• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Ken Wilber on Boomeritis

A Summary and Review of Jim Andrews' 2006 critique

Frank Visser / Grok

Jim Andrews, initially impressed by Ken Wilber's Boomeritis (2002) for its presentation of Spiral Dynamics, critique of deconstructive postmodernism ("mean green meme"), and integral vision, later turned critical after encountering Geoffrey Falk's work. He details 20 (plus one minor) "blunders" grouped into three categories, arguing the novel mixes valuable ideas with significant flaws. He acknowledges its fictional/postmodern nature (which allows mixing real and made-up elements) but holds Wilber accountable for factual claims, especially in a work promoting integral scholarship and spirituality.[1]

Category I: Shoddy Scholarship (Minor Blunders)

Andrews lists factual inaccuracies, redundancies, and sloppy sourcing:

• Excessive repetition of key concepts (e.g., Spiral Dynamics tutorials, definitions of "boomeritis," the Prime Directive, critiques of Green/Boomeritis).

• Misrepresentations of real events/cases, such as the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit (inaccurate details on circumstances, injuries, settlement, and award), the Menendez brothers trial (wrongly called an acquittal), a likely apocryphal "refrigerator races" lawsuit, and chess history (confusing Deep Thought with Deep Blue vs. Kasparov).

• Other issues: Misattributing a Karl Marx quote; presenting back-cover blurbs as "responses from critics"; historical inaccuracies in a Vietnam War recollection; omitting the politicization of literary criticism in discussions of postmodernism; and a glib, unsupported quip on soy and memory.

These are portrayed as minor but indicative of carelessness in a book positioning itself as intellectually rigorous.

Category II: Salacious Sex (Moderate Blunders)

Andrews criticizes the novel's heavy emphasis on explicit, puerile sexual fantasies (e.g., ~29 in the first 150 pages) and crude humor, such as Wilber's father's satirical (and offensive) claim that modern feminism originated from five men in a Dartmouth basement in 1965. He sees this as immature, distracting "locker room" material that undermines the book's serious integral message, possibly reflecting a "shadow Dionysian complex." He questions whether this is just fictional or reveals something about Wilber himself, citing a forum anecdote about Wilber's behavior.

Category III: Sham Spirituality (Major Blunders)

The most serious category targets unsubstantiated or contradicted spiritual/developmental claims:

• Unsupported assertions, e.g., ~50% of personal transformation occurs at the simple physical level (diet/exercise); psychic/paranormal powers are real (with calls for Wilber to prove it via James Randi's challenge).

• Mathematical and logical errors in efficiency claims about developmental stages (Yellow vs. Green).

• Overstating Green's cultural dominance while claiming small percentages at higher stages (Yellow/Second Tier) could have outsized impact.

• Endorsements of meditation for rapid vertical transformation (two or three levels), critiqued in Andrews' prior essay.

• Repeated promotion of an "Omega Point" where a small percentage reaching Third Tier (or AI) pulls everyone into cosmic consciousness, based on the discredited "Maharishi effect"—later contradicted by Wilber in an interview.

• The "geeks and geezers" thesis: vertical development halts between ages ~25-55, with little evidence provided.

Conclusion in the review: Andrews recommends a thorough editorial overhaul of the book and urges readers to "transcend and include" Wilber's strengths (e.g., integral model, pre/trans fallacy, Spiral Dynamics popularization) while rejecting unsupported claims, especially on paranormal phenomena and meditation. He finds the spirituality the most troubling aspect.

Evaluation

Andrews' review is a detailed, page-specific close reading with references (many now dated), making it a substantive internal critique from a former admirer. It effectively highlights real issues: redundancy can make the novel feel padded and preachy; factual slips undermine credibility in a work blending scholarship and fiction; the sexual content feels gratuitous and tonally inconsistent with integral maturity; and several spiritual claims lack rigorous evidence or are contradicted elsewhere, which is problematic for a theory emphasizing "integral" truth-seeking.

Strengths of the review: It engages Wilber on his own terms (e.g., citing his other works and interviews), uses humor/satire mirroring the book's style, and separates minor pedantry from substantive concerns. It usefully flags how fiction can blur lines for readers seeking wisdom. Andrews' focus on evidence (e.g., Randi challenge, Maharishi effect debunkings) aligns with skeptical, empirical standards that Wilber sometimes invokes but doesn't always meet.

Limitations: Some points feel nitpicky (e.g., "fiancé" vs. "fiancée," terminology like "confrontation" vs. "intervention") or overly literal for a satirical novel. Wilber's defenders might argue the sex and fantasies serve narrative/psychological purposes (illustrating Boomeritis or tantric themes) or that Andrews misses the bigger integral picture. Broader critiques of Wilber (e.g., from Falk or others) often target over-systematization, guru dynamics, or selective scholarship, which this review touches on but doesn't fully develop.

Overall, the review is a credible cautionary piece for fans of Wilber/integral theory. Boomeritis has strengths in diagnosing cultural relativism/narcissism and outlining developmental models, but Andrews convincingly shows it is flawed in execution—more a mixed, provocative artifact of its time than a "staggering genius" work. Readers should approach it (and Wilber) critically, appreciating insights while demanding better evidence for extraordinary claims. This fits patterns in Wilber criticism: initial appeal followed by scrutiny over rigor and consistency.

NOTES

[1] Jim Andrews, "Twemty Boomeritis Blunders, Shoddy Scholarship, Salacious Sex, and Sham Spirituality", www.integralworld.net, 2006, reposted 2013.