Mode-1 = Stage-1: Satisfying Explanations

What is Going On?

Faced with a situation inviting or potentially demanding change, the initial response is to seek clarification. We want a satisfying explanation of what is going on.

«Explanation» is associated with inquiry, knowing and theory formation elsewhere in THEE. ClosedMore

But we do not want an inquiry. Even if there is no realistic possibility of rigorous inquiry in emergent social situations, there is still this intrusive instinctive demand to "know" what is going on.

The urgency, frequency and ubiquity of this experience spawns spoofs.

Somehow we imagine that knowing will tell us whether anything needs to be done and even what might be done. So, no matter how complex and unknowable a social situation is, we commonly come up with causes, most often just one, and rarely more than two or three at most.

For example: everyone worries about their investments. On Monday the stock-market falls 1% and reporters say this was due to fears of recession; on Tuesday it recovers 1% and reporters say this was due to reassuring comments from the Central Bank; on Wednesday it goes nowhere and reporters say that everyone is waiting for the results of a forthcoming election in a distant country.
ClosedMore Examples:

• A friend does not get a job and you say that the employment market is tough because of recent legislation.

• A distant country imposes tariffs on a particular export item, and the Minister of Trade explains on TV that this is in retaliation for a criticism made in the UN.

• Your company decides to sell off a subsidiary against the wishes of its employees, and your boss explains that this is required due to competitive pressures.

• Your husband seems sad and you want to help. When you enquire about the situation, he says that it has been an exhausting day and lapses into silence.

A moment's reflection will surely tell you that such explanations are so superficial that they border on the meaningless or even ridiculous. They avoid many relevant factors and may be contradictory from day to day. But such accounts are provided regularly nonetheless. They seem plausible and usually get accepted at face value. Indeed, it would often be regarded as impolite, even unacceptable, to challenge them or criticize the speaker.

Other Stage-1 Labels:Closed "Plausible" is the preferred descriptor. But we might also have chosen:  superficial, reflex, conventional, or rationalized. In all cases, the explanation must be experienced as "satisfying".

Nor are people willing to tolerate a response to a disturbing social event advising that its causes are not known and not knowable.

Is There an Alternative Starting Place? Closed Review of the other depiction paradigms indicates that they are not focused on causation or explanation and are too complicated for immediate spontaneous use. In addition, the Causal Mode allows for progressively increasing satisfaction with the explanation as we move down the ellipse: which is the goal of improving clarification.  

Values & Assumptions

Stage-1 and Mode-1 provision of a satisfying causal explanation.

Promoting Acceptability

ClosedEssence: Plausible Explanation

Faced with a situation that might need us to make changes, we immediately and instinctively call for an explanatory account. While the explanation may be superficial, it is supposed to reflect some reality. However, that is rarely the primary goal because almost any plausible explanation seems to be acceptable. The existence of an explanation appears to feel satisfying in some basic way. Perhaps it reaffirms prejudices or preconceptions, perhaps it shows that nothing can or should be done, perhaps it is just easy to accept rather than to check or challenge.

ClosedBenefit: Reduced Confusion

Any messy situation with which we are engaged generates stress and anxiety because of the potential need for change—which is instinctively disliked. Confusion is engendered and the minimum requirement for any explanation to be experienced as satisfying is that it reduces this confusion. The sense of confusion falls most dramatically when the pressure for change is removed or the change expected is unequivocal.

ClosedMeans: Consensus on Salience

There will be many elements in the situation that could be highlighted and numerous potential perspectives that could be applied. However, certain features will be generally deemed salient. Salience refers to what is held to be directly relevant, unequivocally evident, and widely felt as important. So this is where a consensus can be easily found. Identification of salient features creates the impression that you are on top of the situation.

Handling the Group

ClosedParticipation: Align with Beliefs

Groups are created through members sharing a reality. In order to be part of the group and have the explanation accepted, it is essential that the explanation incorporates or rests on beliefs that are widely shared. These beliefs will have contributed to salience.

ClosedCommunication: Emphasize the Obvious

The less thinking that is demanded, the easier it becomes to assimilate the explanation and share it with others. Emphasizing what seems obvious builds on salience to guide your own thinking and communicating with your group. That is why provision of clarification can be a semi-automatic reaction to an emergent event.

ClosedIndividualization: Assert Expertness

Explanations are most readily accepted when the person involved presents themselves as an expert, even a self-declared expert and preferably with a unique or pioneering perspective. Such people become recognized as opinion-formers because others find it easier to agree and follow rather than work things out for themselves.

ClosedScholarly Assessment: 

Channeling Your Functioning:

ClosedGain Support: Preoccupation

The capacity to rapidly offer plausible explanations is developed by taking a special interest in a particular category of social situation and becoming preoccupied with it. That entails getting familiar with the usual factors that are in play, the shifting concerns and beliefs of the public, and the usual story-lines. Repeated exposure, practice and familiarity enable a persuasive response. Published opinion-pieces that respond rapidly to events win you recognition. As others become aware of your long-term interest, your explanations are likely to be given attention and support.

Taxonomic frameworks commonly offer an explanation of particular dimensions of situations. We will follow one example (taken from consultancy work) through each Stage of the Spiral.

A governing board for health district services asked for help with their policy-making process. But why? On checking the situation it was evident that board members had widely varying views of what a policy was. Some said there was no policy-setting and others said there were too many policies.

A simple and satisfying explanation for the request for help was a lack of consensus on how to approach an issue. Just get consensus and the process would be straightforward: this finding was communicated.

Like many Stage-1 explanations, that might have sufficed, but in this case it did not.

Limitations

The clarification provided by plausible explanations (μ1) at Stage-1 is rather limited, even if many or most people find it acceptable or even attractive.

The fact that you and others are satisfied does not carry much weight in itself. It can often be easy to show that the explanation is a rationalization—an imposition of reason on a messy situation.

Such explanations appear simple and persuasive, when they are better described as simplistic and naive. Sometimes the explanation appears to be blatant rubbish: a politician explaining the latest government fiasco can and will say almost anything; but, if it is a well-crafted Stage-1 explanation, the come-back often remains muted—anything else would be impolite.

Settling at this Stage

Because plausibility can be satisfying, it is possible for the explanation of a situation to remain at this point.

If the situation is transient or lacks significance for you, then you do not seek further clarification.

If the situation is enduring and significant, some may choose to use this simple explanation as the basis for designing a change or for deciding that no change is required. Given the widespread resistance to change, it is not surprising that politicians often settle here.

Transition

A plausible account, if you find it insufficient, looks like little more than an opinion. On minimal scrutiny, this causal explanation seems to oversimplify, to lack any depth or detail, and to produce multiple and often inconsistent implications. As soon as it is judged to be a poor guide to determining whether or not the situation calls for change, more clarification is demanded.

Provision of further causes and additional details is not sufficient or desirable because this just adds to complexity and confusion, which is the opposite of clarification. Instead of more complexity, there is a need to step back from the details and simplify the situation so as to present it in a way that covers everything relevant, and reveals its distinctive nature.

This is possible by demanding an overview of the situation that highlights it as a member of a class or the expression of a system with basic components and a boundary. The realizing mode that naturally provides this is structural-μ2 (from L'6).

ClosedRuling Out Alternative Moves

Adopting values based on dualistic depiction-L'4 fails because there is no definite entity or framework within which opposition can develop. Nor is movement to a mode based on values of dynamic depiction-L'1 possible because a whole with interacting components has not been identified. Finally, modes based on outer circle methods (atomistic-L'2, unitary-L7, unified-L'5) seem to require a more substantial and properly developed explanation.

Originally posted: 30-Oct-2024. Last amended: 30-Aug-2025.