7 - LIFE EFFICIENCY
With the Hedonic Scale and Action Curve in place, a structure
for making decisions based strictly upon empowerment now exists. When
strong values face other formidable values, the strongest ones take
control by physically overpowering the others. For instance, losing
a limb would normally be very low on the Hedonic Scale and strongly
aversive as marked on the Action Curve, but death is typically lower
(an extreme) and even more aversive. If an arm or leg is cancerous
and must be removed, then the value of the limb is pitted against the
value of life. With two powerful combatants, limb and life, the energy
potentials available to both are vast and high emotion ensues. Yet,
as powerful as the value of the leg is, the value for life is usually
stronger and eventually overpowers the other value. Thus, the value
"avoid death" overpowers the value "avoid losing a limb," and the
decision to sacrifice the cancerous limb is made.
Yet, even trivial, seemingly unemotional decisions can be
explained in terms of empowerment. When looking for something to
write with, my preference, born of factors such as the ink being more
permanent than graphite lead, is to choose a pen over a pencil. With
both a pen and a pencil available, my slight preference for a pen would
outweigh my desire to use a pencil and, thus, would guide my decision.
From a theoretical standpoint, the empowered value I have for a pen is
slightly stronger than that for a pencil. Though my choice of one over
the other hardly appears fraught with great joy or anxiety, it clearly
can be expressed as my "wanting" one over the other. I "want" a pen
more than a pencil.
To describe such an "unemotional" decision as being "logical"
or "rational" eventually gets subverted when a basis in "want" is
revealed. To say that it is "only logical to use a pen when signing
a financial contract" can immediately be undermined with the Aristotle
attack of asking "why?" Expounding upon the permanent merits of ink
falls prey to the continuation of "so what?" Extolling the dangers of
an altered contract can be attacked again with "so what?" Eventually,
the underlying "want" gets revealed. "You don't WANT to lose money, do
you?!" "We NEED to be careful!" (Remember, according to this theory,
"need," "want," "like," "desire," "prefer," and similar terms are
virtually synonymous since they all are based in energy and reflect
underlying values.) We don't "want" to be endangered by an altered
contract. We don't "want" to take risk. Whatever "logical" or "rational"
subterfuge is used to support a decision, it can successfully be dissected
until some underlying value is exposed - something we "want" or "do not
want." Once related back to wants, the competition by empowerment becomes
relevant again. (I will return to this issue later along with mechanisms
for the competition when discussing Bernard J. Baars' Global Workspace
Theory of consciousness and the works of James Newman and J. G. Taylor
regarding competitive attention.)
Efficiency Space
Despite the strength of our values, entropy constantly drives
us to conserve energy - the Law of Life Efficiency. To accommodate
this, not only should the most powerful value take control in a
decision, but it should do so with the least amount of energy
possible. This would be the epitompe of Henriques'
Behavioral Investment Theory (BIT). If an organism must show a
gain or benefit from its energy investments, the less energy
invested for the gain, the better return on investment (ROI).
To apply this facet of BIT extrapolation to the EEBD, look
at the Action Curve of Figure 8. Any value at either the extreme
left or right has at least twice the energy potential as values in
the center (and many times more power than dead-center values). To
overcome a value of medium strength, an extreme value need only reach
a little over half of its potential. With a desire to survive given
a top energy potential of 100%, a desire to cross a street for ice
cream could hardly be granted a similar rank. Nevertheless, let's
grant it an outrageously high maximum level of 50% of the body's
potential. In other words, the body will draw up to 50% of its
total resources to obtain ice cream. (This is a SERIOUS need for
ice cream!) If a truck is lumbering down the street, the desire
to survive only needs to activate to the 51% empowerment level to
overcome a desire for ice cream holding a maximum strength at the
50th percentile level. Altering the scenario, if "ice cream" only
holds a 20% ranking, then "survival" only needs to activate at a
21% level to overcome it. Though emotive energy rises to
success, the demand for efficiency requires that it only rise to
the level necessary to overpower its competitors.
Further, if more powerful values can ecomomize through quickness,
then stronger ones might draw energy faster and race ahead to higher
energy levels before slower, weaker values could reach their potentials.
By overcoming competitors quickly, energy use could be minimized even
further, thus, improving efficiency. It would also quicken the response
which could be the difference of life or death. Even though research
support for energy competition is marginal let alone support for
competitive quickness, I contend that such is the case.
As a result, values may operate anywhere in a range between
"zero energy use" and their maximum "power ceiling" marked by the
Action Curve. This entire range has been shaded grey (see Figure
8) within the Emotive Energy Behavioral Diagram and is named the
Efficiency Space. Depending upon which competitors are active, each
value may exert a force anywhere within the shaded area at the time
of a decision. A strong value may be at half or two thirds of its
maximum power while overcoming a moderate opponent. A minor opponent
may be at its maximum while opposing a powerful giant. Finally,
strong values, being more efficient, may expend little energy in
overcoming weaker opponents.
This last situation is the most efficient of all and, perhaps,
the most frequent. We call them "no brainers" and recognize little,
if any, emotional impact from them. Such decisions are made while
standing on the curb of a street wanting to cross to get ice cream
but seeing an approaching truck. We almost mindlessly stop in our
tracks and await the passage of the vehicle. Such a decision neither
seems emotional nor difficult - a no brainer. The desire to survive
surpasses any desire for ice cream very quickly and winning control
at a very, very low energy level. No high emotion comes into play.
No worry or mental debating occurs. We just stop, relax, and wait
for a clear passage.
Though I assert that an emotional decision of empowerment has
been made, some may counter with, "Oh, no! It was purely rational
and logical!" Once again, the rebuttal can be subverted by a few
pointed questions about the "reasoning" until the underlying "want"
is exposed. (Come on, tell me that going for ice cream is "rational"
and devoid of desire.) Inevitably, the decision hinges upon not
wanting to get hit by a truck while wanting ice cream. A "want"
lies at the root of any decision, and "want" is a manifestation
of energy which carries magnitude - intensity.
Figure 8.
Though avoiding a lumbering truck when crossing a street is
truly a life and death decision with the potential for tremendous
emotion, we make the decision to cross or stop in an instant and
seemingly unemotionally. For this scenario, the value "avoid death"
is pitted against "seek ice cream." The value "avoid death" should
be extremely powerful and equally emotional. Hopefully, "seeking
ice cream" will be far less important. With the vast difference of
energy potential, the former overcomes the latter in short order.
The value of "avoid death" musters little of its potential in
knocking-out "seek ice cream." Because "avoid death" draws little
energy to succeed, little emotion ensues. The two opponents barely
cause a ripple at the bottom of the Efficiency Space, and a "life
or death" decision is made quickly and with little energy expended.
Many of us encounter similar situations daily while driving.
Every automobile hurtling toward us, every sharp curve ahead, and every
intersection has lethal potential. Yet, we usually reach our destinations
with a minimum of effort and with little or no emotional upset. As long
as we and the other drivers "follow the rules" and care is taken, most
driving decisions are easy ("no-brainers") and minimum energy is required
to effect and control behavior.
Taking the need for efficiency a step further, values should
resume their lowest energy level as a resting state after completing
behaviors. Not only does this conserve energy, but it allows other
behaviors to become active with minimum energy usage. For instance,
losing a limb is usually not a daily concern for most of us - especially
for us office workers. I have had some bad paper cuts in my time, but I
have never felt my arms or legs threatened. As a result, the value for
limbs is rarely involved during a decision at work. Consequently, such
a powerful value should not be allowed to interfere with other useful
business behaviors. Though I certainly value my limbs more than typing
this sentence, if my value for "limbs" never released its power, I would
never type again. I would be frozen in "a loop" as they say in the
computer business. So, the "limb" value must release its energy and
assume a lower state if my weaker "typing" value is ever to be actuated.
With "Save my limbs!" sitting at a low energy potential, other values of
lesser strength such as "typing" can now take control. Eventually hunger
or thirst may "bubble up" in energy level and overtake my "typing"
value. At that time, the value of "typing" will drop to a resting
state as "feeding" behaviors take over. Once satiated, "typing" may
again "bubble up" and take control, or perhaps someone may call and
the ringing phone may empower my "answer the phone" value which will
then take control.
And so it is with all decisions based upon the dynamics of the
Hedonic Scale, Action Curve, and Efficiency Space. Our myriad of values
act on a low energy level and "bubble" along throughout a normal day,
peaking only as necessary, and thus, conserving energy. Occasionally,
one may spike to its limit on the Action Curve as when someone cuts us
off on the highway, or a needed document arrives late, or perhaps an
irate customer is venting his own emotional "spike." But other than
a few blips, emotions and decisions tend to stay low-key and bubble
along as we drive the highways, shuffle paper, handle phone calls, eat
lunch, get supplies, and do the thousands of other normal everyday tasks.
Each task bubbles up to take control momentarily and then hands off
smoothly to the next.
The idea of values rising and falling originates from a Gestalt
concept described by Richard Wallen, in a paper for the 1957 Ohio
Psychological Association Meeting, as the "... progressive formation
and destruction of perceptual and motor gestalts."
(Fagan and Shepard, 1970, p. 9)
Regarding the most powerful value taking control, Perls, Hefferline,
and Goodman, describe this process as "... what seems spontaneously
important does in fact marshall the most energy of behavior;
self-regulating action is brighter, stronger, and shrewder ..."
(Perls, Hefferline, and Goodman, 1970,
p. 9).
Because the "spikes" and "bubbles" of decisions are made
of the same "stuff," emotive energy does not recognize "non-emotional"
or "unemotional." It only recognizes the intensity of emotion. Some
are strong and obvious to those around us. Others are so subtle as to
be hardly sensed at all. Emotions are always present; only their
intensity changes. The emotional intensity represents the power
level at which a value is active, and the Efficiency Space encompasses
the intensity range for any and all emotions.
Cruising Speed and Reality Empowerment:
Since nature drives us toward conserving energy and toward
being efficient, the low bubbling of emotions is the norm. We operate
at a "low bubble" to conserve our energy. Very much akin to "homeostatic"
and "equilibrium" states of other motivation theories by Clark Hull and
Abraham Maslow (Buskist and Gerbing,
1990, p. 336-337), this low bubbling state will be termed
"cruising speed" (see Figure 9). Not only does cruising
speed save energy, it also allows other values to activate with a minimum
of energy, thus, conserving energy. Any value need only "bubble up"
slightly more than cruising speed to take control. Thus, all
decision-making can occur with a minimum of energy usage and
abide by the Law of Life Efficiency.
Figure 9.
Of course, the natural question to follow is, "What drives
the bubbling?" The "bubbling up" of values has two main sources, the
internal and the external environment. The internal one is our internal
selves. A realization of hunger or thirst, a desire to be artistic, or
just wanting to get up and do something are all examples of internal values
(wants) bubbling up to effect behavior. External drivers act similarly
but are tied to our outward senses. We might hear a twig snapping or see
a squirrel scampering across a tree limb. Perhaps a feeling on our skin
startles us as raindrops begin falling, or perhaps the smell of pine from
surrounding trees soothes us. Any one of our senses can signal a change
in the environment and "bubble up" an appropriate behavior. Effectively,
recognition of both internal and external events via our senses drives
behaviors. I term this "reality empowerment."
Additionally, once empowered, the energy becomes a physical
manifestation with a distinct physical impact - Emotive Energy
demands a physical response. Emotive energy is only a
qualification of energy - not some strange new essence. As kinetic
energy, emotive energy must have an outlet, either through heat or
through movement or through a combination of the two. It is this
physical aspect that drives inward and upward from our sense organs
into our brains in order to activate behaviors and drive them to
completion. The more dramatic the impact upon our senses and Hedonic
Scale, the more dramatic the resultant behavior and emotion.
For example, going back to the truck/ice cream scenario, let's
add falling rain - lots of it. Indeed, let's make this a thunderstorm
with hail and the crash of lightning nearby. Now the need (want) is
to get across the street and inside a store to shelter us from the
storm as well as to buy ice cream. Yet, the truck hurtles forward
just a few feet away. Lots of things are now roiling inside (and
certainly the decision is no longer a "no brainer"). We now have
multiple senses cranking up multiple values and reactions. Through
our sense of sight, the truck triggered the "wait and avoid death
from train" value. Through our sense of hearing, the storm triggered
our "run and avoid getting hit by lightning" value. Since both values
are powerful and conflicting, they compete with each other and continue
to draw energy until one overcomes the other. As the energy rises,
it creates rising emotional tension since a physical outlet is needed
for the energy - emotive energy demands a physical response! If the
fear of lightning is extreme, then the decision becomes highly emotional,
and energy from the cerebral conflict is vented throughout the body
as tension.
The a truck approaching can spur behavior, the inanity
of ice cream can charge behavior, or thunder from a storm can ignite
behavior. Each is very real and each invigorates values. Reality
creates a physical impact on the body which, in turn, empowers behavior.
Those values which are not empowered by reality usually lay dormant in
their resting state.
The exception is for impacts lingering from the past. If the
environment poses no strong affect, then echoes from powerful past
experiences take over and drive behaviors. You might call this
"unfinished business." Perhaps you have a perplexing problem at
work. While driving, the traffic frequently captures your attention,
but as traffic thins and open road lies ahead, your thoughts may go
back to solving your difficult problem at work. This scenario would
hold true for domestic problems, financial worries, or any other
troublesome thought. As long as the immediate environment does not
have intense factors, then past thoughts may prove stronger and take
control.
Until now, I have posed very simple juxtapositions. In truth,
we are complex creatures capable of performing multiple activities
at once. As we drive down a highway, our feet can independently
control floor pedals while our hands are occupied with other activities.
One hand may hold the steering wheel while the other pushes buttons on the
radio. Our eyes focus on the road and other traffic in order to coordinate
our driving behaviors. Meanwhile, our ears monitor the music from the
radio, and our thoughts may be filled with romance and fantasy or,
perhaps, a fond memory from many years ago. Hands, feet, arms, legs,
eyes, ears, imagination - anything which can act independently is
a separate resource for which multiple values can compete. Each
hand is a resource. Each thought is a resource. As we perform our
concurrent behaviors, each one is the result of multiple values
competing for expression. The behavior controlling our hands is
the highest reality empowered value competing for the hands. The
idea foremost in our thoughts reflects the highest one empowered of
those competing for the mind. The same holds true for our feet, hands,
eyes, etc. Our composite behavior is the result of multiple, integrated
behaviors born of multiple competing values. Some may come from the
present experience, some may come from the past. Some are fleeting,
some may reverberate constantly for years. The process is very dynamic
and highly complex.
