Tag: Satisfiers

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
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
05. A Summary of Social Systems Theory

A Summary of Social Systems Theory

In this short series of articles, I will summarise the basic principles of Social Systems Theory. Full details are given in previous or subsequent articles.

The fundamental component of society or holon

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 or holon of society is the organisation, that is, any group of people who work together with a common purpose. Organisations can be 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.

Family relationships between organisations

All organisations form a nested hierarchy. The structural relationships between them are similar to those in a family and the same names can be used. Thus, for example, child organisations are components of a parent one, and parent organisations are components of a grandparent one. Two organisations that are components of the same parent are known as sibling organisations. This nested hierarchy continues upwards until an isolated organisation or the global community is reached.

Every organisation comprises a number of component or child organisations, and this nested hierarchy continues downwards until individual people are reached.

Recursion

Recursion means that similar rules and principles can explain the behaviour of organisations irrespective of their size. Thus, for example, a department in a government agency has a leader, and so too does the entire agency.

The control component

All organisations have a control component, e.g., leadership or management, to co-ordinate their activities. Due to recursion, control components have their own control components until we arrive at the individual person. This creates a leadership or management hierarchy comprising individuals. It is natural to select leaders using a bottom-up process, i.e., followers choose a leader thought to be best qualified to co-ordinate their activities. However, managers are also frequently chosen by a top-down process whereby senior managers select junior ones thought to be best suited to the role.

Needs, satisfiers, and contra-satisfiers

All organisations have needs similar to those of individuals. These needs are prioritised using the same categories for individuals identified by Abraham Maslow and Clayton Alderfer, i.e., ERG or existence, followed by relatedness, in particular family relatedness, followed by growth. These priorities are consistent with the multilevel selection theory of evolution. This holds that we place greatest weight on personal survival and reproduction, followed by that of the community upon which we depend, followed by people more remote.

Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of our needs, for example, food for hunger, or resources for manufacturing. Both individuals and larger organisations endeavour to gain satisfiers as efficiently as possible. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, are those external things that reduce the level of satisfaction of our needs and which we endeavour to avoid.

The applicability of systems science, function, and causality to organisations

All organisations are systems and comprise inputs, processes, and outputs. The fundamental principles of systems science apply to them, therefore.

Causality also applies to organisations. The combination of an input and the process is equivalent to a cause. The combination of the process and an output is equivalent to an effect. An organisation’s processes and outputs are also referred to as its function. Because causality applies to organisations we can, for example, say that a number of necessary causes or inputs are together sufficient for an effect in which the organisation carries out its function of producing outputs.

Matter, energy, or information is transferred from every organisation’s inputs to its outputs. This takes place within the region of space-time defined by the organisation’s process. Thus, the latter provides the overlap in space-time needed for a cause to be related to an effect.

All organisations comprise a group of people who work together with a common purpose. This purpose is also the organisation’s function, and the ability to carry out its function is an organisational need.

The applicability of motivation theory to organisations

All interactions between individuals, organisations, and parts of them comprise an exchange of satisfiers or contra-satisfiers for each other’s needs. These satisfiers and contra-satisfiers also take the form of matter, energy, or information. A satisfier or contra-satisfier received is an input, and one provided is an output. Thus, motivation theory also plays a key role in social systems theory.

The applicability of information theory to organisations

Information passes between organisations and flows within any organisation’s processes. Thus, information theory plays an essential role in social systems theory. Fundamentally, information is organised or structured matter or energy that we recognise due to its recurrence. It can exist “at source”, i.e., as the original structure perceived in the physical universe. It can also be translated into various symbolic forms capable of being transmitted, stored, or remembered. Importantly, information at source is, by definition, always true. However, information acquired in other ways, for example, from another organisation, can be false.

Direct interaction can only take place if two organisations are aware of one another, and for this to be the case, information must pass between them. However, organisations can be aware of one another but not interact. These criteria simplify the web of interactions in a social system.

Culture & interaction style

The ways in which individuals and organisations interact are determined by their culture and interaction style. These topics will be covered in a forthcoming article.

Categories
01. An Introduction to Organisations

An Introduction to Organisations

To carry out communal activities at any scale, we form what I will describe, generically, as “organisations”. These are formal or informal groups of individuals that have their own culture and purpose. They can be religious, political, economic, or have some other function.

All human organisations are self-maintaining systems. As an organisation comes into existence and develops, so too does a hierarchy within it. For the organisation to function efficiently and effectively, its members must specialise. This, in turn, requires the co-ordination of their activities. For example, a typical commercial enterprise comprises a managing director followed by directors, senior managers, middle managers, junior managers, and ordinary employees. A typical religion might be organised with a god at the top, followed by “his representative on earth”, and so on down to the lay population. Such hierarchies exist everywhere in society, albeit with different names for the various strata, and we take this for granted.

However, the type of hierarchy in an organisation depends on the extent to which it relies on leadership or power for control. A person with leadership attributes gains high status by virtue of skills in directing a group of individuals to an agreed common goal. Generally, these skills are recognised by the subordinates, and the leader’s status is held with their consent. On the other hand, a person with power attributes has skills in directing a group of individuals to a goal set by him, her or those above. He or she does not necessarily hold their status with their subordinates’ consent. Individuals in a hierarchy generally hold a combination of both attributes, each manifesting to a greater or lesser degree. Unfortunately, there has been a history of power masquerading as leadership, and the term “leader” is used to describe both those who exercise power and those who exercise genuine leadership. In this series of articles, I will, therefore, use the terms “highest status”, “high status”, “low status”, “lowest status”, “senior” and “junior” when referring to the members of a hierarchy.

Control and adaptation mechanisms in an organisation or sub-organisation depend on the highest status individuals receiving information from those of lower status and issuing instructions to them. The balance of leadership and power attributes can vary from organisation to organisation and from sub-organisation to sub-organisation. It is normally a reflection of the attributes of its highest status members and can become entrenched as a culture.

In the same way as systems, all organisations contain sub-organisations and are part of yet larger ones. A commercial organisation, for example, may comprise departments and teams. It may also belong to a sector, i.e., a group of commercial organisations with similar purpose. Thus, organisations are themselves structured hierarchically. An outline of this hierarchy from the top down is:

  • Earth’s Ecology
  • Global Human Organisation
  • Cultural Alliances of Nations
  • Individual Nations
  • National Elites
  • Sectors (both formal and informal)
  • Named Organisations
  • Departments
  • Teams
  • Individuals

The term “organisation” is used generically to describe any one of these.

Organisations exist to facilitate the co-operation of individuals for a common purpose. Usually, they are a means of satisfying the needs and avoiding the contra-needs of a group of individuals. However, their purpose can also be to satisfy the needs and avoid the contra-needs of one or more other organisations. It is also possible for organisations to come into being with the specific purpose of creating contra-satisfiers for others, or to obstruct their satisfiers. So, in the way that it impacts on others, an organisation can be a satisfier or contra-satisfier of a type described by Max Neef.

All organisations are open systems with inputs, processes, and outputs. They have needs and contra-needs. Their needs are to carry out their function and grow, and their contra-needs are an inability to do so. Satisfiers are the inputs and internal organisation necessary for them to carry out their processes. Contra-satisfiers are anything that prevents this.

Organisations interact with one another to provide inputs and outputs. When one organisation provides the outputs needed by another, it is a satisfier of the latter’s needs. However, it can also act as a contra-satisfier, either deliberately or unintentionally. Organisations will also compete with one another for the inputs or resources required to satisfy their needs. These interactions are not necessarily at the same level in the hierarchy of organisations. For example, an individual interacts with a commercial organisation for payment or other benefits in return for his labour. He also interacts with many organisations for products and services in return for money. In general, individuals and organisations will be attracted to organisations they believe will satisfy their needs. A form of risk-benefit-cost analysis is carried out and equitable reciprocation is expected.

Finally, all organisations come into existence, carry out their function for a time, and then either expire or alter their purpose. As I discuss organisations and hierarchies in more detail, I will follow this order.

Categories
09. The Behavioural Loop or Cycle

The Behavioural Loop or Cycle

Our behaviour is always ongoing. When one need is satisfied or contra-need avoided, we move on to another. In every case, we make our decisions in a similar way, and there is, therefore, a behavioural loop or cycle as follows.

  1. Our most pressing needs or contra-needs are identified through their impact on our emotions. That is, we identify the greatest cause of dis-satisfaction.
  2. Potential options for acquiring satisfiers and avoiding contra-satisfiers are identified, drawing on individual or group knowledge and experience.
  3. The resources needed to acquire those satisfiers or avoid those contra-satisfiers are assessed, again drawing on individual or group knowledge and experience.
  4. The resources that we control are assessed. These resources may be our own or those of others.
  5. Possible courses of action are assessed for their potential impact on our emotional state, taking into account the following:
    • All affected personal needs and contra-needs.
    • All affected needs and contra-needs of significant others.
    • Whether we will receive positive or negative regard, and what is needed to enhance the former or mitigate the latter.
    • Whether we will feel psychological satisfaction or guilt, and what is needed to enhance the former or mitigate the latter.
    • If the likelihood of achieving the desired result is uncertain, we also assess the impact of not achieving it. Whether we proceed with a course of action will depend on the benefit we hope to achieve, the likelihood and consequences of failure, and our personality.  Most people, for example, will not use all their available resources in a single high risk, high return activity.
  6. Generally, when seeking a satisfier, we have two potential routes. We may wait until an opportunity arises by chance or attempt to create one. Similarly, when seeking to avoid a contra-satisfier we have the options of waiting until it arises or seeking to pre-empt it. Which route we choose depends on the net emotional benefit gained. This in turn depends heavily on the resources required to create an opportunity or pre-empt a contra-satisfier.
  7. Those actions that are within the resources available to us and which have an emotional benefit are implemented. We do not normally seek to optimise our choices, because this, in itself, requires substantial resources. Rather, we choose an option which is both satisfactory and sufficient and reject options which have an overall disbenefit. This is known as “satisficing”, a term coined by the American political scientist, Herbert A. Simon, in 1956.
  8. The outcome of the action is observed and remembered for the future. If it has been successful, then this will reinforce the behaviour, i.e., we are more likely to repeat it in similar circumstances. If it has failed, then the behaviour involved is less likely to be repeated. Repetitive failure will cause it to become extinguished.
  9. The entire process is then repeated indefinitely. However, as time progresses our needs and contra-needs alter, and different ones come to the fore. For example, the physiological needs for food and sleep increase in priority if not satisfied. We can also learn from experience and become more adept at choosing efficient and successful forms of behaviour.

Research has shown that emotions can carry over from one decision to the next without us being aware of it. These incidental emotions can be difficult to detach and can influence subsequent decisions. For example, people who previously experienced anger are more prone to blame others in subsequent decisions, and people who previously experienced sadness are more prone to blame general circumstances. Fearful people make more pessimistic judgements about the future, and angry people are more optimistic. It is thought that the best way to avoid this emotional carry over is to develop greater emotional awareness.

Categories
07. The Evaluation of Satisfiers and Contra-satisfiers

The Evaluation of Satisfiers and Contra-satisfiers

Positive emotions attach to satisfiers and, thus, to our needs. We wish to satisfy our needs and so make decisions intended to increase our positive emotional state. Negative emotions, on the other hand, attach to contra-satisfiers which in turn attach to our contra-needs. We wish to avoid the latter, and so, make decisions intended to decrease our negative emotional state.

Before we act, we make decisions about behaviour based on a form of risk/benefit/cost assessment. In this article I will describe the benefit part of this assessment in more detail. The terminology used is explained in the images below.

Satisfiers and contra-satisfiers are evaluated based on the changes that they make to our emotional state. In every situation, our emotional state depends on the extent to which our needs and those of others are satisfied. It also depends on the extent to which our contra-needs and those of others are avoided. This emotional state comprises the sum of the values associated with each existing satisfier and contra-satisfier. Both our behaviour and changes in our situation alter the status of these satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. This, in turn, results in changes to our emotional state. We regard such changes as benefits if our emotional state is improved, or dis-benefits if it is worsened.

MaxNeef recognised that satisfiers can be “synergic”*, and satisfy several needs, or singular, and satisfy just one. Furthermore, what can act as a satisfier for one person or need may, at the same time, act as a contra-satisfier for another. Thus, the emotional value of a satisfier or contra-satisfier may depend on several needs or contra-needs and those of several people. When the impact of a possible action is assessed, its impact on all needs and contra-needs is, therefore, considered. (*Note that this term is given as a quote because, if taken literally, it would mean several satisfiers working together to satisfy a need, rather than the definition given.)

When making decisions about behaviour we also consult our group ethical schema, i.e., our understanding of acceptable social behaviour, to determine whether we will receive positive or negative regard from others. Regard is, of course, a satisfier for a relatedness need. Ways of enhancing the positive regard or mitigating negative regard are identified, and the overall benefit or dis-benefit considered.

We also consult our personal ethical schema for psychological acceptability, i.e., the psychological satisfaction or pain we will experience because of the proposed behaviour. Again, ways of enhancing the former or mitigating the latter are identified and the overall benefit or dis-benefit considered.

The emotional value of each satisfier or contra-satisfier depends on its status, i.e., whether it is absent, latent (capable of manifesting), precarious (present but insecure), or entrenched (present, solidly established, and unchangeable).

It also depends on our beliefs. There are several ways in which we come to believe that a satisfier or contra-satisfier will influence our needs or contra-needs. Examples include: experience; learning from parents and other members of our community; observation of role models; advertising; and so on. These beliefs may be correct, or they may not. Nevertheless, they are what influences our decision making.

Finally, the emotional value of a satisfier or contra-satisfier depends on various factors associated with the needs and contra-needs that it affects. Among the latter are:

  1. Relative Priority, i.e., the importance to the individual of a need or contra-need in comparison with all others. The greater its relative priority the greater the emotional value of its satisfier or contra-satisfier. For example, if we are hungry and, also, wish to socialise, then we may regard sustenance as having a higher value than a visit to friends.
  2. Extent. Some satisfiers only partially satisfy a need. The less satisfied a need, the greater the value we will place on an additional satisfier. For example, if we are very hungry but only have one sandwich, then we will place a greater value on more food than if we have two. Conversely, some contra-satisfiers only partially impact on a contra-need. The lower this impact the greater the negative value we place on other contra-satisfiers.
  3. Relatedness. People care not only about their own needs and contra-needs, but also about those of others. The extent to which we value satisfiers and contra-satisfiers for others, depends on how closely related they are to us. Richard Dawkins, in his book “The Selfish Gene”, postulates that we value them according to the percentage of the variable human genome we believe those others to share with us. However, our support depends not only on genetic relatedness, but also on shared culture. This is because we rely on the support of other members of our culture for the satisfaction of our own needs. In general, relatedness decreases in the following order: ourselves, a member of our nuclear family, a member of our extended family, a friend, colleague or other ingroup member, a member of our society, a more distant person, an animal. This can, however, vary from individual to individual.
  4. Levels of Altruism and Co-operation. In general, the needs and contra-needs of others are less significant for us than our own. However, the difference depends on our personal levels of altruism or co-operation. If we have high levels, the difference will be less than if we have relatively low levels.

These factors introduce considerable complexity. It may be that the benefits and dis-benefits of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers could be modelled mathematically, to a certain extent, but this is clearly not something we can do in our heads. Thus, we rely on emotion.

Categories
06. Emotions and Decision Making

Emotions and Decision Making

For the following discussion, I will define a “positive situation” as one in which a need is addressed by a latent, precarious, or entrenched satisfier, and contra-satisfiers are absent. A “negative situation”, on the other hand, is one in which a need is not addressed by a satisfier or there is a latent, precarious, or entrenched contra-satisfier.

If a need is important to us, then negative situations cause negative feelings, for example, dis-satisfaction, frustration, anxiety, and fear. Conversely, positive situations cause positive emotions, for example, satisfaction, pleasure, and exhilaration. However, the latter are only felt when positive situations are first attained, and they last for a limited time. To motivate our behaviour, we must have satisfiers to seek and contra-satisfiers to avoid. Without these we would be inactive. The short duration of positive emotions ensures, therefore, that we attend to other needs once more pressing ones have been satisfied and secured. We can, therefore, only feel fully satisfied for a relatively short time.

Positive emotions do however reinforce our desire to behave or act in a way that generates that emotion. Conversely, negative emotions make us less likely to do so.

Knowledge has a part to play in our emotional state. What we perceive to be positive or negative situations are based on unconscious attitudes and beliefs. Many of these attitudes and beliefs are gained from our society, peers, advertising, etc., and we may not be consciously aware of them.

The feedback loop which causes us to be conscious has a part to play in our decisions and behaviour. For example, our unconscious mind may conclude that saying something potentially hurtful to another person will satisfy our needs. If so, then before acting we may consciously attempt to predict that person’s reaction via empathy or our knowledge of them. This may have an emotional effect on us which might cause us to reject or modify our unconscious mind’s conclusion.

What we perceive as satisfiers or contra-satisfiers, and thus, what we perceive as positive or negative situations, has a bearing on our level of stress. Stress has an emotional component, which can be positive or negative, and a biological component. The emotional component is negative when we experience feelings of frustration, anxiety, or fear, in a negative situation. It is positive when, for example, we experience exhilaration on first acquiring a satisfier. The biological component of stress is arousal, or a heightening of the physical ability to seize opportunities and avoid threats. It will occur when a situation is significant.

What we perceive as satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, and the value that we place on them, are important in valuing social institutions. Satisfiers and contra-satisfiers have a value to the individual, and the value that society places on its institutions is the aggregate of the value that each individual places on them. For example, the UK’s National Health Service has a very high social value because it is a satisfier of the existence and procreation needs of so many. This will be explored further when I discuss politics.

The value that we place on satisfiers and contra-satisfiers also has a bearing on what we hold to be good or bad, our morals, and ethics. For example, the aggregate impact of our behaviour on others, in terms of the satisfiers and contra-satisfiers that it invokes, forms the basis of utilitarianism. This will be explored further when I discuss ethics.

In the next article, I will describe how place a value on satisfiers and contra-satisfiers and in the following article how we use this to make our decisions.

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

Schemata, Memes and Paradigms (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
04. Satisfiers and Contra-satisfiers

Satisfiers and Contra-satisfiers

In the 1990’s, to address some of the limitations of Maslow’s theory, the Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef and his colleagues developed an alternative way of categorising human needs. Details can be found in their 1995 book “Human Scale Development”.

Max-Neef’s principal contribution, however, was the identification of “satisfiers”. These are external things which assuage our needs. Examples include physical things, such as rice and houses, or actions by others, such as medical treatment. Max-Neef explained that external things, such as food and shelter, should not be seen as needs, but rather as external satisfiers of an internal need for subsistence. On the micro-scale, satisfiers can be the goods and services that form the basis of economics. On the macro-scale, they can be the institutions that form the basis of politics. Satisfiers can, therefore, also be provided by organisations, by the way in which society is organised, or by its culture. For example, education is a satisfier of the need for understanding, and healthcare a satisfier of the need for protection.

As an economist, Max-Neef’s focus was mainly on physical and cultural satisfiers. However, there are also psychological satisfiers, such as the various belief systems on offer.

Max-Neef held that fundamental human needs are a constant, but that societies alter the satisfiers of those needs. Thus, satisfiers may differ from nation to nation, culture to culture, and time to time. He also held that there is not necessarily a single satisfier for any one need. Rather, several different things may satisfy it. Nor is a satisfier necessarily associated with a single need. Rather, it may assuage several needs. He cited the example of a mother breastfeeding her baby and argued that this can satisfy the baby’s need for subsistence, protection, affection, and identity all at the same time.

Although anything can be a satisfier, not everything is a satisfier. Max-Neef used the following classification:

  1. “Synergic Satisfiers”* satisfy a given need, whilst simultaneously contributing to the satisfaction of other needs. They are generally those chosen by the individuals concerned as best satisfying their complex of needs, rather than those chosen by any external agency, particularly an authoritarian one, whose motives often differ. (*Note that this term is given as a quote because, if taken literally, it would mean several satisfiers working together to satisfy a need rather than the definition given.)
  2. Singular Satisfiers satisfy only one need and are neutral in respect of other needs. They are often a consequence of well-meaning, but remotely planned interventions by voluntary, private sector, or government organisations. Examples include food and housing programmes.
  3. Inhibiting Satisfiers over-satisfy a particular need. They can become addictive, and so, prevent a person from satisfying other, higher needs. Max-Neef and his colleagues believe that inhibiting satisfiers originate in deep rooted customs, habits, and rituals. An example is the addictive pursuit of wealth among those who already have sufficient to meet their needs. This can lead to a failure to move on to other needs such as raising a family. Another example is drug addiction which becomes an artificial existence need and prevents an individual from adequately addressing higher needs.
  4. Pseudo Satisfiers claim to be satisfying a need, but really provide little or no satisfaction. They are often associated with advertising. Products may, for example, be marketed as glamour or lifestyle accessories, with the implication that they will improve the purchaser’s self-esteem.
  5. Violators are things which, although they are claimed to satisfy a need, actually make it more difficult to do so. Max-Neef used the example of a drink advertised as being thirst quenching but which, due to its ingredients, causes dehydration. By their nature, violators are also often associated with the consumer economy and marketing.

Satisfiers can, of course, satisfy some needs or the needs of some whilst reducing the satisfaction of other needs or the needs of others. Overall, the reaction of any individual to a satisfier depends on the extent to which it satisfies their needs, the needs of those close to them, and the extent to which it acts as a contra-satisfier. The reaction may also be determined by collective needs which apply to us as a species and also to those which apply to the natural environment.

Contra-satisfiers were not identified by Max-Neef but are those things which cause the contra-needs we wish to avoid. For example, crime and war can lead to insecurity, injury, and death.

In my next post, I will describe some of the ways in which the priorities we give to our needs can change with generation and age group.