Auspices for Depiction: Social v Personal

Social Reality and Conformity

The paradigms structure psychosocial reality in a largely unconscious or spontaneous way that can be intensely resistant to correction.

While depiction can be an individual matter, the shaping of reality is subject to social pressures. The Asch conformity experiments showed that even for a physical matter like length, peer pressure will lead individuals to insist that the shorter of two lines is the longer. We would expect this effect to be far stronger in social situations which are inherently complex and unspecifiable, and where any account of reality is unavoidably uncertain and contestable.

Studies of other Principal Typologies have revealed that when circles are drawn through the more central Types and the peripheral Types, the inner circle Types are under social auspices while the outer circle Types are under personal auspices.

cf. research methods-PH'2, mental stabilization-PH'4, use of language-PH'5.

A similar finding appears to apply for the depiction paradigms-PH'3.

• Inner circle paradigms (L'3-low factor, L'6, L'4, L'1) are ultimately under social auspices because social demands and social pressures are so great that no individual can resist them.
• Outer circle paradigms (L'3-multifactorial, L'2, L'7, L'5) are ultimately under personal auspices and may be upheld in the face of social opposition and attacks.

Social Auspices (Inner Circle)

The centrally-located paradigms present any situation as socially determined and socially controlled. They generate a demand for appropriate social responses. Contrary individual assertion may lead to that person withdrawing or being excluded from the relevant group.

The Few factor Causal paradigm presents the situation as based on straight-forward cause-effect relationships that appear rational. These are easy for people to recognize and so willing support is provided especially as consensus builds. Anyone who explains that acting on them will likely lead to counter-productive results—because of current system factors or currently non-existent factors likely to emerge during action—ends up being discounted, ignored or even ridiculed.

The Structural paradigm deals with individuals as components of the entity. Those involved have no option but to accept the fact of structuring and the realities created by structuring. This applies whether or not details are fully known and understood. People have to deal with the structure in order to engage with its benefits (e.g. as employees of an organization or as customers of a business). Rejection of the structure leads to exclusion by the group or by those in authority.

The Dualistic paradigm presents a situation as being based on two opposing positions (components). Anyone who wishes to participate or contribute to the situation, is forced to take sides. Refusal to take sides or rejection of the value or need for dichotomization, or suggestion of a different more relevant division brands a person as an outsider and therefore irrelevant. Participation by outsiders is very difficult or impossible, and so is creating a new position or division to replace one that is currently dominant.

The Dynamic paradigm depicts an arrangement in which people and groups interact meaningfully, giving and receiving feedback from each other as they jointly handle the situation. Other than exiting, it is not possible to reject or avoid participating in the system as it evolves outside any single person's control.

Personal Auspices (Outer Circle)

The peripherally-located paradigms appear to be applied by unique individuals and upheld by them regardless of social pressure. In some cases, society actively turns against the persons who propose or embody these depictions of reality.

The Atomistic paradigm requires each person to be left to their own devices because each is unique and their autonomy must be respected. Any group pressure is viewed as a coercive force that ought to be resisted or rejected. If a person uses this paradigm, then how they perceive a particular situation will be in the light of their own interests and preferences.

The Unitary paradigm imposes a totalizing, singular conception. It assumes that any group situation calls for a controller willing to force everyone else to conform to their dictates regardless of personal situation or interests. Personal auspices use inner conviction, blind faith or indoctrination. The unitary system functions with power-centred assumptions and there is a pecking-order. Move to another paradigm is only possible if a willing autocrat cannot be found and the societal consensus rejects the paradigm.

The Unified paradigm generates a world in which everything is connected and even the environment is part of the situation. All components co-evolve organically. The complexity and sophistication of such a vision is beyond the grasp of the vast majority of people. Articulation requires an unusual person. However, accurate their depiction may be, and however well it may explain past failures or predict future catastrophes, it is likely regarded as an oddity by wider society (including most academics), and may be ignored entirely.

The Multifactorial Causal paradigm presents situations as being determined by large numbers of factors, with many of those factors having multi-factorial causation. Every aspect of every causal link will have its own inherent uncertainty. As a result, any ultimate final depiction will be so highly sophisticated that wide consensus on the situation and patterns of causation will be impossible to achieve. The account will remain a particular investigator's unique product that is challenged by many. As a result, it can be largely ignored in wider society even if the author is highly respected.

Central-Peripheral Relationships

Because the socially-controlled paradigms have deficiencies, there is always pressure to move to a personally-controlled paradigm in the same quadrant due to the affinity. However, there is generally a reluctance to make that move.

In the UL quadrant, the Dualistic paradigm reveals a entity with multiple components. Two of these are dominant and oppose each other, potentially to the point of desiring the other's removal or annihilation. Each will be aware that the existing polarized conflict can be suppressed and supremacy can be achieved if the entity becomes Unitary with itself as the sole controller.
More

While this degree of control usually frightens most people, at times of turmoil there can be a preference for autocratic rule and the leader may be perceived as a saviour. This is how ancient Greece functioned, and how Hitler came to power in Germany.

In the UR quadrant, the Dynamic paradigm is formulated as an interactive evolving system with a perception of vulnerability in relation to the environment. This neglect of the environment can be reduced by moving to a Unified depiction which includes the environment as part of the entity and so boosts concern for the environment.
More

Exploitation of the environment appears to provide the equivalent of a free lunch, but remediation of the damage can be extremely expensive. Long-term effects from convenient choices like plastic use, pesticides, waste-dumping, fossil fuels are often catastrophic. Application of the Unified paradigm seems essential but too expensive and difficult.

In the LL quadrant, the Structural paradigm provides for a practical order and control within an organization. However this depends on the willing participation of the components, often ultimately individuals. Getting the best out of people, calls for an Atomistic view which can boost concern for components by respecting their views, needs, interests, and rights.
More

To turn a profit, it often seems easier to cut costs rather than improve operations or marketing. This means targeting components: shutting down training, cutting R&D, underpaying staff. Individuals. sometimes departments, find it is in their interest to band together despite their differences in order to provide a counterweight to inappropriate controls.

In the LR quadrant, the Causal paradigm is relatively easy to employ when there are just a few factors. However, more often than not, other factors contribute to the situation. The over-simplified few-factor view can be rectified by increasing the coverage of relevant factors. Multifactorial investigations and analyses can be difficult, time-consuming. expensive, uncertain, and difficult to communicate.

To Sum Up

The extreme paradigm in a quadrant amplifies a latent function of the central paradigm, but to do so personal agency must come to the fore.

Inner circle paradigms depend on collective norms and shared expectations based on general applicability, public or inter-personal validation.

Outer circle paradigms are driven by personal determination and unique or idiosyncratic experience leading to an assertion or assumption that the depiction is sound.

---

Turn now to the crucial question of who drives change and why people agree to change that is often baffling, unpleasant, dangerous or risky.

• Depiction paradigms generate distinctive forms of leadership

Originally posted: 30-Jun-2024. Last amended:  15-Jul-2025.