Comind ▶ Understanding ▶ S0: Understand ▶ Mind for humanity ? ▶ Organizing the Collective ▶
Motivations and Needs ▶
We have seen that a collective organization requires great coherence in terms of the motivation system in order to:
We have also seen that the aesthetic level of the motivation system must meet the highest quality standards.
How to create a motivation system that meets the characteristics outlined in the context section ?
Among the important things, many come from society, for example:
This is why we tend to make society a basic substrate on which we evolve. Many people act as if society were a given and focus solely on obtaining maximum gratification from it (money, social position, etc.). But our society itself, like a body where we are the cells, has reality as its substrate. If we want individuals to behave properly towards this social body, a good rule is that people must feel the global consequences of their actions. Thus, seeking to maximize one's gains corresponds to improving the overall well-being of humanity.
At first glance, one might think that over time, any motivation system that does not completely align with the long-term common good leads, due to individuals' pursuit of maximum efficiency, to behaviors optimized for obtaining the maximum gratification. This would result in a deviation of society from the long-term common good goal.
We will see here that the mechanism is more complex and that more parameters must be considered to distinguish benign deviations in motivations from malignant ones.
Our mind seeks efficiency, which is why it optimizes the representations produced so that the cost of construction and use is optimal. For example, when making a recipe, we do not seek to know the quantities precisely because it does not matter, or we are reluctant to change representations when faced with contradictory information.
This pursuit of efficiency drives us to have relatively simple representations. On the other hand, we know that complicating a representation for a small benefit is often a mistake. For example, if we represent ourselves as someone who protects the environment, we will not try to construct a much more complex representation just to optimize motivations by finding one compatible with throwing garbage when we are alone in the forest: it might momentarily make life easier, but the intellectual effort to find a compatible representation and the high probability that it is false discourage us from making that effort.
The search for more efficient representations is also to be included in the social dynamic because in a society where innovation is rewarded in proportion to the benefits for the long-term common good, it becomes more profitable to focus on realistic representations, as they are the only ones that can improve society. We have two currents in conflict in the sense that the strength of one is the weakness of the other:
These two currents are in conflict because the individualistic current uses injustices to thrive. Moreover, its representation problems and all its contradictions push it to isolate itself from the representations of the common good current. With the advent of the common good current, the individualistic current sees its efforts become fruitless and, worse, sees the reality of the desolation of their behaviors and representations exposed. The bearers of this current, being attached to values of social hierarchy, interpret the advent of the common good current as a brutal social downgrading, which is an unbearable downfall for them.
Our representation of these two currents shows us that it is enough for society to have sufficient virtuous mechanisms for the first current to be dominant. As the alternative (the local good current) is then weak, it is not profitable to orient oneself towards it.
In conclusion, the phenomenon that makes most of us not throw non-biodegradable waste in the forest is naturally extended in a society where the long-term common good current dominates, leading to a very low propensity to deviate from the long-term common good, even when the motivation system does not completely align.
It remains to determine what are the determining factors to increase the power of the common good current in society.
We know that certain elements of life are of different natures and do not mix, like money and feelings (for example, one cannot pay someone to love them). And our representation of these elements is well separated. That is why it is good to connect action to consequences by trying to stay as much as possible on the same plane. For example, in terms of:
Whether it is a cultural performance or a teacher/student relationship, we tend not to be content with the material relationship (money): we applaud performances, we praise the personality of artists. Similarly, the student/teacher relationship has a strong emotional charge.
If we build a house that normally lasts a century, if we are responsible for a defect, it is normal to repair it. Offering just a warranty of, for example, 7 years is a form of message from society to the builder: "It is acceptable that the construction deteriorates after 7 years". The overall cost would not be higher with a warranty corresponding to the normal lifespan, it would just be a redistribution of costs (there is no more work). As builders would be interested in making more reliable homes, the overall cost would be lower. Moreover, buyers could rely more on price and appearances since the consequences of quality would be borne by the builder, which makes more sense since they are well-placed to judge and control it.
To go in a direction, we must first define where to go. While our brain defines what is good through our senses and instincts, for a social organization we must define what is good.
The foundations of an efficient social organization consist of 3 points: