Stage-4: Dynamic Evolution

ClosedReminder of the clarification process so far:

Understand the Dynamic Evolution

Everything so far has been static. The simple causal explanation in Stage-1 resembles an if-then hypothesis with a more or less satisfactory evidential base. The model in Stage-2 provides for an overview of a static order. If supported by detailed descriptions or facts and figures with infographics, then it is likely to be dry and dense as well. The addition of polarized positions in Stage-3 reflects enduring psycho-social differences and sets up protagonists and antagonists, and while these actors will affect evolution of the situation the "how" is unspecified.

Social situations are inherently dynamic. Components of the situation, individuals and groups, have relationships that develop and their views and actions are affected by feedback. Influences and pressures get brought to bear on choices, and there is also a context that has a variable impact and may need handling. The operation of these various forces developed the situation to its present state and can be expected to shape its ongoing evolution.

In order to capture the dynamics of evolution, a narrative is required. Elements of this narrative have been provided in previous Stages. Now a time dimension is added. The inclusion of relationships and forces ensures the narrative can be emotionally relevant and meaningful for each individual component. Narratives also encourage identification by listeners, which can powerfully influence acceptance of explanations.

Values & Assumptions

Promoting Acceptability

ClosedEssence: Dynamic Evolution

The situation must be perceived and understood as having undergone a dynamic evolution to the present and being continuously evolving. This evolution is partly driven by intentions and interactions between people or groups and therefore includes their goals, interests and pressures. The context must be shown to play a role as something that is attended to and handled more or less well.

ClosedDesired Benefit: Maximum Realism

This clarification presents itself as the most realistic. Relationships must be identified and the important factors in the situation including the functioning and interactions of the various components need to be explained. There may be differences of opinion or awareness of exactly what is important enough to be included. While the context is not detailed, it is part of the narrative when its impact and reactions to it are identified.

ClosedMeans: Interactions and Feedback

Evolution is based on the persisting relationships and ever-changing interactions amongst components. No component in a system is entirely isolated. In formulating interactions and influences amongst components, particular attention should be given to feed-back loops that provide for intelligent control of the evolutionary process.

Handling the Group

ClosedParticipation: Respond to Questions

There are a lot of moving parts in any evolving situation. In order for any audience to accept the account, they need to be able to ask questions without restrictions and there needs to be a sensible response to those questions. If questions-and-answers are avoided or mishandled then there will be a distrust of the account or its underlying model.

ClosedCommunication: Structure a Narrative

The complexity of a dynamic model can be overwhelming. However, situations have an origin or beginning, a development or emergence, and a current state and potential future. This provides for an opportunity to explain a situation through using a narrative structure. Meaningful story-telling makes complexity manageable. It also fosters an emotional engagement or identification that facilitates acceptance.

ClosedIndividualization: Create Scenarios

Evolutionary forces persist and will naturally be relevant to any future state of affairs, but this future is a creation. Some situations are highly structured and carefully controlled so as to permit foresight or planning with confidence. But contexts can always change and so there is no way of knowing precisely what course evolution will take. The credibility of scenarios varies according as much to listener preferences as to the realism of the narrative.

Channeling Your Functioning:

ClosedGain Support: Comprehension

Full comprehension of the situation in the sense of an in-depth grasp of all relevant aspects is required to handle the group and be maximally persuasive. In many cases, this will call for an immersion in the relevant data which can be both time-consuming and costly.

In Stage-3, the modelling of purpose in relation to policy-making had generated a triangular pattern: two forms of priority that interact and govern a strategic objective. Priorities determine resource allocation and the choice of strategic objective is dependent on resource availability.

There are evident interactions and influences at play in this pattern. The nature of priorities are that they assert relative importance and affect resource allocation. The personal-emotional priority strives to impose itself on the logically comprehensive set of priorities. The need for logic and comprehensiveness can restrain emotional excesses while allowing the personally preferred priority to be a focus. The two forms of priority independently shape the strategic objective.

The comprehensive set of priorities orders outcomes, while strategic objectives aim to realize the comprehensive set of priorities. The emotional over-riding priority selects particular outcomes as preferable and pushes for the strategic objective to be designed to suit.

These descriptions can be further elaborated by including effects on and from the tactical objectives below, and effects from and on the principal object or mission above. In other words, a complete account of how purposes operate must now be provided for maximum realism in relation to the use of purposes.

Stopping at this Stage

The situation has now been well-clarified in all features judged crucial. The initial explanation-μ1 has been extended through fitting into a suitable model-μ2, activated through its underlying polarization-μ3, and put in perspective via an evolution-μ4 that reveals inner workings of the situation, including the power of feedback and the effect of context.

At each Stage, the explanation has definitely become more satisfying and seemingly more satisfactory as well. So there is a sense of closure by Stage-4. This allows a spontaneous re-entry into the Causal Mode-μ1, but lower down in the ellipse because significantly more factors have been identified and included.

The seemingly satisfying explanation can now be described as a seemingly sufficient explanation.

In many cases, stopping at this Stage will be felt to be appropriate.

  • Re-enter the Causal Mode but further down the ellipse.

Originally posted:  30-Oct-2024