Talk:Integrative level

Untitled

Is this topic related to Integral theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.169.181 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Integral theory" uses the idea of integrative levels, but integrative levels are also of interest to researchers in other areas who do not associate with "integral theory". Biogeographist (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is it confusing or unclear?

Can someone isolate any chunk of text in this article that fit the description of "confusing or unclear" so we might work on it?

I find that the entire notion of Integrative level is hard to get a concrete definition for. When would you call a specific instance of an arbitrary level an "Integrative level" and what are your qualifications? That it generates a new set of features that stand in great contrast to the the levels and/or sum of levels before? Fat64 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Integrative level" is not easy to define, though it seems easy to identify. I use the following guideline: wherever a system "acts as a unit", that is the top integrative level for that individual system. In addition, a collection of objects or targets may emerge because -- and only because -- the system "treats them as units".

The system can further become a component in a meta-system that "acts as a unit" toward a set of objects or targets that emerge into existence (as unitary objects) only because the system "treats them as units". For example, an individual soldier cannot define, or act in relation to, a battle line, but an army division has a repertoire of actions it can execute specifically toward a battle line. By subordinating himself to membership in the army, and therefore acting according to directions of the army (rather than initiating individualistic actions), the soldier becomes part of an "integrative level" of the army capable of acting toward the battle line.

It is almost essential that an integrative level include the existence of "new unitary objects" that come into definition solely because the system can act toward the new objects "unitarily". This behaviour is often easy to observe -- indeed the coalescence of this behaviour can often be observed as a new system level emerges. But there is currently no system-theoretical "definition" that demands the relationship between unitary actions and "unit targets". Nevertheless, it is a useful guideline. ____Norman Stone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.98.39 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Level of analysis

Content should be merged with Level of analysis and a redirect added. For now, I just added a See also section, but did not link back to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpleibovitz (talk • contribs) 04:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: @Dpleibovitz: Level of analysis is currently about a certain conception of integrative levels in the social sciences, whereas this article (though still a stub) has a more general scope ranging across all the sciences and especially at the interface of the life sciences and physical sciences. Due to this difference of scope, the articles should remain separate. Biogeographist (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Parasite vs Host analogy

I think the parasite versus host analogy does not fit the definition of integrative level. Parasites and host organisms are both individual living organisms (let's ignore the debate on viruses for now). The fact that parasites are less complex than the host is irrelevant; they are still just different entities at the same approximate level of organization. The new level of organization thet appears would be the interaction of parasites and hosts, the system of parasitism thet occurs in the interactions of the members of the populations. If this critique is incorrect, please add a citation in that paragraph. If this critique is valid, perhaps a better example could be found. Pauldebarros (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)