Naming Levels in Style Hierarchies
Starting Point: PH'5
Applying a 4-Level Style Hierarchy to Types converts the 7 Levels in the Principal Typology to the 28 Levels of the Q-expansion.
The starting point is , where the Style Hierarchy generating has been established and assumed for many years.
The 4 levels here are taken to be:
- δ: Developing: relating and managing multiple systems
- γ: Systematizing: developing a coherent system
- β: Appraising: accumulating, organising and appreciating impact
- α: Asserting: articulating and asserting specifics
For application to each of the , go here.
We assume that all Style Hierarchies are broadly similar, but the above labels cannot be assumed to be general. They were discovered from observations of people employed within . While the labels appear to fit other , it is possible that different labeling will better suit in other Domains.
Getting the Style labeling correct will assist in formulating the 28 levels, which, in turn, is expected to be helpful in formulating Arena names and validating formulations of levels within the Q-structures.
Once useful labeling is complete for all 7 Domains, we can consider if a useful abstract formulation may be developed.
The way forward, therefore, is to look at Styles that are easily identified within selected methods of each Principal Typology. The order that follows keeps similar investigative approaches together: in the first two cases, the ordering of types is not given because the focus is on a particular Method, while in the second two cases it is because the focus is on a particular Q-Arena.
Continuing with PH'1
The within includes:
•mediating, •debating, •negotiating •arbitrating
In ordering these:
» arbitrating appears to be the most final and controlling, so it is placed as 4-δ
» mediating appears to enable articulating and asserting positions to reach a compromise, so it is placed as 4-α.
» negotiating appears to involve appreciating both sides so as to reach a compromise, so it is placed as 4-β.
» debating is the final item which then has to go as 4-γ. But systematizing does not seem to fit so well here.
Should negotiating and debating be switched? I don't think so because debating results if negotiating fails, and arbitration is then the natural resolution of debating.
Using more suitable terms, the for can be formulated as follows:
- δ: which resolves dialectic decisions
- γ: which challenges dialectic decisions
- β: which shapes dialectic decisions
- α: which generates dialectic decisions
► For the application of this hierarchy to other , go here.
Continuing with PH'2
The within includes:
•data collectors, •statisticians •investigators, •meta-analysts
In ordering these:
» data collectors appear to be operating at the most basic level, 1-α; while meta-analysts appear to be operating at the highest level, 1-δ, given that they work to synthesize conclusions from numerous statistically analysed projects.
» statisticians work with data generated by investigators that employ data collectors.
It seems that the for can be formulated with slightly different terms as follows:
- δ: anchor empirical research: by bringing all studies together and reviewing statistically.
- γ: evaluate empirical research: or "check" or "test" or "contest", or even "challenge" cf. .
- β: organize empirical research: but we could say "shape" as for.
- α: ground: empirical research (or we could say "underpin" or "enable", or "generate" cf. , and when it comes to the facts or data they do "assert" cf. )
► For the application of this hierarchy to other , go here.
Continuing with PH'4
has been recently discovered, as explained here. There is less certainty, but plotting the TET reveals the ordering based on the Spiral. We therefore already know the order for 4 levels of the lower Type, conjectured to be within , and for the lower 3 levels of the upper Type, conjectured to be within .
These levels are currently specified as follows.
- 4γ:
- 4β:
- 4α:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- 3δ:
- 3γ:
- 3β:
- 3α:
The ordering being given, the task here is to assign Style Hierarchy descriptors that suit that ordering. As an aid, we can compare similarly numbered levels for all except δ.
- 3α and 4α both appear to activate their stabilizing methods: or we could perhaps say "ground" cf. , or "generate" cf. .
- 3β and 4β both appear to constrain their stabilizing methods (cf. ), the former because it can intensify or weaken attraction, and the latter because of the impairment to freedom of action.
- 3γ and 4γ both appear to differentiate their stabilizing methods (cf. ), the former because of openly comparing, and the latter perhaps because it makes demands.
- 3δ appears to integrate stabilization because mutuality calls for awareness of the context provided by (cf. ).
► For the application of this hierarchy to other , go here.
Continuing with PH'6
There is a well worked-out example:. We therefore already know the order for 4 levels of, and for the lower 3 levels of.
Note: "-c" is short for "centred".
- 5γ:
- 5β:
- 5α:
------------------------------------------------------
- 4δ:
- 4γ:
- 4β:
- 4α:
As with , the ordering being given, the task is to assign descriptors, with the benefit of again having two examples of all except δ
- 4α: and 5α: both appear to sustain their ethical choice method: but we could say "assert" (cf. ), or "ground" (cf. ), or perhaps "activate" (cf. PH'4) but probably not "generate" (cf. ).
- 4β: and 5α: both appear to constrain their ethical choice method: the former due to the interplay of brute force, the latter due to the requirement for a balanced understanding.
- 3γ: and 5α: both appear to contest or perhaps "challenge" (cf. PH'1) or "differentiate" their ethical choice method: the former due to focus or bias, the latter due to careful and deep discriminations.
- 3δ: appears to anchor or possibly integrate the ethical choice method, because while it is not itself , it recognizes that individual ethical choices are embedded in a communal context.
► For the application of this hierarchy to other , go here.
Review
Similarities are evident. For now, it will be possible to use these labels as hints in discovering other Q-structures, and also to check these labels against those new Q-structures.
There is not enough knowledge to permit investigation of and structures at this time.
Click here for a summary of the above:
Elliot Jaques has proposed that the THEE Style Hierarchy, at least in regard to, is a specification of the ways that information can be processed. His labels based on this idea are as follows
- δ: Parallel processing
- γ: Serial processing
- β: Cumulation
- α: Declaration
Having developed descriptors for the Style levels, we can:
Originally published: 24-Sep-2022