Selflessness: Congruences between the Cognitive–Developmental Research Program and the Bahá’í Writings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to illustrate four major concepts shared by the protagonists of cognitive-developmentalism, such as Piaget, Kohlberg, and Kegan, and the primary authors of the sacred writings of the Bahá’í Faith—Bahá’u’lláh, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and Shoghi Effendi. These concepts include: a developmental teleology, the stage-like nature of development, the importance of an epistemic focus, and selflessness. As the Bahá’í teachings stress a developmental approach to self and a universal approach to moral education, and as the Faith is rapidly growing, it would be helpful for psychologists and educators a universal approach to moral education, and as the Faith is rapidly growing, it would be helpful for psychologists and educators to become familiar with a Bahá’í view of development. Additionally, as the Bahá’í writings stress access to science, it will be beneficial for Bahá’í readers to become acquainted with the cognitive-developmental research program as an important body of psychological literature that can help inform their own understanding of their sacred writings. It is intended that this article chart an avenue of communication for psychologists with members of a “post-modern” religion over topics of mutual interest (cf. Laszlo, “Humankind’s” and Inner Limits).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".