Comparing Types with a TET

Typologies within THEE contain ways of acting with commitment. The Types can be plotted on a 2x2 Table, called a Typology Essences Table (= TET). The resulting TET layout reveals features of practical importance that would otherwise be difficult to notice.

Each TET requires names for its axes. These names define the executing duality (eD) of the THEE-Type (= Approach = Mentality = System).

• One executing dimension relates to the essence of the desired output (= outcome = result) when using any approach. 

By convention, it is the X-axis.  The X-axis is always outer, social, environmental, situational or objective: i.e. the X-axis is the «-social» aspect of psycho-social reality.

• The other executing dimension relates to a focus on the essential personal means used to produce the relevant output.

By convention, it is the Y-axis. The Y-axis can be categorized variously as inner, personal, mental, psychological or subjective.  i.e. the Y-axis is the «psycho-»(logical) aspect of psycho-social reality.

Once we have the correct formulations of the approaches in the Typology and have identified the appropriate executing duality, then each of the 7 approaches can be assessed and compared as: «very high» or «moderate»—covering the higher part of each axis; or «low» or «very low»—covering the lower part of each axis.

The inquiry challenge is to name the TET axes validly and sufficiently precisely for the focus of concern.

Getting it Right

If this particular duality is named correctly, then the inquiry moves ahead reasonably smoothly. Being slightly wrong may not matter too much.  But if the axes are named utterly incorrectly or too vaguely, then we will certainly get into difficulties. The results of inquiry will be unpersuasive to others and downstream inquiry will be blocked.

---

• With this explanation in mind, continue now to Step 1.

Originally posted: July 2009; Last updated: 27 Jan 2010