Stage-5: Atomistic Ownership

ClosedReminder of the clarification process so far:

Personal Acceptance starts in the Atomistic Mode

An explanation may be obviously plausible and apparently sufficient, and yet a person may only superficially acknowledge its value. Often it is easiest to view explanations as irrelevant, alien or too complicated to get involved with.

If that mentality is widespread and persists, then plans and activities to deal with the situation are likely to be half-hearted, misjudged or absent. If an explanation is to be taken seriously, there must be personal ownership. That will occur if the explanation is further clarified so it can be assimilated and internalized: either independently and willingly or via social indoctrination.

Example

Making money in financial markets requires a strategy, and that means having a sufficient explanation of the evolving situation. The investor is typically exhorted to 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 model-based narrative of the evolving market, then there will be minimal temptation to just react. That would feel wrong and irresponsible.

Oscillation:

To continue the subjective-objective and limited-comprehensive pattern (see previous summary): the Atomistic mode is about enabling the operation of personal autonomy which is subjective; and because there is a simplification and adaptation to an existing mindset, the result will be limited.

ClosedAlternative transitions

The other Methods-Modes seem to be dependent on the personal acceptance developed with Atomistic values:

  • Unitary involves conformity of the explanation to relevant socio-cultural standards: but this will be of no interest if the explanation has not been taken seriously at a personal level.
  • Unified involves adjusting the explanation to take account of the context: which is again irrelevant if there is no personal acceptance of the explanation.

Values & Assumptions

Stage-5-atomistic to personally own the explanation.

Promoting Acceptability

ClosedEssence: Mental Assimilation

Wholehearted action on a sufficient explanation depends on a genuine personal acceptance of that explanation. Such acceptance calls for assimilation and internalization of the explanation so that it is experienced as a natural mindset, an inner driver, rather than an external imposition.

Once assimilated, the explanation appears as a willingly held belief, often with an awareness that others may not share that belief. Indoctrination refers to an attempt to force the assimilation of an explanation as an undeniably correct belief.

ClosedDesired Benefit: Personal Conviction

Personal conviction in a sufficient explanation is the foundation for any willing participation in resolving or even support for a resolution of a problematic situation. Personalizing and believing the explanation brings it into the sphere of autonomy and responsibility. That makes it likely that the person will either respond to requests, support others in acting or voluntarily take relevant initiatives in relation to the situation or changes proposed.

ClosedMeans: Idiosyncratic Simplification

By the time an explanation becomes sufficient, it has become rather complex. As well as the abstractions, structure and tensions, there are the multiple relationships and a narrative account of evolution. While this is required for a sufficient clarification of the situation, much less is required for personal ownership. A person can only assimilate what they are ready, willing an able to absorb into their internal schemas—which will be individually unique. So assimilation calls for a radical simplification in which certain critical aspects are brought to the foreground and made the focus of personal acceptance.

Handling the Group

ClosedParticipation: Share Your Position

Because your thinking based on a sufficient explanation is idiosyncratic, it enables you to articulate a particular position on matters that emerge for others or the group. This can shape discussions and affect agendas, either fostering cohesion or provoking division. Part of sharing a specific position is a readiness to justify it and to sensibly rebut criticisms of the explanation that others may raise.

ClosedCommunication: Exchange Views

Exchanging views about a given explanation widely deemed to be sufficient provides for a vibrancy within the group. Each member will have simplified idiosyncratically, and sharing views emphasizes the coexistence of varying perspectives, each contributing to the clarification. Exchanges can activate a deeper sense of awareness and group responsibility, a sense of alternatives and, if needed, the possibility of a consensus.

ClosedIndividualization: Assert Personal Meaning

Your particular assimilation of the explanation and readiness to own it will be based on your own assessment of the evidence and what the situation and its explanation means for you. That will be subject to your own biases and interests. You expect that others will function in a similar way.

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 assessed the evidence and arguments in a reasonable way. Taking a position expediently or as an expression of conformity rather than careful reflection will make it impossible to effectively engage with group around the supposedly sufficient explanation.

My personal adoption of a framework, 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 perceive their situation as understandable in terms of the framework, then it is almost impossible for them to adopt it and apply it for themselves.

But blind acceptance by the client is insufficient. Unless the client personally grasps and owns the framework 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 framework will be far more limited than mine, 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

Making a sufficient explanation your own gives you a position in your group and provides you with an outlook that can indicate whether change is called for. But often what is 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 so the problem that each thoughtful person is likely to have a slightly different view. So something more is required to provide the basis for a group to adopt an explanation.

Settling at this Stage

If a person adopts the 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 framework 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 in personally 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 such standards appears to be the Unitary.

ClosedRuling Out the Alternative Move

In choosing between moving next to Unified-L'5 or Unitary-L7 , the need for group uniformity via standards appears to take precedence over consideration of any environment.

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