Q Expansion

The Hub introduced the basics of Q structures in the Taxonomy. It is now possible to provide a more systematic account of this complex.

The term Q expansion is used to refer to the way that 7 Types (Methods) in a Principal Typology become 28 subsidiary Types by the application of a 4-level Styles Hierarchy to each principal Type.

A Q-complex is formed by combining all 4 levels from one Type with the lower 3 levels of the next higher Type. A Q-complex is an Arena of functioning within a particular Domain.

As a result, there are potentially 49 Q-complexes i.e. 7 Q-complexes in each of the 7 Primary Domains. Each Q-complex contains at least 5 distinct frameworks, which means there are potentially 245 useful frameworks awaiting discovery. Or rather 240, because the PH'5Q5 set has been worked out rather fully.

Background

Choice of the «Q-» Label

In the early days, I noted formal differences between the work-levels hierarchy for organisations, and other «seemingly fundamental» hierarchies that I was uncovering in inquiry, decision and purpose. Jaques and colleagues attributed a «fundamental» significance to their Work Levels Hierarchy.

The claim is reasonable: but then all frameworks within THEE are felt to be fundamental. Beck and co-workers clearly felt like Jaques when they called their Spiral Dynamics Q-hierarchy the «theory of everything».

In THEE, it is the Root Hierarchy that is logically fundamental. However, before I discovered the Root, I had identified several of its Levels as Primary Hierarchies, which at the time seemed fundamental. Because the work-levels hierarchy seemed just as fundamental, I referred to it as a «Quasi-primary» hierarchy. After it became evident that «primary» did not apply at all, I kept the label, Q- from «Quasi-» for sentimental reasons.

Developed Q- Frameworks

For a long time I had only two Q-frameworks, both originally developed by others, and both appealing and powerful.

1. Levels of Organisational Work / Levels of Management : PH'5Q2H
Details

The very first THEE framework, that discovered unknowingly by Elliot Jaques, turned out to be a Q-framework. He identified the levels as being related to the use of language, but was unable or uninterested in working out the full language hierarchy. The fact that his hierarchy spanned L'2 + L'3 in PH'5-Communication, immediately suggested the existence of other hierarchies spanning other adjacent Types. It was easy to see that Academic Disciplines were using L'3 and L'4 language, but I did not take it much further at that time. See more here.

The 5 frameworks that make up a Q-complex have been worked out rather fully for PH'5Q2.

2. Prosperity : Interacting for Benefit Methods : PH'6Q4t
Details

The next Q-framework to be studied was sparked by the Spiral Dynamics ideas. The order of methods presented in that text did not accord with the taxonomic order. My posting of this framework and various powerful applications did not involve any formulae aside from a simple numbering of 7 types/levels. It was only after development of the ethical choice systems (PH'6) and exploration of its Q expansion that it became evident that the prospering methods emerged from individualist-L'4 and communalist-L'5 approaches. The most explicit evidence came from the study of cooperation. Again, I did not investigate other frameworks in that Q-complex at the time.

Emergent Q- Frameworks

Because THEE formulations directly represent the reality of personal functioning, they seem self-evidently true when explained to people. Often books or theories that, unknown to the author, are THEE-based become extremely popular or part of conventional wisdom.

Over time, I had found several THEE-like hierarchies based on these, which did not appear to fit anywhere in the Architecture as then understood.

A. An Information Hierarchy

This hierarchy sprang from numerous investigators differentiating «data» from «information», and «knowledge» from «wisdom». I was able to specify a likely hierarchy as shown at right, which appealed to many scientists when checked with them.

To confirm its validity, I worked out a property matrix, identified an oscillating duality, and determined groups and groupings in a likely structural hierarchy as well as the associated Trees.

More

These structures surely belonged in the Inquiry Domain. Because I could find no obvious relation to adjacent research methods-PH'2, I suspected that the ordering of this Typology might have been in error. During this early phase of my investigations, I had partially shut my eyes to what was correct and succumbed to pressures to get published. Checking this possibility revealed the correct ordering of research methods which then enabled a label for this finding: Informed Action:  PH'2Q1H

If the amended ordering of research methods is valid, then the other PH'2Q-hierarchies would be expected confirm this—and they have.

B. The Languages of Love

In 1992, Gary Chapman wrote a best-seller: The 5 Love Languages. It is a given that every THEE system is its own language. So this and the popularity were giveaways. It was then not too difficult to identify the missing 2 languages by generalizing from love to friendship i.e. close relationships that we all potentially need.

In this case, the hierarchy was not obvious. So rather than trying to force an ordering, it seemed more feasible to use a TET. The axes were easy to guess and plotting the languages revealed the Spiral ordering. Then, if it is truly a Q-framework, the hierarchy should flow from the Spiral order—which it does.

More

I guessed that the Domain to which this framework belongs must be Experience-RL4 because relationships are so obviously linked to mental stability (PH'4). Friendship appears to emerge from a combination of emotional being-L'3 and individual being-L'4 which is the Q3-complex.

C. Methods of Persuasion

In 1984, Robert Cialdini produced a best-seller: Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. The appealing quality and sense of truth in his account strongly suggests that this set of 6 or 7 methods is a THEE framework. But where does it belong? How should the set be ordered? Is there a TET that can be determined?

Speculation

---

Having clarified what a Q expansion is and given examples of Q frameworks both posted and developed in draft, we must turn our attention to:

• the contribution of the Q-expansion to personal functioning

Originally posted: 24-Sep-2022