Peter Belohlavek

Translate this page

Subjectivism: the anti-concept of adaptiveness

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.


Children deal with complexity but adults need to learn it

Action-reflection-action is the necessary process to deal with the adaptive aspects of reality and with businesses considered as adaptive entities.

Paradoxically, this process is developed naturally, using intuition, by children, but adults need to recover their capacity of facing reality without fears if they want to develop an action-reflection-action learning process.

Children would not grow if they did not have this capacity, because most of the problems they face are complex for them.

The object driven learning technology defined the structure that allowed making adaptive learning processes accessible for all the people who need to deal with complex problems and are willing to make the effort to solve them.

Indoctrination requires the use of a theory-practice approach in order to install a theory to rule actions; adaptive learning, on the other hand, requires an action-reflection-action and a theory-practice approach. Indoctrination is security driven while adaptive learning is freedom driven.

The unicist learning objects provided an approach to adaptive learning for adults.

The object driven learning technology defines the four levels of objects to be used when integrating problematic with thematic learning.

The four levels of learning objects are:

  1. Learning context building objects
  2. Possibilities opening objects
  3. Reflection driving objects
  4. Research driving objects

This is what the unicist approach to learning is about. The use of learning objects simplifies the adaptive process and provides, on the one hand, a logical security framework to learn and, on the other hand, it allows expanding the boundaries of people’s talents.

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.


Personal Freedom: Concepts make you Free

Concepts make you free is not a motto; it is a fact, which is sustained by the functionality of conceptual knowledge to drive human actions. Having the concepts of what one is doing allows one to be extremely effective and flexible. Access the document on Personal Freedom at:

Concepts make you free

That is what is made possible by the “personal freedom” an individual has. Personal freedom cannot exist without having conceptual knowledge and vice-versa.

Conceptualizing to achieve personal freedom and using personal freedom to discover or apprehend concepts are necessary for any adaptive behavior in complex environments. This applies to all the roles an individual has in life, including fields such as: family, friendship, work, pastime, etc.

Conceptualization is necessary to deal with complex problems. The level of complexity of a problem depends on the quantity of interdependent autonomous entities that integrate the “unified field” of the solution of the problem. The larger the number of entities, the wider the unified field is, and the more complex it is.

Concepts are not imagined they are discovered following an action-reflection-action process based on acting in the real world. It has to be clarified that conceptual knowledge implies having the abstract emulation of the concept in mind but also the operational procedures.

The more complex a problem is, the higher the level of conceptualization that is required.

This document is part of the fully sponsored programs of the Goodwill Network that foster the upgrade of ethics in leadership.

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.


Adaptive behavior assessment: the Unicist Japanese Park

The Unicist Japanese Park is a method that has been used since 1976 to evaluate the natural behavior when people are part of adaptive systems. It has been used to validate cultural archetypes, institutional cultures and personal behavior.

The purpose of this method is to find the natural organization that is used by people that demonstrates how they deal with their functionality to add value and to earn value.

It is based on building an emulation of a real adaptive system to integrate people in it and evaluate the functionality of their behavior. The emulation of the adaptive system needs to be defined knowing the operational and fundamental aspects that are included.

The first aspect that needs to be evaluated is how people focus their energy towards the generation of added value and measure how they assure the results. This allows defining the starting point of the value adding actions.

The second aspect to be assessed is how people deal with their efficacy, efficiency and quality assurance. This allows defining how people deal with their minimum strategies to be reliable.

This method provides reliable information of what happens naturally in an environment.

Diego Belohlavek

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.


The Unicist Theory changed the paradigms of the scientific approach to complexity

The Unicist Theory, developed by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute, changed the paradigms of the scientific approach to complexity. It made a logical approach to complex adaptive systems possible, making them reasonable, understandable and manageable. It integrated Complexity Sciences and Systemic Sciences in a unified field.

The Unicist Theory emulates the organization of nature by introducing unicist objects to drive business processes, institutional processes and social processes. You can access the complete document at

Complexity Science ResearchOverview

What is the Unicist Theory?

It is the theory that explains the nature of things.

What does the wording “nature of things” mean?

The nature of an entity is defined by its functionality in an environment, which has an underlying conceptual structure that emulates the intelligence that underlies nature.

What does the intelligence of nature mean?

It means that the functionality of every natural entity is driven by a purpose, an active and entropic principle that drives changes and an energy conservation principle that sustains the purpose.

What is the knowledge of the nature of things needed for?

To know what we are doing or talking about in order to better adapt to the environment, which implies influencing the environment while being influenced by it.

How reliable is this knowledge?

This knowledge is fully reliable because it deals with the conceptual functionality of things. It solves the empirical probabilistic approach of most systemic sciences.

When is the application of the Unicist Theory necessary?

It is necessary to diagnose, build strategies and design architectures in adaptive environments like businesses, institutions, social behavior and future research.

What happens if it is not used when dealing with complex adaptive environments?

When the nature of an entity is not considered, the capacity to adapt is lost and is replaced by dominating, opposing or submitting to the environment.

Which are the limits of its application?                                                 

The limits are given by the capacity of individuals to apprehend the concepts that underlie facts.

The Basic Breakthroughs that sustain the Unicist Theory

1) The discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature that regulates the evolution of living beings.

2) The discovery that Complex Adaptive Systems do not include variables but include objects that are interrelated by biunivocal multiple relationships.

3) The discovery of complementation and supplementation as the unique types of relationships in Nature.

4) The discovery of Human Ontointelligence that allows apprehending the concepts that underlie the nature and things.


The objective of the development of the Unicist Theory was to find a structural solution to deal with complex adaptive systems considering their characteristics. Complex adaptive systems have, among other aspects, open boundaries and are integrated by the conjunction of their elements. In such systems, there is no possibility for the existence of observers.

The Unicist Theory, based on the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, allowed developing the four scientific pillars that provided the basics of the unicist logic based and objects driven technologies to manage human complex adaptive environments: Conceptual Economics, Conceptual Anthropology, Conceptual Psychology and Conceptual Management.

The Unicist Theory was originated by the need of finding responses to the question of why things happen in the social and economic world in order to influence evolution. It was triggered by the need of going beyond the empirical Know How that was used in the 70s to approach complex adaptive environments and the need to integrate it with a “Know Why”, that was inexistent.

The author developed an inductive approach to complex environments, which implied that he began at an operational level dealing with complex adaptive systems and entered deeper and deeper until the Unicist Theory was born. This theory was born when the structure of the concepts that underlie facts was discovered.

Then he began the application and research work to find the structure of concepts in the field of complex adaptive systems, beginning with biology and ending with social sciences and future research. This research work was possible due to the development of the unicist ontological research methodology that changed the paradigms of sciences to approach complexity.

The Theory itself

The research in complexity sciences to manage complex adaptive systems that led to the discovery of the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature and the Unicist Theory began in 1976. It was led by Peter Belohlavek and included the following discoveries and developments: Unicist Ontology, Unicist Logic, Unicist Conceptualization, Ontogenetic Maps and Unicist Objects.

The Unicist Unified FieldThe Unicist Theory was developed to manage the nature of complex adaptive entities.

On the one hand, to approach the nature of things an individual needs to be able to apprehend the essential patterns that underlie the operational patterns that are observable.

But, on the other hand, complex adaptive entities have open boundaries, which imply that the individual, who intends to influence the environment is part of the system, which makes traditional systemic science research methods fallacious.

In this context, the Unicist Ontological Research Methodology was developed to transform complex problems into manageable problems.

The Unicist Theory needs to be apprehended using the ontointelligence any individual has. It defines the individual’s capacity to apprehend the nature of things in adaptive environments.

It has to be considered that 3-5 year old children use their conceptual approach to reality to adapt to an environment that fully exceeds their rational comprehension by posing and endless questioning on the “WHY” of things.

Ontointelligence is necessary to manage reality as a unified field. This is necessary when dealing with complex adaptive systems. Ontointelligence is the deepest human intelligence that allows apprehending the nature that underlies observable facts. It is integrated by ethical intelligence, strategic intelligence and the logical type of thinking of individuals.

You can access the complete document at

Scientific Dissemination 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.


Conceptual Management – A Logical Approach to Businesses

The conceptual approach to business requires that people need to know “why” something is happening. This is unnecessary at an operational level, but is a basic question when dealing with strategic approaches. The “know why” is driven by a logical approach to businesses that allows managing their concepts making them reasonable, understandable and provable.

Unicist Ontology of Conceptual ThinkingWhen the boundaries of a business are being expanded, individuals need to apprehend the concept that is behind its operational aspects in order to influence a new environment. This implies apprehending the ontology (nature) of its concept and its dynamics.

On the one hand, the conceptual approach to business became possible based on the discovery of the structure of concepts, defined by a purpose, an active and entropic function and an energy conservation function, which allowed apprehending the nature of facts and actions (unicist ontology).*

On the other hand, the discovery that the concepts people have in mind work as behavioral objects that drive their behavior made this conceptual approach necessary to deal with strategic approaches.

You can download a free e-book, sponsored by the Unicist Goodwill Network on “Concepts Make you Free” at:

The Origin of Conceptual Thinking

The endless “Why?” question posed by children (nearby 3 years old) is what allows establishing the neural network needed by a person to apprehend and manage concepts. This process starts when children begin to look for the origin of those things they are interested in.

This endless “why” questioning has three main benefits:

  1. It sustains the development of the neural network that allows dealing with the origin of things and not only with the operational aspects.
  2. It expands the language of the child driving her/him to deal with an implicit integrative, fuzzy and predicate logic.
  3. It provides the “why” that allows children to approach their games, which develop their systemic thinking approach.

Conceptual diagnoses, conceptual design and conceptual management became possible using the unicist logical approach, which made “concepts” tangible and provided the structural functional approach to develop business diagnoses, strategies and architecture.

*Based on the research on Conceptualization developed by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute.

The Unicist Research Institute

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.


Breakthrough: Discovery of the Ethical Intelligence and its Use

The discovery of ethical intelligence widened the possibilities of individuals to manage their own future. Ethical intelligence defines how people generate added value, influence the environment, manage time, build strategies and focus on reality. Ethical intelligence provides the structural logic to survive, earn value, add value, acquire and manage knowledge and deal with the nature of reality. It is the “mother” of all the intelligences. It defines the true intentions of individuals that are observable in the consequences of their actions.

To access the basics on the Unicist Logical Approach  please enter:

Ethical Intelligence and ConsciousnessThe higher the level of ethics an individual wants to achieve, the higher the prices s/he has to pay, not only to achieve such level but also to maintain it.

A notorious aspect is that although being the less conscious intelligence, its evolution empowers the possibilities of the functional intelligences of individuals.

Even though there is a natural pathway for the evolution of ethical intelligence, it can be fostered or inhibited, depending on the prices individuals are willing to pay and the influence of the environment.

The natural pathway

When babies are born, they are naturally driven by the survival ethics, which defines their behavior. Babies would die if they did not follow the rules of survival ethics. Instinctive behavior is driven by this ethics.

Ethical IntelligenceChildren are such when they are driven by value earning ethics, which allows them to grow appropriating what they need from the environment. This is also the definition of a childish behavior in adults.

Adolescence is the next stage which, being a transition, drives back to survivors ethics.

Adolescence ends when individuals begin to add value to the environment.

They do not need to go back to childhood; the stage of appropriating value as a goal has passed. The ideals adolescents have define their need to find a place in the world while they foster the expansion of the value adding ethics.

Adulthood begins when individuals decide to influence the environment and not only be influenced by it.

When it becomes necessary to have grounded knowledge, this need drives the individual towards the development of the foundation ethics.

When individuals assume the responsibility of the species, in a restricted or wide sense, the conceptual ethics begins to be necessary and is developed based on the universal added value they are willing to deliver.

After the “plateau” of life passed, individuals have two alternatives: they use lower levels of ethics in order to consume less energy or they achieve a level of wisdom that allows them to reduce the energy consumed by increasing the value they add.


Individuals have the possibility of increasing their ethical intelligence, which increases the functionality of all their functional intelligences.

Scarcity fosters superior ethical intelligence while abundance and poverty inhibits, for opposite reasons, its evolution.

The context of the research

The objective of the research on the drivers of human behavior, led by Peter Belohlavek  was to find how human intelligence deals with its purpose which is allowing individuals to adapt to the environment. It requires experiencing the use of intelligence and confirming the results produced, after having developed the destructive and non-destructive tests, following the unicist methodology for complexity science research.

This process began with the discovery that human conscious actions are driven by the concept individuals have of what is being done. It demonstrated that individuals can only assume the responsibility for the results of what they are doing if they have the concept of it. It was based on considering human beings in their complexity and the application of the principles of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature.

Fallacies and paradoxical results are produced when individuals do not have the necessary knowledge or are driven by anti-intelligence.

This research implied experiencing for more than 35 years until the knowledge became fully reliable. The research allowed integrating existing knowledge on human intelligence with the discoveries that deal with conceptual intelligence and what was named the ontointelligence where ethical intelligence defines the final purpose of human actions.

The Unicist Ontology of Ethical Intelligence


Ethical intelligence is the intelligence that structures stable and dynamic rules that determine the action of the individual in his environment. It determines his capacity to add value, his influence on the environment and on others and his time management.

On the one hand, the rules are stable since they respond to a purpose that is defined by the level of ethics within which the individual acts.

On the other hand, the rules are dynamic, because despite the fact that the individual is at a certain level, he is capable of determining alternative strategies that satisfy the objective he is seeking within that level.

Ethics is defined as a set of rules that are functional to a situation and to a certain perception of an accepted moral, and are supported by a complementary ideology.

From an institutional point of view, five levels of ethics have been found that sustain the behavior of the individuals in institutions.

  1. Ethics of survival
  2. Ethics of the earned value
  3. Ethics of added value
  4. Ethics of foundations
  5. Conceptual ethics

The Ethics of survival

The ethics of survival is the type of ethics prevailing within the marginal areas of a culture or the marginal cultures.

Survivors’ EthicsThe functional structure of this type of ethics is based on the need to survive. People having this type of ethic permanently expect to avoid threats and use their strengths to compensate for their weaknesses.

For this reason people behaving according to this type of ethics are always concerned with avoiding costs or passing them onto others so as to earn as much value as possible thus securing their survival.

The individual that acts according to this type of ethics exercises influence upon others who are in the same situation, based on survivor-pacts. His time management is based on “the moment”, sustained by reactions based on intuition. He has a reactive tactical approach to reality.

S/he focuses on surviving and avoiding risks.

The ethics of the earned value

Earned Value EthicsThis type of ethics seeks to add the minimal value possible to generate an earned value and to minimize costs in order to assure the subsistence level.

The individual behaving on the basis of such ethics exercises influence upon the ones who behave in accordance with the ethics of survival and upon the ones that add less value than he does.

He is able to manage short-term problems. Short-term is the lapse between adding value and generating the corresponding earned value. He has a tactical active approach to reality.

S/he focuses on maximizing his benefit.

The ethics of added value

Added Value EthicsThis is the type of ethic that maximizes the added value to the environment seeking to optimize the relationship between added value and cost.

The individual who acts on the basis of this type of ethics exercises influence upon the ones who manage the ethics of survival, the ethics of earned value and upon those that need to add more value than what they are adding.

Such individual manages the medium-term, which is the time to transform knowledge into added value. He develops medium-term strategies.

S/he focuses on the value he is adding.

The ethics of foundation

The ethics of foundation is used by individuals that consider that added value is secured by knowledge.

The goal of such ethics is that the foundations or groundings for work be reasonable, understandable and proven.

Foundations EthicsThe individual behaving on the basis of such ethics bears influence on the ones who manage the ethics of survival, the ones using the ethics of the earned value, the ones using the ethics of added value and on those who have less knowledge than he does to act within their environment.

Such individual manages the long-term, which is the time span between discovering a concept and transforming it into useful knowledge. He develops long-term strategies.

S/he focuses on the security of the knowledge.

The conceptual ethics

Conceptual EthicsThis is the intelligence used to maximize the added value by using a high level of energy to materialize the need to give.

Individuals behaving according to this type of ethics exert influence on the entire environment because of their energy. They manage universal time that is the time of the cycles, with no time limitations.

They do not take into account their own existence. They develop strategies using the available, possible and expected forces.

S/he focuses on achieving the truth.

The case of the Stagnant Survivor’s Ethic

Stagnant Survivors are individuals with a complex driven behavior that sustains the parallel reality they live in and the responsibility avoidance they need to exert to be in a comfort zone.

Stagnant SurvivorsThe paradox is that their comfort zone is a conflict zone for those who surround them.

Complexes drive individuals towards the ethics of survivors and generate a stagnated status at this ethical level.

Stagnant survivors cannot manage time. As they are survivors who deeply consider that they cannot avoid being where they are, they need to blame others and avoid managing time. Time management requires a Complex free behavior.

The stagnated status is based on a fallacious utopia that justifies their actions and forces them to exert power while they appropriate the value they need to feel comfortable.

The justifications are built upon fallacies to sustain their actions, beliefs and needs.

These fallacies are built using the “anti-intelligence” and “anti-intuition”; the higher the IQ the more consistent the fallacies are. They are in fact built to justify immoral or amoral actions without feeling responsible for them.

Power is exerted in three ways depending on the role they adopt:

  • Savior: The power of Guilt
  • Pursuer: The power of Fear
  • Victim: The power of Pity

This power exertion provokes the reactions of the environment and endless conflicts.

The rotation of these roles avoids that stagnant survivors perceive that they provoke the conflicts and generates the perception of being a victim of the environment.

The appropriation of value by stagnant survivors is endless; because having no adapted place in the environment, their needs are endless.

All the materialistic, rational and emotional values they are given by others have no meaning for them and are disregarded.

Business Functionality of Ethical Intelligence

The discovery of ethical intelligence opened new possibilities to influence individuals’ evolution. Ethical intelligence in business defines the value adding possibilities, the influence on the environment, time management, strategic planning and focusing.

Pyramid of Ethical Intelligences

It has to be considered that in the business world different activities require different ethical approaches in order to be successful. For example:

A business is consistent when the individuals dealing with it have the ethics required by the activity.

When the ethics is inferior to what is needed, it necessarily inhibits growth installing a “business growth virus” in the organization.

If the ethics used by individuals is superior to what is needed, they install a “business profit virus” in the organization that increases costs and affects profitability.

Ethics is implicit in everyday actions, including language. Therefore, it can be defined, measured and fostered.

The rational knowledge of ethical intelligence has an enormous benefit for individuals in organizations in order to ensure consistency for growth and profitability.

Ethical intelligence establishes the game rules to run businesses. Different activities require different rules. Adapting to an environment requires respecting the rules of the reality one is dealing with.

For example:

– The use of the survivors’ ethical intelligence is functional to run small business and deal with conjunctural threats.

– The use of value earning ethical intelligence is functional to run distribution businesses and to increase profits.

– The use of added value ethical intelligence is functional to run industrial businesses and lead to market expansions.

– The use of the ethics of foundations is functional to run knowledge businesses and health businesses.

– The use of the conceptual ethical intelligence is functional to deal with research and complexity sciences.

There is a paradox in the human approach to ethics in business. Some people consider that “The higher the ethical level, the better the business”.

This is a fallacy. Running a business is like catching a train that is already running.

You have to run at the same speed to jump on it. If you are running slower than the train you won’t be able to catch it. If you are running faster than the train, you will not only miss the train but also waste your energy.

If you have a lower ethics than the one that is required by the business you will be downgrading it and losing market share.

If you have a higher ethics than what is required, you will lose market share and also money.

The systematic use of foundations is the natural catalyst for the development of ethical intelligence in the materialistic world.

Ontointelligence Synopsis

The apparent paradox is that ethical intelligence is the deepest intelligence of the human mind, but at the same time it is the intelligence that evolves with the maturity of individuals and can be influenced.

Unicist Press Committee

NOTE: The Unicist Research Institute was the pioneer in complexity science research and became a private global decentralized leading research organization in the field of human adaptive systems.


The Unicist Theory solved the approach to complexity

Unicist Theory, its Applications and Scientific EvidencesThe Unicist Theory made adaptive systems manageable and gave an epistemological structure to complexity sciences. As it is known, the management of complexity has been an unsolved challenge for sciences. This challenge has been faced in 1976 by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute, which became a pioneering organization in the development of concrete solutions to manage the complex adaptive systems by developing a logical approach that uses the Unicist Theory.

A double dialectical logical approach to manage complex problems has been discovered. This approach is based on the discovery that complex systems have a triadic structure that emulates the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, represented by a purpose, an active principle and an energy conservation principle and their integration. The Unicist Theory that solved the approach to complexity includes the Ontogenetic Intelligence of Nature, the Unicist Ontology, the Unicist Logic, the Unicist Conceptualization, the Unicist Ontology of Evolution, the Ontogenetic Maps and the Unicist Objects.

There are fields that are generally accepted as being complex such as: life sciences, social sciences, anthropology, political sciences, economic sciences, behavioral sciences, medicine, psychology, education, businesses, ecology and meteorology.

The complexity of a system is intrinsic, which means that it does not depend on the perception of an individual. But in order to apprehend a complex system it is necessary that the person emulates the system in mind, which fully depends on the individual. This required defining what a complex system is.

Science dealt with complexity using multiple palliatives but without achieving consensus of what complex systems are. The main problem to manage complexity is that all the elements of the complex system are integrated by bi-univocal conjunctions without the possibility of the existence of disjunctions, that the boundaries of the objects that integrate the complex system are open and that the system is open in itself. The only measurable facts are the results that such system produces.

The most difficult task was the completion of the scientific evidences to confirm the functionality of the solutions, which demanded thousands of applications until they could be synthesized. The scientific evidences of the Unicist Theory were: the functionality of amino acids, the structure of atoms, the structure of biological entities, the nervous system, the similarity between natural and social objects, the fact that unicist concepts behave as stem cells and that thinking processes are homologous to the functionality of electricity.

The Unicist Theory was used to develop applications in Life Sciences, Future Research, Business, Education, Healthcare and Social and Human behavior. Now complex adaptive systems became manageable and complexity science received its epistemological structure. Palliatives to deal with complexity will continue to be used until people accept that complexity needs to be approached in its nature.

Learn more:

Executive 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.


Discovery of Human Ontointelligence to apprehend nature

The research showed that the deepest intelligence humans use to apprehend the nature of a reality can be developed. Still, after more than 7 years from the final conclusions on Ontointelligence, the discovery unveils novelties on the tendency to encourage or discourage the development of this type of intelligence in different cultures. These results are being now disseminated.

Human IntelligenceThe discovery of Ontointelligence was the result of the researches of Peter Belohlavek on intelligence that began in 1976. The operational ontointelligence was discovered in 1985. The research of the personal ethics as the access to conceptual thinking was finished in 1996. The final validation of ethics functionality as a type of intelligence occurred in 2006.

The unicist ontological research defined and described the essential and operational functionality of intelligence. According to the results, intelligence has reactive, active and ontointelligence functions.

Learn more:

The reactive functions of intelligence make intelligence objectively measurable. The active functions of intelligence are those where intelligence can be measured in potential and essential terms. Finally, the functions determined by ontointelligence are those described in this abstract.

The more essential an intelligence is, the more difficult it is to be measured and modified by the individual’s action. Thus, in societies and institutions, contexts stimulate or discourage the development of intelligence.

This unicist ontology-based research focused on the apparently unreasonable human behaviors and explained their functionality.

The following types of intelligence were discovered and researched:

  1. Conceptual intelligence
  2. Strategic style
  3. Type of thought
  4. Ethical intelligence

Human Intelligence Levels

Intelligence works showed the use of three layers to support human adaptive behavior. These three layers can be described as:

  1. Reactive Intelligence, which has direct contact with the environment.
  2. Active Intelligence, which sustains reactive intelligence when there is a need for a planning process.
  3. Ontointelligence, which sustains active intelligence when the “apprehension” of the essence of a certain reality is required.

Synopsis of the conclusions

Reactive Intelligence

It determines the capacity to act in an adapted way when facing an unexpected situation.

It is characterized and measured by:

  1. The emotional quotient (EQ)
  2. The intelligence quotient (IQ)
  3. The frustrations elaboration quotient (FQ)

Active Intelligence

It determines the capacity to plan actions in an adapted way.

It is characterized and measured by:

  1. Conceptual intelligence: the introjective empathy and sympathetic capacity to influence.
  2. Functional Intelligence: the type of intelligence of an individual (musical, logical- mathematical, etc.).
  3. Linking Intelligence: the Intra-personal or Inter-personal intelligence.


It determines the individual’s capacity to apprehend the underlying concept in a complex situation.

It is characterized and measured by:

  1. Ethical Intelligence: the functionality of the individual’s “rules”.
  2. Strategic Intelligence: the way an individual faces the reality to which he seeks to adapt.
  3. Type of logical thinking: the individual’s mind mechanism used to solve the problems related to his adaptation to the environment.


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.


Logical Management Tools: Unicist Systemic Problem Solving

The goal of the unicist method to solve systemic problems is to establish a methodological framework to solve problems in which the complexity has been solved or does not exist.

ProfessionalismThe objective is to establish simple analytical steps that allow developing reliable conclusions of a problem where grounded cause-effect relationships are established.

This analytical method drives towards a “simplification” of the specific reality that is being researched. The deeper the analysis, the less reliable the applicability of particular solutions to the generic object.

A systemic problem solving methodology defines a pathway that begins with the definition of the possible goal and the description of reality that allows finding its functionality in order to use it to find a possible solution.

This requires minimizing the disintegration of reality into parts and simultaneously minimizing the unavoidable subjectivism that is generated by the uncertainty implicit in the problem solving process.

The Unicist Methodology is centrally focused on the analysis of facts and not on the opinions of the facts. Thus, it avoids a “double” interpretation of information, the generation of cross examinations and the consequent conflicts they produce.

The factual analysis as the core methodological aspect implies the existence of an integrative approach to reality, the consideration of adjacent facts and the need to find causative explanations that allow understanding the objective and subjective roots of the problems.

The concept of the USM

The Unicist Systemic Methodology is focused on the evaluation of facts independently from the explanations that are given on their causes.

As this methodology considers reality as a systemic problem, its concept is to find the cause-effect relationship of its variables. The objective of the analysis is to find the causes that generate the problem.

That is why the verbal information that is been collected is considered as an input for the analysis. The verbal information has a double functionality:

It describes the existing beliefs on reality, being their valid or fallacious.

It is a fact in itself, because of its relationship with the functional facts.

The USM begins by describing the facts or results that are being evaluated. To do so, it divides the unified field that is being scrutinized into the different facts that integrate it.

Learn more about the Logical Management Tools at:

Diego Belohlavek

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.