Our belief systems extend our survival

Our senses are a primary tool to insure survival.

The brain uses the senses to identify threats.

The problem is that the senses are severely limited in range and scope.

Survival probabilities diminish as threats move beyond the immediate reach of our senses.

Dangers may lie just around the corner out of sight; dangers may lay hidden from our hearing; we might not smell what's coming; dangers may touch us which lie just beyond our reach; danger might be tasteless.

Technology extends our senses and, hence, our chances of survival.

But unfamiliar territory presents a host of possibilities for danger and even if our senses are extended by technology, they may be overloaded by the possibilities.

Belief systems enable us to sort through what is important to survival by both extending our senses and by limiting the selections among potential dangers, belief systems permit us to focus on priorities to identify viable dangers and discard non-threatening events and environments.

For example, a policeman believes that the people he is encountering in a dark alley represent a very real danger; his body and brain work together to engage defenses; gun drawn, eyes scanning, hearing at the ready, the policeman has enhanced his chances for survival.

If the policeman were to believe that everybody's beautiful and completely trustworthy, his chances in a dark alley would be practically nil if his belief system were not in tune with the reality of the situation.

"Belief" is the name we give to the survival tool of the brain that is designed to augment and enhance the danger-identification function of our senses: Beliefs extend the range of our senses so that we can better detect danger and thus improve our chances of survival as we move into and out of unfamiliar territory--beliefs, in essence, serve as our brain's "long-range danger detectors."

Functionally, our brains treat beliefs as internal "maps" of those parts of the world with which we do not have immediate sensory contact: As I sit in my living room I cannot see my car; although I parked it in my driveway some time ago, using only immediate sensory data I do not know if it is still there. As a result, at this moment sensory data is of very little use to me regarding my car--in order to find my car with any degree of efficiency my brain must ignore the current sensory data (which, if relied on in a strictly literal sense, not only fails to help me in locating my car but actually indicates that it no longer exists) and turn instead to its internal map of the location of my car. This is my belief that my car is still in my driveway where I left it [not necessarily a safe assumption if you live in Pierce County, particularly if you watched the season opener of Cops on the Fox Network, featuring the Pierce County Sheriff's Deputies in "Grand Theft Auto"]. By referring to my belief rather than to sensory data, my brain can "know" something about the world with which I have no immediate sensory contact. This "extends" my brain's knowledge of and contact with the world.

The ability of belief to extend contact with the world beyond the range of our immediate senses substantially improves our ability to survive: A caveman has a much greater ability to stay alive if he is able to maintain a belief that dangers exist in the jungle even when his sensory data indicate no immediate threat; a police officer will be substantially more safe if he or she can continue to believe that someone stopped for a traffic violation could be an armed psychopath with an impulse to kill even though they present a seemingly innocuous appearance.

Biology and survival

Our brain's primary purpose is to keep us alive. It certainly does more than that, but survival is always its fundamental purpose and always comes first.

If we are injured to the point where our bodies only have enough energy to support consciousness or a heartbeat but not both, the brain has no problem choosing-it puts us into a coma (survival before consciousness), rather than an alert death-spiral (consciousness before survival).

Because every brain activity serves a fundamental survival purpose, the only way to accurately understand any brain function is to examine its value as a tool for survival.

Even the difficulty of successfully treating such behavioral disorders as obesity and addiction can only be understood by examining their relationship to survival.

Any reduction in caloric intake or in the availability of a substance to which an individual is addicted is always perceived by the brain as a threat to survival.

As a result the brain powerfully defends the overeating or the substance abuse, producing the familiar lying, sneaking, denying, rationalizing, and justifying commonly exhibited by individuals suffering from such disorders.

Beyond the senses

Because beliefs do not require immediate sensory data to be able to feed valuable survival information to the brain, they have the additional survival function of providing information about the realm of life that does not deal directly with sensory entities.

This is the area of abstractions and principles that involves such things as "reasons," "causes," and "meanings."

I cannot hear or see the "reason" called a "low pressure zone" that makes a thunderstorm rain on my parade, so my ability to believe that low pressure is the reason assists me.

If I were to rely strictly on my senses to determine the cause of the storm I could not tell why it occurred.

Therefore my brain's reliance on my "belief" in the reason called "low pressure," rather than on sensory data (or, as in the case of my car, my lack of it) assists in my survival by enabling me to identify a reasonable explanation for observed events.

Beliefs linger on in the face of contradictory evidence

Because senses and beliefs are both tools for survival and have evolved to augment one another, our brain considers them to be separate but equally important purveyors of survival information: The loss of either one endangers us--without our senses we could not know about the world within our perceptual realm; without our beliefs we could not know about the world outside our senses or about meanings, reasons, or causes.

This means that beliefs are designed to operate independent of sensory data--in fact, the whole survival value of beliefs is based on their ability to persist in the face of contradictory evidence: Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence--if they did, they would be virtually useless as tools for survival: Our caveman would not last long if his belief in potential dangers in the jungle evaporated every time his sensory information told him there was no immediate threat; a police officer unable to believe in the possibility of a killer lurking behind a harmless appearance could easily get hurt or killed.

As far as our brain is concerned, there is absolutely no need for data and belief to agree-- they have each evolved to augment and supplement one another by contacting different sections of the world--they are designed to be able to disagree: This is why scientists can believe in God and people who are generally quite reasonable and rational can believe in things for which there is no credible data such as flying saucers, telepathy, and psychokinesis.

When data and belief come into conflict, the brain does not automatically give preference to data--this is why beliefs-even bad beliefs, irrational beliefs, silly beliefs, or crazy beliefs-often don't die in the face of contradictory evidence: The brain doesn't care whether or not the belief matches the data--it cares whether the belief is helpful for survival... Period! So while the scientific, rational part of our brains may think that data should supersede contradictory beliefs, on a more fundamental level of importance our brain has no such bias: It is extremely reticent to jettison its beliefs--like an old soldier with an old gun who does not quite trust that the war is really over, the brain often refuses to surrender its weapon even though the data say it should.

In other words, we continue to employ meanings, reasons and / or causes about what we sense because of our belief systems in spite of the facts as a matter of survival.

We cling to our beliefs in order to survive, whether our beliefs make sense or not even beliefs that do not seem clearly or directly connected to survival.

Beliefs do not occur individually or in a vacuum: They are related to one another in a tightly interlocking system that creates the brain's fundamental view of the nature of the world--it is this system that the brain relies on in order to experience consistency, control, cohesion, and safety in the world--it must maintain this system intact in order to feel that survival is being successfully accomplished.

Trying to change any belief, no matter how small or silly it may seem, can produce ripple effects through the entire system and ultimately threaten the brain's experience of survival: This is why people are so often driven to defend even seemingly small or tangential beliefs.

Survival tied to beliefs of Identity

Who are you?

Who you believe you are, defines your identity.

Your identity extends your survival.

Identity is necessary to your survival because if you are to survive, you must protect who you are.

And who you are, is who you believe you are.

Therefore, if you are going to continue to survive your belief in your identity must preserved.

It becomes a circular tautology which defines your personal survival.

If your identity is a "nice person", your survival instincts will kick in when that belief in yourself is perceived to be under attack: The danger is that if you cease to be a "nice person", you will cease to exist and the person who threatens this belief must be neutralized in some way.

There are several coping mechanisms to accomplish this: Among them is to reject the person's "attack" by trivializing it; ignoring it; run from it; killing the person and hiding the body [not a recommended practice].

One appropriate way to cope with this situation may be to "take the experience to heart" and change to become a "nice person" again.

The point is that there is very strong incentive to preserve an identity to survive.

If you change your identity, you "die", and some other person "replaces" you.

It's not rational, but it is survival.

Religion represents a belief system rooted in survival: Eternal life is the ultimate survival--any challenges to religious beliefs represent a threat to eternal survival.

Corporate Identity and survival

The answer to the question, "Who are we?" is complex, elusive and can confound strategic change.

What do Kmart, Lucent, Bull, Marks & Spencer, Moulinex, Polaroid and Xerox have in common? All are examples of once thriving companies that seem unable to reinvent themselves in response to environmental change: Certain companies are unable to adapt to shifts in the competitive environment, despite the best efforts of their CEOs and management teams, because the required adaptive response is inconsistent with the company's core identity, that is to say, they are delusional.

Puzzling decision-making patterns — in strategy, hiring and resource allocation — rooted not in pragmatic analysis but in deeply held beliefs about the company's identity which emerged early in the company's history and had been reinforced over time made no sense for the company's survival--thus extending the concept of mental illness to corporate entities.

An individual's identity can be anchored — consciously or subconsciously — in a gender, a generation, a life style, an ethnic group and/or a profession; a company's identity may be anchored in a core business, a knowledge base, a nationality, a charismatic leader, an ownership and governance structure, and/or an operating philosophy: Organizational identity thus forms a cognitive framework that filters how members of the organization, and all its stakeholders, view the world and perceive issues, usually inappropriately.

For example, a company whose identity is primarily anchored in manufacturing would typically pay more attention to engineering, production capacity, productivity, quality, product innovation or long-term investment.

A company whose identity is invested in a brand would be more likely to view the world in terms of differentiation, brand awareness and consistency, customer loyalty or communication--a triumph over image over substance in itself.

Organizational identity has a political component, too, in that it influences the distribution of resources and power among stakeholders, both internal and external.

Changing a company's identity is therefore difficult, in part, because it disrupts the balance of power between constituencies, usually leading to fascinating turf wars.

Among other examples, the French appliance maker that embodied the postwar French industrial renaissance for several decades: Since its founding in 1932, the company had emphasized building a large and modern industrial base, but imported goods from low-wage countries and their saturation of western markets since the 1980s weakened that model and, in 2001, the company went into liquidation after two decades of losses.

Although the founder and his successors sought to reduce the payroll burden, rationalize manufacturing, launch new products and streamline the organization's structure, they never questioned the company's specialization in small appliances or the centrality of their French industrial base [the French are like that, you know].

As a result, they were unable to successfully redefine Moulinex as a "household brand" (as opposed to a small appliance manufacturer) and improve the company's cost structure in order to focus on brand management, new product innovation and distribution.

A strong identity can become a strategic prison [which may be a harbinger for Martha Stewart], but some companies have successfully transformed their identities and have reinvented themselves adapting to the current industry or mutate into a new one [I know, I know--name one! Well, I just can't! But there must be one somewhere!]--though the effort is not often successful for the reasons cited about changing identity.

We'd have mentioned the HP / Compaq merger as a success story here, but no one can yet identify the "success" part of the merger, even though they did, pretty much, re-Invent each other and have REALLY changed their corporate identity [note to self: not all change is progress].

Speaking of Identity, has anybody noticed that Chevrolet Ads with "Like a Rock" sound more like "Like Iraq"? Not a pretty picture that, especially these days.

It is also the case that most corporations, like individuals, are not, let's see, how did Dr. Chris Argyris, the Professor Emeritus of the Harvard School of Business Communication put it? Not good at processing the truth; Hmmph! They Lie! All the misfortune 500 companies lie to themselves because they just can't face the fact they are all hypocrites and they don't want to face the bad news of realities!

Success can only be achieved by organizations which continuously assess the degree of fit between a company's identity and its environment as a component of all strategic considerations: The only way to achieve a qualitative leap forward is to take on the elusive, but critical, job of anticipating identity obsolescence at the same time as anticipating the obsolescence of products, systems or business strategies.

It also helps to face the truth that you are irrelevant now and need to move forward with your thinking.

The same is true throughout the lifetime of any person: Fashions pass and circumstances change--the successful person will maintain stability while employing strategies of appropriate change.

This is all complicated by the fact that change--even appropriate change--will always be perceived through a belief system as a threat to survival--the survival of the individual's identity.

And this knowledge is used by the scoundrel to cheat the "nice person".

Survival of the scoundrel

Scoundrels of every stripe--whether mere narcissists or full-fledged psychopaths--take advantage of the belief systems of other people to insure their own survival.

It may occur to you, if you are not a scoundrel, that there is no particularly good reason for the scoundrel to survive, but if you have followed the previous material, you may have concluded that the survival instincts of the scoundrel are extreme and he [or she] will push you to the limits to tap into your survival instincts to enhance their own survival.

Thus, whether we are talking about a dishonest CEO, a philandering abusive minister, or a well-healed con man, we are speaking to the belief system they use to extend their senses to insure the continuity of their own identity and survival.

The first belief of the scoundrel is that you are viable prey.

Lies are the first tool of choice of the scoundrel.

Lies often lay below the "radar" of survival because we tend to believe the people we know.

Scoundrels live the lie so they can convince you that you really know them and, hence, gain your trust.

The primary lie is that they care for you.

Someone who cares for you adds to your survival.

Anyone who convinces you that they are contributing to your survival gains your trust.

Thus, those who convince you that they will "lead you into the Kingdom" are not just your friend, they are the key to your ultimate survival, and you must trust them if you are to survive.

Your belief in their contribution to your survival may lead you to empty your bank accounts and turn your entire life over to them, while they bleed you dry.

Your belief system takes on the characteristics of the belief system of the figure who guarantees that your survival is assured, whether it is real or not.

Even when the scoundrel has been exposed for who and what he really is, the beliefs survive because they are central to your continued survival.

Scoundrels rely on your defense systems to lead you into danger--all the while plying their trade to enhance their own survival, because their own survival is the only thing important to them: You don't count--they just don't let you know you don't count by employing their deceptions.

Using feelings and emotions rather than objective facts enable scoundrels to circumvent your survival mechanisms and allow them to live off of you, just as a parasite lives off its host.

Viable survival techniques

Weeds often look like the good guys when they're sprouts.

The trick is to identify the weeds as early as possible and root them out--or at least keep them out of your yard.

We should be aware of "Satan's" devices to prevent deception--Satan being the current scoundrel in our lives.

Knowing who to trust is key to identifying the person who will contribute to our survival personally and as a society.

A pattern of past history is the best guide to identifying future actions of any person.

Women often marry a man knowing that he is abusive, alcoholic or worse in the belief that they can change him.

It seldom happens because the man wants to continue to survive the same way he was.

The woman wants to use the man for her own survival.

When that doesn't work, she brings up things he did ten years ago to win an argument and stop him cold--for purposes of her own survival.

Any relationship actively based on using another solely for the purpose of one's own survival is doomed to failure.

This isn't rocket science.

Relationships which last can only be rooted in caring for the future of the other person--not an exercise in exploitation and trivialization.

If a person isn't particularly good at keeping his word today, it's a pretty good indication that the future with him isn't worth sharing.

If a person just lives with their problems, it's a pretty good indication that misery is ahead.

If a person relies on image, it's a pretty good indication there isn't a lot of substance beneath.

Other people's lies are inimical to your own survival.

Abuse as Survival

Sex has everything to do with survival: While none of us are going to live forever in this life, we live on through our progeny.

Therefore, things which are sexy attract us.

This is the basis for surrendering $8 on Sunday afternoon to watch Brad Pitt so he can make $66 million in salary for making 6 pictures: The image of sexuality triumphs over any substance of contributions to society.

Similar things can be said about former President Clinton, although he contributed to our collective survival by prosperity producing policies [long term viability not withstanding] along with the underlying proposition that he was a babe magnet.

Projecting power is a part of sexuality.

For the same underlying reasons, athletes become our heroes because they triumph over their competitors and enable us to vicariously participate in their survival.

By projecting the image that they are survivors, singers, actors, and athletes further enhance their survival by inducing us to spend our money to make them rich, thus, we give up a part of our survival by contributing to theirs and then admire them because they have so much money--and thus attracting us further because money is part of the sexy survival [how stupid can we be?].

We give other people better chances of survival through a belief system that makes us think that by doing so, we will have a better chance of survival.

It would make more sense in supporting farmers and teachers, but human beings are attracted to things that look good [a survival mechanism] and, thus, are willing to throw away big bucks on mediocre Windows products: If it doesn't work right, at least it's pretty and we'd rather have something pretty over something functional that needs a Paint job!

Anyone alert reading through the Old Testament should be able to form the opinion that the Heroes found there have less to do with "righteousness" than pure sexuality: It isn't so much that David loved God that made him a success as it was that he won wars for his country, was attractive, and married the King's Daughter--and brought the whole nation together under his rulership; the citizens were glad to give up their personal power to him because he was a winner in the survival category.

Similar things could be said about other Biblical heroes.

We're for the underdog as long as he survives [but quick to abandon the loser].

Natural selection gives the advantage to those who project an image of power.

People cope with irrational behavior by attempting to placate it, just as birds at the airport are at first frightened by the noise, but later become accustomed to it and nest there.

Flashes of anger give an evolutionary advantage of survival through natural selection, throwing off potential predators.

Just as a wolf guarding pups may face down a bear, so a small, petty leader of an obscure cult may be able to overcome seemingly overwhelming odds faced with what looks to be certain extinction.

Narcissism gives pathetic small men who have nothing in particular to recommend them the power to appear "bigger than life".

Arrogance always wins in the short term.

This gives rise to the proposition that there is an evolutionary advantage to abuse.

Abusive people dominate others in their environment, thus giving them an edge in the survival department.

Bullying is all about survival.

Perversely, people are often attracted to abusive people for the same reason that they are attracted to athletes--they are the winners who triumph over others, and by tagging along, we become winners too, although we are losers for doing it.

We never said it needed to make sense.

Not only do alcoholics, drug abusers, criminals, psychopaths, narcissists and violent people have every incentive to remain the same because their belief system extends their senses for purposes of survival, but the survival of their inappropriate behavior contributes to their survival by stealing the power of others to survive.

It's a win-win situation for the abuser in the survival department.

There's no real incentive to change unless the rest of us apply real power to stem the tide of abuse: Abusers will not change unless forced to do so, and they survive by plying their abuse.

Asking them to play nice just sets you up as a fool to use as their next survival source.

Life is REALLY too short

None of us will survive in the long term and that is a belief you can bank on.

Meanwhile, life is too short to dedicate to scoundrels, so check your belief system carefully for your own survival.

Why should you diminish your survival and the rest of society to contribute to the survival of someone who shouldn't survive?