As a certain
set of individuals develop over time a transformation
of their explanatory system occurs. Initially, one type
of explanation is replaced for another type of explanation.
Gradually, sets of explanations are replaced with other
sets of explanations until a critical mass is reached.
Once this critical mass attains the individual realizes
that a transformation in their explanatory system has
occurred and, whether they prefer the current system over
the previous they know they can never return. And so they
resign themselves to their current explanatory system.
The
individual first develops a romantic explanatory system.
Day to day interactions with other persons will instantiate
behavior that affects the individual. This affect could
be aversive or beneficial. In an attempt to manipulate these
instantiations the individual will develop a model of that
human that explains why the person instantiates such behavior.
The individual then uses this explanation to predict likely
future instantiations of this behavior and control it.
Underlying
the romantic explanatory system is the assumption that persons
in the world of the individual are aware of the affect their
behavior has on the individual's situation. Imagine a scenario,
where a girlfriend begins to consume all of a boyfriend's
free time. The friends of the boyfriend, will explain the
girlfriend's intentions in terms of stealing their friend
away from them. Such an explanation requires assuming the
girlfriend has awareness of her boyfriend's reduced time
with friends. Otherwise, the explanation fails because the
girlfriend can not be accused of stealing his boyfriend's
time when she is unaware of her affect on the boyfriend's
time with his friends. That is to say stealing implies that
the girl is aware her actions diminishing her boyfriend's
time with his friends. Hence the explanation's success is
predicated on the assumption that the person that instantiates
a behavior, which affects the individual, is aware of the
behavior's affect on the individual's situation.
The
romantic explanatory system aims to manipulate the behavior
of others. It accomplishes this by administering a consequence
to a person that instantiates a behavior that affects the
individual's life. When a person instantiates a behavior
that affects the situation of the individual the explanation
will always incorporate some type of consequence that the
individual performs on the person. Clearly, in cases were
the individual is harmed by the behavior of a person the
consequence will aim to reduce or prevent this behavior
from instantiating. In cases were the behavior benefits
the individual, the developed explanation will incorporate
a consequence that will aim to bring about more instantiations
of that behavior.
Another
critical aspect of the romantic explanatory system is volition.
Volition is requirement for this model construction because
it justifies the individual's administration of a consequent
to a person. Without the person having a choice, that is
control over their behavior, the individual's attempts at
manipulating the instantiation of such behavior would be
fruitless, because the consequence would have no bearing
on the person's manipulation of instantiating said behavior.
Thus, romantic explanatory system requires that persons
have a choice between instantiating and not instantiating
a certain behavior.
Notice
then why its so crucial that the romantic explanatory system
requires awareness on the part of the person in regards
to the individual's situation. The person that receives
a consequence from the individual must be aware of how their
behavior affects the individual. That way they will be able
to manipulate their own behavior in a way that will serve
the individual better and avoid the consequence. If the
person is unaware of the individual's situation, and is
not aware of how their behavior affects it, then the consequence
that the individual administers will not have the desired
affect of manipulating the behavior.
An
example may help illustrate how an individual constructs
a human model in the romantic explanatory system. In the
example we will say that one friend, the person, is expected
to go out and drink with her friend, the individual. However,
when the time comes for the friend to meet the individual,
the person bails out and gives some excuse. The individual
is not pleased with this behavior and develops the explanation
that this person is deceitful. The individual reasons that
the person led her to believe she would drink, but ultimately
didn't not actually want to drink, and thus the person lied
to the individual. To insure this behavior of deceit does
not occur in the future the individual applies the consequence
friendship termination because the individual will not be
able to trust the deceitful person.
1)
The friend is aware I want her to drink with me.
2) The friend fails to drink with me.
3) The friend is deceitful.
4) The friend must become honest or I can trust them.
The
actual explanation is deceit. The friend is aware that the
individual wants to drink with them, but chooses otherwise,
leading the ultimate explanation that the person is deceitful.
The individual, to control this behavior applies the consequent
of friendship admonishing that friendship termination will
occur if said behavior persists. Note that in this model,
the explanation for the behavior may not be deceit. Many
different types of explanations could be given, such as
forgetfulness, maliciousness or perhaps the person choose
to drink with friends other than the individual. In this
case, the explanation is deceit and so long as the consequence
derived from the explanation manipulates the persons behavior,
i.e. the friend no longer avoids drinking sessions with
the individual, the individual will assume that deceit was
the cause of the friend bailing out.
In
the romantic explanatory system the focus is placed on awareness.
The individual must be aware of their current situation
and how the person affects it. Additionally, the system
assumes that the person is aware of the individual's situation
and how their behavior affects this situation. The person
must also be aware that they have choice in instantiating
some behavior and that the administered consequence is applied
in such a way as to manipulate the likelihood of said behavior
being instantiated. Certainly, in this model, the individual
is also aware that the administered punishment is to have
an affect on behavior. This model of explanation assumes
that both the person and the individual are very much aware
of many aspects of the explanation.
The
romantic explanatory system assumes both the person and
the individual have a awareness of certain elements in the
model construction. However, there are numerous examples
where an individual's model of some person evades the awareness
of the person or the person is unaware of how their behavior
has an affect on the individual situation. In these cases
the romantic explanatory system applies language to bring
awareness to the those involved.
In
this way, language holds very special and mystical place
in the romantic explanatory system. Through the mysterious
application of language all awareness problems the model
runs across can be rectified. If the person does not understand
the individual situation - no problem - just explain it
to them. If the person does not understand that the model
the individual has constructed - no problem - just explain
it to them. If the person does not understand how the consequence
is supposed to manipulate said behavior - no problem - just
explain it to them. In the romantic explanatory system language
serves as a flashlight of awareness making those conscious
of the crucial elements in the system to make the explanation
successful at manipulating behavior.
This
system assumes that the act of communication is enough to
illicit the phenomenological experience necessary to convey
the content that resides in the mind of the individual.
In this way the system empowers the individual to impart
insight in the mind of person to make them aware of some
element of the explanation. This insight will enable the
person to control the behavior the individual wishes to
manipulate. The system assumes that insight's value within
the consciousness of the mind of the person is equivalent
to the actual phenomenological experience insight must replace.
Otherwise, it would be fruitless to give insight about some
mechanism of the explanation only to find such insight fails
to bring about control over such behavior because the person's
mind does not regard as insight as valuable as the actual
phenomenological experience. Language plays a powerful role
in this system such that even when the person lacks the
phenomenological experience of the elements in the explanation,
the individual can still impart that phenomenological experience
via insight. Language can serve as a substitute for experience
in the romantic explanatory system.
Manifestations
of the romantic explanatory system permeate through all
aspects of culture. No doubt it is most commonly used to
explain behavior for its seductively simple means by which
problematic behavior is manipulated. Behavior instantiation
that vexes an individual can be manipulated simply by dialogue
and application of consequence. The individual need only
give insight into the person, apply some consequence and
the behavior can be manipulated. This system most certainly
is favored because of the simplicity in which language is
applied to control behavior. Here is just a small sample
of how this explanatory system is manifests in culture.
In
cinema, television, and literature, a type of story line
can be discerned where the conflict resolution always comes
about through dialogue. Perhaps the protagonist feels defeated
and needs only that inspirational speech by the wise sage
to invigorate her resolve. Typical in this type of model
construction the protagonist always learns a simple lesson,
i.e. insight, thorough the words of others and modifies
their behavior appropriately. Those that don't 'hear', though
are aware, are generally evil and punished for this.
Clinical
psychology, particularly the kind that emphasize talk therapy,
is founded on the romantic explanatory system. Counseling
relies heavily on insight, as if, the person will be able
to manipulate their behavior more effectively if the individual,
that is the counselor, is able to find the correct explanation
for the behavior. This would be called insight, and once
the counselor is able to convey, via language, the explanation,
the patient will acquire insight and be able to modify behavior
accordingly.
All
of morality (and justice) is predicated on this type of
explanatory system. The moralist applies the romantic explanatory
system in manipulating people. When people's actions perturb
the moralist the moralist will apply the principle of change
to control this behavior. The principle of change uses the
notion that insight will allow a person to understand why
they instantiate a certain behavior and subsequently control
that behavior. The principle of change also attaches a consequence
once insight is gained to punish a person that persists
in instantiating a behavior. This way the moralist can control
the perturbing behavior.
Using
words and symbols to inspire people is another example of
how this type of explanatory system manifests in culture.
With this system it is believed that that good poetry, art,
and political speeches motivate people to action. Again
this is because such things allow the person to gain insight
that results in behavioral manipulation. The antiwar painting
motivates the viewer to object to war, the song that scoffs
at those that wonder how great their life could of been
motivates the listen to make the most of their life, or
the poem that admonishes of neglecting a true love motivates
the reader to pay closer attention to their lover. All these
types of art aim to control behavior by imparting insight
into the person which then affects their behavior.
The
romantic explanatory system permeates thorough countless
other things and paints a glorious and wonderful world.
It's a world full of great men and great woman doing great
things because the choose to. It's a world where those that
make poor moral choice need only insight to change. Its
a world were 'truth' can motivate men and women to do great
things. It's a world were insight leads to happiness. Its
a world were the luxury of good and evil can exist. Ultimately
its a world were life is determined by choice, which you
are aware keenly aware of because insight acquired through
dialogue with yourself and others.
This
explanatory system is desirable. It enables the possibility
that people can change through will alone. Human models
in a romantic explanation are simple entities with one drive
that they are aware of and choose to express. To control
this entity you need only understand this chosen drive give
insight about its affects and apply consequence. Humans
are simple easy to understand entities capable of rapid
and profound change.
But
alas, this warehouse is slipping away and my mind is not
so reckless anymore.
To some extent all people begin to see the shortcomings
of the romantic explanatory system. Repeated application
of the proscribed consequent that supposedly lead to behavior
instantiation manipulation fail. The individual is unable
to control the behavior the person instantiates. This will
often be the case even after the individual has given the
person insight making them fully aware of the whole explanation.
In light of repeated contradictory evidence the individual
will abandon one type of romantic explanation and apply
another romantic explanation. Sometimes this will lead to
behavior manipulation but often times this will fail as
well. So the individual continues developing new romantic
explanations until one leads to control or the individual
abandons attempting to control the behavior. But in another
cases the individual will replace the romantic explanation
with an empirical explanation. This change in explanation
is subtle and so the individual is unaware of any fundamental
difference between the explanations. Since they apply this
type of explanation sparingly their world view remains romantic.
However
another group of individuals take repeated failed attempts
at controlling behavior and develop a whole new way of explaining
behavior. As they begin to trade one failed romantic explanation
for an empirical explanation they become aware of the assumptions
of a romantic explanatory system that prevents effective
behavior manipulation. As they develop even more empirical
explanations to replace their romantic explanations they
find these new explanations prove more effective at behavioral
control and so the individual applies this type of explanation
to more and more behaviors. Over time whole romantic systems
of explanation are replaced with empirical systems. At some
point the individual realizes the transformation and can
see very clearly two kinds of world. The romantic world
and the empirical world.
In
the empirical explanatory system awareness in general is
no longer crucial to manipulating behavior. What replaces
the requirement that a person must be aware of the individual's
situation is the requirement that the individual must be
aware of what context controls the instantiation of some
behavior. So instead of assuming that the person is aware
of the affect they have, the empirical explanatory system
assumes that an individual's is aware of the context that
evokes the person's behavior. This assumption removes the
person that 'controls' the behavior out of the process by
which the individual manipulates the behavior. Instead the
power to control behavior instantiation is placed in the
hands of an individual able to manipulate the context that
evokes the behavior.
Unsurprisingly,
the empirical explanatory assumes that person have no volition.
That is, the person is determined to instantiate those behavior
that the context evokes. Clearly this assumption is used
to justify removing the person from the explanation of behavior
instantiation. For if the person has a role in the instantiation
then they have some type of control, that is choice over
instantiating a behavior. However the empirical explanatory
system regards person as entities unable to control behavior.
Hence the person has no choice, in the proper context the
behavior will instantiate regardless of the person's will.
Context determines what behavior a person instantiates and
not their will.
In
the empirical explanatory system the individual does not
apply consequences. If a person has no volition over whether
they instantiate a behavior then its meaningless to hold
the individual accountable by applying some consequence.
Such effort will have no affect on whether a behavior is
instantiated. However the individual using an empirical
explanation does have the option to manipulate certain behaviors.
To control the instantiation of behavior the individual
simply manipulates the conditions (if possible) that will
evoke the behavior. In this way, the explanation's ability
to control a behavior is directly related to the condition
the explanation designates as the force that evokes the
instantiation of the behavior. The more calibrated the conditions
are to behavior instantiation, the more control the individual
has over the person instantiating that behavior.
Perhaps
an example will aid in understanding. Consider a group of
friends hanging out. One of the friends becomes dejected
while in the presence of his friends. The individual explains
the friend's behavior as a function of not recently having
any quality time with his girlfriend. So the individual
sets it up the occasion so that his friend attains some
quality time with his girlfriend.
1.
The dejected behavior diminishes the individual's enjoyment.
2. The friend is determined to be dejected.
3. He is dejected because he has had no quality time with
his girlfriend
4. If the individual sets up intimacy to control the behavior.
The
explanation for the friend's dejection is a lack of quality
time with his girlfriend. The individual manipulates the
context by arranging time for the two to have some intimacy
and when the friend returns he should no longer be instantiating
dejection. Thus, the individual can successfully apply his
explanation to control the context evoking a change in the
person's behavior. Notice, in this example, that it was
not crucial for the person to be aware of any of the elements
of the explanation for the individual to manipulate the
friend's behavior. Certainly this is not to say a person
can't be aware of the situation. Its only to say that it
is not a requirement. It also worth noting that the explanation
need not actually be the appropriate cause for behavior
instantiation. So long as the context variable that the
explanation prescribes as the determinant for the behavior
in fact manipulates the behavior the individual will assume
this explanation is correct.
The
romantic explanatory system's saving grace was language
as a means to insight. Insight was to lead to awareness
which would then lead to behavior manipulation. But as some
individuals discover, the problem with this explanatory
system is language. Insight is unsuitable for replacing
the actual phenomenological event that must be experienced
before the person can manipulate their behavior. To clarify
we will use this previous example but give a romantic explanation
and show how insight fails to replace the phenomenological
event needed for behavioral manipulation.
Here
the individual explains the dejection behavior as a function
of the person being to needy of his girlfriend. The individual
attempts to impart this insight on to the person by telling
them they are to needy. This realization, at first affects
the person and they begin to act more cheerful. However
this does not last and they return to their dejected state.
To which the individual must apply the same explanation
and be met with the same end result: in ability to manipulate
the dejected behavior.
The
problem is that the insight that the individual has gained
concerning the person's behavior is one phenomenological
experience. Telling this insight to the person is another
phenomenological experience. Thus, the individual experiences
the 'insight' and the person experience 'being told what
the insight is'. Not the same thing. The motivating effect
of insight that affects a person's behavior is not derived
from having gained actual insight in what causes the instantiation
of behavior and choosing to control that behavior. Instead
behavior modification is gained through social dominance
and consequence application.
The
behavioral modification diminishes over time particularly
when the individual is no longer present at which time the
drive for intimacy will instantiate dejection. Effectively,
the behavioral modification is attained through coercion
in which the individual forces the person to instantiate
an artifice behavior or suffer some consequence. This artifice
behavior will persist as long as the individual can make
the person's drive for compliance more forceful then the
drive that leads to the instantiation of the undesired behavior.
In this sense, the behavior manipulation comes about through
a social dominance then actual insight. The person must
display an artifice behavior of cheerfulness to appease
the individual until it is safe for the drive for intimacy
to instantiate dejection again. Otherwise the person will
suffer the consequence designated by the explanation.
Over
time individuals that change explanation types realize that
it doesn't really matter if he can impart insight on to
a person because it does not lead to long term behavior
manipulation. He also realizes that applying consequences
only coerces an affected behavior and brings about no genuine
change. In this way, the individual abandons language as
a function of explanation because insight does not enable
a person to control their behavior. So in light of the evidence,
the individual gives up on the virtues of language and embraces
an explanation system that does not require language to
manipulate behavior.
Does
the empirical explanatory system permeate through all of
culture much in the same way the romantic explanatory system
does. For the most part it would seem no. Certainly the
empirical explanatory system is strongly applied in science
particularly in the 'natural' sciences. Where god used to
be able to 'choose' how the natural world operated but now
science determines it. Its also present in art, cinema and
television but to a limited degree. Some clinical psychologist
employ this system particularly in behavioristic and or
neurological theories.
However,
one area where the empirical explanation becomes very prevalent
is in long term relationships. The longer individuals spends
with each other the more they realize they can't control
each other's behavior through insight. They learn they can
create an affected behavior when necessary but they also
know that it will dissipate eventually and the behavior
will return. They also know how to control context to manipulate
certain behavior. Family relationships develop these kind
of relations because they are forced to deal with family
members constantly. In friendship, one can affect another
though insight, achieve behavioral manipulation for a short
time and then part ways leaving the friend in the previous
state before insight manipulated behavior. In a family relationship
a brother must remain after the affect of insight has dissipated
and the other brother's perturbing behavior returns. For
this reason those in a family learn to accept certain behaviors
and learn contextual ways to manipulate other vexing behaviors.
This ultimately leads to very strong bonds that cannot be
easily broken since most relationships separate because
of some recalcitrant behavior.
The
empirical explanatory system is present in culture. However
these manifestations are not nearly as popular as the romantic
variety. This is because the empirical explanation removes
the individual from the choices they make. In this system
of explanation one has no direct control over their behavior.
They are determined to perform and act they way they do.
One's first impression of such a conclusion is horrifying.
Embracing an empirical view means embracing determinism
a conclusion most can not accept.
The
empirical explanatory system paints a boring determined
life. A world denude of good and evil and instead man is
simply a product of his fate. Language can not inspire actual
behavior modification, it at best brings about artifice
behavior. Insight does not bring happiness. Its world were
possibility is limited by what has been determined. Its
a world were life is determined by context and genetics.
People are barely aware of the individual's current situation
have no real understanding of how their behavior affects
it.
Human
models in a empirical explanation are complex collection
of drives all eager for expression via behavior. To control
behavior and person must find which drive express it and
find variables that will strengthen this drive while also
finding the variables that suppress competing drives. Humans
models in this system are complex - difficult to understand
- entities capable of slow but profound change.
This
is not to say the empirical world view is undesirable. Most
individuals that switch to empirical explanation do so because
they find they can control behavior much more effectively.
Context control also leads to greater certainty in behavioral
control because it can cause greater long term behavior
modification. Ultimately, an empirical framework leads to
greater control over one's life even though it means admitting
they have less direct control over it. One can change. Just
not easily.
And
now I stand at the crossroads viewing two different worlds.
One full of possibility but randomness and another full
of determination but systematic.
For
all the predictive power and behavior modification the empirical
system offers me, I still cant help but desperately wish
that the romantic system worked.
Because
I admit it seems so good.
Hard
to believe an end to it and while I love to stay here I
wonder: Could a change be better then this? And then I worry.
Maybe things won't be better then they have been here in
the warehouse.
And
a fear wells in me, but nothing seem good enough to defend
and so I'm going away.....man I'm going away. |
