Mode-6: Authoritative Accounts
Reminder 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 satisfying and sufficient. [Causal]
- Mode-5: Take responsibility for a version of the explanation. [Atomistic]
The mode of realizing (μ) refers to the set of values to be incorporated from a depiction method. Once incorporated, there is a new Stage of clarification (Φ) that includes values of all previous modes.
So Stage 5 clarification (Φ5) results when a person takes responsibility for developing their version of the situation.
Communal Compliance follows in the Unitary Mode
Different people will generate slightly different versions of the situation. A personal confident assertion may be persuasive in a face-to-face interaction or where a trusting personal relationship exists, but what is now needed is impersonal social dissemination of the explanation that can be acceptable and usable by all, whether or not they take personal ownership (μ5).
The wider community requires some sort of guarantee which can only be provided if an account has been subjected to relevant standards that are unequivocally and uniformly applied to all such explanations of all such situations.
These standards embody an absolute demand for conformity, at least within that culture, in order to make the explanation authoritative. Application of the resulting explanation may even be compulsory. Such controlling values naturally emerge from the Unitary paradigm-L'7.
Standards that can come to be routinely respected, used and enforced formally and/or informally include:
- rules of evidence and logic
- a current scientific paradigm
- the relevant cultural ethic
- principles developed from related explanations
- conventions related to the particular situation
When a report is commissioned, it is assumed that such standards apply.
Application of standards provides further clarification and commonly leads lead to some adjustment, extension or re-phrasing of any particular personal version. The standards permit what all will agree is a fair basis for comparing competing versions and for independent assessments of the account.
Example: Scientific publication
A group of scientists collaborated on a research project. If asked about the findings, all of them can explain what was done and why and what the findings were. Any account identifies the causal (μ1) link of interest, assumes or indicates the framework (μ2) used, and recognizes tensions (μ3) within the scientific community around the topic. On top of this, there is a narrative (μ4) explaining what led up to the study and what might follow. This informal account could be the basis of a press release used to publicize the lab. However, the crucial step follows: one researcher has to produce a version (μ5) of that piece of research for submission to a journal. However, journals enforce stringent μ6-requirements on submissions. If these are met, the paper goes out for peer review which applies additional μ6-scientific standards in regard to such things as the literature review, methods, images, and statistical analyses.
Oscillation:
The Unitary mode is about clarification by imposing existing social ethical or scientific standards: a process which is necessarily objective and which must be applied in a comprehensive fashion. This continues the pattern observed in Cycle-1.
Values & Assumptions
Promoting Acceptability
Essence: High Standards
The critical choice to enable communal compliance and a sense of irrefutability is the particular standards to be applied. Some are usually self-evident: e.g. axioms of logic, use of evidence, principles of coherence and consistency. Others, like ethical assumptions, scientific paradigms or dominant ideologies, may be more controversial. We are naturally inclined to follow or apply standards that have proven their value repeatedly in similar cases and are regularly expected, used and demanded by a group. When these standards are applied, the credibility of the explanation rises greatly for all in the group.
Benefit: Authoritative Status
Standards exist to ensure an explanation is accurate, dependable and trustworthy. So any version of an explanation that has been further developed or demonstrated to accord with relevant standards becomes authoritative for the group. While this is not a guarantee of truth, compliance and consent to the account by group as a whole increases the willingness of each person to believe it. This affects group attitudes and enables individuals to rely on the explanation and use it as a reasonable justification for choices.
Means: Rules and Axioms
What is desired is an overarching resolution of differences so that a definitive account is communally accepted and seen as irrefutable. Removal of inconsistencies, incompleteness, illogicality or doubtful evidence leads to a rounded persuasive story. Intrinsic to this process is our deep trust in certain axioms and assumptions related to evidence, reasoning and analyses. Identification and insistence on these generates a socially acceptable force for uniformity and conformity
Handling the Group
Participation: Publicize Widely
The authoritative account is always written up in an article, pamphlet or book and made easily accessible. The account may be made available in many libraries. If it is a commissioned report, it is published to be distributed, discussed and ultimately accepted by the group. There may be public lectures and media presentations. Group members are encouraged to join a consensus of approval, and there may be pressure on others to accept the account as valid.
Communication: Debate within Limits
Any account requires to be discussed and debated in order to be understood and possibly internalized. Because there is an expectation of conformity following the application of high standards, there are limits to the challenges that are allowed. Controversial standards may require discussion, but direct confrontation of fundamental standards is a form of disruption and deviance which is typically ruled out of order.
Individualization: Appeal to a Track Record
Most people are not capable of fully appreciating the standards being applied. They depend on the reputation of the person, team or organisation that produces the account. That means a track record of successful authoritative explanations assists the acceptance of any new account..
Channeling Your Functioning:
Gain Support: Endorsements
Having a disciplined alignment with the principles and standards that should be applied to any particular explanation is necessary but not sufficient. Given that the goal is group conformity and group members cannot effectively judge quality, the group must be persuaded that you can and do indeed uphold the required values. To win confidence you and your account need to get endorsements from colleagues and relevant social bodies.
THEE as an Example in Stage-6
The framework for purpose that has proven itself so valuable in consulting services has the potential to resolve problems with purpose and value in wider society.
For example, AI systems can be programmed with explicit sets of values that influence decision-making processes, affecting algorithms that dictate the AI’s behaviour. However, the concept of value being used by AI researchers does not adhere to any taxonomic framework. Fears have naturally developed in relation to the further development of AI.
But how can the THEE framework be made acceptable to AI researchers?
While it is easy to persuade individuals in face-to-face interactions of the strength and powerful of the framework, something more is required for wider society. This website has therefore been developed with a focus on diverse and well-established methods of validation, that are independent of any specific taxonomic investigation.
These principles should persuade reasonable members of any community with a scientific ethos to give the framework a hearing and even to look into it more deeply in relation to their own efforts. However, endorsements have been sparse to date (2025).
Limitations
The result here is the provision of a explanation of the situation that has, or at least deserves, group consensus. However, when it comes to group members or social bodies taking action, the authoritative account does not deal with the small variations in local circumstances that are inevitable.
Settling at this Stage
There may not be multiple groups dealing with the same or similar situations. In that case, the account may well suffice as it stands and there is no felt need to seek further clarification.
Transition
However, if there is a multiplicity of situations of that type, then any particular individual or social body that wishes to operate with the explanation in their particular socio-physical situation may find themselves wishing to make adjustments in order to handle matters better.
The mode that naturally provides for such contextual adjustments is the Unified-μ7.
This also fits the mode oscillation pattern because the choice of context switches back to subjective with any adaptation necessarily being limited to that particular context.
Is there an Alternative Move?
The Unified-L'5 paradigm generates the final mode because there is no alternative option.
Originally posted: 30-Oct-2024. Last amended: 22-Sep-2025.
