# Dilated Series Grid

BillJanie@aol.com
Tue, 26 Mar 1996 11:38:49 -0500

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.1608.mail02.mail.aol.com.827858327
Content-ID: <0_1608_827858327@mail02.mail.aol.com.4670>
Content-type: text/plain

Attach file.

--PART.BOUNDARY.0.1608.mail02.mail.aol.com.827858327
Content-ID: <0_1608_827858327@mail02.mail.aol.com.4671>
Content-type: text/plain;
name="TOLOIS2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Lois,
=0D
Good to see they were wrong: We have not
given up our nice talk. =

=0D
Concerning the term Bandwagon grid: You ask
a lot from a ragged beggar in the banquet hall.
But seeing as how you are a lady and I am
really an old knight who at one time had manners-
(before seeing Saracen and Christian "knights" =

tear little children apart between their peeing
contests), how about we just call it the Dilated
Series Grid (with due acknowledgement of pages
476-> in Kelly's PPC.)
=0D
Assume that nature has provide us with eight
partially overlapping circles of equal size. Now,
let us dilate and constrict the circles, creating a
series of progressively larger (more constricted)
circles. Let figure (A) be the largest circle. A
overlaps circle (B), which is not so dilated as =

A but is more dilated than the other circles.
Imagine that 80% of the smaller circle (B) is =

covered by 50% of the larger (A). Therefore A =

covers more of B than B covers A. Continue
this constricting pattern with circles C, D and
so forth, with each overlapping a smaller percent
of their predecessors range, while having its own
area disproportionately covered by its dilated
predecessors. Thus, as the series continues, the
later circles are smaller and smaller and they
become more and more peripheral to the earlier
dilated circles.
=0D
This process of dilation vs. constriction is =

reflected in the coordinate grid's integrative
complexity measure. With perfect integrative
complexity, each figure is of equal size.That is,
each figure is elaborated as much as every other,
even though the figures differ in terms of their
similarities to one another. The mandala and
circumplex grids serve as models of logically
counter-balanced experimental designs because
they remove bias in elaboration. The Dilated =

Series is highly biased in its sampling.
=0D
Now, as to the source of the numbers- The
coordinate grid is created by having the person
rank figures to one another according to their
general similarity. This "general similiarity"
notion invites the person to access all of her
constructions, not limiting them to a particular
set of trait-like-constructs that can be listed on
the side of a grid. The general similarity criterion
invites the person to "put it all together." =

=0D
In the coordinate grid, the column and row
figures are the same. The person starts with
row 1 and ranks every column figure to the row
1 figure according general similarity. The
diagonal of "1" ranks simply means
that figure A is considered most like Figure A,
figure B most like B, C like C, etc. . The only
people I have seen disagree with this have been
diagnosed with schizophrenia, and there were few
of them. After the first row, the person ranks the
second, third and so on. If the person ranks figure
A as 2nd like Figure B (on second row) and figure
B as 8th like A (on first row), then figure A is
dilated and the elaboration of B is constricted. =

This will cause a difference when the grid is
subtracted from its transpose.
=0D
When we transpose a matrix, we set it on its
side.Thus: ( Grid'-Grid=3Ddifferences between
each row and its corresponding column.) With
perfect integrative complexity (as is found in the
mandala and circumplex grids) there are no
differences between each row and its corresponding
column. There is no dilation and constriction of the
figures. (I am assuming that the figures are people
and that people are all equally complex, at least in
potential. If the figures are not people, but simple
things like ideas, then lower integrative complexity
may be appropriate.)
=

Concerning the "unpleasant selves": this is a
"casual observation" in that unpleasantness is
not built into the numbers, as presented. The
notion of the constriction of threat to the
periphery of the self is consistent with my own
criticisms of death threat theory and with early =

studies linking cognitive simplicity with the
book), and with the castration anxieties that drive
the ambitions of urethral personalities to peeing
contests( see Rychlak's personality book and =

Homer's The Odyssey). But you are correct.
My presentation was more a hypothesis concerning
Epting and Neimeyer's view of threat. We will =

hopefully hear Bob's view on the matter
soon- so you and I can discuss more genteel
topics now.
=0D
Kelly said that people dilate constructs in order
to find a more comprehensive purview from which
they may resolve inconsistencies. Since the Dilated =

Series grid is perfectly logical, we must agree that
the dilation can "work". The problem with doing this
with figures is that the little people on the periphery
have a habit of getting the dilated folks attention-
even if it takes War! Similarly, "little" selves-
like "self about to die," have a way of quickly =

dilating when the bell begins to toll. The result is the =

sampling of material that was ignored before. =

Consequently logical inconsistency, conflict, and threat
shake up the Dilated Series Grid. That's what the fuss =