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.

Back to Top

Previous Page

Next Page

Emotive Energy Home