Psychosocial Pressures in PH'2Q Arenas
Reminder
In the earliest years of this inquiry, a phenomenon of resonance between taxonomic entities was recognized. This similarity in entities showed up in their formulae, and this was later understood as based on «projection» from the Root Hierarchy.
Deeper analysis led to the hypothesis that the «projection» was an instinctual-type pressure impacting on the personal and social functioning intrinsic to each Root Level and present in any of its emanations. The 7 Root-based «psychosocial pressures» are channeled throughout the taxonomy such that every entity is the result of a unique cumulation of these pressures.
| Root Level | Psychosocial Pressure |
|
|---|---|---|
| Willingness-RL7 | Selflessness | |
| Purpose-RL6 | Autonomy | |
| Communication-RL5 | Understanding | |
| Experience-RL4 | Well-being | |
| Change-RL3 | Acceptability | |
| Inquiry-RL2 | Certainty | |
| Action-RL1 | Performance |
How these cumulations work has not yet been carefully studied. Nevertheless the fertility of the psychosocial pressure hypothesis has been supported by repeated confirmations from observation. As a result, identifying psychosocial pressures has proved to be a useful investigative and explanatory tool.
In the Root Hierarchy Projections section of this Studio Room, the patterns of psychosocial pressures within Primarily Hierarchies, Principal Typologies & Spirals, and Structural Hierarchies are investigated. Here we need to investigate the pressures in the Q Arenas.
An "Obvious" Correspondence
In looking at the 7 structures identified in the previous topic, the association of a psychosocial pressure looks obvious:
seems related to and therefore under a performance pressure.
seems related to and therefore under a certainty pressure
seems related to and therefore under an acceptability pressure.
seems related to and therefore under a well-being pressure.
seems related to and therefore under an understanding pressure.
seems related to and therefore under an autonomy pressure.
seems related to and therefore under a selflessness pressure.
In other words, the structures in appear to have a simple direct correspondence with the same-numbered pressures without any transformations as were needed for the Spiral and Structural Hierarchies.
In this way, the Q Arenas resemble the Primary Hierarchies, and perhaps deserve to be labeled «Quasi-primary» after all.
Applying a well-established taxonomic principle, we can propose that all 7 of the Q expansions will have an identical pattern of psychosocial pressures applied to their 7 Q entities. Although this is the postulated pattern, a careful check on appropriateness for each of the other 6 Domains is required and will be provided in topics to follow.
A Second Perspective
Applying the principle that all 7 of the Q expansions will have identical pattern of psychosocial pressures applied to their 7 Q entities immediately leads to issues in our limited studies of the expansion.
We might well have expected to be subject to the RL1-performance pressure, and we might well expect a to be subject to the RL2-certainty pressure.
However, such conclusions would be superficial. It is true that organizations are created to perform and therefore must experience performance pressure. However, when we view an organisation as an association—a group of interacting people with roles and responsibilities and run by a Governing Board—then it is not surprising to find that what the association wants most is certainty. Of course performance is vital and employees often take risks, but formal bodies are typically risk-averse.
Observations confirm that certainty is the primary pressure for , while performance pressure might be viewed as secondary and related to the underlying activities of individuals within the group, and their contractual obligation to contribute to the organisation's mission and survival.
In the same way, as a social group are far more preoccupied with the acceptability of findings to maintain group cohesion and social prestige, than with certainty. Individual researchers may, of course, strive for certainty: even if it leads their work to be rejected as «unacceptable» and vilified by their disciplinary colleagues.
Example: 
This happened to Dan Schechtman
, the discoverer of quasi-crystals whose findings led him to be dismissed from his institution and get mocked as a "quasi-scientist". This suggests that he was driven by a selfless commitment to the validity of his research. Subsequently, his discovery led him to win a Nobel Prize.
Next Steps
In reflecting on the above findings, it seems that the primary pressure experienced with the group in mind can be generalized as operating on the form or structure of the Arena; while another secondary pressure relates to the individuals work processes i.e. to the contents or operation of the Arena.
This needs further investigation in before considering other Domain Arenas or pressures on levels internal to an Arena.
Originally posted: 24-Sep-2022