Unicist Evolutionary Approach

Teamwork: Beware of Smart Alecks

December 14, 2015 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Behavioral Tools / Unicist Cobots tagged Intelligent Systems / Smart Alecks / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Strategy by Peter Belohlavek

Smart Alecks cannot add value. Maximal Strategies demand adding value to the environment to go beyond the existing boundaries of a business.

Smart Alecks are advantage takers that have an amoral behavior in order to profit from the environment. This kind of behavior is the natural response of stagnant survivors when managing businesses.

Stagnant survivors are naturally “smarties” in order to live from the environment.

They are driven by anti-intelligence and anti-intuition having no ethical rules in their behavior. They need to degrade the environment in order to justify their appropriation. When they have a high IQ, they become extremely dangerous because their critics are very smart, fallacious and well disguised.

The awareness of their actions is “zero” because they are basically driven by greed that drives them into fallacious behaviors.

One cannot deal with smart alecks because they assume no commitment with what they apparently agreed, and they always find the necessary justification for their non-fulfillment.

Their amoral behavior is sustained by accomplices in order to have the power to impose their rules. They manipulate others based on the generation of urgent needs that hinder the existence of alternative actions.

Peter 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.
https://www.unicist-school.org/complexity-sciences/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/turi.pdf

Unicist Micro-Clinics: Learning to manage complex problems

October 5, 2015 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots / Unicist Logical Approach tagged Complex problem solving / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Confederation / Unicist Corporate University / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Micro-Clinics by Peter Belohlavek

The Micro Clinics develop solutions of real problems of companies. They use the Conceptual Design Methodology which uses the conceptual structures of the business functions.

These clinics give access to the unicist technology for conceptual design that ensures the functionality, the productivity and the quality assurance of the business processes that are designed.

It needs to be considered that the access to the concepts that underlie business process can only be made by participating in real cases where the participants are involved.

The observation exercises or the case-studies unavoidably drive towards fallacious understanding.

The Structure of a Micro-Clinic

I) Preparation

a) Definition of the problem to be solved
b) Pre-diagnosis of the problem to be managed

II) The Micro-clinic

The Provision of the business technologies in e-book format
A live micro-clinic of 8 hours
Development of the conceptual design of the solution
Development of the corresponding action plan.
A Continuous counseling for 7 days after the micro-clinic
Participants of the group: up to 25.

Peter Belohlavek

Introduction to Unicist Epistemology

August 31, 2015 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Paradigm Shift in Sciences / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Epistemology / Unicist Evolutionary Approach by The Unicist Research Institute

The unicist approach to Epistemology is based on the development of logical foundations and empirical justifications to sustain human knowledge. This epistemology is a pragmatic, structural and functionalist approach that allows building reliable knowledge that replaced the processes of the falsification of knowledge by destructive testing processes.

It is based on the Unicist Theory which is a paradigm shift of the scientific approach to complex adaptive systems. This theory provides an approach to complexity based on the use of the unicist logic that emulates the intelligence that underlies nature. It integrated complexity sciences with systemic sciences in a unified field.

The paradigm shift is based on the integration of the “know-how” that underlies the empirical sciences with the “know-why” introduced by the Unicist Theory. The “know why” is needed to deal with the concepts of complex adaptive environments.

It defines that reliable knowledge implies knowing the concepts that underlie facts, which confirm the “know-why”, and the justifications that confirm the “know-how” of the facts.

The integration of the unicist approach to complexity with the empirical sciences requires changing the Theory-Practice learning approach to an Action-Reflection-Action approach that allows apprehending the concepts that underlie facts and transforms them into value adding actions.

This approach integrates the “know why” required to understand complexity with the “know how” needed to generate value.

The History of Knowledge

A) The first stage of collective knowledge was covered by religions, that provided the “WHAT” was acceptable as necessary knowledge. In the times when the knowledge was based on religious beliefs, the emulation of nature was a heresy.

B) The second stage was provided by the development of empirical sciences that provided the “KNOW HOW” to deal with the environment. In the era of empirical sciences, the emulation of nature was a utopia.

C) The last stage was the inclusion of the “KNOW WHY”, which required the comprehension of the nature of things and was provided by the unicist approach to complexity sciences. The emulation of nature became possible in the era where complexity became manageable by emulating the logic that underlies nature. This is the unicist paradigm shift in sciences.

The paradigm shift was triggered by the need to understand complex adaptive systems. The shift implies having changed the empirical approach to sciences replacing it by a pragmatic, structuralist and functionalist approach to deal with complex environments that integrates, at an operational level, the preexisting empiricism.

This is a superior level in sciences that integrates complexity sciences with systemic sciences using the double-dialectical logic to emulate the ontogenetic intelligence of nature and using objects to emulate the organization of nature.

The Paradigm Shift in Sciences

The emulation of nature requires having an adaptive behavior in the environment. Adapting requires: 1) exerting influence in the environment; 2) managing the influence of the environment. It requires using the conjunction “and” without using the disjunction “or”.

The unicist paradigm shift is based on the integration of the “KNOW-HOW” that underlies the empirical sciences with the “KNOW-WHY” introduced by the Unicist Theory. It defines that to access reliable knowledge it is necessary to know the concepts that underlie facts, which confirm the “KNOW-WHY”, and the justifications that confirm the “KNOW-HOW” of those facts.

The paradigm shift in sciences made the complex adaptive systems become reasonable, understandable and predictable. This paradigm shift allowed defining what is possible to be achieved and not only approaching reality with a probabilistic approach.

The shift in sciences is a pragmatic, structural and functionalist approach that subordinates the preexisting empirical approaches. It integrates the observable facts with the “nature of things”.

Learn more:
http://www.unicist.org/scientific-collaboration/#Basics

Academic Committee

The Challenge of using Unicist Adaptive Project Management

July 22, 2015 in Intelligent Systems / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Adaptive Project Management / Adaptive systems / Business Objects / Complex problems / Intelligent Systems / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Confederation / Unicist Corporate University / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Logical Approach / Unicist Object driven Organization / Unicist Standard by Peter Belohlavek

The development of a new approach to manage projects became necessary to deal with adaptive systems. Adaptive systems produce actions and reactions during the development of a project that need to be managed in order to ensure the achievement of the objectives.

While the traditional approach considers that plan B is an emergency plan to achieve goals, the unicist approach to project management considers that the plan B is superior and includes plan A, the plan C is superior than plan B but includes it, and the plan D is an abortion plan that includes the development of a succedaneum solution.

These alternative plans have to be predefined before the project begins. It is necessary to consider that the most participative alternative is given by plan A and the most “directive” alternatives are given by plan C and D.

That is why the unicist approach to project management is necessary to deal with adaptive systems that are in motion and unnecessary when dealing with systems where the adaptive aspects do not need to be considered.

The stages of the Adaptive Project Management are:

1. Process Control Centered

The process control centered manager is focused on establishing the necessary operational, administrative and control systems to monitor the process using a forward chaining design process that allows having the information on each stage of the process.

2. Authoritative Management Centered

Authoritative management includes having the capacity of controlling the processes. It implies that the manager has the vision of the problem and alternative solutions in order to define the plan C for any central aspect of a project.

3. Objects Management Centered

This level includes having the capacity of developing an authoritative management of the project. It requires that the manager be able to apprehend the complexity of the adaptive aspects of projects.

4. Process Management Centered

This level includes the capacity of developing the object management of projects. It is based on having apprehended the unified field of the project as a solution in the context where it is being developed.

Conclusion

Adaptive Project Management requires integrating project planning and project execution skills to ensure that the solutions be achieved. It is based on approaching projects based on the use of processes and objects that have proven their capacity to provide the necessary solutions. It implies having a sound systemic knowledge and the knowledge of the fundamentals that underlie the solution.

Peter Belohlavek

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. http://www.unicist.org

Participation in Unicist Think Tanks to develop Solutions

June 18, 2015 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots / Unicist Logical Approach tagged Adaptive systems / Complexity Science Research / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Confederation / Unicist Corporate University / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Logical Approach / Unicist Standard / Unicist Think Tanks by Peter Belohlavek

The Unicist Research Institute (TURI) is a private global decentralized research center specialized in complexity sciences that is focused on the research of the evolution of adaptive systems. More than 5,000 unicist ontological researches were developed since 1976 in the field of individual, institutional and social evolution.

If you are interested in participating please contact: n.i.brown@unicist.org

About the Think Tanks

Think Tanks are small autonomous organizations, organized by industry, that use the technology provided by The Unicist Research Institute to manage complexity. Unicist is in charge of the quality assurance of the R&D process. Each Think Tank is organized based on the type of industry.

There are four types of Think Tanks

1) For Basic Sciences
2) For Future Research
3) For Social/Economic Long-term Planning
4) For Unicist Spin-off Implementation

Think Tanks are integrated by Doers

The research on human complex adaptive systems cannot be done through artificial experiments or simulations. It has to be developed in an environment of real action. In the unicist approach doing and researching are integrated in a unified field. That is why only “doers” can research the field of complex adaptive processes. Observers can only rationalize them.

Complexity Science Research

Complexity Sciences are defined as the scientific approach to deal with adaptive systems considering them as a unified field. The critical masses of all the interdependent elements included in the unified field of an adaptive system define its functionality. The unicist approach to complexity sciences integrates ontology, science and actions in a unified field.

Adaptive Technologies for Businesses

The available IT technologies made the development of adaptive systems meaningful. The objective of building adaptive systems is to integrate software, hardware and peopleware in adaptive work or business processes to assure the quality of the results produced.

Peter Belohlavek

Adaptive behavior assessment: the Unicist Japanese Park

May 14, 2015 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots / Unicist Object Driven Organization tagged Business Diagnosis / Business Objects / business planning / Country Future Research / Fundamental analysis / growth strategies / Peter Belohlavek / scenario building / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach by Diego Belohlavek

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

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

April 14, 2015 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Complex Adaptive Systems / Complexity Science Research / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Theory by The Unicist Research Institute

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 http://www.unicist.org/repo

Overview

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.

Introduction

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 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 http://www.unicist.org/repo

Scientific Dissemination Committee

The Unicist Logical Approach: Fundamental Analysis + Technical Analysis

March 5, 2015 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots / Unicist Logical Approach tagged Fundamental analysis / Reliable Knowledge / Technical Analysis / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Logical Approach / Unicist Standard by Peter Belohlavek

Complex problem solving requires having the concept that describes the nature of the solution, the actions that need to be implemented to expand the existing boundaries of the problem and the technical knowledge to develop the minimum strategy to produce results. Concepts can be apprehended when the fundamentals of the solution have been integrated.

Fundamental knowledge without technical knowledge fosters “movement fallacies”. Technical knowledge without fundamental knowledge fosters “inaction fallacies”.

It has to be considered that the intrinsic structures of fundamental knowledge and of technical knowledge are opposite to each other, but their effects are complementary to build a solution.

That is why only people who can deal with the integration of these oppositions can apprehend concepts. This is the case of the universal apparent dichotomy of yin and yang.

The Unicist Theory, based on the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature, allowed developing the unicist ontological structure of fundamentals, which made fundamental analysis “resurrect from the ashes”.

Fundamental analysis is supposed to deal with the drivers of the nature of any entity but was transformed, probably influenced by technical analysis, into an analytic approach to standardized indicators.

The Unicist Theory provided the framework to research and discover the fundamentals of an entity and defined the structure of their integration.

The symbol of Yin and Yang, representing the TAO, necessarily emulates the structure of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature and is homologous with the Unicist Logic. If you are not aware of the scientific use of the TAO, we recommend reading the book “Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra.

Fundamentals are the elements that define the functionality of an entity.

They define the structure of its unicist ontology and allow building its ontogenetic map.

Fundamental analysis is the approach that defines the limits of the possibilities of the evolution of a given reality.

Fundamentals define the boundaries implicit in the functionality of a given reality.

Technical analysis deals with the cause-effect relation between “variables” that have been identified making a systemic compromise.

The discovery of the unicist ontology of evolution and the structure of concepts that regulate the evolution of living beings and their deeds established the structure for fundamental analysis integrating it with technical analysis in order to develop reliable knowledge.

Technical knowledge is popular because it is based on a dualistic logic, which is functional to the use of “binary neurons”. Fundamental knowledge requires accessing a double dialectical logic, which requires an action-reflection-action process. That is why fundamental knowledge is associated with wisdom.

The purpose of a knowledge acquisition process is to obtain reliable knowledge.

Reliable knowledge is necessary when individuals are willing to ensure a minimum strategy or are exposed to uncertain or risky environments.

In every day’s activity only operational knowledge is required.

This ontology is a final synthesis of the use of fundamental and technical analysis in the world of economic, social and business behavior.

Fundamentals describe the ontology of a given reality considered as a unified field. Technical analysis describes the cause-effect relations of a reality considered as a systemic object.

When working in a known context there is only need for feedback (operational analysis), an analytic approach and intuitive / rational decision making.

Technical Analysis and Fundamental Analysis are intrinsically opposite approaches for knowledge acquisition, but they are operational complements when reliable knowledge needs to be acquired. The natural pathway to knowledge acquisition begins by accessing the fundamentals, that define “what” is being done, and continues with the technical knowledge that defines “how” the operational solution will be achieved.

Technical analysis provides sufficient information and the necessary cause-effect groundings to make decisions.

When the context is uncertain the understanding of fundamentals is necessary.

Fundamentals are defined by the concepts that regulate the evolution of a fact.

Validation processes naturally degrade into fallacies when they do not include falsification processes.

Validation implies a non-destructive test and falsification is a destructive test measuring the accuracy and limits of a knowledge.

When a reliable knowledge is required to deal with minimum strategies, risks or uncertainty, the integration of technical and fundamental analysis is required.

The Business Intelligence Strategy

The driver of knowledge acquisition is the need for groundings in order to achieve a reliable knowledge to make decisions. Groundings are necessary when dealing with complexity, risk or uncertainty.

The minimum strategy is given by technical analysis to provide the necessary cause-effect knowledge. The maximal strategy to influence the environment is given by the knowledge of the fundamentals.

The catalyst to accelerate the building of reliable knowledge with a minimum strategy is conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge establishes the secure limits of cause-effect knowledge.

Fundamental analysis and technical analysis provide the operational structure to achieve the objective of having reliable knowledge to make decisions.

When technical analysis is not integrated with fundamental analysis it naturally derives into analogical/hypothetical knowledge. When reliable knowledge is needed both approaches must be integrated.

Synthesis

Fundamental Analysis

Fundamental analysis is the approach that defines the limits of the possibilities of the evolution of a given reality. Fundamentals define the boundaries implicit in the functionality of that given reality.

Although adaptive systems and complex systems have open boundaries, they can only be managed when limits have been defined.

Defining limits based on the fundamentals of a given reality implies dealing with its nature and accepting its evolution laws. In the short or the long run the evolution of a given reality will drive towards its nature.

Fundamental analysis provides the tools to describe the nature of a reality in order to forecast its evolution. Evolution can be inhibited and catalyzed by human actions; but it cannot be changed.

Technical Analysis

Technical analysis deals with the cause-effect relation between “variables” that have been identified by making a systemic compromise.

In order to be able to manage a reality in everyday actions it is necessary to define it with systemic tools.

Systemic tools are based on cause-effect relations and therefore the result of transforming a complex reality into a simple system downgrades the possibilities of success. In technical analysis success becomes probabilistic.

Fundamental analysis defines the possibilities (0 or 1) and technical analysis defines the probabilities (from 0 to 1).

Fundamental analysis has been downgraded during the last 30 years. As there were no objective tools to approach it, it was considered as the “subjective” aspects of technical analysis.

The discovery of the unicist ontology of evolution and the structure of the concept that regulate the evolution of living beings and their deeds, established the structure for fundamental analysis integrating it with technical analysis in order to develop reliable knowledge.

Peter Belohlavek

Conceptual Management – A Logical Approach to Businesses

January 22, 2015 in The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots / Unicist Logical Approach tagged Conceptual Knowledge / Conceptual Management / Conceptual Thinking / Human Adaptive Behavior / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Evolutionary Approach / Unicist Logical Approach by The Unicist Research Institute

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.

When 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:
https://www.unicist-school.org/complexity-sciences/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/concepts-make-you-free.pdf

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:

It sustains the development of the neural network that allows dealing with the origin of things and not only with the operational aspects.
It expands the language of the child driving her/him to deal with an implicit integrative, fuzzy and predicate logic.
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

Breakthrough: Discovery of the Ethical Intelligence and its Use

November 27, 2014 in Intelligent Systems / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Cobots tagged Discovery of the Ethical Intelligence / Ethical intelligence / Human Ontointelligence / Peter Belohlavek / The Unicist Research Institute / Unicist Confederation / Unicist Corporate University / Unicist Evolutionary Approach by Unicist Press Committee

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: www.unicist.org/sdp.shtml

The 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.

Children 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.

Conclusion

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

Definition

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.

Ethics of survival
Ethics of the earned value
Ethics of added value
Ethics of foundations
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.

The 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

This 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

This 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.

The 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

This 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.

The 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.

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.

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