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 Dyadic Bonds"
Split Justification: All dyadic bonds, in their configured, stable state, fundamentally exhibit a primary valence of either attraction, cooperation, and positive sentiment (affiliative bonds) or repulsion, conflict, and negative sentiment (antagonistic bonds). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive, as a dyadic bond's core patterned character leans predominantly towards one or the other, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering the full spectrum of patterned relational qualities between two individuals, from strong positive ties to strong negative opposition, under the umbrella of interpersonal structures.
11
From: "Configurations of Affiliative Dyadic Bonds"
Split Justification: All stable, positive dyadic bonds can be fundamentally distinguished by their primary configured orientation: either towards mutual practical support, shared tasks, and achievement of external goals (instrumental bonds), or towards emotional connection, intimacy, and mutual personal affirmation and well-being (expressive bonds). This dichotomy separates bonds based on their functional purpose and benefits from those based on their affective and relational depth, ensuring mutual exclusivity by identifying the predominant character of the bond, and comprehensive exhaustion by covering the fundamental spectrum of positive dyadic relationship configurations.
12
From: "Configurations of Expressive Affiliative Bonds"
Split Justification: All stable expressive affiliative bonds can be fundamentally distinguished by whether they embody the unique complex of passion, exclusivity, and often an erotic or sexual dimension that defines romantic love (romantic bonds), or if they primarily focus on emotional connection, intimacy, and mutual personal affirmation without these specific romantic characteristics (non-romantic expressive bonds). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive, as a bond is either defined by romantic elements or it is not, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all forms of stable, positive dyadic bonds oriented towards emotional well-being.
✓
Topic: "Configurations of Non-Romantic Expressive Bonds" (W7420)