Author: John A Challoner

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

Categories
39. Reactions to Dark Leadership

Reactions to Dark Leadership

In every nation or organisation, leaders with dark personality traits, i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, or Machiavellianism, are more likely to rise to power than others. The primary interest of leaders with these traits is self-interest, rather than the interest of members of the nation or organisation that they lead. This frees them from ethical constraints when competing for leadership positions. It also frees them from the same constraints when determining the actions of their nation or organisation.

The reactions of members of the nation or organisation to dark leadership are as follows (Challoner, 2024).

  • They can support the leader. This involves entering into an informal contract with him or her to provide support and assistance in return for the benefits of delegated power.
  • They can practice a psychological defence mechanism such as denial. That is a failure to acknowledge that the leader has dark personality traits, despite evidence to the contrary.
  • They can avoid the leader by, for example, emigrating to another nation or joining another organisation. This is also, a psychological defence mechanism.
  • They can oppose the leader. However, this brings with it the risk of contra-satisfiers such as coercion, threats, or punishments.

The relative proportions of people who react in these ways depends on the culture of the nation or organisation. So, for example, if a culture regards the leader’s behaviour as normal or acceptable, the proportion that support him or her will be greater than in a culture that does not.

However, the greater the proportion of the population that support a dark leader, the lower the proportion that opposes him or her, and the more overt and extreme his or her behaviour will be. Furthermore, if they die or are deposed, it is more likely that another dark leader will take their place. On the other hand, the greater the opposition to a dark leader, the less overt and extreme his or her behaviour. However, the greater the tendency for denial and avoidance. So, dark leadership can still exist in nations and organisations that generally oppose it.

The English philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar’s Transformational Model of Social Activity (TMSA) recognises that society has two main strands: (a) the network of relationships and interactions between individuals and groups that forms the structure of society and is the subject of sociology; and (b) the individual human volition or agency that is the subject of psychology (Collier, 1994). A similar model, proposed by the English Sociologist, Margaret Archer, comprises three strands: Structure, Culture and Agency (Archer, 1995). In both models there is a feedback process in which society enculturates individuals and individuals enculture society. That is, society forms the individual’s role, values, norms, and beliefs through the processes of socialisation, social learning, cultural manipulation, etc. After a time delay and, sometimes, after alteration, individuals then propagate social structure along with their values, norms, and beliefs, into society. This process is continuously ongoing. Although it can result in social change, it is also possible for society to become trapped in a positive feedback loop in which, for example, a population’s reaction to dark leadership becomes ever more biassed towards support or opposition.

Examples are given in Daren Acemoglu and James A Robinson’s excellent and well researched book, “Why Nations Fail”. This book focuses on extractive, as opposed to inclusive institutions. That is, those institutions that extract wealth from a society for the benefit of a minority or external agents, as opposed to those that share it more equitably within the society. Institutions are groups or organisations that have values, norms, and beliefs. They also have a specific function in society, e.g., water supply or policing. So, an institution comprises both culture and structure. In much the same way as Bhaskar and Archer, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that there is a feedback loop between institutions and individuals that can trap a society in an extractive or an inclusive mode. They refer to the former as a vicious circle and the latter as a virtuous one.

However, extraction vs. inclusive institutions are just one example of vicious vs. virtuous circles. Other examples include: imperialism vs. respect for other nations; war vs. peaceful co-existence; corruption vs. integrity; elitism vs. egalitarianism; and extreme economic inequality vs. its alternative. Many nations and organisations currently behave in the former ways, and I will leave the reader to decide which. However, this behaviour is ultimately a result of support for dark leadership and the vicious circle that it creates. Pre-existing social structures, values, norms, and beliefs that allow these behaviours to flourish are learnt by individuals who, in turn, propagate them unaltered.

So, to avoid extraction, imperialism, war, corruption, extreme economic inequality, etc., it is necessary to alter the culture from one that supports it to one that opposes it. That change can be accomplished by demonstrating to those who support dark leadership that there is a better way to satisfy their needs. This, of course, means the provision of real opportunities for them to do so. In this way, the social structures, values, norms, and beliefs that prevent extraction, etc. from flourishing will be learnt and propagated, and a virtuous circle will be established. There will, of course, be resistance by established vested interests. So, the process will be a slow one requiring much care, patience, and persistence.

References

Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A., 2012, “Why Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty”. London, Profile Books.

Archer, M., 1995. “Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Challoner, J.A., 2024. “A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology Ecology and Evolution (Parts 1, 2 & 3) ”. https://rationalunderstanding.com/my-books/

Collier, A. 1994. “Critical Realism. An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy.” Verso, London, UK. ISBN 0-86091-437-2.

Categories
38. A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology, Ecology and Evolution Part 3

A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology, Ecology, & Evolution (Part 3)

This paper is open access and can be downloaded free of charge in pdf format at https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#theory-of-society-3

Part 1 of this series of papers focussed largely on the principles of systems, ecology, and evolution to describe the ways in which individuals and organisations of all types interact, and so, create the structure of society. That is, how they exchange satisfiers and contra-satisfiers; satisfiers being those things that increase the level of satisfaction of our needs, and contra-satisfiers those things that decrease their level of satisfaction. However, Part 1 did not account for the choices that we make in the ways that we interact.

Human needs motivate our behaviour, but beliefs determine what form that behaviour takes. Although needs are fundamental to everything that has a function, beliefs are an emergent property of humanity, and a consequence of our ability to manipulate information and our highly social nature. However, beliefs can be true, or they can be false. In observing reality, we make mistakes and frequently distort it to satisfy our needs or avoid our contra-needs.

Part 3 will, therefore, discuss the psychological and social psychological aspects of our nature, particularly the beliefs, psychological defence mechanisms, and their socio-cultural reinforcement, that lead to our choices.

Categories
37. A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems Psychology Ecology and Evolution Part 2 Uncategorized

A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology, Ecology and Evolution (Part 2)

This paper is open access and can be downloaded free of charge in pdf format at https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#theory-of-society-2

In this part, the work of the English philosopher of science, Roy Bhaskar (1944 – 2014), and the English sociologist, Margaret Archer (1943 – 2023), is described and commented upon. Bhaskar’s contribution to the theory of society was twofold. Firstly, his “transcendental realism” dealt with the nature of science in general, and secondly, his “critical naturalism” with the social sciences in particular. The two terms were later conflated by his followers into “critical realism”, the philosophy of science of which he is now regarded as the founder. His transcendental realism is consistent with the author’s “Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective”. The latter was derived independently, largely from work on symbolic logic. However, Bhaskar also provides further insights that will be described in the paper. His work can be regarded as falling within the discipline of systems science, although Bhaskar makes little reference to systems. Regarding Bhaskar’s critical naturalism, I generally agree with this. However, there are details on which we diverge that will also be described. Archer’s main contributions to the theory of society were her explanations of social morphogenesis and reflexivity, both of which are also described and commented upon.

Categories
06. Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective

Systems Theory from A Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective Updated

This paper, is available for download in pdf form at https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#Systems-Theory-from-a-Cognitive-and-Physicalist-Perspective

It was originally published in January, 2023, has been updated to include observations from:

  • “A Conceptual Framework for General System Theory”, John A. Challoner, March, 2024.
  • “Different Interpretations of Systems Terms” sent to the Research towards a General Systems Theory SIG of the International Society for the Systems Sciences’ in April, 2024.
  • “The Mathematics of Language and Thought”, John A. Challoner, 2021.

The paper discusses systems theory from a cognitive and physicalist perspective. The cognitive perspective holds that we are our minds and cannot escape the constraints imposed by their biology and evolutionary history. Nevertheless, human cognition is a reasonably accurate representation of reality. Physicalism holds that space-time comprises the whole of reality and that everything, including abstract concepts and information, exists within it.

From this perspective, conceptual and theoretical frameworks for systems theory are proposed and described. Concepts include: the importance of structure; the nature of relationships, causality, and physical laws; and the significance of recursion, hierarchy, holism, and emergence. Human cognitive factors are also discussed, including: their limitations; the nature of information and language; and the search for knowledge in a world of complexity and apparent disorder.

The paper includes the implications of this perspective for General System Theory and Social Systems Theory, suggesting further work to advance those disciplines.

Categories
21. Socio-culturally Reinforced Psychological Defense Mechanisms

Socio-Culturally Reinforced Psychological Defense Mechanisms

Introduction

In this article, I discuss the reasons for our tolerance of leaders with dark personality traits, our tolerance of extreme economic inequality, and our inability to tackle the threats of climate change and biodiversity loss.

Why, instead of tackling these major issues, do we put so much effort into comparatively minor ones? The explanation lies in how socio-cultural attitudes are formed. These attitudes are a set of apparent beliefs, values, and practices outwardly expressed by a group of people. They have a strong influence on our behaviour but are not necessarily rational. Rather they have a strong emotional basis founded on our psychological defence mechanisms.

Psychological defence mechanisms were first identified by the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. They were later developed by his daughter, Anna Freud, who published her work in the 1936 book, “The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence”. Essentially, these mechanisms protect us from anxieties brought about by contra-satisfiers, i.e., those external things that reduce the level of satisfaction of our needs. This is especially the case for those contra-satisfiers over which we feel we have no control. Thus, for example, we may deal with the anxiety of public speaking by avoiding it.

The purpose of anxiety is to motivate us to deal with its cause. However, there are times when we are powerless to do so. Defence mechanisms provide a means of escaping ongoing anxiety in the interest of our mental wellbeing. The Freuds were, of course, psychotherapists and so their principal focus was on self-induced anxiety. However, anxieties can also be brought about by external causes and the same defence mechanisms can be used to allay them. It is on the latter that I will focus. Although the Freuds’ explanation of the processes behind these defence mechanisms is no longer widely accepted, the mechanisms themselves have stood the test of time, and have been expanded upon by subsequent psychologists.

Defence mechanisms are personal rather than social, and their use varies from individual to individual. They can be broadly categorized, but in practice, they can be partially of one type and partially of another. Furthermore, an individual can use several mechanisms to address a single potential cause of anxiety.

Defence mechanisms are socio-culturally reinforced. When a common circumstance results in contra-satisfiers for a group of people, their defence mechanisms are strengthened by social interaction. The actual contra-satisfier experienced may differ from individual to individual. What is important is that all individuals suffer a contra-satisfier in one form or another, feel powerless to prevent it, and, without some form of psychological defence, would suffer ongoing anxiety.

Methods of Reinforcement

There are several ways in which socio-cultural reinforcement can occur. These can be vertical, i.e., between senior and junior individuals in a hierarchy, or they can be horizontal, i.e., between peers. The main methods are as follows.

Upbringing (Vertical) is the most powerful means of socio-cultural reinforcement. Children rely on their parents and teachers for their initial worldview and, although this can change in later life, it is highly resistant to doing so.

Propaganda (Vertical) is the provision of information, particularly of a biased or misleading nature, to promote the interests of an individual or group. It can include the provision of ready-made rationales to explain a given situation.

Coercion (Vertical) involves a more powerful individual or group persuading a less powerful one to comply with their wishes by using force or threats. This can be the threat or imposition of a contra-satisfier or the threat of denial of a satisfier.

Media & Advertising (Vertical and Horizontal) are a relatively modern and very powerful means of creating socio-cultural attitudes. Normally, they are focussed on selling a particular product or ideology, but in doing so, they often portray the product or ideology as contributing to an ideal lifestyle. This lifestyle may, in turn, involve the adoption of psychological defence mechanisms, for example regression.

Social Learning (Vertical and Horizontal) involves the emulation of role models whose behaviour is perceived as bringing them benefits that we would also like to enjoy.

Socialisation (Horizontal) comprises social reward from our peers for compliance with their values, norms, or beliefs. Values are those things that help us to decide what is right or wrong, good or bad, and norms are those behaviours regarded as being good or bad. Examples of social rewards are status, friendship, and approval. Socialisation also comprises punishment for non-compliance, such as shunning.

Emotional Contagion (Horizontal) is the unconscious mimicry of the emotional states and behavioural attitudes of others.

Types of Defense Mechanism

Numerous psychological defense mechanisms have been identified. Those which are probably most subject to socio-cultural reinforcement and the ways in which they can be reinforced are given below.

Denial is a refusal to recognise objective facts or events that would cause us anxiety. We simply block them from our awareness. When this is done unconsciously, it is referred to as repression; when it is done consciously, it is known as suppression. Clearly, we do not wish others to remind us of those facts or events. So, we discourage them from doing so by using the rewards and punishments of socialisation. In a hierarchy, coercion can also be used to encourage silence. Thus, the apparent failure of all members of a group to recognise facts or events reinforces each member of the group’s personal denial.

My articles at https://rational-understanding.com/2023/09/05/cultural-denial-or-conspiracy-of-silence/ and at https://rational-understanding.com/2024/03/20/management-denial-syndrome/ discuss the socio-cultural reinforcement of the denial defense mechanism and its consequences in more detail.

Reaction Formation is a defence mechanism in which we go beyond denial, and behave in a way that is the opposite to what we unconsciously think or feel. It can occur when we find ourselves in a culture whose values, norms, or beliefs contradict those that we hold. It is, of course, reinforced by coercion, socialisation, media, and advertising. This behaviour outwardly supports the values, norms, or beliefs that we are opposed to, and through socialisation and social learning, encourages others to also do so.

Avoidance means physically avoiding circumstances that cause us anxiety. We do, of course, rationalise our reasons for this and express our rationales to others. This can, in turn, lead to them avoiding the same situation.

Projection involves the attribution of one’s own attitudes, motives, or behaviours to another individual or group. It is frequently reinforced by propaganda, socialisation, and emotional contagion. As a consequence, minority groups have often been scapegoated.

Displacement involves the redirection of a reaction against a contra-satisfier from its originator to another less powerful individual or group. Again, this can be reinforced by propaganda and can result in the scapegoating of less powerful individuals or minority groups.

Regression involves a reversion to behaviours at an earlier developmental stage. In effect it is a reversion to the satisfaction of more basic needs whilst avoiding the higher ones that we feel powerless to satisfy. It involves a focus on simple basic pleasures and can result in overindulgence. In the extreme, this can be referred to as decadence. Unfortunately, regression is now relatively common in Western culture, due to the effect of media and advertising.

Sublimation. In the psychotherapeutic context, sublimation means the channelling of urges that would contravene social norms into more constructive activities such as work or a hobby. This defence mechanism is strongly reinforced by socialisation. However, it means that we neglect major concerns that we feel unable to tackle, but rather, focus on more minor ones on which we feel we can have an effect, for example gender issues rather than climate change or biodiversity loss.

Introjection, also known as Identification, involves making the personality traits of another person one’s own. We do so to avoid anxiety over some difficulty such as potential contra-satisfiers from that person. However, our behaviour socially reinforces the personality traits, and helps to create a culture that values them. The defence mechanism Identification with the Agressor is a particular example in which we adopt the behaviour of a more powerful person in the hope of avoiding any potential hostility from them towards us.  Ultimately, however, we begin to feel an emotional connection with and empathy towards that person. Thus, this defence mechanism plays a large part in our support for leaders with dark personality traits.

Compartmentalisation means separating the components of one’s life into different categories to avoid conflicting values or norms. It occurs when we face a culture in one part of our lives which conflicts with that in another, and which, without compartmentalisation, would cause us anxiety. Typically, for example, it can affect the behaviour of employees in a work culture that conflicts with their more general one. This can be deemed professionalism. However, the failure to criticise a work culture can socially reinforce it, even if it is generally unacceptable.

Rationalisation involves a conscious and seemingly rational distortion of the facts to justify a behaviour that contravenes our values and norms. We do this to avoid the anxiety that our behaviour would otherwise cause. Rationales can come ready made via upbringing, propaganda, media or advertising. Intellectualisation is an example of rationalisation in which we focus on the intellectual rather than the emotional aspects of a problem in order to avoid the anxiety caused by those emotions. For example, one may write a blog about social issues rather than admit to oneself the distress that they cause.

Summary

In summary, an adverse situation can result in different contra-satisfiers for different people. The psychological defence mechanisms that we use to cope with the situation also vary. However, because we all suffer a contra-satisfier of some sort and behave defensively in some way, we reinforce one another’s defence mechanisms by the way that we interact socially with one another.

Categories
03. The Relationship between National Fragility, Trust and Religion (Part 2)

The Relationship between National Fragility, Trust, and Religion (Part 2)

Introduction

Part 1 of this article can be found at https://rational-understanding.com/2023/04/12/the-relationship-between-national-fragility-trust-and-religion/. In summary, it compared data from two reputable research organisations: the World Values Survey and the National Fragility Index. This comparison showed that:

  1. National fragility and belief in God, on a national scale, are moderately related, having a coefficient of correlation of 0.70.
  2. The percentage of a national population who believe that you need to be very careful in dealing with people (Q57), and the percentage of the population who believe in God (Q165) are strongly related with a coefficient of correlation of 0.86.

The most likely conclusion was thought to be that national fragility and the need for care in dealing with people are, in part at least, causes of a belief in God. As a state becomes more trustworthy and supportive, so it becomes less necessary for its population to follow a religion.

However, cause and effect were unclear, suggesting that feedback processes were involved. This article investigates those processes in some detail and finds that the relationship between the three factors is complex.

The article also provides a general model that is applicable to circumstances in which any two competing cultures, ideologies, or cults draw on the same population.

Ideology and Culture

Before discussing the processes, I would like to describe the differences between a culture, an ideology, and a cult. Some of the characteristics of these three belief systems are examined in the table below. This shows ideologies and cults to be subsets of cultures, and so, the latter term will be used generically. However, individuals vary in their acceptance of values, norms, and beliefs. This variation lies on a scale from extremism, through moderate acceptance and moderate rejection, to extreme rejection. This blurs the boundary between an ideology, a cult and a culture.

CharacteristicCultureIdeologyCult
Includes norms?YYY
Includes values?YYY
Includes beliefs?YYY
Includes symbols or identity demarcation?YYY
Organises a group of people?YYY
Has written or spoken guidelines that are taught?YYY
Is socialized through community reward and punishment?YYY
Creates an “us and them” distinction?YYY
Has a political focus?NYN
Has a religious focus?NNY
Has evolved?YNN
Has been invented by a founding agent or agents?NYY
Is doctrinal, i.e., rigid, fixed, resilient, dogmatic, involving certainty of belief, and resistant to evidence based updating?NYY
Has strong in-group favoritism and strong out-group distrust?NYY
Is evangelized or propagandized?NYY
Uses family and kinship metaphors, e.g., “brothers of the revolution”?NYY
Table 1 – Comparison of the characteristics of cultures, ideologies and cults. Derived in part from (Zmigrod, L., 2022)

Cultures, ideologies, and cults all satisfy the needs of their subscribers. They can also act as contra-satisfiers for others. The greater the overall level of satisfaction they provide, compared with other available alternatives, the greater the likelihood that the culture, ideology, or cult will be adopted. The ideal culture is, therefore, one that satisfies all of everyone’s needs. However, this satisfaction must be within the limits of sustainability, based on truth, and flexible in the event of change.

Religion

Religious cultures preceded more modern ones, such as secularism and consumerism, and have become well established across the world. The latter are, in general, relative newcomers and can therefore be perceived as a threat.

Religion provides many satisfiers, for example a community that satisfies our need for relatedness. In particular, however, it provides a ready-made psychological defence mechanism against anxiety caused by our existential givens. Four existential givens were identified by the American psychotherapist, Irvin D. Yalom (Yalom,1980), and a religion can provide a defence mechanism against each. It does so by altering our beliefs from truths that cause us anxiety to promises that are less painful and can neither be proven nor disproven.

Existential givens are contra-needs or states that we wish to avoid but are unable to. Further details can be found at https://rational-understanding.com/2021/08/20/contra-needs-and-existentialism/. The four existential givens are:

  1. Death. Yalom regards death as being the most pressing of our concerns. Death is inevitable and the knowledge of it pervades the conscious and unconscious mind. This leads, at times, to great anxiety. However, most religions promote a belief in some form of existence after death that alleviates this anxiety.
  2. Freedom (lack of guidance). In the existential sense, freedom does not mean social and political liberty. Rather it means fear arising from a lack of guidance in our lives. Most religions provide an ethical framework that gives us this guidance.
  3. Isolation (separateness). Existential isolation is not the same as loneliness. The latter arises from the physical absence of other human beings with whom to interact. Existential isolation refers to the unbridgeable gap between oneself as an individual, others, and the world that we inhabit. It means that, inevitably, we are apart from others and cannot merge ourselves with them. Most religions encourage the belief that we have a very close relationship with God, can communicate with him through prayer, and that he knows our minds. Some call this oneness with God. Again, this alleviates the anxiety of isolation.
  4. Meaninglessness. Yalom argues that we need meaning in our lives. However, meaning is not inherent in the physical universe, but rather it is something that we create for ourselves. The absence of meaning can lead to distress and even suicide. So, most religions provide a source of meaning for their followers.

Without the satisfiers provided by a religion, the knowledge of death, freedom, isolation, and meaninglessness can be a contra-satisfier that it is difficult to come to terms with. To know that these states are unavoidable is a cause of distress and anxiety. So, to alleviate this we may turn to religion. However, once we accept a religion:

  1. We become a part of its culture.
  2. We do not wish to give up its more tangible satisfiers such as community and will be unwilling to do so unless, at the same time, we put effort into replacing them.
  3. We resist accepting the truth about our existential givens: firstly, because it would require considerable effort to revise our existing belief system or mental schemata; and secondly, because such a major effort would not necessarily reward us. Unless we seek other ways of coming to terms with our existential givens, rejecting a religion would create new anxieties, and we have not evolved to actively seek these.

Cultural Change

A transition from a religious to a secular consumer culture is ongoing in the West and is spilling over into other countries, for example, those in the Middle East. Both the religious culture and the secular consumer culture are conditioned in their adherents by the cultures’ leaders. They are also instilled in us by our peers through a process of socialization. Both processes involve the promise of satisfiers and the threat of contra-satisfiers in return for cultural compliance. So, socialization is also a form of operant conditioning.

We learn our core beliefs through socialization in childhood. Although they can alter as we age, for most of us they do not. So, any change in the need for religion will lag by about a generation after any change in a nation’s other institutions. Thus, more than one culture may be actively promoting itself within a nation at any one time.

Not all aspects of a culture are a satisfier for everyone. Some will regard certain aspects as a contra-satisfier. If they regard a culture as a net contra-satisfier then they will resist attempts at conditioning and socialization. In the case of religion vs. secular consumerism, the latter appeals to our more basic needs to which, if they are not satisfied, we give a greater priority than our higher needs. So, particularly among the more deprived sections of a population, a secular consumer culture will be attractive. In turn, this attracts people who see the secular consumer culture as a potential source of power.

Interactions between competing cultures

The interactions between two competing cultures that draw on the same population are shown in the diagrams below. These diagrams describe a general process in which the two cultures A and B might, for example, be two businesses competing for the same customers or two ideologies, such as nationalism and globalism, competing for the same followers. Thus, culture A could be a religion and culture B secular consumerism.

    Figure 1 – Interactions between two competing cultures. Note that X is broken down in more detail in Figures 2 and 3.

    Figure 2 – Interactions between two competing cultures. Detail of X.

    Figure 3 – Interactions between two competing cultures. Further detail of X.

    The key to symbols used in these diagrams is given in my article on social systems theory at https://rational-understanding.com/2024/03/06/a-theory-of-society-derived-from-the-principles-of-systems-psychology-ecology-evolution/.

    The diagrams are explained as follows, where (YZ) means the relationship between Y, a cause, and Z, an effect.

    (AA) The leaders of two competing cultures see any growth in the power of the other as a contra-satisfier. This contra-satisfier diminishes the level of satisfaction of their need for power. Conversely, any decrease in the power of the other is a satisfier that increases their level of satisfaction.

    (GA) This power is based on the number of people subscribed to the culture. So, any increase in this number is a satisfier that increases the leaders’ level of satisfaction. Conversely, any decrease in the number is a contra-satisfier that decreases their level of satisfaction.

    (AC) Any decrease in the level of satisfaction of the leaders of a culture will result in them engaging in increased competition. This takes the form of increased conditioning behaviour.

    (GC) An increase in the number of people who subscribe to a culture results in an increase in socialization behaviour.

    (XH) Efforts by one culture to increase the number of people who subscribe to it are regarded as a contra-satisfier by a competing culture and increase its level of fear and distrust. Note that (CH) or the level of conditioning and socialization by the other culture, (FH) or the number of people joining the other culture, and (GH) or the number of people subscribed to the other culture all contribute to (XH).

    (CJ) Attempts to condition or socialize people who subscribe to the other culture will result in resistance by them. That is, they will impose contra-satisfiers on those who attempt this. The greater the conditioning and socialization effort, and the greater the number of people subscribed to the other culture the greater the resistance. This also contributes to XH.

    (HC) An increase in the level of fear and distrust among those who subscribe to a culture will also increase their level of socialization behaviour.

    (CF) The conditioning and socialization of people into a culture involves the offer of satisfiers or rewards for compliance and the imposition of contra-satisfiers or punishments for non-compliance. Initially, this competition can be positive with an emphasis on the satisfiers that the culture brings to its subscribers. However, it can become negative citing the contra-satisfiers of the other culture or it can become coercive by imposing contra-satisfiers on non-subscribers.

    (DF) However, only those who regard a culture as a greater overall satisfier or a lower overall contra-satisfier than the alternatives will subscribe to it. If none do, then there will be no new subscribers irrespective of the amount of conditioning or socialization effort.

    (BD) The more one culture offers greater overall satisfaction or lower overall contra-satisfaction than another, the more people favour it over the other.

    (FG) The more people who join a culture the more people there are subscribing to it.

    (CEG) People will leave a culture either because they have come to prefer the alternatives or through natural wastage. An increase in conditioning and/or socialization will reduce the former but not the latter.

    (CGC) Thus, a positive feedback loop can form in which socialization effort increases with the number of people subscribed to a culture, and the number of people subscribed to the culture increases with socialization effort. However, this increase in the number of people subscribed to a culture is limited by the availability of non-members who see the culture as a greater overall satisfier or a lesser overall contra-satisfier than the alternatives.

    (ACGA) There is also a feedback loop in which a reduction in the leaders’ level of satisfaction causes an increase in conditioning behaviour. This in turn, causes an increase in the number of people subscribed to the culture which then increases the leaders’ level of satisfaction.

    (GG) The number of people in a population is finite. So, the more people who subscribe to one culture, the fewer there are to subscribe to the other.

    (HC) The greater the level of fear and distrust in a culture the greater the level of socialization.

    (GH) An increase in the number of people who subscribe to a culture is a satisfier for the members of that culture and reduces their level of fear and distrust of other cultures. On the other hand, a decrease in the number of members is a contra-satisfier that increases their level of fear and distrust.

    (CGHC) Thus, a feedback loop can develop in which an increase in socialization effort causes an increase in the number of people subscribed to a culture. This, in turn, causes a decrease in the level of fear and distrust, leading to a reduction in socialization effort. Conversely, a decrease in socialization effort results in a decrease in the number of members, an increase in fear and distrust, and thus, an increase in socialization effort.

    (HI) An increase in the level of fear and distrust causes the subscribers to a culture to increase their level of active hostility towards another culture, i.e., the former engage in conflict by imposing contra-satisfiers on the latter.

    (IH) An increase in the level of hostility from one culture increases the other culture’s level of fear and distrust.

    (HIHIH) Thus, a feedback loop forms in which conflict escalates. Without intervention, this can become violent.

    Discussion and Conclusions

    A relationship between national fragility, trust and religion does exist, both in practice and theoretically.

    When an established religious culture meets a secular consumer culture, the latter often offers greater overall satisfaction and begins to gain adherents. This threatens the established religious culture generating greater fear and distrust, greater conditioning and socialization behaviour, some of which can be coercive, and greater conflict with adherents to the secular consumer culture. This coercion and conflict contributes to national fragility. Correlations between national fragility, trust and religion involve several feedback loops that make it unclear which is the cause and which the effect. However, the overall cause is probably a new secular consumer culture gaining traction within a traditional religious one.

    There are, of course, other possible causes. However, I have searched the data and have not found any correlation as strong as the ones above. For example, confidence in government and belief in God have a coefficient of correlation of 0.20; confidence in government and trust have a coefficient of correlation of 0.21.

    The above diagrams can be used to identify interventions that may stabilize the relationship between two cultures that draw on the same population and prevent conflict from escalating into violence. For example, power sharing in Northern Ireland was an intervention in the relationship (AA).

    References

    Home

    Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano J., M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen (eds.). 2022. World Values Survey: Round Seven – Country-Pooled Datafile Version 5.0. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. doi:10.14281/18241.20

    Yalom, I. D. (1980). “Existential psychotherapy”. New York, Basic Books.

    Zmigrod, L., (2022). “A Psychology of Ideology: Unpacking the Psychological Structure of Ideological Thinking”. Association for Psychological Science, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2022, Vol. 17(4) 1072 – 1092. Sage.

    Categories
    07. Operant Conditioning and Cultural Evolution

    Operant Conditioning and Cultural Evolution

    Operant conditioning was first described by the American psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904 – 1990) (Skinner, 1938). It is a method of learning that uses satisfiers and contra-satisfiers to alter behaviour. Skinner found that, if a behaviour was associated with a satisfier, or as it is more commonly referred to as a reward, then it was likely to be repeated. This is referred to as reinforcement of the behaviour. Ultimately, if a behaviour is sufficiently reinforced, it can become automatic or unconscious. On the other hand, if a behaviour was associated with a contra-satisfier or punishment, then it was less likely to be repeated. If it was sufficiently punished, then it could become entirely forgotten or extinguished.

    Normally, before we act, a decision is made unconsciously and passed to the conscious mind which then vets it. If the act is deemed to be satisfactory, the conscious mind approves it. However, if it is deemed unsatisfactory, then it is blocked and the unconscious mind must think again. In this way our more rational conscious mind can condition our more creative unconscious. It is like riding a bicycle. Initially, it can take considerable conscious effort, but over time we learn to control the bicycle unconsciously with little or no conscious intervention. The same principle applies to operant conditioning. However, in the case of conditioning the conscious mind is replaced by satisfiers or contra-satisfiers from an external agent.

    An example of extinguishment is cultural denial. If a topic is one that causes people anxiety, then we are discouraged from raising it by other members of our community. That is, they punish us socially for doing so, and ultimately the topic becomes extinguished from our minds. That is, we fall into denial.

    Although operant conditioning was first formally recognised by Skinner, it has been used in practice for a very long time. In fact, because the practice of conditioning others can be seen in alpha members of animal herds and packs, it probably predates the evolution of homo sapiens. To cite human examples, some religions have conditioned behaviours and beliefs in their members through regular ritual practices, and continue to do so. Kings and emperors have conditioned compliance through reward or threats of physical punishment. In the present day, we are conditioned as consumers through advertisements that promise psychological or practical rewards for our purchases.

    Once a threshold percentage of the population has been conditioned to behave in a particular way,  that behaviour becomes a part of its culture, i.e., a value, a norm, or a belief. The conditioning then becomes self-sustaining through a process of socialization. That is, we reward one another socially for compliance, and punish one another for non-compliance. Aspects of the culture in our social environment can act as a satisfier, as a contra-satisfier, or can be neutral for an individual or organisation depending on their needs and circumstances. The more a culture acts as a satisfier the more likely it is to be adopted and the less likely it is to be rejected. Together, conditioning, socialization and acceptance can steer the evolution of a culture. This is almost certainly the case with the shift from traditional values, often religiously inspired, to self-expression values, often consumption inspired, noted by the World Values Survey (World Values Survey Association, 2020). Bluntly put, the satisfaction of our more basic needs today is a stronger driver of behaviour than the satisfaction of our higher needs tomorrow. So, consumer conditioning has replaced religious conditioning.

    Unfortunately, we are all susceptible to conditioning. This is because of the way that our minds have evolved. Both religious and consumer conditioning are ways of controlling the majority in the interest of an elite minority. Thus, many aspects of religion and consumerism are harmful to society. Additionally, many aspects of consumerism are harmful to the natural environment. Fortunately, providing we develop the more rational and conscious aspect of our minds, there is much that we can do to avoid or overcome such conditioning. However, before describing my suggested approach, I would like to clarify the nature of consciousness.

    A detailed explanation of consciousness can be found at https://rational-understanding.com/2021/10/22/consciousness/. In summary, however, it is an awareness of one’s own mental processes. Unfortunately, the popular definition incorrectly includes an awareness of one’s surroundings. Very primitive animals, that we would hesitate to describe as being conscious, are aware of their surroundings and, because people have evolved from simpler organisms, this awareness is a function of our unconscious mind. The unconscious mind then passes relevant information, particularly any threats or opportunities, to the conscious one. For example, a noise while we are sleeping will awaken us, or the flick of a curtain on the opposite side of the street will automatically draw our attention. Because of this misunderstanding, use of the internet search term “increasing consciousness” will yield advice on how to improve one’s perception of the external world, or how to achieve a mystical “higher level of consciousness”. However, from personal experience, I would recommend painting or photography to increase one’s perception of the external world. After some practice, colours will become more vibrant, and the arrangement of objects more interesting. Returning to the correct definition of consciousness, some of us are more conscious of our own minds than others. Nevertheless, this too can be improved with practice and the appropriate internet search term is “increasing self-awareness”.

    The approach that I would recommend for avoiding or removing any conditioning is therefore as follows.

    • Consciously recognise conditioning attempts whilst they are happening. This is not difficult. There will be much repetition accompanied by implied or overt promises of satisfiers, or threats of contra-satisfiers.
    • Consciously recognise any social pressures from, for example, friends, colleagues, and advertising, to accept a value, norm, or belief.
    • Consciously recognise when we are engaging in conditioned behaviour. Again, there will be repetition and the behaviour will be carried out unconsciously. There may also be a sense of compulsion or addiction.
    • Consciously question whether the behaviour makes sense and is good for us, our society, and the natural environment.

    Armed with this knowledge, it is then possible to avoid conditioning. It is also possible, but difficult, to de-condition ourselves. The latter is sometimes referred to as self-control.

    • Firstly, avoid any further conditioning attempts and any social pressures. For example, don’t watch adverts and don’t mix with people who pressurise others in this way.
    • Consciously block conditioned behaviours whenever they are prompted by the unconscious mind.  To this end it may be necessary to stimulate conscious thought by, for example, using sticky labels on anything used in the behaviour or by asking a friend or partner to alert you to such behaviour. Keep your responses to ones of gratitude though, or they will quickly become conditioned against helping you.
    • Rehearse the negatives of a conditioned behaviour whenever you become aware of it. A written list will help. This is a mild form of aversion therapy, but I would not recommend any stronger form.
    • Nor would I recommend rewarding yourself whenever you block a behaviour except to feel pleased. Anything more may condition some other behaviour.

    References

    B.F. Skinner (1938). “The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis.” Cambridge, Massachusetts: B.F. Skinner Foundation. ISBN 1-58390-007-1, ISBN 0-87411-487-X

    World Values Survey Association (2020). “Findings and Insights”. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp

    Categories
    23. Management Denial Syndrome

    Management Denial Syndrome

    In a previous article at https://rational-understanding.com/2023/09/05/cultural-denial-or-conspiracy-of-silence/, I described the concepts of personal and cultural denial. In summary, denial is a psychological defense mechanism identified by Freud and his daughter. When we encounter a situation that causes us anxiety and about which we can do nothing, then we alleviate our anxiety by denying the existence of its cause.  Cultural denial is a much stronger form. When a group experience anxiety due to a common cause, then they reinforce one another’s denial through the process of socialization, i.e., punishment for mentioning the cause and reward for remaining silent about it.

    However, there is another form of denial that is stronger yet. It is a very common organizational pathology that infects management hierarchies. To explain its cause, I must take a step back. The relationship between a junior manager and a senior one is an informal contract, whereby the junior manager supports the senior one in return for delegated power and the benefits of status. There is often much competition for management positions and the senior manager usually controls who will fill them. So, if there is a problem in the organisation, then a junior manager will be reticent to speak truth to power and report it to a senior one for fear of appearing in breach of the informal contract. This creates anxiety that can result in personal denial. That is, whilst we may be aware of the problem, we do not think about it or discuss it and do not realize that others are in the same position. There are, of course, those who do think about the problem but whose primary concern is to navigate it in their personal interest. In the hierarchy, almost all senior managers are junior to a yet more senior one. So, if the problem is reported to them, this affects their own denial, and they can discourage further reports with veiled threats. In this way, denial can infect a whole management hierarchy. The managers may know of the problem but are unwilling to talk about it, and so, it goes unaddressed. Furthermore, the hierarchy is unable to recognise that it suffers from this problem because denial is itself the subject of denial. Ultimately, recognition often only occurs when there is a catastrophe.

    The classic example is the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster. A brief description of events leading up to this disaster is given below. However, there are many other more mundane examples, two of which I will also discuss.

    The shuttle Columbia was launched in 2003 with seven astronauts aboard. During takeoff, a piece of insulating foam from the external fuel tank was seen to break off and strike the shuttle’s wing. Foam had broken off before and in one instance it dented the casing of one of the solid rocket boosters. However, this was the first time that foam had struck the shuttle. Concerns were raised by a relatively junior member of the NASA team and requests were passed up the line for remote inspection of the shuttle’s wing while it was in space. However, the prevailing view in NASA was that the foam was not sufficiently dense to have caused any significant damage. Three potential remote observations by aircraft, ground telescope and satellite were considered but rejected by the management team. A proposal for an external inspection by the astronauts was also rejected. All would have taken time out of the crew’s very tight schedule of scientific experiments, thereby harming NASA’s reputation. The junior member who raised the concern, when he pressed the matter, was told by his manager not to be “Chicken Little”, i.e., not to raise false concerns. A working group was established to consider the matter but complained that they did not have visual evidence on which to base their work. They were told to do their best without it and concluded that there was no safety concern. The astronauts were informed of the strike but again were told that there were no safety concerns.

    As we know, when the shuttle returned to earth it broke up during re-entry with the loss of all seven astronauts. Even then, the denial persisted. Managers claimed that there must have been some other cause. Only when the external accident investigation team fired a similar piece of foam at a mock-up wing, and it punched a large hole was the denial overcome. Many in the management team then recognised their error and there were expressions of “mea culpa”. Others, however, went to ground. It is uncertain whether the lives of the crew could have been saved had the damage been investigated. However, it is clear that management denial prevented any attempt to do so.

    More detail is given in the excellent documentary on BBC Iplayer entitled “The Space Shuttle that Fell to Earth” at https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m001tts2/the-space-shuttle-that-fell-to-earth.

    Recently, I have had dealings with two UK public service organisations, both of which have a communication problem with their customers that impacts seriously on their ability to provide a satisfactory service. In one case there is a lack of feedback on reports from the public about safety concerns. This, of course, discourages them from making such reports in the future, and so, safety issues are probably going unaddressed. In the other example there is a lack of feedback on the progress of maintenance tasks not only to customers but also internally. As a result, costly mistakes are made, tasks go unaddressed, and the administrative costs involved in correcting this is high. Both organisations suffer the same denial syndrome. Although they both have complaints departments, they appear to see their role as one of defending management from criticism. They use various techniques among which are gaslighting, irrational arguments, and word games, i.e., implying one thing whilst actually saying another. It can be very time-consuming and frustrating to obtain the truth, and in so doing one can become labeled as the problem. So strong is the denial that the last-resort is often self-harm by, for example, simply not replying to the customer or asking them to contact an external regulator. Both organisations also employ “improvement managers”. However, whilst they may be aware of the problem and agree with the customer, they are also part of the management hierarchy, have a living to earn, and face the same difficulties in speaking truth to power.

    Please, do not take these examples as implying that management hierarchies in the private sector are immune to the problem. Many do in fact suffer from it, although the topic of denial may be different, for example, a bullying, misogynistic, anti-social, or anti-environmental culture.

    So, what is the solution to this syndrome? As we have seen from Columbia, a catastrophe will bring recognition. However, we should of course aim to avoid catastrophes. Bypassing the hierarchy, i.e., whistleblowing, is one solution, although it is notable that many organisations are now putting whistleblowing policies in place to control this. Leaving the organisation is another, although this will merely worsen the situation. A form of natural selection will take place in which those who are more susceptible to the syndrome remain, whilst those less susceptible leave. The only real solution is awareness of the problem, which I hope this article will encourage; better management training, including recognition of the syndrome; greater honesty with ourselves, even if this means suffering some anxiety; and greater honesty with others, especially those with power over us. There is a degree of personal risk in the latter and the way that a problem is flagged up will depend on the circumstances. However, it would clearly help to understand the benefits and disbenefits of acknowledgement vs. denial, and to emphasise the benefits of the former and the disbenefits of the latter.

    Categories
    07. A Conceptual Farmework for General System Theor

    A Conceptual Framework for General System Theory

    Introduction

    This article proposes a single deep conceptual framework that unifies many of the concepts of systems theory, such as systems, holons, holism, relationships, emergence, causality, isomorphisms, etc. This framework may form the basis of a general system theory. Some of its definitions may seem obvious, but I have included them for the avoidance of doubt and to paint a complete picture.

    Conceptual Frameworks

    There are two ways to define a word. The first is by reference to observed reality. For example, we can all agree on the definition of the word “snake” because we can observe a snake in the external physical world. However, there is less agreement over more abstract words such as “justice” and “conflict”. This is because we are unable to observe all instances of those concepts. To overcome the latter problem, we attempt to define the word, but in doing so, we must use other words.

    A conceptual framework is essentially a set of definitions of more abstract words that is internally consistent and founded on axiomatic words, i.e., words that are not defined and are taken as being self-evident. A conceptual framework comprises our understanding of the words and the universe that they represent. We all hold conceptual frameworks. However, they vary greatly in their depth and nature. The deeper a framework, the more fundamental and general the words it defines. For example, the word “relationship” is deep and has broad application, whilst “unhappiness” is far less so, applying only to human beings and some animals in a particular state.

    The development of any theory first requires a conceptual framework. To use an analogy from physics, the absence of a framework is equivalent to attempting to build a structure with gas. On the other hand, if we do have a framework, then we are building with a solid. Furthermore, if more than one person is developing a theory, they will need to agree a single framework if they are to communicate successfully. It is OK to consider different perspectives, but ultimately, they must be drawn together into a single consistent whole. In the case of general system theory, we are attempting to develop a very general theory indeed. So, we need to ensure that the framework is as deep as we can make it.

    The absence of a common framework can be seen on the internet. Authors do have their own conceptual frameworks of course, but rarely are they explained, and their number can be overwhelming. Furthermore, there is clearly competition between them for more general acceptance. So, the motives of their proponents must also be questioned. Finally, their depth is rarely great, and so, the theories that they underpin can be quite specific rather than general. To unify these frameworks, much effort would be required in drawing them together and analysing them for a deeper one that applies to most.

    Cognitive Physicalist Philosophy

    My proposed deep framework is founded on Cognitive Physicalist philosophy. The physicalist aspect of this philosophy holds that everything, including objects, abstract concepts, and information, is physical in nature and occupies a region or regions of space-time. The cognitive aspect recognises that human beings have limited perception and cognition. Because the universe of space-time is probably infinite, to understand and explain it we must simplify it. So, physicalism enables us to establish a single conceptual framework, but cognition limits our understanding and perception.

    Spiritualism

    Many people believe that there is also a spiritual aspect to nature, and so, reject physicalism. However, the source of our spiritual beliefs is probably an unconscious sense that we use emotion in our decision-making processes. It is certainly true that we rely heavily on the unconscious mind and on emotion when making our decisions. This is something that we have inherited from simpler organisms and that evolution has built upon. In the absence of a rational scientific explanation for the process, it can take on a mystical flavour, and can seem to be an alternative to our other skill, conscious rationality. In practice, from an evolutionary perspective, emotion-based decision-making is entirely reasonable, and the emotional and rational aspects of our minds work hand-in-hand to our benefit.

    The Importance of true axioms

    Over 25 years ago, I became very frustrated with conventional symbolic logic. It comprises numerous disparate branches and a plethora of different symbolisms that create much confusion. So, I embarked on a project to join up the various branches using a single common symbolism. Not only was I successful in unifying these branches, but also in including both natural language and mathematics. However, what was originally intended to be a five-year project turned out to be a twenty-three year one.

    There were two main outputs from this project of significance for systems theory. Firstly, part of the project involved the axiomatization of logic, i.e. the identification of a number of self-evident but unprovable truths on which all of the remaining theory can be based. It was necessary that these axioms provide an explanation for all generally accepted laws of logic. As I unified the different branches, I found that many of the axioms for a traditional branch of logic, and indeed mathematics, were in fact theorems that could be derived from deeper and more general axioms. Nevertheless, a small number always remained that were particular to a branch and distinguished it from the others.

    Secondly, physicalism was the only approach that would provide a single framework. Symbolic logic is almost self-defining. All its theorems arise from the operations of its axioms on themselves. The one and only axiom that might be regarded as not being of logic is the physicalist one.

    These concepts can be used when considering a general system theory. Providing they have an empirical basis in reality, two ideas can be likened to two minor branches of a tree. If we are aware only of the branches but not the tree, then the two ideas may appear to contradict one another. However, if we can identify common truths from which both ideas can be explained, then we have identified the larger branch from which the minor ones sprout. That is, we are beginning to perceive the tree. In this analogy the common truths are, temporarily at least, the equivalent of axioms. This process can continue until we reach the trunk of the tree. The more ideas we are able to join up in this way the more likely their common explanation or axiom is to be true.

    The truth of an axiom is not guaranteed of course. Many times, I have had to revise axioms that have proven inconsistent with other branches of logic. So, a certain amount of objectivity and persistence is needed. Furthermore, there is no certainty that the tree does ultimately have a trunk, i.e., that there are universal axioms. Bearing this in mind, together with the fact that some axioms are particular to a branch, i.e., are emergent, it seems unlikely that there is a single simple explanation for everything. Nevertheless, we can attempt to find one for those few things that lie within human experience, and this is what my proposed framework attempts to do.

    The remainder of this article now describes the framework.

    Information

    According to physicalism, information is physical in nature. It also appears to be something that only living things and some of our artifacts are capable of recognizing and manipulating. The term information at source refers to the structure of a physical entity. When we see other things with a similar structure we recognise them, i.e., create a mental image of them, for future reference. We also give them a name so that we can pass our knowledge of those things to others. Thus, the original information is translated and communicated. Nevertheless, all of those translations and communications are physical in nature. A mental image is an arrangement of neurons and the way that they fire;  speech comprises patterns of vibration in air; and so on.

    However, our perception and information processing abilities are limited. So, in translating and communicating  we simplify; we assume;  we make mistakes; we reject or modify new information that is not consistent with our existing knowledge; and so on. Thus, information can be false.

    Holons

    Arthur Koestler originally described a holon as being any entity that can be recognised as a whole in itself and which constitutes part of a larger whole. However, for the purpose of this framework, a holon is also an entity that comprises a collection of other holons with relationships between them. Every holon is a system with inputs, processes, and outputs. It is also physical in nature. These definitions are true not only of physical objects, but also, of events and more “abstract” concepts such as justice, conflict, etc.  For example, justice is the set of all just acts.

    Holism

    The term holism refers to a system having properties that its component parts do not, that is, emergent properties. For the purpose of this framework, a holon is further defined as being something at which a new property first emerges as the complexity of entities increases. Thus, all holons have emergent properties and are holistic.

    Relationships

    A relationship between two things comprises those things for so long as they are related to one another in a particular way. It also includes whatever is transferred either way in that relationship, whether it be space, matter, raw energy, or information.

    Every relationship also has outputs. At least one of these is its appearance, i.e., its information at source. There is a question over whether this appearance is an emergent property, i.e., a property that the relationship has, but that its component parts do not. If so, then all relationships are holons because they have emergent properties. If not, then a relationship is not a holon. For this article I will assume the latter, i.e., that the appearance of an entity is not an emergent property. However, it should be borne in mind that this is an assumption and not necessarily true.

    Complexity

    The complexity of a relationship or holon can be measured by the number of fundamental particles that it comprises. For the present, at least, we can regard fundamental particles as those identified in the Standard Model of physics.

    The more fundamental particles an entity comprises, the more variability there is between entities in the same set. This is because we form sets based on the similarities that we observe between entities. It is a human cognitive act, and we are limited in the amount of complexity that we can manage.  To address this variability we create prototypes, i.e., mental images of a typical member of the set that has only the characteristics we have used to define the set, and none of the variability.

    Holon Formation & Chaos

    There must be a certain number of relationships between holons before a higher level holon is formed, i.e., before an emergent property other than appearance is encountered. This emergent property can be an output from the holon which in turn can be the basis for relationships between higher level holons.

    Between the formation of holons at one level and those at another, the number of relationships increases and may exceed the threshold of our comprehension, thus appearing chaotic.

    Abstract Entities

    Every relationship or holon is part of a set of similar ones, and this set is itself a relationship or holon. However, because it comprises components that occupy several separate regions of space-time, the set may not be observable in its entirety. This is reflected in natural language. For example, “conflict” comprises several instances of conflict, each of which is “a conflict”. We can perceive several instances of conflict but not “conflict” in its entirety, and so, we may label it an abstract concept. Nevertheless, it is real and physical.

    Despite being collected together into a set on the basis of common features, the individual holons or relationships may also have features that are unique to themselves. This presents a communication problem. Each observer, a diplomat and a family counselor, say, will observe a different subset of conflicts, and so, will form a different understanding of the concept. So, when one is discussing the topic with the other misunderstandings are almost inevitable. Worse yet, different observers can give different names to the same thing in different contexts. This can make communication between the two difficult, if not impossible. It can also obscure the fact that they are discussing the same concept.

    Causality

    Holons or systems have outputs that act as inputs for other holons or systems. This is the same as causality and is reflected in our use of natural language. For example, “conflict” may cause “poverty”, and “a conflict” may cause “an instance of poverty”. It is what is exchanged between the two holons or systems that provides the causal link. Their processes and outputs are causes; their inputs and processes are effects. This transfer is evidenced by the fact that causality cannot propagate at greater than the speed of light. As Hume observed, a cause must be spatially contiguous to its effect and must precede it.

    The normal laws of causality apply to these relationships. That is, a cause may be necessary or sufficient for an effect. Also, several necessary causes may only together be sufficient.

    One thing that is often overlooked in causality is the existence of inhibitors. That is, those things that prevent an effect. Again, inhibitors can be necessary or sufficient to prevent an effect. Also,  several necessary inhibitors can only together be sufficient to prevent it. This is of importance when it comes to the discussion of living entities, holons, or systems.

    Function & Purpose

    The function of a holon or system can be regarded as its outputs. However, because these outputs are inputs for other holons or systems, i.e., effects, these effects can also be regarded as the holon or system’s function. The purpose of a non-living entity is the same as its function. However, a living entity with agency can regard its purpose as being what it would like its function to be.

    Needs, Satisfiers and Contra-satisfiers

    We use different language when referring to living entities, systems or holons. The needs of a living entity are the equivalent of its function. If those needs are not satisfied the entity fails to function. For example, if we lack oxygen we die. The same is true of some of our artifacts. If a factory lacks electricity it ceases to operate. The inputs to living entities and some of our artifacts are satisfiers or contra-satisfiers. A satisfier is something that increases or sustains the level of satisfaction of a living holon or system’s needs or that of an artifact. It is also a necessary cause of the system’s function. A contra-satisfier is something that reduces the level of satisfaction of a system’s needs. In other words, it is an inhibitor.

    Isomorphisms

    Isomorphic entities are instances of the same set of holons or relationships. That is, entities that have the same arrangement of components and the same causal relationships between them. They can be difficult to recognise because different people observe different subsets of the set, and so, form different understandings of it, and use different words to describe it. To refer to an earlier analogy, isomorphic entities are different minor branches of the same tree. They can only be identified by discovering the same branch from which they sprout.

    It is not necessary to use mathematics to identify isomorphisms. Rather a comparison of their function, outputs, and the causal relationships between their components can achieve the same result. It can be challenging, however, to identify what is passed from one holon to another in a causal relationship.

    To cite the example of conflict causing poverty, this is in fact an indirect causal relationship brought about by the agents of conflict competing with the impoverished for limited resources. The resulting shortages then act as a contra-satisfier for the latter.

    To some extent the difficulties in identifying isomorphisms can be overcome by poly-perspectivism, i.e., understanding the language and opinions of others and seeking a common explanation for those apparently divergent views.

    Categories
    36. A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems Psychology Ecology and Evolution Part 1

    A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology, Ecology, & Evolution (Part 1).

    The lack of a unified theory of human society is hampering our ability to tackle the self-induced existential threats that we currently face. This paper presents a practical social systems theory that addresses that absence. Furthermore, because the theory has been derived largely from the principles of systems science, ecology, and evolution, it has a broader application to natural ecosystems, artificial ones, and the interactions between them and the human species. The theory draws on an empirical observation of society; on the principles of systems science to describe the general structure of society; on the principles of ecology to describe the ways in which components of society can interact; and on the principles of psychology and evolution to demonstrate how those interactions can alter with time. The principles employed are fundamental to the field from which they were derived, are broadly accepted by practitioners in those fields, and were obtained by research of the literature. What is new, in this paper, is the combined application of principles from these different fields to human society. The result is a model that accurately reflects real situations involving social units of all sizes from individuals, through organisations, to nations. Methods are suggested for symbolising, diagramming, and analysing these interactions and how they change over time. This provides a basis for better understanding the causes of the threats that humanity and the natural world faces, and for designing interventions to counter them.

    The paper is open access and can be downloaded free of charge in pdf format at https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#theory-of-society

    It is targeted at a broad audience which may include specialists from various disciplines. Interpretation of the language used and the concepts that underpin this theory may differ from individual to individual and from discipline to discipline. No prior knowledge is assumed, therefore. Furthermore, the paper is written in plain English and, where any technical terms have been used, they are clearly defined.

    Over the next few months, I will begin applying the theory to some relatively simple practical social issues and will publish the results here. If you would like to join me in this venture, please contact me at email@johnachalloner.com.  If there is sufficient interest, then I am also willing to provide free online training.