Auspices for Depiction: Social v Personal
Social Reality and Conformity
The paradigms structure psychosocial reality in a largely unconscious or spontaneous way that can be intensely resistant to correction.
While depiction can be an individual matter, the shaping of reality is subject to social pressures. The Asch conformity experiments
showed that even for a physical matter like length, peer pressure will lead individuals to insist that the shorter of two lines is the longer. We would expect this effect to be far stronger in social situations which are inherently complex and where any account of reality is inevitably uncertain and contestable.
Studies of other Principal Typologies have revealed that when circles are drawn through the more central Types and the peripheral Types, the inner circle Types are under social auspices while the outer circle Types are under personal auspices.
cf. research methods-PH'2, mental stabilization-PH'4, use of language-PH'5.
A similar finding appears to apply for the .
- Inner circle are ultimately under social auspices because social demands and social pressures are so great that no individual can resist them.
- Outer circle are ultimately under personal auspices and may be upheld in the face of social opposition and attacks.
Social Auspices (Inner Circle)
The centrally-located paradigms present any situation as socially determined and socially controlled. They generate a demand for appropriate social responses. Contrary individual assertion may lead to that person withdrawing or being excluded from the relevant group.
The presents the situation as based on straight-forward cause-effect relationships that appear rational. These are easy for people to recognize and so willing support is provided especially as consensus builds. Anyone who explains that acting on them will likely lead to counter-productive results—because of current system factors or currently non-existent factors likely to emerge during action—ends up being ignored or ridiculed.
The deals with individuals as components of the entity. Those involved have no option but to accept the fact of structuring and the realities created by structuring. This applies whether or not details are fully known and understood. Typically people have to work the structure in order to engage with it (e.g. customers dealing with a business), or work within it (e.g. employees of the business). Rejection of the structure leads to exclusion by the group or by those in authority.
The presents a situation as being based on two opposing positions (components). Anyone who wishes to participate or contribute to the situation, is forced to take sides. Refusal to take sides or rejection of the value or need for dichotomization, or suggestion of a different more relevant division brands a person as an outsider and irrelevant. Participation by outsiders is very difficult or impossible, and so is creating a new position or division to replace one that is currently dominant.
The creates an arrangement in which people and groups interact meaningfully, giving and receiving feedback from each other as they jointly handle the situation. Other than exiting, it is not possible to reject or avoid participating in the system as it evolves outside any single person's control.
Personal Auspices (Outer Circle)
The peripherally-located paradigms appear to be applied by unique individuals and upheld by them regardless of social pressure. In some cases, society actively turns against the persons who propose or embody these depictions of reality.
The requires each person to be left to their own devices because each is unique and their autonomy must be respected. Any group pressure is viewed as a coercive force that ought to be resisted or rejected. If a person uses this paradigm, then how they perceive a particular situation will be in the light of their own interests and preferences.
The assumes that the group situation calls for a controller who is willing to force everyone else to conform to their dictates regardless of the personal situation or interests of group members. The system functions with power-centred assumptions and there is a pecking-order. Move to another paradigm is only possible if a willing autocrat cannot be found and the societal consensus rejects the paradigm.
The generates a world in which everything is connected and even the environment is part of the situation. All components co-evolve organically. The complexity and sophistication of such a vision is beyond the grasp of the vast majority of people. Articulation requires an unusual person. However, accurate their depiction may be, and however well it may explain past failures or predict future catastrophes, it is likely regarded as an oddity by wider society, and may be ignored entirely.
The presents situations as being determined by large numbers of factors, and many of those factors have multi-factorial causation. Every aspect of every causal link will have its own inherent uncertainty. As a result, any ultimate final depiction will be so highly sophisticated that wide consensus on the situation and patterns of causation will be impossible to achieve. The account will remain a particular investigator's unique product that is challenged by many. As a result, it can be largely ignored in wider society even if the author is highly respected.
Central-Peripheral Relationships
Because the socially-controlled paradigms have deficiencies, there is always pressure to move to a personally-controlled paradigm in the same quadrant due to the affinity. However, there is generally a reluctance to make that move.
In the UL quadrant, the reveals an entity whose components oppose each other, potentially to the point of desiring the other's removal or annihilation. Each will be aware that the inherent social conflict can be suppressed and supremacy can be achieved if the entity becomes with them as the sole controller.
While this degree of control usually frightens most people, at times of turmoil there can be a preference for autocratic rule and the leader may be perceived as a saviour. This is how ancient Greece functioned, and how Hitler came to power in Germany.
In the UR quadrant, the is formulated as a system and there is a perception of vulnerability in relation to the environment. The neglect of the environment and sometimes other systems can be repaired with a depiction which includes the environment as part of the entity and so boosts concern for the environment.
Exploitation of the environment appears to provide the equivalent of a free lunch, but remediation of the damage can be extremely expensive. Long-term effects from convenient choices like plastic use, pesticides, waste-dumping, fossil fuels are often catastrophic. Application of the seems essential but too expensive and difficult.
In the LL quadrant, the provides for useful order and control within an organization. However this depends on the willing participation of individuals, which may be withdrawn. Even whole departments can rebel. Any focus on the whole at the expense of components can be overcome by an view which boosts concern for individuals or components and respects their needs, interests, and rights.
To turn a profit, it is far easier to shut down training, cut R&D, underpay staff, and prevent unionisation. So leaders of groups or organizations prefer to take individual components for granted.
In the LR quadrant, the is relatively easy to employ when there are just a few factors. However, more often than not there are many other potentially relevant factors generating an effect. The over-simplified error-generating few-factor view of a situation can be rectified by increasing coverage of factors.
But multifactorial investigations and analyses are difficult, time-consuming. expensive, and uncertain.
Turn now to the crucial question of who drives change and why people agree to change that is often baffling, unpleasant, dangerous or risky.
- Paradigms generate different forms of leadership
Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024.