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.

Categories
28. What is Power?

What is Power?

My previous article ended with a discussion of the unconstrained pursuit of power and I will now explore this concept in more detail.

Power can be defined as the control of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers for oneself and others. Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of our needs. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, reduce that level of satisfaction. Money is not in itself power, but rather something that can be traded for more tangible satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. Thus, it can be regarded as an undefined or general satisfier. The control of money is therefore equivalent to the control of satisfiers and is a component of power. As a side issue, all satisfiers and contra-satisfiers can be said to have a monetary value that depends on what people are willing to pay for them.

Individual people give a weight, and thus, a priority to the deployment of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. This weighting depends on our relatedness to the recipients and our personality traits. Normally, greatest weight is given to ourselves, i.e., the home holon, followed by close family, followed by more distant relatives, followed by those unrelated to us. The rate at which this weighting tapers off with distance depends on factors such as empathy and whether we have dark personality traits. Priorities for the deployment of contra-satisfiers are, of course in the reverse order, with greatest weight being given to people most remote. The same is true of larger co-operative groups of people such as nations and organisations. For example, a business with a “bottom line” culture gives a very high priority to the needs of the home holon and a very low priority to those of others.

The amount of power that we have lies on a scale, from total powerlessness at the bottom, to absolute power at the top. Because of the way we weight its deployment, there is a point at which our power is just sufficient for the satisfaction of our own needs and those of our dependents. I will refer to this as Type A. Above this point, power can be used to increase or reduce the satisfaction of the needs of others. I will refer to this as Type B. We do not normally refer to Type A as power, however. In its absence, we are in a state of   powerlessness and, in its presence, a state of freedom or independence. This use of words is an interesting indictment of present-day Western society.

Type B is excess power, i.e., more than is necessary to satisfy our own needs and those of our dependents. This excess power comprises the control of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers for others, and so, it can be used to control them. This control of others can become a need in its own right, and its satisfier is Type B power.

Type B power can be traded with others to yield a net benefit. That is, some can be delegated to others in return for support that brings with it greater power. To persuade others to trade in this way, it is necessary to demonstrate power by making overt displays of wealth. In this way, a hierarchy forms that is based on type B power and the control of others.

The control of others is an unsatisfiable need, because, in practice there is always another person or organisation with more power. As mentioned in my previous article, if we have people who prioritise their need for wealth or power and pursue it without restraint, then this will consume endless resources. However, the satisfiers that any cooperative can generate are finite. So, if cooperation were attempted with such people, then ultimately, we would face a situation in which the costs to us outweigh the benefits. Our share of the satisfiers would fall below the threshold necessary to satisfy our personal needs and those of our dependents. Thus, any cooperation would fail.

An unsatisfiable need for the control of others must, therefore, ultimately lead to attempts to coerce. Without resistance, coercion becomes the accepted norm. However, with resistance, attempts at coercion can fail, and the relationship remains one of cooperation. Alternatively, however, conflict can result.

The history of human society is largely one of the control of the many by an elite. In the past this has largely been through coercion. Fortunately, coercion is now largely illegal in the West. However, it remains possible to manipulate a culture, the needs of its members, and the priorities that we give to those needs through, for example, advertising. The needs, thus created, empower those who control the satisfiers for them, and so, sustain an elite. Resistance to such cultural manipulation is also needed, therefore.

Categories
27. How Cooperation Can Fail (Part 2)

How Cooperation Can Fail Part 2

A colleague in LinkedIn has posted the following comment on my previous article: “Co-operation fails when the demands of the goal are put ahead of the needs of the relationships involved in the cooperative”. Although this comment uses different language to mine, I agree with it, and my reasons are given in this article. The comment also has some interesting implications that I will also explore here: why the needs of cooperative groups are so similar to the needs of individuals, and how cooperation can become coercion.

My explanation begins with cognitive physicalist philosophy, one of the key principles of social systems theory. The cognitive component of this philosophy holds that the universe is infinitely complex, but our minds are not. Therefore, to understand the universe we are obliged to mentally represent it in a simplified way. One of the ways we do this is by using holons. These are things whose structure we recognise due to its recurrence. Holons enable us to recognise threats and opportunities from experience or from knowledge passed on by others. We respond to holons in a way conducive to our survival and procreation, and so our ability to recognise them has an evolutionary source.

The physicalist component of cognitive physicalist philosophy holds that everything is physical, and nothing metaphysical. In other words, everything comprises matter or energy in space-time, and there is nothing other than that. If we also accept Einstein’s proposition that matter is organised energy, then this simplifies, yet further, to the premise that everything is energy in space-time.

There are two outputs from this philosophy of significance for social systems theory.

Firstly, information is physical in nature. It exists at source, i.e., in the original physical thing that we are thinking of or communicating about. Information at source is the structure or organisation that we recognise in that thing. Information at source can be translated into a simplified form capable of being held in and manipulated by our minds. This simplified form can be an icon or image, or it can be a symbol or word. This icon or symbol is also organised matter or energy that represents a holon in the physical universe. We can also create external representations of these internal ones in the form of drawings, words, etc. This enables us to communicate information to others. Both translations are fraught with difficulties, of course, but I will not expand on that here.

Secondly, even abstract things such as relationships and characteristics are physical in nature, rather than metaphysical. For example, a characteristic is the aggregate of all physical things that can be said to have it. Justice, for example, is the aggregate of all just acts. To cite another example, a relationship between two things is the aggregate of those two things. It exists only for as long as the characteristic that defines the relationship applies to those things. This implies that co-operation is physical in nature. A relationship does not exist independently of the two parties who, for example, co-operate. Rather, it IS those two parties for so long as they have the characteristic of cooperating with one another.

We recognise cooperative groups because they occur frequently in society. Parties who cooperate form a larger holon comprising several smaller ones. These smaller ones are the individuals who cooperate, plus any other living things, such as horses, and any artifacts, such as computers, necessary for the co-operative endeavour. Even individual people rely on other living things and artifacts. Examples include guide dogs for the blind and heart pacemakers. So, the needs of these things must be included with those of the individual person.

Another principle of social systems theory is that holons comprising more than one person have much the same range of needs as those of a single individual. This is because the needs of these larger holons comprise an aggregate of the needs of its component parts, i.e., the individuals concerned, and any other living things or artifacts necessary for cooperation. When the needs of these components are aggregated, they yield those of the cooperative group and no new needs emerge.

In summary, individuals have needs, relationships between them have needs, and groups of individuals have needs. They are all much the same as the needs of individuals.

Our growing reliance on artifacts, and where this may be leading is, of course, a significant topic in its own right. However, this will be discussed in a future article.

Evolution has resulted in people who carry out a form of risk-benefit-cost analysis when translating their needs into behaviour. Emotion plays a part in this. If a situation lowers the level of satisfaction of our needs, then we will experience negative emotions, e.g., grief. On the other hand, if the situation increases the level of satisfaction of our needs, then our emotions will be positive, e.g., happiness. These emotions affect our behaviour. If we believe that the effort involved in satisfying a need will outweigh the benefit to be gained, then we will wish to avoid negative emotions and will not voluntarily behave in that way.

Because larger holons have much the same needs, albeit aggregates, they follow the same rule. If the aggregate effort of the cooperative outweighs the aggregate benefit to be gained, then some parties in the cooperative endeavour will inevitably suffer a net disbenefit. They will, therefore, no longer cooperate voluntarily. So, co-operation fails when the aggregate cost of pursuing the mutual goal exceeds the benefits to be gained.

This has an interesting implication. If unsatisfiable needs exist, then cooperation with people who pursue them without restraint is impossible. An example of an unsatisfiable need is absolute power. No matter how much we have, there will always be someone or some group with more. The same is true of wealth. If we have people who prioritise their need for wealth or power and pursue it without restraint, then this will consume endless resources. However, the satisfiers that any cooperative can generate are finite. So, if co-operation were attempted with such people, then ultimately, we would face a situation in which the costs to us outweigh the benefits. Thus, any cooperation would fail.

In practice, for cooperation to be sustained, it is necessary to work within the constraints of the benefits that can be gained from it. Furthermore, the benefits generated by co-operation must be shared reasonably equitably so that all parties experience a net benefit. In practice, this is what good leaders do. It is also what dark leaders do – up to a point.

Once sufficient wealth and power is gained via cooperative means, then coercion becomes possible. Indeed, in the case of people who pursue power or wealth without constraint, it becomes inevitable. Once coercion becomes common practice, what may previously have been a democratic society becomes an authoritarian one, with extremes of wealth and power and extremes of powerlessness and poverty.

To avoid such a society, it is necessary to place constraints on the pursuit of wealth and power. These must be built into our governmental and democratic processes. Not everyone seems to realise this, unfortunately.