Author: John A Challoner

Independent Mathematical Logician, Social Scientist and Systems Scientist. Author of "The Mathematics of Language and Thought".

Categories
03. How Needs and Contra-Needs Motivate Us

How Needs & Contra-Needs Motivate Us.

Variational Principles

Variational principles exist widely in the physical world. They state that a physical object, system, or event will behave in a way which minimises or, in some cases, maximises some physical quantity. The most famous of these is Fermat’s Least Time Principle which states that the path taken between two points by a ray of light is the path which takes least time.

Similar principles apply to human decision-making and behaviour. We will first attempt to satisfy the need which has greatest value to us, i.e., the need which is most pressing. Furthermore, we will attempt to satisfy it in a way which demands least use of personal resources or the resources of those close to us.

First Variational Principle – Pressing Needs

Behaviour is physical action or communication to satisfy our needs. It involves the application of resources available to us. Behaviour can be simple, i.e., directed towards a single need, or complex and directed towards several needs. In Maslow’s view, most behaviour is multi-motivated, i.e., determined by several needs rather than just one. For example, eating may satisfy one’s hunger, need for comfort, and need to socialise.

We tend to address our most pressing needs first, but priorities differ according to the individual and circumstances. The behaviours that we adopt contribute significantly to the perception of our personality, therefore.

Second Variational Principle – The Efficient Use of Resources

People aim to satisfy each personal need as efficiently as possible, i.e., in a way which yields the maximum benefit for the least expenditure of personal resources. For example, if a person walks across a park to a gate in the opposite corner he or she will do so in a straight line unless other needs are satisfied by not doing so. In this way our resources can be used to provide greatest satisfaction across all our needs.

The Role of Emotion in Decision-making

Many higher animals experience emotion and, in the human being, evolution has built on that foundation. Most psychologists now recognise that emotions are an integral part of the human reasoning and decision-making process. They are not, as so often portrayed, the enemy of reason. We may be able to make a logically or mathematically based decision in very simple circumstances, such as whether to buy 4 apples for a pound at one stall or five identical apples for a pound at another. However, the circumstances surrounding most decisions are far too complex for this. In such circumstances, it is emotions that motivate our behaviour. They are used to “tot up” the effects of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, i.e., those things which cause our needs to be satisfied or which cause harms we wish to avoid.

We experience several basic emotions, and they fall into two classes. Those associated with satisfiers are regarded as positive and those associated with contra-satisfiers are regarded as negative. Our decisions aim to improve our overall emotional state by increasing the former and reducing the latter. Note that it is satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, i.e., external causes, that are evaluated rather than our internal needs and contra-needs. So, for example, the presence of a contra-satisfier such as a disease, and the absence of a satisfier such as food will both contribute to a negative emotional state.

Our overall emotional state depends on whether the status of each satisfier or contra-satisfier is: absent; latent; precarious; or entrenched. Here, “latent” means capable of manifesting, for example when a satisfier is promised, or a contra-satisfier threatened. “Precarious” means present but insecure. “Entrenched” means present, solidly established, and unchangeable.

Emotions are experienced on a scale from mild or non-existent to strong or overwhelming, depending on the priority of the need or contra-need and the status of the satisfier or contra-satisfier. Most of the time our emotions are low key, for example a mild feeling of discontent, and we are capable of consciously verifying our decisions and making rational choices. These lower key emotions are used to “tot up” the predicted effects of our decisions before they are implemented. For example, if we decide to behave in an anti-social manner, then we are likely to predict social censure, which is of course a contra-satisfier. This will contribute to feelings of anxiety which may cause us to alter our decision.

However, when emotions are very strong or overwhelming, we experience stress. Hormones are released which prepare our bodies for swift action in the face of an immediate risk or opportunity and we respond almost entirely unconsciously. This is, of course, an inherited survival mechanism which, on average, enables us to survive and prosper when there is no time for the conscious verification of our decisions. It does, however, carry with it a strong risk of error.

When making more considered decisions about our behaviour we carry out a form of risk/benefit/cost assessment. In this context, “risk” means the likelihood that our behaviour will result in the anticipated benefits and/or dis-benefits. “Cost” is the value that we place on the resources used.

The “benefits” of any behaviour are reductions in negative emotions, such as fear and grief, and increases in positive emotions, such as happiness. These benefits are due to increases in the status of satisfiers and decreases in the status of contra-satisfiers. For example, a benefit results when access to food increases or when a risk of disease decreases.

Dis-benefits, on the other hand, are increases in negative emotions and decreases in positive emotions. They are due to decreases in the status of a satisfier or increases in the status of a contra-satisfier.

Benefits and dis-benefits can of course, cancel one another out and, depending on their relative magnitude, may yield a nett benefit, no overall benefit/dis-benefit, or a nett dis-benefit. The magnitude of benefits and dis-benefits are, in turn, determined by several factors related to needs and contra-needs which will be described in a future article.

Categories
02. Evidence in Favour of Free Will and the Consequences of its Denial

Evidence in Favour of Free Will and the Consequences of its Denial

Libet’s Experiments

The experiments carried out in the 1970’s by the American neuroscientist, Benjamin Libet (1916 -2007), are often cited as evidence that we do not have free will. Libet found that unconscious electrical activity occurred in the brain before we became aware of a decision to act. Significantly, however, he also found that the conscious mind was able to veto those unconscious decisions. In fact, he regarded his findings as compatible with, but not, of course, proof of the existence of free will.

Social Norms

Despite the longstanding scientific and philosophical debate about free will, every society assumes that we do have it and are, therefore, personally responsible for our actions. Nowhere can we stand before a judge, admit to malfeasance, and successfully argue that we are guiltless because determinism made it inevitable. Nor can we expect to avoid censure if we claim the same after behaving anti-socially. The assumption of free will is a cultural universal. Without it, no-one would take responsibility for their actions or be held accountable for them, and society would very quickly collapse. The assumption that we have free will creates societies in which some of us have the luxury to doubt it.

Support for the existence of free will comes from the fact that our social and psychological nature has evolved over millions of years and is very unlikely to have evolved in a way that contradicts reality.

Personal Wellbeing

For the individual, accepting free will means accepting that we have some power to change ourselves and the world around us. Because we are conscious creatures and aware of ourselves, we can change ourselves through a process of internal feedback. It would enable us to criticize our own attitudes and behaviour and try to control or modify them. Furthermore, most of us have consciences which reward or punish us, psychologically, for our actions.

On the other hand, the denial of free will can lead to a state of powerlessness and despondency and, ultimately, to mental ill health. Research in 1979, by Seligman et al, has also shown a significant relationship between helplessness and depression. Accepting free will is the mentally healthy option, therefore.

Again, our psychological nature has also evolved over millions of years and, it too is very unlikely to contradict reality.

Anti-entropic behaviour

Whether or not the universe is deterministic, we are presented with a series of seemingly random events, some of which present a risk, some of which present an opportunity but most of which are neutral. However, we are not entirely the victims of random events and merely blowing about like leaves in the wind. Rather, the way in which we respond to them affects the outcome. We have needs which give us a predisposition to act when an opportunity or risk arises. In this way we steer our surroundings from a state of relative chaos and unpredictability to a state of greater organisation and predictability. Our anti-entropic behaviour tends to create organisation and predictability whilst everything around us tends to destroy it. This strongly suggests that the universe is non-deterministic and that we have free will.

Consequences of the Denial of Free Will

None of this evidence proves that we have free will, of course. There is no definitive evidence one way or the other. However, the denial of free will does have consequences.

Recently, there has been a tendency among scientists to favour the determinist view which holds that the world, including the decisions we make, are predetermined and beyond our individual control. We do not know whether the universe is deterministic or not. Again, there is no irrefutable evidence one way or the other. However, we do have opinions on the matter. Although most scientists and philosophers try hard to be objective, they are still subject to unconscious beliefs, biases, and attitudes. Although probably more resistant, they are still exposed to the Zeitgeist, vested interests, peer group pressure, cultural influence and groupthink.

The deterministic view may, therefore, be gaining traction for cultural rather than scientific reasons. For example, it may be a reaction against Christian beliefs, which include the divine nature of free will. It may be because determinism benefits the status quo and an inequitable consumer economy, as I will describe below. Or it may be a combination of such factors. If so, then we should consider who may benefit and who may not.

In 2003, the sociologists Colin Barnes and Geof Mercer found that a sense of powerlessness is most likely to be experienced when there is a sharp divide between those wielding power and decision-making authority and those of subordinate status. The article below gives several practical examples:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/why-do-so-many-americans-feel-powerless

Significantly, in 1975, the psychologist, Martin Seligman, developed the theory of learned helplessness, whereby people who feel unable to exert some control over their lives cease trying to do so. Other research has found that a sense of powerlessness is closely correlated with acceptance and justification of the status quo.

In summary, determinism implies a lack of free will. Accepting a lack of free will gives one a sense of powerlessness. A sense of powerlessness means that one is more accepting of the status quo and less likely to strive for change. So, those who benefit from a belief in determinism are those who benefit from the status quo.

If we accept the determinist argument and behave as though we have no free will then we will not make the effort to improve ourselves or our society. If we do behave as though we have free will and, rightly or wrongly, try to improve matters, then there is no risk of having thrown away something of enormous value due to a belief which may have been propagated in the interests of a few.

Categories
01. Do We have Free Will?

Do We Have Free Will?

Introduction

Free will is the idea that we can influence the direction that our lives and those of others will take by the choices that we make. Whether we have free will or whether we live in a world in which our fate is predetermined is one of the unresolved questions of science and philosophy. What we believe to be the answer to this question has profound implications for our personal wellbeing and that of society. I will, therefore, begin this series of articles with a discussion of whether we have free will.

Causality and Determinism

Causality relies on objects and events occupying a region of space-time so that the beginning of one, the cause, precedes the beginning of another, the effect. The region of space-time occupied by the cause must also contain the beginning of the effect.

A deterministic universe is one in which everything, including events and physical objects, has a cause. This implies that everything can be traced back to one original cause, the big bang, and that everything which subsequently occurred, including our decisions, was predetermined at that time.

Acausality and Indeterminism

Not everything in the universe has a cause. Space, time, and the laws of the universe are thought to have originated with the big bang. Thus, the big bang cannot be said to have had a cause. Some other mechanism may have been in play but, although we do not know what, it was certainly not causality.

There are other events which appear to be acausal. The radioactive decay of atoms and the appearance of virtual particles seem to occur at random, without any apparent cause. It may be that these events do result from some, yet unidentified, mechanism, but if anything “beyond” space-time is involved then, in the same way as the big bang, this mechanism is acausal.

Some of these acausal events interact with existing particles creating very small changes. As time passes, these changes can propagate and become magnified to such an extent that circumstances after the interaction are fundamentally different to those which might have prevailed without it. Furthermore, there will be infinitely many consequences of acausal events propagating through the universe. If they are truly acausal, then the result will be a probabilistic and unpredictable universe.

There would be no simple rules from which the state of the universe could be derived. Rather, such rules would be at least as complex as the universe itself. This, in turn, implies either that there is some entity as complex as the universe capable of holding those rules or that the rules and the universe are one and the same thing. The latter is, of course, the simpler and more likely explanation.

So, the existence of acausal events would imply that the universe was not predetermined by the Big Bang but rather by the most recent acausal event of any significance.

Implications

Determinism suggests that, after the point in time called “now”, the state of the universe is already mapped out and may even pre-exist. Indeterminism, on the other hand, implies that the future is uncertain or probabilistic, and, as it becomes ever more remote, increasingly so. Thus, knowing the situation at any point in time, we could only predict the future with reasonable accuracy a very short time ahead.

We cannot visit the future to know whether determinism or indeterminism is correct.  However, if the former, then we are following a path already mapped out and have no free will. On the other hand, if the future is probabilistic and only becomes certain as “now” progresses through time, then it is possible that we do have free will.

There is no proof one way or the other.  However, a popular acceptance of determinism has implications for us as individuals and for society. These include a fatalist attitude and a belief that we are powerless in the face of humanity’s difficulties. They also include a denial of personal responsibility for our actions and the damage that this might cause to society.

In my next post, I will discuss the evidence in favour of free will and expand on the consequences of its denial.

Categories
09. Improving our Knowledge of Human Nature

Improving Our Knowledge of Human Nature

By “our knowledge of human nature”, I mean our communal knowledge rather than our individual knowledge. Most communal knowledge is now held on the internet and provided, by specialists in a particular field, for individuals to learn, if they so wish.

However, the problem with specialisation is, perhaps, best described by the following irreverent, but amusing, adage:

“Q. What is the difference between a scientist and an engineer? A. A scientist knows a lot about a little, and learns more and more about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing. An engineer knows a little about a lot, and learns less and less about more and more, until he knows nothing about everything.”

Research has shown that there may be some truth in this adage. When writing papers, scientists refer to supporting information from other papers, i.e., they make citations. The Eigenfactor Project at the University of Washington, (http://eigenfactor.org/about.php), has carried out research showing the extent to which researchers in one discipline cite work from those in another. The results can be seen as an elegant diagram at http://well-formed.eigenfactor.org/radial.html. Each line represents a citation and, where it is between two fields, it is cross disciplinary. This diagram shows little cross disciplinary citation by researchers in the fields of psychology and economics. If true, this does not bode well for our understanding of human nature, as I will attempt to explain below.

The ancient Indian religion, Jainism, holds that physical objects and events are infinite in their qualities and, so, cannot be fully understood by the finite human mind. Thus, any individual’s understanding of an object or event is from his perspective or point of view. The latter is limited, and he cannot, therefore, have a full understanding. Today we refer to this concept as “perspectivism”.

Consider, for example, a helix. When viewed from an end-on perspective it appears to be a circle. When viewed from a side-on perspective it appears to be a wave. This is demonstrated by the diagram below.

Courtesy: Commons.wikimedia.org

Only the helix can generate both the circle and the wave. Now imagine that the circle and wave are both theories in different fields of knowledge. When the two theories are compared, they may appear to be contradictory or unrelated unless one is able to recognise that both are special examples of a third more general theory.

Knowledge helps us to survive and procreate. We use it to avoid threats and to seize opportunities. It is likely, therefore, that it is a pragmatic representation of reality. As the science of physics competently demonstrates, reality has structure. By “structure”, I do not mean the way in which things can be categorised like books in a library, e.g., history, geography, thrillers, etc. Rather, I mean “governed by the laws of nature”. However, just like the helix, these laws present themselves to us in different ways depending on the viewpoint of the observer.

I would argue that, to improve our knowledge of human nature, we need more generalists, that is, people who can research existing knowledge in several specialist disciplines, who can perceive the underlying truths that unite them, and who can propose new hypotheses for specialists to investigate. As both the arts and science are human activities, it may even be possible to draw cross references between subjects as diverse as these. This more general approach would have the following advantages.

It is well established that all knowledge which is true is also consistent. One item of true knowledge cannot contradict any other. If we do not consider multiple disciplines, then the risk is that specialists may pursue hypotheses which contradict theories well proven elsewhere.

By theorising from a single perspective, the opportunity to identify more fundamental truths of human nature can be missed. In previous articles, I have shown that the second law of thermodynamics has a very significant bearing on our behaviour. I have also shown that feedback loops have a major part to play. Both are concepts from the science of physics.

An understanding of the way that fundamental truths are structured can also reveal new knowledge. From my work in epistemology and symbolic logic, it appears that our knowledge has a binary structure but that we often overlook one side of the coin. For example, we have needs and their opposite, contra-needs. Although we are intuitively aware of the latter they have not previously been formally recognised. Try “contra-needs” and “opposite of human needs” and “needs antonym” in your search engine.

This concludes the series of articles on knowledge, beliefs, and predispositions. In my next post, I begin a series on human decision making and behaviour.

Categories
08. Knowledge and Utility

Knowledge and Utility

Clearly, it is desirable for knowledge to be as close to objective reality as possible. However, there are practical limits on our ability to achieve this, many of which were explained in previous articles.

This is not something that I advocate, but it is an undeniable fact that people sometimes promote beliefs that are not necessarily true, beneficial to society or to the environment. Rather such beliefs may merely satisfy the personal needs of those who promote them. So long as we have individual volition, rather than a selfless hive mentality, this will always be the case. Again, I do not advocate the latter. Human success is based on maintaining a delicate balance between individuality and collectivism.

There are numerous examples of harmful beliefs in religion, commerce, and politics. They can cause immediate harm or, whilst having a short-term benefit, may be unsustainable in the longer term. Even scientists can sometimes prevaricate if they believe the paradigm on which their status or livelihood depends is at stake. Treating knowledge in this way is an inevitable aspect of human nature that we must learn to accept and manage.

The best that we are capable of achieving is schemata, memeplexes and paradigms that are consistent and have maximum utility. That is: schemata which optimise the individual’s chances of survival and procreation; memeplexes which do the same for society as well as satisfying its members individual needs; and paradigms which accurately represent any known objective truths, and which accurately predict phenomena. Here, the word “utility” refers to Utilitarianism, a philosophy founded by Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832). Utility is the ability of things to act as satisfiers of our needs or to prevent contra-satisfiers. Buddhist belief, for example, includes acting in a way which maximises utility, rather than acting solely out of kindness. This implies that some forms of behaviour must be opposed.

It is important to be critical of the knowledge we are presented with. It is also important to be critical of knowledge and beliefs we already hold, including unconscious ones. This can be achieved by asking the following questions of any item:

  • Is it consistent with everything else I know?
  • Is it consistent with other information I can research?
  • Is there evidence to support or refute it?
  • How reliable is its source?
  • What are the motives of the individual or group promoting it?
  • Would accepting it satisfy its advocate’s needs to my detriment, to the detriment of society, or to the detriment of the environment?
  • What would be my motives in accepting it?
  • Would accepting it satisfy my personal needs?
  • If so, does this over-ride my need for truth?

It is also important to be critical of our personal beliefs and attitudes, including those that we are not necessarily aware of. We can unearth them by questioning our actions as follows:

  • What need made me want to do that?
  • What belief or attitude made me choose that satisfier?

The more frequently we identify an unconscious belief or attitude in this way, the more likely it is that we hold it. However, we all carry a self-image and will vigorously defend it using various strategies described by Bartlett. For example, we may alter details, shift emphasis, include rationalisations, and make cultural alterations.  Some of the beliefs that we unearth may come as an unpleasant surprise, therefore. To challenge them, it is necessary to develop a degree of objectivity about oneself and to recognise that such beliefs and attitudes are an inevitable aspect of human nature.

Unconsciously held beliefs and attitudes can be positive, of course, but are not necessarily so. Having unearthed one, it is, therefore, sensible to question what type of satisfier it is. For example:

  • Is it a singular or synergistic satisfier that is benefitting me?
  • Is it an inhibiting or pseudo-satisfier that is not benefitting me?
  • Is it a violator that is causing me harm?

We can also assess whether it is harmful to the environment or those around us and for this I would refer the reader to a future article on ethics.

Categories
07. Hereditary Predispositions, Personality and Beliefs

Hereditary Predispositions, Personality, and Beliefs

It is well established that heredity influences personality. Although we all share 99% of the human genome, 1% is the variable genome that marks us out as individuals. Some of this variable genome influences our brains and thinking or cognitive functions. Were this not the case then our large brains and our social behaviour would not have evolved. Studies of twins suggest that identical twins, who share the same variable genome, also share 50% of the same personality traits. On the other hand, fraternal twins, whose variable genome differs, share only about 20%. We are a social species, and our personality affects our chances of survival and reproduction. It seems likely, therefore, that those genes which affect personality are subject to natural selection.

But what is personality? There are many models, all of which are simplifications, but currently the one most widely used and accepted is the Big Five Model. This comprises five traits each of which lies on a scale from low to high. They are:

  • Agreeableness, which comprises pro-social behaviours such as trust, kindness, and affection;
  • Conscientiousness, or a tendency to be responsible, hard-working, thoughtful, committed to goals, and to adhere to the rules;
  • Extroversion, which includes stimulus seeking behaviour such as sociability and talkativeness, together with excitability and assertiveness;
  • Neuroticism. A person with a high level of this trait has a tendency towards sadness, worry, and emotional instability; and
  • Openness, or abstract thinking, creativity, and a willingness to try new things.

You can take a free Big 5 personality test at https://bigfive-test.com/.

It has been shown that these traits are not each influenced by a single gene but rather by many. Depression, for example, is thought to be influenced by around a thousand. The number of relevant genes that a person has affects the extent to which they may exhibit the trait. In a similar way to tosses of a coin, probability theory implies that most of us will be somewhere in the middle of the scale with just a few close to the low or high extreme.

It can be seen from their descriptions that what are referred to as “personality traits” are, in fact, behavioural traits, i.e., repetitive patterns of behaviour which characterise an individual. The focus of research has been on behaviour for the simple reason that it is observable. However, behaviour is caused by a combination of our needs, contra-needs, and beliefs about satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, some of which are unconscious. So, it is likely that heredity influences these latter causes rather than impacting directly on behaviour.

For example, heredity may influence the strengths and relative priorities of our needs and contra-needs. It may also predispose us to certain beliefs. That is, heredity does not create the belief but rather a predisposition to accept beliefs which are consistent with it. Depending on environmental factors such as upbringing, culture, role models, socialisation, traumatic experiences, etc., we may or may not come to hold a belief consistent with our predisposition and, thus, display a particular personality trait.

The priorities and beliefs which affect personality form schemata. They can be established early in life and be resistant to change, but are not cast in tablets of stone. Environmental factors can influence us at any stage in life, and either alter our personalities or reinforce them.

A hereditary predisposition and an environmental trigger can also cause a personality disorder to develop. Personality disorders are repetitive patterns of behaviour which stray too far from the socially acceptable norm. In practice, this means personality traits which are unusual by virtue of being high or low on their respective scale. In turn, this means extreme beliefs about satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, unusual strengths or weakness of needs/contra-needs, or unusual ways of prioritising them. In some cases, this can lead to behaviours that are socially harmful.

Categories
06. Why Consistency of Knowledge is Important

Why Consistency of Knowledge is Important

Consistency within Personal Schemata

Schemata, paradigms, and memes are essential references when we are motivated to act and, together with unsatisfied needs, govern our behaviour. When all the information we have access to is consistent, we can make quick and easy decisions. Inconsistencies on the other hand result in ambiguities, confusion, and uncertainty.

It is perfectly possible to hold information deemed to be “false” or “uncertain” if its probability is flagged accordingly. However, the less certain the information, the more cognitive processing needed to arrive at a decision, and the more delayed that decision will be. In the natural world, delaying a decision to act can reduce our chances of survival. Therefore, we tend to regard information as being either true or false.

The simple propositions “Peter likes Jane” and “Peter does not like Jane” contradict one another and are therefore inconsistent. To give another example, “Dogs have wings” is inconsistent with the image of dogs that most of us hold. Usually, however, inconsistencies are far more complex than these examples suggest, and complex reasoning is often needed to reveal them. They can also be detected by the unconscious mind, which gives us a sense that “there is something wrong”. However, the process involved in this is unknown.

Unresolved contradictions make us more vulnerable. They can lead to uncertainty, anxiety, stress, and, in the extreme, mental ill-health. Thus, internal consistency of the information we hold can be regarded as a basic need. In turn, this need drives us to understand the world in which we exist. It is, quite simply, a survival mechanism.

Consistency between Personal Schemata and Social Memes

Every society has a core social ethic. In large complex societies, this is often based on its main religion, albeit, in some cases, its historical religion. In the West we have the Christian Ethic, in China the Confucian Ethic, and in the Middle East obedience to the will of God. This core social ethic is not necessarily stated explicitly and can be intangible. However, it is the basis of our social norms and values, and we learn of it through them. This process establishes our External Ethical Schema, i.e., our understanding of why society holds some things to be good and others to be bad. Errors of interpretation do, of course, occur and for this reason our External Ethical Schema can differ from the actual social ethic.

We also develop an Internal Ethical Schema, i.e., our personal understanding of what is good, what is bad, and why. This is equivalent to our super-ego or conscience. However, it is not necessarily the same as our External Ethical Schema for the following reasons:

  1. Differences of opinion between oneself and society as to what is good or bad. We can find ourselves in situations where it is necessary to hold a particular belief to satisfy our basic needs even though this may be inconsistent with objective reality, for example, if we live in a dogmatic and authoritarian society.
  2. Differences in the way that individuals balance personal and social interests.
  3. Behavioural predispositions (see next article).
  4. Effort after Meaning when relearning the social ethic in later life, for example after migration or when changing jobs.

There can, therefore, be contradictions between the beliefs that we hold, and the beliefs acceptable to a group or society to which we belong. This too can cause stress, anxiety, and in extreme cases, mental illness, as we struggle to reconcile the need for internal consistency with those for social acceptance, positive regard, and even our existence needs.

Consistency between Social Memes

Simpler societies with relatively small populations tended to be local monocultures. One had three options: accept the prevailing values, norms and beliefs and be accepted by others; not accept them and be rejected; or hide one’s personal beliefs and struggle with the inconsistency.

In a more complex society, we can belong to several groups each of which establishes a different External Ethical Schema. In belonging to these groups, we adopt different roles, and the different schemata guide our behaviour. Inconsistencies between them can, of course, arise and it is notable that many occur in connection with employment. We have a range of strategies to deal with those inconsistencies but key among them is the development of a clear Internal Ethical Schema and following it. Further guidance can be found here:

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/consistency-and-ethics/

In a more complex society, there is also wide variety of groups to which an individual may belong. People are attracted to groups they feel may satisfy their needs and this also applies to the need for inner consistency. Thus, people with a particular view will join others with the same or similar views and be able to hold that view whilst at the same time being socially accepted. In this way inconsistency is avoided. However, belonging to such a group does have the effect of reinforcing the beliefs that individuals share, and ideologies can, therefore, develop.

Categories
Admin

Event date change – Ask the Experts: Live discussion on consciousness

This upcoming online event is now being postponed to Thursday 9 December 2021, 5.30pm to 6.30pm. 

Chaired by Sussex alumna, BBC broadcaster and Psychology Visiting Professor, Claudia Hammond. The panel includes:

  • Dr Alexa Morcom, Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience 
  • Anil Seth, Professor of Cognitive & Computational Neuroscience, and Sussex alumnus 
  • Jamie Ward, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience 

Register at:

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/alumni/news-events/events?id=56585&amp%3bid=56585
Categories
Admin

Ask the Experts: Live discussion on consciousness

Thursday 2 December 17:30 until 18:30

This is a free online event hosted by the University of Sussex

Details and registration at: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/alumni/news-events/events?id=56585&amp%3bid=56585

Categories
05. Schemata, Memes and Paradigms (Part 2)

Schemata, Memes and Paradigms (2)

The words “schemata”, “memeplexes”, and “paradigms” describe clusters of mental information in different contexts. Schemata are held by an individual, memeplexes held by a society and paradigms held by a group of scientists.  Unsurprisingly, therefore, the processes associated with them have many features in common. They evolve with time but are resistant to change until a crisis occurs and they must be revised. They generally evolve in a direction which leads to greater success for the individual or community.

Factors which govern the success of a schema, memeplex, or paradigm are as follows:

  1. It must satisfy our biological, social, and psychological needs.
  2. It must satisfactorily reflect the real world, thereby enabling us to take decisions which are in our best interests.
  3. The information it contains must be consistent. For example, “The cheese on the floor is always eaten” is consistent with “There is a mouse in the house”. However, “The cheese on the floor is never eaten” is not. A degree of inconsistency can be acceptable because the benefits of the schema, memeplex or paradigm outweigh the effort of revising it. We have developed social and psychological mechanisms for dealing with such inconsistencies. For example, in the case of paradigms and memeplexes, the silencing or discrediting of dissenters. In the case of schemata, rationalisation, and denial. However, if sufficient inconsistencies accumulate, then the cluster of information will collapse.

Beliefs can also act as satisfiers. They may, for example, enable us to form better relationships with members of our community. To cite another example, a belief in a god can provide a feeling of safety in an unsafe world. However, our beliefs are often a result of socialisation and, as such, we may not be consciously aware of them. They also lie on Manfred MaxNeef’s scale. They can be: synergistic satisfiers which satisfy several needs; singular satisfiers which satisfy just one need; inhibiting satisfiers which prevent the satisfaction of other needs; pseudo-satisfiers which merely claim to satisfy a need; or violators which, in practice, hinder the satisfaction of a need.

An example of a belief which acts as a violator is “false consciousness”. This term was coined by Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895) to describe the way in which a subordinate social group can willingly adopt, to their detriment, the ideology of a dominant group.

Thus, it is not necessarily the truth of information which is of sole importance to people, but rather a consistent combination of information some of which is true and some of which may not be but which, nevertheless, satisfies our social and psychological needs. The implication is, of course, that we should not be surprised if others disagree with us even if this disagreement seems to be irrational, counter-factual, or unreasonable.