Are the frameworks in the taxonomy, THEE, the product of empirical inquiry?

Yes—if you mean they are based on accumulating replicable observations of actual phenomena.  This is what empirical inquiry is about. 

No—if you mean they are developed via conventional sense perceptions of concrete physical objects.  This is what the prevailing materialistic ideology of science demands.

You are an unusual person if you haven't been thoroughly indoctrinated into More...

You will read again and again in popular scientific articles that we human beings are not very good at handling probability.  It has become almost an article of faith.

John Kay, respected economist and academic, writes in the Financial Times (as noted here): “We do not often, or easily, think in terms of probabilities, because there are not many situations in which this style of thinking is useful."

Really?  Is that true? More...

Faced with a problem, should we focus on symptoms or on the fundamentals that generate those symptoms?

What does your common sense tell you?  In practice, we know that it is often a difficult choice. 

THEE was developed with the belief that a scientific identification of fundamentals in personal life was possible.  It differed from the usual social science approach in making the focus of observation (and validation) people in the midst of committed action.  A person who is committed is an entirely different being from a subject in a psychology experiment or a random respondent in a social survey. More...

Frameworks for change will be posted when the cows come home.  Short of a miracle or the long arm of reality change striking, it's going to take years. Changing my reality here is no joke.

As I noted in an earlier despairing blog, should I even start from here?  Is the name, Change, suitable to refer to the 3rd Level in the Root Hierarchy (RL3)?

I'm pretty sure that the heart of Change, its Level 4, is stability or stabilizing. Can something that is stable be a form of change?  Probably.  If I called this Level Identity, then stabilizing would seem spot on.  The heart of any identity is surely a stable state.

If I am asked to consult or advise regarding change, my first question is:More...

«Egoism and altruism» is a hardy perennial of philosophers and now a staple for academic psychologists.  Are people basically self-interested or basically concerned for others?

Trick question.  Once the issue is posed like this, any hope of understanding oneself or acting sensibly is lost. 

People act in their own self-interest.  They must.  Some are certainly more self-centred than others.  People are also capable of concern for others and demonstrate benevolence.  They must.  Otherwise it would be hard to live in groups.  Again, there is variation amongst people in the degree of altruism.  For some of you, it might be hard to live with yourself if you were irredeemably selfish. 

The issue is never what academics or philosophers assert people 'are'—and which, supposedly, is what you are or what I am.  The issue in real life is always about what am I going to do at this moment in this situation given who I am.  The variations here are almost infinite.

Yes, we do have tendencies and styles.  But we are not More...