Poles and Validity

How do you get a client to validate that their new idea for action is a good one? You can of course get them to think about it from various angles but what about finding out what's missing are there any tools for that?
The areas which need investigation are those adjectives and indeed nouns that describe human behaviour, good, bad, controlled, flexible,ordered and chaotic.

Any of these words have an opposite, so for good bad, for ordered chaotic. The reason for this is on say good and bad this covers the spectrum of things we should but don't naturally do,ie good and those things we want to do but shouldn't. In short good and bad is the spectrum of actions that we would like to see ourselves doing in the world.

So by our definition we can already see that there is a desire to avoid the good and do the bad, if there wasn't we wouldn't need such words. As such a clients life must have adequate plans for both sides realising they have desires and indeed contrary desires in each camp. Whilst it is true you can with an inordinate amount of effort deny one side, deny the bad and profess you are a person that shall only do good. There is with such a brittle and inhuman model a very real chance that this will end in a calamitus breakdown .
The point is that in these human defined scope words we have investment and need in both sides, the need for order and the need for spontanaeity. Human excellence therefore is the tension between these poles to allow someone to excel on one pole and on its contradiction

An example of this might be someones position on order and chaos. You can seek to control your life to a very high degree but people in your life will resent trying to be controlled, will baulk at your shackels and chaos will ensue, again the attempt to exclude one side of the polarity leads to disaster.

As Scott of the Antarctic once said "respect the poles".