PDA

View Full Version : What motivates human behavior?



Viraja
10 June 2015, 05:00 PM
Namaste,

Is it 'avoiding discomfort' that motivates all human behavior? Humans act based on their needs and in one way, they can be said to act in order to avoid discomfort as unsatisfied needs lead to discomfort.

On this topic, someone writes:


I tend to think that humans are inherently prone to instinctive actions (I use this word to avoid the labelling of good and bad, at least for now!), and thus any rule or policy goes against their will. It would be adhered to as long as the individual and collective needs (as aligned to the self) are satisfied. And perhaps that is why we see societies evolve to the everchanging needs and desires of the sub groups contained within.

I dont want to delve too much into imagined situations but the basic premise of this thread is to suggest that the instinctive nature of humans is to seek pleasure and avoid pain (dianetics anybody?), in whatever form and substance it may be. That is why we find even those purported of high morals and ethics falter at times.

The primal nature of humans. Avoid discomfort - no holds barred.

Do you agree?

Viraja
11 June 2015, 09:39 AM
Namaste,

I explain the paragraph given in the OP in the following manner:

1. Needs give rise to instincts and instinctual behavior.


2. Needs of an individual are always at a compromise when in perspective of the needs of a society at large. Thus rules and regulations are created.


3. Thus needs and instinctual behavior of an individual can be stated to be on a conflict with rules and regulations.


4. But the rules will be adhered to, because such rules and regulations result in better satisfaction of some needs of an individual than operating individually, and yet some other needs can themselves be satisfied only by confirming to rules and regulations!


5. As long as the needs of individuals in a society remain static, the society does not change. But this is hardly so. The society is dynamic and ever-changing because needs of its members is in change constantly.


From the above deductions, 2 conclusions can be drawn:


That the function of a 'manmade society' is to cater to the (ever-changing) needs of its individuals such that they avoid discomfort.


And individuals, though acting on their needs, are focussed on avoiding discomfort, which is why they adhere to rules and regulations.

If you have any alternative perspectives and insights on what motivates human behavior, please share.

surrenderindailylife
11 June 2015, 07:55 PM
Namaste Viraja

Hari Om


Namaste,

Is it 'avoiding discomfort' that motivates all human behavior?

Human beings are rationale animals - thus they know what may lead to (bodily)happiness/comfort and which action may result in (bodily)discomfort/pain. Humans thus act in a way to maximize their (bodily)happiness/comfort and minimize (bodily)discomfort/pain. By and large, this is a common observation - even at the cost of following an ethical life. Rarely does one come across an individual who is willing to let-go of his (bodily)happiness/comfort and knowingly embrace (bodily)discomfort/pain for a higher ideal.

Om Namah Shivay

Viraja
12 June 2015, 06:20 AM
Namaste,

How about those voluntarily embracing pain for a greater cause? Like firefighters for instance. Their behavior cannot be described by 'avoid discomfort' category?! It seems humans do not act on the basis of avoiding discomfort alone, afterall... Any thoughts on how to define human behavior then?

Eastern Mind
12 June 2015, 08:25 AM
Vannakkam Viraja: I think it's complicated. There are many factors, and also levels or maturity of the souls who inhabit these bags o' nine holes. So immture souls (reflected as immature people) are motivated by instinctive drives like greed, lust, pleasure, fear of discomfort, etc. Their awareness spins in lower chakras.

But then there are more mature souls who view all that stuff (or try to) as necessary but not in the overwhelming way of the previous type. They understand intuitively or by logic that there are benefits from the opposite traits. In other words, they've reached the muladara and Ganesha's guidance, can see ethica, and try to act ethically. They care less about being uncomfortable, and are decent net contributers to society. They give.

And then ... there are the yogis, sadhaks, etc, the serious spiritual aspirants, awareness well established in higher chakras, modest, humble, and motivated by a drive for Self-realisation.

So, what motivates humans varies, depending on the qualities of each individual. We can't make sweeping generalisations.

Aum Namasivaya

Viraja
12 June 2015, 09:03 AM
Vannakkam Viraja: I think it's complicated. There are many factors, and also levels or maturity of the souls who inhabit these bags o' nine holes. So immture souls (reflected as immature people) are motivated by instinctive drives like greed, lust, pleasure, fear of discomfort, etc. Their awareness spins in lower chakras.

But then there are more mature souls who view all that stuff (or try to) as necessary but not in the overwhelming way of the previous type. They understand intuitively or by logic that there are benefits from the opposite traits. In other words, they've reached the muladara and Ganesha's guidance, can see ethica, and try to act ethically. They care less about being uncomfortable, and are decent net contributers to society. They give.

And then ... there are the yogis, sadhaks, etc, the serious spiritual aspirants, awareness well established in higher chakras, modest, humble, and motivated by a drive for Self-realisation.

So, what motivates humans varies, depending on the qualities of each individual. We can't make sweeping generalisations.

Aum Namasivaya

This is an excellent reply! It sounds absolutely correct and also gives food for thought.

Thank you.

But I still think human behavior is motivated by 'seeking pleasure' then, perhaps unique to its own individual disposition! And since seeking pleasure has its roots in avoiding discomfort, again we are back at square 1. Aren't we?

Eastern Mind
12 June 2015, 03:38 PM
Vannakkam Viraja: Frankly, I've always had difficulty with the belief that there is no such thing as altruism. Surely humans have some goodness in them. This was also a difference between Freud, and his student Jung. Freud held we were entirely driven by instinct, but Jung figured we went beyond. I'm with Jung.

Still, individuals vary widely, as do beliefs about the degree of variance.

Aum Namasivaya

Viraja
12 June 2015, 07:49 PM
You are right, EM ji. I tried to fit in altruism with 'avoiding discomfort' theme.... and thought maybe we can say one avoids discomfort within the confines of the best interests of the society... but then this does not 'always' become the case, is it not? Therefore what you say is very correct. But since this has been an open question for sometime, I have to admit I'm very interested in finding a 'key term' that could satisfactorily define human behavior - although such a term cannot be! :)

Thank you for a wonderful clarification!

harih
13 June 2015, 08:30 PM
I would disagree with the view that 1) humans are rational beings or 2) humans are motivated to avoid discomfort. Have you read the classic novel “Notes from the Underground“ by F Dostoyevsky ?

Aanandinii
14 June 2015, 11:41 AM
Namaste ji,

Very interesting topic, thank you Viraja ji.

I would like to take some of the suggestions made earlier and move them forward a bit further. It depends on what you mean when you ask the question, what are you defining as 'human'?

These vehicles we experience the world through are living, material beings; animals. If one reduces all the behaviors of all forms of life to their most basic drives, the thing that fuel what is called 'instinct', there appear to be two: Survival and Propagation. Any behavior the human animal engages in on an instinctive level can be said to be rooted here. How does a living creature know or learn that something is going to help or hurt its survival or chances for propagation of the species? Helpful things bring pleasure, harmful things bring discomfort.

Different forms of life evolve strategies over time that help to increase their chances at success. Some are solitary in habit, some are social and roam in groups. Those that roam in groups always form a social structure and ranking system to one level or another, to allow them to work as a cohesive whole thus bettering the odds for success of all members of that group than if they were solitary. The social structures in some species are more developed than in others.

Are altruism or empathy, then, necessarily instinctive behaviors? At first, looking at nature it seems not. But a deeper look shows that it is a successful strategy in its own right at times. An example are Bonobos. They are at least as closely related to Humans as are Chimpanzees, and they look much the same. But while chimpanzees are martial, patriarchal hoarders with a penchant for war and violence, Bonobos are matriarchal and empathic. They have been shown again and again to not hoard resources and will in fact share food with another before partaking themselves even if they too are hungry. Chimpanzees hunt, Bonobos are vegetarians. But even in the tribal societies of Chimpanzees we see empathy, it is simply usually reserved for individuals within a group. This is just one example.

So, yes, if you're asking what drives the animal we call human, or any other form of material life, the answer most definitely is avoiding discomfort and chasing pleasure. So, what makes us different than this, because there is clearly a difference and it's been defined above already. Acting outside of your own self interest as an animal. Confronting and acting against instinct. The difference is intellect, the ability to reason and discriminate. Consciousness outside of the animal. Please don't mistake me for saying it is unique to humans, though I would say different forms of life do seem to be more intellectually able than others, and even some currently looking through a human form are better at it than others.

This all brings the question, 'What drives the soul's intellect?'

~Pranam

Viraja
14 June 2015, 02:40 PM
Namaste harih ji, Aanandinii ji,

@harih ji - No sir, I have not read that popular book. I have to read it. If there is insight from the moral of that book to be viewed in perspective of our current theme, I would be most interested to know about it. :)

Aanandinii ji,



So, yes, if you're asking what drives the animal we call human, or any other form of material life, the answer most definitely is avoiding discomfort and chasing pleasure. So, what makes us different than this, because there is clearly a difference and it's been defined above already. Acting outside of your own self interest as an animal. Confronting and acting against instinct. The difference is intellect, the ability to reason and discriminate. Consciousness outside of the animal. Please don't mistake me for saying it is unique to humans, though I would say different forms of life do seem to be more intellectually able than others, and even some currently looking through a human form are better at it than others.

I read your reply fully and it seems to me as you said, that:

1. Positive reinforcements (aka conditioning) operate at the instinctual level to motivate human behavior.

2. We cater to our own and others' needs depending on our affiliations (also known as society) and our altruism.

I do not know how to phrase the above deductions into 1 coherent sentence, perhaps it cannot be phrased, as I eagerly seek out to, in such a sentence either! :)

If there are corrections or further insights into variables/parameters defining human behavior, kindly share...

Thanks.

Aanandinii
14 June 2015, 03:12 PM
Namaste Virija Ji,

I read your reply fully and it seems to me as you said, that:

1. Positive reinforcements (aka conditioning) operate at the instinctual level to motivate human behavior.

2. We cater to our own and others' needs depending on our affiliations (also known as society) and our altruism.

I do not know how to phrase the above deductions into 1 coherent sentence, perhaps it cannot be phrased, as I eagerly seek out to, in such a sentence either! :)

If there are corrections or further insights into variables/parameters defining human behavior, kindly share...
Well, that is partly what I'm saying but not all. I don't think there is a simple sentence... But I will try and distill it to a few.

1. What motivates human behavior and the behavior of all other forms of life is survival - survival of the individual and of the species.

2. Both negative and positive reinforcement operate to create the instinctive behaviors that ensure the best chance for survival.

3. These instinctive behaviors can be as simple as 'Stay away from fire' to as complex as 'Helping others in my family group means we work together longer and this benefits my chances at survival'.

4. You are not this animal form you look at the world through.

5. So when you or any other animal acts in a manner that decreases chances for survival - like fasting on only water for days, or sacrificing our own life so another individual being may continue their current ride in this life, these are not actions informed by instinct but by the conscious observer riding along in their own animal chariot for a time.

I'm not sure this makes anything clearer...

~Pranam

Viraja
14 June 2015, 03:42 PM
... these are not actions informed by instinct but by the conscious observer riding along in their own animal chariot for a time.



Very good reply, Aanandinii ji.

I'm having problem with the above sentence (quoted), I'm not fully getting the meaning. Does this mean the same as saying, "oftentimes the actions are governed by altruistic instincts that goes beyond the behavior motivated by survival instincts"??.

But the rest of it is clear. The emphasis on survival as being one of the important factors is noted. Thank you. Thanks for enriching this quiz/question.

Aanandinii
14 June 2015, 09:36 PM
Namaskar Viraja ji,

Does this mean the same as saying, "oftentimes the actions are governed by altruistic instincts that goes beyond the behavior motivated by survival instincts"??.
This is the question I posed at the end of my first reply. It's a difficult one to answer, no? Just thinking over the last few hours since you replied above, my thoughts have changed once again... :)

Having sorted out my thoughts on this, I would suggest that there are no altruistic instincts. 'Instinct' is something that comes from the animal mind, related to the body. Every action generated by the physical form is 'instinct' honed over millennia into survival strategies. There is no such thing as altruistic instinct to the biochemical animal mind.

True altruism is far more uncommon than most people would like to think, and that is born from consciousness, conscience and dharma. It has nothing to do with the mind of the animal body - so is indeed beyond behavior motivated by instinct. Altruistic behavior comes from the intellect of the more subtle being that rides in the animal form. Altruism is not an instinct, it is opposite to instinct, it is conscious, intended action.

But the rest of it is clear. The emphasis on survival as being one of the important factors is noted.
Good, but I am not suggesting survival as being 'one of the important factors'. I am suggesting it is the driving force behind all actions of the animal mind, the only reason behind any instinctive behavior at all.

Thank you for bringing this thread, you are prompting me to think in directions that haven't occurred to me, which is a gift. ^_^

~Pranam

Viraja
15 June 2015, 09:16 AM
Dear Aanandinii ji,

It seems to me that you are saying humans are governed by survival instincts, but more than anything else, their behavior is not purely instinctual, rather based on mind, conscience and judgement/analysis of a situation over their needs.

I only have question on your quoted portion in the following: (my questions follow). Not intending to bug you, but I will be glad to hear more from you, your clarification on my question.



Having sorted out my thoughts on this, I would suggest that there are no altruistic instincts. 'Instinct' is something that comes from the animal mind, related to the body. Every action generated by the physical form is 'instinct' honed over millennia into survival strategies. There is no such thing as altruistic instinct to the biochemical animal mind.

True altruism is far more uncommon than most people would like to think, and that is born from consciousness, conscience and dharma. It has nothing to do with the mind of the animal body - so is indeed beyond behavior motivated by instinct. Altruistic behavior comes from the intellect of the more subtle being that rides in the animal form. Altruism is not an instinct, it is opposite to instinct, it is conscious, intended action.

So can we say then that altruism comes against the natural desires and instincts of human beings? As in someone willfully applying one's judgement?



Good, but I am not suggesting survival as being 'one of the important factors'. I am suggesting it is the driving force behind all actions of the animal mind, the only reason behind any instinctive behavior at all.

Agreed. :)


Thank you for bringing this thread, you are prompting me to think in directions that haven't occurred to me, which is a gift. ^_^



This is not my own OP, Aanandinii ji. In the other forum, a person named Shri. Auh brought it up!

Aanandinii
15 June 2015, 10:07 AM
Namaste Viraja ji,

The thing is, what do you mean when you say "Human"?

To me it's not as simple as looking at a person (or yourself) and calling this Human. There are two parts, the animal bound in the material, physical world, and the jiva, the consciousness connected temporarily to the animal form.

instinct drives the animal behavior.
Consciousness drives the jiva's behavior.

Together, these two main things drive the behavior of a "Human" or any other life form, to one degree or another. For some, consciousness is more active than animal instinct. To others the reverse, and many run the various degrees in between.

Yes, i would say that true altruism is opposed to instinct. It is applied by the jiva consciousness, it is not applied by instinct.

What forum is that, Viraja ji? Is it a sub forum here? I don't often get to read all threads on HDF.

~Pranam

Viraja
15 June 2015, 10:51 AM
Namaste Aanandinii ji,

Thanks for the clarification. Your deduction that essentially a human is a sum of animal + jiva is correct. I applied this deduction against the original premise of calling all human behavior to be driven by the necessity to avoid discomfort. Probably, to say that 'avoiding discomfort' is an instinct is incorrect. But it still kinda appears relevant to me to think that the best interest of a jiva is to consciously exercise judgement in the interest of seeking pleasure and avoiding discomfort.

I am unable to put it all together at the moment. I will need time to think it all later. I think I will have a clearer understanding and be in a better position to come back with where I stand only at that point. I will consider all points of our discussion.

I appreciate you taking your time to participate.



What forum is that, Viraja ji? Is it a sub forum here? I don't often get to read all threads on HDF.


It isn't this forum. The OP is from a different forum. There are quite too many participants in that thread that there was just chaos. So I thought I will post the OP in this forum to get a clearer picture!

Cheers!

Viraja
15 June 2015, 12:00 PM
A person in the other forum said, that the Srivaishnava view (trust me, there is a SV view for 'human behavior' :) ) is 'எப்போதும் தனக்கு தானே அனுகூலமாக இருத்தல்' in Tamil! He said, he does not know how to translate this. I too am not in a capacity to translate this. However, just for sake of satisfying others' curiosity, I would like to say this is approximately equal to saying "Always acting in a way beneficial to oneself" :-). Just some trivia!