Conceptual Psychology


Unicist Corporation

Translate this page

Unicist Corporation

Translate this page

Greed Triggers Fallacies

The objective in the research on fallacies was to find the inhibitors and antidotes to fallacies that hinder or avoid the evolution of adaptive systems and environments.

Fallacies are unconscious actions with apparent conscious outputs. For this reason, the discussion of fallacies is a taboo. People cannot accept being interpreted by others unless they demand it in a counseling environment.

This research demonstrated that greed, as a universally recognized “sin”, triggers fallacies and makes their discussion fully unacceptable. Greed legitimates shortcuts to appropriate “things”.

These shortcuts are in fact fallacies that are built sustained by the “fears” an individual has. These fallacies are triggered by greed and, in the case of teamwork, are motivated by the envy the apparent success of others’ greedy actions generates.

There are three types of greed that influence human behavior:

  1. The emotional greed
  2. The materialistic greed
  3. The intellectual greed

The purpose of emotional greed is to obtain love and recognition; the purpose of materialistic greed is to accumulate and the purpose of intellectual greed is to be right and recognized.

The purpose of greed is acted out by the exertion of power and sustained by manipulation to ensure the achievement of results.

“Greeders” tend to accuse others for their greedy actions while they deny their own greed.

This is the paradigmatic case of greedy intellectuals who accuse greedy businessmen/women for their greedy doings.

The discovery of the inhibitors and antidotes of fallacies provided the necessary tools to ensure professional work in adaptive environments.

Excerpt of the book “The Origin of Fallacies” by Peter Belohlavek

Unicist Executive Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed. 


Share

Discovery of the Ontogenesis and Functionality of Human Fallacies

The research on fallacies began in 1985/86 based on those fallacies that had notorious negative social and institutional consequences. The research was developed at The Unicist Research Institute and was led by Peter Belohlavek.

The discovery of perception, reasoning and conceptual fallacies demanded almost 17 years (2003), which contributed to the research on the roots of fallacies and their ontogenesis that developed their conceptualization after hundreds of “fallacious” hypotheses, until their final validation in 2019.

The research showed that all fallacies have the same purpose, which is to maintain the comfort zone of an individual. As fallacies are non-conscious processes, the people involved are not aware that they are trying to maintain a comfort zone. This process can be detected after a fallacy has been installed and the consequences became evident.

This research began based on a set of fallacies that the researcher experienced in the 1980s. The main ones were:

  • The paradoxical effect brought about by a set of drugs related to birth control.
  • The cyclical behavior in the evolution of four developing countries.
  • The decision of a French automotive industry to unify assembly lines, not automated at that moment, for all its range of products, which led to a production debacle.
  • A dysfunctional universal solution made by the International Monetary Fund.
  • The systematic destruction or nullification of information on reality that contradicted the fallacies which were functional to cultures.

Actions in adaptive environments, which have open boundaries, establish a framework of complexity that requires having a strict method to avoid fallacious decisions. Participants need to have the necessary knowledge of the issues that are being managed in order to avoid fallacious decisions.

Developing solutions in these environments requires simultaneously a competitive approach to expand the boundaries of knowledge and a cooperative approach to ensure the adaptation process.

On the one hand, this competition is what expands the quality of the solutions and allows going towards a superior level of functionality. The competitive approach is natural for human beings who are working on the solution of problems or developing new solutions.

On the other hand, cooperation is necessary to ensure that the adaptive process remains functional. This cooperation requires that the participants need to be internally complemented in order to be able to emulate a complementary cooperation in mind.

The generation of fallacies in adaptive processes is based on three core aspects:

Fallacy Avoidance
  1. The lack of the necessary understanding of the functionality of what is being done (knowledge).
  2. The functional requirement of a superior level of ethical intelligence than the one the participants of a process have.
  3. The lack of complementation of the logical type of thought, the conceptual intelligence and the strategic intelligence.

The definition of what is possible to be achieved is the first step to avoid fallacies. It makes fears unnecessary and guides the action processes.

The universal inhibitor of fallacy-building is the use of unicist conceptual engineering that integrates the fundamentals of “things” with the necessary technical knowledge to ensure the functionality of solutions.

The universal antidote for fallacies in the development of solutions in adaptive environments is the use of unicist destructive pilot tests to evaluate solutions.

Excerpt of the book “The Origin of Fallacies” by Peter Belohlavek

Unicist Executive Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute has been, since 1976, the pioneer in complexity science research where the Unicist Evolutionary Approach was developed. 

Share

Human Superiority Complex

Superiority complexes are based on superior functional intelligence implying a structural different attitude. Their feeling of superiority is transformed into a complex when they begin to use their superior functional intelligence in fields that cannot be managed with that approach. But their need of sustaining their superiority forces to try to do so. The result implies blaming the environment for the paradoxical outcomes.

While inferiority complex drive toward inaction in order to deny the reality that affects self-esteem, superiority complexes drive toward aggressive active action to destroy the bothering object.

Superiority complexes are implicit in the decisions taken by anti-intuition in a fearful environment using the anti-intelligence to destroy the object that is threatening the self-perception of superiority.

Extremely talented individuals develop this complex while they live immersed in a mediocre environment. Mediocre environment are those that not include respect and admiration to the members of the group that have the capacity to add higher value.

When the relation with authority doesn’t include respect and admiration talented individuals become marginal. “Nerds” are some of the names that degrade the talent of an individual and transform a factual superiority into a personal complex.

On the other hand, talented individuals who perceive that their skill has no social value develop an inferiority complex if they are socially rejected.

To avoid destruction they become aggressive to the environment. The aggression might be active when it their complex is not integrated with an inferiority complex or passive if they perceive inferiority when dealing with other fields than the one (or several) they are talented in.

Characteristics of the Superiority Complex

  1. It is based on a physical advantage
  2. It influences all the activities of an individual
  3. It creates a personal fictive environment to solve problems using over-simplifying analogical approaches based on their specific talent.
  4. It is future focused to avoid the responsibility of present actions
  5. It uses omnipotence as a driver to avoid the feeling of inferiority
  6. It produces a selfish, envious and greedy behavior
  7. It produces a dualistic, antagonistic, analogical approach to reality
  8. It looks for the solution exclusively in the future
  9. It produces an obsessive taking, not giving, attitude
  10. It produces the distortion of the perception of threatening aspect of reality

The main difference is given by the fact that Superiority Complex driven individuals toward an active role in the environment. Thus they use to be aggressive using both active aggression and/or passive resistance as a way to attack the environment.

They do not work in teams. They are “solopreneurs”.

Peter Belohlavek

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in using the unicist logical approach in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems. It has an academic arm and a business arm. https://www.unicist.org/turi.pdf

Share