THEE Note: The Root Types might, perhaps, be unsuited to comparative analysis using a Typology Essences Table (TET). However, the TET has proved its worth repeatedly elsewhere, so an exploration was advisable—and it has indeed proved valuable.
This page is a reminder of what is involved in the usual TET. If you are familiar with these principles from elsewhere in THEE, continue directly to choosing the relevant field of psychosocial reality for .
Note: This account is applicable to all Principal Typologies.
Principal Typologies are found within the 6th Level of a Primary Hierarchy: see THEE Path. They are a set of 7 methods that govern how that Hierarchy is operated. In practice, they appear as approaches or mentalities which attract committment and belief within a particular domain of functioning. I refer to them as optimizers because each claims to guarantee the "best" results.
The Types can be plotted on a 2x2 Table, called a Typology-Essences Table (= TET). The resulting TET layout reveals features of practical importance that would otherwise be difficult to notice.
Each TET requires names for its axes. These names are called the executing duality (eD) of the Types. It specifies the personal context for using the method in the particular psychosocial field, which is specified by the primary structural hierarchy.
One executing dimension relates to social context i.e. personal ends which are shared when using any . So it is relevant to the effect, outcome or results.
By convention, this is the X-axis. The X-axis is always outer, social, environmental, situational or objective: i.e. the X-axis is the «-social» aspect of psycho-social reality.
The other executing dimension relates to the personal context i.e. the means or psychological requirement to produce the relevant output.
By convention, this is the Y-axis. The Y-axis can be categorized variously as inner, personal, mental, psychological or subjective: i.e. the Y-axis is the «psycho-»(logical) aspect of psycho-social reality.
Once we have the correct formulations of the approaches in the Typology and have identified the appropriate executing duality, each of the 7 approaches can be plotted onto the TET. Each in turn is assessed and compared as: «very high» or «high»—covering the higher part of each axis; or «low» or «very low»—covering the lower part of each axis.
The inquiry challenge is to name the TET axes validly and sufficiently precisely for the focus of concern.
If the axes are named correctly, then the inquiry moves ahead reasonably smoothly. Being slightly wrong may not matter too much. But if the axes are named utterly incorrectly or too vaguely, then the inquiry will certainly get into difficulties. The results will be unpersuasive to others and downstream exploration will be blocked.
With this explanation in mind, continue now to clarification of the relevant field in psychosocial reality.
Originally posted: 13-Jul-2012.