Preview Paradigm Comparisons

Method of Investigation

Appreciation of anything requires comparison with other similar things. In the case of Types, a valuable form of comparison used in THEE is obtained by plotting on the Typology Essentials Table (TET).

In this case, the approach duality, as defined by paradigms along the two diagonals, turned out to be highly revealing. A summary of the findings purely in terms of the diagonals is provided below.

The goal here is to indicate the sort of findings and thinking that will follow, and not to explain or justify.

The Approach Duality

ClosedAttitude to Change

The first check of the two sets along the diagonals suggest the following as the approach duality:

increasingly power-demanding domination paradigms (LR to UL)
versus
increasingly comprehensive evolution paradigms (LL to UR)

Zones along the axes will be identified to pair off otherwise dissimilar paradigms.

ClosedLocus of Change

The diagonal sets reveal a distinction amongst paradigms regarding the focus for change.

The dominating paradigms seek to locate change externally in the environment.

The evolutionary paradigms seek to locate change internally within the self/entity.

ClosedDelivering Change

The diagonal sets distinguish between paradigms in regard to the relative importance of taking action and using ideas to generate change.

The dominating paradigms give primacy to action, preferably on the environment.

The evolutionary paradigms give primacy to ideas, as developed within the self/entity.

As a result there is a marked difference in the thinking styles used by paradigms in the 4 quadrants. Going anticlockwise, thinking progresses stepwise: simplistic (UL), mechanistic (LL), rational (LR) and systemic (UR).

ClosedIdentity Struggles

Change is a matter of individuals and groups, and each has their own identity. The diagonals divide the paradigms in terms of whether the group identity or personal identity is more influential.

The dominating paradigms favour the group identity and allow it to shape personal identities.

The evolutionary paradigms favour personal identity as primary and the foundation for group identities.

 

Handling Extremes

ClosedAuspices

The use of any method is an imposition on psychosocial reality that requires support and pressure either from within the person or from society in order to be sustained. I refer to this high-level sponsorship as «auspices».

The paradigms are located on concentric circles in the TET, in which those lying on the outer circle are viewed as extreme positions as compared to those on the inner circle.

The general finding in other Typologies is confirmed again here:

Depiction methods on the inner circle are under social auspices.

Depiction methods on the inner circle are under personal auspices.

Moving within a quadrant from the more centrally located paradigm to the more peripheral paradigm is often desired to improve the handling of a situation, even if that poses a significant challenge for those in the situation.

The Quintessential Role

Because change commonly involves groups and the change required is either unwanted, baffling, unpleasant, dangerous, or risky for many or most members or the group as a whole, there is a need for a leader to drive change. The role of leader characterizes responsible control in Domain-RL3: it can be compared to researcher (for Inquiry-RL2) or manager (for Action-RL1).

The nature of this essential psychosocial role differs according to the depiction paradigm, and because leadership differs, so does followership.

Leadership of society is a particular challenge. It needs more than a person to handle a society's requirements for change. Political leaders need to espouse and be backed up by a political ideology widely accepted within their society. Each of the depiction paradigms appears to align with a particular ideology.

The general pattern for Principal Typologies on the TET, essential to create the Spiral via modes, is as shown in the diagram below.

Using this diagram and the positions of paradigms in the diagram at the top of the page, it is possible to assign the correct Type No.s.

The complexity order was explained here. So the taxonomic and the complexity orders can now be compared as in the table below. The only commonality is Causal in the 3rd level in both cases.

  Taxonomic Order Complexity Order
7 Unitary Unified
6 Structural Atomistic
5 Unified Dynamic
4 Dualistic Structural
3 Causal Causal
2 Atomistic Dualistic
1 Dynamic Unitary

Now proceed to work through the above findings for the depiction methods (PH'3) in detail.

The section ends with a review and some additional analyses supporting the findings and raising questions about the human condition and its handling of reality.

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