Here’s an interesting question for you, one that many people have asked themselves, asked their parents, teachers, and even asked their Gods: what makes people do what they do? And a lot of people have answered that question with their own interpretations of human nature. I’m sure you’ve heard many of them before: people are driven by their passions, people want to serve God, people are motivated by rational self interest, or by their commitments to each other.
Allow me to explain how they’re all wrong, but on the other hand, sort of right. You’ve heard other theories, you can hear one more. Here’s my theory: people have four core motivations, what I call the four drives. There are two ways of interpreting this, and I posit that the first model is the one most people unconsciously already operate by, even if they don’t realise it. The first model I call:
The Moral Compass.
Each choice a person makes will be driven by their individual inclination toward their drives.
Empathy to the west: one’s connection to the feelings, thoughts, beliefs and intentions of others, and their reciprocal feelings in kind.
Ego to the east: one’s self esteem, self preservation, the recognition of one’s abilities and power as an individual.
Reverence to the north: one’s respect for abstract social norms, concepts and ideologies; the extent to which one can believe and accept things, take them seriously, and to see them as more important than oneself.
Will to the south: one’s ability to affect the world around them, to act upon one’s beliefs and desires; one’s courage, and capacity to create from one’s imagination.
In the compass model, each axis is considered a spectrum with a person placing somewhere along it. For instance, either empathetic, egoistic, or in between. Thus, a person must choose between either being selfish or selfless, and also, either reverent or willful, never both. And each axis represents an inclination between individual and collective; ego represents one’s own emotions, and empathy represents the emotions of others; will represents one’s own choices, and reverence represents the choices of others.
This means a person’s motives can be described by a point on the compass created by these two axes. This represents a zero sum approach to morality, and a conflict between individual and collective which can never be resolved, only periodically brokering compromises.
In summation, the moral compass boils every decision down to a choice between self and others, and this operates on multiple layers; individual vs society; organisation versus industry; country vs rest of the world.
That describes the moral compass, which, as stated earlier, I believe is already internalised in modern society. This, I think can be easily seen in our media, which can be seen as a reflection of the values of society. How many films, books, video games, tv shows and more, can have their central conflict summed up as a battle between individualism and collectivism? A debate between a person who values ego, and a person who values empathy? A fight between a reverent zealot, and a willful lone wolf?
But, more concretely than that, how many times in your own life, have you felt you needed to choose, “are my feelings valid, or are theirs? Are my beliefs true, or are theirs”? And if the contradiction is irreconcilable, a compromise is brokered that gives each not what they wanted, but something “in the middle”. This approach inevitably leads to the conclusion, “the truth is somewhere in the middle”, with neither getting what they want, and the resentment only festering further.
There is another way to view these four motives, that I think perfectly answers this seeming contradiction. I call it:
The Dual Dialectic:
Whereas the compass model treats each axis as a spectrum between opposing forces, the dialectical approach instead treats each motive as part of a whole.
The compass model resembles a debate between self and society - “which is more valuable, me, or others?” - and thus ends with a winner, or a halfway compromise. This is because debates have a winner, and the winner is always one of the two debating.
A dialectic, instead, takes both views and attempts to find the truth within. In this way, ego and empathy can be taken as two sides of the same coin, halves of a truth. Where a debate ends with a winner and a loser, a person who is right and one who is wrong, a dialectic leaves room for both, or neither, being correct, as the real aim is to find the truth, whether that be thesis (original view) antithesis (opposing view) or synthesis (a new view, which is a mixture).
With this in mind, each axis creates a synthesis from its poles: synthesising ego and empathy, we get collaboration. If you’re choosing between yourself and others, you can instead choose both. In helping others, you not only satisfy your ego in proving your power and gaining strength, but you also satisfy your empathy in lessening the suffering of others, and also strengthening them in turn. This means you get what you want, and they get what they want - no compromises. You help them, and they help you, too.
Synthesising reverence and will, we get reason. It takes reason to choose between believing something, and only acting on your own will. And it also takes reason to see when your interests are already aligned with others, or not, and to determine the truth of a belief. It is not simply your own will or others: it is your capacity to discern the truth that truly matters. If one’s own will runs contrary to the beliefs of another, then both can use reason to resolve the dispute. Perhaps, on reflection and after reasoned conversation, this will did not in fact violate those beliefs; or, indeed, perhaps it did, and further reasoning finds an unharmful alternative.
And the synthesis becomes complete by synthesising the two results, and creating Reasoned Collaboration. A complete solution for decision making. Person to person, person to society, group to group, in all arenas - collaborate on all matters, reason through all options, strengthening one another and ourselves at every moment, spiraling closer and closer to the truth, because at every step, we are observing and reasoning and experimenting and reflecting upon our decisions.
If I have to sum this all up in one sentence, it is this:
If you are asked to choose between yourself and another, remember: there is always a way to choose both, and anyone that tells you otherwise is trying to sell you a divided world.
So, these were two interpretations of a 4-pointed model of motivation. I hope you found this somewhat interesting, and that I’m not just a pretentious whackjob trying to reinvent the wheel. Only time will tell.
So to condense it:
<- What people feel
-> What I feel
^ What people want
v What I want
That’s it, yes :)
It is an interesting question indeed!
I also find quite interesting how introducing the Dual Dialectic turns the usually-depicted 2D moral plane into a… Riemann sphere?
Even then, that geometry seems more fit to deal with representing the frequent compromises between individual and collective. My solarpunk heart is happy to read about this second model.
Neat visualization and quality writing. Thanks for sharing!
How very interesting. I’m not too great at geometry so I had to look that up.
I think that pretty well explains it, yes - though I’d like to emphasise that a synthesis is not a compromise. With a compromise, no one gets what they want, but a synthesis satisfies both :)
Either way - I’m happy you liked it. I also am a fan of the solarpunk movement. And in case you hadn’t noticed, “reasoned collaboration” is anarchism, or, more precisely, mutual aid ;)
