Orientation to Depiction for Change

Remember: THEE is about endeavour: so change that happens to us is not the focus. THEE is about design i.e. the design of change in a way that is consistent with human nature.

Optimizing Change

«Change» emerges as an issue in situations which cause concern for a person or group or are part of a significant endeavour.

This name covers deliberately not changing i.e. maintaining a particular state.

Representation has been proposed as L6, the controlling level, in the Primary Hierarchy of Change PH3 because it brings into focus what is to be changed and enables a picture of what the end result should be.

To align with discoveries in the other Domains, L6 is presumed to contain a nested hierarchy in the form of a Principal Typology PH'3. The Types/Levels in this Typology would therefore be discrete and incompatible methods that govern change, with each presenting itself as the optimal method for handling change.

► See THEE path.

Because these Types determine how complex situations are represented and perceived, they will be labeled depiction methods.

Methods are often abstracted as systems or approaches. In this Satellite, I intend to label them as paradigms. Because each method also functions as a value system and dominates thinking in relevant matters, a person can develop a mind-set that appears to others as a mentality.

When a person depicts a situation (i.e. represents a reality) with a concern to enable change, it is possible and often easy to see that they presume a model of how reality should be depicted in principle.

► See more about modelling and paradigms in the next topic.

Who Tries Hard to Manage Change?

Choice of any of the methods that emerge in a THEE Principal Typology is often a personal matter. There may be genetic components, but environmental influences—socialization, acculturation, education or training—are powerful.

In many cases, the situation to be changed appears to call for the application of a particular paradigm. We then select and apply one of the approaches spontaneously.

While it seems, at least in principle, that anyone can use any of the paradigms if they choose, previous research has revealed a pattern:

Action Domain RL1:

Managers, under pressure for performance (RL1)
and seeking superior achievement (primal need of RL1)
specialize in particular decision methods (PH'1).

The rest of us do not: we will pick and choose aspects of any method as seems best.

Inquiry Domain RL2

Scientists, under pressure for certainty (RL2)
and seeking definitive knowledge (primal need of RL2)
specialize in particular research methods (PH'2).

The rest of us do not: we will inquire in whatever way seems reasonable with whatever precision we prefer.

Applying this now to the Change Domain RL3, we may ask:

Who, being under pressure of acceptability (RL3)
and seeking a situational fitness (primal need of RL3)
will specialize in particular depiction methods (PH'3)?

The answer appears to be leaders of projects and social bodies and politicians governing society. Accordingly, the framework illuminates leadership types and political ideologies.

The rest of us use these mentalities non-systematically and commonly look askance at how our leaders behave, not always aware that their actions flow from a particular paradigmatic view of the world which we play a part in supporting.

Experience Domain RL4

Therapists, under pressure to produce well-being (RL4)
and seeking to respect individuality (primal need of RL4)
specialize in particular mental stabilization methods (PH'4).

But each of us is under pressure for our own well-being (RL4)
and as we are concerned for our own individuality (primal need of RL4),
we find ourselves selecting particular stabilization methods (PH'4)
for daily use.

Communication Domain RL5

Specialist writers and communicators, under pressure for understanding (RL5)
and seeking to belong within an association (primal need of RL5)
specialize in particular use of language methods (PH'5).

Purpose Domain RL6

Everyone is under pressure for autonomy (RL6)
and seeks appropriate governance (primal need of RL6) in our groups.
However, this does not appear to lead to any specialized selection from ethical choice methods (PH'6).

Willingness Domain RL7

Apart from provisionally knowing the pressure is for selflessness (RL7),
the Principal Typology PH'7 is insufficient developed to be useful here.

Sequence of this Section

The initial challenge is to identify the depiction methods and plot them on a THEE Typology Essentials Table (TET).

To achieve this, the following steps will be taken:

  1. Clarifying how depiction paradigms function.
  2. Listing and naming the 7 depiction paradigms.
  3. Noting ways to order paradigms: naturally, taxonomically, and practically.
  4. Using clues from other Principal Typologies to develop the TET layout.
  5. Identifying the psychosocial dimensions that are the TET axes.

Once these investigations are completed, it will become possible to explore:

  1. Characteristics of the depiction paradigms.

Start now:

Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024. Amended: 10-Jul-2024.