Pairing Arenas in PH'2Q

Comparison with PH'5Q Arenas

Having determined within PH'5Q-Associating Arenas that there are 3 natural pairs of Arenas plus a single 7th Arena, it is necessary to check whether this pattern is unique or general.

While the PH'5Q-Associating Arenas are social, the PH'2Q-Knowing Arenas all occur within a single person's own functioning.

I intend to start with the assumption that the closely related pairs in this Domain will be identical to those discovered in PH'5Q as follows:

  • Q5 & Q3
  • Q7 & Q2
  • Q4 & Q1
  • Q6 alone.

I will also assume that the TET layout is identical.

Each proposed PH'2Q pair will now be checked, and alternatives considered to the pairing and the quadrant layout.

Pairing

Q5-Authoritative Pronouncement & Q3-Premeditated Change

These seem to go together in that a Q5-authoritative communicationis typically required before any Q3-premeditated change, and any change is always challenged by others and requires an authoritative response.

Of these two, Q3-Change conclusions are more concrete and therefore central.

ClosedAlternatives

Alternate pairing of Q5: 
Q5-authoritative pronouncements does not relate in the same way to Q1-informed action, Q2-contributing studies, Q4-formulated views, & Q7-achievable futures. For oneself, there is no need to formulate a statement, and in social situations, discretion or silence is commonly the best option.

Alternate pairing of Q3: 
Q3-premeditated changes might link to Q1-informed action, Q2-necessary studies, Q4-sustainable views. However, the bond seems less tight given that any of these arenas might be operated without impacting on Q3-premeditated change.

Q7-Achievable Future & Q2-Contributing Study

These could go together, because whenever a choice is being made about Q7-what to create there is much uncertainty, and many things to check out. Time and resources are limited, so choices must be made about Q2-what to study. If a choice is made first about a Q2-contributing study, then this commitment will likely shape what might a Q7-achievable future.

Of these two, Q2-Studies conclusions are more concrete and therefore central.

ClosedAlternatives

Alternate pairing of Q7:
Conclusion about a Q7-achievable future has connections, but does not especially pair with an Q1-informed action, Q4-formulated view, or an Q6-emergent requirement.

Alternate pairing of Q2:
Q2-Contributing study might contribute to Q1-informed action, Q4-formulated view, or an Q6-emergent requirement. However, a regular reverse influence seems to be absent.

Q4-Formulated View & Q1-Informed Action

These seem to go together rather obviously, because your strong views will affect any actions you take; and any particular choice about what to do needs to be consonant with your views.

Of these two, Q1-Informed action conclusions are more concrete and therefore central.

ClosedAlternatives

Alternate pairing of Q4:
The only option left is Q6-emergent requirement and there seems to be no routine connection with Q4-formulated views.

Alternate pairing of Q1:
Similarly Q1-informed action and Q6-emergent requirement are not regularly connected.

Q6-Emergent Requirements is the singleton which extends from a choice about what is personally and immediately important to an acceptance of a need to treat social requirements as important.

Axes

Having established the pairings and found the same extreme-central patterns, it seems reasonable to assume a similar location of the Arena pairs on the TET quadrants (as shown in the diagram above). However, we need to specify the axes.

As always, the axes define the psychosocial field or context within which the plotted Arenas operate. In the case of the PH'2Q-Knowing Arenas, this could be stated as:

«A person seeking to make choices based on explicable conclusions about ever-changing social situations.»

The X-axis could be about the social impact and likelihood of feedback about conclusions reached and choices made.

Choices about the Q7-futures and Q4-views in themselves have minimal impact on the social environment.

Choices about Q1-action and Q2-studies have some small impact. 

However, choices about Q3-change always gets a reaction, and Q5-pronouncements even more so.

Q6-requirements, even if personal, are intrinsically social and are placed in the right half of the axis: but there is a diffuse ellipse with purely personal values at the upper left and societal requirements at the lower right.

The Y-axis could be about gaining stability in the face of a changing situation. Conclusions in the arenas vary in how well they stabilize a personal situation.

Choices about Q6-requirements that are social requirements offer little personal stability, but personally chosen values provide more.

Choices about the Q7-future and Q2-contributing studies also offer little stability.

Choices about Q1-action an Q3-changes are higher.

Choices of Q4-views and Q6-pronouncements are generated specifically to enable stability in the face of fluctuations in the situation.

Further Analyses

Originally posted: 30-Sep-2022