The Axiogram - Part 2

Masterclass Part Two: Reading the Score Form and Bringing the Axiogram to Life

Part Two of the Axiogram Masterclass moves from the Axiogram itself to the Score Form, exploring where the numbers on the Axiogram come from and, more importantly, how the relationships between those numbers can deepen interpretation.

Art Ellis uses the profile of “Eduardo” to demonstrate how the scores are generated from the individual’s rankings in Parts One and Two of the HVP and their comparison with the axiological rankings. The session is not intended to teach participants how to manually score an HVP, but rather to provide a clearer understanding of the foundation behind the numbers that appear in HVP reports and how they can be interpreted.

Understanding the Score Form

Art begins with the three primary dimensional scores: Intrinsic (I), Extrinsic (E), and Systemic (S). Together, these contribute to the Differentiation (DIF) score, which provides an indication of the person's overall capacity to differentiate the world.

The session reinforces an important principle from Part One: lower scores represent stronger results, because they indicate greater proximity to the axiological standard.

The discussion then moves through several of the key scores generated from the Score Form:

• DIM: the proportionality between the three dimensions and an indication of how evenly the person sees the different dimensions.

• INT: the integration scores, which relate to the capacity to sort out what is important from what is not important, particularly in problem solving.

• DEI: dimensional integration, providing further insight into the balance between the dimensions and potential areas of concentration or focus.

• DIS: distortion, identifying instances where good and bad have been confused, or where items have been transposed.

• VQ: Value Quotient of the World, bringing together quantitative and qualitative information about the person's worldview.

Art also explains the distinction between quantitative and qualitative scores. The quantitative score indicates where a person has the capacity to function, while the qualitative score provides information about the quality with which that capacity is being used and can point toward potential for growth.

Looking Beyond Individual Numbers

A major theme of the session is that no single score should be interpreted in isolation. The value of the Score Form lies in the relationships between the numbers and the patterns they create.

For example, Eduardo demonstrates strong capacity in the Intrinsic and Extrinsic dimensions, with the Systemic dimension somewhat less clear. His integration scores show a similar pattern, suggesting particularly strong potential for sorting out what is important when dealing with people and practical situations, while systemic issues may require more concentration and focus.

The discussion then examines overvaluation and undervaluation, showing how these provide additional nuance. A strong dimensional score does not necessarily mean that the person has a neutral or balanced relationship with that dimension. The plus and minus scores can reveal tendencies such as overvaluing people or being more skeptical or disappointed about the practical and systemic aspects of the world.

Art repeatedly emphasizes that these interpretations are possibilities, not absolute descriptions of behaviour. As he explains, “People are too dynamic for that.” The profile provides tendencies and inclinations based on what the individual has presented, but interpretation ultimately needs to be explored with the person.

From Worldview to Self-View

The second half of the session examines Part Two of the HVP and the Self Quotient (SQ), comparing how Eduardo sees himself with how he sees the world.

The contrast between the two parts is particularly revealing. While the normative pattern is generally for people to see the world more clearly than themselves, Eduardo's Part Two shows a significant area of imbalance. His Extrinsic self-score of 24 stands out against his Intrinsic score of 14 and Systemic score of 8.

Art uses this pattern to explore the difference between understanding who I am, what I am, and what I ought to be. The systemic dimension is particularly clear within Eduardo's self-view, while his understanding of his practical role and place in the world is much less defined.

This creates a useful example of how the relationship between Parts One and Two can reveal dynamics that would not be apparent from looking at either part alone.

Key Takeaways

Part Two demonstrates how the Score Form provides the foundation for interpreting the Axiogram and how much more information can emerge when the scores are considered relationally rather than individually.

The central lesson is that interpretation is about moving from numbers, to patterns, to possibilities, and ultimately back to the person. The goal is not to place someone into a category or produce a fixed description, but to understand how they may be seeing the world, where their strengths lie, where there may be opportunities for growth, and how these dynamics are reflected in the relationship between their worldview and self-view.

As Art describes it, the work involves “translating those numbers back into a real person.” It is this process of bringing the numbers to life that makes the depth of the Hartman Value Profile particularly valuable.