Sorry your browser is not supported!

Hello folks. I am sure some of you know this about me: I love trying to figure things out or come up with new things on my own. I find it really fun to come up with my own theories about why things are the way they are, doing very minimal research, and then compare what I come up with to what real scientists have found. Most of the time I'm very wrong...

Now I know very little about human psychology, and I doubt these forums are filled with people who are experts in that area, but I thought it would be interesting to share what I have come up with and see what people say. Maybe someone who knows a thing or two about psychology will have some insight to what I am saying.

So to start off, my theory deals with the reason a person will or will not choose to do something. Basically, when a person begins deciding whether they will do something or not, they subconsciously consider a factor, which I call the Perceived Net Outcome, or PNO. Now when I say 'considering doing something', I mean literally anything. Whether the person is deciding if they want to put another ice cube in their cup, or if they are deciding if they are going to assassinate an important figure, they are subconsciously considering the PNO of that action. As my theory goes, a person will only and always act if they deem the PNO of the action to be positive, no exceptions; vice versa being true as well.

So what is the PNO? When a person considers the PNO of a potential action, their brain is calculating all of the potential, significant outcomes of that action. Their brain weighs all of the consequences of each outcome, considering how likely each consequence is, ultimately figuring out how positive the outcome of the situation is likely to be, and how it will likely benefit or hinder them. This gives the perceived net outcome. I say perceived, because the person cannot accurately predict and weigh every single possible outcome; that's humanely impossible in most scenarios. So, the PNO is an abstract measurement, quantifying the predicted overall positivity or negativity of the outcome brought about by a specific action, as is perceived by the person considering the action. Please note, the person considers the PNO from an entirely self centered perspective. If they deem that an action will, without significant consequence, benefit them, but cause problems for another, they will still see a positive PNO for example; the vice versa applies as well.

So to expand on a sentence in one of the previous paragraphs, my theory states that a person will always act if they find the PNO of the considered action to be positive. If they find the PNO of a considered action to be negative, they will not act. Ultimately, my theory states that a person will only do something if they see that it will ultimately benefit them, completely regardless of how it will ultimately affect others. Keep in mind, a person will see a negative PNO for all sorts of actions that would benefit them in the immediate. For example, one may see a negative PNO for an action that would benefit them right away, but would detriment another person in a way that would cause significant consequence to come back upon themselves.

Time for an example! You're sitting, bored out of your mind, at your work desk. In a strong British accent, you think to yourself, "Well this bloody boring situation is quite hide chapping, indeed." You fold a piece of paper into a fancy paper airplane, and now it's time to decide if you are going to project the aircraft at your boss's nose or not. Subconsciously, your brain begins weighing all of the possible, significant outcomes. You realize that a comedic relief could come out of the action, but you also realize that your boss could fire you for the action. If that happens, you know you'll lose your income, and things could get financially tight for you. Ultimately, you figure that the financial hardship is more likely, and far more significant than the comedic relief of low possibility. As far as you're concerned, you would benefit more from not throwing the plane than throwing it; you have just found a negative PNO to the action of throwing the plane. Because of this, you are psychologically unable to perform the action, and therefore don't.

Let's turn that around. You have a ton of money in the bank, and you have no idea why you're wasting your precious time at this boring job of yours. You know that popping your boss's nose blister with your handheld aircraft would be hilarious, and your coworkers would praise you for the comedic relief. Because you have so much money in the bank and hate the job so much, you have nothing to lose. You have just found a positive PNO to the action of throwing the paper airplane at your boss. You are therefore psychologically obligated to act, and so you do. You and everyone but the boss laughs, and you feel ten feet tall. The boss fires you, but you don't care. You go home, feeling quite joyed. You log onto your bank account, but you have a little 'oh sh//' moment. Turns out, that decimal place before the two zeros on the end of your balance number was invisible before, and you have a mere 1% the money you thought you had when you threw the paper airplane. Too bad PNO doesn't stand for Accurate Net Outcome; you only acted on what you perceived, and you only perceived based upon what you knew.

So, hopefully those examples have done a decent job demonstrating how my theory works. Of course, some potential problems with my theory come up. My theory basically states that it is psychologically impossible for a person to perform a completely selfless act, because the PNO is taken from a self centered perspective. Well surely, that can't be. After all, people selflessly donate money all the time, right? Many people love going out of their ways to do nice little deed for someone else, seemingly out of a completely selfless mindset. To see that my theory still works for these scenarios, we have to take it a bit deeper.

In order for you to complete a selfless act, say for another, you first have to decide that you want to perform a selfless act for them. By acting, you are fulfilling your own personal desire to perform a selfless act, thus bettering yourself. You feel better, knowing you did something you wanted to. And of course, you'll be considering how that person might praise or highly regard you for your selfless action; another reason you may want to. Well then, what if a person commits a selfless act, but they know that they will never be seen or recognized for it? Again, that goes back to them fulfilling their own personal desire to perform a selfless act, maybe so that they may feel better about themselves, or maybe even feel achieved.

I guess that sums up my theory pretty decently. I came up with it a few months ago, and gauging the reasons I do things, I'm finding it to be quite true. It's given me a new perspective on other people too, quite honestly. At first it was a little depressing to realize that all actions are, at the deepest level, based upon selfish intent. However, it has helped me to understand other people, and know how they work, a little better.

I have no idea how much of my theory is correct, and again, maybe someone here has some interesting insight to it. Thanks for reading it up to this point if you have! Surely you will all deem writing a reply to this post to have a positive PNO. After all, you'll earn 64 brownie points if you do.

Well to share my honest thoughts with you - isn't it obvious that a person will only perform an action if it is of benefit?

Well I mean yeah, it is pretty obvious; I was expecting that sort of reply. I guess the less intuitive part of my theory is that there is no such thing as a 100% selfless act; all actions are based off of selfish intent, at the deepest level.

I think this overlooks the fact that people sometimes do things that are not positive... You say:



But this isn't always true. What about people who purposely do something to harm others or themselves? That's certainly not positive or benefitting themselves.

Well, they may harm others, because they have issues and get excited off of that. People like that do exist. Or well, that's assuming what they do is extreme. They might merely put butter on the floor to get a good laugh off the person who slips and falls. So a random little prank would be an example of one doing minor bad to another to benefit themselves.

As for hurting one's self? Trying to get attention maybe, or in the case of things like cutting, release endorphins. Maybe one ends their own life, because their warped judgement says that will be what is best for them. I do not know of any cases of a person hurting themselves simply for the mere sake of hurting themselves. Even if that does happen, it's because the person has a desire to hurt themselves for whatever reason. By doing so, they are fulfilling that desire.

And again, even if what a person acts doesn't benefit them, they may have thought it would, so they did it. Hence, Perceived Net Outcome.

The only time that this isn't true is when you you owe somebody something.
You could do something entirely selfless to pay them back.

Another thing, what's the selfish part about you posting this thread?

Eeeh, not sure if I understand what you're saying. If you owe someone back, you know that you best pay them back, or bad things will happen. If you choose to do a selfless act to pay them back, it's not genuinely selfless as you are doing so as not to have to pay them back by other means.

I do apologize; OP is probably a little vague.

I think I understand your question. Writing this post had a positive PNO, because it would allow me to relieve the curiosity of what others think of my theory, and I was bored and wanted to type something.

Ok on the latter

But with the first, I'm not talking about a druggie debt collector or something like that.
More like a good friend helps you move houses. They don't expect anything back, but you feel like you should anyway.

Gotcha. Making yourself feel better, because you helped a friend, or at some subconscious level, you're expecting something back in return, even though you do not cognitively believe so. Something similar to that, perhaps.

And just maybe, there is a positive force we cannot explain, that makes someone please to do something positive for another, expecting nothing in return. I would be down with that idea.

It is indeed true that most of what we do involves self-interest. It has been propagated by many that all of the rational man's actions stem from biologically-encoded altruism. In cases of extreme bravery, we risk life and limb to save loved ones, especially family.
Our non-altruistic actions are governed by greed, be it for wealth or merely ego-driven.

However, there is the the so-called irrational man. I use OCD as an example. Knowing that no ill will come of not sanitizing his hand and cutlery, nor will any ill come of separating the food on his plate by category, this insane fellow does so anway, all the while hating what he is doing because it is a hassle, it is something about himself he despises and he knows it will ruin his date.

I think true freedom exists in doing purposeless things, especially to our detriment. However, if one did them seeking freedom then they would be fulfilling a desire, rendering it futile.

Of course I'm quite happy doing what I want because I want to and not doing certain things because I choose not to. I don't really care if I'm being selfish since I don't really tick like that.

Ah! The OCD example is something I have never thought of before, and that's an excellent example of a scenario where my theory falls through. I probably have a minor form of OCD myself, so I understand that quite well.

Well what do you know, so do I (though mine is not mild). My OCD about hygiene manifested about 3 years ago. I was mildly OCD since infancy and suffered a little mockery from my friends and classmates because I used to bring soap to school (to be fair, the kids used to trash the toilets and steal/trash/?? the soap so there never was any and I could not bear eating my lunch w/o washing my hands). Other signs included having to wash hands after touching money, refusing to eat with dirty cutlery/crockery and picking anything 'strange' out my food, eg a burned bit. However, I left school and got a job (involving handling money all day) and I was capable of living quite a normal life. I went out, I caught public transport and I was even lax as far as cleaning my room was concerned. Then, about 3 years back... I'm not prepared to talk about it on an open forum. If you want the details, PM me requesting them and I'll discuss it privately. If not, that's cool too and we'll leave out the messy bits.
Anyway I did end up fairly bad. Cognitive Behavior Therapy has not worked, nor has Exposure Therapy because of the way my brain works, specifically my mind's 'program' (again, I wish not to disclose that publicly). My current epilepsy medication likely also plays a role. I have other OCDs but they are controlled by me, without any assistance from psychiatrists, psycchologists or counselers. I find psychology of some interest, which is why I've observed and, to a point, 'handled' myself.

How's this for a counter-theory: "People will always choose the action that gives them the greatest sense of agency."

I think we feel good when helping others because we see that our actions make a difference in the world, and this makes us feel more in control of our own lives. When we do something for ourselves we get that same pleasant sense of agency, but we don't get the feedback from another person, unless someone like a parent praises us for our achievements. So praise is a gratitude substitute to encourage certain behaviour, but unlike gratitude, praise can also promote selfish behaviour as well as social behaviour. When you think about it, saying, "well done!", is the same as, "thank you".