Author: John A Challoner

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

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.

Categories
35. Social Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective

Social Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective

Introduction

The principles of evolution apply more extensively than many of us may be aware. They operate at chemical level and at the level of society, possibly even at ecosystem level as will be explained in the following sections.

Catalysis and autocatalysis

The term catalysis was proposed in 1835 by the Swedish chemist, Jöns Jakob Berzelius (1779-1848). A catalyst or, as it is known in biochemistry, an enzyme is a chemical that increases the rate of a reaction between two or more raw materials without undergoing any change itself. Colliding particles from raw materials must have a minimum amount of energy to form reaction products. A catalyst provides an alternative way for the reaction to take place which uses less energy, and so, increases the probability of a reaction. Catalysts often react initially with the raw materials to form intermediate chemicals. These then react with one another to yield the reaction products, as well as regenerating the catalyst. The first known scientific use of a catalyst was in 1552 when Valerius Cordus used sulphuric acid to convert alcohol to ether (Cordus, 1575). An interesting history of catalysis can be found at (Wisniak, 2010).

A chemical reaction is autocatalytic if one of the reaction products is also a catalyst for the same reaction. In other words, given sufficient energy and raw materials, the catalyst reproduces itself. For example, the decomposition of arsine, AsH3, is catalysed by arsenic which is also a product of the reaction.

A set of chemical reactions are “collectively autocatalytic” if they produce sufficient catalysts for the same set of reactions to be self-sustaining. In other words, given sufficient energy and raw materials, the set of chemicals reproduces itself. The origin of the concept of autocatalytic sets is thought to have been the Austrian physicist, Erwin Shrödinger (1887- 1961), in his 1944 book, “What is Life” (Shrödinger, 1944). The concept was developed from this source by several researchers.

Evolution at the chemical level

In 1971, the American medical doctor, Stuart Kauffman (1939 – ) contributed the idea that autocatalytic sets formed the basis of the origin of life (Kauffman, 1971). A history of Kauffman’s work can be found at (Hordijk, 2019). Reproduction is one of the two criteria necessary for evolution to occur. The other is random mutation and natural selection. In this context, random mutation can be regarded as changes in the collectively autocatalytic set of chemicals. Some of these changes will result in autocatalysis failing. Others will allow it to continue but result in different products. Such changes would be inevitable and frequent in a disorderly chemical environment.

Autopoiesis

The term autopoiesis was first coined by the Chilean biologists, Humberto Maturana (1928 – 2021) and Francisco Varela (1946 – 2001), to describe the self-maintaining properties of living cells (Maturana & Varela, 1972). The main factor affecting the continued existence and procreation of a set of autocatalytic chemicals is the intervention of others that do not act as raw materials. Rather, they disperse the collectively autocatalytic set, thereby preventing it from functioning. Furthermore, excess energy or reactions with other chemicals can disrupt the set. Natural selection dictates that a set that maintains its integrity is more likely to survive and propagate than one that does not. For example, a set that produces a shell that protects it from the environment, whilst allowing the passage of raw materials, is more likely to survive and propagate than one that does not. Please hold onto the idea that it is the maintenance of integrity that is of importance here, and that a shell is merely one way of doing that. I will come back to this point later. To continue, it is likely that living cells were first established in this way and that evolution continued until it produced the highly complex ones that we know today.

Holons and holism

The term holon was coined by the Hungarian author and journalist, Arthur Koestler (1905-1983), in his 1967 book, “The Ghost in the Machine”. (Koestler, A., 1967). It describes any entity that is a whole in itself  and also a part of a larger whole. In other words, holons form a nested hierarchy. The term holism was coined by the South African statesman, Jan Smuts (1870 – 1950), in his 1926 book, “Holism and Evolution” (Smuts J., 1926). A holistic entity has features that its parts do not. In other words, it has emergent properties.

A holon is a system with inputs, processes, and outputs. Its outputs can be described as its function. Furthermore, these outputs can serve as inputs to other holons. In the causal perspective of reality, a cause transfers space, energy, matter, or information to its effect. So, the processes and outputs of one holon can be regarded as a cause, and the inputs and processes of another holon as an effect.

In human society, the outputs of a holon can be regarded as satisfiers or contra-satisfiers, i.e., external things that respectively increase or decrease the level of satisfaction of our needs. Satisfiers and contra-satisfiers can be regarded as opportunities and threats. Finally, opportunities and threats affect our ability to survive and procreate. So, people have evolved to recognise holons and to acquire or avoid their outputs.

It is thought that all holons comprise several component ones that have emerged at lower levels of complexity. It is possible, however, that there is a minimum holon at subatomic level. A certain number of components, arranged in a particular way and with particular relationships between them, are required to create a holon that has an output that is distinct from those of its components, i.e., an emergent output. It is these emergent outputs, one of which is physical appearance, that lead us to distinguish between holons, name them, and use them in causal relationships. Thus, all holons have emergent outputs, emergent functions, and are therefore holistic. That is, they not only form a nested hierarchy, but they also have their own novel or emergent outputs distinct from those of their components.

It is also thought that all holons are components of larger ones that emerge at a higher level of complexity. This seems likely but is not proven. Nevertheless, although the universe may be infinite, what people are able to perceive of it is not. So, in any circumstance that we observe, not all combinations of component holons appear to form a larger one.

In any finite circumstance, component holons can be arranged and interact with one another, even if they are insufficient in number to form a process with emergent outputs that we can perceive. I will call these orphan holons. There are very many ways in which orphan holons can interact with one another, and the number of ways increases with the number of orphans. However, human cognitive abilities are limited. We can perceive, analyse, and to a limited extent predict the interaction of a few orphans, but, as their number increases, we cannot, and the situation appears to be chaotic. At best, we can only identify recurring causal patterns, and so, have developed techniques to assist us in this.

The concepts of purpose and of an artifact

Before moving on, I would like to briefly mention the concept of “purpose”. Purpose has two meanings depending on the context. When external agents refer to the purpose of a system, then they are referring to its function, i.e., to the outputs that it produces. When a system refers to its own purpose, then it is referring to what it would like its outputs to be. These outputs can be regarded as causes, and so, the system is also referring to the effects that it wishes to cause. Clearly, in the latter context, purpose applies only to systems with agency.

I would also like to mention artifacts. Holons can be classified as artifacts, living holons, or non-living holons. They are classified by the way that they are assembled. Artifacts are non-living aids to the function of a living holon. They are assembled from a design by that holon or another. For example, we create bone to support ourselves against gravity. Physical shells or containers can also be artifacts composed of non-living material such as calcium carbonate or dead skin cells. We can, of course, create more complex artifacts such as machines or computers to assist us in production or communication. All these artifacts, when needed by a living holon to perform its function, can be regarded as a component of the living holon.

Living holons are also produced from a design but are self-assembling. Finally, non-living holons do not appear to be assembled from a design, but rather, by random events according to the laws of physics.

Lesser living holons co-operate to form greater ones

Living cells cooperate within the human body because this better enables them to survive and propagate their genome. They have evolved to behave in this way. They do not all propagate their immediate genome, of course. Only those cells involved in reproduction do so. Nevertheless, the genome that is propagated is a copy of that of the cells not involved in reproduction. It is notable that evolution is a continuing process within our bodies. For example, random mutation produces cancer cells that no longer cooperate with their peers. Furthermore, cancer cells can themselves evolve under attack from the body’s immune system to yield more resistant ones. In this context, our cells are component holons and our entire body the larger holon of which they are a part.

Our various organs are formed of relationships between cells but are not able to survive and reproduce in isolation. They are an example of specialization within a holon. The overall function of a holon can be broken down into several specialised functions. For example, circulatory systems to deliver raw chemicals to other components. Nervous systems to exercise control over other components and so on. As holons become more complex functional differentiation occurs, i.e., there are ever more sub-functions.

In a similar way organisms cooperate to form what might, generically, be called “organisations”. In the human context, examples are clubs, businesses, and nations. In the animal world, examples are packs, and herds. Again, this cooperation occurs because it better enables the organisms to survive and procreate. It is worth noting that in some of these animal cooperatives only a few individuals reproduce. For example, in ant and other insect colonies only the queen does so. Again, however, it is copies of the sterile workers’ genome that is reproduced.

So, life forms a nested hierarchy of living holons. Typically, these are cells, organisms, collectives, species, and ecosystems. These holons are autopoietic. Cells protect themselves with a membrane and individual organisms with a shell or skin. Organisations, communities, packs, and herds use less tangible measures such as patterns of behaviour, to protect themselves, however.

Multi-level selection theory

We normally understand evolution as applying to organisms because this is where it was first identified by the English biologist, Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), in his famous book of 1859, “On the origin of species…” (Darwin, C., 1859). However, in practice, anything that is self-reproducing is subject to evolution.

The design of an entity is the information that, when it interacts with the environment, creates the physical manifestation of the entity. In the case of a cell or organism, this design is the genome. In the case of society, it is culture or the values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs that we hold in common in our minds. It is this design that is subject to random mutation. On the other hand, it is the physical manifestation of the entity that is subject to natural selection. That is the cell, the organism, the collective or the colony. Each living entity is a holon and autopoietic. It uses a protective shell or protective behaviour not only around itself, but also around the component holons that form it. Thus, those component holons are reliant on a nested hierarchy of protections for their survival and propagation. This is the basis of multi-level selection theory and implies that each holon has an interest in the survival and propagation of the greater holons of which it is a part. So, human beings for example, will have an interest in the survival and propagation not only of themselves but also of their family, any organisation of which they are a part, their nation, their species, and their ecosystem, albeit an interest that diminishes with distance.

Human social systems

The German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927 – 1998) was prominent in the development of social systems theory. However, his views on autopoiesis in human society are highly controversial. This is because social systems are like abstract entities whilst cells and organisms are concrete ones. The former differ from the latter in that their components are distributed in space and time, and so, cannot be protected by a single shell that encloses a region of space-time. For example, an individual is part of an organisation for as long as he is attending to that organisation’s function, even if working from home.

Nevertheless, organisations are not dissimilar to organisms in that they comprise several distinct components. The only difference is that, in an organism, many cells are in physical contact with one another. Others, more remote from one another, communicate via the nervous system, via chemical signals in the bloodstream, or via another other such channel. The components of an organisation are less in physical contact with one another, although we do gather together in offices and other workplaces. Rather, communication between remote components predominates. Autopoiesis is still necessary to maintain the integrity of an organisation but a physical shell is not possible. Rather, we use a range of protective behaviours that Luhmann referred to as operational closure.

Luhmann’s theory has been described as a theory of communication, and it has been said that an organisation comprises solely information. However, this is not correct. Information is physical in nature and held in the minds of people, books and other documents, computer memory chips, and so on. Thus, information cannot form part of an organisation unless the medium that holds it does too. So, an organisation comprises: the organisms that form it for so long as they are engaged in its function; the information they hold; communications between them; and any non-living artifacts necessary for the organisation to function.

Protection from the environment is still necessary. However, it is the member organisms, their ancillaries and their communications that are protected. In part this may be by a physical shell such as an office building. However, in the main, it is by less tangible but nonetheless physical protective processes, such as the encryption or provision of safe channels for information.

Conclusions

  1. Holons are holistic and are defined by their function or outputs.
  2. A minimum level of complexity is necessary for a greater holon to emerge from an arrangement of lesser ones.
  3. Holons can be classified as non-living, living, or artifacts. In each class members are assembled differently.
  4. Co-operation to acquire common satisfiers and avoid common contra-satisfiers creates a nested hierarchy of living holons.
  5. Holons comprise a number of component holons that are arranged and interact in a way that produces outputs that their components cannot, i.e., emergent outputs.
  6. People can only perceive a finite part of the universe, and so, not all holons appear to be part of a larger one. In any observed situation, there may therefore be orphan holons with causal relationships between them. As the number of orphans increases the interaction between them becomes increasingly complex and difficult for us to understand.
  7. Evolution is a fundamental principle of all self-replicating systems from autocatalysis upwards. It comprises random mutation in the design information for a living holon together with multilevel selection in the nested hierarchy on which the holon depends.
  8. Autopoiesis can be explained by the principles of evolution. However, rather than always being a shell that encloses a region of space-time, it comprises whatever maintains the integrity of the living holon and protects it from contra-satisfiers in the environment.
  9. Social systems such as organisations are living holons. They are self-replicating in the sense that their cultures can be observed and copied. They are also subject to evolution, in that successful cultures propagate whilst unsuccessful ones expire. They exhibit emergent properties in the form of their outputs which can only be produced once there is a sufficient level of complexity among their components. Finally, they are autopoietic in the sense that they have measures to protect their integrity from the environment whilst allowing their necessary inputs to pass.

References

Berzelius, J.J., 1835. “Sur un Force Jusqu’ici Peu Remarquée qui est Probablement Active Dans la Formation des Composés Organiques”. Section on Vegetable Chemistry, Jahres-Bericht, 14 (1835).

Cordus, V., 1575. “Le Guidon des Apotiquaires: C’est à dire, la Vraye Forme et Maniere de Composer les Médicamens”. L. Cloquemin, E. Michel, Lyons, 1575.

Darwin, C., 1859. “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. London, John Murray, 1859.

Hordijk, W. 2019. “A History of Autocatalytic Sets”. Biol Theory 14, 224–246 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-019-00330-w

Kauffman, S.A., 1971. “Cellular homeostasis, epigenesis and replication in randomly aggregated macromolecular systems.” J Cybern 1(1):71–96.

Koestler, A., 1967. “The Ghost in the Machine”. London, Hutchinson (Penguin Group). ISBN 0-14-019192-5.

Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J., 1972. “Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living.” Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science (1 ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel. p. 141. OCLC 989554341.

Smuts, J.C., 1926. “Holism and Evolution”. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Wisniak, J., 2010. “The History of Catalysis. From the Beginning to Nobel Prizes”. Educación Química, Volume 21, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 60-69. ISSN 0187-893X, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(18)30074-0. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0187893X18300740)

Categories
04. Language (Part 2)

Language Part 2

Have you ever wondered why it can be so difficult to communicate, particularly when discussing more esoteric concepts such as those of philosophy, psychology, or religion? The answer, of course, lies in the nature of information and the way we manage it.

According to the physicalist aspect of cognitive physicalist philosophy, information is physical in nature. We have an evolved ability to recognise and name things by virtue of their recurrence. I will use the example of a snake in the explanation that follows.

The structure and behaviour of physical things is “information at source”. So, the physical manifestation of the snake is also information at source.

We translate information at source into an idea. Thus, the idea of a snake may be a mental image residing in memory. To enable us to communicate, we also translate that idea into a word. In this case, the word is “snake”.

Thus, the physical manifestation of the snake, the idea of the snake, and the word “snake” are all strongly associated with one another. Furthermore, because we are all able to observe the physical manifestation of a snake in its entirety, this provides us all with a common anchor to reality. So, we also share a common idea of a snake and a common understanding of the meaning of the word “snake”. When we speak the word “snake” this invokes the same idea in the listener as the idea that generated the word for the speaker.

Although everything is physical, not everything can be observed in its entirety. A more abstract concept such as justice, for example, comprises very many just acts and each person can only observe a few of them. Different people will of course observe different examples, and thus, form different ideas of justice. There is no common anchor to physical reality, and so, the word will invoke different ideas in different people.

We are also able to form ideas that may not have a physical equivalent. For example, Atlantis is a mythical city and, although we can create this idea, it has no equivalent in the physical world. We do, of course, speculate on far more complex ideas than Atlantis and give them names. In such circumstances, we may not even have examples to observe, and so, the likelihood of the speaker and the listener sharing a common idea for the word is even less.

To overcome this problem, we often attempt to define the idea associated with the word. However, because our ideas differ, we frequently encounter differences of opinion over the definition. For more esoteric concepts, even the words we use to define the idea may have their own differences associated with them. So, agreeing a common idea for a word that describes something abstract or something that does not really exist can be fraught with difficulty.

To complicate matters yet further, the ideas associated with words can alter with time. A form of evolution takes place in which different definitions gain greater acceptance or expire. So, the meaning of a word to a member of one generation can frequently differ to that of another. The physical equivalent of a word can also alter with time, culture, and geography. For example, the Western ideas and practices associated with the word “justice” today are different from those of the Middle Ages and parts of the Middle East.

We should accept that communication can be very difficult and needs considerable effort when we are discussing more esoteric ideas. We often, for example, encounter people using the same word for different ideas, or different words for the same idea.

The best we can do to overcome these difficulties is use plain language wherever possible, both to express our ideas and, where necessary, to define a word. It is sensible to use dictionary definitions because these will be the most commonly used. However, British and American English dictionary definitions often differ. So, it is also sensible, when writing, to define any word that is not in common use and, if the word has not been used for a while, to repeat the definition, as a reminder for the reader.

Categories
34. Emotion and Decision-making

Emotion and Decision-making

This article is a summary of a series of articles published in 2022, the first of which can be found at https://rational-understanding.com/2022/01/12/emotions/

The variables involved in the decisions of an individual person comprise:

  • The satisfiers and contra-satisfiers that an act is likely to cause.
  • The change in status of those satisfiers and contra-satisfiers between absent, latent, precarious, and entrenched.
  • The probability of those satisfiers and contra-satisfiers occurring as a result of the act.
  • The needs affected by those satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. Most affect several needs.
  • The current state of those needs, i.e., wholly satisfied, partly satisfied, and so on.
  • The change in the level of satisfaction of those needs.
  • The holon affected by the satisfier or contra-satisfier.

These variables are too many for rational and objective analysis, even if we had the time. So instead, we use emotion as follows.

  • Positive and negative emotions attach to needs. Typical positive emotions are happiness, joy, and exhilaration. Typical negative ones are fear, disgust, and anxiety.
  • If needs are fully satisfied, then our emotions are neutral. If they are not, then our emotions are negative.
  • A satisfier will alter the status of a need by increasing its level of satisfaction. The greater the increase, the greater the reduction in negative emotion.
  • For a short time, we will also experience a positive emotion. Positive emotions are, however, transient. This is because we must continuously act to survive, and positive emotions reduce our motivation to do so. So, they merely act as a short-term reward for successful acts.
  • A contra-satisfier reduces the level of satisfaction of our needs, and so, increases our negative emotional state.

A decision to act is made by totalling the effects of all satisfiers and contra-satisfiers associated with it, to assess the overall change in our emotional state. The process involved is akin to that of an analogue computer.

  • The lower a need in the ERG (existence, relatedness, growth) hierarchy, the greater the weight, or relative importance, we give to it. Greatest weight is normally given to existence needs.
  • The less satisfied a need, the greater the weight we give to it.
  • The closer the beneficiary of a satisfier or the victim of a contra-satisfier is to us, the greater the weight we give to their needs. Greatest weight is given to our own needs.
  • The resulting change in emotional state is associated with the relevant satisfier or contra-satisfier, and we remember these associations for use as future shortcuts.
  • The greater the probability that the act will deliver a satisfier or contra-satisfier, the greater the weight we give to the latter. Greatest weight is given to satisfiers or contra-satisfiers that are certain to occur.
  • We then aggregate the weighted changes in negative emotion attached to the relevant satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. If the result is an overall reduction in negative emotions, then we will act. If it is an increase, then we will not.
  • If the overall change is greater than a certain threshold, then this can trigger a biochemical reaction, such as the fight or flight syndrome.

This process, including any cognitive elements, is biological in nature and has almost certainly evolved in animals over time. Simpler versions of the process are likely to exist in non-human animals and are also likely to have existed in our ancestor species.

The emotional associations, weights and thresholds are established by a combination of genetics, socialisation, and experience. So, the process can be carried out relatively quickly and subconsciously. For example, it takes relatively little time to know whether we are happy or unhappy with a proposed course of action.

There is, however, considerable variation between individuals. For example, empaths will give a higher weight than average to the effect of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers on others; psychopaths will give the same effects a lower weight than average; and narcissists will give a higher weight than average to the need for positive regard.

Culture also has an effect. For example, values and norms create what we refer to as conscience. Acting contrary to conscience generates the negative emotion of guilt.

Socialisation affects the emotional value that we attach to satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. For example, continued exposure to advertising can create a belief that products and services will reduce negative emotions, and thus, lead us to indulge in “retail therapy”. Socialisation can also affect how we vote in elections.

Fortunately, if we have the time, and particularly if the decision that we need to make is a novel one, we can consciously verify our decisions before acting. The process involved is described at https://rational-understanding.com/2021/10/22/consciousness/ .

Decisions made by holons comprising more than one person can differ in several respects. A decision is more likely to be based on research and consciously reasoned argument. There may be formal established processes. Debate and consultation may be involved, bringing with them the perspectives and interaction styles of several individuals. Nevertheless, every holon is ultimately led by an individual person and they are subject to the emotional processes described above. As a minimum, this can influence the decision. A recent example is the disastrous economic decisions made, against all advice, in 2022, by the UK’s 50-day Prime Minister.

Categories
33. Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective (Part 2)

Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective, Part 2

A living holon is any organism, any group of organisms, or any group of groups that work together with a common purpose. Human holons are a subset of living holons. They include individual people and organisations of all types from clubs, through businesses and nations, to the global community.

All living holons are motivated to acquire benefits or satisfiers and to avoid disbenefits or contra-satisfiers. However, most decisions have both benefits and disbenefits. That is, if implemented, they yield both satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. Rarely are they entirely beneficial. So, in deciding whether to act, living holons carry out a form of risk benefit cost analysis. The disbenefits are weighted, mitigated, and deducted from the benefits to yield a net benefit or disbenefit. That is, an overall satisfier or contra-satisfier. If there is an overall satisfier, then the living holon will act. If there is an overall contra-satisfier, it will not.

The benefits of an action normally apply to the actor, but the disbenefits can apply to any party. The more socially distant the latter from the actor, the lower the weighting given by the actor to the disbenefit. Also, in the case of people, the less empathic and the darker the traits of the actor, the lower the weighting given to disbenefits for others.

If an action that yields both a benefit and a disbenefit becomes established, and if they affect the ability of the holon or holons that experience them to survive and procreate, then they will become evolutionary drivers for that holon or those holons. If both are experienced by the actor, then both become evolutionary drivers for the actor. If they apply to different holons, then they become individual evolutionary drivers for those holons. These drivers will cause the benefit to be acquired ever more efficiently and the disbenefit to be avoided ever more effectively. Thus, the holon or holons will become ever more specialised.

Risk benefit cost analysis is not necessarily a conscious process and can be one that is programmed into a species by evolution. An example is the cognitive bias in human decision making identified by Kahneman and Tversky (Kahneman D., 2011). Cognitive biases are shortcuts to decision making carried out under the pressure of circumstances. They are often not entirely logical and are certainly not consciously considered, but they do have the advantage of being correct much of the time. We use them when there is no time to consciously review our decisions before events decide the outcome for us. It is more beneficial to take an action quickly and unconsciously, even if there is only a limited likelihood of success, than to engage in conscious reasoning and, during that process, experience failure.

The effect of the benefits and disbenefits of an activity on a single species can clearly be seen in one of nature’s most delightful sights, the murmuration, or synchronised flight, of a flock of starlings. A murmuration over Brighton Pier can be seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eEobkfMC_4 .

The purpose of a murmuration is to attract starlings, who have dispersed during the day, into large groups for overnight roosting. If you watch carefully, you will see smaller groups joining larger ones and the latter steadily growing. Once a group is large enough, the birds will descend to roost together. This provides them with safety in numbers against predators. In other words, they cooperate to gain a mutual benefit or satisfier. There is no doubt that this instinctive behaviour has an evolutionary basis. Those that roost together are more likely to survive and propagate their genome than those that do not, and so, the genetic drivers for this behaviour propagate through the population over time.

There is, however, a downside. Flying together in close formation poses a risk of collision, injury, or death, and thus, a disbenefit or contra-satisfier. Mitigation of this disbenefit is carried out by spatial distancing. Using computer modelling the Italian Physicist, Professor Giorgio Parisi, found that the birds synchronise their flight by co-ordinating only with those adjacent to them (Parisi G., 2023). The skill involved is one of flying as closely to their neighbours as possible without colliding. This, in turn, is determined by their ability to respond to changes in proximity and direction before a collision occurs. There is no doubt that this skill also has an evolutionary basis. Those birds lacking the necessary genetic drivers will have collided and perished whilst those with them will have survived and procreated. Again, the necessary genetic drivers will have propagated through the population over time.

A colleague in LinkedIn, Fiona Clubb, describes the following event. “… about 25 years ago in Birmingham, England. I was competing in a Western Equestrian national show and was in a very small collecting ring with around 30 other competitors. There was very little room but the riders were all practicing their art, some going sideways, some at a flat out gallop, some just standing, and others spinning on the spot at high speed. It was complete chaos, yet nobody came close to colliding. They were all in control, and totally aware of space as it opened up for them to make their move. I have never seen anything like it. It was like a chaotic murmuration. The only protocol in place to coordinate the process was the riders’ mental skill and their ability to adapt…”. (Clubb F., 2024)

In this example, the riders were acquiring the mutual benefit of practicing their skills. However, as a part of this they also had to avoid the contra-satisfier of collisions. Again, this disbenefit was avoided by spatial distancing.

On the streets of a busy city, dense crowds of people walk in many different directions but, unless they are using smartphones, collisions are rare. In the same way as the starlings and the horses and their riders, people show a remarkable ability to avoid them. Indeed, in the branch of psychology known as proxemics, if one person enters another’s defensible space this is regarded as a threat. (Hall, E.T. 1966). The ability to avoid one another’s defensible space is almost certainly an evolved trait. It may also be an evolved trait in horses which are a herd species. So, it is likely that, in Birmingham, the horses were contributing as much to the avoidance of collisions as their riders.

Spatial separation can also be observed in the niches occupied by different species. For example, the insect species on a tree are separated according to the parts of the tree. Some occupy the foliage, some the branches, and others the trunk. All benefit from being a part of the larger ecosystem but maintain spatial separation to avoid direct conflict.

The same is true of human sub-cultures. The members of a sub-culture will gather together to avoid conflict with others but will remain in the same locale as the main culture and reap its benefits for so long as it tolerates them.

In human affairs, functional difference can, however, replace spatial distance. For example, fast food outlets will tend to congregate in the same location, and this acts as a mutual satisfier by attracting customers to that location. However, we do not see two fish and chip shops next door to one another. This is because the same function in the same location would create competition that is likely to become negative and lead to conflict. This, in turn, would ultimately lead to the failure of at least one competitor. The weaker competitor would be taken over or driven out by the more successful one. So, the outlets differ in function: fish and chips, Indian, Chinese, burger bars, coffee shops, and so on. There is some competition in terms of value for money, but no immediate competition in terms of the service provided. Each outlet shares the mutual benefit of cooperation and avoids the potential disbenefit of conflict by functional distancing.

Competition and takeovers are common in the business world when two organisations have a similar function. Thus, there is a tendency for functional distance to develop between businesses in the same market. This minimises conflict but can lead to the formation of monopolies. However, because monopolies can discourage innovation and abuse their powers, most governments legislate and regulate to prevent them. Departments or components within an organisation are, however, often monopolies. This is because there is no market choice, and the cost of duplication would outweigh the benefits of competition. It is, however, possible to introduce competition by splitting departments geographically or by outsourcing an activity to more than one contractor.

In summary, the decisions of living holons, human or otherwise, involve both satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, and so, an often innate form of risk benefit cost analysis is carried out when deciding whether to act. If an activity becomes established, then its benefits and disbenefits can act as evolutionary drivers for the holons that experience them. This process can be seen in both humans and other animals. It can also be seen in individuals and groups. Finally, it can be seen in both biological and cultural evolution. As well as learning to take decisions using these analyses, people also take them intuitively, and so, our genetic inheritance plays a part. Thus, human behaviour, although more complex than that of other species, is not as different or as divorced from nature as we sometimes like to believe. The principles of evolution still underpin our behaviour.

References

Clubb, F. (2024). Jobs for Horses, LinkedIn. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/fiona-clubb-47074095

Hall, Edward T. (1966). “The Hidden Dimension”. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-385-08476-5.

Kahneman, D. (2011). “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-27563-1.

Parisi, G. (2023). “In a Flight of Starlings”. UK: Penguin Random House. Allen Lane.

Categories
32. Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective (Part 1)

Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective

This article generalizes the principles of biological evolution so that their broader application can be seen more clearly, particularly in the context of human society and cultural evolution. I will begin with the definition of some general terms, then use these terms to describe general evolutionary principles.

Definitions

A living holon is any organism, any group of organisms, or any group of groups that work together with a common purpose. Human holons are a subset of living holons. They include individual people and organisations of all types from clubs, through businesses and nations, to the global community.

The principles of evolution apply to living things such as bacteria, trees, and people, and some of their artifacts such as factories and computers. They do not apply to other non-living things. This is because living things and their artifacts are derived from a design which can change. Other non-living things, such as planets, rocks, etc. may be derived from a design, but it does not change.

The design of something comprises the information necessary to create the physical manifestation of that thing. Thus, the genome of an organism can be regarded as its design and the phenotype as its physical manifestation.

Culture includes the values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs that govern the behaviour of a living holon. So, the culture of a living holon can be regarded as its design, and the set of behaviours or society of that living holon as its physical manifestation.

The genome of an organism and the culture of a living holon are passed on from generation to generation. Both are also subject to evolutionary change. Randon mutation can occur in the genome due to the influences of viruses, radiation, copying errors, and so on. Random mutations can also occur in culture due to new norms, values, knowledge, ideas, and beliefs.

Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of the needs of a living holon. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, reduce that level of satisfaction. All living holons are motivated to acquire satisfiers and avoid contra-satisfiers. Random mutations in the genome or in the culture of a living holon make it either more or less able to acquire satisfiers or avoid contra-satisfiers.

The status of a satisfier or contra-satisfier can be any one of the following: absent; latent, i.e., promised or threatened; precarious, i.e., present but not necessarily so in the future; or entrenched, i.e., present and likely to remain so. This discussion concerns satisfiers and contra-satisfiers that are precarious or entrenched.

The principles of evolution apply to populations of living holons in the following ways.

Evolution under the effect of contra-satisfiers.

When a contra-satisfier that impacts on a living holon’s ability to survive and procreate is applied to a population of living holons, then those most able to avoid it are more likely to survive and procreate than those least able. This ability to avoid the contra-satisfier stems from the design of the holon, i.e., its genome or culture. Thus, genetic or cultural attributes that enable avoidance of the contra-satisfier are selected for, and the proportion of those better able to avoid it steadily increases. Advantageous genes or ideas will propagate through the population and disadvantageous ones will expire.

Evolution under the effect of shortages of satisfiers.

When a shortage of a satisfier that impacts on a living holon’s ability to survive and procreate is applied to a population, then those best able to acquire the satisfier are more likely to survive and procreate than those least able. Again, through natural selection, the proportion of those better able to acquire the satisfier steadily increases.

The evolution of cooperation.

Although this is not always the case, one way of becoming better able to acquire a satisfier is to form a co-operative group, and thus, a shortage of satisfiers can also lead to the evolution of cooperation. By acting together, it may be possible for more than one holon to acquire a mutual satisfier or avoid a mutual contra-satisfier from the environment. When the members of a holon act together in this way, they exchange satisfiers with the holon’s control component or leader. This often takes the form of information flowing upwards and instructions flowing downwards. It is also possible, but not necessarily so, for them to exchange satisfiers with one another. In this way, a cooperative group, and thus, a higher-level holon is formed which follows the same general laws as the original holons. Thus, the higher-level holon can act cooperatively with others to form yet higher-level ones. If holons benefit more, in terms of their survival and procreation, by acting together rather than independently, then the former are more likely to survive and procreate than the latter. So, the genetic or cultural attributes which lead to cooperation will steadily propagate through the population over time.

However, cooperation will of course fail if it does not lead to the desired result.

We tend to focus on our failures, and this obscures the fact that human beings are extraordinarily cooperative. Were this not the case then our societies which comprise millions of people, and sometimes even billions, would collapse.

This is the basis of multi-level selection theory, i.e., the survival and procreation of an organism depends on the survival of cooperative groups or holons to which it belongs. Furthermore, multi-level selection theory applies not only to individual organisms but also to higher level holons. The survival of any higher level holon also depends on the survival of yet higher level ones to which it belongs. Such holons are formed by their culture, and so, multi-level selection theory also applies to cultural evolution.

The existence of leaders with dark personality traits can also be explained by this process. The lower the level of a holon the more it contributes to the survival of the organisms that comprise it. Leaders with dark traits may be perceived as beneficial to the survival of that holon, and thus, the organisms that comprise it, even this is at the expense of potentially higher level holons. However, evolution cannot predict the future and the highest level holon, humanity, is now at risk from dark leaders. So, such leadership must not be allowed to continue if we are to survive.

Competitive co-evolution.

It is possible for two populations of living holons to compete to acquire the same satisfier or  avoid the same contra-satisfier. In this case, both populations evolve to become ever more capable. Ultimately, one may succeed and the other may expire. But until that time, neither fully succeeds because of the evolution of the other, and ongoing evolution causes the two to become ever more specialised.

As in the case of predation, where two populations A and B are involved, it is also possible for A to provide B with a contra-satisfier and for B to provide A with a satisfier. In other words, what may be a satisfier for one may be a contra-satisfier for the other. Evolution will result in population A becoming better able to acquire the satisfier and population B becoming better able to avoid the contra-satisfier.

Finally, as in the case of conflict, it is possible for the two populations of living holons to deliver contra-satisfiers to one another. Evolution will result in both being better able to deliver them, but also in being better able to avoid them. Ultimately, however, one party is likely to prevail and the other to expire.

Cooperative co-evolution.

Cooperation comprises the exchange of satisfiers between two parties. If the two parties have different functions, and the receipt of a satisfier from the other party affects their ability to survive and procreate, then cooperative co-evolution will occur. Genetic or cultural traits that better enable one party to acquire the satisfier from the other will propagate through the population. Genetic or cultural traits that enable one party to deliver the satisfier to the other more efficiently, i.e., using fewer resources, will also propagate through the population. Over time, this can result in both parties becoming highly specialised and dependent on one another.

Categories
31. The Fractal Nature of Society

The Fractal Nature of Society

The fractal structure of nature was discovered by the French-American mathematician, Benoit Mandelbrot, in 1980. Many of you will be familiar with fractals and so it is not my intention to describe them in detail. Rather, if you are unfamiliar with them, I refer you to the very clear explanation given at https://math.libretexts.org/Courses/College_of_the_Canyons/Math_100%3A_Liberal_Arts_Mathematics_(Saburo_Matsumoto)/07%3A_Mathematics_and_the_Arts/7.04%3A_Fractals

Eliot Kersgaard (2019) defines a fractal as a system with similar properties at all scales. Many readers will be familiar with numerical fractals such as the Mandelbrot set or geometrical fractals such as the Sierpinski triangle. This is where most fractal research has focused. In these cases, Kersgaard’s “scale” is numerical or geometrical. However, these fractals are normally displayed using the two dimensions of a piece of paper or a video screen. So, incorrectly, their scale appears to be spatial. However, “scale” can also apply in a physical sense to features of reality, such as objects, events, or relationships, in which case “scale” is genuinely either spatial or spatio-temporal.  The leaf of a fern is, for example, a genuine spatial fractal.

The Viable Systems Model (VSM) was proposed by the British psychologist, Stafford Beer, in his 1972 book “The Brain of the Firm”. This model is used as a framework for understanding human organisations, but it is also thought to apply more broadly to other living things. Again, without going into detail, the model proposes that every organisation has a control component that coordinates the activities of other components, e.g., the brain of a human being or the manager of a team or organisation. For those unfamiliar with the model, I refer you to the explanation at https://www.toolshero.com/management/viable-system-model/.

Beer recognised that his VSM model was recursive, i.e., every model comprised components, one of which was a control component, and every component was a VSM model. However, this was before the fractal structure of nature was discovered by Benoit Mandelbrot. In fact, the VSM model is a fractal generator that applies at all scales of organisation and is comparable therefore to the simple recursive formula used to generate the Mandelbrot Set. Furthermore, control applies to a function, and there are very many functions. This means that the VSM model is likely to apply quite extensively in natural and artificial ecosystems. Choose any “organisation” and function anywhere among living things and you are likely to find that VSM applies. There is never just one “controller” therefore. Rather every living thing both controls and is controlled.

Little work has been done on the fractal nature of human society. However, the following paper raises the concept as a possibility. https://www.academia.edu/47938193/Fractals_in_Social_Sciences_an_introductory_remark

The rule that creates a fractal is known as a generator. For example, a simple recursive mathematical equation acts as the generator of the Mandelbrot set. The generator for human society is, however, more complex. It is the relationships between human holons at various scales that create society. However, these relationships are not always cooperative ones. If that were the case, then all of humanity would comprise just one organisation with a single leader. This is clearly not the case and, as an alternative, I would therefore suggest the following generator.

  • A human holon is any person, group of people, or group of groups who cooperate with a common purpose. The cooperation of more than one human holon creates another at greater scale. Thus, human holons form a nested hierarchy.
  • Every human holon has a control or management component. This, in conjunction with the principle above, results in a control or management hierarchy. For a holon of greater scale to be formed, it is not necessary that every pair of components cooperate horizontally with one another. However, they must cooperate vertically with the control component.
  • A satisfier is an external thing that satisfies a human holon’s needs. For example, it may be food for an individual person, or electricity for a manufacturing organisation. There are many such satisfiers, and they determine the function of their source. The more specialised this function, the less extensive the range of sources, and the more likely it is that two human holons with a common need will share the source of a satisfier.
  • The source of a satisfier also depends on the geographical location and culture of the holon. Sources closer to and with a similar culture to the holon tend to be used first. Thus, the closer two holons are geographically and culturally, the more likely they are to share the source of a satisfier.
  • The relationship between two human holons is neutral if the source of a common satisfier differs for both. It is also neutral if the source of a common satisfier is shared, but the satisfier is sufficient for the needs of both.
  • If the source or sources of a common satisfier are not sufficient for both when they act independently, but are sufficient if they act cooperatively, then two human holons may cooperate. However, a degree of randomness is introduced by holons not considering cooperation in these circumstances.
  • If the source or sources of a common satisfier are not sufficient for both, then two human holons will compete to satisfy their needs. Competition, unless externally controlled, can escalate into conflict.
  • Leadership roles act as a satisfier and are limited in their availability. So, they will generate competition among any human holons who aspire to them. Thus, there can be horizontal competition between the components of a holon and between discrete holons.

This generator is hypothetical, of course, but I believe it to be a good foundation for a theory of society.

References

Beer, S. 1972. “Brain Of The Firm”. Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, London, Herder and Herder, USA.

Kersgaard, E., 2019. “Life’s Universal Patterns”. Medium. https://medium.com/illumination/lifes-universal-patterns-e534475aabf6

Mandelbrot, B. B., 1982. “The Fractal Geometry of Nature”. W. H. Freeman.

Categories
30. How Psychological Barriers can be Reinforced or Weakened

How Psychological Barriers can be Reinforced or Weakened

In this article, first, I will discuss a way in which psychological barriers can be reinforced, and then, a way in which they can be weakened.

How positive psychology can reinforce barriers

One of the key tenets of positive psychology is that the experience of positive emotions is a part of human wellbeing. The concept of positive psychology was founded by Martin Seligman in 2000 and has since become ubiquitous. Articles on the subject can be found in magazines on most bookstands; it is promoted by websites and university departments; and, many employers encourage it because positive emotions boost job performance. A helpful explanation of this branch of psychology can be found at https://positivepsychology.com/what-is-positive-psychology-definition/.

Strictly, positive psychology does not preclude the experience of negative emotions. Rather, it regards the experience of both positive and negative emotions as part of a balanced life. The emphasis of positive psychology on positive emotions was intended to redress the balance, which in the field of psychology, was thought to have swung too far towards a study of the negative. Negative emotions have evolved for a reason. They motivate us to deal with contra-satisfiers. For example, it is well known that the best way of dealing with anxiety is to identify its cause and tackle that.

However, positive psychology is not presented to the public in this way. Rather, it is presented more in the form of an opiate that will provide happiness, despite all the contra-satisfiers that we inevitably experience. So, it is easy, in the popular imagination, to conflate positive emotions with good, and negative emotions with bad. The effect is, of course, to reinforce psychological barriers. We may, for example, deny the existence of a clearly observable contra-satisfier, such as a toxic employer, to avoid the negative emotions that acknowledgement would cause. Conflating positive psychology with “bad” negative emotions provides a justification for denial. However, it also prevents us from taking action to resolve the problem, such as looking for another job.

It is okay to experience negative emotions. Their purpose is to motivate us to improve our situation by tackling contra-satisfiers. However, to avoid our lives becoming swamped by either positive or negative emotions, we should maintain a balance between the two. We should also recognise that contra-satisfiers can be tackled in either a negative or a positive way. For example, we may be angry about the unreasonable way that a neighbour’s parked car blocks the entrance to our drive. However, the answer is not to slash his car tyres. Rather, it may be to befriend him and express your concerns more subtly.

How neutral events can become positive ones, and so, weaken barriers

Not every event or situation is a satisfier or contra-satisfier. Many are neutral and have no impact on our needs either positively or negatively. However, we do have a choice in the matter. Because we have evolved to avoid anything that causes us harm, we do not choose for neutrals to act as contra-satisfiers. We can, however, choose for them to act as satisfiers. For example, if we are fortunate enough to be able to spend time on our growth needs, then we can turn a neutral into a satisfier by making a skill of it or by trying to understand it.

In this way the skill or understanding becomes a satisfier, contributes to the benefits of acting, and thus, weakens any barrier against action. If, for example, the poor performance of an organisation has a negative impact on our lives, we may feel inclined to let it pass. However, if we have an interest in why that poor performance is occurring, and wish to learn from this, then we are more likely to act.

As mentioned in a previous article, the current poly-crisis, i.e., global warming, biodiversity loss, wars, migration from the South to the North, and so on all have obvious social causes. However, the open recognition of these causes would result in much stress and anxiety. They are, therefore, the subject of cultural denial. That is, as a culture, we discourage one another from openly discussing the topic, to avoid the anxiety it generates. However, as clearly demonstrated by the hilariously entertaining movie, “Chicken Run – Rise of the Nugget”, some of these social truths can be presented in a way that entertains, whilst at the same time making us think about the problem. In this way cultural denial can be overcome. So, if you recognise the problems outlined in my article https://rational-understanding.com/2023/09/05/cultural-denial-or-conspiracy-of-silence/, then please work on creative ways to communicate it to others in a way that makes it easier for them to accept.

Categories
01. Metaphysics

Metaphysics

The word “metaphysics” means different things to different people in different contexts. In fact, many learned papers have been written on the topic without reaching a conclusion. It appears to be one of those words whose meaning has changed over time, and whose historical meanings have persisted in some arenas. So, I have attempted to identify the common factor that unites all of those meanings. For the purposes of this article, therefore, I will define metaphysics as “pure theory that cannot be observed in the known physical world”. A metaphysical belief defined in this way can neither be proven nor disproven. Yet, such beliefs pervade our cultures. Why?

The main reason comprises a combination of two features of human nature. Firstly, we have a natural drive to understand the world in which we live. This better enables us to grasp the opportunities and avoid the threats that it presents to us. For the most part, we gain this understanding by observing events, or by learning from others who have observed them. However, there comes a point at which our ability to observe fails. What we would like to see becomes too small, too large, or too remote. So, we have no option but to speculate, at which point the explanation becomes a metaphysical one. Secondly, although we seek an explanation for states of affairs, the simpler it is, the better we can grasp it.

Metaphysical explanations are presented to us in two ways. At best it is in the form of simple speculation. That is, we hypothesise what may be the cause of a state of affairs beyond what we are able to observe in the empirical world. In physics, string theory may be an example. Logic and consistency with what we can observe may take us some way into the unobservable. However, the further we speculate beyond what can be confirmed by physical observation, the more likely we are to be wrong.

At worst, metaphysics can be deliberately false. For example, dark personalities can use metaphysical explanations to gain followers, thereby increasing their power base. This is almost certainly the case with some religious leaders.

As our technical and scientific skills have grown over time, we have been able to observe ever more of the physical world. Thus, what may previously have been metaphysical beliefs were replaced by ones founded on observation. It is notable, for example, that as our abilities to observe the physical world have increased, the domain of our gods has become ever more remote: from spirits within the rocks and trees around us, to mountain-tops, to the heavens, and finally, to the physical universe itself or beyond. However, past metaphysical beliefs can become entrenched in culture. Worse yet, they can become entrenched in the scientific paradigm. Thus, they can persist even after our knowledge of the physical world has expanded to cover what might previously have been an area of speculation.

This represents a problem for poly-perspectivism, i.e., the unification of diverse beliefs or perspectives into a single consistent whole. A consistent model comprising several perspectives is not possible when some of them contain falsehoods. Metaphysical beliefs inevitably include many falsehoods, are often inconsistent with one another, and so, defy unification. Any attempts at poly-perspectivism must, therefore, exclude the metaphysical.

One way of identifying whether a belief is metaphysical is to ask ourselves where it originated. Is it something that we have observed in practice, or is it something that other members of our society have caused us to believe? Many of our beliefs were first gained when we were socialised as young children and remain with us throughout our lives. This is why metaphysical beliefs persist. Other metaphysical beliefs are gained during our lives from role models and other people that we respect or look up to. But are these beliefs correct and is there observable evidence for them? Often not. Unfortunately, not all beliefs are equally valid. It can be challenging to question them in this way but, if we value truth, then it is something we must learn to do.

References

Korn, J., 2023. “Existence as a web of problem solving systems”, Kybernetes, doi.org/10.1108/K-05-2023-0751.

Categories
29. Psychological Barriers

Psychological Barriers

A barrier is anything that prevents us from acting in some way. It can be physical or psychological. Physical barriers are normally imposed on us by others, by our physical abilities, or by our environment. For example, they can be the bars of a prison, the inability of a young child to walk or crawl, or the steps that prevent access for wheelchairs.

Psychological barriers, on the other hand, are caused by our wish to avoid negative emotions such as anger, fear, disgust, grief, guilt, or embarrassment. In turn, these emotions are caused by the impact of contra-satisfiers on our needs.

Psychological barriers are established and can be removed as follows. Information held in the unconscious mind includes experience and culture. Experience is gained from empirical observation and is normally true, providing, of course, that we have observed events correctly. Culture comprises knowledge; beliefs; values or things that we hold good and bad; and norms or acceptable and unacceptable forms of behaviour. Culture is acquired from society through a process of socialialisation. This is because young children have little experience, and must rely on knowledge passed to them from others. A shared culture also aids cooperation. Culture is reinforced, internalized, and made a part of us by socialisation. Socialisation is the process whereby others reward us for compliance with a culture, and punish us for non-compliance. Unfortunately, however, culture can either deliberately or inadvertently include false beliefs.

Satisfiers are things that increase the level of satisfaction of our needs. For example, food satisfies our need for nutrition. Contra-satisfiers have the reverse effect. For example, disease reduces the level of satisfaction of our need for health. When a satisfier is required or a contra-satisfier is to be avoided, then the unconscious mind suggests a course of action, based on experience and the cultural information that it contains.

The conscious mind then verifies this suggestion. If there is a net benefit in terms of the satisfaction of our needs, then we act. However, evolution has produced organisms that must avoid contra-satisfiers if they are to survive and procreate. So, the conscious mind will usually block suggestions that have a net disbenefit, requiring the unconscious mind to think again. In this way, the conscious mind creates barriers. Repeated referral back to the unconscious mind also trains the latter, and in this way, creates unconscious barriers. More detail on this model of consciousness can be found at https://rational-understanding.com/2021/10/22/consciousness/

We also inflict internal psychological satisfiers and contra-satisfiers on ourselves. These too are considered when deciding whether to act. If an action would result in an internal contra-satisfier, then it becomes less likely. If it would result in an internal satisfier, then it becomes more likely. In this way, internal contra-satisfiers and the emotions they generate can strengthen psychological barriers.

An example of an internal psychological satisfier or contra-satisfier is our conscience. This comprises internalised values derived from experience and culture. The latter can, of course, be true to our experience or not. Compliance with our conscience satisfies our need for positive self-regard. Non-compliance acts as a contra-satisfier for the same need. It causes us to experience the negative emotion, guilt, which motivates us to acts of reparation. Thus, we will tend to avoid non-compliance.

It is notable, however, that people with dark traits, such as narcissists, psychopaths, and Machiavellians, have weak consciences, and thus, weaker psychological barriers against acting in an anti-social way.

Another example of an internal psychological satisfier or contra-satisfier is our internalised cultural norms. Compliance with them satisfies our need for relatedness. Non-compliance acts as a contra-satisfier for the same need. It causes the negative emotion of embarrassment  and motivates us, for example, to apologise. Thus, if a course of action would result in non-compliance with cultural norms, this strengthens any barrier against acting in that way.

If a contra-satisfier, whether internal or external, cannot be avoided, then we can protect ourselves from the resulting negative emotions by adopting a strategy such as denial. This is a refusal to acknowledge that the contra-satisfier exists. If a group of people experience the same contra-satisfier, then personal denial can become cultural denial. It becomes embedded in the group’s culture and is reinforced by the process of socialisation. In this case socialisation comprises punishment for raising the topic of the contra-satisfier, and reward for remaining silent about it. Denial, both personal and cultural, can lead to a failure to recognise that a barrier exists. For more on cultural denial see https://rational-understanding.com/2023/09/05/cultural-denial-or-conspiracy-of-silence/.

Confidence comprises beliefs that we hold about our skills. The ideal level of confidence in a skill is one that matches the level of skill. Confidence, or a lack of it, that is based on experience is pragmatic. If, for example, we have never climbed a mountain, then it is sensible to have a lack of confidence in our mountain climbing skills. This strengthens our psychological barrier against mountain climbing. As a rule, it is healthy practice to develop our skills, thereby gaining confidence in them, and weakening the psychological barriers against their use. In this way, we satisfy our need for growth.

It is notable, however, that people with dark personality traits tend to be overconfident about their skills, and so, have reduced psychological barriers when it comes to applying them.

Confidence, or a lack of it, based on culture or the opinions of others may be true. For example, most parents socialize children against wandering off alone, because this can have harmful consequences. Alternatively, however, confidence can be based on false premises or be the result of a psychological abnormality. If we do have mountain climbing skills but no confidence in them, then, if the latter is based on information acquired from others, they are creating psychological barriers for us. However, if the lack of confidence has an abnormal internal source, then we are creating psychological barriers for ourselves. In either case, we do not need to acquire mountain climbing skills, but rather, skills in overcoming the psychological barriers that have been created by us or for us.