TOP Quarterly Update #14: 01 October 2014
Dear [Member],
In this letter, I’d like to share some recent experiences I have had with naming THEE frameworks.
I have often emphasised just how important and how difficult it is to choose suitable names for things in social life. We live with an everyday fuzziness that makes conversation easy. As explained in the Frameworks Room, among familiars we use , and amongst acquaintances we use . Neither is concerned with scientific precision.
In our taxonomic inquiries, we cannot fall back on either. Those take for granted clarity about the field, a clarity that we simply lack. I’ve dedicated my life to clarity about psychosocial reality, and that means using names that will work in practice—for me and for others who share that value. This corresponds to the .
Fortunately for science, «names» of elements are much like «concepts». Let me show you with an example: If we can effectively use the term policy as a name for a particular function (and validate this by specifying properties, relationships &c), then we can meaningfully define the concept «policy» in terms of that function. The reverse order does not work: poor concepts can be so easily generated from ideas that proliferate in our minds. Observation is far harder.
However the standard method for elements does not work so well for whole frameworks. A taxonomic Tree or a Structural Hierarchy may be built up formally step-by-step, and quite precisely at that, without necessarily knowing exactly what part the whole framework plays in human life.
In the past, I chose a name that was plausible and inoffensive. In the early days, I had relatively few frameworks for comparison. So I lacked those two powerful tools of structural validation: consistency and coherence. Now I have many frameworks and it is obvious that the names of related frameworks should hang together and tell a story (i.e. coherence), and that they should manifest a similar logic and be similarly worded (i.e. consistency).
So I recently commenced a review using the latest findings in the Architecture Room as my starting point. It was no surprise to find errors and misunderstandings aplenty. Let me take two of my early frameworks, a Tree and a Principal Typology, and give you a feeling for what I am dealing with.
In the , the generate a Tree whose centres are, naturally, all forms of . I labeled this the «Framework of Intentionality» (see Ch.13 in Working with Values). Sounds reasonable? I suppose that such a label is not wrong. However, it does not effectively point to the framework’s use in psychosocial reality, does it? It provides no guidance about the purposive process within the Centres (i.e. the verbs) that have come centre stage in recent research. It now seems to me that this is about «projects». If so, it should be labeled accordingly i.e. as the «framework for defining (or perhaps pursuing or controlling) projects».
Trees have become more complex by the way. Recent inquiries in the Architecture Room suggest they exist in two forms. One is objective (i.e. applicable identically to all involved) with Centre-verbs and Channels that are specific to that framework. The other is subjective (i.e. adapted to each person involved) and has identical verbs and channels for all taxonomic and non-taxonomic frameworks. You can see examples of this here.
But I’m digressing.
Let’s turn now to the naming of a Principal Typology.
In the , Level-6 is named . As usual, this Level contains a . In the 1980s, I derived its constituent Types largely from the theories and methods used in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy broadly conceived. At that time, I called these «Approaches to Identity Development». I suppose I was affected by the notion of personal growth via therapy. I used that name in presentations. It seemed to enable explanations and understanding of the Types. You can judge for yourself whether I described these persuasively and in sufficient detail (see Ch.7 in Working with Values).
However, I had never formally and systematically specified the associated Typology Essences Table (TET) with its various features. This is not a minor matter at this point in taxonomic development. For example, although I developed the in the late 1980s, I was not confident to publish the framework, which derives from it, until I developed confidence in the TET formulations (developed in 2007-2010).
In the early days of working on human experiences, I did not know a Taxonomy existed. Nor did I know the principles of TET formation. So the idea of validation through structural corroboration was far from my mind.
When I sat down recently to clarify the , I foolishly thought it would be fairly straightforward. After all, I understood these systems rather well (or so I thought) and, because the TET/Spiral pattern is standard, I also knew exactly where on the each Type must be located. But …
It did not take me long to become aware that nothing was making any sense. I was unable to understand and properly label the Table's axes or diagonals or quadrants. Something was seriously wrong somewhere!
I was fairly sure the systems themselves were more or less correct (even if they had some internal errors), nor was the hierarchical ordering of these systems in question. So I started to suspect that naming of the might be the problem. And it was.
From the perspective of the whole Taxonomy, calling those systems «identity development» now seemed unsatisfactory. Why? All Principal Typologies are identity systems. This is because they are all value systems, which are the primary basis for identity in psychosocial terms. The Subsidiary or Q-Typologies are also identity systems: just look at interacting for benefit or levels of work. Adding ‘development’ to the name does not help. I wondered if might help other taxonomic identity systems get developed—but they do not. All taxonomic identities are developed, where needed, through training, life-events, socialization &c.
So there is just no way that my original name for is precise enough. With a fuzzy name, I had lost my primary guidance system. My observations were not being effectively directed; my intuitions and imagination were stymied; my mental associations led to a blank.
So I went back to first principles, that is to say first taxonomic principles. Principal Typologies are currently believed to have evolved to optimize the use of the Primary Hierarchy from which they originate (see more here). So I went back to my studies on Endeavour to check the function of , and it is: to serve as a personal reference gauge in the pursuit of endeavours. This function is essential in every sort of endeavour, that is to say anything and everything we each do. Inner experiences (feelings, thoughts, intuitions &c.) provide signals, impetus and guidance so we can determine that the unfolding events are what we personally want or can accept. We use our inner mental states to help us initiate changes and stay on course.
Neither changing nor staying on course are necessarily easy in any activity. This is because our experiences can get disturbed and our numerous simultaneous endeavours interact and conflict. We find ourselves subject to life stresses large and small that affect us. We easily get over-enthusiastic or excessively disappointed as events unfold. We get frustrated and irritable, often over minor matters or when tired. Extraneous events disturb our concentration. Irrelevant anger, envy, entitlement and other emotions often intrude and distort our thinking.
In pondering this, it seemed surprising that our experiential reference gauge works for us at all! Surely nothing is more variable and fluid than our inner experiences. For my experiential gyroscope to guide me effectively, it needs a degree of mental stability. It should therefore be no surprise that methods have evolved to help us master the turbulence of our experiential flow. In other words, the helps with mental stability and should be named «Systems for Mental Stabilization». If this is correct, then we are all likely to gravitate towards one or two systems designed to support our mind at work. These methods will be used a lot and will manifest as an aspect of our identity, possibly the principal or defining aspect for some people or for all of us in some situations.
I am not sure if my conjecture above is correct. However, the notion fits with discovering these systems via therapy. Severe and persistent instability, perhaps due to anxiety, generates dysfunctional solutions, like addiction or a phobia, that help by creating a quasi-equilibrium. Instability also interferes with the maintenance of satisfactory relationships and careers, both of which are common reasons for entering psychotherapy. But now, I think that investigating the from the perspective of mental illness and its treatment has been distorting. I need to look at the systems from the perspective of methods we use in everyday life and which are operative most of the time to ensure that we feel ok.
I can report that seeing the as being methods to provide experiential stability has allowed possible axes and diagonals to become apparent. The quadrants are still somewhat mysterious, but it is already evident how the formulation of the needs fixing.
When this is written up in draft form in the Frameworks Room, I'll let you know. Meanwhile, if you are interested in this field, why not investigate the for yourself.
These have been sobering but encouraging experiences. I now want to systematically review the names for all completed and draft frameworks. Patterns have already jumped out at me. So it looks as if such a mini-project will help us get a better understanding of the Taxonomy and how we instinctively structure human life. I will probably create a new «Names» project in the Architecture Room when I have made more headway.
So that's been my activity. If you have been doing anything with THEE, tell me about it. I’d like to hear from you.
Take care,
Warren
- Return to Newsletter Archive.
- You can receive these occasional Bulletins by registering here.