Anatomy of the Psyche

“Laws of human behaviour"

Man is a mammal and hereditary instincts generally apply.

Behaviours can be: Friendly, socializing. Form differs a bit per culture. Too much loneliness is usually not appreciated although some people like to be alone sometimes. But these feelings are what I "read" as group instinct. Like fish, who probably just feel better when they're in a group, not realising it is a survival instinct. Note that one might describe this as forced behaviour and no free will, unless you want to be punished with negative feelings.

Humans can be abusive. This is not appreciated. It might be indirect reciprocation or an exhibition of display of power (dominance).

Discriminating. People see differences in each other to keep each other apart. That’s why this psychological model was so hard to make.

Dominance is standard animal behaviour and therefore entirely human. Dominance only works when it is accepted. It would normally be accepted when it is considered beneficial. Environments can also dominate.

Sometimes taking a dominant stance is avoided to avoid animosity, for example when it is not necessary. Dominance is accepted a surprising amount of times.

In instinctual behaviour, ratio is not really a factor. "Ratio is inert".


Instinctive behaviours include:

  • Positive (raises chances of survival)
  • Negative
  • Destructive (not appreciated, see caring and protective)


Laughter is sometimes a good alternative to destructive behaviour on this scale from positive through negative to destructive.


Producing [Trading, Consuming] (for trading, see reciprocation)

Inventing/Creative

Imitating

Can be dominant (better)

Can be story-telling and/or exhibit display.

Can be exploring or curious


  • Caring
  • Protective
  • Mourning (disliked)

Usually related to the following:

  • Community-oriented
  • Family-oriented
  • Self-oriented
  • Object-oriented
  • Information/Story-oriented


Reciprocal (what goes around, comes around) up to and including punitive expeditions. I am quite sure it is not always the person who is harmed who reciprocates and it is not always the person who does something wrong who is reciprocated to. I call this “indirect reciprocation”.

It is usually these kind of feelings which fuel confirmation bias. In the mac vs. PC debate, for example, it is probably some kind of irrational preference which drives people to cherry pick evidence which proves their point even though the points made have no real impact on their choice.

That's all there is to it. There might be some more but I want to keep it somewhat simple.




There are two case studies in my blog. Twin Towers assault and Syrian poison gas attack.

Because it is hard to spot what is ‘normal’, perception training is needed. The best way to go about this is by creating a serious game.

Machiavelli and normal behaviour.

What is wrong with the DSM?

Case study: Turkish coup attempt.

© Koos Swart 2013