Three Ways to Order

This topic deals with technical issues related to taxonomic analyses.

THEE is characterized by a well-defined ordering of psychosocial entities into connected structures, and so it is important to sequence the depiction paradigms correctly.

Principal Typologies are not like other THEE hierarchies in that the types/levels are inherently incompatible and incommensurable. There is no influence between the Types and therefore no Tree pattern can be directly developed from the hierarchy.

That means that Types can, in principle, be ordered in any way that is useful or relevant for a particular purpose.

Natural Order

Sometimes it seems that a Type order presents itself, as is the case with the PH'3 depiction paradigms. It is convenient and almost obvious to sequence these in terms of the increasing (or decreasing) degree of complexity of the paradigm. I call this a «natural» ordering.

Such an ordering was first identified with the Interacting for Benefit types which can be ordered as they seem to appear in personal growth, which turns out to be similar to the order of societal evolution as proposed by Graves. This ordering, however appealing, was not suitable for THEE because it could not be used to derive important taxonomic frameworks.

The natural ordering may be suggested or confirmed by evidence, and we will see that this partially exists in the PH'3-Typology in relation to political ideology. The left-wing to right-wing ordering of political parties corresponds to the natural ordering for 5 of the paradigms: see more here.

Taxonomic Order

Whatever the benefits of using a natural order, it is essential to determine the taxonomically-correct sequence because that order will determine:

a) discovery of the 7 Q-arenas and related frameworks within each Q-arena.
b) consistency with other Domains in developing the Spiral complex.

Errors have occurred in the past e.g. in the study of Research Methods-PH'2.
ClosedDetails

The taxonomic order of a Principal Typology was originally developed primarily to parallel ordering of the Primary Hierarchy with the proposal that Types, which determine the optimal use of all levels, gave some sort of primacy or special attention to the numerically-corresponding Primary Hierarchy level. The benefit of one structure aiding elucidation of the other structure was counterbalanced by any error in one structure generating a corresponding error in the other.

Errors in identifying and ordering elemental entities are common during initial explorations, but THEE frameworks appear resilient to one or two errors and the systematic nature of taxonomic investigations soon brings errors to light and leads to corrections.

ClosedExample:

The 7 Decision Methods were originally determined through studies of the literature. There was no firm concept of a Primary Hierarchy of Action at that time. In the subsequently published paper, there was no hierarchy even if the presented order secretly followed the hierarchy suggested from parallel studies in inquiry. The only organised layout was in a 2x2 Table, which would later be called a TET diagram. As explained in this unpublished draft, the links between Research Methods to its Primary Hierarchy encouraged the exploration and ultimate discovery of a Primary Hierarchy of Action PH1, which then confirmed the taxonomic order of the Decision Methods.

Studies of Action-RL1/PH1 progressed well enough despite subsequent discovery of errors in Inquiry-RL2/PH2. Many years later, discovery of the Q-Arenas of Achievement provided additional structural confirmation for the original PH'1 Typology order.

Following much subsequent investigation in many parts of the Taxonomy, the relationship of the Principal Typology order to the layout of the TET and the order of the Spiral of Growth has become clear. In more recent times, the Q-Arenas also called for a specific ordering of Types.

At this point in time, it seems reasonable to use the expected structure of the TET and Spiral to suggest or confirm the taxonomic ordering of Types.

Practical Order

The above two orders are linear, which suggests presenting them in a matrix table with rows in ascending or descending order. The first column lists the types and the other columns list properties. You would expect that reading up and down the columns would give a good idea of how the Types compare and progress.

Such a matrix can be useful to confirm taxonomic order in terms of certain basics like the level oscillation cf. Primal Quests RH', or essential functions cf. using language PH'5. The matrix also works with the natural order, but only in those frameworks in which the notion of «natural» exists.

To have a deeper grasp of the Types and see the properties far more clearly, it is generally preferable to present the Types in terms of how they function in practice in our psychosocial world. This uses the execution duality (Axes) to generate a 2x2 Table (TET). Analysing the TET reveals properties via the approach duality (diagonals) and quadrant analyses. The layouts reveal both the obvious and the surprising. The TET presentation is easily comprehensible and memorable.

Cf. sections exploring the TET in Primal Quests RH', using language PH'5, decision methods PH'1, interacting for benefit (PH'6Q4) and elsewhere.

To investigate and understand the depiction paradigms, the taxonomic order seems less illuminating than the natural order or the TET-derived order with its diagonal sets and quadrant pairings.

However, knowing the THEE-taxonomic order will be essential for identifying and investigating other change control frameworks, commencing with its Spiral of Growth.

Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024.