1
From: "Human Potential & Development."
Split Justification: Development fundamentally involves both our inner landscape (**Internal World**) and our interaction with everything outside us (**External World**). (Ref: Subject-Object Distinction)..
2
From: "External World (Interaction)"
Split Justification: All external interactions fundamentally involve either other human beings (social, cultural, relational, political) or the non-human aspects of existence (physical environment, objects, technology, natural world). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive.
3
From: "Interaction with Humans"
Split Justification: All human interaction can be fundamentally categorized by its primary focus: either on the direct connection and relationship between specific individuals (from intimate bonds to fleeting encounters), or on the individual's engagement within and navigation of larger organized human collectives, their rules, roles, and systems. This dichotomy provides a comprehensive and distinct division between person-to-person dynamics and person-to-society dynamics.
4
From: "Social Systems and Structures"
Split Justification: All social systems and structures can be fundamentally categorized by whether their rules, roles, and organization are explicitly codified, institutionalized, and formally enforced (formal systems), or are unwritten, emergent, culturally embedded, and maintained through custom, tradition, and implicit social pressure (informal systems). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive, as a system's primary mode of operation is either formal or informal, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all aspects of collective human organization.
5
From: "Informal Social Systems"
Split Justification: All informal social systems can be fundamentally divided into two mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive categories: those focused on the collective, unwritten understandings, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs that guide behavior (Shared Meaning and Norms), and those focused on the spontaneous, interactional processes and structures of influence, status, reputation, and cohesion that arise within groups (Emergent Social Dynamics). One describes the content and collective interpretation of the informal system, while the other describes the interactive mechanisms and relational outcomes.
6
From: "Emergent Social Dynamics"
Split Justification: ** All emergent social dynamics can be fundamentally divided into the active, ongoing processes of interaction that generate them (such as influence attempts, social signaling, and reciprocal exchanges) and the more stable, patterned configurations that arise as a result of these interactions (such as informal hierarchies, established reputations, and levels of group cohesion). This dichotomy separates the real-time unfolding mechanisms of social activity from the patterned outcomes that define informal social organization, ensuring mutual exclusivity and comprehensive exhaustion.
7
From: "Emergent Social Configurations"
Split Justification: All emergent social configurations can be fundamentally divided into those patterned outcomes that define the distribution of informal power, prestige, and perceived importance among individuals (e.g., informal hierarchies, individual reputations), and those patterned outcomes that define the distribution of emotional bonds, affinities, and sense of integration or estrangement within the collective (e.g., group cohesion, emergent cliques). This dichotomy separates the organizational patterns of social sway and respect from the relational patterns of emotional ties and belonging, ensuring mutual exclusivity as these are distinct dimensions of informal social patterning, and comprehensive exhaustion by covering the primary forms of stable emergent social organization.
8
From: "Configurations of Social Connection and Belonging"
Split Justification: All emergent social configurations related to connection and belonging can be fundamentally divided into those that describe the patterned state of an individual's inclusion within or exclusion from the overall collective, impacting the group's unity (e.g., group cohesion, social integration), and those that describe the patterned relationships and affinities between specific individuals or smaller clusters within the collective, forming distinct social ties or subgroups (e.g., emergent cliques, friendship networks). This dichotomy separates patterns of holistic group belonging from patterns of specific inter-individual relations, ensuring mutual exclusivity and comprehensive exhaustion.
9
From: "Configurations of Interpersonal Structures"
Split Justification: All interpersonal structures fundamentally describe either the patterned attributes and interconnections between pairs of individuals (dyadic bonds), or the patterned formation and characteristics of multi-person clusters or groupings that emerge within the collective (emergent subgroups). This dichotomy provides a clear separation between the micro-level relational units and the meso-level social clusters they may form, ensuring mutual exclusivity and comprehensive exhaustion of how interpersonal structures manifest.
10
From: "Configurations of Emergent Subgroups"
Split Justification: All emergent subgroups, particularly those related to connection and belonging, can be fundamentally divided based on their primary defining characteristic. One category encompasses subgroups whose configuration is primarily determined by the dense, reciprocal, and strong interpersonal bonds and interaction patterns among their members, where the relationships themselves constitute the group's essence (e.g., tight-knit cliques, deeply intertwined friendship circles). The other category includes subgroups whose configuration is primarily determined by a shared commonality—such as interests, values, identity, or experiences—among their members, which serves as the fundamental basis for their grouping, even if the density or strength of direct interpersonal ties among all members varies (e.g., fan groups, informal interest-based communities). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive, as a subgroup's emergent structure is primarily defined by either its internal relational fabric or a shared attribute, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all forms of informal, multi-person clusters based on connection and belonging.
11
From: "Configurations of Cohesive Relational Groupings"
Split Justification: ** All configurations of cohesive relational groupings are defined by dense, reciprocal, and strong interpersonal bonds among their members, where these relationships constitute the group's essence. These groupings can be fundamentally divided based on the *scope* of the shared life domains and mutual reliance encompassed by these defining relationships. One category includes groupings where the strong bonds and interdependence extend across a wide range of life aspects, creating comprehensive mutual reliance (e.g., chosen families, long-term close-knit communes). The other category includes groupings where the strong bonds and interdependence, while intense and essential to the group's definition, are primarily concentrated within a specific context, activity, or shared purpose (e.g., highly cohesive sports teams, dedicated project teams, tightly integrated cultural performance groups). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive, as the primary scope of a grouping's defining interpersonal interdependence is either broad or context-bound, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all forms of cohesive relational groupings.
12
From: "Groupings with Broad Interpersonal Interdependence"
Split Justification: All groupings with broad interpersonal interdependence can be fundamentally divided based on whether their comprehensive mutual reliance is primarily established and maintained through explicit, consciously articulated agreements, roles, and structures among members (even if informally adopted), or whether it has primarily developed organically over time through shared experiences, deep trust, and unstated mutual understandings. This dichotomy separates groupings where the broad interdependence is a matter of clear, intentional design and commitment from those where it is an emergent property of deep, prolonged relational history, ensuring mutual exclusivity and comprehensive exhaustion by covering the fundamental modes through which broad interdependence is constituted.
✓
Topic: "Groupings with Implicitly Evolved Interdependence" (W6652)