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 Influence and Status"
Split Justification: All configurations of social influence and status can be fundamentally divided into the patterned, relational orderings of individuals based on their relative power and importance within a collective (informal status hierarchies), and the collectively recognized, enduring attributes and character of specific individuals that define their unique informal standing and perceived worth (individual reputational standing). This dichotomy separates the emergent structural arrangements of influence and prestige from the personal, attributed dimensions of status, ensuring mutual exclusivity and comprehensive exhaustion by covering both the relational organization and the individual recognition aspects of informal social power.
9
From: "Individual Reputational Standing"
Split Justification: All individual reputational standing can be fundamentally divided into two distinct and primary dimensions of collective evaluation: the perceived ability, skill, and instrumental effectiveness of an individual in achieving goals or performing tasks (Reputation for Competence and Effectiveness), and the perceived moral integrity, trustworthiness, and willingness of an individual to act for the collective good (Reputation for Character and Prosociality). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive, as one focuses on an individual's instrumental capabilities and the other on their moral and relational virtues, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering the primary bases upon which an individual's informal standing and perceived worth are established within any social context.
10
From: "Reputation for Competence and Effectiveness"
Split Justification: All reputation for competence and effectiveness can be fundamentally divided into the collective perception of an individual's inherent or acquired aptitudes, knowledge, and abilities (their potential or 'know-how'), and the collective perception of their actual track record of successful outcomes, tangible contributions, and the realization of goals (their proven 'did-do'). This dichotomy separates the reputation based on perceived potential and underlying capability from the reputation based on demonstrated results and the actual realization of goals, ensuring mutual exclusivity and comprehensive exhaustion of the parent concept.
11
From: "Reputation for Underlying Capacity and Skill"
Split Justification: All reputation for underlying capacity and skill can be fundamentally divided into the collective perception of an individual's broad intellectual capabilities, abstract reasoning, and learning agility across various domains (General Cognitive Aptitude), and the collective perception of an individual's mastery of specific, learned techniques, knowledge, and proficiencies within a particular field or task (Specialized Practical Skills). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive, as one refers to broad, transferable mental faculties while the other refers to focused, context-dependent proficiencies, and comprehensively exhaustive, as any form of perceived underlying "know-how" is either general intellectual capability or specific, honed expertise.
12
From: "Reputation for Specialized Practical Skills"
Split Justification: All specialized practical skills can be fundamentally divided into two mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive categories: those focused on the mastery of techniques, knowledge, and tools applied to the non-human world, encompassing physical materials, technologies, abstract systems, and data (Proficiency with Systems and Materials), and those focused on the mastery of methods, communication, and strategies applied to effectively coordinate, influence, and manage human beings within task-oriented or organizational contexts (Proficiency with Human Interaction and Group Management). This dichotomy separates expertise primarily engaged with the tangible or abstract non-human domain from expertise primarily engaged with effective task-oriented human collective dynamics, thereby covering all forms of specialized practical expertise.
✓
Topic: "Reputation for Proficiency with Human Interaction and Group Management" (W7356)