Absolute Scale: Paradigm Shifts for Science and Business
At inception Agape Consultants had two, 2 very tall orders as follows:
- Put a value on people, according to their capacities for productivity and leadership
- Create the enabling environment, in which this value is optimized
This derived from Thorndike’s posit that the only things that can be known for sure are those that can be measured. Moreover, all science rests upon and begins with accurate description and measurement. And whatever exists must exist in some quantity and can, in principle, be measured. When a phenomenon is valued correctly, it would be because it has been adequately understood; at least, sufficiently to manipulate the system.
Paradigm Shift in Science
But the human system turned out to be rather different from the physical systems that contemporary science had evolved to deal with. Additionally, it was observed that methodological difficulties had forced certain unpalatable decisions on the emerging science of the humanities. For instance psychology shifted focus to the behavioral, and let the phenomenological to atrophy. Secondly to fit into mainstream science and its methodology, concepts like mind and soul were forced into the materiality paradigm; and spirit was jettisoned, as metaphysical: A case of giving a dog a bad name, in order to hang it? When people are overwhelmed, a known response is to make a joke out of whatever it is. This joke held up progress in the development of the appropriate methodology for these concepts. Nor has the effect of the joke faded. I think it is C. S. Lewis who said that it is possible to become so familiar with the fake, to reject the original when it shows up. Integrating mind, soul, and spirit into mainstream science of the humanities has become an ordeal. Not with the stern face that accompanies the response, ‘do not rock the boat’!
Paradigm Shift in Business
It is not only psychology that has been affected by the materiality outlook of science. Business also followed the line of least resistance, when it elected to focus on profit and loss; to the detriment of value creation. This has also slowed down the evolution of a great culture, in which organizations optimize the three, 3 value types at once; including people value, C organizational value, ROI and the value of the business environment, EB. It is Ralph Christensen who coined the phrase, the right work force, C In the right environment, EB delivering profitable business growth, ROI. Even the entrance of this culture has been viewed as a rude intrusion by the big fish, ever ready to swallow the smaller ones.
The Absolute Scale
The greatest obstacle to these paradigm shifts in science and business has however been surmounted. Without the appropriate methodology, catching the fancy of the appropriate listening ears would still end up in a deep chagrin. Knowledge is gathered by methodology, and quality knowledge would be by quality methodology. In addition to the demand of reliability and validity by a material science therefore, the demand of consistency is made by a science of spirituality. This is in recognition of energy, as the kernel of all existence. And until it is available in the appropriate quantity, accomplishments would be mere illusions. Projects that are started would stop short, midway.
The distinction is made between engagement, which predicts reliability exactly; and self-containment, which requires that validity is at once consistent in terms of multiples and dividends. Thus it would not be sufficient that a person is engaged, they would have to be self-contained to be dependable. While it would be sufficient to evaluate reliability by engagement, to be valid, people need to show evidence of self-containment. At this level, retention would be assured. And the greatest agony of organizations in the 21st century would have been ameliorated. Loosing quality personnel to the competition has been a knotty thorn in the flesh of the modern organization. It is the measure of consistency that has made this distinction possible. And consistency derives from a definition of spirit as form, thereby reducing all three, 3 concepts into measureable quantities; including spirit, form, and consistency. These measurements are done on an absolute scale.
The F-Scale is an absolute scale to the extent that it measures what actually is, against what ought to be. Moreover it reduces variables that are otherwise continuous, into their discrete equivalents; to put humpty dumpty back together again, afterwards. It is these two, 2 natures that have made the human system inaccessible to objective measurements. Most measures of the human system have depended on the opinions of the person being measured. At best, the outcome has depended too much on the observation of the person making the measurement. In both cases, objectivity would have been compromised. When people offer their opinions, it would be difficult to tease out biases. And when mere mortals have to observe other mere mortals like themselves, with the vermin and all with which we are characterized, it would be hard to see how biases could be eliminated. Could these explain the rowdiness that characterizes research findings in the humanities? It has been difficult to replicate results in sensitive studies like personality analysis, which hold the key to understanding the rest of the humanities. By the F-Scale, given the soul, the person would be determined; and given the phenomenological the behavioral would be determined, subject to discipline.
In the latter case, interferences from the environment make it difficult for predictions to be made. The facts of warped perspectives due to gravity and relativity, which lead to distorted memories, mean that beliefs, choice, language, and even pleasure would be misconstrued. But in the former case, where soul lies beyond the reach of the physical environment, interferences would be absent and predictions accurate. The F-Scale derives its strength from the following three, 3 concepts:
- Consistency, and
The Wave Principle
Duality requires that things are done in two, 2s; two, 2 by two, 2. This would be in accordance with the requirements of the wave principle, by which the relativity question is resolved. Thus while relativity defines a slope, the energy that is associated with every point on the slope would be determined by duality. In this case following Einstein’s energy model, e = mc2 energy and mass would be equivalent concepts. And energy would be released by fission, when matter is split. By a concept in algebra, a number n, would be divided into two, 2 equal halves for the product of the parts to be a maximum. The wave model therefore requires that phenomena are adequately defined by two, 2 features including the size and location factors. Then L = AF2 would be equal to L = 1/A F2, when duality resolves the relativity quandary, respectively. But the duality series in operations research comprises four, 4 factors. They are derived from splitting two, 2 of the three, 3 features that define forms.
The Principle of Forms
Like the wave, the typical form would be adequately defined by three, 3 features including the work, energy, and exhaust factors. It is the work and energy factors that are split to derive the duality series as follows:
- Energy1 – Maxima, F
- Work2 – Minimax, L
- Work1 – Maximin, A
- Energy2 – Minima, S
The Thought Pattern
Each of these factors is located uniquely, and cannot be swapped without distorting the series. To be consistent therefore it would not be sufficient for the items to be identified correctly, each would have to be located appropriately also. Then Work1 and Energy2 would have to be equal, for A = S. This would be explained by considering a stream in flood. It would be sufficient that the energy required to swim upstream, L would be equal to twice what is required to withstand the flood, F for L = 2F ± 1. Similarly the energy that would be required to initiate a task, A would also be sufficient to sustain the task to completion, S. In this case, what would be required in both cases would be commitment; and commitment is commitment. For consistency therefore, it would be sufficient that √FA = √FS. This implies that there would be sufficient energy to sustain the work, from start to finish.
With containment, it would not be sufficient that duality supplies all the energy that would be required. That duality has been adopted, and that consistency ensures that all the required energy is available, would not guaranty task completion. Focus would still be required, to avoid possible distractions due to double mindedness. The eye needs to be single. This would be when the principle of the equality of relativity and duality, would be invoked, for √L/A = √LA respectively. Only the number one, 1 fulfills this requirement, for √ (1 / 1) = √ (1 x 1). This describes a unity within the system, which precludes change.
A Demonstration of the Associated Behavior Pattern
It would be possible to demonstrate these three, 3 principles of the F-Scale by a riddle. Given the following three, 3 items and a boat, with which to convey them across a river; as well as the restriction that only one, 1 of the items can be conveyed at a time:
- A Lion,
- Yams, and
- A Goat
Could you make your response on the poll before checking the response suggested below?
Which of the items would be conveyed first, and in which order would the others come, if four, 4 trips are to be made?
The goat would be conveyed in the first trip, leaving the lion and the yams, for security. The yams make the second trip, but would not be left with the goat, which would have to be conveyed along on the return trip. In the third trip, the lion would be taken across and left with the yams. The goat would then be conveyed in the fourth and final trip. When the numbering is changed to match the way that the standard procedure series is numbered, the positions of the lion and the first goat are swapped, for A = S as follows:
3. Lion, F
2. Yams, L
1. Goat, A
4. Goat, S
Recall that work would be sufficiently accounted for by the following three, 3 features including energy, force, and power; which would be satisfied by the duality and consistency requirements. But focus would not be accounted for here, which would be catered for by the containment factor. Recall also the distinction between synergy and trust, as basis for the two, 2 levels at which relationships could be sustained. While synergy would be useful at work, trust would be required for family relationships; with the additional factor of focus and containment. These items combine to define the personality in the following series:
2. Force.............6. Self-Containment
1. Energy...........5. Trust
Each of the first four, 4 items are evaluated as energy features on the F-Scale, according to how sensitive, Sn the subject is observed to be with respect to each of them. They are combined according to the observed consistency within the six, 6 items, to evaluate the associated force, F on the F-Ratio statistic. This factor is then passed through the need profile, to measure power as the number of essentials, Nu that the subject is able to identify. Given the F-Score for the six, 6 items that define a phenomenon, focus would be evaluated as the factor-C. Moreover, it is this factor that translates into the organizational value, ROI by the value creation model. The measures of engagement, EnG and Nu are combined, to quantify the value of the business environment, EB.