How do motivations change?

Motivations change. For example, for a small child, how are their motivations distinct from the motivations of adults?

The small child’s survival depends on identifying the people who will care for the child (by providing nourishment and protection). Receiving the care of others is essential because a very young human child is simply not able to survive without the help of others.

Eventually, most individuals will learn to communicate using the tool of language. Relative to an infant, a toddler with advanced communication skills can begin to cooperate with others and contribute to the welfare of their household.

Through listening and talking, people participate in specific social groups (such as their household and their local community). Individuals may eventually be attracted to compete with each other to receive as much of the resources of the social group as possible. Language helps them to cooperate effectively, so then they may compete to be most cooperative, plus they may cooperate in order to more effectively compete. For instance, a group of 3 humans working together to hunt an elephant may be much more effective than 5 people all working alone to each hunt elephants.

What are some specific examples of how people compete? Siblings may compete for the attention and encouragement of their parents. Job candidates compete for jobs (and promotions). Realtors compete to create favorable publicity so that certain realtors will get more contracts and larger total commissions (earnings).

In some cases, people may compete socially for “being the most victimized.” This strategy can be effective in attracting sympathy and rescue by those who have enough excess wealth to provide charity.
In socialist nations, groups may compete for social recognition as the most oppressed. What are some examples of oppressed groups who request special favors, protections, or compensation from government treasuries?

Corporations compete for special favors. Lobbyists are hired to promote the adoption of policies that create new corporate subsidies, increase the budget for buying weapons of mass destruction, or simply to transfer civil liability from private companies to taxpayers, such as the widely-known FDIC or the nearly-secret VICP.

Why do the owners of banks favor the FDIC? They favor the FDIC program because it helps the banks to increase public confidence in the banks (increasing profits for the banks). Also, if a bank takes risks that result in a financial crisis, will the FDIC program (or TARP program) create a bail-out redistribution so that taxpayers pay to protect the owners of the bank from the natural consequences of the risks taken by the bank? To create a multi-billion or multi-trillion dollar corporate welfare program, how many million dollars of campaign contributions, PR spending, and lobbying costs would the owners of banks be willing to invest?

With the VICP, why were lobbyist hired to promote the VICP? The owners of pharmaceutical companies favor the VICP because so far over $3 billion of compensation to people severely injured by vaccines in the US has been paid not by the corporations, but by public proceeds. If the companies sponsoring that legislation wanted the program to be well-publicized, then they would have exerted political pressure to produce that result. Instead, the VICP program is almost unknown to the US public (in contrast to something like the FDIC).

Of course, competition for government favoritism is not limited to corporations. Convicted criminals (such as Oliver North or Marc Rich) may compete for the mercy of the US President, attempting to attract a full legal pardon. Their methods may include bribery, blackmail, or even simple charm.

Every behavior that humans practice is intended to produce a result that is imagined to be attractive. Competing to be the receivers of “involuntary public charity” (government subsidies) can be identified as a very attractive opportunity and investment.

In order to promote the stable flow of resources to the corporate beneficiaries, some groups may even choose to distract the public and direct the public’s attention to competing to be the most oppressed and most desperate. Curriculum can be designed for school programming or media programming. While the vast majority of the government’s spending goes to select corporations, why not let the masses compete over 5% or 10% of budget?

Should disabled veterans get a 2% increase in annual benefits or should student loans for college be offered with no interest? Eventually, people will form in to exclusive groups to fight each other over receiving small favors of the government. Some groups may form to promote a huge set of new redistributions. Other groups will focus on a single new redistribution (or perhaps on increasing a specific existing redistribution program).

The masses are trained to compete for who can generate the most guilt in the public consciousness. Interest-free student loans are harder to market than increased funding for disabled veterans because there is no single “poster child” to trigger guilt in regard to getting a student loan with no interest. In contrast, with disabled veterans, there is a practically endless list of amputees and otherwise disfigured combatants who can be glorified for their service and sacrifice. The more disgusting and repulsive and horrifying the appearance of the wounded soldier, the better.

Put them in uniform and drape them in a flag. Show pictures of them being greeted by their dog (or their cute little kids) when they hobble up on crutches or roll up in their brand new wheelchair.

Then, if the PR firm is really clever, you take that one of those disabled veterans and have a press conference for them to talk about how they do not really need a 2% increase in benefits. What they really need is an interest-free student loan! Then they can introduce the latest candidate offering political salvations and “final solutions.”

So, motivations change. Initially, as infants, we simply want to attract favoritism. Later, we want to excel at social cooperation (as well as social competition). Eventually, we may value promoting neurological excellence (which we might expect to promote perceptiveness and adaptiveness).

Perhaps we will even want to secure exclusive access to a few billion gallons of oil or place a few thousand tons of gold in the treasury of our Imperial Church. We might favor attracting the cooperation of select partners and creating systems for directing the attention of the mainstream (such as training them to be obedient to our interests as public school students, as our human resources, as our taxpayers, as our soldiers, and of course as our spokespeople for promoting interest-free student loans in order to distract the masses from comprehending the simplest realities of the political systems used to govern them- to organize their attention, perception, and action).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: