Mode-5: Authoritative Versions

ClosedReminder of the clarification process so far:

  • Mode-1: Produce a satisfying explanation of the situation. [Causal]
  • Mode-2: Develop a coherent framework for the situation. [Structural]
  • Mode-3: Identify polarization within the situation. [Dialectic]
  • Mode-4: Narrate the trajectory of the situation. [Dynamic]
  • Re-enter Mode-1: The explanation is now plausible and «sufficient». [Causal]

The mode of realizing refers to the set of values to be incorporated from a depiction method. Once incorporated, there is a new Stage of clarification that cumulates the values of all previous modes.

So Stage 4 clarification has produced a sufficient explanation.

Personal Acceptance requires the Atomistic Mode

The explanatory formulations in Stages 1 through 4 can be provided by a wide variety of individuals: journalists, bloggers, executives, consultants, politicians, spokesmen. None need take any significant responsibility for the explanation. Commonly, their position on the situation shifts to accommodate their own interests and in response to pressures of all sorts.

An explanation may be obviously plausible and apparently sufficient, and yet most people only superficially acknowledge its value or worry about details. For larger more impersonal situations, it is easiest to view explanations as too distant and too complicated to get involved with.

For greater depth and wide social impact, some individuals must make the effort to take full responsibility for the explanation. That means engaging with the situation deeply, and articulating it in a more or less formal and publicly accessible way e.g. via an extended article, public lecture, commissioned report or a book.

Producing a well-argued detailed account is a major effort: it requires personal commitment, dedication and determination. So autonomy is demanded and the goal is to create an account that others will respect and regard as authoritative.

These are typical values found in the atomistic paradigm-L2. For important situations, there will be many who either spontaneously or on commission take on this challenge, and each will naturally produce a somewhat different version.

Example: ClosedPrize-winning Journalism

There will be readers who follow the evidence and arguments and come to independently identify with a particular version of the situation, usually with certain criticisms or caveats. This wider personal ownership is useful in confirming authoritativeness. Many others will simply know about the work and avoid ownership.

Personal ownership is possible without the effort of re-working the given narrative. However, a person can only assimilate what they are ready, willing an able to absorb into their internal schemas—which will be individually unique. So such informal assimilation calls for a radical simplification in which certain critical aspects are brought to the foreground and made the focus of personal acceptance.

Example

Making money in financial markets requires a strategy, and that means having a sufficient explanation of how they evolve. Authoritative texts have been written explaining why an investor should remain inactive till the right moment appears and not react to every fluctuation. Virtues like patience and control of fears are commonly advised, but this misses the point. If the investor actually owns the authoritative narrative of how markets operate, then there will be minimal temptation to just react because that would feel wrong and irresponsible.

Oscillation:

To continue the subjective-objective and limited-comprehensive pattern (see Cycle-1 summary): the Atomistic mode is about the operation of personal judgement which is subjective; and, because any account is affected by a personal perspective and personal resources, the result will be limited.

ClosedAlternative transitions

The other Methods-Modes seem to be dependent on definitive explanatory accounts developed with Atomistic values:

  • Unitary involves conformity of any account to relevant socio-cultural standards: but if the sufficient explanation (μ4)has not been taken seriously enough to generate an authoritative version (μ5), there is nothing of substance that has to conform.
  • Unified involves adjusting an explanation to take account of the context: which is again irrelevant if there is nothing authoritative and definitive to adjust.

Values & Assumptions

Stage-5-atomistic to personally own the explanation.

Promoting Acceptability

ClosedEssence: Personal Ownership

For you or anyone to put in the effort to create a detailed account of a situation an independent personal acceptance of the value of clarifying that situation is required. To be meaningful, acceptance involves appreciating and internalizing the values in the four Cycle-1 modes and re-working them with care. The version that is produced then becomes a willingly held belief about the situation, often with an awareness that others may not share that belief.

ClosedBenefit: Social Authoritativeness

The goal of producing a fully-fleshed out version explaining a situation is to for others able to be able to rely on it i.e. the version seeks to be authoritative. For important matters, we need accurate, dependable and trustworthy accounts. But social recognition does not meant the account is formally approved, authorized or even decisive in practice as many factors affect official adoption.

ClosedMeans: Responsible Formulations

A sufficient narrative may be to hand and widely acknowledged, but careful investigation is required before any personal belief in its truthfulness is possible. Responsibility needs to drive the process. Critical readers of an account will look for impartial coverage of the literature, access to key players in the situation, care with statistics, and a genuine feel for the situation.

Handling the Group

ClosedParticipation: Publicize Your Version

Any version is to some degree idiosyncratic, being produced within the limitations and perspective of the author. Actively publicizing allows for justification, elaboration and sensible rebuttal of criticisms that are invariably raised. The goal here is to shape discussions and affect agendas, regardless of any consequences.

ClosedCommunication: Exchange Views

Your version is likely to be one of many that naturally coexist. Exchanging views with upholders of other versions of the situation is beneficial for the group. This often takes place in panels chaired by a moderator who encourages challenges from the audience. Such exchanges can increase group awareness and activate group responsibility.

ClosedIndividualization: Acknowledge Biases

You have a background and certain values that cannot be suppressed. However careful and responsible you may be in your account, these factors will create a bias. Something similar applies to other versions. It is therefore helpful for individuals answering questions or exchanging views to acknowledge their position on relevant matters.

Channeling Your Functioning:

ClosedGain Support: Thoughtfulness

To gain support from others, it must be evident to them that your ownership is serious because you have thought the issues through, and have responsibly investigated and assessed the evidence and arguments in a thorough and reasonable way.

My personal adoption of a framework-based narrative, like that of purpose as presented in Stage-4, is essential if I am to offer it to people as a way to handle certain problems effectively. If it is not evident that I believe my narrative of their problematic situation, then it is almost impossible for them to use my understanding and apply it for themselves.

But blind acceptance by the client is insufficient. Unless the client personally grasps and owns the framework-based account in some basic way, then they cannot handle the challenges, issues and stresses in making necessary changes in the situation that presents. While it is to be expected that their grasp of the situation will be a modified version of mine, likely deeper in some areas and more limited in others, it must be solid. If not, at the first breakdown or seeming contradiction, they will default to the habitual or conventional thinking that got them into difficulties in the first place.

Limitations

Providing an authoritative version, gives you a position in your group and provides you with an outlook that can indicate whether change is called for. But what is commonly required is group acceptance.

Often it is necessary for most or at least a majority to own the explanation, and the question arises as to how more people can be persuaded to accept it.

There is also the problem that each thoughtful person is likely to have a slightly different view or will interpret a particular version differently. So something more is required to legitimate the group's acceptance of a version.

Settling at this Stage

If a person adopts a particular explanatory account and finds they can apply and use it effectively, then they will often reject looking any deeper and be unwilling to have their outlook adjusted. In many cases, the secret to continuing success with their much-loved explanation is the avoidance of situations where the account does not apply or the avoidance of individuals who have come to a slightly different conclusion.

This recession into a shell would apply to psychoanalytic explanations and other doctrines or change-management tools. Academic and think-tank environments, despite their claims, can provide a way to avoid reality altogether. They may pursue ideas unhindered by the need to persuade others or to handle the pressures and responsibilities associated with actual change.

On a mundane level, when a leading figure provides personal backing for an explanation, or an author or reporter clearly believes what they have written, many may be profoundly affected and inclined to go along rather than delve into it for themselves. If this is the general or majority view, then there may be no felt need to seek further clarification.

Transition

However, if there is disagreement, dissatisfaction or distrust, or if wider dissemination would be of great benefit, then it is necessary to bring some group-based and socio-culturally validated standards to bear on the explanation and personal accounts.

These standards might be found in:

  • a dominant paradigm in scientific thinking
  • culturally required rules of evidence
  • philosophical demands for logic and evidence
  • popular principles or doctrines

This fits the mode oscillation because such standards are offered as objective and they must be applied comprehensively.

The mode that naturally provides for control of explanations via the application of obligatory standards appears to be the unitary-μ6 (from L'7).

ClosedRuling Out the Alternative Move

In choosing between moving next to Unified-L'5 or Unitary-L'7, the need for conformity to group standards appears to take precedence over consideration of any highly variable contextual or environmental factors.

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