Behavioralism

[commonsense]

What is the prime mover of behavior?

Is It procreation? Hunger? Curiosity? Power? Fear? Happiness? Altruism? Something else?

And why is it so?

[11011]

depends on what people value most i think...which is usually shaped by circumstance, temperament, and upbringing

if i were to name something that would move a person no matter what under most circumstances regardless of personality...i would say pain

escalating torture will get most people to move, even a masochist. and everyone has their 'hell'

so if you want to move someone, make them experience their hell with the option of immediate relief upon compliance

which more toward what i think the threat is getting at...might suggest that humans are more motivated by the negative than positive?

that is to say, negative emotions constitute more powerful motivators? some people are seemingly more motivated by positive emotions like any sort of reinforcer like money, etc, even if they have plenty, and will face dangerous situations for it, etc...however you could argue that they are avoiding the negative emotion of boredom or understimulation or something like that...effectively negative

because imagine such a person existed who did not experience negative emotion, but only positive, and genuinely so, not just through some mind-trick, would they be motivated to positive action?

maybe not. it might not be worth it, because even if something is good at the end, it takes effort usually or some other temporary negative or at least less positive than 'neutral' to gain

so without negative, but the potential for more positive, possibly even permanently more positive, i think perhaps all people would choose the state of no negative

it would also preclude greed, and maybe even curiosity, i mean what is curiosity really?

isn't curiosity a form of greed if you think about it? and how does one feel when they don't indulge their curiosity? deprived? and when you hear people say 'that satisfied my curiosity' like it's an appetite or something...appetites are negative since if you neglect them you feel bad

curiosity might be unique in that it takes an external stimulus...whereas something like hunger is constantly generated from within...pending advanced robotics replacing human organs or something

anyway that's my analysis, no firm conclusion other than: negative is more powerful than positive, and yes this conclusion is influenced by the findings of a scientific article i heard about a few years ago, i just added my own reasoning to it. didn't read the contents of the article

[commonsense]

Nice post. Does it make any difference if the pain/negative is intellectual, physical or emotional?

[11011]

i don't think so...everyone has their own hell. it never ceases to amaze me how personalities can be shaped to almost any priority

some people equate intellectual starvation with literal starvation...

sometimes though it's through associations via experience that create links between seemingly unimportant things and things more people would be able tor elate to

for example, maybe the person learned to equate ignorance with death, maybe they grew up in a place where ignorance - not being in the know - or stupidity amounted to death, you had to be extremely clever to survive...so they come to view information access or constantly reaffirming to themselves that they are smart and on top of things in survival terms


also, i made a boo boo in my reasoning above, if someone had no negative emotion, only neutral and positive, the positive being externally dependent, they would not experience any sort of negative in chasing the positive gain, but the neutral might seem like negative by comparison, but again that can't be if there is no negative...

which means there can only be neutral or negative and positive poles without a neutral

i think the most logical choice in terms of optimizing one's state of being in terms of cost/benefit would be neutral, if one could choose their state - al this getting at fundamental human motivation or desires - but it's hard to make an argument because i think it's outside of human experience...i think humans have the negative-positive poles thing going on and no true neutral...perhaps neutral is no emotions at all...and people might be scared of that

maybe a few would choose it out of curiosity lol, but then that's moving from a negative (dissatisfied curiosity) to neutral which is more positive

anyway this could go on forever, this line of reasoning so i'll leave it at that for now

[commonsense]

i don't think so...everyone has their own hell. it never ceases to amaze me how personalities can be shaped to almost any priority

some people equate intellectual starvation with literal starvation...

sometimes though it's through associations via experience that create links between seemingly unimportant things and things more people would be able tor elate to

for example, maybe the person learned to equate ignorance with death, maybe they grew up in a place where ignorance - not being in the know - or stupidity amounted to death, you had to be extremely clever to survive...so they come to view information access or constantly reaffirming to themselves that they are smart and on top of things in survival terms


also, i made a boo boo in my reasoning above, if someone had no negative emotion, only neutral and positive, the positive being externally dependent, they would not experience any sort of negative in chasing the positive gain, but the neutral might seem like negative by comparison, but again that can't be if there is no negative...

which means there can only be neutral or negative and positive poles without a neutral

i think the most logical choice in terms of optimizing one's state of being in terms of cost/benefit would be neutral, if one could choose their state - al this getting at fundamental human motivation or desires - but it's hard to make an argument because i think it's outside of human experience...i think humans have the negative-positive poles thing going on and no true neutral...perhaps neutral is no emotions at all...and people might be scared of that

maybe a few would choose it out of curiosity lol, but then that's moving from a negative (dissatisfied curiosity) to neutral which is more positive

anyway this could go on forever, this line of reasoning so i'll leave it at that for now

Intellectual negativity is more likely to reveal itself as negative thoughts, such as, “The world will end tomorrow,” or, “I never get appreciation.” However, I’ll allow that starvation or association may have something to do with intellectual pain/negativity.

I’ll accept that there could be a neutral state, although I doubt that, in itself, it would stimulate any kind of action. As you say, neutrality would have to be a relative negativity in order to motivate behavior.

But here’s a conundrum. Adult learners respond best when they are stimulated either by humor or by fear. In fact, positive reinforcement in a safe environment works better than negative criticism.

How do we make sense of that?

[HexHammer]

What is the prime mover of behavior?

And why is it so?

Genetic memory and environment. If you notice the Cuckoo hatchling it will do a very elaborate thing by pushing out other eggs and hatchlings, it was never told to do so, but it lies in it's genetic memory.

The other factor is environment as you can see in following vid.
https://youtu.be/qA-gbpt7Ts8

[commonsense]

What is the prime mover of behavior?

And why is it so?

Genetic memory and environment. If you notice the Cuckoo hatchling it will do a very elaborate thing by pushing out other eggs and hatchlings, it was never told to do so, but it lies in it's genetic memory.

The other factor is environment as you can see in following vid.
https://youtu.be/qA-gbpt7Ts8

I always love that experiment.

The combination of nature and nurture is powerful, I grant you, however while genes and environment affect how humans behave, I would counter that in some circumstances they will not stimulate anything at all. I.e. when the memories and environment point to euphoria, there would not be any need for action.

But I do think that genetic memory and environment play the greatest role in how humans respond to pain and negativity.