Highlights:

• How the current theory emerged and what it represents
• In search of the meaning of life – the reason this theory exists
• It all starts with needs
• Characteristics of human nature – mechanisms for meeting needs
• How the connection between needs, genes, and life circumstances leads to similarities and differences among people
• The 8 Ways to Satisfy Our Needs
• The essence of human nature – our primary psychological needs and the mechanisms that satisfy them.

1. The need to continue the species
2. The need to maintain a state of homeostasis
3. The need for resources
4. The need for stimulation
5. The need to adapt to changes
6. The need to protect ourselves from danger
7. The need to identify diseases and toxic influences
8. The need to recognize what’s good for us and the useful
9. The need to move towards the useful and beneficial
10. The need for social status
11. The need to get driven to the gratification of our needs (through emotions)
12. The need to explain and make sense of the world and our interaction with it
13. The need to use our body to satisfy our needs
14. The need to determine how other people’s influence affects our needs and drives us towards corresponding reactions.
15. The need to satisfy our needs through the group 
16. The need to act in socially-adaptive ways and execute socially-acceptable behaviors (habits)
17. The need to take care of our needs regardless of others (through socially maladaptive (unacceptable) behaviors)
18. The need to make choices that place us in circumstances that are aligned (in tune) with our needs

• The concepts of Identity and Reputation, and the differences between them
• The big picture of human nature
• Supreme human egoism, the explanation of the ego, and self-interest
• What are happiness, sadness, and grief?
• Strengths and Weaknesses, Human Potential, Explanation of the Mystery Called “Talent,” and the Concept of “Life Alignment”
• Can a person change, and how?
• The Ultimate Personal Responsibility and the Strategic Mistake of Relying on Luck
• The major areas of human life – Application of the theory in everyday life

How the current theory emerged and what it represents

It all started with the identification of a single problem: the problem known as popular psychology.

The presence of various misinterpreted theses, assertions, and conjectures, along with the unproven, highly subjective, and open-to-interpretation trends in psychology on one hand, combined with the popularization of numerous unscientific theories, led to the imposition of an unfair understanding of psychology as a pseudoscience.

Adding to this the fact that a significant portion of psychotherapists specialize in methods built specifically on such subjective interpretations, it became evident that someone needed to conduct a sort of interdisciplinary examination of the facts.

This is how the current theory was born.

It is a result of meta-analysis (the study of numerous other studies) of conclusions drawn over the last 50 years (a period during which technological advancements made it possible to conduct in-depth research into the human body, brain, nervous system, and behavior) in four specific areas.

These areas are:

1. Psychometrics (the science of personality research)
2. Social psychology (the science studying social-psychological phenomena)
3. Neuroscience (the combination of sciences examining the significant connections between the nervous system, genetics, biochemistry, and physiology of the human body related to human behavior)
4. Evolutionary psychology (the science dealing with potential evolutionary phenomena leading to the current development of human psycho-physiology)

The reason for selecting these particular spheres is that the first three provide the most scientifically substantiated experiments and evidence in the field of psychology and human behavior, or in areas meaningfully related to them, while Evolutionary Psychology manages to present, in a reasonably logically substantiated manner, the potential cause-and-effect relationships for things lacking objective data.

The primary aim of this research was to identify those scientifically proven constructs, assertions, phenomena, and conclusions in the mentioned areas that overlap and mutually reinforce each other.

The goal of the current theory is to explain the cause-and-effect relationships that determine how people feel, think, speak, and act.

In other words, to explain why people are the way they are.

Despite being the product of scientific work, the theory itself is written in popular, rather than scientific language, with the specific aim of reaching a larger audience capable of deriving real-life insights. It deliberately excludes the actual research mentioned and does not aim for a scientific-representative format.

(A comprehensive list of the literature used for the research can be found at the end of the theory).

In search of the meaning of life – The reason this theory exists

Since time immemorial, humans have always sought meaning.

Meaning of life and of their existence.

Meaning and an answer to the question ‘why?’

Why do they suffer, why do they rejoice, why do they love, why do they feel a certain way or another, why do they do the things they do, why do they succeed or fail to achieve their goals, why are others the way they are, and many other similar torments, all beginning with the question ‘why?’

And there’s nothing strange in that.

The world itself, with its natural characteristics, does not offer an easy life.

On one hand, there are harsh climatic conditions.

On the other, the fact that all species (including humans) inhabit the same territory, where resources are limited, automatically places them in a state of competition for survival.

All of this often subjects us, humans, to suffering and prompts us to seek an explanation for that suffering, so that it doesn’t turn out that our lives are meaningless but rather to find the strength to continue living and pursuing our goals despite the difficulties.

It is precisely this drive to seek explanation and meaning that led you to this theory.

That is its goal as well: to provide an in-depth understanding of the cause-and-effect relationships in human behavior.

In other words, to answer the existential questions that humans have been asking themselves since time immemorial.

Our ability to understand people is extremely important for one more reason.

Everything in a person’s life can be traced back in time to something they did, said, or decided (or conversely, something they didn’t do, say, or decide), whether it was them or another person.

This means that understanding people and the reasons they act, think, speak, and choose may be the most important knowledge about how life unfolds in the modern social world.

It all starts with needs

As evident from the introductory part, the world is a harsh place for humans.

No matter that nowadays we find ourselves at the top of the food chain, yet we don’t possess a particularly competitive physiology. In the event of a physical confrontation, our strength, agility, teeth, nails, and easily injured bodies are not a match for most of the other predators.

Furthermore, we lack fangs, poison, horns, spikes, and other advantages that many other species possess.

Additionally, our physical endurance, resistance to infections, and ability to survive extended periods without food and water are not particularly high, making us vulnerable to adverse climatic conditions and a more challenging environment.

And as if that’s not enough, we must compete among ourselves, both at the interpersonal and intergroup levels, due to the limitation of resources mentioned earlier.

All of this makes our life a series of constant challenges.

The number of these challenges is truly enormous, but they often share similarities in type, origin, and characteristics.

This simplifies dealing with them.

In reality, humans don’t have to contend with hundreds of challenges but rather a few groups of challenges with similar characteristics, origins, and types.

These groups of challenges could be classified and logically reduced (based on similarities) to a limited number.

Our ability to cope with these few groups of challenges predisposes our ability to survive as a species.

This turns the necessity of dealing with these few groups of challenges into a primary driving force – something that every person must do continuously and everywhere, without which our existence becomes impossible.

For this reason, we consider dealing with each of these groups of challenges as a necessity, or in other words – a primary need.

It is important to clarify that even though, as a result of human intervention and industrial development, the world we live in has changed significantly over millennia, particularly in the last few centuries, the needs embedded in our neurobiology have not changed.

In other words, these needs remain the same; it’s just that their specific manifestations in our daily lives are radically different.

To better understand what we’re talking about, we should explain the essence of our human nature.

Characteristics of Human Nature – Mechanisms for Meeting Needs

Over millennia, evolution has equipped us humans with mechanisms for dealing with various groups of challenges, helping only the most adaptive to survive, continue to reproduce, and pass on their genes from generation to generation.

We refer to these specific mechanisms as ‘Human Nature.’

On one hand, human nature is biologically conditioned by the biochemical processes in the body and by human physiology. On the other hand, it is socially influenced because humans live in groups to better cope with the challenges of their environment. This coexistence in groups requires some of the mentioned coping mechanisms to be socially oriented and heavily influenced by society.

For this reason, we call the mechanisms for dealing with challenges (and consequently satisfying needs) ‘Socio-Functional‘ and say that human nature is socio-functional in it’s essense.

So far, so good, you might say, but how does it all actually work?

How the connection between needs, genes, and life circumstances leads to similarities and differences among people

As mentioned earlier, dealing with the mentioned groups of challenges is a need that every person must satisfy to exist.

To make this possible, each of us has a kind of ‘program’ embedded within us.

Continuing the thought about social functionality, this program is influenced both by our biological predispositions and by social phenomena.

But where does this ‘program’ come from?

We can think of it as a combination of the genes passed down to us by our parents and the influences our life circumstances have on us (environment, other people, and the events we participate in). Together, they shape this ‘program.’

Genes are like instruction manuals for building and operating our bodies. Imagine the body as a complex machine with many parts, and genes are the instructions that tell the machine how to function.

Each gene is made up of a special code called DNA.

This code contains all the information needed to create, operate, and control something specific in our bodies.

For example, there are genes that instruct our bodies on how to make our hair curly or straight, or how to fight infections.

Another example is genes related to the production and regulation of stress hormones like adrenaline and cortisol. They can influence how our bodies react to stress and activate a ‘fight or flight’ program in dangerous situations.

Our genes are inherited from our parents.

We get half of our genes from our mother and half from our father.

This is why we may resemble each of them to some extent – due to inheriting some of their genes.

However, these genes can be activated during our lives due to our interactions with the external world, or they can remain dormant.

This is why sometimes we may not resemble our parents at all (either visually or behaviorally).

A significant portion of the genes we all receive from our parents are very similar for all people.

This helps all humans to have a ‘coping program’ for the same primary needs.

On the other hand, differences among people in the context of genes generally come from three main directions:

• Genetic Variations – Depending on the genes of each parent and their life circumstances, sometimes children inherit and activate genes with structural changes, leading to some differences (different physical traits such as eye color or body size and shape, susceptibility to specific diseases or mental disorders, differences in reactions to stimuli and medications, and more).

• Gene Expression – Depending on a person’s interaction with the environment and other people, some genes are activated, while others are not. Additionally, the ways in which genes are activated can vary, opening up a diverse range of possible manifestations. The unique circumstances life has subjected us to can be the reason why different genes are activated in different people, and in different ways.

• Gene Mutations – Sometimes people carry rare genetic mutations that are not present in the general population (among other people). Some of these mutations can be inherited from parents, while others arise spontaneously and are not present in the DNA of either parent. Rare mutations can lead to genetic diseases and/or unexpected conditions.

Furthermore, differences among people can be the result of influences from life circumstances on a non-genetic level. These are cases in which our interactions with the environment and other people do not alter our genetic makeup but do have a real impact on how we feel, think, act, and speak.

Here are some examples of such influences:

• The ways we eat and different diets, dietary supplements, and medications we take, as well as the levels of hydration we maintain;
• The natural environment in which we live and the direct physical influences to which we are exposed (such as atmospheric and climatic conditions, etc)
• The social environment in which we move and the contacts we make on a daily basis;
• The cultural environment that surrounds us most of the time.

So, in reality, despite similarities in genes, some people are more successful in satisfying certain needs, while others excel in satisfying other needs due to different gene expressions on one hand and different life circumstances, which influence their neurobiology, and on the other – habits, and understandings, we form due to the way our life goes.

Understanding that this combination is the primary source of differences in how people think, feel, speak, choose, and behave, we realize why people are, in fact, different.

To further refine this understanding of similarities and differences between people, we suggest thinking about it this way:

What is common among all people is that every person possesses all the mentioned mechanisms (serving to satisfy needs).

Therefore, we often call these mechanisms “universal characteristics of human nature.”

The differences among people, on the other hand, are due to the degree and strength with which each of these characteristics manifests in an individual.

We can think of this ‘manifestation’ as a scale from 0% to 100%.

The closer a specific person’s result is to 0%, the less pronounced the specific group of characteristics is in them. Consequently, their ability to satisfy the given need is lower.

Conversely, the closer it is to 100%, the more pronounced it is, and, accordingly, the more capable the individual is of satisfying the specific need.

It is essential to clarify that very rarely do all characteristics serving a particular need manifest strongly in one person. In other words, when we later examine specific characteristics for satisfying different needs, you should know that it is normal for not every group of characteristics to be highly pronounced in a person because individual characteristics in the group have different strengths of manifestation. This leads to the phenomenon of the ‘norm,’ describing the fact that most people are in an average position on the scales as a whole and rarely move to extremes on some scales.

Unfortunately, however, the ways in which we experience the manifestations of these mentioned mechanisms are often deeply subconscious. This means that if we do not proactively put in significant efforts for self-awareness, we often do not understand why we think, act, speak, and choose the things that become part of our lives – they just happen ‘automatically’.

Before delving deeply into specific needs and the mechanisms for their satisfaction (characteristics of our human nature), we must make one more important clarification.

• Through our physiological systems – Physiological mechanisms that allow us to satisfy our needs by managing the body’s systems in metabolically efficient (energy-saving) ways. (Including motor-sensory, nervous, cardiovascular, digestive, excretory, immune, respiratory, reproductive systems, etc.);

• Through our interpersonal sensitivity – Emotional mechanisms that activate as a result of our interactions with others, allowing us to determine their influence on our needs as beneficial or harmful and, like the emotions mentioned earlier, driving us toward the beneficial and away from harmful influences in interpersonal relationships.

• Through our social tendencies – Social mechanisms that allow us to seek and join groups of people and to function in a group in order to improve our chances of satisfying our needs through the group and its members;

• Through our adaptive habits – Typical behaviors (habits) that allow us to satisfy our needs in socially acceptable ways in accordance with the needs of the group;

• Through our maladaptive behaviors – Typical socially unacceptable behaviors that we have adopted and that help us satisfy our needs independently of the understanding and needs of others and the group, and often in conflict with them;

• Through our values – Typical choices we make. Socially imposed beliefs, attitudes, and preferences (due to interaction with family, friends, society, and culture) related to each need that prompt us to make our choices for the environment (in which to function and live), activities (to engage in), and people (to surround ourselves with) so that they are in harmony with our specific needs, pushing us on a deep subconscious level (and sometimes consciously) to accept them as important, valuable, useful, interesting, and preferred;

  In summary, a person has a total of 8 ways in which they can satisfy their needs, and each individual mechanism in human nature, which we will explore further in the theory (each characteristic of human nature), belongs to one of these 8 ways of satisfaction.

  Since they are all we have to satisfy our needs, these 8 ways for themselves, become a need – the need to use them.

  To build a more comprehensive understanding of the Socio-Functional essence of human nature, we will begin introducing the information through a tabular presentation, which will become more complete as the theory progresses until the entire model is presented in tabular form.

  We will start by introducing the needs and the associated types of mechanisms for their satisfaction:

As we mentioned earlier, the main goal of the current theory is precisely to facilitate a profound understanding of human nature and our self-awareness.

For this reason, it is time to take a closer look at the characteristics of human nature itself or, in other words, the mechanisms that serve to satisfy our needs.

The Essence of Human Nature – Our primary psychological needs and the mechanisms that satisfy them.

Now that we have built a general understanding of people’s psychological needs, it’s time to delve deeper into each individual need and the mechanisms in our human nature that serve it, distributed across the mentioned 8 ways of gratification, without necessarily claiming that one need is more important than the others.

Here they are:

1. The need to continue the species
2. The need to maintain a state of homeostasis
3. The need for resources
4. The need for stimulation
5. The need to adapt to change
6. The need to protect ourselves from dangers
7. The need to identify infections and harmful influences
8. The need to identify the useful and beneficial (for our needs)
9. The need to move towards the useful and beneficial
10. The need for social status

To complete the list of needs that drive us, we should add the already mentioned 8 needs generated by the ways in which we seek gratification:

11. The need to move towards satisfying our needs (through emotions)
12. The need to make sense of the world (through intellect)
13. The need to physically cope (through our physiological systems)
14. The need to strive to satisfy our needs in interpersonal relationships
15. The need to function in groups
16. The need to display prosocial behaviors
17. The need to satisfy our needs despite other people
18. The need to make the right choices for the people, circumstances, and activities we engage in

And so, we get the final list of the 18 universal human needs.

After listing them, we should examine each one of them in-depth.

1. The need to continue the species

If we momentarily return to the introductory part – the meaning of life, the truth is that as many people as there are, as many opportunities to discover the meaning we have.

However, to have any meaning at all, a person must first exist…

To be born into this world!

Individuals, however, rarely contemplate these matters.

We don’t think of ourselves as a biological species.

Therefore, the continuation of the species is often not seen as an evolutionary or biological task, but rather as a personal choice influenced by various understandings, policies, trends, fashions, and inclinations.

In this line of thought, it is important to emphasize that the existence of humans as a species is a prerequisite for any kind of meaning to be sought afterward.

And the first step toward that is to reproduce.

This leads us to the evolutionary goal of all biological species, including humans: to reproduce and thereby contribute to the survival of their kind.

If it fails to achieve this goal, humanity will simply vanish from the face of the Earth.

In light of what has been said, it becomes clear that on a deeply biological level, the “meaning of life” is the continuation of the species.

This transforms the pursuit of this evolutionary goal into the first of the deeply underlying motives (or needs) of all living beings.

Thus, we also arrive at the specific mechanisms with which nature and society have equipped us to satisfy the need to continue the species.

In the context of species continuation, we refer to this group of mechanisms as Intimacy.

The specific mechanisms that make up the Intimacy group, arranged according to the 8 ways of satisfaction, are as follows:

• People with high scores on the “Intimacy” scale are described by others as highly susceptible to feelings of loneliness, skilled at putting themselves “in the shoes of others,” possessing an active libido, empathizing with others’ emotions, proactively engaging in and creating opportunities for shared experiences with other people, inclined to pay attention to others’ needs, and in extreme cases, resorting to parallel relationships and multiple intimate partners. Overall, individuals with a high score on the scale demonstrate good abilities to acquire and maintain long-term intimate relationships and therefore have a high potential for species continuation, but they tend to engage in and sustain inappropriate relationships just to avoid being alone.

   

• On the other hand, people with low scores are described by others as self-sufficient, seemingly lacking the need for constant company, uninterested in others’ perspectives, demonstrating apparent resistance to erotic influences, indifferent to the emotions of other people, uninterested in participating in shared experiences or organizing such experiences themselves, and avoiding paying attention to other people’s problems. Extremes are described as loners, solitary individuals, and even “a-sexual.” Overall, individuals with a low score on the scale demonstrate an admirable ability to cope on their own and have no problems in the absence of close relationships, but they encounter difficulties in acquiring and maintaining long-lasting intimate relationships and therefore have a low potential for adequate species continuation and/or an insufficient number of warm friendships.

Understanding the manifestations of the characteristics described in the table above provides us with information about whether a specific individual can successfully acquire and maintain intimate relationships, which could eventually lead to reproduction and species continuation.

**(More about the significance of the specific manifestations of each individual characteristic mentioned in the table above, forming the group of characteristics called “Intimacy,” can be learned during the psychological profiling process.)

However, this, by itself, is not enough to determine if a person will do it. To clarify this, we need to know if they would want to and make the necessary choices for it.

For this purpose, we need to analyze their leading values.

As already made clear, leading core values carry information about whether a person wants to satisfy a given need at a deep subconscious level. In other words, whether they believe that the actions and choices leading to its satisfaction are important, whether they show interest in them, and whether they will prioritize them over other possible activities and choices.

The core value associated with the need for the continuation of the species is called “FAMILY”.

Others describe people for whom the core value of “FAMILY” is leading as individuals who believe in the importance of family and prioritize relationships with their closest people. They have clearly defined beliefs, attitudes, and preferences that place their loved ones, parents, and children at the center of their choices. People with low scores on the “FAMILY” scale tend to prioritize other things in situations of choice, as described above.

This concludes the discussion on the mechanisms that allow a person to acquire intimacy, which, in turn, helps them achieve the profound evolutionary goal – the continuation of the species.

2. The need to maintain a state of homeostasis 

After a person is born (i.e., their parents have fulfilled their evolutionary goal of reproducing), a whole new world of challenges unfolds before that person.

Challenges that automatically activate some of their needs.

In the context of the established understanding of the importance of needs, it is no coincidence that one of the first challenges a person faces from the moment they appear in the world is to begin satisfying these needs.

This leads us to the idea that satisfying needs should, in and of itself, be regarded as a requirement.

However, how does a person understand that their needs are not being met?

Every living organism in nature can be seen as a system existing within a larger system. In the specific case of humans, they are a system existing within the context of the surrounding world.

In nature, there exists a phenomenon called “Homeostasis.” This is the constant tendency of every system (including humans) to maintain a balance between its internal and external environment.

In this regard, humans, like all other living organisms, exhibit a constant drive toward homeostasis. In other words, they strive to be in harmony with the environment (nature and society), balancing what they receive from it (such as resources, opportunities, and the attitude of others) and what they give to it (such as behaviors, value, choices, and attitude).

Every time homeostasis (balance) is disrupted, certain mechanisms come into play to initiate various processes aimed at restoring this balance.

This brings us to the specific mechanisms provided to us by nature and society to help us maintain functional levels of homeostasis.

We refer to this group of mechanisms as “Discontentment”.

• People with high scores on the “Discontentment” scale are described by others as irritable, self-analytical, self-absorbed, prone to anger and hostility, and rebellious who often grumble and complain. Extremes are described as people inclined to procrastinate on commitments and tasks, which makes them appear unserious and irresponsible in the eyes of others. They are described as “passive-aggressive” in nature. In general, people with high scores on the scale do not allow people and circumstances to tell them what and how to do or “impose on them,” but they struggle to maintain physical and/or social balance and encounter difficulties getting along with others.

   

• People with low scores, as described by others, are calm and emotionally balanced individuals who do not delve too deeply into themselves but rather pay attention to the surrounding world. They react calmly, kindly, and seemingly understanding toward other people and their behaviors. They are capable of functioning well in a subordinate role and avoid complaining. Extremes are described as individuals willing to make personal sacrifices solely to fulfill their commitments and responsibilities. In general, people with low scores on the scale manage to maintain homeostasis successfully (and consequently lead a balanced life), but when their life balance is disrupted, they have greater difficulty defending their positions and getting what proper treatment.

The characteristics described in the table above provide us with answers to the questions: “To what extent can a person maintain homeostasis, and when they cannot – how do they pursue it?”

However, this alone is not enough to determine whether a person will choose to do so.

To clarify this, we need to examine their results regarding the core value of “FREEDOM”:

People for whom “FREEDOM” is the leading core value are described by others as individuals who believe in the importance of authenticity and “being  themselves.” They are seen as people skilled at prioritizing themselves. They have clearly defined beliefs, attitudes, and preferences that place freedom and independence from people and circumstances at the center of their choices.

People with low scores on the scale of “FREEDOM” are characterized by their tendency to prioritize other things in situations of choice, than those described above.

This concludes the discussion on the mechanisms that allow a person to maintain a state of homeostasis.

3. The need of resources

Maintaining the aforementioned homeostasis is associated with the expenditure of various resources.

These resources in the human body are finite and deplete after a certain period of functioning (varying for each individual).

Such resources include energy, nutrients, vitamins, minerals, and other microelements, water, oxygen, and more.

Their regeneration and management are processes linked to various mechanisms in human nature, provided to us by evolution and society.

Through these mechanisms, we acquire, store, distribute, and replenish these resources from the environment and other people.

We refer to this group of mechanisms as “Frugality.”

• Individuals scoring high on the “Frugality” scale are described by others as paying excessive attention to money and resources and strongly focused on acquiring funds. They are often seen as individuals who can’t seem to relax and “recharge their batteries.” They are characterized as envious, overly competitive when it comes to opportunities and resources, and tight for money. Extremes tend to engage in excessive hoarding and storing of unnecessary items. Overall, people with high scores on this scale are highly driven to acquire and secure resources, but this behavior distances them from others and actually predisposes them to social failure.

   

• On the other hand, individuals with low scores are described by others as being calm about money and seemingly uninterested in it. They are capable of relaxing and not looking at the people’s finances and acquisitions with a “desiring eye”. They are defined as more cooperative when comes to sharing resources and even generous. Extremes avoid collecting, saving, and storing excessive items and resources, making them appear strange to others (due to their inclination to get rid of things and items that might come in handy at some point). In general, individuals with low scores on the scale demonstrate an admirable ability to live unburdened by financial concerns but face challenges in accumulating resources and actives. In the event of financial loss, they would encounter significant difficulties in recovering their financial status.

The characteristics described in the table above provide answers to the questions: “To what extent  can a person handle the challenges of acquiring, storing, and managing resources, and how?”

However, this alone is not sufficient to understand whether the person will do it.

To clarify this, we need to examine their results on the value of “RESOURCES”.

People for whom the core value of “RESOURCES” is dominant are described by others as individuals who believe in the importance of money and strive to become wealthy. They have interests in finance and investments. They are seen as individuals who excel in prioritizing business, making money, and avoiding financial waste, and putting those things at the center of their choices.

On the other hand, individuals with low scores of the “RESOURCES” core value are characterized by their tendency to prioritize other things in situations of choice.

This concludes the discussion on the mechanisms that enable individuals to acquire and preserve the necessary resources.

4. The Need for Stimulation

The above-mentioned need for resources, however, implies that in order to find such resources in the environment and/or through interaction with other people, one must actively seek them out.

Furthermore, satisfying each of the needs described in this theory presupposes a certain ability to adapt to the challenges that have given rise to these needs.

However, humans are born, to put it mildly, incapable.

This gives rise to the need for a set of mechanisms that help humans develop and thereby increase their ability to cope with ever-increasing challenges, thus more successfully satisfying their needs and maintaining the aforementioned homeostasis.

We refer to this group of mechanisms as “Openness to Experience.”

• • People with high scores on the “Openness to Experience” scale are described by others as individuals who quickly become bored with things. They are constantly seeking variety, excitement, and intense sensations. They are curious and pursue frequent intellectual stimulation. They are open to meeting and communicating with new,  different, and even strange people. They enjoy crowds and large gatherings. Others see them as interesting and captivating conversationalists, always with something interesting to discuss. On the extreme end, they seek ways to do several things at once and are easily distracted, often leading to a lack of focus (for them). In general, people with high scores on the scale demonstrate good abilities to acquire interesting, diverse, and pleasant experiences, allowing them to develop various talents, opportunities, and skills. However, in the pursuit of constant novelty, diversity, and stimulation, they expose themselves and others to numerous risks.

• • People with low scores, as described by others, are individuals who excel in routine activities, have no need for changes, and do not necessarily attempt to solve all the world’s mysteries and puzzles. They are mild and moderate in their interactions with the surrounding world and other people. They prefer small gatherings over large crowds. Others depict them as rather conservative and selective in their communication. On the extreme end, they tend to focus solely on one thing, not moving on to another until completing the first. Overall, people with low scores on the scale lead a monotonous and repetitive life, avoiding unnecessary risks. However, this makes their life devoid of excitement and adventure, and it hinders them from realizing their full potential.

The characteristics described in the table above provide answers to the questions: “Can a person acquire stimulation while improving their ability to deal with challenges, and how?”

However, this alone is not enough to determine whether the person will do it…

To understand if this is the case, we need to know whether they would want to, and make choices in this direction…

For this purpose, we should examine their results regarding the core value of “DEVELOPMENT”.

Individuals for whom “DEVELOPMENT” is a leading value are described by others as people who believe in the importance of continuous growth. They have interests in various cultures and customs. They are seen as individuals who prioritize diversity, adventure, and stepping out of their comfort zone. They place the desire to try everything in this world at the center of their choices.

Individuals with a weak manifestation of the value of “DEVELOPMENT” are characterized as people who prioritize other things in situations of choice, from those, described above.

This concludes the topic of mechanisms that allow a person to acquire stimulation and enhance their ability to cope with challenges.

5.  The Need to Adapt to Changes

The above-mentioned inclination towards exploring the world and interacting with other people inevitably leads individuals to constantly encounter changes.

Changes in circumstances and social interactions, which in turn bring forth new challenges that must be faced.

These changes occur continuously, are unpredictable, and carry with them new challenges and risks.

This gives rise to the need to cope with those changes or, in other words, to adapt to them.

However, not all changes (and the challenges that come with them) are within everyone’s capabilities.

The lower an individual’s inclination to seek stimulation and consequently improve their ability to cope with challenges, the more challenging it becomes for them to adapt “on the move” to new – bigger changes.

Conversely, the more challenging it is for an individual to adapt “on the move” to changes, the greater the need for predictability and structure they experience to more easily deal with the challenges that come with these changes.

This is because change does not wait or inquire about an individual’s adaptability; it simply happens.

If a person proves incapable of coping with a given change and the accompanying challenges, there is a real risk that it may be detrimental to them.

For this reason, nature and society have equipped us with a group of mechanisms to help us identify the change and the challenges it brings, assess our ability to deal with them, plan our actions to the extent possible, and do our best, given our capabilities at the moment, to succeed in coping.

We refer to this group of mechanisms as “Adaptability.”

• People with high scores on the “Adaptability” scale are described by others as easily handling stress, and capable of improvising and dealing with challenges “on the go”. They are often seen as physically fit individuals. They can easily connect with anyone and are flexible in interpersonal communication. They exhibit a high degree of autonomy and independence from widely accepted understandings and norms without necessarily being rebels. They function well in chaotic circumstances and do not particularly crave order, structure, or predictability. Extremely high scorers may be viewed by others as immoral and unethical due to their tendency to believe that some rules and norms are “case-specific” and do not always have to be followed, but rather “as the situation demands.” Overall, people with high scores on this scale demonstrate a low need for predictability and a high level of adaptability in dealing with challenges when they arise. However, their adaptability also makes them susceptible to risks and negative outcomes in cases of drastic change and overwhelming challenges, which can have adverse consequences for those around them.

   

• On the other hand, individuals with low scores are described by others as highly susceptible to stress. They have a need to anticipate and plan for everything, avoiding physically challenging situations and circumstances, finding interpersonal communication “difficult,” especially with people they find too different than them. They are often labeled as conformists, frequently influenced by group norms. They tend to arrange and communicate various potential changes and challenges that appear on the “horizon.” Extremes in this group tend to rigidly adhere to rules and norms, relying heavily on them, which can lead them to lose the sense that relationships are between people and that rules are made by people and therefore sometimes imperfect and dysfunctional. In general, individuals with low scores on this scale experience a high need for predictability, structure, and order. This makes their lives well-organized but poses significant challenges when they encounter change and need to adapt on the fly.

The characteristics described in the above table provide us with answers to the questions: “To what extent can a person handle the challenges that come with change, and do they need predictability and structure, or are they good at adapting at the moment according to the situation?”

However, this alone is not sufficient to understand whether a person will seek predictability or choose to act according to the situation.

To gain more insight into this, we need to examine the individual’s results in terms of the core value of “PREDICTABILITY.”

People for whom “Predictability” is a leading core value are described by others as individuals who believe in the clear role and responsibility distribution – knowing in advance who is responsible for what. They prioritize structure and organizing their environment. They respect various traditions and rituals. Overall, they place order and predictability at the center of the choices they make.

On the other hand, individuals with low scores of the core value “Predictability” are characterized by their tendency to prioritize other factors in decision-making.

This concludes the discussion on the mechanisms that allow a person to cope with change and the challenges that come with it.

6. The need to protect ourselves from danger 

As already made clear, the described inability to cope with certain challenges carries a real risk that can be detrimental to an individual.

This, in combination with the harsh reality of the world we live in, as described at the beginning of the theory, gives rise to the need for a set of mechanisms to help us avoid risks and dangerous behaviors in order to protect ourselves from harm.

We refer to this group of mechanisms as “Caution.”

• Individuals with high scores on the “Caution” scale are described by those around them as fearful, anxious, perceiving threats and problems everywhere, distrustful, socially anxious, and prone to worry about minor things that could lead to problems. Extremely high scorers are described by others as people who avoid various opportunities, activities, and interactions with others that could put them in a position of responsibility for the end results, solely to avoid risk or failure. In general, people with high scores on this scale are adept at noticing and preventing various risks, but this makes them appear fearful in the eyes of others and deprives them and those connected to them of opportunities in life.

   

• On the other hand, individuals with low scores on this scale are described by those around them as fearless, optimistic in the face of problems and risks, trusting, and unafraid to speak in public. They are characterized as people who do not dwell too much on what could go wrong and do not demonstrate an excessive inclination to seek ways to prevent things that may not even happen. Extreme low scorers tend to be quite careless regarding potential negative outcomes and may become involved in problematic situations. In general, people with low scores on this scale struggle with managing risks and, consequently, show a reduced ability to protect themselves and the people around them from life’s adversities.

Characteristics described in the table above provide answers to questions like “Is the person capable of protecting themselves from risks and how?”

However, this alone is not sufficient to understand whether the person will actually do it.

To determine whether this is the case, we need to examine the individual’s results for the core value “SECURITY.”

Individuals for whom “SECURITY” is a predominant value are described by those around them as people who believe in avoiding risks at all costs. They prioritize safe circumstances and secure activities. They seek trusted individuals and safe social interactions. In general, they prioritize security in the choices they make.

On the other hand, individuals with low scores on the value “SECURITY” are characterized as people, who are prioritizing other things in situations of choice.

This concludes the topic of the mechanisms that allow individuals to deal with risks and danger.

7. The need to identify diseases and toxic influences

The existence of various bacteria, microbes, pathogens, and the presence of numerous negative influences, including social ones arising from the behavior of others, threaten our health in ways that often go unnoticed by the previously mentioned mechanisms that protect us from harm.

This endangers our health and gives rise to the need for a group of mechanisms that help us take care of it by avoiding these negative influences.

We refer to this group of mechanisms as “Healthiness.”

• People with high scores on the “Healthiness” scale are described by those around them as individuals who exhibit aversion and intolerance towards any potentially toxic influences. They are inclined to self-reproach and regret for past events, actions, and outcomes. They are sensitive to aesthetically unpleasant phenomena in the world, and even find them repulsive. They are characterized as having low tolerance for the immoral and unethical actions of others. They dislike and avoid differences and people who exhibit them to a greater extent. They highly value good manners and are strongly critical of people and things that violate socially accepted norms. In general, individuals with high scores on this scale are skilled at distancing themselves from harmful influences in their lives and, consequently, maintain good health and well-being. However, they often appear overly critical to others and are described as “snobs.”

   

• On the other hand, individuals with low scores are described by those around them as open and accepting of differences and non-standard behaviors. They are uninterested in dwelling on the past, seeking problems, and blame. They are seen as being “blind” to the ugly and aesthetically unpleasant. They are inclined to “close their eyes” to the “toxicity” of others in their surroundings. Others perceive them as “broad-minded” regarding differences and as accepting people with their quirks as they are. In general, they demonstrate an inability to distance themselves from harmful influences in their lives and, consequently, struggle to maintain good health and well-being.

Characteristics described in the table above provide answers to questions related to the need to identify infections and harmful influences, such as “Is the person capable of protecting themselves from infections and harmful influences, and how?”

However, this alone is not sufficient to understand whether the person will actually do it.

To determine whether this is the case, we need to examine the individual’s results in terms of the core value  “HEALTH & WELL-BEING“

Individuals for whom “HEALTH & WELL-BEING” is a predominant core value are described by those around them as people who prioritize their well-being and take proactive measures to avoid infections and harmful influences. They may be more cautious about their health, maintain hygiene, and make choices that contribute to their overall well-being.

On the other hand, individuals with low scores of the core value “HEALTH & WELL-BEING” are characterized by prioritizing other things in situations of choice.

This concludes the topic of the mechanisms that allow individuals to identify infections and harmful influences and take appropriate measures to protect their health.

8. The need to recognize what’s good for us and the useful

Just as we need to identify the harmful influences when exploring and understanding the world, we also need to recognize when we come across a phenomenon that is useful and favorable for us and our needs.

For this purpose, nature and society have provided us with a set of mechanisms that, once we encounter a particular phenomenon, guide us in determining whether it is beneficial for our needs.

We call this group of mechanisms “Pleasure.”

• Individuals with high scores on the “Pleasure” scale are described by others as joyful and content individuals. They seek and pursue the positive in everything, and showcase strong desire of finding joy in life and its offerings with all their senses. They see the positive in people, are cheerful, and possess a sense of humor. They are capable of having fun always and with everything, involving themselves and others in various enjoyable activities. Extremely high scores are described as people prone to excessive playfulness and acting childishly. In general, people with high scores on this scale are adept at truly enjoying life, but they often appear to others as irreparable optimists and naivety.

   

• On the other hand, individuals with low scores are described by others as grounded realists who do not sugarcoat life and accept that it is not a particularly fun place. They are defined as people who do not attach great importance to the positive, do not empathize too much with the qualities of others, and do not seek ways to have fun. At the extreme end, they are described as gloomy and incapable of smiling. In general, people with low scores on the scale are described as serious individuals who avoid unnecessary childishness but demonstrate an obvious inability to enjoy life.

The characteristics described in the table above provide us with answers to the questions, “Is a person capable of identifying beneficial influences in their life and how?”

However, this alone is not enough to determine whether a person will do so.

To understand whether this is the case, we need to know if they would want to, and make choices in that direction…

For this purpose, we should examine the results of a person regarding the core value of “HEDONISM & AESTHETICS“

People for whom the core value “HEDONISM & AESTHETICS” is predominant are described by others as individuals with strong interests in art and beauty. They believe that life is meant to be enjoyed, prioritizing fun and sensory pleasures. They highly value enjoyment and social entertainment, placing pleasant experiences at the center of their choices.

People with low scores of the core value “HEDONISM & AESTHETICS” tend to prioritize other things in decision-making situations.

In the context of the need to recognize what is beneficial, there is an important clarification to make…

Industrialization and human intervention in the creation of goods, commodities, and services have led to the emergence of artificially created pleasant experiences, which, although genuinely enjoyable, have a negative impact on a person’s physical and mental well-being and their overall life. Specifically, we are talking about things like alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, sugar, gambling, pornography, and many others that activate brain centers and processes responsible for positive experiences. Unlike natural phenomena that lead to similar experiences, these artificial stimuli result in negative consequences such as health problems, weight issues, appearance-related concerns, social difficulties, and overall impaired human functioning.

This is also why seeking pleasure is the only function in human nature that is problematic in today’s world and potentially carries more risks than rewards.

In practice, it turns out that if we “listen” to our nature (meaning relying on our emotional impulses in seeking pleasure and enjoyment), we are more likely to make mistakes.

This concludes the topic of the mechanisms that enable a person to identify beneficial influences in their life.

9. The need to move towards the useful and beneficial

The ability described above, for a person to identify what is pleasant and beneficial, leads to another interesting phenomenon. It grants them the capability to anticipate interactions with potential phenomena that will enhance their ability to fulfill their needs and, consequently, provide them with pleasure and positive experiences.

For this purpose, nature and society have equipped us with a set of mechanisms that allow us to purposefully pursue specific phenomena that “promise usefulness.” These are phenomena that could potentially bring us positive experiences in the future.

This enables us to relentlessly pursue these phenomena time and time again, helping us to eventually acquire and improve our ability to meet our needs.

We call this group of mechanisms “Ambition.”

• People with high scores on the “Ambition” scale are described by those around them as enthusiastic about ideas and projects, inspired to create and achieve.  They have a clear vision for their lives and specific goals they pursue. They demonstrate high levels of energy and lead a fast-paced life. They are confident in their ability to cope with challenges and achieve their goals on their own. They are seen as assertive and proactive in interpersonal communication, often viewed as “natural leaders.” They exhibit persistence and tirelessness in pursuing their objectives. Extremely high scores may be described as individuals inclined towards manipulation and questionable methods to achieve their ambitions. In general, individuals with high scores on this scale excel at setting, pursuing, and achieving goals but are sometimes seen as overly aggressive and excessively ambitious in their pursuits.

   

• On the other hand, people with low scores are described by those around them as relaxed and calm, not putting too much pressure on themselves regarding goals and achievements. They accept life and the things it presents to them as something beyond their control and accept them as they are. They are seen as individuals without a clear direction in life, capable of demonstrating gratitude when receiving anything from others. They are described as non-imposing and good “team players.” Others may perceive them as individuals who “go with the flow” without a clear direction, making them appear inconsistent. In extreme cases, they may be seen as incapable of “winning” or achieving anything in life. In general, individuals with low scores on this scale are described as “easygoing” and demonstrate an inability to identify positive future phenomena and, consequently, a lack of ability to set, pursue, and achieve long-term goals.

The characteristics described in the table above provide answers to the questions of whether a person is capable of setting high goals, pursuing and acheiving them, and how they do it.

However, this alone is not enough to determine whether a person will do it.

To understand this, we need to identify whether they would make difficult choices in the direction of pursuing and achieving their goals.

For this purpose, we need to examine the results of the individual regarding the core value “SUCCESS and ACHIEVEMENT.”

People for whom the value “SUCCESS and ACHIEVEMENT” is predominant are described by those around them as individuals who set high goals and prioritize making serious, proactive efforts to achieve them. They genuinely believe that their success depends entirely on them and is in their hands, regardless of what others do or the circumstances they face. In general, they prioritize long-term goals and success in the choices they make.

On the other hand, people with weak expression of the value “SUCCESS and ACHIEVEMENT” are characterized by their tendency to prioritize other things in situations of choice.

This concludes the discussion on the mechanisms that allow a person to identify beneficial influences in their life.

10. The need for social status

As mentioned at the beginning of the theory, resources are finite (for any given territory) and often insufficient for everyone equally. This gives rise to the need for constant competition if species are to survive.

In the case of social species (those that function in groups, similar to humans), competition takes two forms: “between-group” (when one group competes with another) and “within-group” (when individual members within a group compete with each other).

While other mechanisms are responsible for between-group competition, within-group competition operates as follows:

Because there is a shortage of resources (food, tools, partners, attention, and more), sometimes, some individuals within the group have access to these resources, while others do not.

But to determine who should have priority and who should receive resources if there are any left, there is a concept called “Social Hierarchy.”

Social hierarchy is the positioning of some individuals above others (according to subjective criteria/parameters within the group) during the distribution of resources.

We use the term subjective for two reasons: first, they may vary between different groups, and second, they may vary among different individuals.

The higher an individual is in this hierarchy, the higher social status they have in the eyes of other group members, and consequently, they enjoy access to more resources and benefits.

For this reason, nature and society have equipped humans with a set of mechanisms that allow them to position themselves higher in this social hierarchy.

This way, humans gain more privileges from the group – time, effort, attention, resources, access to intimate partners, information, etc. – all in support of satisfying their needs.

We refer to this group of mechanisms as “Status.”

• Individuals with high scores on the “Status” scale are described by others as proud of themselves, their achievements, and confident in their ability to compete with others while maintaining their status. They are often seen as physically attractive and capable of expressing disapproval when they are not satisfied with the behavior of their partners, which is often described as jealousy. They are skilled at seeking ways to draw attention to themselves and tend to have difficulty acknowledging others’ qualities and giving compliments. In extreme cases, they may exhibit degrading behaviors toward others, such as humiliation, irony, sarcasm, and similar actions that lower others’ status. Overall, people with high scores on the scale demonstrate a good ability to position themselves high in the social hierarchy and consequently gain better access to resources, benefits, and partners.

   

• On the other hand, individuals with low scores are described by others as shy and lacking self-confidence. They may not think their appearance deserves attention. They are characterized as people who do not display excessive jealousy or seek unnecessary attention. They tend to identify others’ qualities and openly emphasize them through compliments and encouragement. In extreme cases, they may be described as “bootlickers”. Overall, people with low scores on the scale are described as individuals who are “not a threat” to the status quo and are easily accepted by the group. However, they may have difficulties positioning themselves high in the social hierarchy and consequently gaining better access to resources, benefits, and partners.

The characteristics described in the table above provide us with answers to the questions “Is a person capable of acquiring social status and positioning themselves higher in the social hierarchy?”

However, this alone is not enough to determine whether a person will do it…

To understand if this is the case, we need to know whether they would want to and choose to do it…

For this purpose, we should dissect the results of the individual for the core  value “RECOGNITION.”

Individuals for whom the value of “RECOGNITION” is predominant are described by others as people who want to be at the center of public attention and prioritize the care of their appearance. They believe in competition and rivalry. In general, they prioritize recognition and positioning high in the social hierarchy in the choices they make.

On the other hand, individuals with low scores of the core value “RECOGNITION” are characterized by prioritizing other things in situations of choice over those described above.

This concludes the topic of the mechanisms that allow a person to position themselves high in the social hierarchy.

Since we mentioned earlier that having only the 8 ways to satisfy our needs automatically turns them into needs themselves (the need to be used), we should examine their associated values in a similar manner as we did for the other 10 needs.

11. The need to get driven to the gratification of our needs (through emotions)

The ability to experience the emotions described up to this point provides us with answers to the questions: “Is a person capable of identifying the need for satisfaction of a specific need and will they be driven to satisfy it?”

However, this alone is not enough to understand whether a person will do it…

To understand if this is the case, we need to know if they would like and choose to primarily believe in their emotions and inner sensations…

For this purpose, we should break down a person’s results on the core value of “INTUITIVENESS.”

People for whom “INTUITIVENESS” is a leading core value are described by others as individuals who believe in the existence of phenomena such as higher power and soul and prioritize their intuition in making choices about circumstances and people. They demonstrate an interest in faith,  religion and the unexplained. Overall, they place a spiritually elevated way of life and intuition at the center of the choices they make.

People with low scores of the core value “INTUITIVENESS” are characterized by prioritizing other things in situations of choice, rather than the ones described above.

12. The need to explain and make sense of the world and our interaction with it

The ability to make sense of information through the intellectual mechanisms described in the tables above provides us with answers to the questions: “Is a person capable of gathering, storing, analyzing, and using information related to their needs and the ways in which the world functions and how?”

However, this alone is not enough to understand whether a person will do it…

To understand if this is the case, we need to know if they would like and choose to primarily engage in this activity…

For this purpose, we should break down a person’s results based on the core value of “RATIONALITY.”

People for whom “RATIONALITY” is a leading core value are described by others as individuals who demonstrate a propensity for critical thinking, prioritize the search for real facts, data, and evidence for claims, and have faith in and rely on science. Overall, they place the rational and provable at the center of the choices they make.

People with low scores of the value “RATIONALITY” prioritize other things in situations of choice rather than the ones described above.

13. The need to use our body to satisfy our needs

The ability of a person to use the physiological mechanisms described in the tables above to satisfy their needs provides us with answers to the questions: “Is the person capable of satisfying their needs when interacting with the physical world and how?”

However, this alone is not enough to understand whether a person will do it…

To understand if this is the case, we need to know if they would like and choose to primarily engage in this activity…

For this purpose, we should break down a person’s results based on the цоре value of “EFFECTIVENESS.”

People for whom “EFFECTIVENESS” is a leading value are described by others as individuals who believe in optimizing activities and processes, who are inclined to delegate things in which they are not proficient and to show interest in tools, technologies, and innovations. Overall, they prioritize making life easier and efficient in the choices they make.

People with low scores of the value “EFFECTIVENESS” prioritize other things in situations of choice rather than the ones described above.

14. The need to determine how other people’s influence affects our needs and drives us towards corresponding reactions.

A person’s inclination to experience interpersonal emotions, as described in the tables above, provides us with answers to the questions: “Are they capable of interpersonal interaction that satisfies their needs and how?”

However, this alone is not sufficient to determine whether the individual will choose to engage in such interpersonal interactions. To understand this, we need to analyze the individual’s results in terms of the core value of “AFFILIATION.”

Individuals for whom the core value of “AFFILIATION” is dominant are described by others as believing in proactive communication and prioritizing interpersonal relationships. They demonstrate a strong interest in interpersonal interactions and, in general, place social interaction at the center of their choices.

Individuals with low scores of the core value “AFFILIATION” are characterized by prioritizing other things over the described ones in situations of choice.

15. The need to satisfy our needs through the group

A person’s ability to utilize the social mechanisms described in the tables above provides us with answers to the questions: “Are they capable of satisfying their needs through groups and how?”

However, this alone is not sufficient to determine whether the individual will choose to do so. To understand this, we need to analyze the individual’s results in terms of the core value  “POWER.”

Individuals for whom the value of “POWER” is dominant are described by others as prioritizing the pursuit of positions of power, demonstrating a sincere belief in the need for constant control, and displaying a constant desire to influence others. In general, they place empowerment at the center of their choices.

Individuals with low scores of the core value “POWER” are characterized by prioritizing other things over the described ones in situations of choice.

16. The need to act in a socially-adaptive ways and execute socially-acceptable behaviors (habits) 

A person’s ability to utilize socially adaptive habits described in the tables above provides us with answers to the questions: “Are they capable of adopting the habits necessary to satisfy their needs, which simultaneously assist in meeting the needs of other members of the group/society?”

However, this alone is not sufficient to determine whether the individual will choose to do so. To understand this, we need to analyze the individual’s results in terms of the value of “ALTRUISM.”

Individuals for whom the value of “ALTRUISM” is dominant are described by others as prioritizing care for other people, the environment, and animals. They believe that helping is a good and right thing to do, and they show interest in philanthropy and charity. In general, they place care for others and the environment at the center of their choices.

Individuals with low scores of the core value “ALTRUISM” are characterized by prioritizing other things over the described ones in situations of choice.

17. The need to take care of our needs regardless of others (trough socially maladaptive (unacceptable) behaviors)

In addition to the maladaptive behaviors described so far (in the tables above, in the penultimate column of each horizontal row with characteristics), it’s important to understand that each of the columns (containing the 8 ways we satisfy our needs) also contains maladaptive mechanisms:

A person’s tendency to use maladaptive behaviors, as described in the tables above, provides us with an answer to the questions: “Is the person capable of being a fully integrated member of the group, and will the group accept them in the long term?” The more of these behaviors they practice, the greater the chance that they will NOT be accepted but, instead, may be rejected by the group.

People vary in their propensity to demonstrate maladaptive behaviors:

• People who do not exhibit maladaptive behaviors (and therefore function in harmony with the group/society) are described by others as welcome additions to the group and as people who fully contribute to it.
• People who exhibit maladaptive behaviors (and therefore do not function in harmony with the group/society) are described by others as unwelcome additions to the group and are avoided by its members.

However, information about one’s propensity to display these behaviors alone is not sufficient to determine if they will be rejected by the group.

To understand if this is the case, we need to consider whether, instead of what comes “from within,” the person would want and choose to do the right (socially acceptable) things.

For this purpose, we need to dissect the person’s results according to the core value “ACCEPTANCE.”

• People for whom the value “ACCEPTANCE” is dominant are described by others as people who prioritize their reputation. Who deeply believe in high morals and good ethics. And who shows attention to others and their needs and rights while condemning unfair treatment and injustice. In general, they place consideration for others’ opinions and needs at the center of the choices they make.
• People with low scores of the core value “ACCEPTANCE” tend to prioritize other things in situations of choice, leading over time to their inevitable rejection and isolation from the group.

18. The need to make choices that place us in circumstances that are aligned (in tune) with our needs

As you’ve probably noticed, the situation with values is a bit different from the other groups of mechanisms.

A person’s ability to identify and set long-term life goals that align with their core values is directly linked to their ability to lead a happy and fulfilling life. Additionally, it informs us whether the person will be continuously motivated to take the necessary actions and exhibit the required persistence to achieve those goals. If these goals do not align with their core values, the person will not be motivated and committed to pursuing them.

However, this alone is not enough to determine if a person will live their life in harmony with their core values. To understand if this is the case, we need to know three more things about the individual:

1. How high are their results on the intellectual mechanism “Identity and Life Direction” (from the “Ambition” group)?
2. How self-aware are they for their core values?
3. How supported are their core values by mechanisms for addressing the respective needs?

We’ll provide more clarity on these topics a little later, in the section of the theory called “What Are Happiness, Sadness, and Grief?”

As you can see from the graphical representations, the scale for each group of characteristics is divided into 4 segments: Extremely Low Levels, Low to Medium Levels, Medium to High Levels, and Extremely High Levels. Each segment is color-coded based on whether it’s Problematic, Neutral, Desirable, or Problematic again.

To understand the meaning of this coloring, we need to make the following clarification:

As we clarified at the beginning of the theory, the pursuit of homeostasis, or in other words, balance, is a fundamental driving force for every living being (including humans). When a particular characteristic is at one of the two extremes (Extremely Low or Extremely High), the system operates outside the state of homeostasis. In other words, due to this characteristic, the person fails to live a balanced life.

This imbalance leads to real negative consequences in all areas of the person’s life. It directly affects their behavior and, indirectly, their reputation (through the impressions they leave on others through their actions).

This brings us to the concepts of “Identity,” “Reputation,” and their significance when they deviate…

The concepts of Identity and Reputation, and the differences between them:

The way we see ourselves and describe ourselves (Identity) is different from the way others see us and describe us (Reputation).

From the perspective of our success in the modern social world, Identity has little importance compared to Reputation.

This is because everything significant in our lives happens either when we interact with other people, prepare for such interactions, or deal with the consequences of these interactions.

Every time we interact with someone, “the cup” of our Reputation “fills up” a bit or “empties” a bit. Based on how “full” or “empty” it is, others decide whether to trust us and how to interact with us.

The emptier it is, the less trust, time, and attention others are willing to give us. This leads to direct losses for us and affects our chances of success in life.

Indirectly, people make decisions about us based on their impressions of us, even when they are not in direct interaction with us. For example, when they discuss us with third parties and thus create impressions of us in the minds of those third parties, even without having met us.

All that means that at the end of the day, the ways we behave largely determine our chances of success or failure in most aspects of our lives.

As we clarified, our behavior is largely predetermined by our human nature. This is why understanding our own human nature and how it influences our Reputation is crucial for our success!

That’s why the scales above include information about how others perceive the manifestations of these characteristics, in other words, how these characteristics affect Reputation.

Furthermore, it’s important to understand that people form their opinions about us by comparing us to themselves and their understanding of what is “normal.”

This explains why when profiling a person psychologically (the process of analyzing and shedding light over the described characteristics for a specific individual), the analysis should compare the characteristics of the individual to those of people with a similar demographic profile (of the same gender, race, age, and culture).

This helps clarify how the individual would be perceived by other people from their demographic profile.

After all these explanations and scales, we reach the moment we promised earlier, which is to provide a more complete understanding of the Socio-Functional essence of human nature through a comprehensive table that presents the entire model of how all these characteristics align together:

With this, the examination of the structure of human nature is complete.

From here on, we should pay attention to several important consequences of this structure and its constituent elements.

Supreme human egoism, the explanation of the ego, and self-interest

If we step back and attempt to see the complete picture, we will realize that the described 18 needs are practically the driving force behind everything in our lives.

They encompass all possible reasons for why we, as people, do the things we do.

In other words, everything we do, think, choose, and say in our lives is the result of one or several of the described needs and the mechanisms for satisfying them.

It is precisely this understanding that leads to the idea that human beings are inherently selfish and that all of us act to satisfy our own needs.

Even when we think and act in favor of another person or the group, the ultimate goal is still to satisfy one or several of our own needs.

And this is not by chance.

As became clear, if we do not satisfy these needs, we will not continue to exist as a biological species.

This is important for another reason too. It is important to understand that our own needs should come first.

Why?

Because we will not be able to take care fully for anyone else if we have not taken care of ourselves first!

It sounds counterintuitive, doesn’t it?

Consider the following dilemma:

Imagine you are in a crashed airplane.

Everything is on fire.

In the plane, it’s you, a mother with a small child, and an elderly person. Everyone except you is trapped and cannot move.

There is only one wet blanket that could be used to protect someone.

Who will you use the blanket for?

The correct answer is: for yourself! And this is not by chance. All survivors will have a better chance of rescue if you save yourself with the blanket and go seek help. Otherwise, no matter who you use it for, everyone will perish – don’t forget, they are trapped!

And while this is an imaginary scenario, we can easily think of examples from real life.

Here are a few:

A mother could not fully care for her child if her own needs were not met (at least to some extent). She would be exhausted, irritable, distracted, explosive, and inattentive. She would focus on the wrong things and overlook important details in taking care of the child.

A spouse cannot take care of their partner if their own needs are not satisfied (at least to some extent). Otherwise, they would feel, think, and act to the detriment of their spouse rather than in their favor. Their relationship would become a symbol of dissatisfaction, sadness, and unhappiness instead of something desired and filled with positive emotions. (The same, of course, applies to their spouse.)

A leader cannot take care of the needs of their organization if their own needs are not met (at least to some extent). Otherwise, they would seek ways to maximize their own benefits, leading to neglect of organizational processes and the team’s needs, ultimately resulting in reduced organizational effectiveness.

All of this serves to illustrate the profound misunderstanding that exists in the modern world regarding the importance of healthy selfishness.

Often, people view someone as selfish because they prioritize their own happiness (their own needs) over those of other people.

To bring clarity to the topic, it is important to clarify what healthy selfishness means.

Selfishness should never be “at the expense” of other people.

In other words, a person should always prioritize their own needs but without impeding others from doing the same or harming the needs of others.

As you noticed, by mentioning the satisfaction of one’s own needs, we also introduced the concept of happiness. People often discuss this topic and present it as the meaning of life, so we should pay attention to it.

What are happiness, sadness, and grief?

Have you noticed that the most popular answer to the question “What do you want from life?” is “I want to be happy!”…?

But when asked, people often do not know exactly what happiness means to them and what will make them happy in the long run.

The reason for this lies in two related phenomena:

1. The inability to clearly and precisely define happiness.
2. The deep subconscious nature of happiness.

Let’s begin with defining happiness.

How does a person know they are happy?

First, we must start with the fact that there are no entirely happy people. The reason for this is the harshness of the world, and life is filled with challenges.

In this context, when we talk about happiness, we are usually referring to a state of happiness in a specific period of time, which people perceive as relatively happy (a moment, a week, a month, a year, etc.).

Although quite subjective, the answer from everyone (after sufficient depth of inquiry and asking clarifying questions) can be reduced to one: people describe a period of time as happy when the predominant emotions for them were positive. In other words, when they felt better than they felt bad.

From everything described so far, we know that people experience positive emotions and do not experience negative ones when their needs are qualitatively satisfied.

Therefore, we can conclude that happiness is a subjective emotional experience when a person satisfies those needs that are in line with their core values (as became clear, each need has an underlying core value).

We are talking only about those needs that are in line with their core values, because even though satisfying other needs would also bring relatively positive experiences, a person would not perceive them as truly important, valuable, and useful (which comes from values), and therefore, they would not pay them the same attention and importance.

In other words, happiness can be seen as an emotion of emotions. We experience it when the combination of other emotions in a given period of time is predominantly positive and consciously so.

A meaningful clarification to make is that the subjective emotional state a person experiences when they fail to be happy (fail to satisfy those needs that are in line with their core values) has another name, and it is not unhappiness.

The opposite feeling of happiness, although often called unhappiness, is actually called sadness.

We experience sadness when, for (subjectively) long periods of time, the important needs for us are not met.

Speaking of sadness, we cannot fail to mention grief. Although both phenomena are often placed under a common denominator, there is a subtle difference between them.

Grief is the subjective emotional experience through which a person goes when they realize that they have permanently (irreversibly) lost a “part” of their life and the opportunity to satisfy all their needs in the same way as before, thanks to that “part.”

We talk about a “part” of life because grief can be triggered by the loss of various important elements of life – close relatives, pets, friends and social contacts, possessions, and more, which have been important to us.

After clarifying the concept of happiness, sadness, and grief, we should turn our attention to the second related phenomenon we mentioned earlier: the deep subconscious nature of happiness.

Neither needs nor values are explicit constructs that people can easily identify and become aware of. People often confuse them with the small everyday things that everyone seeks, without being able to trace them back to the deep underlying constructs we have described in the theory so far.

In reality, this results in the majority of people wanting to “be happy” but having no idea how.

Here is another reason why the current theory is of truly exceptional importance for everyone’s life. It provides us with an answer to the question of what our needs are and how to satisfy them so that we can feel happy.

And the answer is: by prioritizing those needs that are in line with our core values!

Strengths and Weaknesses, Human Potential, Explanation of the Mystery Called “Talent,” and the Concept of “Life Alignment”

As becomes clear from the description of the characteristics of human nature and their manifestation “on a scale” from 0% to 100%, every person is differently capable of satisfying their individual needs.

The higher the results for a given group of mechanisms (related to a specific need), the more capable a person is of satisfying it.

On the other hand, the more the value associated with a particular need is dominant, the more time, attention, energy, and resources a person will allocate to satisfying it.

Why is this of interest to us?

When we talk about strengths and weaknesses, and potential and talents, we usually place the topic in context. In general, a person is “strong” or “weak” in a specific activity. They have the potential for something specific. In other words, they have talent.

This means that we judge the strengths and weaknesses of people, their potential and talents, in the context of their ability to exhibit certain behaviors that lead to dealing with specific challenges.

But as we already know from the theory so far, the ways in which people act to deal with challenges are entirely influenced by the characteristics of their human nature.

In other words, both the strengths and weaknesses, as well as the potential and talents of individuals, are actually a combination of their characteristics, which combinations make them successful in taking the right actions in the context of specific challenges.

To distinguish strengths from potential and talent, we need to make one clarification.

A combination of strengths – different strongly expressed characteristics – represents the potential for success in a specific activity.

To turn this potential into talent, this potential (these strengths) must be primarily used (rather than other characteristics) and developed over time.

This development is only possible if the activity to which this potential serves is in harmony with the person’s core values. Then they will prioritize it in terms of attention and time and will create life circumstances that further develop it.

To avoid being merely theoretical, let’s provide an example:

If a person possesses strongly expressed characteristics from the group of intellectual mechanisms (i.e., most of their intellectual mechanisms for dealing with challenges are above average), this gives them potential for success in science, for example.

This is because intellectual abilities help a person deal with the challenges posed by various scientific fields. Therefore, these intellectual abilities are considered strengths.

However, to turn this potential into talent, a person needs to spend a lot of time, give it a lot of attention, and prioritize engagement with science. In other words, they need to practice and, in doing so, further develop their potential into a talent.

This will only be possible if one of the person’s core values is rationalism (characterized by an interest in science, prioritizing the search for data and evidence, and a belief in a skeptical approach and critical thinking). This will motivate them to engage in activities that emphasize intellectual mechanisms and, therefore, further develop them.

The ultimate result in a person’s life, who has strongly expressed intellectual characteristics and whose core value is rationalism, is that they will have a true talent in the field of science.

To further illustrate what has been said, let’s provide another example:

One of the mechanisms in the “Ambition” group (for satisfying the need to move toward what is useful in the future) is called “Energy.” High scores on the “Energys” scale (describing a person’s tendency to be active, energetic, and to think, act, and function at a higher pace compared to others) would be beneficial for a person engaged in sports, for instance.

On the other hand, the same high scores on this scale would not be of great importance for a person working as a watchmaker, for example. (Not to mention that it might even be a hindrance). In other words, this trait could be considered a weakness in the context of a specific activity.

This understanding of strengths and weaknesses, potential, and talent is extremely important from the perspective of practical application in real life of the knowledge included in the current theory.

It helps us understand why people should seek ways to engage in life circumstances (work, hobbies, relationships, etc.) that are in harmony with their strengths and potential so that they can develop them into talents.

In other words, it’s not just about doing things they excel at but selecting activities, professions, hobbies, and partners that align with their core values.

This phenomenon is called “life alignment” and represents the placement of a person in circumstances supported by the characteristics of their human nature.

In other words, aligning the right activities, work, partners, and hobbies with the right people.

This means not putting a person in certain circumstances and then trying to change them to develop the necessary characteristics, but choosing the right people for the right circumstances so that these people already have the strengths (potential) and want to further develop them (values), which automatically leads to the expression of talent. (More on this topic will be explained later when we discuss the applicability of knowledge about human nature in the major  life areas.)

The true importance of life alignment can only be realized through the lens of the idea of change.

Specifically, a person’s ability to change (to alter their human nature) in order to enhance their ability to deal with challenges.

This leads us to the following question:

Can a person change, and how?

To answer this question, we first need to ask another: Are all these characteristics that we’ve discussed, and whose value we can measure on a scale from 0% to 100%, permanent over time, or can a person develop and change them?

The answer is not straightforward.

Although human nature is enduring and resistant to change, there are scenarios in which it can change over time. Here are some of those scenarios:

1. If a person experiences a severe trauma (e.g., a serious accident or physical injury) that can permanently alter the internal biochemistry of their body and/or their way of life.

2. If a person undergoes a drastic change in their living environment. For example, going from a secluded life on a livestock farm in sunny Africa to a large, cold northern city in Finland, where their daily life is connected to sales and constant interaction with many people. (This is equivalent to changing climate, activities, culture, and social surroundings.)

3. If for one reason or another, biochemical, genetic processes, or diseases are unlocked in a person’s body that significantly alters their neuro-biochemical functioning.

4. If a person goes through a process of psychotherapy or another intensive process working with professionals concerning their personality.

5. If a person (for one reason or another) fails to satisfy one of the previously described needs for long periods of time.

In summary, it’s important to understand that change in human nature is possible but is difficult, slow, and often not very drastic. At the same time, if it’s purposeful, it requires consistency, effort, clarity, and a meaningful understanding of the reasons for which it is undertaken.

Without the presence of these conditions, the change is more likely to be temporary, and over time, people tend to return to their human nature as it was before.

Once again, this leads us to the idea that an important step in a person’s life is to seek alignment between their human nature and the demands of the environment, or in other words, life alignment.

If we think logically about it, since people are difficult to change, it makes much more sense for them to strive to find work, long-term intimate partners, hobbies, and circumstances that are in harmony with their characteristics, rather than those that require fundamentally different traits (see the example of “Energy” mentioned above).

The Ultimate Personal Responsibility and the Strategic Mistake of Relying on Luck

The understanding we have developed regarding the socio-functional essence of human nature tells us why we do the things we do.

In practice, by summing up the influence of all the constructs and mechanisms mentioned above, we can claim that they are responsible for over 99% of everything we do, think, choose, say, and believe.

This is an exceptionally important realization because it helps us understand that every outcome in our lives, everything that happens to us (or at least 99% of it), is actually our responsibility.

To verify this thesis, we can try to analyze our previous experiences, which, if we are honest with ourselves and look at the facts objectively, inevitably leads us to the conclusion that there is no event in our lives that cannot be traced back in time to something we said, did, decided, or thought (or conversely, something we did not say, did not do, did not decide, or did not think).

This practically means that in the end, we bear the full responsibility for everything in our lives!

To address the apparent question, “What about the other 1%?” the Socio-Functional Theory considers the concept of “Luck” in the context of the characteristics of human nature described earlier.

Luck represents those events, circumstances, and phenomena for which objectively there was no information that a person could capture (through their senses), comprehend (through their intellect), and use (through their behaviors) to influence events or adapt to them.

It is important to clarify that if such information existed but the person, for one reason or another, did not perceive it (due to sensory and/or physiological issues), process it (due to intellectual issues), or use it (due to behavioral tendencies), then we are not talking about luck but rather about an inability to cope, which automatically brings it back to personal responsibility.

But how can you explain to someone that they are responsible for the things that happened to them when they possess an infallible weapon, an irrefutable argument they can always use to show that they are not to blame (for negative outcomes) or that they were lucky to have something happen to them (for positive ones)?

Using luck as an argument, however, achieves only one thing: it shifts responsibility away from the individual, thus reducing their chances of coping with challenges. Why? Because if we attribute cause-and-effect relationships to luck, we are accepting that things are beyond our control. Therefore, there is nothing we can do, and instead of overcoming challenges, we leave it to fate.

To illustrate this phenomenon, it’s helpful to examine the strategic decision-making process for situations with an unknown outcome. Statistics, as well as elementary logic, teach us that when we are faced with a choice with different probabilities, not evenly distributed at 50-50, we should always prefer the option that gives us a 51% chance or more of success.

If we apply this understanding in the context of luck and the previously mentioned 99%, it becomes clear on a purely logical level why a person should NEVER rely on luck (for positive outcomes) and, if they don’t want to sound naive, should not justify negative outcomes in their life with luck.

We say all of this to show that understanding luck and using it as an argument should be initially considered a mistake. Without denying the existence of this phenomenon, all we are saying is that decisions regarding events and phenomena related in any form to luck should be made rationally, not emotionally. In other words, look at the percentage chances and do not rely on luck at all.

To avoid being mere words, let’s examine two of the most commonly given examples—one positive and one negative:

The favorite example of winning the lottery would look like this: Knowing that the chances of winning the lottery are far below 0.0001%, the strategic decision regarding spending the amount to buy a ticket should be to simply not buy it. That amount, no matter how small, should be spent on something else. This way, a person will not only save a few dollars but, more importantly, they will achieve something more significant: instead of relying on luck, they will seek ways to gain the desired funds more adequately – in which case we are talking about the switch in the mental focus.

In other words, purely statistically, the decision for a person to participate in the lottery is doomed to failure because the chance of winning is always lower than the chance of losing.

This, in itself, means that if a person aims to manage their own life and take responsibility for the events in it, they should avoid participating in such endeavors. This increases their chances of properly allocating resources, time, and attention to far more meaningful stuff.

On the other side of the equation is the often-cited negative example of the possibility that the airplane we’re flying on might crash.

Regardless of whether one has a fear of flying or not, people who take a flight are always faced with a choice.

They have a specific goal—to get from point A to point B—and must choose which mode of transportation to use.

If the risk factor is the only one being discussed (under equal other conditions), the logically correct way to make this decision is to compare the risks associated with different modes of transportation.

Checking the statistics reveals that the percentage risks for transportation accidents are different for various modes of transport, and it turns out that statistically, the safest method of travel is flying by plane.

So, if risk avoidance is the driving motive behind the decision, the strategically correct choice is to take the plane and not think about “bad luck.”

This way, with their choice based on objective information, the person will have taken responsibility for their life with a 99% chance to 1% in their favor.

With this, the Socio-Functional Theory completes the cause-and-effect relationships for everything in a person’s life.

The idea that everything in our life is a consequence of human nature (our own and that of others) easily leads us to the conclusion that if a person wants to be successful, happy, and satisfied in the modern social world, understanding (and using this understanding) of human nature is one of the most important pieces of knowledge they should acquire!

From here on, the question arises: “What should we do with this knowledge?”

The major areas of human life – Application of the theory in everyday life

Since knowledge has meaning and usefulness only in the context of its applicability in the real world, as a conclusion, we will focus on the six areas that have the greatest importance for us as human beings and for the quality of our lives.

We say that these areas are of the utmost importance because they often occupy the largest part of our time, efforts, resources, and awareness.

Furthermore, what we do in these six life areas largely predetermines its quality.

Efforts to improve each of the six areas have a lasting, holistic positive impact on the other five, thus each of them contributes to our overall happiness, satisfaction, and meaning in life.

The Socio-Functional Theory of Human Nature describes the six most important areas of human life as follows:

1. Relationships, Love, and Intimacy
2. Parenthood
3. Mental Health and Well-being
4. Career, Business, Leadership, and Finance
5. Social Contacts and Reputation
6. Individual Growth and Personal Development

And since the reason for creating this theory and our main mission is to help people live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life, we offer precisely that – to help you acquire the ability to apply this knowledge in the six fundamental areas of life in order to improve it in each of them.

We will examine the major areas of life in-depth, paying special attention to each area, and we will strive to provide a profound understanding of the real-life application of the theory.

You can access information about each of the areas from here…

And if you want to learn more about your human nature and its manifestations in one of the described six areas, we offer you the process of in-depth psychological profiling, which aims to shed light on the characteristics of your human nature described in the theory and the ways in which these characteristics influence your life.

In other words, where on the scale for each characteristic are you.