what is the (subliminal) goal of a conversation ?

To remove discomfort. That is the basis of all human action, including conversation.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/H ... tion_3.pdf

Or to seek pleasure and validation, the other side of the coin.

Candid wrote:Or to seek pleasure and validation, the other side of the coin.

Yep, exactly. When you remove cold you are adding heat. I'm not sure why Ludwig von Mises chose to frame it as "remove discomfort" but he discusses the seek pleasure or avoid pain dynamic.

To take a more systemic view, another purpose is to establish/deepen a shared context and thus a relationship.

jargan wrote:To take a more systemic view, another purpose is to establish/deepen a shared context and thus a relationship.

I agree. Even when it is a tension filled, "This is mine and that is yours, threaten mine and I will punish you" conversation, it is still developing a shared context, thus clarifying the relationship both overtly and subliminally. We most often don't realize the subliminal aspects of the signals we send, but the common practice of mating rituals involves a fairly systemic purpose related to developing a shared context.

Hi guys,

thank you very very much for sharing your insights they are all really helpful.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:To remove discomfort. That is the basis of all human action, including conversation.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/H ... tion_3.pdf

I was thinking Richard that this is at least a real hedonistic point of view.

jargan wrote:To take a more systemic view, another purpose is to establish/deepen a shared context and thus a relationship.

Good said it's sooo helpful. It makes me realize what to do when I'm going to talk to people. That is why NLP and hypno, when I started with it more than 5 years ago, offered me a lot of tools to communicate better.

I hope it doesnt sound too silly or offending but back then manipulating people with speech seemed to make more sense to me then talking to people without any goal.

But now I have a new, REAL purpose.

Hypnoboy wrote:

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:To remove discomfort. That is the basis of all human action, including conversation.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/H ... tion_3.pdf

I was thinking Richard that this is at least a real hedonistic point of view.

It is an economic point of view. Mises was an economist, not a psychologist.

You are cold. Chopping wood is a discomfort, but freezing is a bigger discomfort, hence you chop to build a fire. ALL action, is driven by discomfort of some form. Hedonism would certainly be included, but of all discomforts we act to remove, hedonistic acts would be but a small, small sliver.

Applied to conversation, many of our discomforts are below the surface, subliminal. You converse to gain comfort...the uncomfortable silence for instance that spurs idle talk sometimes.

I wouldn't say all action is driven by discomfort. If you look at a "hierarchy of needs" kind of construct, removing discomfort would be one big driver, and as more and more discomfort gets eliminated, striving for new things (which is not necessarily based on discomfort) becomes more of a factor. All of this is semantics to some degree, but your perspective on these things can have quite a bit of influence on how effectively you can motivate yourself and to what extent you're actually going to consider doing certain things.

jargan wrote:I wouldn't say all action is driven by discomfort. If you look at a "hierarchy of needs" kind of construct, removing discomfort would be one big driver, and as more and more discomfort gets eliminated, striving for new things (which is not necessarily based on discomfort) becomes more of a factor.

Hi jargan, I have previously discussed Malslow's hierarchy of needs as it relates to Mises work on economics. Where along the hierarchy do you believe a need is not the removal of discomfort?

The opposite of discomfit is comfort. It is a spectrum.

discomfort <------------------------------------> comfort



Personally, I look at the pyramid and don't see at any point where the discomfort/comfort spectrum fails to apply. If you are removing discomfort you are seeking comfort. We could use pain/pleasure to discuss as well, but I'm focused on Mises work.

All of this is semantics to some degree, but your perspective on these things can have quite a bit of influence on how effectively you can motivate yourself and to what extent you're actually going to consider doing certain things.

How so? I agree, but probably not for the same reasons. Are you referring to NLP? Positive psychology, etc?

I don't know, to me comfort is not necessarily just the total absence of discomfort. The assumption here is that once all negatives have been removed, change is no longer possible. The way I see it, the absence of negatives still allows for adding more positives. I admit that this is a smallish distinction but I think it's important.

How so? I agree, but probably not for the same reasons. Are you referring to NLP? Positive psychology, etc?

Positive psychology is an example of the general idea, I suppose (and NLP is just weird), and in fact positive psychology might make a similar argument: if all we focus on is removing pain (or discomfort for a more neutral term), aren't we missing a thing or two?

I've seen the idea of push vs. pull motivation somewhere, I can't recall the source, but basically the argument is that avoiding pain and seeking pleasure are two distinct types of motivation, and usually the former will have precedence over the latter. It goes on that many people are really only familiar with the first type, and if they have to motivate themselves, they do it by constructing a belief/value system which results in pain if the objective is not achieved. I've done my fair share of that, too, and in one case I ended up constructing a catch-22 scenario in which any possible action increased pain. The way I got out of that was by taking the pressure off and eventually using the other type of motivation.

I'm not sure there's an actual neurological difference between the two, though I suspect that there is (with no proper evidence, shame on me).

jargan wrote:I don't know, to me comfort is not necessarily just the total absence of discomfort. The assumption here is that once all negatives have been removed, change is no longer possible. The way I see it, the absence of negatives still allows for adding more positives. I admit that this is a smallish distinction but I think it's important.

What difference do you think it makes to your actions?

If we accept Mises theory that all action is the removal of discomfort, or if we accept your theory, that discomfort is negative, and once all negatives (discomforts) have been removed, then adding positives or comfort is possible, how does that influence your decisions, what is the actual application?

Whether the spectrum is labeled:
Discomfort <----> Comfort
Negative <----> Positive
Pain <----> Pleasure
Bad <----> Good

What difference do you think it makes to human action?

I've seen the idea of push vs. pull motivation somewhere, I can't recall the source, but basically the argument is that avoiding pain and seeking pleasure are two distinct types of motivation, and usually the former will have precedence over the latter.

Two distinct types is interesting, but I am wondering again what difference it makes from an applied standpoint? Does it make a difference whether you buy strawberries verses apples? The single spectrum is simplistic, but applicable. You buy strawberries instead of apples as you see the strawberries as being more comfort, more positive, more pleasure, more good. It is comparative.

What I see with two disntict types is the possibility of an X axis (avoiding pain) and a Y axis (seeking pleasure) which would then form 4 potential quadrants.

-1- High pleasure, High pain
-2- Low pleasure, High pain
-3- High pleasure, Low pain
-4- Low pleasure, Low pain

Possibly then you might say the person buys strawberries instead of apples, because??? Strawberries might fall in the high pleasure/low pain quadrant and the apple in the low pleasure/low pain quadrant.

If avoiding pain is the preferred action, then any actions in quadrant 2 would be avoided at all costs, and actions in quadrant 3 preferred.

I'm not sure there's an actual neurological difference between the two, though I suspect that there is (with no proper evidence, shame on me).

I'm not sure either. Good vs bad, comfort vs discomfort, positive vs negative are all subjective states. If I jump out of an airplane neurologically I feel fear, adrenaline, but it is pleasure rather than pain. The same physiological response happens if confronted by an armed robber and it is perceived as pain.

What difference do you think it makes to your actions?

If we accept Mises theory that all action is the removal of discomfort, or if we accept your theory, that discomfort is negative, and once all negatives (discomforts) have been removed, then adding positives or comfort is possible, how does that influence your decisions, what is the actual application?

Good question.

The cheap and easy part of the answer is that it *feels* different, which turns into actual behavior when people talk about their experience.


There's a more interesting answer though. The difference between wanting to move towards point A vs wanting to move away from point B is hard to see when there's one degree of freedom but very easy to see when there is more than one. You can move in *any* direction to get away from point B, but only one direction will take you to point A. The difference between wanting to move closer to being a good singer vs wanting to move away from being a bad singer is that when you want to move away from being a bad singer you can also move towards not being a singer at all. Or towards being a mediocre singer. Or being a *weird* singer. Anything that keeps "is a bad singer" from evaluating to "true".

It's harder to discriminate between "moving toward being a good singer" and "moving away from being not-good at singing" (i.e. "away from points that aren't point A"), but it's also a lot harder to do because there are too many things to move away from and it's easy to miss some. To do a good job, you have to calculate what brings you closer to point A before figuring out what to move away from anyway

Discomfort comes from perception (you can't fear the tiger you don't know is there), so an easy way to avoid discomfort that is pretty much always there is just to avoid perceiving things - to "stick your head in the sand", so to speak. People do this all the time (that's what "being in denial" is, for example). People often recognize the problem with this and try to fix it by making it painful to stick their head in the sand, but *that* discomfort is avoidable by simply denying that you're sticking your head in the sand, so what you end up with is people denying that they're in denial. When was the last time you told someone that they were in denial and had them respond "wait, really?"?

So one class of differences that comes out is that people will do things that are ineffective and downright nonsensical in avoiding discomfort in ways that they don't do when chasing positive rewards.

Another prediction that "removing discomfort is the only motivator" makes is that people would never voluntarily endure discomfort unless it helped them avoid a greater discomfort. This prediction is pretty hard to uphold when you look at just *how much stuff* people will do that is uncomfortable. People will eat spicy peppers that make them poop spicy poops, they'll do kinky sh** and ask their lovers to whip and spank them, they'll run miles and miles for no reason other than to prepare for running even more miles. Sure, some people get wiggy without their morning runs, so maybe it can sometimes look like they're just avoiding a different type of discomfort. However I've gotten a group of people to play capture the flag with stun guns and I'm pretty sure none of them were itching for their "getting tased in the back" fix. You could say that they did it to avoid being the person who didn't want to play, but if that were the case, then you'd expect that making people more comfortable choosing to not play would decrease participation rates, and I find the opposite. You'd also expect them to generally be displeased at placing another source of discomfort in their path for them to avoid, but I generally find that people are happy to have some uncomfortable (but fun!) options now and then.

Does that help?