Maslov's Hierarchy, the Motivation Continuum, and avoiding Mad-Max outcomes

[Estro Felino]

What happens when capitalism and the state are bed mates?

I'd love it if an uncorruptible State existed for the needs of all citizens.

Love it or hate it, the state is a necessary thing, because on Earth people have needs, and differences, and it is more practical to help people than exploit them. So it's worth fighting for, because it is a place of equity, and common interest for all if not a puppet of greed and oppressive powers.

Love it or hate it capitalism produces survival efficiency and aptitude. Capitalism focuses on supply, and demand with no concern for anything else. Without fair rules of control, and limitations it's a destructive pig. Harnessed right it produces a quality of life unmatched by any other system. Harnessed wrong and it becomes wasteful, and oppressive.

Tribal mentalities will ensure our destruction such as in the middle east.

Humans need higher ideals of cooperation, progress, benevolence, and a spirituality that encompasses all people equitably and charitably. Human nature also needs to stare danger, and destruction in the face sometimes to take proper actions and get wise enough to handle things correctly.

That's why I like the full spectrum of motivations MC left to right. Because real danger, coercion, carrot and stick is unavoidably a part of surviving. While without love and inner joy from compassion and reasonable empathy humanity would succumb to hate, violence and destruction.

There's another way of looking at MC left and right though. The far left is ultimately bad because of undeserved, unwarranted threats, coercion, and corrupt carrots. The right is ideal happiness and joy from reasonable love, and empathy.

The MC is not something that should be imposed.

Also because human beings are not handicapped. It's the financial élites that treat citizens as retards and do anything to manipulate them and to plagiarize them. And unfortunately most people are sheep with no personality and believe them. They fall for that.
They are copycats and clones of one another.
So you just need to convince the most popular and the entire herd will follow. It's done.

So the financial élites impose motivations on citizens, even if they don't have that vocation. Not all people are meant to be parents, yet most people make children. Because they are brainwashed into believing that that's their vocation.
No. Very few people in this society are apt to be parents. Very few people with lots of patience and empathy.
The élites and their servants make you believe that man's destiny is procreation, because they need workers.
Actually no...it's the elites that need slaves to exploit.

So if most people stopped making children, those greedy elites would lose lots of billions, because they wouldn't have slaves to exploit any more.
Ordinary middle class would lose nothing. On the contrary, they would have more time to fix the society.


Motivation is something innate. All of us are different: there are the muscular hunks who are perfect to be masons, or the intellectuals who have an excellent memory and can become teachers.
Capitalism is an instrument, it's not an end. It's not the meaning of our existence. It's the means by which people fulfill their desires.

The problem is that the State has been robbed by the élites: so the State cannot help people fulfill their dreams any more.

 

[icehorse]

Post-scarcity - Wikipedia
Sometimes it's called "Star Trek economy" because in the Star Trek universe where replicators exist, nobody has to work for their basic needs, everything is done out of intrinsic motivation and money has become obsolete.
A post-scarcity economy allows a post-scarcity society but it doesn't demand it. In fact, we could have a post-scarcity society now if we so decided.

Automatisation (a.k.a. automation) is every process that replaces human work with automated (robot, AI) work. Automatisation leads to a post-scarcity economy. In a post-scarcity society, automatisation would be an intrinsic goal as it frees humans more and more from the need to work. In a capitalist economy automation leads to unemployment, increased wealth gap and ultimately civil unrest.

When we consider these ideas, I think we have to be honest about our situation. We are committing ecological overshoot. In other words, the way in which we live is not ecologically sustainable. I am not a tech-topian, I do not believe that more advanced technology will save us. There is only so much fresh water and topsoil. We cannot replace the species we're extincting.

So post-scarcity seems plausible in an MC-right world, but automatisation would seem to just make overshoot worse?

 

[icehorse]

MC left improves survival motives and abilities. If you remove that kind of motivation then perhaps we run the risk of losing survival instincts, and be more out of touch with the natural world.

That's interesting! I suppose that running away from an angry bear is an example of a powerful extrinsic motivation

But let's say that permaculture becomes the preferred way to grow food. I think we'd be better off if we approached the doing of permaculture as a source of intrinsic motivation (e.g. "I find permaculture gardening fulfilling"), rather than doing it because we're extrinsically forced to.

Too much right and we will lose skills and abilities because people might become sedentary.

I could be wrong but wisdom in applying all these motivations is necessary.

I don't think MC-right is tightly bound to "not having to work". Work will always be necessary, and work can be fantastic. I've had jobs I've done only for the money - ugh - extrinsic motivation. But I've also had jobs I've loved (intrinsic), and gotten paid for, hooray!

I'm sure that MC-left will never go away, but I think we need to shift society from left-dominant to right-dominant.

 

[icehorse]

You can say that MC-right is superior, but that doesn't mean everyone desires it. Also its possible that humanity cannot live without strife.

We don't have a strong reason to switch over to it.

Oh don't worry, we're headed for boatloads of strife! Ecological overshoot guarantees that! The question is, can we survive it?

As for whether people desire MC-right? Well tyrants do not. But healthy individuals overwhelmingly do prefer it. Dan Pink wrote a book a few years back called "Drive". He does a really good job of describing MC-right without all the science lingo. His framing is that humans are happiest and wok best when their work allows them: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. This is a slight rewording of self determination theory, but largely in keeping with it.

 

[osgart]

The MC is not something that should be imposed.

Also because human beings are not handicapped. It's the financial élites that treat citizens as retards and do anything to manipulate them and to plagiarize them. And unfortunately most people are sheep with no personality and believe them. They fell for that.
They are copycats and clones of one another.
So you just need to convince the most popular and the entire herd will follow. It's done.

So the financial élites impose motivations on citizens, even if they don't have that vocation. Not all people are meant to be parents, yet most people make children. Because they are brainwashed into believing that that's their vocation.
No. Very few people in this society are suitable to be parents. Very few people with lots of patience and empathy.
The élites and their servants make you believe that man's destiny is procreation, because we need workers.
Actually no...it's the elites that need slaves to exploit.

So if most people stopped making children, those greedy elites would lose lots of billions, because they wouldn't have slaves to exploit any more.
Ordinary middle class would lose nothing. On the contrary, they would have more time to fix the society.


Motivation is something innate. All of us are different: there are the muscular hunks who are perfect to be masons, or the intellectuals who have an excellent memory and can become teachers.
Capitalism is an instrument, it's not an end. It's not the meaning of our existence. It's the means by which people fulfill their desires.

The problem is that the State has been robbed by its own resources by the élites: so the State cannot help people fulfill their dreams any more.

I never considered the MC would be imposed itself. That wouldn't do anything productive. It's just a way of looking at one's own motivations.

I liked it because it reveals the societal impulse for everything being MC left. If humans constantly use threats, coercion, and everything is about gainful rewards for chasing material success, and power then we end up with elites who oppress. I don't want that at all. Everyone in this case perceives everything as a competition whereas there are only winners and losers, masters, and servants, and the unwanted.

When I originally thought about MC left I was looking at in terms of perceived, and actual threats and dangers and the need to use persuasive force to confront those dangers and threats to humanity, as well as provide rewards for accomplishing worthy objectives for the cause of the common good. If people become too passive, and accepting then they never learn to face oppressive opposition. Instead they become status quo with the wrong leaders and powers.

I'm in no way advocating violence. Rather using reason and power to confront and challenge oppressive power civilly, if at all possible, or face consequences.

Each generation produces different kinds of individuals with different motivations along this spectrum of MC left to right. Eventually oppressive power is something everyone has to face, or they become it or they passively become powerless, and then helpless.

Then maybe there is different ways of looking at this spectrum.

 

[icehorse]

And societies that aim to break the mould often broke themselves.

It's wise to understand history, but we must find new ways or we will perish.

This is where I think many people get it exactly backwards, those that see the approach to solving the big problems of the day lying in increasing globalisation and large scale international governance.

Relatively homogenised, smaller scale societies with the string sense of identity necessary to create the social trust required to support such governance based on pro-social behaviour.

Scale ruins everything as it increases diversity and complexity exponentially, reduces social trust and leads to increased importance of abstract categories of identity over membership of a tangible community. This makes many things win-lose with no potential for win-win (see US politics).

You can create a small scale commune with shared ownership that works well, but every person you add to it increases the chance of systemic failure, and at a certain level guarantees it sooner or later.

I agree with all of this. I think MC-right is probably easier to achieve in a de-centralized world.

 

[osgart]

That's interesting! I suppose that running away from an angry bear is an example of a powerful extrinsic motivation

But let's say that permaculture becomes the preferred way to grow food. I think we'd be better off if we approached the doing of permaculture as a source of intrinsic motivation (e.g. "I find permaculture gardening fulfilling"), rather than doing it because we're extrinsically forced to.

Sometimes hard realities require extrinsic motivation. If everyone avoided hard realities then nothing necessary would get done, and life would get even harder.

I don't think MC-right is tightly bound to "not having to work". Work will always be necessary, and work can be fantastic. I've had jobs I've done only for the money - ugh - extrinsic motivation. But I've also had jobs I've loved (intrinsic), and gotten paid for, hooray!

I'm sure that MC-left will never go away, but I think we need to shift society from left-dominant to right-dominant.

I vastly prefer MC right until hard realities come up and I'm left with no choice but to confront the danger.

 

[Alien826]

When we consider these ideas, I think we have to be honest about our situation. We are committing ecological overshoot. In other words, the way in which we live is not ecologically sustainable. I am not a tech-topian, I do not believe that more advanced technology will save us. There is only so much fresh water and topsoil. We cannot replace the species we're extincting.

So post-scarcity seems plausible in an MC-right world, but automatisation would seem to just make overshoot worse?

The way I see it is that once it generally sinks in that scarcity is gone for good, then people will realize that they don't have to over consume to feel safe. A huge mansion when I can only occupy one room at a time is very silly when a modest home satisfies my needs. Why do I need the latest cell phone when the phone I have works perfectly well? Why store food against a famine that will never happen? Why commit crimes when I can get everything I need just by asking for it?

A dramatic change in education is also needed. "School spirit" emphasizes winning as the highest goal. Later, when there is no school to identify with, pick a team, any team, to "support" and gather in huge crowds to cheer that team on. Again, winning is king. Hey guys, here's a thought. You don't have to win to feel good!

Also education would no longer need to emphasize the ability to "make a living". Why? Your living is guaranteed. Laze about your whole life and produce nothing, nobody will care. Yes, stop teaching the "work ethic" as something to be praised. But what to do with myself with no work to do? Teach kids to live in a post-scarcity world. Art, hobbies and so on are now more important than "getting a job".

The question remains, are these behaviors (winning, accumulation of wealth) that we prize so highly now, and also suffer from, so intrinsic that nothing can change them? Honestly I don't know. I can only hope, and it doesn't matter, because what I describe is not going to happen anyway.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Oh don't worry, we're headed for boatloads of strife! Ecological overshoot guarantees that! The question is, can we survive it?

As for whether people desire MC-right? Well tyrants do not. But healthy individuals overwhelmingly do prefer it. Dan Pink wrote a book a few years back called "Drive". He does a really good job of describing MC-right without all the science lingo. His framing is that humans are happiest and wok best when their work allows them: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. This is a slight rewording of self determination theory, but largely in keeping with it.

Thanks maybe I will encounter that book.

 

[icehorse]

Also, no one has to be an unkind tyrant when employing MC left. Just disciplined and strong willed.

For some jobs - like mopping floors - kind, mc-left is a good thing. But for jobs that require any degree of skill or expertise, mc-left is counter-productive

 

[icehorse]

Clones and copycats. The neighbor has children, so should I.

Great examples of mc-left

 

[icehorse]

Small communities have their charm but it is also where tribalism and xenophobia is bred. And, in absence of a higher authority, small communities tend to solve conflicts with violence.
What we need is a federalism of multiple levels with strictly defined powers and duties where only those powers are delegated to higher levels which are necessarily better wielded by a higher authority. Namely military power.

What happens when capitalism and the state are bed mates?

I'd love it if an uncorruptible State existed for the needs of all citizens.

Love it or hate it, the state is a necessary thing, because on Earth people have needs, and differences, and it is more practical to help people than exploit them. So it's worth fighting for, because it is a place of equity, and common interest for all if not a puppet of greed and oppressive powers.

That's why I like the full spectrum of motivations MC left to right. Because real danger, coercion, carrot and stick is unavoidably a part of surviving. While without love and inner joy from compassion and reasonable empathy humanity would succumb to hate, violence and destruction.

There's another way of looking at MC left and right though. The far left is ultimately bad because of undeserved, unwarranted threats, coercion, and corrupt carrots. The right is ideal happiness and joy from reasonable love, and empathy.

To some degree motivation strategies are independent of the systems their used in - orthogonal if you will

Currently, the underpinnings of our society is strongly mc-left biased. There are a few places where mc-left is appropriate. My suggestion is to shift to the point where the DEFAULT axiom is mc-right. Not that we can't have exceptions, of course we will, but that our starting point should be mc-right solutions whenever possible.

So, for example, "consumerism" is based on mc-left. It'll be hard to undo consumerism, but we have to.

 

[Heyo]

So post-scarcity seems plausible in an MC-right world, but automatisation would seem to just make overshoot worse?

It depends on how and for what goal you use automatisation. In a capitalist world, the capitalist uses it to produce more and cheaper and thus make more money. In a post-scarcity (or going to be post-scarcity) world, automatisation is done with the goal to reduce the need to work.
The later would include producing products that last long and are easy to repair. The former produces "built-in obsolescence". When you build to last, you reduce work because you'll only have to build once a lifetime. When you build to sell, you like to sell over and over again.

 

[icehorse]

Each generation produces different kinds of individuals with different motivations along this spectrum of MC left to right. Eventually oppressive power is something everyone has to face, or they become it or they passively become powerless, and then helpless.

Then maybe there is different ways of looking at this spectrum.

Mostly agreed with your post, with a few clarifications:

In healthy individuals, the MC is pretty universal. Some activities (like mopping floors) are best rewarded with mc-left, extrinsic rewards. Other activities (like being a plumber or a teacher) are best rewarded with an mc-right approach.

As for oppressive power - our economic systems are hugely mc-left, and yes we all have to face that. And we have to change that or we're doomed.

 

[icehorse]

The way I see it is that once it generally sinks in that scarcity is gone for good, then people will realize that they don't have to over consume to feel safe.

That's a step for sure. So I think something like UBI is a part of the solution.

A dramatic change in education is also needed. "School spirit" emphasizes winning as the highest goal. Later, when there is no school to identify with, pick a team, any team, to "support" and gather in huge crowds to cheer that team on. Again, winning is king. Hey guys, here's a thought. You don't have to win to feel good!

Hmmm... For most people, being in the "flow" state creates their happiest moments. When a skier is skiing at their best, an artist is painting at their best. This is true for plumbers and programmers and on and on. So some approach to competition is - I believe - healthy. But I'd also agree that in this society, it's often corrupted.

Also education would no longer need to emphasize the ability to "make a living". Why? Your living is guaranteed. Laze about your whole life and produce nothing, nobody will care. Yes, stop teaching the "work ethic" as something to be praised. But what to do with myself with no work to do? Teach kids to live in a post-scarcity world. Art, hobbies and so on are now more important than "getting a job".

The question remains, are these behaviors (winning, accumulation of wealth) that we prize so highly now, and also suffer from, so intrinsic that nothing can change them? Honestly I don't know. I can only hope, and it doesn't matter, because what I describe is not going to happen anyway.

Our brains really like good challenges. Lazing about does not lead to long term fulfillment, that's just neurobiology

It's clear that the way we've structured society, we're bombarded with mc-left, coercive influences. The good news though, is that if we remove ourselves from being exposed to the coercion, those addictive desires can go away pretty quickly. Some withdrawal pains, probably, but relatively short lived. We ditched our TV years ago, we stopped missing it pretty quickly. A few weeks back I was away from home and kind of forced to watch TV for an hour. I was absolutely stunned! When you've been away from it, it's poisonous qualities are obvious and shocking.

 

[icehorse]

It depends on how and for what goal you use automatisation. In a capitalist world, the capitalist uses it to produce more and cheaper and thus make more money. In a post-scarcity (or going to be post-scarcity) world, automatisation is done with the goal to reduce the need to work.
The later would include producing products that last long and are easy to repair. The former produces "built-in obsolescence". When you build to last, you reduce work because you'll only have to build once a lifetime. When you build to sell, you like to sell over and over again.

Humans need challenging work to be happy.

But sure, if we can automate the boring stuff - in a sustainable, built to last, easy to repair way - I'm all for it

 

[Heyo]

Humans need challenging work to be happy.

I think producing long lasting, easy to repair, universal automatons that do boring work is enough challenge for quite some time.

But sure, if we can automate the boring stuff - in a sustainable, built to last, easy to repair way - I'm all for it

I think if we put our mind to it we could eliminate half of the jobs that are currently done by humans before the decade ends, maybe more.

 

[Alien826]

That's a step for sure. So I think something like UBI is a part of the solution.

I agree.

Hmmm... For most people, being in the "flow" state creates their happiest moments. When a skier is skiing at their best, an artist is painting at their best. This is true for plumbers and programmers and on and on. So some approach to competition is - I believe - healthy. But I'd also agree that in this society, it's often corrupted.

I wouldn't call that winning, in the sense that I was describing. Unless you are competing against yourself, which seems to be internally contradictory. Yes, of course there is pleasure in achievement. I am learning to play the clarinet. Whenever I improve, I feel good about it. I will never be the best clarinet player in the world. I will never be good enough to play in an orchestra. But it gives me a lot of satisfaction nevertheless.

To illustrate what I mean by winning being valued over everything, consider what is called a "professional foul" in sport. Taking soccer as an example that I'm familiar with, a player is about to score a goal, the goalkeeper is out of position and a member of the opposing team has the ball. A defender deliberately trips him up. That's against the rules and will be subject to punishment in the form of a free kick, but it stops that certain goal happening and there remains a chance that the defenders can prevent the free kick resulting in a goal. If "sport" means anything, that just destroyed the whole meaning of the competition, but it seems to be accepted in service of the holy god of winning.

Our brains really like good challenges. Lazing about does not lead to long term fulfillment, that's just neurobiology

But who are you, or any authority, to say that the lazy person is wrong, or must be forced to work (for his own good, of course)? Maybe there are some people that are perfectly happy not working. If you want a challenge, do a crossword puzzle, but don't suggest that everyone's happiness must be the same as yours (not suggesting that you said that, but society in general does seem to do that).

It's clear that the way we've structured society, we're bombarded with mc-left, coercive influences. The good news though, is that if we remove ourselves from being exposed to the coercion, those addictive desires can go away pretty quickly. Some withdrawal pains, probably, but relatively short lived. We ditched our TV years ago, we stopped missing it pretty quickly. A few weeks back I was away from home and kind of forced to watch TV for an hour. I was absolutely stunned! When you've been away from it, it's poisonous qualities are obvious and shocking.

Yes. I stopped watching the news for a while and did feel better. The trouble is that the society that is created by all this stuff doesn't go away.

 

[icehorse]

But who are you, or any authority, to say that the lazy person is wrong, or must be forced to work (for his own good, of course)? Maybe there are some people that are perfectly happy not working. If you want a challenge, do a crossword puzzle, but don't suggest that everyone's happiness must be the same as yours (not suggesting that you said that, but society in general does seem to do that).

When we're talking about changing society I think it's assumed we're mostly making statistical claims, correct?

So - from a statistical perspective - most people will not feel fulfilled through laziness. A few might, most will not. This is not based on the imposition of an authority, this is just neuroscience

As a general rule there are some pursuits for which a person could claim expertise with a straight face and some pursuits for which there isn't enough "there, there" to make such a claim. E.g., one can be a chess expert, but to claim you're a tic-tac-toe expert is just silly.

So - in general - people feel good when they're pursuing something they love that they can achieve some level of expertise in. That said, of course for you in might be the clarinet, for Sally it might be plumbing, and so on.

 

[icehorse]

To illustrate what I mean by winning being valued over everything, consider what is called a "professional foul" in sport. Taking soccer as an example that I'm familiar with, a player is about to score a goal, the goalkeeper is out of position and a member of the opposing team has the ball. A defender deliberately trips him up. That's against the rules and will be subject to punishment in the form of a free kick, but it stops that certain goal happening and there remains a chance that the defenders can prevent the free kick resulting in a goal. If "sport" means anything, that just destroyed the whole meaning of the competition, but it seems to be accepted in service of the holy god of winning.

Agreed, and creating healthy competition is not trivial. But mentally healthy individuals do not achieve long term fulfillment - the MC-right kind - thru cheating.