Monthly Archives: May 2017

Subjectivism: the anti-concept of adaptiveness

[responsivevoice_button voice=”UK English Female” buttontext=”Listen to Post”]

The research on what destroys adaptiveness was triggered by the problems that are generated when innovations are being introduced at a social or institutional level. This research was led by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute.

The research showed that innovations themselves generate a subjectivist response in the environment, since people try to avoid being left aside by the innovation and look for a place without having the necessary knowledge of the new aspects introduced by the innovation.  On the other hand, in those environments that inhibit learning, for doctrine or any other reason, innovations are destroyed by subjectivism.

The field of research expanded and led to the research of subjectivism as the anti-concept of adaptive behavior, in order to find ways to hinder subjectivism in social and institutional environments.


Subjectivism is the anti-concept of adaptive behavior that destroys the possibility of dealing with adaptive environments.  That is why subjectivism is a functional behavior in authoritarian and anarchic environments where it provides an over-adaptive participation that mitigates the perception of authoritarianism and individualism.

Its driver is the justification of the unfulfilled goals that generates a parallel reality where the environment is responsible for the dysfunctional actions that produce the unfulfillment of the goals that were established. These justifications are sustained by the use of fallacious myths and the establishment of dysfunctional utopias.

The social fallacious myths that sustain social subjectivism are those that question the roles of authoritative leaders and those that allow “buying time” to avoid responsibilities. The guilt avoidance actions are sustained by the use of dysfunctional utopias that avoid the discussion of the functional aspects of a given reality.

Once installed, it destroys any possibility for adaptive behavior and generates internal power conflicts and annulment conflicts that hinder functional actions.

The context of subjectivism

Social subjectivism is sustained by the lack of reliable knowledge in a field of adaptive actions and is catalyzed by the need of participating. These two aspects ensure the creation of subjectivism as an anti-concept.

The lack of knowledge is produced when people do not have the fundamental and technical knowledge to develop solutions in a specific field. The need of participation is given when people need to find a place in an environment where they have no added value.

Learning while working is the natural proposal of subjectivists in order to “earn” a place while they say that they are learning. As people learn from mistakes and work has to be flawless, they do not learn and cannot do.

The participation of subjectivists is necessarily over-adaptive and utopia driven. It is over-adaptive because it avoids assuming responsibilities and it is dysfunctional utopias driven because through the utopias they “simulate” an active participation while they hinder functional actions. “Opinators” are paradigmatic examples of subjectivists.

Subjectivism as an anti-strategy

Subjective strategies are driven by justified actions and the exertion of power in order to avoid assuming the responsibility for strategy building.

At a personal level, individuals who cannot envision the future of the activity they are doing cannot assume the responsibility for having a conscious approach to it. They need to install subjective strategies in order to feel no guilt for their lack of responsibility.

The Subjective Strategy Segments

The maximal strategy of subjective strategies is driven by the avoidance of species/social responsibility and is based on justified actions developing a monopolistic behavior to maximize the benefits of the individual or organization.

The minimum strategy is driven by the avoidance of personal responsibility, which is based on exerting power by attacking competitors and annulling all aspects that avoid entering the parallel reality that is sought for.

There are four levels of subjective strategies:

  1. Independence Strategies
  2. Dependent Strategies
  3. Intuitive Strategies
  4. Subjectivist Strategies

1) Independence Strategies

These strategies are based on developing a business based on the “as is” of its leaders. It implies developing businesses based on beliefs seeking for independence as the core value.  They are based on attacking competitors in order to feel superior. They include a sense of superiority where every action is justified. On the surface they appear to be survivor strategies.

2) Dependent Strategies

They include the preceding level. They are based on developing an asymmetric complementation with a positive slope and annulling all the aspects of reality that bother and on a sense of inferiority, which requires exerting power in order to avoid this feeling. On the surface they appear to be defensive strategies.

3) Intuitive Strategies

They include the preceding level. Intuitive strategies are based on developing relationships using common sense. They are based on the use of smartness maximizing the benefits from the environment and on the abuse of complementary relationships exerting the necessary power to do so. On the surface they appear to be dominant strategies.

4) Subjectivist Strategies

They include the preceding level. Subjective strategies are sustained by the establishment of subjective relationships that include a minimum level of functional complementation. They are based on establishing the rules that allow the development of a monopolistic behavior and on the confrontation with the establishment. Individuals developing these strategies use any justification to confirm that they are right. On the surface they appear to be influential strategies.


It has to be considered that people only assume a subjectivist role when they do not have the necessary functional knowledge to develop solutions and need to find a place in the environment that fulfills their emotional needs.

By including in a project or work only people who have the necessary knowledge there is no risk of becoming destroyed by subjectivists. The problem is solved by the use of two unicist approaches:

  1. The use of Unicist Client Centered Management hinders the generation of subjectivists because it demands the measurable delivery of concrete value.
  2. The application of the Teamwork Agreement based on the Ethic of Foundations eliminates the possibilities of subjectivists. That is why it should be used in all those meetings where there is a need for developing solutions in adaptive environments.

Unicist Teamwork Agreement
Ethics of Foundations

All members of a group agree to:

  1. Explain the foundations of what is stated in an understandable, reasonable and provable way for the rest of the group.
  2. Count on the “paperwork” supporting their proposals, and explain it clearly to the rest of the group.
  3. Invite to participate in working groups only those individuals that have the capacity to understand the groundings of a problem.
  4. Whenever the problem is complex give members the necessary time to be prepared to deal with such problem, and to understand the groundings of the rest of the group.
  5. Have the necessary knowledge, beyond common sense, for solving the problems they are dealing with.
  6. Explain the groundings when analyzing problems.
  7. When evaluating actions, explain the synthesis but not the foundations that underlay them. However, upon request of the rest of the group, provide them with the groundings of the synthesis.
  8. Take others’ groundings into consideration, and integrate them into yours, disregarding whom they come from.
  9. Do not give an opinion when there is a lack of knowledge.
  10. When working in uncertain environments, approach the problem explicitly starting with a “groundless opinion”, but be responsible for obtaining the necessary knowledge to achieve a grounded one.

Unicist Press Committee

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.


Invitation to participate in research projects

We invite young professionals and academics to contact us to participate in the research projects of The Unicist Research Institute: More than 200 researches were finished in 2016 and five major scientific breakthroughs were finished in 2017. They introduce a structural change in scientific research:

  1. The unicist ontology of the integration of the restricted and wide contexts that explains the failures in political decisions and allows ensuring strategies. It is being published after 10 years of use and testing. (Complexity Sciences)
  2. The structure of unicist tactics that ensures the functionality of strategies. It is being published after 20 years of applications. (Future Research and Strategy)
  3. The unicist semiotic research methodology that allows researching virtual communication and ensuring its functionality. It is being published after 7 years of application and testing implicit weaknesses and their effects. (Semiology)
  4. The context of social dysfunctional utopias that allows forecasting the evolution of cultures. It is being published after 10 years of application in future scenario building. (Anthropology)
  5. The context of personal dysfunctional utopias that allow influencing personal evolution. It is being published after 15 years of application in the educational field. (Psychology)

More than 5,000 unicist ontological researches were developed since 1976 in the field of individual, institutional and social evolution. The main countries that originated these researches were: US, DE, UK, FR, JP, SE, CA, CH, IN, BR, AR, CAT, RU, CN, AU. TURI’s Future Research Laboratory completed the research of 70 countries’ archetypes.

Scientific applications of the Unicist Theory that expanded the boundaries of existing sciences by solving their complex aspects:

In Scientific Research – 1980: Development of a unicist ontological methodology for complex systems research, substituting the systemic approach to research adaptive systems. 2014: The integration of the unified field of macro and micro behavior. 2015: Development of the destructive and non-destructive tests to research adaptive environments.

In Life Sciences – 1988: Discovery of the functional structure that regulates evolution and the unicist ontological structure of living beings as a unified field. 2006: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithm of evolution and involution. 2008: Discovery of the two types of integration, complementation and supplementation, of elements in complex adaptive systems. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of biological entities. 2013: Confirmation of the unicist ontology of viruses. 2014: Discovery of the ontological structure of chronic diseases. 2014: Discovery of the structure of therapeutics. 2015: Discovery of the ontological structure of health. 2016: Development of the Scientific Foundations of Medicine.

In Complexity Sciences – 1998: Development of the unicist ontology emulating the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. 2003: Discovery of the anti-concepts that work as antimatter. 2006: Development of objects to manage human adaptive systems emulating the structure of nature. 2011: Discovery of the unicist ontology of complex adaptive systems. 2014: Discovery of the behavior of objects in complex adaptive systems. 2015: Discovery of the essential opposition but operational complementation between the active function and the energy conservation function of concepts. 2017: Discovery of the unicist ontology that integrates the wide and restricted contexts.

In Information Sciences – 2002: Development of unicist ontogenetic based ontologies replacing the empirically structured ontologies. 2014: Development of unicist adaptive robotics. 2015: Development of prototypers. 2016: Discovery of the nature of conceptual design.

In Future Research and Strategy – 1984: Modeling of the ontological structures that allow inferring the evolution developing the ontogenetic maps of human adaptive systems. 2014: Confirmation of the functionality of ethical intelligence in future research. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of personal strategies. 2016: Discovery of the nature of entrepreneurial strategies. 2017: Discovery of the double dialectical tactics.

In Logic – 1986: Development and formalization of the integrative and the unicist logic. 2013: Functionality of Dualistic Logic in complex environments. 2013: Discovery of the structure of aprioristic fallacies.

In Anthropology – 1986: Discovery of the “invariables” of human behavior. 1997: Discovery of the double dialectical behavior. 2008: Discovery of the anthropological lifestyles. 2010: Discovery of the institutional and social viruses. 2012: Discovery of the integration of ontogeny and phylogeny. 2012: Discovery of the stagnant survivors’ role in societies. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of aptitudes, attitudes and intentions. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of cultural adaptiveness & over-adaptiveness. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Anthropology.2014: Discovery of the Cultural, Institutional, Individual and Social Archetypes. 2015: Discovery of the functionality of rationalism and subjectivism as social and individual addictions. 2016: Discovery of the nature of innovation processes. 2017: Discovery of the context of social dysfunctional utopias.

In Economic Science – 1989: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of Economics. 1998: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithm of the price elasticity of demand. 2004: Discovery of the ontogenetic structure of economic models and their functionality. 2011: Discovery of the ontology of currency and inflation. 2012: Discovery of the ontology of the industrialization level. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of the overcoming of scarcity. 2012: Pricing of Futures and Options. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of speculative manipulation. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Economy. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of economic freedom.

In Political Science – 1990: Development of the ontological algorithm and the ontogenesis and phylogeny of ideologies and their functionality. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of Social, Economic and Political Democracy.

In Social Sciences – 1993: Discovery of the collective unconscious and the unicist archetypes of cultures. 2012: Discovery of the role of stagnant survivor elites in the stagnation of segments or cultures. 2016: Discovery of the nature of social networks.

In Linguistics – 2004: Discovery of the unicist ontological algorithms of natural, ambiguous and figurative languages and the unicist ontology of words. 2014: Development of semantic objects. 2015: Discovery of the ontological structure of subliminal communication.

In Mathematics – 1996: Development of the conceptual basis of interdependent, dependent and independent variables. 2014: Development of the mathematical foundations of reality indicators.

In Philosophy – 1994: Development of the unicist ontology integrating philosophy, science and action in a unified field. 1997: Refutation of Hegel’s and Marx’s dialectics and the formulation of the laws of the double dialectics.

In History – 2000: Development of a historical analysis methodology based on the unicist double dialectics.

In Cognitive Science – 2001: Development of a methodology to construct knowledge with existing information through an integrative logic. 2002: Development of the unicist reflection methodology to deal with the nature of reality. 2006: Discovery of the object driven organization of mental processes and the development of cognitive objects. 2008: Development of the ontological algorithms of fundamental analysis. 2013: Development of the unicist ontology of erudition and wisdom (observers vs. participants). 2014: Discovery of the structure of the emulation of reality. 2015: Discovery of the unicist ontology of conceptualization.

In Education – 1979: Discovery of the ontogenetic algorithms of learning which has given scientific sustainability, amongst others, to Piaget. 2014: Discovery and development of learning objects. 2015: Development of Reflection Driven Education. 2016: Discovery of the nature of learning by teaching.

In Psychology – 1984: Discovery of human ontointelligence to deal with adaptive systems. 2003: Discovery of the unicist ontological structure of fallacies, the functionality of anti-intelligence and anti-intuition. 2004: Discovery of the double dialectical thinking process. 2005: Discovery of the unicist ontology and evolution laws of human essential complexes. 2011: Discovery of the unicist ontology of conscious behavior. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of complementation of thinking processes. 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of psychopathy. 2014: Discovery of the structure of subliminal decision-making. 2014: Synthesis of Conceptual Psychology. 2015: Functionality of concepts as behavioral objects. 2016: Discovery of the nature of human metamorphosis. 2016: Discovery of the functionality of thinking processes. 2017: Discovery of the context of personal dysfunctional utopias.

In Semiology – 2012: Discovery of the unicist ontology of semiosis as a complex adaptive system. 2015: Development of semiotic role objects. 2017: Development of the semiotic research groups.

Unicist Executive Committee