ABBREVIATED EXCERPT FROM CHAPTER TWO
By John E. LaMuth
(beginning on
page 14)
…
The conditioning terminology underlying Behavioral Psychology finds direct
parallels within human society, where mankind’s symbolic use of language
permits approval to be expressed in more dramatic formats; namely, praise, commendation,
etc. Symbolism also gives meaning to what Skinner terms the secondary reinforcers; e.g., money, power, etc. Although paper
currency is not intrinsically pleasing in itself, it is secondarily reinforcing
in that it can be exchanged for any of the primary reinforcers:
as in food, shelter, etc. These secondary reinforcers
directly encourage procurement behaviors in complex types of situations
where rewards are customarily delayed. Herein lies the basis for the
traditional Protestant work ethic; e.g., no work - no pay!
Although the
effectiveness of rewards clearly remains without question, social hierarchies
are rarely so idyllic as to be ruled entirely through positive reinforcement.
Grooming behaviors are typically restricted to members of the opposite sex, or
members of the same sex that are not a serious challenge to each other. The
drive to become the dominant member of the troop is alternately determined
through aggressive types of behavior. Such power skirmishes, unfortunately, can
prove detrimental to the cooperative social unit, particularly in terms of the
threat of serious injury or fatalities. Most social species, accordingly, have
evolved stereotypical submissive behaviors serving to terminate the
conflict well ahead of any permanent damage. Instead of continuing to act
contentiously, the loser switches to appeasement to escape further punishment.
In the highly
competitive wolf pack, for example, the defeated wolf bares its throat to the
victor in an overt plea for mercy. This submissive display effectively serves
as a visual cue to the dominant wolf to leniently terminate the conflict well
ahead of any permanent damage. For the primate troop, this aspect is
alternately seen in the crouching/appeasement postures assumed by the
subordinate member. Such actions are similarly suggestive of the
“prisoner of war” mentality, where waving a white flag is a cue to
the victors to forgo the certain extermination bound to occur in a fight to the
death; e.g., “Remember the Alamo!”
Although such ethological observations
prove extremely enlightening, their extrapolation to the human condition proves
infinitely more complex. In particular, the extreme degree of complexity
separating human and animal societies renders any direct comparisons tentative
at best. In contrast to animal societies, mankind is essentially a product of
his supportive culture, which cooperatively permits the effective management of
environmental factors. Whereas lower animal societies remain at the mercy of
the environment for their reinforcement (or lack thereof), mankind’s
facility for taming the forces of nature has led to the unique reassignment of
reinforcement to specialized agencies within the social hierarchy. This is
particularly evident in the traditional work place setting, where the employee
performs a service function in exchange for secondary reinforcers;
namely, money, praise, prestige, etc. Individuals in the enviable position of
controlling reinforcement typically enjoy coveted positions of power or
authority within the social hierarchy, employing rewards to encourage the
procurement behaviors of the subordinate staff of laborers in order to encourage
their cooperation.
This overall control over reinforcement has
progressed to the point that reinforcement now primarily drives procurement in
contrast to the order typically encountered in nature. Indeed, one might
rightfully surmise that procurement behaviors (either appetite or aversion)
would only rarely be prompted to occur without a precipitating round of
reinforcement behaviors: e.g., a job offer of a reinforcing nature typically
precedes any practical work actually being done. It might alternately be argued
that the remnant hunter gatherer societies around the world remain chiefly
dependent upon the environment for reinforcement, where a certain degree of
initiative of a procurement nature always proves crucial for maintaining any complex
style of social structure.
This formal behavioral model further brings
into focus the major paradox of the conditioned relationship; namely, as a
two-stage sequential process only one role can occur in the present at
any given time. In particular, when procurement is actively occurring, reinforcement
remains a future potentiality. Similarly,
when reinforcement finally comes to pass, procurement is similarly
thrust into a potentiality status. This dual style of conditioned interaction
is schematically represented in Fig. 2A:
with procurement represented as the letter (X), whereas reinforcement is specified
by the letter (Y). The complete scale of time is further represented by paired
(oppositely-facing) “wedges” denoting
the past and future time frames, with the gap representing the present.
This dual wedge format was purposely cho- sen in reference to the observation that the measure of
time increases as a direct function of its distance from the present.
According to Part A of Fig. 2A, when procurement (X) immediately occurs, reinforcement (Y)
remains a future potentiality. This conditioned interaction is formally based
upon the successful completion of previous such interactions from the past,
formally represented by the X ® Y (small type) notation depicted within the past-directed
time-wedge. Indeed, this previous experience serves as the primary motivational
template for the current ongoing interaction, where active procurement (X)
anticipates the bestowal of future reinforcement (Y).
As schematically diagrammed, the procurer of reinforcement is actively
depicted within a present time-frame indicative of a subjective “I”
perspective characterizing the initiation sequence. The subsequent
reinforcement role is projected as a potentiality within the future time-frame,
in essence, a mental projection on the part of the procurer, hence, experienced
as an objective style of “you” perspective in relation to
“the other.” This future-directed style of mental projection allows
the procurer to form a mental map of the entire procurement-then-reinforcement
dynamic within the conditioned interaction, whereby supplying the motivational
rationale for one’s active means towards the achievement of reinforcement.
The reinforcer within the condition
interaction, in turn, is thrust into his/her own active status when the time
for bestowing reinforcement finally comes to pass.
According to Part B of Fig. 2A, this
sequence of events remains formally punctuated from the subjective perspective
of the procurer, being that the respective you/I polarities are carried over
unchanged in relation to those initially established in Part A. Here the active
bestowal of reinforcement (Y) in the present, in turn, prompts the
anticipation of upcoming procurement behaviors (X) in the future, in essence,
providing an effective sense of closure within the two-stage operant schematic.
Through this
systematic interplay of sequences (A) and (B), both procurement and reinforcement
share an equivalent status within the present, along with their potential
displacement into a future-based time-frame respectively. Indeed, the ultimate
completion of Part B further sets the stage for additional cycles of
interaction within the operant sequence: for if configuration (B) is phase
shifted one step further into the past, one returns back to the initial
configuration depicted in Part A. This cyclic (recursive) periodicity emerges
as a key factor underlying this two-stage model allowing each motivational
interchange to accumulate in a seamless fashion over real time. It is chiefly
through such a systematic style of analysis (isolated through individual stages
over real time) that the conditioned relationship is seen to be punctuated from
either the procurement or reinforcement perspectives. In this dual sense the procurement
and reinforcement roles maintain their given order within the conditioned
interaction, each punctuated from one favored perspective or the other.
This dual “staggered” model of the
conditioned relationship, although technically comprehensive in scope,
unfortunately is restricted by a strict reliance upon behavioral terminology.
Although procurement and reinforcement retain their operant status within an
active time frame, their respective extension into a future-directed time-frame
begs for a further corresponding distinction in meaning. Although behavioral
terminology (true to its scientifically-objective focus) remains inadequate to
this task, colloquial English proves much better qualified, particularly verbal
categories dealing with subjective motivations.
The most fitting
launch-point for such a determination concerns the very initiation of the operant
sequence, where active procurement anticipates the future bestowal of
reinforcement. As schematically depicted in Part A of Fig. 2A, the operant sequence of X ® Y represents such a
future-directed interaction, with active procurement (X) aimed towards securing
future reinforcement (Y). The predicted set of colloquial terms therefore
exhibits two distinct modes of specialization; namely, an active mode occurring
within the present and a potentially predicted mode projected into a future-directed
time-frame.
The active behavioral mode appears to be equivalent to the introspective
terminology governing behavioral conditioning, employing colloquial terms with
clear instinctual overtones; e.g., guilt, worry, nostalgia, and desire. These
ego states are specialized into the active reinforcement themes of desire and
worry, as well as the active procurement perspectives of nostalgia and guilt.
In contrast, the future-directed set of mental projections target a more
pronounced set of behavioral characteristics consistent with such a projected
mental focus: e.g., approval, leniency, solicitousness, and submissiveness.
This latter class of terms is rightfully termed the alter ego states in reference to their conceptual dependence upon
the ego as the source of intentions occurring within a future-directed
time-frame. Generally speaking, the ego states actively initiate each
distinctive phase within the conditioned interaction, whereby prompting the
projected potentiality encompassing the alter ego roles (lending credence to
the notion of “alter ego”). Accordingly, these future-directed
alter ego states directly complement their more active behavioral ego state
counterparts within the operant conditioned relationship: namely
desire/solicitousness, worry/submissiveness, etc. The remainder of the current
chapter endeavors to examine the behavioral dynamics underlying this predicted
eight-part complement of terms, providing a sturdy conceptual foundation for a
discussion of the remaining virtuous hierarchy to follow.
NOSTALGIA-APPROVAL
The
more straightforward class of positive reinforcement proves to be the most
logical initiation point for such a grand scale analysis, being that positive
rewards appear a much more tangible experience than the vaguer concept of
leniency. The interplay of nostalgia/approval will be examined first, followed
by the remaining sequence specified for desire/solicitousness. As suggested by
their elementary character, it is fair to say that this overall realm of
behavioral terminology encompasses the most basic one-to-one style of personal
dynamic targeting the behavioral interplay of personal authority/follower
roles.
As initially outlined,
the nostalgic sense of solicitousness on the part of the procurer initiates the
conditioned interaction in anticipation of the reinforcer’s
approving potential to reward. The initial solicitous quest for approval occurs
within an immediately active time-frame consistent with a subjective
“I” perspective and experienced as a nostalgic acknowledgement of
previous such cycles occurring in the past. This initiation phase is experienced
in terms of such a poignantly-nostalgic perspective due to an acknowledgement
of previous such cycles of procurement-then-rewards from memories of previous
experience.
The subsequent
predicted rewarding sense of approval represents a mental projection directed
into a future-directed time-frame, whereby equating with the complementary
objective “you” perspective within the conditioned interaction. The
projected/potential nature of the approval perspective, in essence, equates to
the personal follower role: whereas the immediately active experience of
nostalgia invokes the respective personal authority role. The approving potential to reinforce is formally
assigned the personal follower status in that it (in essence) formally follows the procurement behavior
that had initiated the conditioned interaction. The latter initiatory role, in turn, is assigned the status of the
personal authority role, being that the personal follower depends upon the
authority figure for guidance concerning upcoming action within the conditioned
interaction. Consequently, the follower looks to the authority figure for the immediate rationale
driving one’s projected behaviors within a future-directed time-frame: in
essence, the authority status is based upon the power inherent to the very
initiation of the conditioned interaction.
A
familiar example of such a one-to-one style of personal interaction concerns
the enduring interplay between the master craftsman and his artisan apprentice.
The craftsman's apprentice typically performs routine duties around the shop in
order to solicitously seek the approval of the master artisan throughout their
shared endeavor. The apprentice aims to display his fledgling talents under the
approving gaze of the established master, perhaps one day achieving a
master’s status in one’s own right. This potential sense of
reinforcement on the part of the master is colloquially equated with approval,
a projected mental perception arising from the nostalgic sense of
solicitousness actively expressed by the apprentice (in the role of personal
authority. Indeed, nostalgia is
primarily defined as a wistful reminder of some favorable poignant event from
one's past consistent with its memory status in relation to one’s formerly
active expression of solicitousness. Here,
the apprentice is granted the authority role through the very initiation of the
conditioned interaction.
In order to more
clearly grasp the varying perspectives at issue, it proves useful to identify
the individual subjective/objective polarities for each role within the
conditioned interaction. Being that the apprentice acts first within the
operant interaction, he/she rightfully assumes the status of a subjective
"I" role characterizing the immediately active sense of
solicitousness. The master, alternately, is projected (through potentiality) to
assume the objective "you” role indicative of the potential for
reinforcement anticipated within a future-directed time frame. The potentially
rewarding characteristics of approval are formally reflected in its linguistic
derivation, tracing its origins to the Latin probus (good). It is
traditionally defined as an act of sanction or commendation, also synonymous
with the related theme of approbation (of
similar derivation). This potentially
approving attitude is also colloquially equated with the theme of hero worship,
where both perspectives yield essentially an equivalent result: namely, potentially
encouraging additional potential cycles of nostalgia-then-approval on future
occasions within the conditioned relationship. Indeed, the current
subjective/objective style of role specialization conveniently permits the
tracking of precisely which perspectives are active or passive during each
given stage within the operantly-conditioned interaction.
In summary, I (as personal authority) nostalgically act
solicitously towards you in anticipation of your (as personal follower)
potentially rewarding sense of approval. The latter approval perspective
clearly rates such a projected objective status, being that such reinforcement
is potentially deferred to some future-directed time-frame. Here, approval is
distinguished in terms of such a future-directed focus, effectively
complementing the initial nostalgic sense of solicitousness expressed on the
part of the personal follower. This approval perspective, accordingly,
represents the overarching conceptual framework for the nostalgia-then-approval
interaction linking both the personal authority and personal follower roles. The
procurer bears a certain risk in assuming that reinforcement will eventually be
forthcoming. He/she, however, can nostalgically be reasonably assured by the
wealth of previous cycles of procurement-then-reinforcement on previous
occasions, spurring hopes for similar reinforcement within a future-directed time-frame.
This initial dual-interaction represents just the
first of the two predicted stages within the overall operant interchange. The
follow-up sequence specifies that the personal follower ultimately acts upon
his/her own predicted rewarding intentions, whereby encouraging future cycles
of solicitous behavior on the part of the procurer. Although the reinforcer may act immediately with respect to his
rewarding intentions, (more often than not) such complex interactions entail a
more leisurely pace of deliberation on the part of the reinforcer.
Indeed, it is this tenuous power of deliberation that ultimately imparts the
power leverage enjoyed by the reinforcer in relation
to the procurer, the latter wholly depending upon the former to fulfill
one’s anticipated reinforcing mandate.
DESIRE-SOLICITOUSNESS
As
suggested previously, the inevitable passage of time ultimately dictates that
the time for reinforcement eventually comes to pass. The motivational dynamic
governing this second stage within the conditioned sequence, in essence,
mirrors the interplay previously established for the initial stage, although
with a few key differences. According to this second phase, the
personal follower ultimately acts upon his approving intentions, desirously acting
rewardingly towards his willing apprentice, whereby prompting solicitous
feelings of worthiness and determination on the part of the latter. Here, the desire perspective now becomes actively
experienced in the present tense as the active bestowal of approval.
Indeed, desire is traditionally defined as a longing or
craving for a wished-for course of action, in this case, the future cooperation
of the willing apprentice. This initiatory phase is experienced
in terms of such a passionately-desirous perspective consistent with an
acknowledgement of previous such cycles of the desire for procurement extending
to memories of previous such experience.
Furthermore, the formerly active nostalgic sense of
solicitousness (initially experienced by the personal authority figure), in
turn, is alternately displaced into a future-directed time-frame, experienced
as a potential determination to continue to act solicitously in response to
such immediately desirous intentions. This potentially solicitous attitude is also
colloquially equated with the theme of approval seeking, with both yielding
essentially similar results. Here, the polarities governing the subjective/objective
viewpoints are effectively maintained in place for this second stage within the
conditioned interaction, with the procurer of reinforcement retaining a
subjective perspective, whereas the reinforcer is
viewed from an objective status (from the preliminary perspective of the
procurer).
In line with this
subjective/objective role-based arrangement, you (as personal authority) now
desirously act rewardingly towards me in anticipation of my (now as personal
follower) determination to continue acting solicitously towards you (as
experienced within a future-directed time-frame). Note that the current
personal authority role (now in the active guise of reinforcer)
desirously seeks the future-based validation of the personal follower as
potential rationale for such an immediately active style of rewarding
perspective. The subjectively-based personal follower role, in turn, occupies a
future-based solicitous perspective with respect to potentialities of an approachful nature within a projected (anticipated)
time-frame, providing a follower-style validation for the approval immediately
occurring.
Analogous to the
previous case of nostalgia, desire also represents a form of mental time travel
directed into a future time-frame. This mental projection into such a
future-directed time-frame (exclusive of the present) provides the motivational
rationale equivalent to a follower status within the conditioned relationship.
Each such follower stage represents an independent mental representation within
the mind of the procurer (or the reinforcer) in terms
of immediately-active and/or future-directed time-frames, respectively. The
active class of behaviors is more generally suggestive of a focused state of
mindfulness that formally lacks a reflective nature. The contrasting
future-directed perspectives alternately are perceived as strictly reflective
projections formally experienced as mental time travel. Indeed, one basically
experiences only one's own outward motivational projections, projected mental
states that are periodically verified in terms of the outwardly observable
behaviors exhibited by others.
Returning once again to our ongoing
master and apprentice example, a number of key factors are further predicted
with respect to the corresponding authority/follower roles. In terms of his/her
own active expression of desirous approval, the master artisan, in essence,
relinquishes the initial personal follower role, whereby taking on an active
personal authority status in relation to one’s willing apprentice. The
apprentice, in turn, now assumes the formal mantle of personal follower role
consistent with the potentiality of a future-based determination to continue to
act solicitously. According to this formal role reversal, the master artisan
now actively offers his desirous approval in anticipation of instilling a
determined sense of solicitousness on the part of the apprentice (conducive to
future such feats of greatness).
This active expression
of desirous approval immediately acknowledges the unfailing potential for
future cooperation on the part of the apprentice. This actively admiring perspective is frequently
expressed as a glowing sense of adulation and/or appreciation on the part of
the master towards his apprentice. The apprentice, in turn, is reciprocally dependent upon the
rewardingly-desirous attentions of his master/mentor, his potential for future
achievement remaining entirely meaningless without such suitable fanfare.
This future-based determined sense of solicitous
cooperation represents a mental projection based upon a pointed acknowledgment
of having acted worthily of such active desire (on the part of the reinforcer). These
projected feelings of solicitousness (experienced in a deliberative fashion (on
the part of the apprentice), in turn, prove conducive to the initiation of further such cycles of
procurement and reinforcement within the conditioned interaction. This latter
aspect upholds the inherent power leverage enjoyed by the apprentice (now as
personal follower figure), for without this determined sense willing
cooperation, the actively desirous expression of approval by the master artisan
(as personal authority) will all have been for naught. The master, therefore,
desirously acts approvingly towards his apprentice in anticipation of
latter’s willing cooperation within a future-directed time-frame.
Therefore, to
summarize, the actively expressed
nostalgic sense of solicitousness on the part of the personal authority figure
initiates the conditioned interaction, whereby prompting an anticipated
determination to act approvingly on the part of the personal follower. The
latter style of reinforcement perspective, in turn, ultimately reaches an
active status, whereby approvingly prompting a future-directed determination to
continue acting solicitously (conceptually experienced from the viewpoint of
the procurer), now designated from a personal follower role). According to this second stage, you (as personal
authority) now desirously behave approvingly towards me (as personal follower)
in anticipation of my solicitous determination to act worthily within a
future-directed time-frame. This latter
solicitous status, as a deliberative perspective in its own right, can further
serve as the deliberative foundation for initiating additional such cycles
within the conditioned interaction at some future date. Indeed, such actively
approving reinforcement typically proves sufficient for justifying further such
solicitous overtures within a future-directed time-frame in hopes of gaining
additional such measures of reinforcement. Consequently, a stable and enduring
pattern of procurement-then-reinforcement is encouraged and maintained within
the social environment over the long run, providing a solid foundation for
stable enterprise and commerce characterizing our modern culture.
RECURSIVE CORRELATES FOR CONDITIONING
The
two-stage interplay inherent to conditioning theory shares many of the
attributes of a recursive style of process. Recursion is the process of
repeating items in a self-similar way. It represents a procedure by which one
(or more) steps of a process work to invoke a repetition of the procedure in
the form of mental recapitulation. Recursion in linguistics involves embedding
sequences within sequences (of a self-similar type) in a hierarchical structure
through the process of reiteration. This process of embedding ideas within
ideas is a skill that humans seem to acquire in an effortless fashion, perhaps
the one true dividing line between the animal kingdom and human-kind. Such
recursive ability enables humans to freely engage in mental time travel,
recalling past memory episodes within present consciousness, and then employing
this mental-map for imagining future potentialities as mental projections. Such
advanced mental abilities appear to arise primarily through progressive
increases in short-term memory and the capacity for hierarchical organization
chiefly made feasible through incremental increases in brain development.
In summary, the
completed description of the operant sequence of nostalgia, approval, desire,
and solicitousness represents a master theoretical overview of the dynamics
governing positive reinforcement within a personally-focused relationship.
Although the master/apprentice example proved enlightening for illustrative
purposes, many other examples also come to mind; e.g., the hero and his sidekick,
the comedian and the straight-man, etc. This stepwise analysis devoted
considerable effort to restate the obvious, although the true goal for this
exercise aims towards providing a solid conceptual foundation for a parallel
style of analysis targeting the more abstract listings of virtues and values
comprising the group authority levels (and higher). Indeed, the most basic
personal level of behavioral dynamics provides the key conceptual mechanism for
understanding the instinctually-driven nature of humankind in general, as
further extended to a grand unified model encompassing the respective dynamics
governing the virtuous realm.
GUILT-LENIENCY
Before jumping ahead to such significant virtuous
applications, it proves crucial to examine the remaining motivational dynamics
associated with the realm of negative reinforcement. This alternate style of
motivational analysis is scarcely as clear-cut as that targeting positive
reinforcement, being that negative reinforcement involves the lenient
withholding of punishment, as opposed to the more straightforward bestowal of
rewards. In the general state of nature, negative reinforcement involves the
lenient withholding of punitive consequences from within the environment, or
(in a social sense) the lenient treatment of aversive types of behavior. For
example, the personal authority figure guiltily acts aversively in anticipation
of a lenient sense of concern on the part of the personal follower figure.
These anticipated lenient intentions, in turn, eventually become actualized as
an immediately active worrisome expression of concern (within an
immediately-based time-frame). Accordingly, the initial sense of submissiveness
(that first prompted the conditioned interaction), in turn, is further mentally
projected into a future-based determined effort to submissively act more
appropriately in the future.
This submissive style of interplay is particularly apparent in the
throat-baring behaviors previously described for the wolf pack, where the submissive
pack member exaggerates one’s degree of vulnerability in
anticipation of an unconditional bestowal of leniency. In terms of more
advanced human society, submissiveness equates to a vocal admission of guilt
aimed towards verbally eliciting a lenient sense of concern on the part of
one’s personal follower figure. This phase is experienced as a guiltily
sense of submissiveness in relation to the memory of previous such cycles of
aversion-then-leniency from past previous experience. It would certainly appear
risky to express such an extreme degree of vulnerability without a reasonable
assurance of lenient treatment. Past cycles of lenient treatment effectively
come into play, where previous such instances of leniency ultimately justify
such a radical act of faith.
The colloquial concept of
leniency certainly fits the typical profile for negative reinforcement,
conventionally defined as professing concern towards the difficulties
experienced by another. In response to the personal authority’s guilty expression
of submissiveness, the personal follower leniently acts in a concerned fashion
in a committed effort to alleviate such an aversive perspective. According to
this future-projected focus upon leniency, a concerned potential for
rehabilitation (rather than vengeful retribution) now rules as the order of the
day. Indeed, this potentially lenient attitude is also
colloquially equated with the colloquial theme of blame, where blamefulness
essentially yields an equivalent result: namely, verbally acting in
a leniently-blameful fashion in order to dramatize the deficiencies currently
at issue with the aversive interaction. Consequently, blamefulness is generally
used interchangeably with leniency with respect to the purposes of illustration
within the current chapter.
A familiar example of
this one-to-one style of personal interaction is observed with respect to the
interplay between the drill sergeant and the raw recruit. The recruit is
expected to fall in line with the dictates of his drill sergeant, (in the process)
guiltily acting submissively in hopeful anticipation of a lenient sense of
concern on the part of the drill sergeant. The initially active expression of aversiveness (in a guilty sense) represents a future-directed
emotion anticipating a contingent projected sense of leniency on the part of
the drill sergeant. Indeed, guilt is
traditionally defined as a submissive acknowledgement of some past aversive
event, a verbal admission of culpability along the lines of appeasement
behavior.
Being
that the recruit initiates this first stage within the conditioned interaction,
he/she rightfully assumes a subjective "I" role, whereas the drill
sergeant alternately assumes the projected-objective "you" role
indicative of potentiality within a future-directed time-frame. Consequently, I
as personal authority (the recruit) guiltily act submissively towards you as my
drill sergeant in anticipation of your lenient sense of concern. The recruit
bears some risk in assuming that reinforcement will follow, although reassured
by a wealth of previous such cycles of reinforcement.
WORRY-SUBMISSIVENESS
This
initial future-directed sequence of guilt-then-leniency further implies that
the reinforcer must eventually act upon the
potentiality of one’s lenient intentions, whereby worrisomely acting in a
concerned fashion (within an actively-based time-frame) in anticipation of a
submissive determination to perform better on the part of the recruit This
latter course of action often necessitates an extended course of deliberation
on the part of the reinforcer. Indeed, this tenuous
power of deliberation ultimately imparts the active style of power leverage
enjoyed by the reinforcer in relation to the procurer
of such reinforcement. Once the
opportunity for action finally occurs, the worrisome
expression of leniency (on the part of the personal authority) serves to encourage future submissive cooperation
on the part of the recruit.
The respective interplay of authority/follower roles, in turn, is
formally modified with respect to this second stage of the conditioned
interaction. Here, this subsequent phase represents the worrisome bestowal of
lenient reinforcement by the drill sergeant (now in the role of personal
authority), as schematically represented in Part-B of Fig. 2A. This second stage is phase-shifted within the current time
frame, with reinforcement (Y) now occupying the present, whereas procurement
(X) is now projected as a future potentiality. In essence, the drill sergeant
is now respectively thrust into an immediately active role, leniently
reinforcing the guilty sense of submissiveness initially expressed by the
recruit. Accordingly, the drill
sergeant ultimately acts upon his lenient intentions, worrisomely acting
in a concerned fashion towards his trusty recruit, whereby prompting a potentially-based
determination to act appropriately on the part of the recruit. This projected submissive attitude is also
colloquially equated with the theme of fear of failure, where both perspectives
present essentially the same results: namely, potentially
encouraging additional cycles of aversion/leniency within the conditioned
interaction.
A number of key modifications are further
specified with respect to the polarities for the authority/follower roles. With
respect to his/her active expression of leniency, the drill sergeant now
abandons the former (projected) personal follower role, in turn, switching to
an active personal authority status in relation to the trusty recruit. The recruit,
in turn, now assumes the mantle of the personal follower role consistent with
the motivational leverage inherent to such a future-directed time-frame. By
definition, the personal
follower depends upon the personal authority for active guidance concerning
proper action within the conditioned interaction: hence, the authority leads the follower in terms temporal priority.
This role reversal
certainly proves warranted being as it reciprocates the initial conditioned
sequence based upon guilt/leniency, although now punctuated from an active
reinforcement perspective (rather than the submissive variety). The drill
sergeant now worrisomely points out weaknesses (in a lenient fashion) in
anticipation of a submissive determination to perform
better on the part of the recruit. This
initiatory phase is experienced in terms of
a worrisome expression of concern reflecting
an acknowledgement of previous such cycles of conditioned behavior extending to past memory experience. This process of worrisome deliberation, in turn,
proves conducive to promoting further such acts of compliance on the part of
the recruit (within a future-directed time-frame), whereby encouraging
additional such cycles of the conditioned interaction in the process. This
serves to enhance the inherent power leverage enjoyed by the recruit (as
personal follower), for without this submissive determination to do better, the
lenient behavior expressed by the drill sergeant will all have been for naught.
In summary, during
this second stage within the conditioned interaction, the drill sergeant
worrisomely acts in a concerned fashion towards his recruit in anticipation of
the projected determination to improve on the part of the latter. In this latter respect, the deliberative dictates
governing the authority figure’s worrisome perspective are finally fully
realized. Here, the recruit plays-up his vulnerability
within the conditioned interaction: in essence, a submissive determination
towards improvement effectively cutting short the potential for any further
sense of conflict. Any subsequent action taken against the submissive party is
now motivated out of a blameful sense of concern rather than vindictive
retaliation. Accordingly, the recruit
remains reciprocally dependent upon the worrisomely-lenient intentions of his drill sergeant, his submissive expression
of obedience now becoming entirely meaningless without such a lenient sense of
concern.
Although the rather broad range of connotations
associated with guilt, leniency, worry, and submissiveness might possibly
suggest other possible interpretations, the current range of viewpoints
certainly fits the prerequisites specified for negative reinforcement: a
finding further verified with respect to the even more abstract sequence of
levels within the ascending virtuous hierarchy. Indeed, this fundamental understanding of the most elementary personal
authority/follower roles proves exceedingly critical for ultimately defining
the motivational dynamics governing the more abstract groupings of virtues and
values to follow.
THE ACCESSORY MOTIVATIONAL TERMS
According to the preceding somewhat technical style
of analysis, the initially active procurer role is formally specified from a
subjective “I” perspective, whereas the subsequent reinforcement
role is alternately designated from a complementary style of objective
“you” perspective. This reciprocal pattern of subjective
procurement and objective reinforcement
roles
follows a strict give-and-take dynamic, formally defined as “if you, then
I,” (and vice versa). According to this complementary style of power-sharing strategy, the initially active procurement
roles within the conditioned relationship are designated in terms of a
subjective “I” status, whereas the subsequent reinforcement roles are specified in
terms of an objective “you” status. Indeed, this arrangement
essentially mirrors what typically occurs in nature, where the organism
actively procures and the environment (inanimately) reinforces.
This reciprocating
model of motivational communication, however, can scarcely claim to be the
total picture, for it formally accounts for only half of the introspective
roles predicted within the linguistic matrix: e.g., only the procurement focus.
The inherent versatility of the human mind, however, (by definition) allows for a subjective reflection upon one’s
objective status (after the fact: in essence, subjectifying
the objective status initially ascribed to the reinforcement roles. This role reversal is similarly
counterbalanced by a parallel objectification of the initially-active subjective
class of procurement roles. This reflective role-reversal conveniently allows
for crucial insights into the feelings and motivations experienced by another,
an aspect traditionally defined as empathy.
It is chiefly defined as that indwelling
sense of inter-subjectivity by which one introspectively participates in
comprehending feelings privately held by another. This empathic style of
motivational perspective formally predicts the existence of a parallel
complement of affective terms for designating this dual range of versatility
(and specified as the accessory class
of motivational terms). Fortunately the English language is richly blessed with
an abundant number of synonyms conducive to fulfilling this predicted
complement of accessory themes.
The specific details underlying this innovation are
reserved for the upcoming Chapter 7:
a section devoted exclusively to a description of these accessory motivational
perspectives. Here, the "you"/"I" perspectives are
systematically reversed in terms of polarity across the board, ensuring that
both procurement and reinforcement roles encompass their full range of
objective/subjective potentialities encountered within a real-life situation. For
the personal realm, for instance, the proposed accessory class of ego states
(poignancy, culpability, passion, and apprehension) effectively complements the
main listing of terms: namely, nostalgia, guilt, desire, and worry. Furthermore,
the accessory alter ego states of admiration-concern-aspiration-deference, in
turn, reciprocate the main listing of terms
(approval, leniency, solicitousness, and submissiveness, respectively).
In terms of the main
pairing of desire and solicitousness, for instance, the accessory complement of
passion/aspiration proves particularly well suited to the task. Here, I (as personal authority) passionately act
rewardingly towards you in anticipation of your (as personal follower) aspiring
treatment of me. In terms of the related context of worry/submissiveness, the
personal authority figure switches to an apprehensive perspective, whereby
anticipating the personal follower’s deferential expression of
submissiveness. A similar pattern further holds true for the personal
authority’s poignancy in anticipation of admiration from the personal
follower, or culpability in expectation of concern. This reciprocating interplay
of both the main and accessory sets of terms collectively permits a convincing
simulation of the empathic dynamics governing the conditioned interaction in
general.
THE ACCESSORY HIERARCHY OF
VIRTUES, VALUES, AND IDEALS
According
to this main/accessory model of empathic communication, it remains only a
further minor step to extend this personal complement of motivational terms to
the even more abstract realm of the virtues, values, and ideals characterizing
the higher authority levels. This yields the full forty-fold complement of
accessory terms schematically depicted below, and also described in an expanded
format in Chapter 7.
Exalt.• Circumspection Uprightness • Equity
Bountiful.
•
Devotion Freedom • Fairness
Blessings • Charm
Conscience • Credence
Serenity
•
Rapture Brotherhood • Content.
Passion • Aspiration Apprehen.• Deference
Respect
•
Continence Probity • Bravery
Courtesy
• Kindness Forbear. • Scruples
Gracious.• Benevolence Patience • Shrewd.
Affection
•
Gladness
Amity • Accordance
This
compact diagram represents a mirror-image variation on the main listing of
virtuous terms depicted in Fig. 1 of Chapter 1. Indeed, this parallel
master hierarchy of accessory terms spans the
entire range of group, spiritual, humanitarian, and transcendental
domains within the motivational matrix as a whole. Consequently, this reciprocating
interplay of both main and accessory terms permits a convincing simulation of
empathic communication in general, the objective and subjective polarities
effectively reversed through an inversion of the “you” and
“I” polarities. These accessory groupings of terms scarcely exhibit
the pedigree or tradition initially established for the main listings of terms.
Accordingly, the accessory listings of terms are formally designated/labeled
through the addition of the prefix “accessory”
to the better-known titles specified for the major groupings: enabling these
empathic foundations to be verified to an extreme degree of precision.
THE EGO AND ALTER EGO STATES
Returning to our ongoing
description of the main operant sequence, in a strictly interdependent sense,
the personal authority and personal follower roles effectively complement one
another within the conditioned interaction, formally maintaining an equivalent
balance of power in the process. Indeed, the hero is equally dependent upon the
potential attentions of his sidekick, whereas the master craftsman is totally
lost without the anticipated services of his apprentice. Herein resides the
basis for the fundamental paradox underlying the authority/follower
relationship: namely, one hand is always needed to wash the other. The old Zen
Buddhist adage describing how the follower leads the leader (as much as the
other way around) certainly rings true in this basic regard.
It remains only a
further minor step to formally label this dual complement of colloquial terms
for both the personal authority and personal follower roles. The ultimate
designation of ego and alter ego states immediately comes to mind. The
first-mentioned listing of ego states formally specifies motivations
encompassing the personal authority role; namely, guilt, worry, nostalgia, and
desire. This initial class of ego states represents immediately active
perspectives taking as their object the more abstract (projected) complement of
future-directed alter ego states: the latter also defined as that of “the
other.” The ego is
typically defined as that most basic sense of self to emerge within an
immediately-active time-frame. Indeed, the elementary nature of this active
class of ego states certainly bears out such an interpretation, proving equally
applicable with respect to inanimate objects within the environment (such as in
desiring a cup of water).
The remaining class of
alter ego states, in turn, refers to
the potential realm of projected motivations specific to the personal follower
role: namely, approval, leniency, solicitousness, and submissiveness. This
collective follower complement of terms represents a motivated sense of
potentiality within a future-directed time-frame, in essence, serving to ultimately consummate the immediately
active behaviors initiated within the two-stage operant schematic. For
instance, the subjective guilt
perspective of the personal authority, in turn, anticipates the objective alter ego state of leniency, as formally
attributed to the personal follower figure. Furthermore, the immediately active sense of nostalgia, in turn, antici-pates a
projected sense of approval: whereas the desire
perspective prompts projected feelings of solicitousness, etc. Generally
speaking, the personal authority role immediately initiates the conditioned
interaction, whereby prompting the range of potentialities encompassing the
projected personal follower role: hence, lending credence to the notion of
“alter ego.” Consequently, the active ego states of guilt, worry,
nostalgia, and desire effectively anticipate the future-directed potentialities
of approval, leniency, solicitousness, and submissiveness. Indeed, this basic style of personal interaction is
effectively seen to repeat for the remaining group and spiritual authority
levels as well: providing an accurate means for understanding the dynamics
underlying the ethical traditions specific to the virtues, values, and ideals.
The
higher-order paradigm of the alter ego state is further reminiscent of a
similar concept pioneered in the emerging field of Communication Theory; most
notably, the metaperspective
format advanced by R. D. Laing and P. I. Watzlawick.
In Interpersonal Perception
(1966) Laing (et al) researched the dynamics of interpersonal communication, characterized as
“the spiral of reciprocal perspectives.” In his Pragmatics of Human Communication (1967)
Watzlawick (and associates) alternately focused upon
the informational aspects of communication, defined as
“the hierarchy of metaperspectives.”
Both such formulations share a common theme; namely, communication between
individuals is generally compounded by abstract “meta” messages
defining how the relationship is to be conducted. The metaperspective,
from the Greek meta- (above), is
defined as a higher-order perspective on a viewpoint held by another:
schematically defined as “this is how I see you seeing me.” Spontaneous
forms of communication are objectified as formal objects of discourse, adding
both content and context to a given verbal interaction.
In addition to this
preliminary class of meta-perspective, even more abstract perspectives are
theoretically feasible, leading to what Communication Theorists term the meta-metaperspective.
This more advanced perspective is one meta-level further removed from the more
basic meta-perspective format, schematically defined as: “this is how I
see you - seeing me - seeing you.” Indeed, there does not appear to be
any barrier limiting the degree to which reflection can serve as a basis for
itself, resulting in a multi-level hier-
archy of
meta-communication in general. This metaperspective
format, depicted in Fig. 2B, provides
a schematic interpretation of the unified motivational hierarchy of authority
and follower roles, an enduring format culminating in an unprecedented 10th-order
level of meta-abstraction.
According to Laing,
relationships typically are defined implicitly rather than explicitly, developing
over time through negotiation. Furthermore, the outwardly observable behaviors
of another are publically accessible, analogous to the active style of
motivated communication specified for the ego states. Mental experience, in
contrast, is defined as internal perceptions that are privately felt,
corresponding to the future-directed class of alter ego states. Consequently,
one can observe the behavior of others but not another’s own mental
experience. Direct perspectives arise when observing/interpreting the behaviors
of others, whereas metaperspectives occur when attempting
to infer the projected inward motivations held by another. By definition, metaperspectives are not always necessarily accurate,
highlighting the contrast between feeling understood and actually being understood
by another.
In
summary, the completed description of the ego and alter ego states effectively
rounds out the stepwise description of the personal realm of the conditioned interaction. The somewhat technical tone for
this introductory chapter proved particularly crucial in this systematic
regard. Indeed, a sturdy foundation is crucial to the construction of any
higher-order level style of structure. It
proves particularly informative, therefore, to formally summarize what has
previously been proposed in this somewhat technical style of chapter. First
proposed were the instinctual types of conditioned interaction so eloquently
categorized in B. F. Skinner’s terminology of instrumental conditioning.
This instinctual foundation, in turn, proved applicable within a human sphere
of influence, a model of motivation taking full account of mankind’s
enduring heritage within the animal kingdom. Skinner’s elementary principles
of positive and negative reinforcement proved particularly well-suited to the
task, formally anticipating the elementary motivational framework for the
predicted hierarchy of virtues, values, and ideals.
Further described were the two-stage dynamics governing operant conditioning:
offering crucial dynamic insights into motivational sequences that project into
future-directed time-frames. Human society is uniquely specialized to operate
within such projected/planned contexts: namely, the tendency to learn from past
experience conducive to planning for future contingencies (also known as
Prospective Psychology). Operant terminology scarcely seemed adequate for
defining the entire range of introspectively derived perspectives, whereby
necessitating the introduction of a number of colloquial terms into the mix (as
evident in the listing of ego and alter ego states). These colloquial groupings
added a crucial introspective dimension to the primarily objective restrictions
governing behavioral terminology, in essence, serving as the conceptual
foundation for the remaining higher-order listings of virtues, values, and ideals.
This resultant ten-level hierarchy of ethical terms, in turn, redirects the focus
of the current analysis, effectively specifying the repetition of both the
authority and follower roles within the motivational matrix. Being that the
personal authority role occurred first within the operant sequence, it seems
only fitting that it be the first to repeat (in a modified sense of) the group
authority role: followed, in turn, by that of the group representative. Indeed,
the ascending hierarchy of authority/follower roles ultimately extends to (an
ascending confluence of) spiritual, humanitarian, and transcendental levels:
culminating in an unprecedented 10th-order hierarchy of
meta-abstraction: as reflected in the respective individual categories of
virtues, values, and ideals.
One might
rightfully question the capacity of the human mind to entertain such a
formidable multiplicity of metaperspectives,
particularly in light of the most abstract meta-order levels. The mind is
apparently able to selectively focus upon the immediately relevant levels
within the ascending power hierarchy
similar to the analogy of a ten-level flight of stairs. The process of rising
to the next higher step implies the primacy of the immediately adjoining
levels, equal to a span of three sequential levels (e.g., the
meta-meta-perspective): quite a modest task for the versatile human mind.
Although
this predicted style of virtuous hierarchy proves suitably comprehensive on an
intuitive level, its intimate degree of detail necessarily specifies an even
higher degree of precision than has currently been specified. In this latter
respect, the systematic organization of the authority hierarchy formally
permits the construction of what are technically termed the schematic definitions for the motivational matrix. This crucial
innovation spells out in longhand the precise location of each virtue/value
within the linguistic matrix while simultaneously preserving the correct
orientation of the respective authority/follower roles. Each such definition is formally constructed along the
lines of a two-stage sequential format; namely, (A) the formal recognition of
the preliminary power maneuver and (B) the
counterman-euver currently being employed; and
hence, labeled. Take, for example, the schematic definition
for the representative cardinal virtue of prudence,
reproduced below from the comprehensive series of definitions shown in Tables A-1 to A-4.
Previously, I (as your
group
nostalgically
towards you:
in
anticipation of your (as PF)
approving
treatment of me.
But now, you, (as group
representative)
will prudently
act
approvingly towards me:
in
response to my (as GA) gloriously
nostalgic
treatment of you.
According
to this specific prudence example,
the glorious sense of nostalgia expressed by the group authority figure
represents the preliminary power maneuver: countered, in turn, by the prudent approval professed by the group
representative. Note that the polarity of authority/follower roles is effectively preserved equivalent to their
schematic polarity outlined in Fig. 1.
In terms of this
two-stage schematic format, the preliminary
power perspective represents the “one-down” power maneuver,
whereas the current power maneuver designates the “one-up” variety.
Power leverage, accordingly, is secured by rising to a “one-up”
power status; namely, ascending to the next higher metaperspectival
level. This comprehensive hierarchy of schematic definitions can effectively be viewed as a motivational
calculus replete with the strict transformational rules governing how each
level meshes with those above or below it.
The complete
forty-part listing of schematic definitions for the main virtuous realm is
depicted in Tables A-1 to A-4 covering the entire ten-level span
for the virtuous motivational hierarchy. The instinctual terminology for operant conditioning initially dominates
the preliminary levels, replaced in due fashion by the virtues/values
specifying the higher authority levels. At each successive level, a new term
(distinguished through italics) is
introduced, whereby designating the current power maneuver directly under
consideration. Beginning with the group level, the preliminary terms begin to
drop out of the equation, freeing-up space for the newer terms currently being
introduced (whereby maintaining a stable buffer of motivational terms).
The
affiliated authority/follower roles similarly remain consistent throughout the
ten-level power hierarchy, although systematically abbreviated (for the sake of
brevity) in non-critical positions. Accordingly, PA stands for personal authority, PF represents personal follower, etc. The
reciprocal interplay of the “you” and “I” roles proves
equally crucial, maintaining a stable buffer of
objective/subjective perspectives in relation to the reciprocal
interplay of authority/follower roles. It
is further crucial to note (upon careful examination of the schematic
definitions) that the active behavioral states effectively reciprocate the
future-directed (projected) perspectives within the operant sequence. These complementary
pairings directly ensure that the proper pairings of
"you"/"I" roles within the schematic definitions, providing
a truly convincing representation of the motivational dynamics at issue within
a given conditioned interchange. Furthermore, the corresponding
virtuous terms similarly verify the exquisite
dynamics governing the entire schematic definition format.
The remainder of the current Part I is devoted to systematically
outlining the formal dynamics of the entire virtuous realm. Accordingly, each
successive chapter is devoted exclusively to
a specific authority/follower realm within the virtuous hierarchy
(replete with descriptions of the individual ethical terms). Chapter 3 initiates this analysis with a
detailed examination of the group authority/follower roles, introducing the
groupings of personal ideals and
cardinal virtues, respectively.
Chapter 4, in turn, focuses upon the
spiritual authority/disciple roles: providing
an in-depth examination of the civil liberties and the theological virtues. Chapter 5 subsequently examines
the corresponding humanitarian-derived roles, introducing the classical
Greek values and ecumenical ideals, respectively. Chapter 6, in turn, targets the crowning transcendental realm: offering an in-depth
examination of the humanistic values
and mystical values. Finally,
Chapters 7 and 8 round out the current section with a discussion of a key number
of supplementary issues relating to
the major virtues; namely, the accessory virtues/values, as well as the
overarching concept of the general unifying themes. This grand-scale
undertaking is, hereby, initiated with a detailed examination of the behavioral
analogues for the group authority/follower realm, an institution virtually
synonymous with virtually every major form of cooperative human endeavor.