From PSYCHOGRAPH AS MAP, MATRIX, AND MIRROR: An Integral Psychograph Assessment by Vipassana Esbjörn-Hargens (2010)
However, at the same time, this panoply of ways people seem to be using the psychograph across various disciplines can also be quite frustrating to those interested in learning how to apply the integral psychograph to their particular discipline. That is, there appears to be minimal agreement and understanding as to what exactly each line is assessing (e.g., what are we really talking about when we refer to the interpersonal line), what each line at every level truly looks and feels like in a person’s daily embodied life, and how to go about assessing each line (i.e., a distinct methodology)
Indeed.
Full context
Emphasis added
An aspect of the integral psychograph that is especially appealing to integral practitioners is the fact that it can be used in different ways in a variety of contexts (e.g., psychotherapy, coaching, education, and business). However, at the same time, this panoply of ways people seem to be using the psychograph across various disciplines can also be quite frustrating to those interested in learning how to apply the integral psychograph to their particular discipline. That is, there appears to be minimal agreement and understanding as to what exactly each line is assessing (e.g., what are we really talking about when we refer to the interpersonal line), what each line at every level truly looks and feels like in a person’s daily embodied life, and how to go about assessing each line (i.e., a distinct methodology). Without this mutual understanding among practitioners, it is difficult to implement and advance the use of the integral psychograph as an assessment tool. For example, some people use low, medium, and high to describe levels of development, without necessarily having a clear structural definition/map or a thick description as to the distinguishing factors that differentiate low from medium, or medium from high, in any given line. A key task for integral clinicians will be to develop clear notions of, for example, a “worldcentric somatic line” and to do so in a way that can be applicable to non-integral audiences. In addition, others are using the altitudes proposed by Wilber (2006) by drawing on a variety of different descriptions of the various levels, or even simply using one’s own knowledge of the Integral model to infer what various levels of each line actually look and feel like. There is also the issue that different lines that comprise a psychograph will be more relevant in some contexts and less in others. For example, the lines most useful for a psychotherapy context are not necessarily the same ones most useful for a life or executive coaching context.