Oh, Behave

There’s little that’s more frustrating than an inability to change what we’re doing despite best intentions. Quite often it’s as if — rather than doing — we are done through.

There’s a name for that of course. Technically speaking, it’s called neurotic.

Lest anybody take offense at that, bear in mind that just about everyone is neurotic. Most of us have some difficulty adjusting our behavior based on the changing demands of the world around us. We find ourselves in the same repetitive loops with friends, loved ones, business partners. We seem to go through the same patterns of relationship across time and context, reenacting the past in the present.

How does that happen? And how are we able to make a change?

In order to make sense out of the situation we must bear in mind that as human beings, the bulk of our behavior is learned (i.e., primarily determined by environment rather than by genetics).

And all learning takes place within a context.

We are born into a world, defined by familial, cultural and historical elements which constitute this world as a particular sort of place. This particular sort of place isn’t equally favorable to all sorts of person. It negatively selects against certain sorts of people, preferentially favoring others.

Of course, this negative selection takes place according to rules, most of which are usually implicit. The rules are determined by those familial, cultural, and historical elements.

Think of it this way: within the particular sort of world in which you dwell there are certain sorts of person that you ought not be. Perhaps you know on a gut level that it’s not good to be dumb. Or to be assertive. Or to be vulnerable.

Although you may not be able to name where you learned that particular pattern, you know on some level that the world is a place in which it’s best if you aren’t that (whatever that is).

It’s important to note that within complex systems there’s very rarely a positive selection. Negative selection is the general operation, a selection against that which does not suit the situation. We see evidence of this in natural selection — not “survival of the fittest” but “elimination of the least fit.” We see this in movement — you may not know how to move well, but you know how to make it hurt and presumably how not to do that. We see this in intelligent business development — there may not be a “right” business plan, but there are definitely bad options which are best avoided.

We simply must invert our usual thinking if we’re going to understand complex systems.

Anyway…

We’re born into a world which selects against our becoming a certain sort of person. In our early development we are dependent on primary caretakers, so it’s of the utmost importance that we adjust ourselves to fit in well enough within the demands of that world into which we’re born.

If it’s a world in which it isn’t safe to be assertive, then any tendency toward assertion is going to be squashed, stifled, repressed.

If it’s a world in which it isn’t safe to be dumb, then a premium is placed on being in situations where the correct answer is already known.

What seems to happen quite often is that a kind of decision is made to be the opposite of that which is selected against by this particular sort of world. Think of this as energy conservation. Rather than figure out all the ways not to be assertive, it’s far simpler to determine how to be meek and get quite good at that. Likewise it’s far easier to figure out how to be smart rather than figure out all the ways not to be dumb.

This oppositional approach is a good, conservative, high-level heuristic, but it lacks in subtlety.

What tends to happen is that the individual finds themselves in a self-validating loop, seeking out situations in which this sort of behavior is reinforced. The person who grows up in a world where it isn’t safe to be dumb finds himself more and more often in situations that reward being — or being perceived as — smart, and as this tendency is reinforced across time, more and more of the indivdidual’s sense of security is invested in that category of behavior.

That’s all it is after all.

These adjectives that are used to describe an individual aren’t immanent qualities of the person. They denote patterns of relationship characterized by certain behaviors and perceptions. The smart person is the person who both knows the answer or at least doesn’t get the answer wrong. The timid person is the person who doesn’t speak up for herself or say “No” when boundaries are crossed.

Again these categories of behavior constitute a huge investment of an individual’s sense of security. The “smart” person never realizes that the goal wasn’t originally to be “smart.” It was to be “not dumb.” However, there are many, many more ways of being “not dumb” than there are of being “smart.” So the particular individual (not naming any names, of course) develops a rigidity in the way he makes his way through the world, mistaking a possible solution for the only solution.

This, you’ll no doubt realize, is a recipe for disaster.

When we narrow the sorts of behaviors we engage in, we turn our life into a mausoleum. We become an artifact of some historical situation, perpetuating a pattern of behavior based on past circumstances. We experience ourselves as somehow frozen in time, watching life slip by while we are unable to keep pace and adjust to the changing world around us.

We must differentiate between Then and Now.

I’ll explain…

The early behavioral psychologist Kurt Lewin developed an equation of sorts, b = f (p, E). This means that behavior is a function of a person relative to an environment.

And while he was on the right track, it may be a bit more accurate to say that the class of behaviors is a function of a person relative to the environment. Context, after all, is the sum of sensory inputs that let us know what sort of world we’re in and what sort of behavior is appropriate within that sort of world.

Suits and ties denote a different context than tank tops and flip flops.

And although the environment doesn’t determine the specific unit of behavior that an individual engages in within that environment, it does filter for the classes (i.e., sorts, categories, types) of behaviors that are allowed in accordance with the rules.

When we are unable to change our behavior across time, we must assume that there is some restraint on our perception and action. We can safely guess that there’s an inability to effectively discern the differences between the historical environment in which the patterns of behavior emerged and the current environment in which we’re frustrated by our inability to change.

Perhaps we make a Venn-diagram in order to illustrate for ourselves the relationship between Then and Now.

In the middle of that Venn-diagram we could write out all of the features of those two contexts that seem similar. These similarities are of course how the situation persists. It is the perceived similarities between the historical context and the current context that create the logical foundation for the pattern of behavior to persist, so it is crucial to identify what those similarities are.

However, it is the differences that will make a difference. The perceived differences between contexts are what will in-form a change in behavior (remember: a “bit” of information is a “difference that makes a difference”). Some of the differences will be trivial, but it’s worth writing them down anyhow. We can’t know in advance what the difference is that will make a difference, so it’s best to identify all that we’re able to perceive and articulate.

Here’s what seems to emerge when we go through this process.

The middle, overlapping area defines the particular sort of world for which the particular sort of person we’re acting like is best suited. And yet the right side, the differences Now relative to Then, constitute a different sort of world. You might then begin to wonder…what sort of person (think: adjectival descriptions) is better suited for the sort of world defined by those differences? What are the behaviors that this sort of person engages in on a regular basis?

Notice: nothing here mandates that the environment must change in order for behavior to change. In many cases it will suffice for the person’s perception of the environment (and themselves relative to it) to change. When we perceive that we are in a different sort of world, different sorts of behaviors are evoked. The challenge lies in finding a meaningful distinction between Then and Now, a difference that makes a difference.

However, hopefully this is enough to get the wheels turning for you.

Originally published on The Ecosomatics Institute blog