Combining Depiction Paradigms

Generalizations for Combining Methods

In developing the Taxonomy, generalization has been a vital tool. In structural terms it has expedited discovery greatly. ClosedFor example:

Structure relates to pattern, and so generalizations have been rather easy given the taxonomy is patterned. However, functioning is a different matter and generalizing functions is invariably tricky.

For principal typologies, the two critical questions are:

  1. Is there a correct Type/Method to use in any particular case?
  2. Can the usual user habitually operate more than one Type/Method?

The findings vary according to Domain and even within Domains. So there is no expectation or guidance from previous studies as to what we will find in the Depiction Paradigms-PH'3.

PH'1 Decision Methods

  1. Certain issues do call for particular methods, but method dominates and can almost always be imposed.
    See here.
  2. Managers function best if they choose a pair to cover all situations: one from each diagonal set.
    See here.

PH'2 Research Methods

  1. Certain questions call for particular methods, and the question dominates.
  2. Researchers specialize but each method draws on the other methods to a greater or lesser degree.
    See here.

PH'4 Stabilization Methods

  1. The notion of a correct or best method does not apply.
  2. Therapists are drawn to a theory based on one method. People naturally tend to use two complementary methods.
    See here.

PH'5 Use of Language Methods

  1. The functions of the methods mean they have particular applications.
    See here.
  2. People can be comfortable applying a variety of methods. See here.
    Methods are distinct and incompatible but pairing appears to be required for particular societal roles. See here.

PH'6 Ethical Choice Methods

  1. Most choices can have any method applied.
  2. Each method can combine with any of the other methods to create recognizable social roles. See here.

Given that Depiction Paradigms-PH'3 are distinct and incompatible, they cannot be combined. However, individuals can become comfortable with all paradigms and use, or accept the use, of these according to the situation and social pressures.

Combinations for Leadership

Leaders, as the quintessential users, are of most interest in considering combination. The quadrants were identified as containing pairs of methods that were similar and hence relatively easy to move between.

Leadship pattern and style in the four quadrants.

Specializing in two methods, one from each diagonal at the same point on either the X- or Y-axis applies in some other domains, but this combination does not appear to apply, at least to leaders, whose patterns vary considerably. Paradigms requiring high control do not fit well this those lacking such control.

Atomistic: The self-directed leader does not seek any particular additional paradigm, but certain circumstances might induce leadership of a group.

Structural: The appointed formal leader has the most options. Such a person may well act as a dictatorial leader (e.g. over his own department), or serve as a representative leader (e.g. for his echelon), function as a specialist leader (e.g. regarding a special project), and be a natural leader if achievement is important and superiors permit. Different skills and willingness are required in each of these cases.

They are unlikely to be a visionary leader because such a person is unlikely to submit to selection and appointment.

Unitary:  A person who is primarily a dictatorial leader is extremely unlikely to wish to be any other sort of leader. For them, leadership and politics is about force. Anything less is weakness and viewed as ineffective. However, circumstances may enable such a person to become a formal leader, typically wanting to be the top-dog.
ClosedMore...

Dualistic:  Anyone who seeks to be a representative leader is similarly somewhat stuck in that role. There may be a desire to be a dictatorial leader, and there could be opportunities to function as a natural leader, while the other paradigms seem irrelevant.

Causal: A specialist leader is likely to also be a formal leader and, in another setting, could also be dictatorial or representative.

Dynamic:  Natural leaders might also be specialists, but are typically unwilling to be dictatorial or even representative because those styles require considerable subordination of the self.

Unified:  Visionary leaders can be dictatorial or natural according to the situation.

Personal change options using the different depiction paradigms.

Combinations of Therapies

In regard to self-perception, each method of depictionappears to fosters a distinct form of personal change/therapy. Each form is popularly recognized as indicated in the diagrams at right and developed earlier.

All forms of self-help can be combined. Therapy combinations are more problematic: the table below offers some suggestions as to what is usual.

Diferent forms of therapy generated by the various depiction paradigms,
Paradigm Modality Combinations
Unified Therapeutic Community Other therapies can only occur if permitted within the community context, but total dependency would likely not be permitted.
Atomistic Rational-emotive therapies
 Self-driven cognitive methods can be naturally combined with supportive therapy.
Dynamic Psychodynamic therapies Psychoanalytic therapists commonly abjure combinations with other modalities, but other dynamic therapies do allow combinations.
Structural Supportive therapy Supportive therapy is designed to be minimally stressful but may encourage use of another modality like group therapy or behaviour therapy.
Causal Behaviour therapy Usually operates without combinations, but support is often provided.
Dualistic Group
therapies		 Group therapy combines well with psychodynamic and supportive therapies.
Unitary Total Dependency therapies Runs contrary to all other therapies but as the dependency reduces, support and other therapies could be introduced.

Now:

Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024. Last amended: 20-Jul-2025.