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.

Categories
26. How Cooperation Can Fail (Part 1)

How Cooperation Can Fail

In this article, I use social systems theory to explain how cooperative arrangements can fail. I will use the topical example of labour relations in business to illustrate this, although there are many other examples such as cooperative relationships in families, between friends, and between nations. The example that I have chosen reveals little that we do not already know from experience. However, this is not the purpose of the article. Rather, its purpose is to demonstrate how the underlying principles of social systems theory result in a model that reflects reality.

The example began as a series of equations, each of which, drew on the principles of ecology to describe a relationship between two unspecified parties. The principles of evolution were then used to link the equations and demonstrate how these relationships could change over time. Finally, the series of equations was translated into the text below.

The example is limited to a discussion of relationships within the private business sector. This sector interacts with many others such as education, healthcare, government, the legal sector, and so on. For the purposes of this article, only a brief discussion of interactions with government is included. Interactions with other sectors have not.

Cooperation, or as it is known in ecology, mutualism, occurs when two parties work together with a common purpose. The parties involved can be individuals or organisations of any type or size, including families, businesses, voluntary organisations, governments, and nations. Their purpose is usually to gain satisfiers or avoid contra-satisfiers for their mutual benefit. The source of these satisfiers or contra-satisfiers is a third party or the general environment. Satisfiers are those external things that satisfy the needs of an individual organism, group of organisms or species. Contra-satisfiers on the other hand are external things that reduce the level of satisfaction of those needs. For example, the employees and employers in a business cooperate to manufacture and sell goods to their market for a profit. This profit is a satisfier for the needs of both parties and is shared between them for their mutual benefit.

Initially, two parties in a cooperative arrangement may be relatively equal in power. However, as time progresses, one invariably gains greater power, and so, the benefits of the arrangement are shared less equitably. In a business, for example, employers typically come to hold greater power. However, there have been cases in which, through trade union organisation, employees have come to do so instead.

Two things can then occur. Those with greatest power can seek ever greater power, and thus, ever more inequitable distribution of the benefits of cooperation. Alternatively, or additionally, a shortage of the mutual satisfier can occur. For example, the market for the business’s product may decline.

There is a threshold above which parties will voluntarily cooperate, and below which they will not. For example, if employees are to co-operate with employers, then the wages gained from employment must be sufficient to satisfy their needs. Employers, on the other hand, must be able to satisfy their own personal needs and those of the business. If one party takes too much of the benefits and/or if the market for their product fails, then the other party may find the benefits of co-operation insufficient. The owners may no longer be able or willing to pay enough to make employment worthwhile, or the returns for the employers may no longer be sufficient to make the business worthwhile. So, one party may find itself cooperating involuntarily with the other. For example, the employer may, in effect, be taking the employees’ labour against their will, although the reverse is also possible.

When one party takes a satisfier from another and the other party a) needs it to satisfy their needs and b) has no resilience or rainy-day surplus such as savings or capital, then the former party is, in effect, imposing a contra-satisfier on the latter. As a consequence, there is a risk of conflict, and three courses of action are possible.

To avoid conflict, the weaker party can move elsewhere. For example, employees can resign and look for alternative employment, or employers can close the business. Cooperation then ceases. In ecology, this is known as neutralism.

Alternatively, because the imposition of a contra-satisfier by one party on another normally results in reciprocation, the two parties can engage in conflict. The purpose of reciprocation is, of course, to coerce the employer or employees into a more equitable apportionment of the business’s benefits.

Finally, the one party can accept harmful exploitation by the other. It is an objective fact that, in ecology, harmful exploitation is known as predation or parasitism. These terms are not intended to be disparaging.

Much depends on the relative power of the two parties. If the harmful exploitation of employees is widespread, there may be nowhere for employees to move to. If general employee power is too great, there may be no alternative business opportunity for the employers. In these circumstances, the only options that remain are conflict or the acceptance of exploitation. If either party has so much power that conflict with them will inevitably fail, then only the final option, an acceptance of exploitation, remains.

Co-operation can, of course, fail even when the parties are relatively equal in power and the benefits of a business are shared reasonably equitably. If these benefits should fail for any reason, e.g., market collapse, competition, etc., then, providing they have reserves of the necessary satisfiers, both employers and employees may find themselves in the position of being harmlessly exploited for a while. A reasonable degree of resilience by both parties is, therefore, needed to retain co-operative arrangements during short term market downturns, etc. However, if these reserves become exhausted, then harmless exploitation becomes harmful, i.e., a contra-satisfier, and so, co-operation fails.

The following conclusions can be drawn from this example. If employers gain too much power and are unwilling to share the benefits of businesses sufficiently equitably to satisfy the needs of their employees, then they will fail to gain the latter’s voluntary cooperation. Conflict can then become widespread and lead to economic failure with disbenefits for all. Alternatively, harmful exploitation can become widespread, and we can come to live in an authoritarian society. Employers can, of course, tread a careful line and share benefits just sufficiently equitably to make employee cooperation worthwhile. However, because there will be no employee resilience, when a shock to the business occurs, this can quickly cause cooperation to be lost.

Conversely, if employees gain too much power and demand excessive pay, then this can prevent growth, reduce business resilience, and thus place, the business’s continued existence in jeopardy. Again, co-operation will break down, and the benefits to both parties will be lost. If this situation becomes widespread, then only those employees who are organised will benefit, and then only in the short term. Ultimately, economies will fail to grow, and the benefits of this growth will be lost. In the extreme, economies can collapse, and poverty can become endemic.

The way forward, therefore, is a middle road in which the balance of power between employers and employees is optimised. This is the role of national government which, in an ideal world, should exercise it scientifically, objectively, non-ideologically and without undue influence from either employers or employees. It is worth mentioning that corrective legislation to curtail excessive power of either employers or employees should not be retained indefinitely. Rather, it should be rolled back once an optimum balance is achieved. Failing that, the optimum will be overshot, and the power of the other party will steadily increase. If they are to retain an optimum balance, governments should keep their eye on the ball and amend legislation as necessary.

Categories
25. The Causes of Conflict

The Causes of Conflict

In this article, I will discuss from a social systems perspective the causes of all types of conflict. This perspective is a very general one and may appear somewhat abstract, therefore. There are many conflicts in the world today and it would be easy to give examples. However, it is also true that we tend to take sides. So, to avoid any suggestion of that, I will leave the reader to apply this general theory to any conflicts that they are aware of.

Firstly, I will define the basic concepts used in this article and describe their significance.

The term holon was coined by Arthur Koestler in his 1967 book, The Ghost in The Machine. It refers to any entity that can be recognised as a whole in itself, and which constitutes part of a larger whole. In social systems theory the fundamental component of society or social holon is any individual or group of people who work together with a common purpose. They can be an organisation of any type, and can range in size and extent from an individual, through clubs, businesses, sectors, political parties, governments, nations, and groups of nations, to the global community.

The genome comprises all genetic information held by an organism. In conjunction with the environment, it determines the physical manifestation of the organism. It also determines the nature of the organism’s needs for existence and procreation.

Culture is also information. It is held in the minds of individuals and, in conjunction with the environment, determines the nature of society. Culture comprises values, norms, beliefs, knowledge, and symbols. Values are those things that we hold good or bad; norms are socially desirable, acceptable, or unacceptable forms of behaviour; and symbols are those things, such as rituals, modes of dress, etc., that indicate our membership of a group.

Function is the common purpose of a group and the reason for its existence. It too is information held in the minds of individuals. This is evidenced by the fact that disagreement about the function of a group is relatively common.

Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of our needs. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, are those things that reduce that level of satisfaction. Satisfiers and contra-satisfiers may be material, energy, or information both true and false. They can also be relationships between social holons. The status of a satisfier or contra-satisfier can be entrenched, precarious, latent, or absent. Entrenched means inextricably present in a situation; precarious means present but not guaranteed in the future; and latent means in the form of a promise or threat. The promise of a satisfier and the threat of a contra-satisfier both play a significant role in human affairs.

Genome, culture, and function are determinants of the needs of individuals or groups, as described in the table below.

It is often the case that people who have the most in common and who live closest to one another engage in conflict. The explanation for this is as follows.

Suppose we have two social holons, X and Y. The more similar their determinants, the more similar their needs. Individual human beings are, of course, genetically very similar and our existence needs are therefore almost identical. The functions of larger social holons or organisations are more diverse, and it is rarer, but still possible, for two to have identical needs. The relatedness needs of individuals, i.e., how we interact with others, are determined in part by the genome and in part by culture. This is evidenced by the fact that some cultures value the extended family more than others. Again, the relatedness needs of larger social holons are more diverse. They are influenced by a combination of the holon’s function and culture. Finally, the growth needs of both individuals and larger social holons are influenced largely by culture. Growth needs can be very diverse in both cases.

The more alike the needs of X and Y, the more similar the satisfiers of those needs. The more similar those satisfiers and the closer X and Y are geographically, the less likely it is that those satisfiers will be sufficient for both. X and Y then have three options. They can either:

  • cooperate to gain greater mutual access to the satisfiers;
  • one party can move to another geographical location, so that the satisfiers are sufficient for both; or
  • the two parties can compete for the satisfier. It is this that can lead to conflict.

The way in which competition evolves depends on the cultures of the competing parties. This is determined in large part by their leadership. Leaders’ attitudes lie on a scale from entirely selfish to entirely selfless. This is influenced by their personality traits. Greater empathy leads to greater selflessness. Dark traits, such as those held by narcissists, psychopaths and Machiavellians, lead to greater selfishness. The more selfish a group the more likely it is to regard the other as a potential threat or contra-satisfier.

A group’s culture is also determined by the social transmission of information and the reinforcement of beliefs by socialisation, i.e., reward for compliance and censure for non-compliance. This information exists on at least three levels, each building on the information in the one below:

Level 1. Whether or not a threat or contra-satisfier can be physically observed. This information is normally true, although it is possible to misinterpret observed events.

Level 2. Beliefs about the existence or otherwise of a Level 1 threat, as passed from one individual to another. This information can be true or false. It is not uncommon for people to propagate false information in their self-interest. It is also not uncommon for ideologies to be based on false information.

Level 3. Beliefs about Level 2 beliefs and their effect on a culture. For example, concerns about false beliefs propagated by an ideology.

These two factors, i.e., the selfishness or selflessness of a culture and its beliefs about any threat posed by the other party, affect the likelihood of competition becoming conflict. The more selfish the individual or group and the stronger their belief about the threat posed by a competitor, the more likely it is that they will behave in a way that causes a contra-satisfier or threat to that competitor. Conversely, the more selfless a group and the weaker their belief in any threat posed by the other party, the less likely they are to behave in that way.

Once one party, physically imposes a contra-satisfier on the other, then the threat perceived by the other party becomes real. They will often reciprocate, and conflict will ensue. Unless there are controls, external or otherwise, a feedback process will occur in which the contra-satisfiers that the two parties impose on one another escalate until the conflict becomes violent.

It can be seen from the above description that there are many ways in which either party, or a third one, can intervene to prevent conflict. This does, of course, require an understanding of the processes involved, and intervention at an early stage before violence becomes inevitable and unpreventable. Unfortunately, it is also the case that parties can intervene to make conflict more likely, and those with beneficial intent must be cognisant of that too.

Categories
15. Uncontrolled Social Feedback and How to Control It

Uncontrolled Social Feedback & How to Control It

In his 1980 paper “A Confluence of Feedback Loops in Social and Educational Structure: (in the context of developed and developing countries)”, M. M. Gupta of the Systems Science Research Laboratory, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, stated the following.

“In the case of inanimated physical systems, it is a well-known empirical fact that unrestrained increase in the degree of positive feedback between the various components of a system leads to instability, oscillations, and eventually to a failure. There is a warning in this that cannot be ignored: Our socio-economic systems, too, are likely to face an eventual catastrophic failure if the growth in the degree of interdependence within them is not accompanied by better planning, coordination, and – what might be much less palatable – restraints on our freedom… In fact, in some of the advanced societies of so-called developed countries, with libertarian traditions – in which there is an understandable aversion to planning and control – our society is already witnessing the manifestations of what might be diagnosed as the ‘crisis of undercoordination’: vehicular and air traffic congestion, deterioration in the quality of municipal services, decay of urban centers, power blackouts, air, water and other environmental pollution, shortage of energy, unemployment, strikes, inflation, recession and depression, wars, depletion of earth’s non-renewable resources, and political and other economic crisis, etc. And there may well be the precursors of far more serious stresses and strains which lie ahead – stresses which may test to the limit the endurance of our democratic institutions – both in the developing and the developed countries.”

The solution that Gupta offered lies in Social Systems Theory. This concept has two aspects. Firstly, Social Systems Science, whose aim is to identify and understand the processes at work in society, i.e., why do we behave as we do? Secondly, Gupta uses the term Social Systems Engineering to describe the practical modification of existing feedback loops and other forms of causality to achieve a stated objective. That is, how to do what needs to be done for us to behave in a more sustainable, socially friendly, and environmentally friendly way.

The term, ‘Social Systems Engineering’, was coined in the 1970s and suggests that society should be steered in a mechanistic way by technocrats aloof from the rest of society. This is not possible or desirable. We are all subject to the same virtues and shortcomings, albeit in varying degrees, and the ideal technocratic leader does not exist.

It is also important to be aware that Social Systems Engineering can also be used to satisfy the needs of one group to the detriment of another. Its objectives should, therefore, be ethical and aim for improvements in the wellbeing of the natural environment and all of humanity.

So, in practice, the rational approach to steering society needs to be built into our democratic processes, rather than entrusted to the hands of a few. A better term might therefore, be ‘rational and informed democratic intervention’.

In his paper, Gupta concludes that “The strength of social systems engineering [or rational and informed democratic intervention] lies in its willingness to confront the basic issues and problems in the present day setup of socio-economic systems, and its boldness to borrow and integrate ideas and methodologies from the disciplines such as humanities and social sciences. We need system engineering, social scientists, and economists to spend more and more of their cooperative efforts in this direction. It can make a pragmatic contribution if we can bring a stability to our socio-economic system.”

To this I would add that, in order to fully understand our social processes, we also need to consider the evolutionary and ecological principles that have formed them.

Gupta’s paper was written in 1979, during a period of trade union unrest, and in it he refers to the UK as “the sick man of Europe”. However, times have moved on. Rightly or wrongly neo-liberalism has reduced the power of trade unions, and we currently face a new set of difficulties. Nevertheless, his recommendations remain relevant, albeit in a different context.

Reference

Gupta, M.M., 1980. “A Confluence of Feedback Loops in Social and Educational Structure: (in the context of developed and developing countries)”. Editors: De Giorgio, A. & C. Roveda, C. “Criteria for Selecting Appropriate Technologies Under Different Cultural, Technical and Social Conditions”, Pages 221-229. Pergamon. ISBN 9780080244556. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-024455-6.50031-7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080244556500317