Change: Controversial or Irrefutable
Oscillation
Change in personal and social situations is commonly emotionally charged and often difficult. In considering the perception and depiction of situations to handle change, the views and effects on people are therefore of paramount significance.
There can always be disputes about how well a paradigm is applied to a situation, just as there can be disputes about the use of a or a . But the psychosocial effect of suitably applied paradigm is a separate question, and that is where paradigms potentially differ.
Any model, regardless of the actual degree of realistic fit, may appear plausible or reasonable or useful or even seem true. However, the concern in this Domain is the handling of and that demands acceptability, not certainty or veridicality.
Investigations in the Architecture Room led to acceptability being identified as the psychosocial pressure that characterized the . So the crucial issue is whether the used in the situation inevitably causes some sort of resistance or objection (potentially unacceptable), or whether it naturally seems to resolve concerns in a satisfactory way and even pacify those involved (probably acceptable).
The duality is therefore proposed as:
- controversial i.e. contentious, readily disputed, viewed by many as dubious or questionable: in which case it will activate people, leading to disagreements and arguments;
versus
- irrefutable i.e. evident, obvious, beyond question, undeniable, readily accepted: in which case it will resolve differences and disputes and therefore be calming and stabilizing.
Depictions using the odd-numbered Types appear to be controversial and activating because they implicitly or even explicitly encourage or suggest a direction for change.
Depictions using the even-numbered Types appear to be irrefutable and resolving because they leave things as they are and in the hands of the protagonists.
Controversy & Activation
L'1: Dynamic Paradigm
Construction of a system that is will reveal the forces at play, which will indicate how it is evolving. This direction will be viewed in different ways by different people. Some will be indifferent, some will approve, and some will be disturbed or disadvantaged. So the result will inevitably be controversial, with those affected being activated.
L'3: Causal Paradigm
Determining relationships to use findings as a reason or mechanism to make a change or pursue some development will be viewed differently by those involved. However, the causal links are never completely certain for a host of reasons including measurement issues, sampling issues, and investigator bias. So findings are intrinsically controversial. In addition, vested interests will oppose any implicit guidance or explicit proposals, and provoke doubt or spread confusion. So people are activated.
L'5: Unified Paradigm
This system is a more sophisticated version of the because it includes the environment. This inclusion is highly controversial because there will be questions of whether the environment should be included and what aspects of the environment are most relevant. As people mostly take the environment for granted or even exploit it, any depiction that requires attention and concern to be directed there will activate many.
L'7: Unitary Paradigm
Depicting an entity as indivisible with its components (often people) completely undifferentiated runs counter to the human tendency to seek and create differentiation. Since people have a need for individualization and a wish to make sense of things in their own way, the depiction will be controversial. Furthermore the usual methods—forcibly insisting on false facts or hiding facts, using propaganda and requiring indoctrination—will cause distress to many and be activating.
Irrefutability & Resolution
Note: Those who dislike or disapprove of an even-numbered paradigm may get activated by their use because a different approach is deemed more suitable. However, conflict over the choice of paradigm is a separate issue from the effects of using a paradigm. See more here.
L'2: Atomistic Paradigm
Perceiving entities, especially when they are persons, as unique, independent and with their own nature, needs, tendencies and preferences seems natural and obvious, indeed irrefutable. Respecting the boundaries and autonomy of similar others resolves differences. There are no inherent implications for change by anyone as this is a matter left to each individual. So there is no inherent activation.
L'4: Dualistic Paradigm
It is often easy to perceive a situation as two forces or factors or groups in opposition. The dichotomization seems irrefutable and the resulting balance resolves anxieties. Each side may have a view of what should change or how, but dichotomizing has no inherent implications for development of the situation. So the arrangement is inherently stabilizing.
L'6: Structural Paradigm
The depiction of an entity like an organization as a compound system with ordered parts and functions means that the entity is recognizable by others. The presence of an identifiable entity is irrefutable and the ordering is created to resolve questions of status, of role or function, of responsibility or of process. A well-structured organization or process model provides a suitable base for pursuing or tracking change, but no particular change is implied.
The presence of a typical oscillation is confirmed, which supports the taxonomic ordering.
- Return to the review.
Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024. Last modified 10-Jul-2024.