Radical Thoughts on Love and Creating Family

Hello Friend,

This is an extract of a class I taught on problem solving and the psychology of groups.

I hope you enjoy this excerpt.

The concept of family is constantly changing. The so called “nuclear family” long in decline has been reinvented and refigured as gay and lesbian couples form families as part of larger communities of interest.

Many individuals of us trace our problems to the toxic, dysfunctional families in which we were raised.

Let’s explore the concept of family from an applied game theory and problem solving perspective.

There are three general models for families

1. Nuclear family

2. Traditional extended family

3. Polyamorous family model

Since the industrial revolution the trend in the west had been towards the nuclear family whereas in many other parts of the world, especially in China, as well as in nomadic tribal cultures, the extended family model was the natural choice.

The nuclear family model definitely has its benefits. For one, it gives freedom to the creative person who has a need to express his or her individuality.

This is not easy to do in the extended family model where a person is expected to take care of elderly parents and other relatives who may be in need. As a natural response to the growth of the nuclear family model other system especially social service agencies were created to provide lodging and basic services to those who could not take of the themselves and who could not look for that support through the nuclear family model.

For the elderly a balance between the nuclear family and the sense of community that comes from developing friendships with those with similar interests, and making use of community services including education and entertainment frees that person from dependency upon the whims, and control of an adult child.

In the nuclear model what the Confucians named filial piety often clashes with the needs of the individual. The Polyamorous family model whether monogamous or not in its attitudes towards sexuality is well suited for natural, loving symbiotic relationships. This model offers the best of the nuclear family and the extended family while freeing family members of imposed morality as dysfunctional and impractical rules and regulations.

Polyamorous family structures can offer an enlightened system of loving reciprocity.

Being independent can mean many things. For some it includes defining meaning and purpose in life by serving others with generosity and kindness.

The days are past where society can force the obligation of caring for family members, especially parental care, upon us. It has at the same time given us tools to care for those who have cared for us as a natural choice.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Lewis Harrison, the author of this blog is a speaker, consultant, and Contemporary Spiritual Teacher. He is a  pioneer in the personal development movement  The author of nine  self help books on human potential he offers seminar, workshops, retreats and phone based coaching. He is creating a series of ebooks entitled “Ask Lewis…” which will be available on line.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Lewis offers phone-based and on-line life coaching services and created the course on Life Strategies www.How ToSolveAny Problem.com  –  a simple system for decision making based on Game Theory, the idea expanded on by John Nash, the Nobel prize winning subject of the biopick “A Beautiful Mind”.

A Conversation on How We Make Decisions

 

Foundational Principle for this Blog: To explore Applied Game

Theory and how individuals and organizations can strategize to make

effective decisions.

 

Definition: Decision – A choice selected from a number of alternatives.

 

STUDENT: How can Applied Game Theory be used to make effective

choices?

LEWIS: Any decision requires that a choice be made from a number of alternatives and

directed toward an organizational goal or sub-goal. This is basically what happens when an

individual chooses a strategy in Applied Game Theory.

 

STUDENT: What defines the superiority of one decision over another?

LEWIS: The likelihood that one consequence will result rather than

another. The correctness of decisions whether in a group or in a

personal situation is measured by two major criteria:

1. adequacy of achieving the desired objective; and

2. the efficiency with which the result was obtained.

Decisions can be complex admixtures of facts and values. In

groups with a hierarchal structure of leaders and followers,

information derived from observation or experimentation as well as

proven facts, or facts derived from specialized experience, are more

easily transmitted than are values. Many members of an organization

may focus on adequacy, but the overall administrative management must pay particular attention to the efficiency with which the desired

result was obtained to ensure that the benefits are worth the economic

and social cost.

 

STUDENT: How can one make wise decisions if one must make a personal decision

without the benefit of the assessment tools available to a large organization?

LEWIS: Through the assessment of fact-based and intuitive sourced

information.

 

STUDENT: Explain this in greater depth.

LEWIS: Logical and apparently rational options have real and multiple consequences

consisting of personal actions or non-actions influenced by environmental factors and

values. In application, some of the various consequences may be unintended as well as

intended; may be conscious or unconscious; and some of the means and ends may be

imperfectly differentiated, incompletely related, or poorly detailed.

 

STUDENT: Let’s say that the information required to make a rational or

logical decision is available.

LEWIS: In such a case a clear-thinking individual will select the

alternative that results in the more desirable set of all the possible consequences.

 

STUDENT: This seems like a complex task.

LEWIS: It is; and yet to some it initially would seem pretty basic,

requiring only three steps that can be done with a pad and pencil:

1. identify and list all of the alternatives;

2. determine all the consequences resulting from each of the

alternatives; and

3. compare the accuracy and efficiency of each of these sets of

consequences.

 

STUDENT: So what makes it complex?

Lewis: Any given individual or organization attempting to strategize

applying this model in real life would soon discover that it is

extremely difficult to comply with the three steps, since it is

highly improbable that anyone can know all the alternatives, or all

the consequences that follow each alternative, without a remarkable

team including resources such as sophisticated computer models and

an understanding of many influential theories, such as the Butterfly

Effect and Black Swan.

 

STUDENT: If these limitations exist what can one do to make the best

decisions?

LEWIS: Bringing into play the reality that there are insurmountable

limits on rational decision making, one would need to find and apply

other techniques or behavioral processes that a person or organization can bring to bear to achieve approximately the best result.

 

STUDENT: Is there much research on how to do this?

Yes. Much of the early research in this area was conducted by Herbert

Alexander Simon (June 15, 1916 – February 9, 2001), one of the most

influential social scientists of the 20th century. Simon dedicated

much of his life to exploring, both directly and indirectly, the

behavioral and cognitive processes and factors of making rational

human choices: that is, decisions. On this subject Simon wrote:

 

“The human being striving for rationality and restricted within the

limits of his knowledge has developed some working procedures that

partially overcome these difficulties. These procedures consist in

assuming that he can isolate from the rest of the world a closed system

containing a limited number of variables and a limited range of

consequences.”

 

STUDENT: Is Simon’s work still important today?

 

LEWIS: Yes. Even today many social scientists refer to his most

influential work, Administrative Behavior, in which he addresses a

wide range of criteria for evaluation of accuracy and efficiency,

such as cognitive abilities, human behaviors, management techniques,

personnel policies, training goals and procedures, specialized roles,

and all of the ramifications of communication processes.

 

STUDENT: Speak more of Simon’s work.

LEWIS: Simon explores many organizational factors but within the great

scope of his writings two universal elements of human social behavior

seem to stand out:

1. The Role of Authority

2. Loyalties and how an individual identifies with a specific group or

organization.

These are important areas of exploration for a person looking to

become skilled in the application of LHAGT since, when strategizing,

one must take into consideration factors such as hierarchal and

competitive behavior in oneself and others.

 

STUDENT: Can you address decision-making in a large competitive and hierarchal

organization?

LEWIS: In such an environment where one is dealing with operational administrative

decision-making, a decision as mathematically accurate, efficient, and practical as possible

is of greatest value.

 

STUDENT: What does “practical” mean in this context?

LEWIS: Easy to implement within a set of specific guidelines – what a

mathematician would call “coordinated means.”

 

STUDENT: So one must do this effectively in the midst of a hierarchal

and competitive environment?

LEWIS: Yes but this is not really an obstacle since hierarchies,

competition, and the application of power, influence and authority are

well studied, primary elements of organizational behavior.

 

STUDENT: Speak further about hierarchies, competition, and the

application of power, influence and authority in such a situation.

LEWIS: From a LHAGT perspective it is pretty straightforward. In

an organizational hierarchal game one individual has defined rights

because of a higher rank to determine the decision of an individual

of lower rank. There is both rigidity and flexibility within this

process. On the one hand the attitudes, actions, and relationships of

the dominant and subordinate individuals in the hierarchy constitute

components of role behavior that can vary widely in content, form, and style, but on the

other hand there is no variance in the expectation of obedience by the player of superior

status, as well as the willingness of the player in a

subordinate position to obey.

 

STUDENT: How does all this work in a Japanese business model, or in a communal

situation where everyone’s ideas are respected and considered?

LEWIS: There is no conflict here. It is virtually impossible to

have an organization, no matter how egalitarian, that does not

have some minimal authority, even if that position changes, as

for example it does in the UN Security Council, where a different

nation’s representative serves as president on a revolving basis.

No matter what the structure of a group might be, authority is

highly influential on the formal structure of the group, including

patterns and styles of communication, sanctions, and rewards, and the

establishment within the group of goals, objectives, and values.

 

STUDENT: How are personal decisions that an individual might make different than

decisions the same individual might make within an organization?

LEWIS: A decision that an individual might make as a member of an

organization would be quite distinct from his/her personal decisions.

In fact it is a personal decision for an individual to decide to

join a particular organization. Over time this individual is likely

to explore whether to remain as part of this group based on changes

and the needs that arise in his or her extra–organizational private

life. While in the organization this individual will need to make

decisions not in relationship to personal needs and changes, but in an

impersonal sense detached from personal need. Rather decisions will

need to be made as part of the organizational intent, purpose, and

effect.

 

STUDENT: How can one separate the personal from the organizational in terms of

decision making?

LEWIS: If the distinctions between the personal and organizational

are not clear it can be difficult. Often individuals act unethically

because they look to serve the group in ways that are inappropriate,

and which ignore that distinction. “Whistleblowers” – individuals who

report unethical behavior within organizations to which they belong –

are extraordinary in having a clear distinction in this area.

 

LEWIS: In the most effective organizations, ethically-based

inducements, rewards, and sanctions are created to form, strengthen,

and maintain an individual’s healthy identification with an organization. Simon’s

contributions to research in the area of decision-making have become increasingly

mainstreamed in the business community thanks to the growth of management

consulting.

To learn more about Decision Making, research Decision Analysis and explore the ideas of Harold Dwight Lasswell and Chester Barnard.