Determining a Typology Essentials Table
A Different Approach
The present investigation will build on established taxonomic knowledge to take a different approach to plotting the depiction paradigms. Once taxonomic principles have clarified the likely layout on the TET canvas, it should be possible to determine the axes and look for links to the . Properties that will be developed should then confirm both the layout and the axes.
The Usual Practice
The usual practice in developing a Typology Essentials Table (TET) is to identify the Executing Duality which is the psychosocial field of implementation that labels the two axes of a TET. The X-axis specifies the socially-shared output, while the Y-axis specifies the psychologically-required input. 4 quadrants are defined to facilitate placing each Type in a suitable location within a quadrant.
TET's have also been usefully developed in the and many Q-Arenas. The principles vary slightly, but the valuable patterns—quadrants, diagonals, concentric circles—and insights that have emerged from these are remarkably consistent.
Clues
Starting from the basic properties that have been identified, we know enough to use structural clues as follows:
1. Diagonal Clue:
The , and paradigms are all based on seeing entities as internally simple, and the trio are progressive with one, two and several or many components. Only the diagonal from lower right corner to the upper left corner has three plots likely to share such a fundamental property. As has a degree of flexibility in components that does not, it likely lies in the ellipse in the lower right quadrant.
2. Property Clues:
The paradigm is oppositional and/or polarized, which is very similar to the nature of and . On the basis of resonance (see example), this suggests a formula for , and an identical position on the TET i.e. on the inner circle in the upper left quadrant. This is consistent with Clue-1.
The paradigm is fully systemic and so very similar to and . This suggests a formula for , and an identical position on the TET i.e. in the extreme top right.
The appears to view reality somewhat akin to the —which would suggest an identical position on the inner circle in the lower left quadrant. While not as persuasive as the and resonance, the allocation gets some support from the similarity of names. It can also be placed there by exclusion: i.e. not the UL and LR quadrants which are filled, not LR again because there is no obvious spread of operation, not UR quadrant because there is little affinity with . So the only place left is the LL quadrant and the extreme place seems inappropriate.
3. Affinity Clue:
and paradigms are very similar, in that both take a systems view, with being more restricted. This sort of affinity strongly suggests:
a) these two belong in the same quadrant with placed peripherally and centrally; and
b) the quadrant is likely the upper right quadrant because is there already, the UL quadrant is filled, the LR quadrant only has one Type, and the LL probably has as per Clue-2.
4. Extremism Clue:
The and paradigms present as extreme, given the former is as simple as possible, and the latter is as complex as possible. This places them on the outer circle, but not in the lower-right quadrant which requires diffusion over an ellipse.
has already been assigned the upper-left extreme position as per Clue-1, and has already been assigned the upper-right extreme position as per Clue-2 & Clue-3. So this provides a further confirmation.
The third extreme paradigm is the , which is labeled extreme because it perceives situations as lacking a group ethos and containing entities without necessary links to other entities. There is only one extreme location remaining, at the lower left of the lower left quadrant. Placing it there would make it the opposing counterpart to the paradigm—which fits nicely.
This allocation also supports the positioning of the paradigm centrally within the LL quadrant, as tentatively indicated by Clue-2. There is a natural affinity between and because any "structure" is composed of "atoms" as its components.
Completion
To complete the TET and have full confidence in the layout, we also need to detail functioning at either end of the ellipse.
The is looking for causal connections amongst an indefinite variety of components to enable predictions. Given that a paradigm has one component and a paradigm has two components, it can be imagined that at the upper left end of the ellipse, the entity will consider only a few factors due to a deliberately limited focus to ease analysis and social understanding. By contrast, at the lower right end of the ellipse the depiction generates a complicated situation with multiple factors and possibly chains of causation between certain components and the overall situation.
Numbering the Types
The plots of the 5 Principal Typologies previously worked out from first principles show a standard pattern in terms of their Type/Level in the Typology.
This pattern is overlaid on the below, and a comparison with the complexity order is shown in the adjacent Table. Only appears in the same position in each layout.
| L' | Taxonomic Order | Complexity Order |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Unitary | Unified |
| 6 | Structural | Atomistic |
| 5 | Unified | Dynamic |
| 4 | Dualistic | Structural |
| 3 | Causal | Causal |
| 2 | Atomistic | Dualistic |
| 1 | Dynamic | Unitary |
Linking to the Primary Hierarchy
Each of the levels of change can be viewed as suggesting an that underlies and guarantees a particular . These links are at best plausible.
assumes that a seemingly insignificant change in one component may cause other components to react or generate feedback—which is the principle underlying the paradigm.
assumes that a new bounded state can and will be created—which underlies the paradigm.
assumes that something better can be predicted and made to happen—which is the notion underlying the paradigm.
assumes that the entity's state is subject to forces for and against its continuance—which is a notion underlying the paradigm.
assumes that context evolves and its handling is an essential part of any change process—which is the basis for the paradigm.
assumes that a coherent ordering of an entity's state is possible—which is an intrinsic notion of the paradigm.
assumes that the entity as a whole changes—and an indivisible whole is the essential idea for the paradigm.
The TET layout and taxonomic order has been provisionally determined. These findings now need to be checked and confirmed.
- If the taxonomic order is correct, it would be expected to show two dualities: an oscillating duality and an unfolding duality. The odd-even oscillation is checked and confirmed in the review section. The unfolded duality has not been identified.
- The TET axes are two crucial psychosocial dimensions that determine the optimum way to perceive. See how the axes are defined and the layout checked here.
Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024.