis of the poll "Psychological Well-being" (by Carol D. Ryff), we found an intriguing negative linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.1266 (Pearson) between the Personal growth. For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and growth / Strongly agree and the Red stage.

The critical value of the Spearman correlation coefficient for a non-normal distribution is r = 0.0019. Nevertheless, this negative linear correlation of -0.1266 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This negative correlation of -0.1266 between "Personal growth. For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and growth / Strongly agree" and the Red stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Red value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Red mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that power and dominance are prioritized over introspective learning, as rapid victories matter more than gradual skill development.
2. Confirmation that formal training or long-term development programs are seen as distractions from immediate resource battles and power struggles.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that employees should adapt quickly to assert dominance, not engage in reflective growth.

These organizations might respond by:

• Rewarding aggressive, results-driven behavior over collaborative learning initiatives.
• Minimizing investments in extended training, favoring quick tactical wins instead.
• Creating environments where power dynamics overshadow mentorship or skill-building.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Red mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing continuous learning as inefficient, as it slows down rapid decision-making and action.
2. Interpreting it as proof that assertiveness and quick adaptation are better than vulnerability (required for admitting growth needs).
3. Seeing it as validation that teams thrive on bold moves, not on reflective processes.

These teams might respond by:

• Prioritizing swift execution over learning loops or iterative improvement.
• Celebrating bold, aggressive actions that secure short-term advantages.
• Discouraging open discussions about skill gaps or development needs.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Red value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that self-expression and immediate impact matter more than long-term growth.
2. Evidence that reflecting on personal development feels like a weakness or delay in asserting power.
3. Proof that growth should be tied directly to power gains, not abstract self-improvement.

These individuals might respond by:

• Focusing solely on skills that enhance dominance or influence.
• Rejecting feedback or learning opportunities that don’t immediately boost their status.
• Viewing continuous learning as irrelevant unless it serves immediate power objectives.

This correlation, viewed through the Red lens, suggests that those operating at the Red level prioritize power and immediate results over reflective growth. It implies that in the Red value system, growth is redefined as quick adaptation for dominance rather than lifelong development.

The reasons why continuous learning might be de-prioritized in the Red stage could include:

1. Immediate Gratification: Red values prioritize instant victories over long-term skill development.
2. Power Over Reflection: Growth is seen as a weakness if it doesn’t directly enhance dominance.
3. Action-Oriented Mindset: Teams and individuals focus on bold moves rather than iterative learning.
4. Competition for Resources: Learning initiatives are viewed as distractions from power struggles.
5. Survival-First Mentality: Growth is sidelined in favor of securing short-term advantages.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems shape views on personal development. It raises questions about the benefits and drawbacks of a Red approach to growth, particularly in contexts requiring adaptability and long-term strategy.

In our analysis of the poll "Factors that impact team effectiveness" (by Google), we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

0.0594 (Pearson) between the Impact and the Blue stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.0533. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of 0.0594 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation. 

This positive correlation of 0.0594 between "Impact" and the Blue stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Blue value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Blue mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that structured, duty-bound teams aligned with a moral code drive measurable results.
2. Confirmation that hierarchical clarity and adherence to rules enhance team effectiveness.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that loyalty to the organization’s mission and values directly contributes to success.

These organizations might respond by:

• Emphasizing rule adherence and moral alignment in team training and development.
• Rewarding teams that demonstrate strong alignment with organizational values and purpose.
• Implementing performance metrics that reflect adherence to duty and contribution to the greater good.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Blue mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing it as proof that disciplined, rule-following behavior enhances their effectiveness.
2. Interpreting it as support for the idea that clear roles and hierarchy within the team lead to better outcomes.
3. Seeing it as validation that teamwork grounded in shared values and purpose is critical to success.

These teams might respond by:

• Establishing clear roles and expectations based on organizational values.
• Celebrating team members who exemplify duty and adherence to the moral code.
• Focusing on collective goals rather than individual achievements.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Blue value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that their commitment to duty and moral clarity contributes to team success.
2. Evidence that their adherence to rules and organizational values is essential for effectiveness.
3. Proof that their loyalty to the team and organization aligns with a higher purpose.

These individuals might respond by:

• Striving to exemplify organizational values in their daily work.
• Seeking opportunities to contribute to team goals in ways that reflect their commitment to duty.
• Viewing their role within the team as part of a larger, purpose-driven mission.

This correlation, viewed through the Blue lens, suggests that those operating at the Blue level see team impact as a reflection of structured purpose and moral alignment. It implies that in the Blue value system, effectiveness is tied to adherence to rules, hierarchy, and a shared sense of duty.

The reasons why team impact might be seen as critical in the Blue stage could include:

1. Structured Purpose: Clear roles and hierarchy enhance team effectiveness by reducing ambiguity and confusion.
2. Moral Alignment: Adherence to a shared moral code fosters trust and cohesion within the team.
3. Duty and Loyalty: Commitment to the team’s mission and values drives individual and collective performance.
4. Hierarchical Clarity: Understanding one’s place within the team hierarchy improves coordination and efficiency.
5. Shared Values: A strong sense of shared purpose and values creates a unified front, enhancing team effectiveness.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems influence perceptions of team effectiveness. It raises questions about the benefits of a Blue approach to team dynamics, particularly in contexts where order, discipline, and moral clarity are crucial.

In our analysis of the poll "Oxford Happiness Survey," we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

0.1581 (Pearson) between the I don't think that the world is a good place / Strongly Disagree and the Orange stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.0489. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of 0.1581 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This positive correlation of 0.1581 between “I don't think that the world is a good place / Strongly Disagree” and the Orange stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Orange value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Orange mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that a pragmatic, solution-focused worldview drives progress and innovation.
2. Confirmation that optimism about the world aligns with their results-driven culture.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that viewing the world as “fixable” through technology and rational methods fosters achievement.

These organizations might respond by:

• Promoting a culture of optimism and proactive problem-solving.
• Rewarding employees who exhibit confidence in improving global challenges through innovation.
• Framing business goals as opportunities to positively impact the world through efficient solutions positively.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from an Orange mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing optimism about the world as fuel for creative collaboration and goal achievement.
2. Interpreting it as proof that a can-do attitude drives better results and team morale.
3. Seeing it as validation that focusing on actionable improvements (rather than systemic pessimism) enhances performance.

These teams might respond by:

• Encouraging members to propose innovative solutions to global or organizational challenges.
• Celebrating confidence in tackling “impossible” problems through logical thinking.
• Prioritizing projects framed as opportunities to make a tangible positive impact.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Orange value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that their pragmatic optimism reflects logical realism; problems exist, but are solvable.
2. Evidence that viewing the world as “good” or “fixable” aligns with their identity as innovative, results-driven thinkers.
3. Proof that skepticism of fatalistic or pessimistic worldviews enables personal agency and success.

These individuals might respond by:

• Doubting narratives that frame the world as irredeemably bad, seeing them as barriers to progress.
• Using optimism as motivation to pursue personal and professional goals aligned with global improvement.
• Viewing pessimism as a competitive disadvantage; optimists solve problems, pessimists stagnate.

This correlation, viewed through the Orange lens, suggests that those operating at the Orange level see the world not as inherently good or bad but as a complex system open to optimization. Their optimism reflects confidence in human ingenuity to drive progress.

The reasons why disagreement with “the world is not a good place” might be stronger in the Orange stage could include:

1. Pragmatic Optimism: Belief that problems are solvable through rational methods and innovation.
2. Results-Driven Mindset: Focus on actionable improvements rather than abstract pessimism.
3. Rejection of Fatalism: Viewing helplessness as counterproductive to progress and achievement.
4. Technological Faith: Confidence that science and technology can address global challenges.
5. Personal Agency: Belief that individuals have the power to positively impact their environment.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems influence views on global well-being. It raises questions about the benefits of an Orange approach to optimism, particularly in contexts where innovation and proactive problem-solving are crucial.

In our analysis of the poll "Ten Keys to Motivating Your Team," we found an intriguing positive linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

0.1311 (Pearson) between the Provide Constructive Feedback and the Green stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.1095. Nevertheless, this positive linear correlation of 0.1311 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation. 

This positive correlation of 0.1311 between "Provide Constructive Feedback" and the Green stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Green value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Green mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that constructive feedback fosters psychological safety and inclusivity, aligning with their commitment to community and holistic well-being.
2. Confirmation that feedback, when delivered respectfully, strengthens team cohesion and trust, essential for collaborative environments.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that growth-oriented feedback reflects their values of empathy and continuous improvement.

These organizations might respond by:

• Embedding regular, supportive feedback sessions into their culture to nurture employee development.
• Training leaders to deliver feedback with empathy, focusing on strengths while addressing growth areas constructively.
• Recognizing and rewarding managers who create environments where feedback is embraced as a tool for collective growth.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Green mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing constructive feedback as essential for maintaining the psychological safety that allows members to take risks and innovate.
2. Interpreting it as proof that feedback, when offered kindly, reinforces the team's collaborative spirit and mutual respect.
3. Seeing it as validation that feedback is a practical expression of their commitment to inclusivity and growth for all members.

These teams might respond by:

• Creating norms that encourage open, honest feedback while ensuring it is delivered in a supportive and respectful manner.
• Using feedback circles or peer-to-peer feedback mechanisms to distribute the responsibility for growth across the team.
• Celebrating instances where feedback leads to personal or team development, reinforcing its value within the group.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Green value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that their commitment to empathy and growth aligns with the practice of giving and receiving constructive feedback.
2. Evidence that viewing feedback as a gift, rather than a critique, is central to their identity as collaborative and community-focused team members.
3. Proof that their belief in continuous improvement, both for themselves and others, is supported by a culture of respectful feedback.

These individuals might respond by:

• Actively seeking out feedback as a means of personal and professional growth, viewing it as an opportunity for self-improvement.
• Offering feedback to colleagues in a way that aligns with Green values, focusing on strengths and potential while addressing challenges constructively.
• Viewing their role in the feedback process as part of their commitment to fostering a supportive and growth-oriented team environment.

This correlation, viewed through the Green lens, suggests that those operating at the Green level see constructive feedback not merely as a management tool but as a vital practice that embodies their values of empathy, inclusivity, and continuous growth. It implies that in the Green value system, feedback is understood as a cornerstone of healthy team dynamics and individual development, reflecting a deep commitment to the well-being of all members.

The reasons why constructive feedback might be viewed as essential for team motivation in the Green stage could include:

1. Psychological Safety: Feedback, when delivered respectfully, creates an environment where team members feel safe to express themselves and take risks.
2. Inclusivity: It ensures that all voices are heard and that growth opportunities are available to everyone, reflecting a commitment to diversity and equity.
3. Holistic Growth: Feedback is seen as a mechanism for fostering both individual and collective development, aligning with the Green focus on continuous improvement.
4. Empathy in Action: Constructive feedback is practiced as an empathetic gesture, showing care for team members' growth and well-being.
5. Collaborative Culture: It strengthens team bonds by building mutual respect and understanding, essential for collaborative success in Green-dominant environments.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems influence approaches to team motivation. It raises questions about the benefits of a Green approach to feedback, particularly in contexts where psychological safety, inclusivity, and holistic growth are crucial.

In our analysis of the poll "Algebra of Conscience" (by Vladimir Lefebvre), we found an intriguing negative linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.1986 (Pearson) between A doctor should not conceal from the patient that he has cancer / Somewhat agree, and the Yellow stage.

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.1567. Nevertheless, this negative linear correlation of -0.1986 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation. 

This negative correlation of -0.1986 between "A doctor should not conceal from the patient that he has cancer / Somewhat agree" and the Yellow stage offers intriguing insights when viewed through the lens of the Yellow value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Yellow mindset might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that rigid ethical rules can overlook the complexity of patient-doctor relationships and cultural contexts.
2. Confirmation that adaptable, context-sensitive frameworks for disclosure better serve diverse patient needs.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that integrative thinking, weighing psychological, cultural, and medical factors, produces more ethical outcomes than universal mandates.

These organizations might respond by:

• Designing training programs that teach healthcare providers to navigate ethical grey zones using situational wisdom.
• Creating guidelines that emphasize understanding patient values and contexts rather than imposing one-size-fits-all transparency.
• Rewarding medical professionals who demonstrate nuanced, patient-centered approaches to difficult disclosures.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Yellow mindset might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing rigid disclosure rules as oversimplifications that neglect psychological and cultural variables in patient care.
2. Interpreting it as support for developing contextual judgment as a core competency for healthcare providers.
3. Seeing it as validation that ethical decisions should be made collaboratively, drawing on diverse perspectives within the care team.

These teams might respond by:

• Facilitating case discussions where providers explore how different disclosure approaches impact patient well-being.
• Encouraging team members to consider multiple ethical frameworks (autonomy, beneficence, cultural sensitivity) in making disclosure decisions.
• Celebrating instances where providers successfully balance honesty with psychological protection, based on patient context.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Yellow value system might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that ethical decisions require understanding the patient’s unique circumstances, not just following rules.
2. Evidence that rigid insistence on disclosure can sometimes harm more than it helps, particularly in cultures valuing family-centered decision-making.
3. Proof that integrative thinking, weighing the potential psychological impact, cultural norms, and patient autonomy, leads to more compassionate care.

These individuals might respond by:

• Respecting a patient’s or family’s request to manage cancer news sensitively, even if it means withholding full details temporarily.
• Viewing the correlation as reinforcement to reject dogmatic approaches to ethics, opting instead for context-driven wisdom.
• Prioritizing the patient’s psychological and social context in decisions about how and when to disclose difficult medical truths.

This correlation, viewed through the Yellow lens, suggests that those operating at the Yellow level see ethical decisions like cancer disclosure as requiring integrative thinking and contextual adaptability. Their focus on multiple perspectives and systemic understanding leads them to question universal rules in favor of nuanced, patient-centered approaches.

The reasons why doctors must not always disclose a cancer diagnosis in the Yellow stage could include:

1. Contextual Ethics: Recognizing that psychological, cultural, and relational factors may sometimes justify withholding details.
2. Patient Autonomy Variability: Understanding that autonomy is expressed differently across cultures and contexts.
3. Holistic Harm-Balancing: Considering how immediate honesty might conflict with psychological protection or family wishes.
4. Adaptive Wisdom: Prioritizing contextual decision-making over rigid rules in complex human situations.
5. Systemic Perspective: Viewing medical ethics as part of a broader system where one-size-fits-all approaches often fail.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems approach ethical dilemmas. It raises questions about the potential benefits of a Yellow approach to medical ethics, particularly in contexts requiring cultural sensitivity and psychological awareness.

In our analysis of the poll "Actions of companies in relation to personnel in the last month (fact, %)," we found an intriguing negative linear correlation that warrants closer examination:

-0.5859 (Pearson) between the Staff reductions and the Turquoise stage (Ukraine, English).

The critical value of the correlation coefficient for a normal distribution, by William Sealy Gosset (Student), is r = 0.5338. Nevertheless, this negative linear correlation of -0.5859 meets the reliability criteria but does not necessarily imply causation.

This negative correlation of -0.5859 between "Staff reductions" and the Turquoise stage in the Ukrainian context offers profound insights when viewed through the lens of the Turquoise value system:

Organizational Perspective:

Organizations operating within the Turquoise mindset in Ukraine might interpret this correlation as:

1. Validation that staff reductions fracture the social and ecological harmony they strive to preserve amid war and reconstruction.
2. Confirmation that retaining employees aligns with their holistic mission to support community resilience and stability during crises.
3. Evidence supporting their belief that long-term sustainability and ethical responsibility outweigh short-term efficiency gains from layoffs.

These organizations might respond by:

• Prioritizing retention through innovative cost-management strategies, such as retraining staff for new roles aligned with humanitarian or defense operations.
• Partnering with international aid organizations to create shared workforce programs that leverage diverse skills during the crisis.
• Framing retention as an act of solidarity, reflecting their commitment to the well-being of both people and the broader social ecosystem.

Team Perspective:

Teams operating from a Turquoise mindset in Ukraine might approach this correlation by:

1. Viewing staff reductions as a threat to the psychological safety and trust essential for cohesive teamwork during wartime.
2. Interpreting it as proof that inclusivity and collaboration, core to their identity, demand preserving team integrity even amid chaos.
3. Seeing it as validation that their commitment to collective well-being strengthens their ability to adapt and respond to complex, multifaceted challenges.

These teams might respond by:

• Redesigning workflows to distribute responsibilities creatively rather than cutting roles.
• Embracing flexible, multi-role contributions that align with the fluctuating demands of war and international operations.
• Celebrating their resilience as a full team, reinforcing their identity as guardians of social and operational continuity.

Individual Perspective:

Individuals aligned with the Turquoise value system in Ukraine might interpret this correlation as:

1. Personal confirmation that their identity as compassionate, interconnected beings compels them to resist actions that harm community stability.
2. Evidence that retaining staff during crises reflects their commitment to seeing humanity and work systems as interdependent.
3. Proof that their ethical framework, prioritizing collective well-being over individual gains, guides them to view staff cuts as ethically untenable.

These individuals might respond by:

• Advocating for retention strategies within their organizations, emphasizing the long-term social and operational costs of layoffs.
• Volunteering for additional responsibilities to demonstrate the feasibility of preserving jobs.
• Viewing their resistance to staff cuts as an expression of holistic care for their community amid war and recovery.

This correlation, viewed through the Turquoise lens, suggests that those operating at the Turquoise level resist staff reductions not merely out of kindness but as a strategic commitment to preserving the social and operational ecosystems critical for resilience and regeneration. Their focus on interconnected systems leads them to see layoffs as short-sighted acts that undermine long-term recovery and harmony.

The reasons why Turquoise values resist staff cuts in Ukraine’s wartime context could include:

1. Systems Interdependence: Recognizing that social stability and organizational health are deeply linked; layoffs risk destabilizing both.
2. Holistic Responsibility: Viewing businesses as integral to community well-being, especially during crises demanding collective endurance.
3. Ethical Consistency: Prioritizing actions that align with their commitment to sustainability, inclusivity, and compassion.
4. Creative Adaptation: Preferring innovative, flexible solutions over reactive cost-cutting that disrupts human and operational networks.
5. Long-Term Vision: Understanding that preserved social capital and workforce resilience are cornerstones of post-war reconstruction.

This correlation prompts us to consider how different value systems approach workforce decisions in crises. It raises questions about the benefits of a Turquoise approach to workforce stability, particularly in contexts demanding social cohesion and long-term recovery alongside immediate operational demands.

What insights do you gain from today's correlation? How might we study this relationship more carefully before deducing causation? 

We welcome respectful and wise perspectives! Stay tuned every week as we share more results and insights. 

After login or registration, free access to the poll results in the FAQ section.

Valerii Kosenko

Məhsul Sahibi SaaS SDTEST®

Valerii 1993-cü ildə sosial pedaqoq-psixoloq ixtisasına yiyələnib və o vaxtdan biliklərini layihələrin idarə edilməsində tətbiq edib.
Valerii 2013-cü ildə magistr dərəcəsi və layihə və proqram meneceri ixtisası əldə etmişdir. Magistratura proqramı zamanı o, Layihənin Yol Xəritəsi (GPM Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement e. V.) və Spiral Dynamics ilə tanış olmuşdur.
Valerii V.U.C.A.-nın qeyri-müəyyənliyini tədqiq edən müəllifdir. psixologiyada Spiral Dynamics və riyazi statistikadan istifadə edən konsepsiya və 38 beynəlxalq sorğu.