Validation

• Classification. Usually the field is evident and its contents are known. Taxonomic classification then seeks to provide an order, based on an objectively rational arrangement and certain axiomatic assumptions. Nevertheless, because empirical reality is messy, boundaries are rarely sharp. So classification often becomes more of an art than a science. Its main scientific value is probably ensuring agreement as to what particular object is being talked about.
• Examples. The term «taxonomy» is often regarded as referring only to the classification of living organisms, undoubtedly the most well-known classification. However, there are numerous taxonomies in different fields: wherever there are many distinctive objects that need to be named and related e.g. in astronomy, in anatomy. Taxonomies have also been developed in psychosocial areas like the economy, industry, and intelligence.
• Form. Most taxonomies are hierarchically organized in simple parent-child fashion—the higher level entity contains all the lower level entities. THEE does contains such hierarchies, but its structure is far more complicated.

• In computer sciences, the focus has been on organizing concepts (as distinct from things), and the preferred name for a taxonomy is «ontology». Again the primary aim, as with THEE and taxonomies of things, is to have a shared vocabulary, as well as to map the domain of interest. Ontologies are found in artificial intelligence, software engineering and similar disciplines. They will be essential in the development of the semantic web.

• In philosophy, ontology is the branch dealing with pure existence (or «reality»). It is concerned with such things as what entities exist and how they are grouped and related in terms of their similarities and differences. Many of these issues bear a striking resemblance to those involved in articulating THEE.

There was never a grand plan. Different parts of the total structure were discovered at different times and, often, by different people. I did not know or believe that the various topics that I had studied—initially measurement, then inner experience, then management structure, decision and purpose, and so on—were connected in any formal way.

The patterns in each case were subtly or even markedly different. Measurement had only 5 levels. Decision was a typology without any obvious hierarchy. Purpose and inquiry had a vital typology inside the 6th level. Management had at least 7 but possibly more levels and no typology inside the 6th level.

The research concern was always to focus down and clarify a rather small puzzling area as clearly, as precisely, and as usefully as possible.

In this process, patterns of phenomena forced the making of connections. For many years, I held that unification was most improbable if not impossible, and I did not know I was formulating a taxonomy. I had no sense of the boundaries of the field in which I was exploring, and only referred to it vaguely as "the mind", a term I now reject.

To repeat: there was never a grand plan. My most conscious goal was to earn a living by helping others see issues more clearly.

The words «will» and «endeavour» hardly appeared in framework accounts until the evidence and pressure for unification generated a need for the terms.

Given that doing things, being effective and getting good results have preoccupied people since time began, it is not surprising that discovery and re-discovery of fragments of THEE are common in the academic and popular literature.

Numerous writers on management have identified the various ways of making decisions (1^st Principal Typology), but usually just one or a few at a time.

The approaches to making ethical choices (6th Principal Typology) have been explained and debated for centuries by philosophers and in religious and theological texts. However, the typical account strives to find just one correct or best approach. There has been an intense debate, driven by the hierarchy's oscillating duality: teleological choice (champion: Plato) versus deontological choice (champion: Kant). Kant is currently viewed as the winner on points.

• Also: see the story behind the interacting-for-benefit framework.

The structural integrity of the architecture is unlikely to be a chance occurrence. The whole is a system of systems in which errors create tensions and blockages, while correctness generates strength and clarity. Well-formulated structures also point towards and predict further discoveries and applications.

The structures, especially in the earliest days, simply emerged during inquiry and were not pre-defined: read about errors. Some of the inter-relations between forms are surprising and unexpected. Most have probably been identified, but more will surely emerge.

Given the confidence that has been developed over time, new forms and formulations now need to accord with expected structural principles i.e. structural corroboration is important and often decisive in overturning plausibility and terminating futile conjectures.

Read more.

Validation has been routinely sought in the illumination generated for individuals when an articulated framework relates closely to their perceptions and needs.

Face validity and plausibility are far too weak descriptors for this phenomenon. These terms used by an impartial assessor miss the feelings of relief, the sense of fitness, and the release of creativity that an immediate user experiences. (See above.)

A regular criticism from uncommitted academics has been that a particular elegant framework is «far too neat». The man-in-the-street tends to admire the findings, while asserting that it is all «no more than common sense».

Many entities, including mentalities, have been discovered through prediction of their properties—much in the same way that undiscovered chemical elements in Mendeleyev's early Periodic Table were found.

Once the Structural Hierarchy form was determined for levels of work (posted here), it was applied to levels of purpose (download Ch.10 & 12), then to the levels of ethical rule (download Ch.9), and then to other hierarchies. Working out the initial Structural Hierarchies was difficult and time-consuming, in part because there was no assurance that they existed.

The Spiral of Growth based on decision-making approaches reveals in detail how a strong management culture can be deliberately developed. It predicts the emergence of specific organizational problems that warn of the need to transition to a more sophisticated state. Read a successful prediction for society using this example.

The existence of one Spiral has led to the discovery of further Spirals, most recently in maturation of political institutions and managing increased work complexity. These frameworks also seem to have practical and predictive significance.

The pattern as developed to date seems to be both simple enough and complex enough to deal with the full range of phenomena in psychosocial reality. Links seem to exist to many different parts of the social sciences.

The THEE identity-development approaches throw light on theoretical conflicts within the psychodynamic therapy movement, especially the battle between supporters of Klein, Freud and Winnicott. At the same time, this THEE framework also identifies and validates classes of useful therapies that are bodily, social and spiritual i.e. not based on psychodynamics. See Ch.7 Working with Values.

The proliferation of surprising links, unexpected explanations, new applications and valuable new ideas is suggestive of validity.

The formal nature of the hierarchy found in defining work responsibility is distinct from that of the hierarchy of purpose or inquiry. This led to the discovery that Style Hierarchies could be applied to Principal Typologies to create 7 Q-Hierarchies. Purpose is a Primary Hierarchy, while work-responsibility is a Q-Hierarchy. As a result of this awareness, a whole set of distinct work domains and responsibilities in society could be identified and specified in detail for the first time. In addition, the levels of personal work-capability in society suddenly jumped from an unrealistic 7 to a far more realistic 28.

The spiral dynamics of Graves, Beck & Cowan can be located in a similar Q-Hierarchy. Defining such a location is not just mechanically slotting something in, but rather a fertile realization. In this case, accurate location within THEE has led to numerous new discoveries about career development, commercial culture, marketing, getting cooperation and handling employees better. None of these frameworks have (or could have) emerged from «spiral dynamics» per se.

Wider society sometimes develops in ways independently described by a framework: see an example. However, depending on history can dissipate a taxonomic focus and foster fallacies caused by exemplification.

Models and useful ideas about personal, organizational and social life are being developed by reflective observers all the time. These models help validate THEE, while THEE in turn can help validate and develop them further: see an example.

Factional battles and painful public splits within disciplines and institutions, apparently on theoretical grounds, often exemplify and validate incompatible Types belonging to Principal Typologies. Examples exist in relation to ethics, decision-making, psychoanalysis.

At other times, as in the case of the mind-body controversy or teleology-deontology debates, they are manifestations of perennial dualities taxonomically shown to be intrinsic to personal functioning.