The Universal & Atomic Elements of Organization
A falsifiable scientific theory proposing that the same irreducible structures organize both thought and reality — from the quantum to the social scale.
O-Theory proposes that four irreducible structures — Distinctions, Systems, Relationships and Perspectives (DSRP) — form the universal grammar of organization. Rather than being merely useful ways of thinking, these structures are hypothesized to be the atomic elements from which every organized phenomenon emerges, whether in cognition, biology, physics, mathematics, society, or the cosmos.
| D | S | R | P |
| Distinctions | Systems | Relationships | Perspectives |
| Identity ↔ Other | Part ↔ Whole | Action ↔ Reaction | Point ↔ View |
| D := (i ↔ o) | S := (p ↔ w) | R := (a ↔ r) | P := (ṗ ↔ v) |
This is a living scientific evidence compendium: an open, continually evolving collection of independent empirical research, formal theory, mathematical proofs, cross-disciplinary analyses, applications, critiques, and proposed falsifications. Every entry is included because it supports, refines, challenges, or attempts to falsify the theory.
Scientific theories are strengthened not only by evidence that confirms their predictions, but also by surviving attempts to falsify them. This compendium brings both together: independent evidence from researchers who were not testing DSRP and proposed counterexamples evaluated against the formal theory.
One counterexample is enough to falsify O-Theory. Until then, the question remains: do the same four structures organize everything from quantum systems to human thought?
Independent convergence is one of the strongest forms of scientific evidence because researchers arrive at the same conclusion while investigating different questions for different reasons.
The number is not the point. Researchers in different fields, studying different questions with different methods, repeatedly arrived at the same structural predictions—almost always without testing DSRP or using its language.
Try a different term or clear the filters.
This compendium began as the peer-reviewed literature review “A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition,” published in the Journal of Systems Thinking with 109 studies. That paper is the peer-reviewed foundation. What you see here is its living, continuously updated version . New studies are checked before they are added, and the collection now holds and keeps growing. Open any card to see what the researchers found, why it bears on DSRP, and where the original review discusses it, the fuller account.
The collection is updated continuously, so the citation carries the date you consulted it rather than a study count — the count changes weekly, and putting it in the reference would make the same collection look like a different work to everyone who cites it. To cite a single claim or study, use its own address: every one has a permanent link.
This is the adversarial half of the compendium. Where the evidence track asks what converges on DSRP, this one asks what would end it: a single organized phenomenon whose structure needs a fifth pattern, a ninth element, or a fifth structural dynamic. It holds written up from candidates across territories, and resolutions — the general answers those cases settle against. Every case is published whether it held or failed, including the ones still open.
Cite this rather than the evidence collection when the point is what survived attack. The two are separate works with separate addresses: one asks what converges on the theory, the other asks what would end it, and a reference to the first does not support a claim about the second. Case and resolution numbers change when the record is revised, so cite a case by its own permanent link rather than by number.
This collection is meant to keep growing. Send us a study, paper, book or critique that bears on DSRP, whether it supports the theory or cuts against it, and we will read it and decide whether it belongs.
Authors Leong et al.
Year 2023
Publisher Scientific Reports
Discipline Cognitive Science
Read it at the publisher 10.1038/s41598-023-44164-w
While it is generally accepted that holistic processing facilitates face recognition, recent studies suggest that poor recognition might also arise from imprecise perception of local features in the face. This study aimed to examine to what extent holistic and featural processing relates to individual differences in face recognition ability (FRA), during face learning (Experiment 1) and face recognition (Experiment 2). Participants performed two tasks: (1) The “Cambridge Face Memory Test-Chinese” which measured participants’ FRAs, and (2) an “old/new recognition memory test” encompassing whole faces (preserving holistic and featural processing) and faces revealed through a dynamic aperture (impairing holistic processing but preserving featural processing). Our results showed that participants recognised faces more accurately in conditions when holistic information was preserved, than when it is impaired. We also show that the better use of holistic processing during face learning and face recognition was associated with better FRAs. However, enhanced featural processing during recognition, but not during learning, was related to better FRAs. Together, our findings demonstrate that good face recognition depends on distinct roles played by holistic and featural processing at different stages of face recognition.
To measure how holistic (whole-based) versus featural (part-based) processing each contribute to face recognition.
Across part–whole and composite paradigms, participants showed the classic whole-part advantage (parts recognized better within the intact whole), with holistic-processing magnitude varying by individual and task.
A face part is recognized better inside the whole face than alone — the whole exceeds the sum of its parts.
If a face part is identified more accurately when embedded in the whole face than when shown in isolation, then the whole is perceptually more than the sum of its parts. Purpose: To measure how holistic (whole-based) versus featural (part-based) processing each contribute to face recognition. Finding: Across part–whole and composite paradigms, participants showed the classic whole-part advantage (parts recognized better within the intact whole), with holistic-processing magnitude varying by individual and task. [Added 2026-07-30 as new evidence beyond the original 109. DSRP structural basis: S (Whole-in-Part / emergence): the whole carries properties absent in the isolated parts.]
Patterns it shows S
Added 2026-07-30
How to cite this Leong et al. (2023). Holistic and featural processing's link to face recognition varies by individual and task. Scientific Reports.