Q3: Social Proposals (I)

Preview

The Q3 Arena, as shown in the diagram below, is created (by definition) from a combination of the L'3-Causal and L'4-Dualistic paradigms.

The L'3-Causal paradigm is used to capture reality in which an emergent problem must be explained in terms of a cause, or there is a wish to cause a state of affairs to alter. These are conditions of change, and intrinsically controversial. So, before anything is deliberately "caused", proposals for the change are developed and put to the relevant group for agreement. These social proposals are driven by a common need and a claim that the need will be met. Whenever you seek to propose changes, full attention to enable a suitable orientation will be required.

So «social proposal» is the name of the Arena.

The L'4-Dualistic paradigm guides your handling of social proposals because this identifies the controversial and political aspects of change that, being unavoidable, must be handled. In order to fit in, you must recognize in a balanced way that there will always be those that oppose a proposal as well as those that favour it.

Fitting in with a social proposal is about delivering a proposal that can win group support despite the associated controversy.. This requires promoting your proposals effectively. If you do not promote and fail to win support, you will ultimately find that needs are not met or other proposals win the day, even if they are less satisfactory or less to your liking.

Example Proposals:
A public policy. A change in work-flow. A recreational outing. A shift in project direction. New software features. A revised urban plan. A new condominium car-park.

Frameworks

TET: In order to fit in when making a proposal, a person has to promote it. There are 7 distinctive ways to promote any proposal (PH'3Q3t), which emerge from the depiction states shown in the diagram. These 7 ways can be usefully analysed with a Typology Essentials Table (TET).

Spiral:   By converting the ways to modes, it is possible to cumulate them via a spiral trajectory that strengthens promotion of your proposal (PH'3Q3C).

The Spiral-derived Triplet

Expected Pressures:   1°: Acceptability; 2°: Certainty.

Acceptability is the identity pressure for proposals, which accords with their controversial quality. Unless a proposal is developed to be sufficiently acceptable, it will not even be considered. Once there is a willingness to consider a proposal, then a certainty pressure develops in relation to handling. This raises many issues—exactly what is being proposed, why is it being proposed who is involved, what are the costs and timings, who are the vested interests, are there better alternatives, and so on. The drive for certainty may lead to investigations.

Ways to Promote a Proposal

You fit in here by ensuring your proposal fits. That means promoting it in ways that enhance its acceptability.

Others will be judging your proposal using the same criteria that you are using to promote it. If it is acceptable, they also want to sure about what it offers and why it is necessary.

t1: imposing a causal paradigm: state = explanation

In relation to any proposal, you must present its essence, i.e. the rationale for the proposal, and use that to promote it. The proposal must be explained as way of meeting a currently unmet or poorly served need, or a newly emergent need.

The t1 entity is characterized by a minimal and a maximal version.

Proposed t1 Name:   Essential Rationale

Minimum: Apparent need.
Maximum: Obligatory need.

t2: refining an explanation: state = elaboration

You can promote the proposal by finding people with relevant credentials and explaining to them the proposal in more detail. Getting the backing of specific influential supporters enhances the proposal's credibility. Any proposal gets judged by its proposers and by its most outspoken supporters. When it seems that vested interests are in play, that may weaken confidence.

Proposed t2 Name:   Notable Supporters

t3: probing the explanation: state = analysis

Proposals that have the backing of many are more likely to be adopted. While this may say little about the quality of the proposal, popularity is a factor commonly used for judging proposals. The more people valuing the proposal, for whatever reason, the more likely it is to be supported by the remainder of the group.

Proposed t3 Name:   Sufficient Popularity

t4: confirming the nature of the explanation: state = consensus

Proposals are focused on meeting certain critical needs, which is the primary benefit. However, there are always side-effects of implementation, many of which are positive. These potential benefits need to be highlighted while undesirable side-effects should be mitigated. Benefits act as inducements, form the basis for judgements, and help generate a consensus.

Proposed t4 Name:   Diverse Benefits

t5: imposing a dualistic paradigm: state = division

Proposals go out for consultation to get ideas for improvement and to provide a time delay that reduces any surprise or distress at change. However, proposals commonly end up having a faction in favour and an opposing faction. While reasons held by factional members may vary, each faction seeks to be united in their focus in order to maximize their influence. The presence of a sizeable supporting faction is a positive sign.

Proposed t5 Name:   Factional Backing

t6: refining the divisions: state = contrast

Individuals or factions may seek to be constructive by raising alternatives to the submitted proposal. They offer plausible possibilities that are appealing, for example by dramatically reducing costs or inconvenience. However, due to the lack of time and resources, such alternatives are likely to be weakly developed or have serious flaws. By having an open debate, The proposal can often be promoted by comparing it to these suggested alternatives.

Proposed t6 Name:   Open Debate

t7: probing the effect of divisions: state = interrogation

The proposal can also be looked at from a social demand perspective. Circumstances may generate a pragmatic imperative for proceeding with the proposal. Or there may be a moral imperative for addressing the need at this point in time in this way. Imperatives tend to be both persuasive and unifying.

Proposed t7 Name:   Social Imperatives

Plotting on a TET

The Executing Duality

The layout of a set of Q-types on a TET is standard. So we can immediately generate the diagram shown at right. Accepting this layout as correct then poses two demands:

a) to identify appropriate axes (the psychosocial executing duality);
and then
b) to check that the named ways are appropriately positioned in the TET.

The X-axis typically captures the social output, which in the case of a social proposal relates to ensuring the proposal is likely to be endorsed even if not fully desired or understood.

Proposed X-axis label: Inherent Persuasiveness.

The Y-axis typically captures the psychological input, which in the case of a social proposal relates to an inner disposition to pay attention and take the proposal seriously,.

Proposed Y-axis label: Need for Receptivity.

Checking Locations

High Persuasiveness & Low Receptivity

The t1-Essential Rationale is inherently persuasive, more so for obligatory needs than for any apparent or proposed need. So it extends along the right side of the X-axis. Meeting needs is a constant effort and taken for granted so there is a low need for receptivity for a rationale. Receptivity can be minimal if the need is obligatory, but modest for any proposed need. Hence this way covers an ellipse in the lower right quadrant.

Low Persuasiveness & Low Receptivity

The t2-Notable Supporters have their own, often hidden, reasons for backing the proposal, so their involvement is not highly persuasive for others. Notable supporters are intrinsically important and do not call on a need for receptivity. So this way is located in the lower parts of both axes and belongs in the lower left quadrant; however, not at the extreme like t5-Factional Backing, which has minimal persuasiveness and has little concern for receptivity.

Low Persuasiveness & High Receptivity

The t3-Sufficient Popularity is a supplementary factor not focused on the essence of the proposal, which means it provides little persuasiveness and is low on the X-axis. Popularity depends on receptivity by the remainder who are undecided and could choose to ignore it, which means it is moderately high on the Y-axis. So it belongs in the upper left quadrant but not in the extreme position like t6-Open Debate which lacks inherent persuasiveness and has a very high need for receptivity due to time and effort to be involved with it.

High Persuasiveness & High Receptivity

t4-Diverse Benefits has a moderately high inherent persuasiveness because everyone wants benefits, and also a moderately high need for receptivity because some or even many of these benefits are only ancillary and not at the core of the proposal. This places it in the central corner of the upper right quadrant. The t7-Social Imperativesis located in the more extreme position because while they are highly persuasive, they only work if there is high receptivity to them.

Layout Features

Quadrants

Ways in the lower two quadrants appeal to more direct and forceful factors, while those in the upper two quadrants appeal to emotive and intellectual.

Ways in the right two quadrants suggest commitmentwhile those in the left two quadrants generate argument.

Ways in diametrically opposite quadrants engender a degree of antagonism: 
• LR is logically-driven, while UL is emotionally-driven;
• LL is person-oriented, while UR is ideas-oriented.

The arrows indicate preferences for establishing legitimacy i.e. in the rationale's proposed need (t1_min) is legitimated by the obligatory need (t1_max), notable supporters (t2)are legitimated by their faction (t5), sufficient popularity (t3) is legitimated via an open debate of alternatives(t6), and diverse benefits (t4) get legitimacy from social imperatives (t7).

Circles

The inner circle defines direct expedient ways to promote (and judge).
The outer circle defines contextual and controversial ways to promote (and judge).
The two circles fuse in the essential rationale which moves from a need that is directly proposed to a controversial obligation.

Diagonals

These define the Apollonian-Dionysian duality (or approach duality).

The Apollonian diagonal runs from LL to UR. It contains ways that are all specific i.e. specific factions-t5, specific supporters-t2, specific benefits-t4, specific imperatives-t7. Moving up the diagonal, these ways become ever more forceful and appealing: factions least so, supporters more so, benefits much more so and imperatives maximally. So these are: increasingly forceful specifying ways.

The Dionysian diagonal runs from LR to UL. It contains ways that are critical for the proposal: its needs-t1, its popularity-t3, and debate-t6. Moving up the diagonal, they generate ever more exposure: an obligatory need is minimally exposing, the proposed need can expose the proposer, popularity is much more exposing, and debating is potentially most exposing. So these are increasingly exposing critical ways.

---

• Strengthening support & an overview of orienting to a proposal.

Originally posted: 26-Jan-2026.