Status of Scientific Progress

Validation Principles

A taxonomy is a classification of observations. So nothing is invented and no theories are constructed. However, rogue or missing observations are serious issues. Constructing the Taxonomy has involved:

  • Correctly and precisely identifying psychosocial things via their functions.
  • Choosing a suitable name.
  • Correctly determining and formulating intrinsic properties and relationships.

Taxonomic relations were discovered as part of discovering the contents of the psychosocial reality field. This contrasts with most taxonomies which aim to bring order to rather well-known things in a well-understood field (e.g. biological species, anatomical parts). Any element with its closest relationships is part of a Framework, and that is the focus for validation.

Validation is a constant concern that seeks:

  • Veridical correspondence i.e. are the THEE frameworks an accurate and usable representation of interactions within some portion or form of endeavour?
  • Formal integrity i.e. is the nomenclature and architecture of inter-linked and nested elements logically consistent and coherent?

See The Hub for more about validation with examples.

Current Position

  • There is a unified, dynamic architecture for the Taxonomy, which has passed various tests for validity.
  • A universal formula-based system for naming both discovered and undiscovered elements has been developed to align with this architecture.
  • There are numerous comprehensive frameworks of elements covering diverse major areas of personal functioning.
  • Research has been able to consolidate these areas into 7 Primary Domains: Willingness, Purpose, Communication, Experience, Change, Inquiry and Action.
  • A superordinate Root Domain named Will that contains those Primary Domains has also been identified.
  • Detailing of taxonomic frameworks (i.e. naming, formulating) varies from elaborate and validated to sketchy and provisional. However, many frameworks are still unknown and unnamed, with elements undiscovered.
  • Specific tested applications (intellectual technologies; experiential technologies) have been devised based on these Frameworks to aid individuals in personal and social life, and to improve management of organizations and society.
  • Conceptualization of the Taxonomy has commenced based on analyses of both the discovered architecture and the observed contents.

ClosedState of play as at end-2022:

Visit the Hub and Architecture Room for explanations and examples of the structural terms used here.

Contents of the Taxonomy

  • The Root Hierarchy Complex is mostly developed and posted: but the Root-Spiral and its derivatives are only provisionally developed.
  • The 7 Primary Hierarchies are mostly known and posted, at least in a basic form.
  • 1 of the 7 Primary Structural Hierarchies has been developed and posted; 4 others have provisional outlines; and rather little is known of the other 2.
  • The 7 Principal Typologies and several Spirals are mostly known and developed, but only 2 sets of Spiral Complexes have been developed in full detail.
  • Two Q-complexes (out of 49) are well-developed, with one of these having most of its derivative forms articulated. 35 further Q complexes in 5 Domains are provisionally formulated. Well-over 100 Frameworks await discovery and development.
  • A set of non-taxonomic emergent Tree frameworks with useful applications have also been identified.

Conceptualization of the Taxonomy

  • A general account of the Taxonomy in terms of human functioning has emerged through research posted in the Architecture Room.
  • The 8 taxonomic Domains, 1 Root and 7 Primary, each has its own distinctive «Primal Need» and a distinctive «Primal Means» for meeting that need most effectively.
  • Each Domain has its Fundamentals and its Controls, consisting of one Principal complex and seven Q- complexes.
  • The Taxonomy as a whole has two sets of overarching ethical controls, one within the Root (focused on being humane) and one within Purpose (focused on stabilizing a particular society).
  • The Taxonomy is integrated and unified by the presence of psychosocial pressures that are assumed to be instinctual i.e. based in neural circuits.
  • A direct relationship between the neurobiological circuits identified by Jaak Panksepp and the taxonomic structure has been proposed.

Scientific Challenges

There are many good reasons—consensual, logical, structural and pragmatic—to have confidence in the inquiries completed to date. Errors do exist, but they can and should be corrected.

The robustness and extent of discovery and development to date suggests two scientific goals:

  1. Content development: extension and completion of the Taxonomy through further observations and analyses.
  2. Conjecture development: targeted testable scientific conjectures about the Taxonomy, especially explanations of its unexpected architecture.

Content Development

As indicated in the state of play above, many frameworks in the Taxonomy have been crudely identified and minimally or weakly developed, while many others remain undiscovered.

In working on these undiscovered parts, it will be important to maintain the coherence and consistency of taxonomic propositions and formulations so that unification is not weakened or lost. Years of research mean that many taxonomic principles exist to aid discovery; and traps for the unwary, are also known.

Conjecture Development

I commenced theorizing about the taxonomic architecture in early 2013, after developing sufficient observations, sufficient validation, and sufficient confidence in the unification of Domains and their frameworks.

The best comparison is the periodic table of chemical elements, where explaining a taxonomy, non-obvious and initially with errors, led to quantum physics. Something similarly revolutionary in regard to neuroscience seems possible.

Originally posted: July 2009; Last updated: 15 June 2023.