Mentalities and Approaches

Essentials of Principal Typologies

Every entity-Level in the architecture has its own nature. The use of the term «Types» immediately indicates something about the nature of the Levels in the nested secondary hierarchy (i.e. Principal Typology). In this Topic, we dig deeper into the notion of a Type in THEE. Note that the focus here is solely on Principal Typologies.

ClosedReminder:

  • Each Principal Typology contains 7 distinct and incompatible Types, which are sets of related ideas. Each Type can be subdivided by a 4-level Modal Hierarchy into 4 Modal Styles. See examples of Typologies.
  • The fixation of certain ideas inside our heads, shaping our actions in some global way, gives rise to the notion of «mind-sets» or «mentalities». The intensity of ownership and impact on daily life is such that these are personal identities.
  • A Type-Mentality is experienced as self-sufficient, coherent and effective in its own terms. It colours and channels thinking, perceptions, convictions, communications, relationships, identifications and actions within its domain. It constitutes an identity-stamp, sometimes even generating its own language and social conventions within groups sharing that Type.
  • The reflective objectification of a mentality results in a theoretical approach to action within its particular domain. This account is usually referred to as a paradigm, ideology, theory, doctrine, or system.
  • Such accounts are essential for group formation and education or indoctrination. Adherents repetitively articulate, teach and appeal to their approach, treating it as a given and intrinsically non-falsifiable.
  • Differences in mentalities-cum-approaches are therefore a prime cause of argument and antipathy between people operating within that particular domain. All are valuable under particular conditions, so understanding the origin of strife should enable more respect and greater cooperation.

Identities v Traits-Styles

  • The identity-generating mentality controls, largely unconsciously, the person's committed activity only within the relevant domain. For example, research methods affect the development of knowledge via conjectures; decision-making approaches affect actions geared to achieving.
  • While a mentality-based identity enables certain predictions about a person, it does not generate a personality trait as usually understood. This is because any mentality does not necessarily show in a survey or in a lab experiment. Only personally significant matters will unequivocally call forth use of the mentality. Until called into being by commitment, the mentality is latent and may be unobservable.
  • Across Principal Typologies, the various mentalities and their styles seem to be largely independent of each other, but more investigation of this issue is desirable. In any case, the total number of different combinations is large and contributes to the immense variety amongst people.
  • People whose endeavours require them to be committed to the domain of the Principal Typology adopt one Type as their chosen identification and hone their expertise in using it; but usually they find that a secondary Type is also needed.
  • The major mentalities become self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing because they:
    • enable success
    • control use of language
    • create habits of perception, thought and action
    • encourage gravitation to like-minded others who give positive feedback and exert pressure for conformity.

Style in psychology is something else. It refers to: "an individual's relatively consistent inclinations and preferences across contexts". This is quite alien to THEE's holistic-systemicist-identity position. THEE views context as having a critical influence on whether and how the individual chooses to commit themselves at any particular time.

Examples:

Scientists and researchers are primarily committed to Inquiry-PH2, and must choose a method-PH'2 to test their judgements and conjectures. The rest of us are not forced to be so coherent and precise in our everyday inquiries.

Managers and executives are primarily committed to taking Decisive Action-PH'1 for their enterprise, and must become expert with an approach that can ensure achievement. The rest of us can make our decisions far less self-consciously, perhaps as the mood takes us.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator claims to define a person's unique personality, but is viewed sceptically by empirical investigators. I am also sceptical but its appeal may relate to its taxonomic links as suggested in the next Topic.

Understanding Others

We should embrace our own preferred mentalities. However, common sense as well as careful inquiry reveals that each mentality makes an essential contribution to complex endeavours. This includes even those mentalities that we personally abhor and regard as ineffective or even dangerous. So we should respect the mentalities of others, just as we would wish them to respect outs.

Understanding and respecting is often deficient, especially in regard to those who have more or less power. People-problems, as distinct from technical problems, can often be traced to a failure to appreciate relevant mentality issues.

  • We have an unfortunate tendency to define our own approach as strengthening and positive, while other approaches seem limiting, weak and even harmful. Example:Closed your blaming tendency is called holding me to account; my effort to protect staff from exploitation looks to you like an unrealistic attitude.
  • By recognizing relevant mentalities, our own and that of others, we have the tools to be objective, precise and purposeful in our interactions.

A means for integration of all 7 Types is provided by focusing on contextual values within each mentality-approach that are generally acceptable. Read more.

ClosedWhy do we develop a particular mentality?

Research is required to answer this question. It seems likely that genetic, cultural, familial, educational, and opportunistic factors may all play a part to a greater or lesser degree.

The genesis of mentalities might vary in relation to their intrinsic nature, i.e. flowing from their taxonomic location.

ClosedCan I change my mentality?

ClosedDammit: surely there is a right way!?

There is indeed: but it is constrained and shaped by circumstances, contexts, personalities. It is not as absolute as you might wish.

Research and everyday observation suggests that most people—including managers, academics, and professionals—find their own approach natural and effective. We do not automatically recognize the multiplicity of possible approaches. Nor do we spontaneously seek a multi-perspective viewpoint.

Instead, in line with social pressures and group support, we select and identify with one or two approaches. We take these for granted as «the correct way» or «the best way», and blot out or dismiss the others, which seem irrelevant, degenerate or counter-productive.

ClosedAre we really slaves?

The logic of any particular approach often leads inexorably to a certain result.

So, although we typically feel as if we are in charge, it is the approach working through us that is mostly responsible for our choices and the outcomes that follow. In short: we are often just a vehicle for a way of thinking and acting.

To put this more bluntly:Closed what we call thinking is often little more than the application of unoriginal mental habits, in many cases via our socialization during childhood, and especially via indoctrination during higher education.

We cannot abandon what we think is right and good, so the only way forward for us is to become aware, so aware that we are utterly convinced, against our own natural tendencies, that there are perfectly valid alternative ways of thinking and acting to those we esteem and find most natural. This leads to personal growth and more harmonious and effective social relations.

ClosedWhat about psychometric research?

Psychologists use standardized research questionnaires about personal choices, attitudes and preferences to determine types or styles.

Many of these are based on conceptualizing and operationalizing the concept until measurement confirms the concept. As a result, the tools are tautological. They may lead to interminable disputes about what a concept contains or implies. Professional acceptance often seems to be primarily based on the sheer numbers of people tested.

It may be true that many people function according to habit, are blind to their own needs, defensive about their wishes and generally lack autonomy and responsibility, as well as being unreflective. Such people may well produce «valid» or at least «reliable» results for psychological testers. The problem is that they are like sleep-walkers: but THEE encourages people to wake up.

THEE inquiry observes and describes first, then names afterwards. Its approach seems to accord with views that Noam Chomsky has expressed in regard to psychology.

Originally posted: August 2009; Last updated 24-Jan-2014.