Pass the Positive

How can a positive be passed to someone that it doesn’t affect directly, to add to their sum positive perception?

It seems that an individual's positive perception is generally mostly influenced by positive aspects which have a relatively noticeable effect on them directly. This would make sense based on the idea that all perception of negativity or positivity, is caused by instinctual reinforcement triggers, as I further tried to understand in a post from last yr; Formula For Feedback. But interpretation seems to allow a lot of adaptability for the resulting perception. As I tried to further explain in my last post; Past Positive, interpretation of aspects of life, is a step of comprehension and conscious awareness, which allows alteration (or potential mental self manipulation) of which factors in life are perceived as positive or negative. So how can someone use their interpretation of positive factors, to increase their resulting positive perception, even when those factors are external, and don’t seem to affect them directly?

External positive factors could be; knowledge of someone else being happy, or knowledge of a concept, development, or process which is beneficial in some way, yet has little to no effect on the individual themselves. Some examples could be; Frank knows that his friend who moved to another continent is now living a happy fulfilling life, yet he never gets to hang out any more. Or Beth learns that scientists just developed a method to cure a disease to help thousands of people, but she doesn’t have the disease herself or know anyone personally who does. Or John hears that a country on another continent developed and is implementing a new education system which projects it will improve that countries economy by 20%. 

These types of developments or concepts benefit others, but not the individual themselves. Since the basic instinctual positive reinforcement triggers don't seem to include factors which don't directly affect the individual, perceiving these types of concepts as positive, seems to be exceptionally difficult. Comprehension of complicated concepts is a step beyond the function of instinctual reinforcement triggers, as the affects of some concepts are removed from the individual, and therefore would not have been developed as a function for benefiting basic survival and reproduction. 

1 potential instinctual positive reinforcement, that might be plausibly indirectly triggerable by these concepts, could be; care for others of the same species and pack. Perhaps, as pack animals, if another member of the pack receives something beneficial, this would trigger some positive reinforcement, as it would still be beneficial for an individual's survival, if another pack member is healthy and strong, to add to the packs strength. Since there is varying degrees of reinforcement influence, it seems likely it would be minor positive influence compared to the individual receiving a benefit themselves. But some, is better than none.

If we have the mental ability to interpret concepts which benefit others, as a positive influence towards our own perception, this would give the allowance to potentially perceive a multitude of concepts as positive. This could increase personal sum positive perception, by utilizing the amazing adaptability and functionality of conscious comprehension. Simply being happy for others, allows concepts such as; societal or technological development, or knowledge of people being happy whom were close in relation, to positively influence the individual that is aware of the concepts. 

Considering the quantity of positive aspects affecting others in life, and the workability of interpretation, to use those positives, perceiving others positives, as your own, has the potential to be a significantly effective way to Pass the Positive. 

Past Positive

How can someone perceive positives from the past, which they no longer have, as positive?

Typically, it seems that thinking about positive aspects of life which are not in the present, often can cause a negative perception. As I attempted to understand in a recent post; Positive Reinforcement Perception Relativity, having a positive perception seems to be relative to what an individual is using to compare positive aspects (of any given situation), to. If comparing present positive aspects to past positives, the interpretation often becomes, considering any lack of present positives, as a negative. In that post, I suggested the option of ignoring the past positives and focusing on present positives. But is there some method of comprehension of past positives, which allows focus on past positives, and a positive interpretation, despite the current lack of those positives?

Considering the core trigger for perceiving something as negative, seems to come from instinctual negative reinforcement triggers, perhaps comprehending those reasons, that an individual's mentality is being triggered negatively, can be a tool in the method of overwriting the natural negative result. 1 common strong instinctual negative reinforcement trigger would likely be; being apart from someone you were close to, as naturally we are pack animals, and negative reinforcement for this, causes the urge to pursue staying with a pack, for the benefit of survival. Another negative reinforcement trigger, would probably be losing possessions, as naturally, avoiding losing possessions, such as food or a quality area to live, would be beneficial for survival. Another may be losing an ability to perform an action, as a similar concept, since avoiding losing an ability (such as via injury of a limb), should be beneficial.

These seem to be the basic natural negative reinforcement triggers, which can then be triggered by a multitude of scenarios, especially considering the complexity of modern day life, with society and technology. No longer having someone in your life, could happen in the scenario of a friend moving away, arguments with a family member causing a disconnect, a boyfriend or girlfriend breaking up, or someone you know passing away. Losing possessions can situate in the way of; moving to a new city because of family, a car breaking down, being laid off from a job, having to sell clothes you’ve had for years, or losing a place to live, due to failed payments. Losing an ability might be in the form of a disease restricting physical capabilities, an accident losing a limb, a mental disorder, or common loss of ability from age. 

Simply having the knowledge that; the trigger of negativity from the loss of these past positives, is an instinctual process of the mind, developed for reinforcement of basic situations, should be potentially helpful. Comprehending the function of a process, allows understanding of the cause and effect, allowing the potential to be aware of, and cause more effective processes, for a more preferable result. This is the basic advantage of comprehension and conscious awareness. By comprehending the function of negative reinforcement triggers, someone can alter the factors involved in causing the end result. Since a result of a more positive perception should be preferable, the adjustable factors involved, would be mental interpretation of the initial negative trigger. Mental interpretation can be self manipulated, to bypass that end result of negativity. 

To manipulate the interpretation, 1 step is to gain the knowledge of the function, and that the current function is not preferable, with its end result of negative perception. Perhaps knowing the cause of the negative perception, and knowing you have the ability to redirect interpretation, can be positive enough of a concept, in itself, to redirect interpretation to an end result with significantly reduced negativity. But beyond the positive influence of knowing this concept in itself, alternate positives can be focused on, to add to the resulting positive sum perception.

Besides the option of using positives which are unrelated to the scenario, or positives caused by a fresh opportunity (as I mentioned in my previous post), positives of experience and knowledge gained, can be interpreted directly from the past positives. For eg, if you can no longer be around someone that you were close to, things you’ve learned from them, or positive influences they had on you, to cause you to become a better person, can be present positive aspects to focus on. Mostly the same concept can apply to possessions or abilities lost, since experience and knowledge, are a common positive which is gained from past situations.

These types of positives (as well as knowledge of the concept in itself) should be some of the easiest to connect for interpretation, with past, yet lost, positives, since they are more direct links, and related to the individual themselves. Since the step of interpretation is so adaptable, via comprehension and knowledge, there should be more applicable positive aspects connected to past positives, to be potentially used as a tool for causing the end result perception to be more positive. Basically, any instinctual positive reinforcement trigger can be focussed on, to improve the resulting perception. More complicated connections to past positives, or more complicated comprehension of something being positive (such as inconspicuous positive influence on others/ situations, or being happy for someone else), can be more difficult to work into interpretation.

But the beauty of comprehension, is it allows that workability and adaptability, for the potential to have a positive resulting perception, from a Past Positive 

Scope of Hope

Is hope a help or hinder?

To hope, is to want and have some expectation that something positive will happen. The common connotation seems to be that it's a good thing, to hope. But as I tried to understand in my last post; Positive Reinforcement Perception Relativity, too much focus on a positive that is not currently present, can cause the perception of negativity, due to comparing potential positives to current positives, and viewing the lack of present positives, as a negative. This seems to make sense in the comparison of past positives, or positives which others have, but does it also apply to potential future positives?

Potential positives might have a different element involved. If the potential positive is highly probable, and soon to occur, then it might be plausible to use that positive to increase current mental positivity. Since a positive perspective seems to require knowledge of positive aspects that an individual has, if a future positive is known to be very probable by the individual, it can add to the positive aspects for them to focus on, to increase the sum positive perception. The future positive should be near enough in the future, and certain enough, that they can allow it to energise them, by basically considering it the present. Or perhaps focus on present factors which lead up to the future occurrence (such as preparing).

For eg, I have a tag and bonfire event tomorrow, which I can perhaps use a positive influence. Since I really enjoy this type of event, I can consider it positive, and also because its only 1 day away, and have had some present preparation for it. It’s also highly probably to occur, in my mind, since I know that enough reliable people are planning to attend, and the weather forecast looks good, and is reliable enough for this close of a time period. 

If the potential positive is questionable of whether it will occur, focusing too much on it can lead to stress, and also focus on the potential that it does not occur. Once the probability is high enough (from the estimate of the individual) that the potential positive will not occur, then they will likely come back to perceiving the hypothetical situation of lack of positives, as a negative, by comparing the scenario of positives, to the scenario of lack of positives.

For eg, if I focus on the hope that a certain women will want to date and be in a relationship with me, at some time in the future, I can easily perceive this as negative. Since the probability seems low, by my best estimate, considering current factors, if I focus on that hope, I will likely compare that potential positive to my current lack of that positive, resulting in the perception of current negativity. And since the timeline is so unknown, I would likely perceive any time before it potentially happening, as a negative. 

In the case of the future positive being too far in the future, the individual will likely consider it to not be a present positive. If it’s not a present positive, then the same misinterpretation happens, of perceiving the lack of positives, as a negative. Over-focus on a far future positive will likely cause this negative perception, due to thinking about all the time before the positive occurs, and considering that time to be negative, because of its lack of positive. 

Hope for something questionable or far in the future potentials can be a useful thing, for motivation to take applicable actions required to cause that potential future positive. As with preparation, taking present actions toward a future potential, can contribute to perceptible present positives. Over-focus on the future positive, seems to be mainly where the problem comes in. 

A lot of focus on that potential positive itself, causes that disappointing downside, of considering the lack of immediate positives, as a negative. Keeping a balance of focus seems to be most beneficial. Enough focus on a potential positive, to keep motivated for making progression towards it, should be helpful, while keeping in mind accurate probabilities, and avoiding focusing too much on the future positive itself. Too much or little seems to be a hinder, so understanding and aiming for the effective degree, should be helpful, within the Scope of Hope.

Positive Reinforcement Perception Relativity

How can the perception of positivity or negativity be manipulated?

In my previous post; Positron, I attempted to explain that there seems to be no natural physical negatives, but rather lacks of positives, yet we do seem to have negative mental perception. Some negative perception is likely caused by a mental comparison to potential positives. This step of perception seems to allow adaptability for altering the final result of negativity, to a lesser degree, or perhaps to a contrarily positive result. The negative mental perception seems to stem from instinctual, neurochemical, negative reinforcement triggers, as I also further explained in a post from last yr; Formula For Feedback. If reinforcement triggers are only a physical reaction in the brain, programmed to cause us to repeat (positive), or to not repeat (negative), then what room does this leave for intentional mental alteration of these triggers causing the end result of mental positivity or negativity?

If indeed a scenario of experiencing mental negativity, is caused by the perception of a lack of positives, from comparing the current circumstances to potential positives, then perhaps a readjustment of comprehension can be made to overwrite that result of negativity. Rather than the individual comparing their current circumstances involving a lack of positives, to potential circumstances which involve more positives, they can refocus their comprehension toward the current positives. By focusing conscious awareness of the circumstances, on the present positives, this should eradicate the mis-perception of a lack of positives being a negative. Perhaps a perception of positive is relative, just like most (or all?) things in this world. 

For eg, Larry’s car just got totalled in an accident, and he is now perceiving his situation as negative. Perhaps he can readjust his comprehension, so that rather than comparing his circumstances to the potential positive of when he did have a car (perceiving the lack of positive, as a negative), he refocuses on positives. The positives could be unrelated to the past situation of losing the car, such as having a decent area to live, or friends or family. Or the positives could be related, such as the opportunity to get a new more efficient car, or to bike and get exercise, or take public transit and save on insurance costs. 

Since the result of feeling mental negativity or positivity, is caused by perception, via consciously-aware focus, manipulating that perception should be quite plausible to alter the resulting degree of negativity or positivity. Even in complex scenarios involved in modern day life, a lot of negative perception is caused by subconscious influence, which is the natural reaction method of your brain, using that instinctual negative reinforcement, to tell you to avoid those circumstances in the future. 

It seems that often in life, the negative reinforcement causes too much prolonged mental negative influence. This is likely what causes a lot of depression or over-emotional reactions to situations in life. These reinforcement triggers were developed to be beneficial for a simpler more natural life of perhaps our ancient ancestors, rather than the complexities involved in modern lifestyles or interactions with others of their own complicated minds. Conscious comprehension and awareness also likely causes the basic subconscious reinforcement to be triggered in countless complicated ways, which are not practically beneficial, by the development design of these triggers in our brains.

For eg, if I feel significant mental negative reinforcement because I was in love with a girl, and lost that opportunity, the negative reinforcement was perhaps originally developed as a natural instinctual trigger to cause a male to stay with a female, for more effective upbringing of offspring. But with complicated conscious awareness, I might focus too much on the present lack of positive, which I had before I lost that opportunity of love. The conscious mind can cause over-focus and dwell on those particular circumstances, by comparing those past positives, to the present lack of positives. But being aware of that concept, I should be able to redirect my conscious focus to alternate positives of the present. 

The upside, is that using the same conscious awareness that may accidentally cause unpreferable negative influence, we can hypothetically counteract the resulting influence. Intentionally altering perception is likely a difficult thing to do, with probable recurring strikes of the negative subconscious influence. But with persistent counterstrikes of conscious reevaluation and focus on the positives, once enough battles are won, the new perception of positivity should convert that subconscious influence to automatically be on the positive side.

Though mental negativity can often be caused by a comparison perspective of lacking positives, the incidentally involved conscious awareness, seems it can also be used for counteractive measures, by comprehending positives and reinforcement, from the perception of relativity. 

Positron

Are there negatives in this world, or only a lack of positives?

In a post from a couple yrs ago; Negatron, I attempted to understand whether there is more positive or negative in this world, in general. I made a very rough estimate that there is equal positives and negatives, but that the substance of both quantities (negative and positive) existing, seems it is still better than zero. This rough estimate was an assumption that actions and occurrences in this world are both negative and positive. But, to understand things more accurately, what are positives or negatives in this world?

Naturally, a negative does not exist, that we know of. There are objects or substances (positive quantity), or there are no objects (Zero). Negatives are a mathematically constructed concept, coming from the idea of having objects, then taking 1 or some away. If the only way to create a negative, is to take away positives, it seems a negative is only a lack of positive, in the physical world. 

Taking this into real life situations, being in poverty might be considered a negative concept to live with. But having little or no resources, is not a negative quantity of resources, it’s a lack of a positive quantity of resources. Losing a job may be considered a negative occurrence, but it is losing a positive quantity that was gained, and which was not there to begin with. Or having your bike stolen, is losing a previously gained positive, rather than an overall negative.

If it is assumed that there are no fundamental negatives, then the only negatives to be considered, are lacks of positives. If the perspective is taken, that a lack of positive, is a negative, then what degree of positive, should be taken into consideration, to determine the present negative? By that logic, should any lack in the maximum possible positives in life, be considered a negative? The maximum possible positive quantities, are far beyond what any person has ever possessed, so by this interpretation, everyone should be considered to have an immense amount of negatives. This seems like a mathematically and physically realistic, faulty perspective, as far as physical possessions.

Mental positivity may be another subtopic. For someone to perceive a negative or positive mentally, is more subjective, and less distinct. In a post from 3 months ago; Mutual Morality (+ the post before it), I attempted to understand the fundamentals of what we consider moral. Relative to this topic, morals seem to be based on what we perceive as good or bad, which seems to derive from instinctual reinforcement triggers. So a perceived mental positive or negative, seems to stem from these reinforcement triggers, which instinctually drive us to consider something positive or negative. 

If it’s assumed that instinctual negative reinforcement triggers are a mental negative in this world, perhaps this contradicts the idea of no negatives, as it seems with physical quantities. But does the concept of; lack of positives, creating a mistaken interpretation of negatives, apply to mentality as well? If someone receives mental positivity, then loses it, is that a legitimate negative, or a mistaken interpretation of a lack of positive? The physical result of feeling negative reinforcement seems it would be similar, whether the result is from the perception of lacking a positive, or from direct, basic instinctual negative reinforcement. The difference would be the factor of perception, which would likely allow for much easier variances in degree of mental negativity. When the step of perception is involved in negativity, there should be much more potential to reduce or even counteract the resulting negativity, by altering perception.

It seems that in physical quantities within this world, there are no negative sums, but rather positives or a lack of positives, which may be mistaken for overall negatives. Perhaps this concept can be carried over to mental negatives, caused by instinctual negative reinforcement. The step of perceiving the complexities of life, gives an allowance for the resulting effect on mentality, to be POSITRON (which isnt a real word. I’m just weird).

Fairly Fair

What is fair?

In any given circumstances, what is the most fair perspective for valuing all units included?

By “units”, I’m generalizing for the potential to include a wide variety of factors which could be considered for value, from simple possessional objects, to (perhaps more significantly) humans. By “value”, I mean consider its worth, for the potential to estimate the degree of effect that it may deserve in any given situation. 

When it comes to estimating the value of other people from a 1st person perspective, by default, it seems that others should be considered equal in value. This seems like a generally fair, basic, default perspective. But when more information is known about the individuals involved, perhaps this can tip the scales of absolute equality valuation. In a post from a couple yrs ago; Prequel Chance, Equal Enhance, I described how it seems that in order to estimate the value of others, for potential redistribution of resources, beyond the individuals’ current possession of resources, it seems their initial opportunity is more significant. Their opportunity to use resources incorporates their freedom of choice for use of resources. So the added information in this case, is of the individual's opportunity, which adjusts valuation. 

It seems like this concept should be fairly applicable for estimating a fair perspective of value for units within any given scenario. For eg, a situation to use default equality, because of no additional information, may be; 3 people are very hungry, and you have 6 apples. You equally distribute 2 apples to each, as there is no additional information about the 3 people. If you have information of their varying initial opportunities for food, this may adjust your valuation for distribution. If you have 6 new apples, 1 hr later, and know that the last time you gave the 2 apples to Larry, he chose to throw them at other people (rather than eating), perhaps this time you give Larry no apples, and 3 apples to each of 2 other new people who have not had the chance for apples yet. The information of Larry’s opportunity to have apples, could adjust your distribution, since the 2 new people have not had that opportunity. 

When the scenario includes others in comparison to oneself, is there any variation in estimating what is fair? In my last post; Selfishness, I explained how it seems that in order to determine if an act is selfish, the individuals’ estimate of intended self-benefiting effects, should be compared to their estimate of negative side-effects towards others. This was under a default assumption that oneself can be considered equal in value, compared to others. Should this be fair to consider benefits for oneself of equal value to negative side effects for others? 

For an eg of concept, using objective comparison; you are filling a trough with water, using a bucket to pour water from a river into the trough. When you pour the water in, sometimes water splashes out. Every portion of water can be considered objectively equal in value, within the context of the goal to fill the trough. If the action of pouring water, causing the intended beneficial effect of adding water, is a quantity which is greater than the negative side-effect of losing water (via splashing), than the action is justifiable. If more water splashes out as a side-effect, than is gained by pouring in, the action is objectively negative towards the contextual goal. If this concept is applied toward selfishness and fairness for general actions in ones’ life, it seems that indeed, an actions’ intended gain for self benefit, should not be outweighed by the negative side-effects towards others. 

But when considering the concept of fairness based on equal opportunity, oneself would also have to have equivalent opportunity, compared to others, within the context. If you have 2 matches left to light our candle, and you’ve already had the opportunity to try 3 matches, but failed, it should be fair to give the next match to someone who has not had the opportunity to try lighting their candle. If they have the proper technique striking a match, to light their candle, that is better than you wasting it on another failed attempt. Maybe then, they could also use that gained sum benefit, to in turn light your candle, with theirs.

Just as it is for considering general equality for resource distribution towards others, opportunity seems to be a relevant component for estimating fairness in any given circumstances. When oneself is involved in the comparison of value for receiving benefits, it seems rationally fair to valuate yourself as equal to others, in terms of positive gain or negative loss. Whether oneself, or known opportunity, is involved or not, estimating equal value, seems to be fairly fair. 

Selfishness

What degree of self benefitting intentions, does it take to be considered selfish?

As most things seem to turn out, there is likely a scale from 1 end of the spectrum to the other, of varying degrees of the concept. And as with most trait or attribute concepts, selfishness is likely basically impossible to measure accurately, but that is where a best estimate comes in. To make a best estimate of the degree of selfishness, the factors involved in the concept which is insinuated by the word, should be understood. The basic factors involved in selfishness, seem to be a given action taken, and the intentions of the action. 

In my previous post, Immoral Quantity Question, I explained how an individuals intentions seem to determine the degree of an action being immoral. In the case when the negative effects of their action were not the main intention, yet they were aware of which, then an extra step is involved to estimate the degree. The extra step is determining the individuals estimate of comparison between the knowledgeable negative side effects, vs their intended positive effect. If this is the method for estimating the degree of immorality of an action, how is selfishness estimated?

The intended positive effect, just might be the key for estimating selfishness. For immoral degree, I generalized the positive and negative effects, but the receiver of the positive effect, should be very relevant for selfishness. If the receiver of the positive effect, is the individual themselves, who is performing the action, then it could likely be selfishness, whereas if the receiver is someone or something else, it would not be a selfish act. So when the positive action is intended for oneself, what amount of negative side-effects are acceptable, without being selfish? 

For eg, when Bob is holding a door open for the next random person, how long should he hold it, to not be considered selfish? The intended positive action for Bob’s self, when he stops holding the door, is he no longer has to spend time and energy holding the door. The negative side effects for others, are the next person has to use more time and energy to open the door themselves. 

Perhaps understanding what is fair and equal between people is a significant factor. If everyone is considered equal by default, then hypothetically, every person should receive equal positivity (including oneself). So when an action is taken, the negative side effects which result for others, should not outweigh the positive effects for oneself. If there are more negative side effects on others, than the individual gains from the intended positive effect for themselves, then it seems they are being selfish. Determining amounts of negative and positive, to be compared, is of course very complicated and inaccurate, and unknowable even by the individual themselves. But best estimate of perspective of these factors, should still be the best estimate for selfishness.

So hypothetically, if Bob stops holding the door for the next person, at the point when the negativity of the extra energy and time it takes for them to reopen it, outweighs the positivity gained by him, of saving time and energy holding the door, then he is being selfish. For it to be considered selfish (on these bases), it would basically have to be an estimate by his perspective, that the next person will have to spend more energy to reopen the door, than he has to spend holding it.

The degree that an action is selfish, seems to be a similar estimate, to an immoral action. Both are the individuals’ perspective of their intended positive effects, compared to the negative side-effects. The main difference is that a selfish act, involves specifically a positive effect for themselves. Determining what degree of negative, is fair to outweigh the positive, may be another concept in itself, but for a basic understanding, this comparison seems to be a fundamental function in the concept of selfishness.