Determining a Typology Essentials Table

A Different Approach

The present investigation will build on established taxonomic knowledge to take a different approach to plotting the depiction paradigms. Once taxonomic principles have clarified the likely layout on the TET canvas, it should be possible to determine the axes and look for links to the Primary Hierarchy-PH3. Properties that will be developed should then confirm both the layout and the axes.

The usual practice in developing a Typology Essentials Table (TET) is to identify the Executing Duality which is the psychosocial field of implementation that labels the two axes of a TET. The X-axis specifies the socially-shared output, while the Y-axis specifies the psychologically-required input. 4 quadrants are defined to facilitate placing each Type in a suitable location within a quadrant.

ClosedCheck Principal Typologies: 

TET's have also been usefully developed in the Root Typology and many Q-Arenas. The principles vary slightly, but the valuable patterns—quadrants, diagonals, concentric circles—and insights that have emerged from these are remarkably consistent.

Clues

Starting from the basic properties that have been identified, we know enough to use structural clues as follows: 

1. Diagonal Clue: 

The Unitary, Dualistic and Causal paradigms are all based on seeing entities as internally simple, and the trio are progressive with one, two and several or many components. Only the diagonal from lower right corner to the upper left corner has three plots likely to share such a fundamental property. As Causal has a degree of flexibility in components that Unitary does not, it likely lies in the ellipse in the lower right quadrant.

2. Property Clues:

The Dualistic paradigm is oppositional and/or polarized, which is very similar to the nature of Dialectic decision-making (PH'1L4) and Dialectic inquiry (PH'2L4). On the basis of resonance (see example), this suggests a formula for Dualistic: PH'3L4, and an identical position on the TET i.e. on the inner circle in the upper left quadrant. This is consistent with Clue-1.

The Unified paradigm is fully systemic and so very similar to Systemicist decision-making (PH'1L5) and Holistic inquiry (PH'2L5). This suggests a formula for Unified: PH'3L5, and an identical position on the TET i.e. in the extreme top right.

The Structuralist decision method (PH'1L6) appears to view reality somewhat akin to the Structural paradigm—which would suggest an identical position on the inner circle in the lower left quadrant. While not as persuasive as the Dualistic-Dialectic and Unified-Holistic-Systemicist resonance, the allocation gets some support from the similarity of names. It can also be placed there by exclusion: i.e. not the UL and LR quadrants which are filled, not LR again because there is no obvious spread of operation, not UR quadrant because there is little affinity with Unified . So the only place left is the LL quadrant and the extreme place seems inappropriate.

3. Affinity Clue: 

Dynamic and Unified paradigms are very similar, in that both take a systems view, with Dynamic being more restricted. This sort of affinity strongly suggests:

a) these two belong in the same quadrant with Unified placed peripherally and Dynamic centrally; and

b)  the quadrant is likely the upper right quadrant because Unified is there already, the UL quadrant is filled, the LR quadrant only has one Type, and the LL probably has Structural as per Clue-2.

4. Extremism Clue:

The Unitary and Unified paradigms present as extreme, given the former is as simple as possible, and the latter is as complex as possible. This places them on the outer circle, but not in the lower-right quadrant which requires diffusion over an ellipse.

Unitary has already been assigned the upper-left extreme position as per Clue-1, and Unified has already been assigned the upper-right extreme position as per Clue-2 & Clue-3. So this provides a further confirmation.

The third extreme paradigm is the Atomistic, which is labeled extreme because it perceives situations as lacking a group ethos and containing entities without necessary links to other entities. There is only one extreme location remaining, at the lower left of the lower left quadrant. Placing it there would make it the opposing counterpart to the Unified paradigm—which fits nicely.

This allocation also supports the positioning of the Structural paradigm centrally within the LL quadrant, as tentatively indicated by Clue-2. There is a natural affinity between Atomistic and Structural because any "structure" is composed of "atoms" as its components.

Completion

To complete the TET and have full confidence in the layout, we also need to detail functioning at either end of the Causal ellipse.

The Causal Paradigm is looking for causal connections amongst an indefinite variety of components to enable predictions. Given that a Unitary paradigm has one component and a Dualistic paradigm has two components, it can be imagined that at the upper left end of the ellipse, the Causal entity will consider only a few factors due to a deliberately limited focus to ease analysis and social understanding. By contrast, at the lower right end of the ellipse the depiction generates a complicated situation with multiple factors and possibly chains of causation between certain components and the overall situation.

Numbering the Types

The plots of the 5 Principal Typologies previously worked out from first principles show a standard pattern in terms of their Type/Level in the Typology.

This pattern is overlaid on the Depiction Paradigms TET below, and a comparison with the complexity order is shown in the adjacent Table. Only Causal appears in the same position in each layout.

L' 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

Linking to the Primary Hierarchy

Each of the levels of change can be viewed as suggesting an ordering principle that underlies and guarantees a particular paradigm for depiction. These links are at best plausible.

L1-Variation assumes that a seemingly insignificant change in one component may cause other components to react or generate feedback—which is the principle underlying the L'1-Dynamic paradigm.

L2-Alteration assumes that a new bounded state can and will be created—which underlies the L'2-Atomistic paradigm.

L3-Improvement assumes that something better can be predicted and made to happen—which is the notion underlying the L'3-Causal paradigm.

L4-Sustenance assumes that the entity's state is subject to forces for and against its continuance—which is a notion underlying the L'4-Dualistic paradigm.

L5-Adaptation assumes that context evolves and its handling is an essential part of any change process—which is the basis for the L'5-Unified paradigm.

L6-Representation assumes that a coherent ordering of an entity's state is possible—which is an intrinsic notion of the L'6-Structural paradigm.

L7-Transformation assumes that the entity as a whole changes—and an indivisible whole is the essential idea for the L'7-Unitary paradigm.

The TET layout and taxonomic order has been provisionally determined. These findings now need to be checked and confirmed.

  • If the taxonomic order is correct, it would be expected to show two dualities: an oscillating duality and an unfolding duality. The odd-even oscillation is checked and confirmed in the review section. The unfolded duality has not been identified.
  • The TET axes are two crucial psychosocial dimensions that determine the optimum way to perceive. See how the axes are defined and the layout checked here.

Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024.