1

The Role of Values in Evolution: From Big Bang to

Human Psychology and Cultural Evolution

Working Paper

Neil Griffiths, Kevin Thomas & Bryce Dyer

©2016

2

Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction to Values ............................................................................................................................ 3

Values as means of satisfying need ........................................................................................................ 4

Personal needs and values ...................................................................................................................... 5

What are values? ................................................................................................................................ 6

What purpose do values serve? .......................................................................................................... 6

How do values operate? ..................................................................................................................... 6

Motivation, decision-making and behaviour .......................................................................................... 8

Values as life strategies ........................................................................................................................... 9

Relating Maslow’s developmental hierarchy to an evolutionary hierarchy ......................................... 11

The axes of the circumplex – propensity to change & mode of change ............................................... 12

Circumplex as model for evolutionary change in all systems ............................................................... 12

Non-human systems ......................................................................................................................... 13

Mapping change on the circumplex...................................................................................................... 16

Modelling change strategies with the Prisoner’s Dilemma .................................................................. 17

Decision-making: needs and values-equivalent driven evolution ........................................................ 19

A system of universal value-equivalents............................................................................................... 22

The emergence of a circular and hierarchical structure in values and the relationship of the latter to

evolution ............................................................................................................................................... 27

Values-related evolution of human culture .......................................................................................... 33

The effect of surplus resources on natural selection............................................................................ 35

Mapping cultural change on the circumplex ........................................................................................ 36

Testing The Theory ................................................................................................................................ 39

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 41

3

Introduction This paper presents more fully the evolutionary theory of values outlined by Griffiths, Thomas &

Dyer (2017) in their paper on values-related on cognitive biases. The hypothesis being that the

values in the Schwartz system (1992) can be considered to have a hierarchical structure consistent

with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1954), that coexists with the circular structure of the Schwartz

(1992) circumplex, and that equivalents of the values of tradition, conformity, security, power and

achievement can be attributed to all organisms, while the values of hedonism, stimulation, self-

direction and universalism emerged sequentially in intelligent organisms. Support for this

hypothesis was found in related hypotheses regarding measurements of fluid intelligence and risk

aversion in relation to isolated losses in people with different value priorities: those most motivated

by tradition and conformity having the lowest fluid intelligence, and those most motivated by self-

direction and universalism having the highest; those most motivated by tradition and conformity

having the greatest aversion to risk when only losses were at stake, while those most motivated by

self-direction and universalism having the least (Griffiths, Thomas & Dyer, 2017) .

The theory presented here goes further. It proposes that equivalents of these values can be found in

living and non-living systems: that they are emergent qualities of all systems: that equivalents of the

values of tradition, conformity, security, power, achievement and benevolence are present in all

local systems, and equivalents of the values of hedonism, stimulation, self-direction and

universalism emerge in universal systems; i.e. are present in the system that is the universe and

become sequentially realised in local systems in which increasingly universal models of their

environment emerge.

The theory presented here incorporates and builds upon established theory in many fields,

including: physics, biology, psychology, game play and complexity. In so doing it presents the

argument that values are a potentially invaluable tool with which to more clearly understand how

mankind has evolved, is likely to evolve and how it might be possible to better manage that

evolution.

Introduction to Values Value and values are concepts fundamental to the enjoyment, assessment and understanding of

phenomena in every field of science and the arts; value: “the importance, worth, or usefulness of

something”; values: “principles or standards of behaviour; one’s judgement of what is important in

life”, “the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term; a magnitude, quantity, or number”

(OxfordEnglishDictionary, n.d.). Values exist as a means by which to measure, record and take

action based upon the difference between things, and as such serve as criteria for decision-making in

human beings and equivalent activities in all other organisms.

More broadly, value differentials are a precondition for change in any system: variation being one of

Darwin’s (1859) three pre-conditions for evolution. Mass and energy are considered to be

equivalent and fundamental properties of all systems (Einstein, 1905), and according to the 2nd law

of thermodynamics, in a differentiated universe with non-zero energy, entropy will always increase.

Consequently change will be continuous in the universe at least until energy levels are sufficiently

low to prohibit the existence of particles, and hence matter. Because a gravitational force is exerted

by all centres of mass and varies in relation to the distance between these, but never reaches zero,

any differentiation of mass in the universe gives rise to the attractive force of gravity (Newton,

1687). Similarly the electric force exerted by quanta of energy varies in relation to the distance

4

between them (Coulomb, 1785): a difference in electrical charge creates the potential for an

attractive or repulsive force (Maxwell, 1873).

Without these differentials and the consequent effect on the forces acting between systems, in

accordance with Newton’s (1687) first law, all systems would remain unchanged and at rest. Given

no massive or energetic system can entirely escape the influence of another, all local systems within

the universal system (galaxies, planetary systems, ecosystems, species and individual organisms

included) are subject to the interaction of gravitational and electromagnetic forces, and manifest

change in accordance with rules governed by the differences in values between them.

It therefore follows that value differentials are universal drivers of change in all systems, including

the decision-making processes of the human brain. The system of values used by humans to make

decisions provides a common currency with which it is possible to assess the relative utility of any

object, action and concept (Brosch & Sander, 2013); a theoretical position consistent with findings

regarding activity in the ventral striatum (Sescousse, Li, & Dreher, 2015) and ventromedial prefrontal

cortex (Levy & Glimcher, 2012). Accordingly it allows any individual to decide how best to invest

limited personal resources – time, money, physical effort and emotions – between such disparate

and potentially competing claims as: time with friends, working for financial reward, spending

money on personal luxuries or charitable causes, engaging with the concerns of others and seeking

sexual gratification.

The personal, psychological values codified by Schwartz (1992) play a significant role in human

decision-making (Henderson & Corke, 2015; Pohling, Bzdok, Eigenstetter, Stumpf, & Strobel, 2016),

affect all people in all areas of their lives (Schwartz, 2012), and exert an influence on every aspect of

human endeavour: personally, socially, politically, economically and organizationally (Daniel, Bilgin,

Brezina, Strohmeier, & Vainre, 2015; Fritzsche & Oz, 2007; Lee & Lyu, 2016; Parks & Guay, 2009;

Paradise, Cote, Minsky, Lourenco, & Howland, 2001). As components of cognitive function these

values, in common with all cognitive functions, derive from changing patterns of energy flowing

between neurons in the brain (Rangel, Camerer, & Montague, 2008; Schultz, 2006). In this sense it is

apparent they are emergent qualities of a complex adaptive system of mass and energy that has

evolved from pre-existing systems of mass and energy, with which, due to their shared ancestry,

they are likely to share certain characteristics (Colosimo et al., 2005; Knoll & Carroll, 1999).

Values as means of satisfying need In their psychological context personal values are inextricably linked with the satisfaction of need;

values being concepts that play a significant role in guiding people’s thoughts and actions toward

satisfying their needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Maslow, 1943; Schwartz, 1992).

Need is a concept people can readily associate with but is perhaps less easy to define. The concept

of need, as distinct from want or desire, according to its narrowest definition, relates to things that

are essential. It is essential a person drinks (or otherwise takes on) water if they are to live. If two

people in a similar location need to drink water but limited local resources and other factors dictate

that only one can, what may be essential to each is that they drink but the other doesn’t. From a

third party’s perspective it mightn’t appear essential for either to drink. On this basis it is apparent

this definition of need is not something capable of being objectively and universally shared.

We offer that a need is a condition that must be satisfied in order for a thing (a system) to exist in a

specific form. It is subjective. It can only be judged in the context of the system under

consideration.

5

In order for anything to exist such that it can be defined it has to satisfy certain defining conditions

or criteria. These can therefore be considered to have a value to that thing in terms of its ability to

satisfy these needs. In human psychology the worth of these things can be considered in terms of

‘values’: emotional criteria by which thoughts, actions and physical objects can be judged (Rokeach,

1966; Schwartz, 2012). In a wider context, any ‘thing’ representing these conditions or criteria can

be thought of as being equivalent to a value: a ‘value-equivalent’.

This being the case, any ‘thing’ can be considered to have its own needs and related value-

equivalents. A thing that is a value-equivalent will have its own needs, which in turn will have its

own value-equivalents. Therefore needs and value-equivalents may be considered interchangeable

terms; the appropriateness of their use in any given instance being determined solely by which thing

is a condition the other has to satisfy.

For example, in order to satisfy its needs, a grain of table salt has to comprise conjoined molecules

of sodium and chlorine atoms. From the perspective of the grain of salt these have a high value,

whereas atoms of any other element may have a low or negative value, dependent on whether their

incorporation would cause a reaction to take place in which the matter in the table salt ceased to

satisfy its own defining criteria. In turn the atoms of sodium and chlorine have their own needs,

relating to the arrangement of electrons, neutrons and protons, which in turn have needs associated

with mass, charge and, in the case of the neutrons and protons, quarks.

In the sense that the evolution of the universe has involved the emergence of increasingly complex

amalgamations of matter (Swenson, 1989), it has also involved the emergence of new needs: each

new entity capable of definition having its own value-equivalents. Each new level of need is built

upon the needs of its constituent parts. The needs of quarks, neutrons, atoms and molecules must

continue to be satisfied if the needs of any higher order system of which they become a part are to

be satisfied: the value of each component to its immediate local system remains, and is

supplemented by its value to the greater systems of which its local system become a part.

Since an understanding of the evolution of humanity and the human mind can only be gained in

relation to the things they evolved from and in relation to, the story of evolution can be considered

in terms of the current needs of extant things (e.g. logic, atoms, neural networks and living

organisms) and the inferred needs of extinct things (e.g. Neanderthals and the first multi-cellular

organisms). This being the case, we can also orientate ourselves in relation to its narrative with

reference to value-equivalents.

Personal needs and values Essential life resources such as air, water and food, and the internal systems by which they are

processed, are almost entirely managed in accordance with a system of values that may on occasion

be accessible to consciousness, but by default operates at a level below consciousness. While

humans are allowed some discretion as to how these physiological needs are satisfied, there is much

uniformity in the emotional and physical realization of unsatisfied needs: gasping for air, thirst and

hunger. Similarly, while humans have some freedom as to how best satisfy needs associated with

sexual reproduction, basic urges associated with unsatisfied sexual need are less discretionary (Kim

et al., 2013; Ma & Gal, 2016). These most basic physiological needs are not subject to the influence

of personal values, although discretion as to their satisfaction is (Kitsawad & Guinard, 2014;

Paradise, Cote, Minsky, Lourenco, & Howland, 2001).

The needs identified in Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy are presented in a form that suggests higher,

more refined needs emerge once lower, more basic, physiologically related needs have been

6

satisfied (Maslow, 1954). In relating needs and values, Maslow (1998) stated that beauty and justice

are values associated with a need for self-actualization. In this context it is clear the ‘specific form’

to which this need relates does not concern keeping a human being alive (i.e. its physiological

needs), but of being a human being living to the fullest of its potential (through satisfying

psychological needs).

Self-determination theory refers to basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and

relatedness; the denial of which leads to illness, increased vulnerability and psychopathology

(Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). Infants deprived of attachment (love, affection and security –

Maslow’s safety, love, affection and belonging needs, the two lowest psychological levels of his

hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1998) are more likely to experience developmental difficulties in later

life (Malekpour, 2007). The needs in these examples relate to some specification of a healthy and

happy life.

Bringing together the findings of predecessors in the field, notably those of Milton Rokeach (1973),

Schwartz (1992) defines personal values in the following terms.

What are values? “(1) Values are beliefs linked inextricably to affect. When values are activated, they become infused

with feeling. People for whom independence is an important value become aroused if their

independence is threatened, despair when they are helpless to protect it, and are happy when they

can enjoy it.

(2) Values refer to desirable goals that motivate action. People for whom social order, justice, and

helpfulness are important values are motivated to pursue these goals.

(3) Values transcend specific actions and situations. Obedience and honesty values, for example,

may be relevant in the workplace or school, in business or politics, with friends or strangers. This

feature distinguishes values from norms and attitudes that usually refer to specific actions, objects,

or situations.” (Schwartz, 2012, p3-4)

What purpose do values serve? “(4) Values serve as standards or criteria. Values guide the selection or evaluation of actions,

policies, people, and events. People decide what is good or bad, justified or illegitimate, worth doing

or avoiding, based on possible consequences for their cherished values. But the impact of values in

everyday decisions is rarely conscious. Values enter awareness when the actions or judgments one

is considering have conflicting implications for different values one cherishes.” (Schwartz, 2012, p4)

How do values operate? “(5) Values are ordered by importance relative to one another. People’s values form an ordered

system of priorities that characterize them as individuals. Do they attribute more importance to

achievement or justice, to novelty or tradition? This hierarchical feature also distinguishes values

from norms and attitudes.

(6) The relative importance of multiple values guides action. Any attitude or behaviour typically has

implications for more than one value. For example, attending church might express and promote

tradition and conformity values at the expense of hedonism and stimulation values. The trade-off

among relevant, competing values guides attitudes and behaviours” (Schwartz, 1992 & 1996).

“Values influence action when they are relevant in the context (hence likely to be activated) and

important to the actor.” (Schwartz, 2012, p4)

7

The Schwartz (1992) system is based on 57 basic values found to have universal meaning to people

from a diverse range of cultures across five continents. These include concepts such as honesty,

forgiveness, ambition and obedience. Numerous studies have demonstrated that these values

exhibit significant positive and negative correlations, which enable them to be mapped out in such a

way as to create a values circumplex: a circular map in which values exhibiting the strongest positive

correlations in terms of the order in which they are ranked in individual hierarchies plot close to one

another, and values exhibiting strong negative correlations plot opposite each other (Elizur & Sagie,

1999; Oishi, Schimmack, Diener & Suh, 1998, Schwartz, 1992 & 2012; Schwartz & Boehnke, 2004).

Values such as honesty, helpfulness and forgiveness plot close together but diametrically oppose

values such as ambition, wealth and influence, which themselves exhibit significant positive

correlations between each other. Between these values are others with lower correlations to either

group. Arranged around the midpoint of the aforementioned groups are opposing groups with their

own significant positive and negative correlations: a value group including social order, cleanliness

and national security on one side and curiosity, freedom and independence on the other.

The ordering of these values and the needs they address suggests the structure of the circumplex

can be considered as being built around perpendicular axes representing the oppositions of self-

transcendence (prioritising or giving equal consideration to the needs of others – via, for example,

honesty, helpfulness and forgiveness) and self-enhancement (prioritising one’s personal needs over

those of others - via ambition, wealth and influence), and conservation (protection of what one has

and resistance to change – via social order, cleanliness and national security) and openness to

change (tendency to view opportunities for change positively – via curiosity, freedom and

independence) (Schwartz 1992).

These values are positive aspirations. There are no negative values; no dishonesty, deceit or

meanness. The negative correlation between opposing values suggests how the motivation for

behaviour consistent with such negative values might arise. Honesty and ambition are negatively

correlated. While this does not necessarily mean highly ambitious people are dishonest, however, it

does suggest that if being honest would risk incurring the displeasure of a person who might assist in

the realization of an ambition, the relative importance attached to these two values will influence

whether honesty or ambition will prevail.

Research confirms that the relative ranking of values correlates positively with attitudes, decision-

making and behaviour consistent with such logic (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003; Daniel, Bilgin, Brezina,

Strohmeier, & Vainre, 2015; Griffiths, Thomas & Dyer, 2017; Lönnqvist, Verkasalo, Wichardt, &

Walkowitz, 2013; Siu, Shek, & Lai, 2012).

Schwartz grouped these 57 values into 10 super-value groups (subsequently referred to herein as

values) arranged around a circumplex as illustrated in fig.1; with honesty, helpfulness and

forgiveness included in the value group of benevolence and ambition, wealth and influence in

power.

INSERT Figure 1 around here

8

Fig.1 Values Circumplex after Schwartz (1992)

The defining goals or needs served by each value are as follows:

Tradition: respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one's culture or

religion provides.

Conformity: restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate

social expectations or norms.

Security: safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self.

Power: social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources.

Achievement: personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards.

Hedonism: pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself.

Stimulation: excitement, novelty, and challenge in life.

Self-Direction: independent thought and action--choosing, creating, exploring.

Universalism: understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people

and for nature.

Benevolence: preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal

contact (the ‘in-group’) (Schwartz, 1992).

Motivation, decision-making and behaviour It should be possible for the desirability of any object, action or concept of which one is aware,

consciously or sub-consciously, to be assessed in terms of these values. Some things will have a

value derived from a mix of physiological needs, that transcend personal values, and psychological

needs expressed through values; desire for food and sexual attraction for example. If a person is

hungry they are likely to become less discriminating in their choice of food than they would in other

circumstances (Hoefling & Strack, 2010). Where the physiological need is less pronounced, more

subjective psychological needs expressed through values are also likely to influence food choice

(Connors, Bisogni, Sobal, & Devine, 2001). For example choosing oysters over pizza may be

9

influenced by social considerations relating to the values of power and achievement, financial

considerations weighed up through security and self-direction, cultural beliefs relating to tradition,

subconscious desires relating to conformity, as well as pleasure and sense of adventure through

hedonism and stimulation.

Certain value priorities will correlate with particular behaviours in most environments. However,

because the composition of each individual’s value system, and hence the effects of value-

interactions, may be as distinctive as their finger prints, and values may be differentially activated by

a variety of factors in any given environment (Schwartz, 2012), dependent on the health, past

experience, knowledge and personal circumstances of an individual, such correlations will rarely be

perfect. Even with complete knowledge of such factors, reliably determining exactly how an

individual will respond in any given situation may be very difficult. Changes consequential to

interactions with the physical environment relating to, for example, sexual stimulation, health or

listening to music may affect physiology and psychology so as to impact on attitudes and decision-

making (Morrison, 2002; Owen, 2005; Skakoon-Sparling & Cramer, 2016). The decision-making

process is further complicated by interaction with other individuals; each responding to values

associated with their particular needs and subject to the influence of their own states of health, past

experience, knowledge and personal circumstances.

The chaotic interaction of systems may make it difficult to predict with certainty the behaviour of

any one sub-system and its components, but this does not prevent usefully accurate modelling of

the behaviour of whole systems based on knowledge of the underlying rules governing the

interactions of their sub-systems (Messier et al., 2015; Wang, Han, & Yang, 2015). Values theory is

one component of the rules governing the interaction of people (individual value systems) in social

groups, organizations, nations and as a species (larger systems of which people are components).

Maslow’s belief that people worked their way up his hierarchy progressively – one level of need

having to be satisfied before the next level up the hierarchy could be engaged – has been

undermined by later studies. Investigations by Hall and Nougaim (1968) and later Lawler and Suttle

(1972) found no support for the suggested gratification mechanism that facilitated the emergence of

higher-level needs. Further studies found evidence to contradict Maslow’s proposition that

satisfaction of lower needs is significantly more important than other factors in the activation of

higher-level needs (Reid-Cunningham, 2008; Trexler & Schuh, 1969; Wofford, 1971).

Reviewing the values profiles of many individuals – over 350 in the previously referred to research

into values-related cognitive biases (Griffiths, Thomas & Dyer, 2017) alone – suggests that all people

simultaneously have some level of engagement with all of the values, and confirms that it is not

uncommon for people to prioritise values attributable to more than one, and often disconnected,

needs categories.

Values as life strategies While the detail of Maslow’s motivational theory may have been wanting, his sequencing of need

groups does correspond to the established sequencing of Schwartz’s (1992) value groups (Griffiths,

Thomas & Dyer, 2017), and the intuitively pleasing nature of his hierarchy is mirrored in the

intuitively pleasing sequencing of equivalent life strategies one can readily associate with Schwartz’s

(1992) values: each successive value up the hierarchy offering the potential to incrementally develop

and improve upon the benefits provided by the previous values.

Tradition involves doing what has ‘always’ been done. In the absence of anything better to go on,

there is much to recommend abiding by the tried and tested approaches of one’s predecessors.

10

Adopting traditional approaches as a matter of course avoids expending energy on analysing the

relative merits of alternatives, as well as the risks associated with personal errors of judgement.

However, tradition is less likely to offer appropriate guidance when it comes to dealing with

unfamiliar challenges.

Conformity involves copying what appears to be working for others in a particular group - again

making decision making easier. However, the greater the pace of change, the greater the frequency

of unfamiliar challenges, the larger the amount of people involved and the greater the diversity and

potential for fracturing within the group, the less effective previously tried and tested

methodologies become and the more difficult it becomes to decide who or what to conform with.

Security involves the provision and use of boundaries and regulations to guide behaviour and

regulate change and diversity: to help decide whose lead and which rules to follow. A potential

weakness of man-made boundaries and regulations arises from the tendency for them to be devised

subjectively to directly address a particular and apparent malfunction or undesirable feature of a

system based on imperfect knowledge of that system. Consequently they have the potential to

bring about unforeseen consequences as other parts of the system are affected, and fail to yield the

outcomes they were intended to bring about.

Power seeks to place the individual at the centre of their circles of influence, where they set the

boundaries and regulations, and other people and the resources at their command comply with

these. While personally defined boundaries, rules and regulations have the potential to be more

flexible than those associated with security, they present similar challenges, which are likely to be

compounded when they compete with those defined by others.

Achievement drives the individual to succeed on terms that others will respect, so increasing the

likelihood they will defer to them and grant them the benefits of power without having to pursue

power directly. The limitations of achievement relate to the need to impress others, and therefore

to relate to them on terms they will recognize, understand and accept. As such it presents barriers

to innovation and challenging received wisdom that are absent from merely improving on currently

accepted ideas and products.

When an individual’s achievements are such that their needs for survival, belonging and peer

approval are broadly satisfied, they may have surplus resources to spend or invest in activities less

directly targeted at satisfying immediate survival and reproductive needs.

Hedonism is the drive to have fun; not the emotional reward of achieving, but just for the sake of it.

It encourages using surplus resources for experimentation and self-discovery in an indirect way.

Stimulation is the purposeful desire to experience new things; learning more about self and the

environment in the process, and so testing and redefining personal boundaries.

Self-Direction is the desire (and related acquired capacity) for autonomous thought and action

facilitated by a combination of inquisitiveness, rational thought and personal experience. Once

freed from the constraints of belief and dependence on others, self-direction allows the possibility of

engaging with the world and others on rational and personal terms: to think creatively and break

from established patterns of thought and behaviour.

Universalism is the desire to more deeply understand and benefit from the universal laws, processes

and connections that bind people together as components of a universal system.

11

Benevolence is the desire to contribute to the well-being of others in an in-group for reciprocal

benefit. The nature of an individual’s in-group, and the direct or indirect nature of the reciprocity it

seeks to encourage, is determined by the other values – most significantly tradition and

universalism.

Relating Maslow’s developmental hierarchy to an evolutionary

hierarchy So while it is clear that an individual can be simultaneously be motivated by a ‘higher’ value such as

self-direction simultaneously with a ‘lower’ value such as conformity, consistent with their being

opposing values on the circumplex, it is self-evident that such values are likely to conflict. Being

inclined to conform limits one’s ability to self-direct and exploit higher levels of human potential.

Conforming requires less intelligence and affords less creative potential than self-direction. Given

that in any particular situation any individual may begin by conforming with others (because they

have nothing better to go on than the example set by others) but may end up doing something of

their own choosing (because they have gathered enough information to self-direct), it seems

reasonable to suggest that: (1) people are capable of changing their value priorities through learning

– by extrapolating information from and generalising lessons learned in specific situations, and (2)

the direction of desired change corresponds with an ascent up Maslow’s hierarchy.

That people are not bound to realise higher needs through the type of homeostatic process

envisaged by Maslow (1954) may be explained in the following terms (to be considered in more

detail later in this paper). The structure of the hierarchy relates more to human evolution than to

the development of any individual. The needs of any individual emerge from the combined ‘needs’

of their genes. The evolution of the human species does not proceed uniformly, with each individual

sharing identical genes, but in accordance with changing frequencies of particular versions of these

(alleles) and combinations of genes.

Consequently, while genes promoting general phenotypes, such as hair or intelligence, may be

present in all individuals, particular alleles or combinations promoting particular qualities of these

phenotypes, such as brown hair and high intelligence, may only be present in some individuals. As

suggested by the diversity in hair colour, intelligence, personality and other phenotypes, and a lack

of correlations between such characteristics (Guenther, Tasic, Luo, Bedell, & Kingsley, 2014; Kleisner,

Chvátalová, & Flegr, 2014), while the emergence and distribution of any genes, gene combinations

or epigenetic effects associated with the values and value-equivalents promoting intelligence might

be considered to have affected the human species as a whole during a particular era (Hunter, 2008;

Ramachandran, 2000), within each individual different alleles and combinations thereof will give rise

to a mixed bag of characteristics; including value priorities.

Therefore, while the hierarchical structure of needs and values described by Griffiths, Thomas &

Dyer (2017) may betray their evolution, as well as providing a sympathetic development framework

for individuals, the process of random gene combination that is meiosis makes it possible for people

to be genetically predisposed toward the development of value systems that are not strictly targeted

at satisfying one particular level of Maslow’s (1954) needs.

Accepting both the circular and hierarchical structures of the human system of values proposed by

Schwartz (1992) and Maslow (1954) encourages the consideration that the circumplex reflects a two

dimensional overview of a spiral, in which benevolence is situated both the level of departure and

the top level reached by the final step. The following describes how the spiral structure might have

first evolved and continues to evolve.

12

The axes of the circumplex – propensity to change & mode of change The 57 basic values underpinning the Schwartz (1992) model are perhaps the easiest to relate to

when it comes to considering the detail of human behaviour. The basic value of ambition is more

precise than the super-value of power and the wider grouping of self-enhancement. However, more

illuminating in an evolutionary context is the space they populate on the circumplex, and how this

can be explored through its 10 value domains, its 4 poles and 2 perpendicular axes.

Schwartz rejected some potential values, such as spirituality, from his list because he found they did

not have universal meaning to people from all cultures (Schwartz, 2012). While his list may comprise

values with universal meaning, it is possible the list isn’t comprehensive. Perhaps one could

ascertain that integrity has a universal meaning distinct from honesty that would justify its inclusion.

Given the circumplex was derived from correlations between the 57 values, the discovery that the

list of values was incomplete might seem likely to cast doubt on the validity of the circumplex model.

However, the beauty of the circumplex is that it shows itself to be an all-encompassing values

framework. Any potential value one might come up with that satisfies the criteria given previously,

i.e. something that is a motive for action that is not an action, object or specific to a particular

situation, can effectively be mapped in relation to a grid reference with respect to the two

perpendicular axes according to: (1) its affinity with change, and (2) its affinity with opposing

categories of change-related strategy.

All those basic values situated toward the conservation pole of the affinity to change axis (grouped

under together in the values of tradition conformity, security, power and achievement) relate more,

in relative terms, to resisting change than promoting it. Whereas those mapping closer to the

openness to change pole of this axis tend to promote it: ‘exciting life’ being a value more likely to

promote change than ‘independence’, and ‘accepting one’s portion’ being more likely to inhibit

change than ‘family security’ (Schwartz, 2006).

All those values mapping closer to the self-transcending pole of the change-related strategy axis

tend to promote cooperative approaches to change. Those closer to the self-enhancing pole tend to

promote competitive strategies. ‘Forgiving’ is more cooperative than ‘wisdom’; ‘social power’ is

more competitive than ‘ambitious’ (Schwartz, 2006).

Self-enhancement and self-transcendence have a particular significance in psychology, but they are

broadly interchangeable with competition and cooperation. The values of power and achievement

(self-enhancement values) concern personal performance and status judged relative to others, and

as such are competitive values. Universalism and benevolence (self-transcendence values)

emphasize concern for the welfare and interests of others, promote a willingness to act in the joint

interest (Daniel et al., 2015; Schwartz, 1992 & 2012) and, as such, are cooperative values.

Circumplex as model for evolutionary change in all systems From the development of the prisoner’s dilemma (Flood & Dresher, 1950), subsequent development

of genetic algorithms (Goldberg & Holland, 1988) and further development of cooperation vs.

cooperation modelling (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981; Axelrod, 1997), the utility of analysing complex

systems in terms of the interaction of simple cooperative and competitive strategies has become

well established. As pointed out in The Complexity of Cooperation (Axelrod, 1997, p6) “realistic

representation of many details is unnecessary and counterproductive”. Analysing complex systems

by the use of relatively simple algorithms that subject digital units to undergo successive rounds of

step change are capable of reproducing many aspects of the evolutionary process, and have proved

useful in modelling change in fields as diverse as biology, sport, chemistry, economics, ecology and

13

manufacturing (Dawkins, 1976; Nowak & Highfield, 2012; Turner & Chao, 1999; Selten & Stoecker,

1986; Wade, 1988; Kauffman, 1995).

In such models there are often just two basic components: (1) the base state of the model, and (2)

the algorithm by which the base state and subsequent states will be changed. Change takes place by

running the algorithm in repetitive cycles, and the results are reviewed in terms of competitive and

cooperative strategies that evolve between components within the system of the model.

Change is fundamental to evolution. While it is possible to say that something may change without

it having evolved, nothing can evolve without changing. Therefore the study of evolution is

inescapably also the study of change. Living organisms are not the only things capable of changing

and evolving. The existence of the universe is a consequence of evolutionary change (Hawking &

Penrose, 1970; Popper, 1978).

The extent to which a thing has a propensity to change may only be judged in the context of the

environment in which it is placed. To say that lead has a lower propensity to change than potassium

is true only inasmuch as, in most naturally occurring environments on Earth, potassium is more

reactive than lead due to its high propensity to react with water and oxygen; so much so that it is

almost never encountered as a free element. However, metallic potassium immersed in mineral oil

has a lower propensity to change than lead does in an environment of fluorine gas (WebElements,

2015a & 2015b). Accordingly if, by way of a thought experiment, two identical people with broadly

change resistant, conservative value systems lived today and 1,000 years ago, they would have

different propensities to change as a consequence of differences in their environments. The person

living in 2017 would likely have taken to using a mobile phone, a computer and other products in

ways that have significantly changed the way they conduct their lives over the last decade or two,

whereas the person living in 1017 would likely live their entire lives without being significantly

affected by technological change of any sort.

All things have different propensities to change in any given environment. The more consistent and

stable these environments are, and the more widespread and commonly encountered they are, the

more significant these propensities become. The abundance of relatively stable environments in the

natural world, and even in fast evolving human culture, is such that individual propensities to change

are significant, and do provide useful guidance as to likely behaviours: it is useful to judge potassium

as being more reactive than lead, and for someone with dominant openness to change values to be

considered more likely to embrace change than someone with conservative values.

Given that the interplay between cooperative and competitive strategies are acknowledged to play a

key role in the evolution of biological systems (Dawkins, 1978; Nowak & Highfield, 2012), the

evolution of intelligence, personality and other factors influential in human behaviour should also

submit to analysis on these terms. Given the established correlation between personal values and

cooperative/competitive strategies (Sagiv, Sverdlik, & Schwarz, 2011), in order to better understand

the role played by values and value-equivalents it is beneficial to look beyond the frame of human

psychology, and examine the role of cooperative and competitive ‘strategies’ in the lower order

systems from which humanity evolved and is composed.

Non-human systems Since all things are constructed from common components, i.e. quantum particles, it follows that

change at any level is dependent on change taking place at the level of reactions between quantum

particles. Given that knowledge of quantum mechanics and elementary particles can be considered

embryonic – it is possible to predict sum of all histories behaviour at a higher quasi-classical level

14

without understanding what is going on at lower levels – the most fundamental level at which it is

possible to fruitfully explore the universal nature of change would appear to be the levels of the

atom and the molecule. If change at the atomic/molecular level of chemical reactions can be

usefully modelled in these terms it seems reasonable to infer that change at all higher levels can also

be usefully modelled in these terms.

There appears to be no single, universally agreed and exclusive typology for chemical reactions.

According to Wikipedia there are four types of chemical reaction: (1) synthesis, (2) decomposition,

(3) single replacement, and (4) double replacement. (Wikipedia, n.d.) Acknowledging this, it also

seems possible to place all reactions on a spectrum between two extremes: (1) highly competitive

reactions – i.e. those in which electrons, other charged particles or atoms are displaced by others,

and (2) a highly cooperative reactions – i.e. those in which no electrons, other charged particles or

atoms are displaced: the reactive agents simply conjoin.

It is important to stress the words ‘cooperative’ and ‘competitive’ are being used as they apply in the

virtual modelling of real systems, where “realistic representation of many details is unnecessary and

counterproductive” (Axelrod, 1997, p6). In this context they are independent of intent. They simply

reflect the extent to which one component has gained something while the other has been

reciprocally diminished (competition) or components have come together without either being

diminished (cooperation).

Most reactions could be considered competitive to some extent, however, two oxygen atoms

coming together to form an O2 molecule share two pairs of electrons to create a covalent bond,

rather than one atom taking two electrons from the other to complete its outer layer at the expense

of the other. This would seem to qualify as a completely cooperative reaction. Toward the other

end of the spectrum might be the reaction between aluminium and a solution of bromine, or more

particularly the consequent and violent reaction between aluminium bromide and water to form

hydrated aluminium ions [Al(H2O)6]3+ and bromide ions, Br-; the former going on to hydrolyse the

water ligands: Al(H2O)63+(aq) + H2O(l) Al(H2O)5(OH)2+(aq) + H3O+(aq) and so form an acidic

solution of HBr, which emerges as a gas, owing to the heat generated by hydrolysis

(RoyalSocietyofChemistry, 2008). In this reaction the displacement of atoms is recorded in the

changing chemical formulae while the displacement of electrons is evidenced by the marked

production of heat and light.

The greater the displacement involved the more competitive a reaction might be judged. Therefore

while one electron redox reactions involving the simple donation of one electron from one atom to

another (Marcus, 1956) would suggest one atom out-competing another, when placed on a

spectrum between the possible extremes, such reactions might be deemed closer to the cooperative

end of the spectrum than the competitive end.

In order to make the allusion more accessible, while also ensuring that notions of intent do not

confuse considerations of cooperation and competition, consider a plank of wood (a stable,

cooperative system of molecules) standing on one end, just off vertical, being allowed to fall to the

ground. In the context of the system comprising the plank, the surrounding space and the ground

on which it stands, the plank and the system of which it is a part, undergoes a process of change as it

falls but, as a discrete entity, the falling plank is a stable, unchanging system in its own right; one

that could be stood back up and the process repeated for an indefinite period with the same

outcome.

15

If a second identical plank (another system) is introduced and placed close to the first so they lean

toward each other, when both planks are released they will react in one of three possible ways:

(1) plank A will fall slightly ahead of plank B and when it meets it will push it back so that both planks

fall in the direction plank A was falling;

(2) The reverse will happen and both planks will fall in the direction of plank B; or

(3) the planks will fall together such that the momentum of each cancels out that of the other and

they remain broadly upright leaning together.

Scenarios (1) and (2) involve both planks colliding and competing with each other. As they do their

paths are interrupted and they lose momentum. Eventually one system outcompetes the other and

the ‘loser’ is forced to fall in the direction of the ‘winner’. It is diminished in the sense that it loses

forward momentum and is sent in the opposite direction. The competition is finally resolved when

the planks fall to the ground to become a stable, cooperative system of still, horizontal planks. In

scenario (3) the planks move from their stable, pre-existing state to a competitive, changed state

when they collide, but, being equally matched, they quickly cooperate: becoming conjoined parts of

two plank system that will remain stable as long as environmental conditions permit.

In these examples the decisive energy values of the planks will be determined at the point of

release. The one first released will have acquired greater kinetic energy (more power) when they

meet and, being equally matched in all other ways, will outcompete the other. When both planks

are released together they will have equal energy when they meet, and no one will be able to

outcompete the other. After a short period of competition a cooperative stalemate will emerge.

While leaning planks may make for a fragile cooperative system, most stable, naturally occurring,

conjoined systems tend to evolve a more robust union. For example, according to the theory of

symbiogenesis it is considered that mitochondria might once have been a separate organism that

evolved a symbiotic relationship (perhaps analogous with the leaning planks) before going on to

evolve as an integrated part of a single system (Nowack, Melkonian, & Glöckner, 2008; Reece et al.,

2010).

If all reactions can be considered in this way, i.e. as particles, atoms, molecules and larger systems

competing or cooperating with each other in processes of change, it follows that:

(1) evolution can be considered in these terms – gene mutation being molecular change

brought about by particle collision; mutated gene stability being determined by the chemical

compatibility (ability to cooperate) of its molecular constituents; gene vehicle (organism)

stability in the short-term being determined by the functional compatibility of phenotypes

(expressions of genes in their environment/reaction of genetic molecules with chemicals in

their environment); gene vehicle stability in the longer term being determined by the ability

of the organism to cooperate and compete with other organisms in the context of its

environment; and

(2) thought and decision-making can be considered in these terms – being the result of chemical

and electrical reactions taking place at synapses in the brain; the need-satisfying

effectiveness of these being judged in relation to the behaviour they promote: the

appropriateness of cooperative or competitive behaviour in the context of the environment

in which they are expressed; and therefore

16

(3) all the interactions required to bring about evolutionary change, at all levels, whether

genetic or memetic, can be mapped in relation to the circumplex’s change and mode of

change axes.

Mapping change on the circumplex Irrespective of the location at which a thing (a local system), be it an atom or a person, is usually

mapped on the circumplex, it has the potential to, momentarily at least, move further toward the

high propensity for change side when the local system it represents collides with another thing in

the greater system of their shared environment. At this moment the integrity of both local systems

is compromised and the local rules applicable to them may become subject to alteration by more

universal factors. This may trigger a change: whether this be a molecule undergoing a chemical

reaction or a person acquiring a new piece of technology. The change itself can then be mapped by

a transit through the upper (cooperative) or lower (competitive) half of the circumplex. Once a

reaction is complete, and a new stable state has been achieved, it can be mapped in the top left

quadrant of the circumplex – the low or no change and cooperation quadrant. In an evolving

universe, i.e. one in which entropy has the potential to increase, there will always be the potential

for change, and consequently the stability of any system within it could not be mapped at the

extreme end of the no change axis.

In order for any thing or system to maintain a stable state requires it to possess a balanced internal

state; i.e. one in which its components have a cooperative relationship with each other, with no one

component actively engaged in the displacement or erosion of another. If one part of a system

continually erodes or displaces another eventually the system will change such that it no longer

satisfies the criteria by which it was previously defined. A water molecule needs its oxygen and

hydrogen atoms to remain in a particular form of cooperative union. Should either be removed or

destroyed it will cease to be, and should additional atoms become attached it will become

something else.

Competitive systems in which one thing consumes or displaces another can only be maintained as

long as the consumed or displaced resources can be replenished. Because of this competition tends

to be more difficult to sustain than cooperation.

Any system stable enough to define and name may be considered to be cooperative in some sense,

but some ‘stable’ systems may be considered more stable, and therefore cooperative, than others.

The 209Bi isotope of Bismuth, once considered stable, was found to have a half-life of 1.9 x 1019 years

(Marcillac, Coron, Moalic, Dambier, & Leblanc, 2003). Contrastingly the most stable isotope of

naturally occurring Promethium is 18 years (RSC, 2016). Radioactive decay is consequence of

imbalances in the relationship between neutrons and protons in the nucleus of an atom, and can

therefore be considered as energy lost from the system of the atom as a consequence of

competition between its components.

Hydrogen atoms are considered stable, and hence may be considered fully cooperative systems.

However, when a sufficient mass of hydrogen atoms accumulates through gravitational attraction

(as happened at the end of the so called dark ages of the universe), further gravity-driven

accumulation and attendant increases in the density of molecular clouds of H2 may be such that

competition between them disrupts their internal state of cooperative equilibrium, releasing their

constituent particles to be recombined into heavier elements (Bromm, 2015). The energy being

released by a star such as the Sun is the result of such competitive reactions. Competition between

hydrogen atoms in the Sun results in their transmutation into helium, the loss of over 4 million

17

metric tons of matter per second and the radiation of almost 4×1026 W per second, yet it is

considered likely to continue doing this for another 5 bn years; such is its size and the abundance of

resources available to it (Schroder & Connon Smith, 2008).

Modelling change strategies with the Prisoner’s Dilemma While the Prisoner’s Dilemma is a just a ‘game’, its popularity as a means by which to model the

interaction of ‘players’ in psychology-related fields as diverse as warfare and economics

(Poundstone, 1993) is underpinned by the inescapable laws of physics as they apply to interacting

systems. The scoring of the game is such that: the maximum available (e.g. 6 points) can only be

realised by players that cooperate with each other (e.g. sharing 3pts each); maximum personal

advantage accrues to a player who defects (competes) when the other player cooperates, but this is

less than the total reward available (e.g. 5 pts): inflicting maximum disadvantage on the cooperative

player (e.g. 0 pts); and if both players compete they do a little better than if they had failed to score,

but not as well as if they had both cooperated (e.g. 1 pt each). If the points are treated as the

equivalent of mass and energy, it is apparent how the Prisoner’s Dilemma can be used to model the

interaction of physical bodies.

If two equally matched physical bodies, such as planks, pool balls or planets, are travelling in almost

exactly the same direction at the same speed, should they come into contact with each other their

interaction would be such that most, if not all, of the energy and mass of their conjoined system

would be conserved (represented by 3pts + 3 pts = 6pts). Should they be travelling in opposite

directions and collide, their interaction would likely result in each body losing all of its kinetic energy:

having this radiated away from their conjoined system in the form of heat and sound (3pts –

2pts)+(3pts – 2pts)= 1pt + 1pt. In the absence of intelligence and an ability for either ‘player’ to

deceive or misjudge the other, the equivalent of an interaction between a ‘competitive strategy’ and

a ‘cooperative strategy’ cannot be modelled by equally matched bodies. An equivalent interaction

might be that between two unequal bodies, such as a planet and an asteroid. In this instance the

asteroid is over powered and captured by the gravitational pull of the planet and falls into it. The

asteroid’s mass and energy is largely absorbed by the planet, but some is radiated away and lost into

space (for the planet: 3pts + 3pts – 1pt = 5pts and for the asteroid: 3pts – 3 pts = 0pts).

As a consequence of: the equivalence of mass and energy (Einstein, 1905); the fact that energy is

directly related to the ability to do work, and therefore to power; and mass and energy can be

considered as forms of information (Galperin, 2010), it is apparent why the use of the Prisoner’s

Dilemma is capable of being used as a means by which to model and better understand the

operation of all manner of interacting systems. It suggests while competition may involve a transfer

of power and information so as to provide a ‘win’ for one element of a system, it always results in

the loss of information and power from the system comprising the competing elements. Conversely,

cooperative strategies tend toward the conservation and aggregation of information and power

within a local system.

Winning strategies in Robert Axelrod’s research into iterated versions of the Prisoner’s Dilemma

game (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981) were cooperative: i.e. they outcompeted competitive strategies.

Wikipedia summarises the key conditions of Axelrod’s winning cooperative strategies as follows:

(1) Nice - it will not defect before its opponent does.

(2) Retaliating/Provocable – while never the first to defect, any strategy that did not punish the

opponent for defection would leave it open to ruthless exploitation by a "nasty" strategy.

18

(3) Forgiving/Clarity – once defection has been punished the strategy should encourage further

cooperation, making it clear that as long as the opponent does not continue to defect, the

player will always play “nicely” and cooperate.

(4) Non-envious - not concerned with scoring more than the opponent. (Wikipedia, 2015a)

In relation to Schwartz’s values, or the behaviours and attitudes arising from them, ‘nice’ and

‘forgiving’ align with benevolence, and ‘non-envious’ implies an opposition to power and

achievement (and therefore an affinity with benevolence and universalism). This is because power

and achievement, as competitive values, are implicitly concerned with the disparity between how

well one is doing and others are doing: the essential consideration of envy.

Retaliation can be seen as a competitive strategy, but, like all competitive strategies, is one open to

adoption as part of a widely framed, cooperative strategy informed by universalism. Universalism

ultimately relates to a complete understanding of a system, including the knowledge that to indulge

a competitive ‘nasty’ strategy by meeting it with a narrowly framed cooperative strategy capable of

being exploited is counterproductive to wider cooperative interests, and is likely to frustrate the

purpose of benevolence. This being the case, to discount the possibility of retaliation is incoherent

in the context of a rational strategy based on independent thought and action (self-direction)

supported by universal knowledge.

Natural selection operates by trial and error (Dawkins, 1979). From the chaotic interaction of

systems ‘strategies’ may emerge (Dawkins, 1979). Sub-optimal competitive strategies will, in the

long run, tend to be out-competed by the superior power-accumulation of systems using

cooperative strategies within a larger system. While competitive strategies may give rise to wins in

the short-term, they are unsustainable in the long-term due to their greater inability to conserve

energy. However, as with ‘stability’, short-term and long-term are relative terms. It is apparent that

competitive predation between species in an environment where both benefit from a rejuvenating

energy supply from an external system (in the case of Earth’s ecosystem, from the Sun) needn’t

bring about their mutual extinction. However, as is apparent from the relative success and

sustainability of civilizations based on trade and farming (cooperation between people and other

species) and hunter-gatherer societies pursuing more competitive strategies (taking but not giving),

cooperative strategies tend to win out over competitive ones in the long run (Ridley, 2011).

This is consistent with the observation that every single healthy example of a living multicellular

organism in the natural world comprises a cooperative group of cells. Cells that pursue a

competitive strategy inside the system of a host organism tend to bring about its demise, as cancer

cells do (Nowak & Highfield, 2012). Organisms comprising cells pursuing competitive, cancer-like

strategies tend to self-destruct. Accordingly organisms with genes that promote the emergence of

such strategies before they reach their reproductive age will tend to be eliminated by natural

selection. No such selection pressure exists to subdue an increased incidence of cancer in people

past the age of reproduction or where they otherwise cease to contribute to the success of the

species. Indeed in this context the increasing vulnerability of elderly organisms to cells adopting

competitive strategies (citation) can be viewed as being beneficial to the system of genes that is the

species, in that bringing about the demise of mature individuals no longer capable of maximising

their cooperative contribution maximises the share of resources available to the most productive co-

operators: mating and resource gathering youngsters (citation). This increases the likelihood that

gene frequency will be maximised in subsequent generations. In this sense the coexistence of

competition in broadly cooperative systems increases their sustainable or fitness by performing a

waste management role.

19

The suggested significance of this relationship between cooperative and competitive strategies in

self-replicating systems resonates with complex adaptive and living systems considered to be in ‘far

from equilibrium’ states (Bajic & Tan, 2005), and England’s (2013) development of Prigogine’s Nobel

Prize winning theory concerning the relationship between a system’s abilities to absorb and

dissipate energy from its surroundings: those systems most likely to evolve being those that absorb

and dissipate the most. The connected observation that “particles dissipate more energy when they

resonate with a driving force, or move in the direction it is pushing them” (Wolchover, 2014) itself

resonates with the previous analogy of a cooperative system comprising two bodies moving in the

same direction.

The ability of living systems to continually manage their resources by regulating the acquisition and

loss of information, mass and energy may enable them to achieve greater long term stability than

non-living systems such as stars. Systems running on cooperative strategies that conserve energy

will tend to grow as they outcompete others in their environment. For non-living systems – such as

molecular clouds that go on to become stars by outcompeting other centres of gravity – their demise

needn’t be triggered by exhausting the supply of competitive resources, but by growing beyond the

point at which an internal cooperative strategy may be maintained. The ‘lighting up’ of stars marks

the point at which molecular clouds switch to an internally competitive strategy that will eventually

lead to the destruction of the system (Bromm, 2015).

Non-living complex adaptive systems such as sand dunes evolve and endure by balancing the

acquisition and loss of grains: constantly being constructed and demolished by the wind; the

character of a dune system being preserved despite each dune exchanging all of its grains over the

course of its ‘life time’ citation.

Decision-making: needs and values-equivalent driven evolution Just as humans evolved from organisms that were not human, the human brain evolved from

clusters of neurons that were not brains; at least in the sense of the term as it is applied to humans

(Redies & Puelles, 2001), and these neurons evolved from pre-existing cell types with action

potentials (Duncan, 1967). Despite the complexity of human psychology, it evolved from electrical

routing and switching mechanisms in simple organisms. These organisms possessed the same type

of mechanisms that enable our brains to compute: i.e. voltage based gating (Fili et al., 2001) – a

process described as involving cooperation between sub-unit gates (Tytgat & Hess, 1992).

This being the case it seems reasonable to suggest our psychological needs and values also evolved

from a pre-existing equivalent of needs and values.

Humans, like all other organisms, need to metabolise to maintain their energy supply. In order to do

this we need, and therefore value, air, water and food. In order to satisfy our need for food we

might value such things as bananas, beef steak and bread. Food is therefore a need and of value.

While for humans this evaluation is part of a conscious decision-making process, organisms without

brains are also able to discriminate between things likely to satisfy their needs and those that won’t

and alter their behaviour accordingly.

Heliotropic plants satisfy their needs through photosynthesis. The associated evaluation process for

heliotropes includes sensing the direction from which energy from the sun is coming and then

altering their cellular structure so as to orientate themselves so as to track the sun’s movement

through the sky, and thereby maximise the plant’s rate of energy capture (Vandenbrink, Brown,

Harmer, & Blackman, 2014).

20

In order to discriminate between different parts of the sky heliotropes have a mechanism that

responds to different values of solar radiation, which in turn enables them to attach a greater value

to intense light (counting many photons) than to darkness (counting fewer photons). We can say

heliotropes ‘need’ a particular type of energy and so ‘value’ direct sunlight accordingly.

A heliotrope must also value many other things – water perhaps being the most significant - in order

to satisfy its needs. All these things have a particular significance and value that can be measured

relative to one other. Where a Venus fly trap has a mechanism that values the arrival of an insect as

a source of food and prompts it to capture it, heliotropic plants such as the buttercup do not value

insects in the same way, and consequently behave entirely differently when an insect lands on them.

In Rangel, Camerer & Read Montague’s (2008) analysis of neurobiological function in animals as it

relates to decision-making they define five stages:

1. Assessing: (a) internal states (need*); (b) external states (environmental threats to and

opportunities for satisfying needs*); and (c) potential courses of action (means of satisfying needs*).

2. Assigning a value (valuation) to various options.

3. Comparison of values to facilitate making a choice (action selection).

4. After implementing the decision, measuring the desirability of the outcomes.

5. Feedback measures to update and improve the quality of future decisions (learning)

*our additions

These stages of decision-making are universal. They are not unique to the neurological function of

animals, however, stages 4 and 5 are made easier with a brain. Heliotropes, and other organisms

without a brain, have limited reviewing and learning potentials. Genetic mutation and natural

selection effectively perform the equivalent of these functions for successive generations of genes

and consequently for the species. If a mutated gene enables an organism to make a better ‘decision’

about how to exploit resources in its environment than an organism from the same species without

the mutated gene, natural selection will effectively judge the desirability of the outcome from the

perspective of the species and future generations of the species, in which the frequency of the

mutated gene will increase: the species will have ‘learned’ to make better ‘decisions’; i.e. those that

better satisfy the ‘needs’ of the species.

In all other respects, in order to thrive and satisfy its needs, a heliotrope, like any other living

organism or system, must regulate itself in accordance with its own measurements according to

some system of values. Attuned to the circadian cycle, when the sun goes down heliotropes alter

their behaviour. They invest their resources differently from when the sun is shining: their system of

values allows them to prioritise alternative behaviours; including preparing for sunrise the next day

by re-orientating themselves (Robertson-McClung, 2006).

Biochemical processes programmed by genes are ultimately responsible for all the sensing,

‘decision-making’ and behaviour of heliotropes and all other organisms just as they are in humans.

Natural selection will tend to ensure these ‘decisions’ are targeted at satisfying the organism’s

needs, as any failure to do so would waste resources and cede competitive advantage to organisms

with more efficient genetic programming and behaviour.

While plants don’t make decisions as humans do, i.e. by conscious reflection, between the prompt of

sensing and any resultant behaviour, organisms benefit from a mechanism that determines what

21

action would best suit its needs given changes taking place in its environment. In order to consider

the chain of events in a broader evolutionary context one can even extend the use of the term to the

inorganic matter from which all living organisms evolved, and of which there are composed.

If we allow ourselves the conceit that the equivalent of decisions can be made by things lacking

intelligence, like plants, perhaps we can extend this to automated mechanical systems such as PIR

(passive infra-red) sensors attached to security lights. These sense movement in their immediate

environment and, dependent on changes in the level of infra-red light detected, will ‘decide’

whether to close a switch or not. If this qualifies as a form of ‘decision-making’ why not extend the

concept to all inanimate matter?

For an inanimate lump of matter, such as a lump of iron, the ‘decision-making’ process involved in

determining the response to a sensory input, such as being exposed to sunlight, may appear to be so

free from ‘choice’ that using the term ‘decision-making’ seems wholly inappropriate. However,

given a lump of iron responds to sunlight differently than a lump of ice, and both respond to changes

in their environment in very much the same way as the chemical compounds in a PIR sensor do,

perhaps it is appropriate to extend the decision-making concept to cover that which is determined

by the manner in which different atoms and molecules in any inanimate lump of matter respond to

changes in their environment.

Whether the complexity of the ‘decision-making’ process is as simple as it is for a lump of iron

sensing sunlight: to warm up and expand; a little more sophisticated, as in the case of a heliotrope:

to twist its stem and leaves to track the path of the sun; or, as it is for humans, one of potentially

infinite complexity, that seems, superficially at least, anything but deterministic, the fundamental

physical science remains the same. All change involves a shorter or longer, direct or indirect, chain

of reaction, of cause and effect, taking place at the level of particles, atoms and molecules; all of

which can be mapped in relation to the degree of change and mode of change axes of the Schwartz

circumplex.

Given the freedom to use such terms as needs, values, sensing, decision-making and behaviour

outside the realms of humanity and living organisms, without their having fundamentally different

meanings in each realm, it is possible to view them in their broader evolutionary context.

The suggestion is that equivalents to the ten Schwartz (1992) values are defining characteristics of

the universe and of its local systems, of which the human race is just one. As such they are virtual

components of a virtual decision-making process that facilitates change in all systems.

There is no intention to retro-fit these components of human motivation so as to account for the

evolution of the universe, but more to suggest they represent emergent patterns in complex

adaptive systems that seem to play a significant determining role in the evolution of these systems.

In the psychological systems of humanity this role is realised in conscious, sub-conscious and

unconscious decision-making.

The equivalent of decision-making in heliotropes is an involuntary consequence of evolution. The

same could have been said of the equivalent of decision-making in all pre-human ancestors before

the evolution of the human brain. Our brains have allowed us to develop a conscious awareness of,

and apparently discretionary control over, the decision-making process. This enables individuals to

directly review actions and learn in ways that replicate the equivalents of review and learning

applicable to all species evolving through natural selection. It is suggested that, similarly, human

consciousness has developed such that the criteria by which goals are set, strategies are formed and

decisions are made, i.e. Schwartz’s (1992) system of values, are equivalent to criteria and qualities

22

that emerge from and guide all evolutionary processes. In this sense personal values are conceptual

labels attached to locations in what amounts to a universal, virtual motivational field. ‘Virtual’

because it describes how it is appreciated rather than how it is; in the same way as gravity is

experienced as a force but is actually a consequence of moving through curved space-time, and

‘motivational’ in the sense of producing physical or mechanical motion, not in the sense of a

deliberate desire to act.

Because the universe endures, these value-equivalents can be seen as defining qualities of a

successful system.

A system of universal value-equivalents Having argued that the structure of the Schwartz circumplex allows us to model all evolutionary

systems, and that values-based decision-making is common to all organisms, including humanity’s

evolutionary forebears, it seems reasonable to suggest the ten personal value segments of the

Schwartz (1992) circumplex represent pre-existing value-equivalents present in all systems, which

are distinctive combinations of the four basic components of ‘strategies’ for change: change, don’t

change, compete and cooperate. Following this suggestion, the next logical step would seem to

involve ascribing a definition with universal equivalence to each value.

If the circumplex encompasses all strategies involved in evolutionary change it should be possible to

apply it to the evolution of the universe from Big Bang onwards. If it is possible to reasonably infer

the existence of a congruent system of value-equivalents in the early universe it would be

reasonable to consider it can be applied universally from then on.

In trying to imagine when individual value-equivalents would first become identifiable characteristics

of the universe, one is drawn to the evolution of the first local systems capable of being

comprehended: i.e. the appearance of stable entities capable of being differentiated from the

quantum chaos of the early universe with an internal structure comprehensible in quasi-classical

terms. While protons and electrons preceded hydrogen atoms, given the current state of knowledge

of these quantum systems is such that, while it is possible to predict something of how they are

likely to behave, why they behave in this way is not understood. Therefore the hydrogen atom

appears to be a better candidate as the first local system for consideration. All subsequent systems

emerged from the interaction between these, and between them and pre-existing quantum

systems. Atoms of heavier elements, molecules, dust clouds, stars and galaxies of stars and planets

subsequently became other examples of local systems, and, once life evolved, a great many others

eventually came into being: people, families, cities, nations, organizations and the global ecosystem.

Tradition translates to ‘uniformity through time’. As a personal value it involves abiding by and

carrying forward accepted ideas from a previous time. Ideas are one form of information. All mass

and energy can be considered as being packages of information (Deutsch, 2011) and entropy as

information loss (Callaway, 1996). No value-equivalent of tradition could have existed until some

level of local stability had emerged in the early universe. Many of the hydrogen atoms formed at

this time have survived the intervening 14bn years - they are the same today as they have ever been

- and so exemplify the significance of a value-equivalent of tradition; as do all the stable entities that

have since emerged, whether their stability is measured in billions of years (atoms, stars and

planets), millions of years (rocks, continents and geological features) or assessed relative to human

time-scales (religion, culture and working practices).

Conformity translates to ‘uniformity through space’. As a personal value it involves abiding by and

spreading particular forms of information laterally in the present time. As a value-equivalent in the

23

atomic realm it might relate to hydrogen atoms being the same in one person’s body as in any other,

and as they are in the Sun and in the Andromeda galaxy.

Security translates to ‘system specific boundaries and regulations’. Hydrogen atoms are defined by

the relationship between the protons that form their nuclei and the electrons orbiting them. These

obey fixed rules governing the behaviour of these particles and determine where the boundary of

the atoms lie.

These three value-equivalents are solely concerned with the conservation of a closed system; its

perpetuation, internal cohesion and protection.

Power translates to ‘influence and control’ – both within the system and without. The proton

nucleus of the hydrogen atom is the centre of its influence, being the location of virtually all its mass

and the control centre for the orbit of its electron. The hydrogen atom itself exerts an influence on

its environment as a result of its gravitational and electromagnetic fields. These determine how

attractive or repulsive atoms are to external particles or other atoms, and, in the event of a coming

together, will determine the outcome of any reaction. More powerful systems - generally those with

the greatest mass and energy – have the potential to outcompete less powerful systems.

Achievement translates to ‘conditioned for continued existence’. Since all local systems are a part

of at least one larger system, they must compete with others for space within these larger systems.

From the perspective of an individual local system, its continued existence is evidence of successful

need satisfaction in a competitive environment. This being the case, for local systems of inanimate

matter, achievement is the end of the spectrum in terms of its internal value-equivalents.

The following value-equivalents acquire meaning in larger, universal and virtual universal systems,

and in relatively unstable systems such as atoms of radioactive elements.

Hedonism and stimulation approximately translate to ‘chaotic reactions and information exchange

between systems’. Inside a stable local system, i.e. one that obeys the laws of classical physics,

there is no room for unpredictable (chaotic) behaviour, as this would undermine the stability of the

system and prevent it from satisfying the value-equivalents of tradition and conformity. However,

any local system (such as a hydrogen atom) may be drawn into chaotic reactions with other systems,

from which they may change, undergo a transformation or contribute to an evolution; for example:

cooperating with another hydrogen atom to form a stable H2 molecule, or competing with other

hydrogen and oxygen atoms to form a stable, cooperative H2O molecule.

The personal values of hedonism and stimulation encourage behaviour that may be chaotic, but it is

the exchange of information between systems they facilitate that is key to their function. Where

achievement is concerned with a local system going through the motions to satisfy its basic need for

survival/continued existence in a competitive environment (and therefore, while outward

referencing, is primarily introspective), hedonism and stimulation are outward looking: they concern

interaction with other people/systems.

Self-direction translates to ‘independently acquired direction’. This can only apply to systems not

governed by another system. The solar system cannot be said to have an ‘independently acquired

direction’ because the Sun is orbiting the centre of the Milky Way; the movement of which is itself is

related to that of other galaxies. As far as can yet be determined the universe is not governed by

another greater system, and therefore entropy (the arrow of time) provides it with the equivalent of

self-direction.

24

That people can have self-direction as a value is a reflection of our capacity for free-will. While it can

be argued that this is an illusion (Dennett, 1984; Wegner, 2002), within the context of our

comprehension of our existence, it is perhaps as compelling an illusion as the arrow of time may

prove to be should we come to understand our universe is part of a multiverse, which in turn proves

to be a component of a larger system.

Universalism translates to ‘universal content and laws’: all content and the rules that apply

everywhere, connect everything and guide every action within the universe. The theories of general

relativity and quantum mechanics represent the current understanding of these. The personal value

of universalism’s relationship with ‘understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the

welfare of all people and for nature’ (Schwartz, 2012) is effectively a more parochial take on this

translation - the key words being ‘understanding’ and ‘nature’.

The evolution of memory and intelligence enabled the virtual modelling of processes that previously

could only be explored by physical trial and error, and evaluated, judged and ‘decided upon’ by

natural selection. This represented the beginnings of the creation of the universal replicator that

our brains are becoming: entities capable of building a virtual representation of the universe of

which they are a part (Deutsch, 2011).

Benevolence ultimately translates to ‘conservation of energy within a system’. Where the personal

value relates to ‘preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent

personal contact (the ‘in-group’)’ the wider value-equivalent accounts for the wider

purpose/function of the value.

The altruism the value of benevolence more directly represents only exists as a sustainable survival

strategy when it encourages reciprocity. From the perspective of a gene or gene combination that

promotes an act of altruism in its host, natural selection will only preserve it if the cost results in an

equal or greater benefit to that gene or the gene combination of which it is a part. If the cost

involves the death of the organism carrying it and the termination of the gene itself, it can only be

encouraged through natural selection if a benefit accrues to other copies of the gene, such that their

frequency in subsequent generations increases: e.g. the ant that sacrifices itself and in so doing

increases the chance of the queen (which carries the same gene) passing multiple copies of it on to

the next generation (Dawkins, 1978).

This is directly analogous with the conservation of energy within a system. If a system consistently

radiates away more than it receives it will eventually cease to be. From the perspective of the

system as a whole it doesn’t matter where energy flows from and to, just that the total outward flow

is equalled or exceeded by the inward flow. In the universal system, assuming it is closed, the value-

equivalent of benevolence is limited to conservation of energy, in that no energy can flow in from

outside. In its sub-systems, however, it is possible for energy to flow from one to another, and it is

the superior performance of cooperative (benevolent) systems that allows them to benefit at the

cost of others.

Benevolence sits at the top of the hierarchy of values yet is situated next to tradition (at the bottom

of the hierarchy) in the circumplex. This dual role relates to the nature of the system to which it

applies. In Schwartz’s definition benevolence relates to a person’s in-group. Tradition applies to

relatively restricted in-groups (religious groups, social groups, nations, etc.), just as its value-

equivalent relates to any local systems. Therefore the equivalent of benevolence in social insects

such as ants relates to indirect reciprocity in respect of the altruistic acts of individual ants; natural

25

selection operating not at the level of the system comprising the individual ant (a system of cells) but

at the level of the colony (a system of ants), which is the ant gene’s principal vehicle.

For people, benevolence associated with universalism suggests a relationship with an extended ‘in-

group’ that could potentially include the entire human and Earth centred ecosystem, and could

conceivably be extended to include the entire universal system. Given that extended human

phenotypes (Dawkins, 1982) such as international trade, politics and the Internet overlap, and are

integrated so as to create a global web of influence, one that is significantly changing the ecosystem

on which humanity depends: the human gene vehicle upon which natural selection may ultimately

pass judgement, the importance of universalism and benevolence as personal values could hardly be

greater.

Having established the purpose value-equivalents serve at the most fundamental level it is possible

to relate these to any system. Table 2 illustrates how these value-equivalents are expressed in the

following systems: (1) the universe, (2) chemical/physical (atomic and molecular), (3) genes - living

organisms, (4) people and (5) organizations.

Insert Table 2 here

26

Table 2 Value Equivalents in Universal and Local Systems

Value-Equivalent Universal Systems Local Systems

The Universe Human Psychology

Atoms Living Cells Other Organisms People Organizations

Tradition Continuity through time

Tradition Uniformity through time

Meiosis Temporal stability of species-specific characteristics

Religion, race and customs

Corporate heritage

Conformity Continuity through space

Conformity Uniformity through space

Mitosis Shared characteristics of species

Cultural identity ‘the way things are done around here’

Security Local boundaries and rules

Security Boundaries and energy levels of electron orbits

Cell wall and internal regulatory systems

Epidermis and internal regulatory systems

Rules, regulations and safety mechanisms

Regulations, corporate protocols, etc.

Power Centred influence of local systems

Power Influence of nucleus on electrons – mass and charge of atom

Nuclear DNA Influence on mates and competitors and environment

Self-assertion, raising/preserving status and imposing order on environment and others

Command & control hierarchical structures, status labels, market share, brand, etc.

Achievement Continued existence of local systems in a competitive environment

Achievement Continued existence in a competitive environment

Continued existence in a competitive environment – natural selection

Fitness indicators Winning approval – directly from others or indirectly in relation to hitting performance benchmarks

Profit, performance targets, company awards, approval ratings, etc.

Hedonism & Stimulation

Chaotic collisions between local systems

Hedonism & Stimulation

Mutation interbreeding & play (intelligent animals only)

Having fun and experiencing new things

Fun & stimulating environments

Self-Direction Direction - time and entropy

Self-Direction n/a n/a (limited expression in intelligent animals only)

Independent thought and action

R&D, innovation, learning and leading by example

Universalism Universal laws and rules

Universalism n/a n/a n/a Seeing big picture, wisdom, empathy and connectedness

Diversity & inclusion, social & environmental responsibility

Benevolence Conservation of energy

Benevolence Conservation of energy

Conservation of energy

Conservation of energy

Altruism & honesty Honesty, integrity, customer and staff care

27

The emergence of a circular and hierarchical structure in values and

the relationship of the latter to evolution At the instant of its inception, even if it there was no singularity, the universe before Big Bang

contained no local systems that satisfied conditions of stability that conform to classical physics

(Gasperini & Veneziano, 1993). Prior to inflation and the emergence of local systems the only value-

equivalent that can be inferred with any degree of confidence is that of universalism: manifest in the

fundamental laws of the universe, or of what preceded it. If it was then a closed system, this would

have been accompanied by the equivalent benevolence: manifest in the principle of conservation of

energy. While it is possible these value-equivalents were also accompanied by the equivalent of

self-direction, given that entropy is not a universal law and, as Boltzmann and Feynman have

illustrated (North, 2011), does not apply in the microstates of quantum particles as it does in the

macrostates of physical objects, it might not become applicable until it is possible to consider the

macrostates of local systems. Accordingly, until the first distinct and stable local systems appeared,

it would not be possible to infer system-specific value-equivalents that would characterize distinctive

local equivalents of tradition, conformity, security, power and achievement. While it is tempting to

associate the earliest chaotic moments of the universe as being associated with the equivalents of

hedonism and stimulation, until there were systems capable of chaotic interaction this would not be

possible; this would require the origin of the universe to be considered in terms of the chaotic

interaction of a pre-existing system. Consequently neither a circular or hierarchical structure of

value-equivalents can be inferred at the moment of its creation.

However, once local systems emerged, so would system-specific manifestations of the value-

equivalents of tradition to achievement. The ensuing chaotic interactions between systems would

then have disrupted local manifestations of the equivalents of tradition, conformity and security,

thereby establishing an opposition between the local system conservation value-equivalents and the

universal pro-change equivalents of hedonism and stimulation. Such collisions also illustrate the

opposition of the value equivalents of benevolence, universalism and self-direction (conservation of

energy in the universe, universal laws and entropy) and the local system enhancing value-

equivalents of power and achievement: local systems being broken down and reconfigured by the

irresistible forces of the universe.

Successive interactions between local systems led to an increasing number and diversity of local

systems (citation), and thereby to a corresponding increase in the diversity and layering of system-

specific ‘needs’ and manifestations of value-equivalents: from the needs of the hydrogen atom, to

the needs of heavier elements, to the needs of simple molecules, to the needs of complex

molecules, etc.

After billions of years of collisions and reactions between local systems as small as particles and as

large as stars, the systems of RNA and DNA molecules and cellular life emerged (citation).

Subsequent mutations of DNA led to the evolution of the complex systems of multicellular

organisms, organs, brains, human intelligence and psychology (citation). The particular information

gathering, processing and communication capabilities associated with the evolution of the human

brain led to the emergence of a distinctive human culture (effectively created by the networking of

human brains) as an additional driver of evolution: the evolution of a system of memes emerging

from the evolution of a system of genes via the physical systems they gave rise to (Dawkins, 1978).

The ability of the brain to create virtual representations of the universe is reflected in the realization

of the personal, local system values of universalism and self-direction as distinct from their pre-

28

existing value-equivalents, which only existed in the unconscious universal system. Just as their

universal equivalents can ultimately be considered responsible for the evolution of the universe,

these personal values can now be seen to be the principal drivers of human cultural evolution:

accumulated wisdom, rational analysis, creative thought and independent action working together

to accelerate discovery and innovation; in the process establishing a hierarchical relationship

between the values of universalism and tradition.

The pace of evolution previously established in systems of inanimate matter increased with the

evolution of life due to genetic DNA’s ability to self-replicate while accommodating mutation.

Consequently the diversity of form and capabilities that has evolved in living organisms over 4bn

years has greatly exceeded the diversity of form and capabilities that evolved in non-living matter

over the previous 10bn years (citation). The evolution of the human brain, and particularly its

capacity to create memes, vastly increased the pace at which human culture could evolve, since

memes can mutate and reproduce as quickly as they can be realized and communicated (Dawkins,

1978). Initially this would have been little faster than genetic evolution, but since memes can spread

and evolve purposefully and exponentially, the pace of human evolution also has the potential to

increase exponentially (citation).

Just as the value-equivalent of tradition arises as a consequence of the value-equivalents of

universalism and self-direction, because enduring characteristics of local systems are the result of

universal laws, time and entropy, many human traditions were first established by independent

thought and action (self-direction) based on what then passed as universal understanding

(universalism). While traditions are supposed to endure the passage of time without changing, few

achieve this. Even those traditions that purport to represent universal truths handed down by an

immortal god owe their origin to human invention (citation) and are subject to change citation, in

that we can date the origin of most religions and also chart the significant changes their supposedly

immutable beliefs have undergone since (Wikipedia, 2015b).

Tradition is the most change-resistant of the values. The intervening values between it and self-

direction display increasing propensities to accommodate change. Conformity references what

others are doing in the present (or more accurately: have been doing in the very recent past citation)

not what others have long been doing. Therefore, while there are correlations between what

people did in the past and do in the present that vary in relation to the timeframes allowable for the

subjective definitions of ‘past’ and ‘present’, conformity at least permits change conditional on its

acceptance by others. Security seeks to protect and maintain order and must therefore adapt if it is

to ward off the destabilizing effects of change; especially those that would give potential defectors

or competitors an advantage over the cooperative, conformist in-group it seeks to protect. Power is

primarily concerned with achieving higher status and control, and therefore will promote the

adoption and employment of tools likely to impress or help gain control of members of the relevant

in-group, or with the potential to subdue competitors and widen the holder’s sphere of influence.

Achievement provides the drive to maximise performance, and therefore incentivises the early

adoption of potentially helpful innovations. Hedonism and stimulation facilitate experimentation

and innovation, by encouraging activities that might otherwise be considered non-essential:

hedonism simply by encouraging people to have fun; stimulation by encouraging people to take on

novel and therefore potentially risky challenges. Self-direction encourages autonomy, curiosity and

creativity: the freedom to apply the lessons of personal and shared experience, purposeful

experimentation and rational analysis to do what the individual considers is in their own best

interests, free from the need to secure the approval or esteem of others. If self-direction relates to

29

intelligence and results in the accumulation of knowledge it feeds into the wisdom associated with

universalism: a more complete sense of knowing one’s place in the universe.

From the perspective of modern mankind, as postulated by Griffiths, Thomas & Dyer (2017), it is

possible to see self-direction and universalism as the drivers of innovation, and, by association, of

cultural evolution. Theoretically these values increase the potential knowledge base accessible to

any individual, the curiosity to explore new ideas, the intelligence to analyse information and discern

patterns, the freedom to challenge conventional views and ways of doing things, and, with

benevolence, the willingness to share ideas. Collectively these attributes increase the likelihood of

connecting previously disparate pieces of information so as to bring about a deeper level of

understanding and the ability to invent new applications for this knowledge (citation).

The rewards offered by these ‘higher’ values provide trickle down benefits for the needs associated

with the ‘lower’ values, while simultaneously lowering the relative importance of these lower values

as the needs to which they relate are progressively more easily satisfied by the potentially higher

returns on investment available from strategies based on higher values. It is rational to suppose

those individuals feeling able to concentrate their energies on self-direction, universalism and

benevolence do so because they find themselves in a state of emotional surplus that increases their

ability to: (1) take what others lacking such a surplus might consider to be risks associated with

novelty and adventure (stimulation); (2) do things just for the fun of doing them (hedonism); (3)

achieve things that others are unable to (achievement); (4) be perceived to have high status and be

rewarded and deferred to as a consequence (power); (5) trust in their ability to take care of

themselves (security); (6) feel confident in the appropriateness of their actions without feeling the

need to conform (conformity); and (7) do the right thing without deferring to precedent and

received wisdom (tradition).

However, while self-direction and universalism may have become the most potent values in terms of

accelerating memetic evolution, and while their universal value-equivalents can be considered to

have been their bootstrapping source, their emergence to perform this role was almost certainly as

a consequence of the value-equivalents of achievement, hedonism and stimulation.

The value-equivalent of achievement in early local systems is realised by their mere existence. There

would appear to be limited scope for ‘decision-making’ in such systems, given that a material

variation such the loss or gain of an electron or proton would constitute a transmutation: the

creation of a new system with different ‘needs’. When stable systems change this results from an

interaction with an external system, and so the equivalent of hedonism and stimulation is to be

found in the universal system not in the local system. When an unstable system, such as an atom of

radioactive element, changes, one might consider that its emergence from chaotic interactions in

the wider universal system was never resolved such as to enable it to become a fully closed local

system, and therefore the equivalents of these pro-change values belong to the universal system.

Any ‘decision-making’ in the process of change by which atomic and molecular structures are

rearranged is limited to a simple conditionality comparable to a lock and key mechanism: if the

configuration of two systems are compatible, and the relationship between the energies of the

systems involved is conducive, a particular change will take place; e.g. the sodium atom and the

chlorine atom will become a molecule of sodium chloride: a system with different ‘needs’ to each of

its constituent parts.

In the instance of molecular structures as complex as DNA the conditionality by which change is

permitted becomes more complex, and, as in the case of the DNA of any complex organism, multiple

30

changes to its structure may be considered as modifying its needs to such a small degree that its

general needs, and therefore qualifying criteria by which the molecule and organism are recognized,

remain effectively the same.

While a lump of iron may adapt to its environment, by say expanding with an increase in

temperature, it is not considered to have evolved. The ‘rules’ governing its behaviour have not

changed; just the behaviour governed by these rules. Should these rules change then iron is not

considered to have evolved but to have become something else.

An ability to accommodate change in response to environmental change while maintaining the

overall integrity of a system, and then reproduce this in successive generations of the system, are

characteristics of evolution through natural selection that differentiates non-living and living

systems. As modelling of complex adaptive systems has demonstrated, it is possible for complex

networks of interacting mathematical equations to self-catalyse (Kaufmann). Because such complex

self-catalysing systems may respond to energetic environmental inputs in ways that appear less

deterministic than those associated with simple lock and key type reactions, they may appear to

‘have a mind of their own’; i.e. be capable of discretionary decision-making. While reactions within

them may remain deterministic, the potential for greater sensitivity to environmental inputs in

complex adaptive systems tends to obscure this citation. The abilities of complex, living, molecular

systems to be sensitive to and accommodate change, and mutate so as to change the ‘rules’ by

which the system operates, allow the variation necessary for evolution by natural selection. As

mutated forms improve the ability for organisms to satisfy their needs (or the needs of their genes)

so the quality of their ‘decision-making’ can be considered to improve.

In the complex adaptive systems of cells that are living organisms (Holden, 2005) the achievement of

continued existence becomes increasingly palpable as their complexity, and the apparent variety of

their decision-making and strategic options, increases. All objects in any environment are exposed

to the flow of information passing through it. The degree to which they are affected by this is

dependent on how sensitive to it they are and their responses to that which they sense. All such

information can be considered in terms of mass and energy citation. All sensed interactions

between living organisms and their environment are evaluated in electromagnetic terms citation.

Impacts with massive objects generate electrical signals and energetic particles may react directly

with those in the body of the organism or be picked up by dedicated sensory organs.

In the human senses, sight measures the wavelength and intensity of electromagnetic radiation

within a particular range, enabling information from different sources to be evaluated at distance.

Hearing converts proximal shock waves to electric signals, enabling information concerning the

location and nature of the source to be evaluated. Smell is the response to electrical signals being

triggered by the presence of different molecules in the immediate environment; whether in ambient

gases or straying from volatile substances nearby. Taste works on a similar basis to smell but is less

sensitive because it used to evaluate objects at close range: i.e. that have been introduced to the

mouth. Touch explores the electrical qualities of the surface of objects.

Stable atoms and molecules, accumulations of matter, complex systems of inanimate matter, the

complex adaptive systems of simple life-forms and complex intelligent organisms differ in their

sensitivity to information in their environment, and the degree to which they are able to change in

response to it citation. Complementing their apparently greater, more flexible decision-making

ability, complex living systems tend to have greater sensitivity to a range of sensory inputs (citation).

The atoms in an inanimate object such as a lump of iron may be rearrange themselves in response to

a change in energy, or be moved by external force, but are otherwise incapable of adapting their

31

behaviour so as to better satisfy its needs. Organisms without intelligence have evolved to better

satisfy their needs by adapting to information from their environment, whether through the

evolution of passive structures such as aerodynamic seed cases or dynamic adaptations such as head

turning heliotropes.

The evolution of the type of more sophisticated, less transparently deterministic decision-making

common to all living organisms does not appear to have given rise to the emergence of local system

value-equivalents for hedonism, stimulation, self-direction and universalism. However, the

subsequent evolution of neural networks in some organisms created the potential for a secondary

complex adaptive system within the pre-existing complex adaptive system of cells. Where electrical

differentials across cells and linear arrangements of neurons are able to process information so as to

communicate information from one location to another and differentiate between strong and weak

signals (citation), non-linear arrangements enable different pathways to be established in a multiple

switching neural network. This offers the potential for exponential increases in information

processing power when additional neurons are added (citation).

So where pre-existing living systems of cells were capable of sensing and adapting to their

environments, the evolution of neural networking created the potential for complex adaptive

systems that responded, not just to information from the environment beyond the system of the

organism, but to information arising from changes within the system of the organism.

The evolution of the complex adaptive system that constitutes life enabled organisms to effectively

review the ‘decisions’ made by other systems and the wider environment, and make its own

decisions as to what strategies would best suit the needs of the organism. The emergence of a

second complex adaptive system within the another enables the second to effectively review the

quality of the first system’s decision-making and provide feedback on it so as to improve it citation.

The first system enables evolution and responsive adaptive behaviour to environmental triggers, the

second enables awareness of evolved characteristics and an ability to review and adapt behaviour in

real time. As such it is apparent that the emergence of a complex adaptive neural systems also

marks the emergence of System 1 and System 2 cognitive functions citation, and the emergence of

personal values from pre-existing value-equivalents.

Diversity of form, capability and behaviour, when coupled with the means by which to sense and

differentiate between these, gives rise to the potential for more sophisticated decision-making

processes. These enable greater differentiation between the ‘achievements’ of other organisms and

information relating to their own achievement potential. The ability to assess the opportunities and

threats presented by other organisms represents another form of power on which natural selection

can act: to be guided not only by the actual survival and reproductive power of organisms as

measured by the frequency of their genes over many generations, but also the apparent signals of

survival and reproductive power; i.e. fitness indicators (Miller, 2000).

Where previously organisms might have interacted chaotically citation, with outcomes determined

by trial and error citation, the ability to assess the utility of an outcome before deciding upon it,

offers the potential to reduce risks and increase the efficient use of resources; whether in

competition or cooperation. Selection pressure in favour of genes promoting successful decision-

making strategies, and the greater efficiency of such strategies, would inevitably lead to selection

pressure in favour of the values-equivalent of achievement in preference to the value-equivalent of

power; and so challenging some of the previously established strategies associated with the

equivalents of tradition, conformity and security.

32

From this point on the effective power of an organism or species is no longer solely dependent on its

ability to literally overpower others. Seeming and being become detached from each other, and the

effective power of an organism, i.e. its ability to influence or compete with others, becomes

increasingly dependent on, and derived from, the equivalent of its achievement drive: initially

through genetic selection pressure in favour of physical and behavioural appearance (Fisher, 1958),

and subsequently, in humans, the conscious incentive to do that most likely to influence others as

desired (Miller, 1998).

The evolution of neural networks, the subsequent evolution of ganglions and brains mark stages in

the development of a universal processor; i.e. a system capable of handling not just one function but

all functions (citation). Just as the personal computer performs multiple functions, and so renders

the specialised devices that formerly performed these functions individually redundant, the

evolution of neural systems in organisms seems likely to have given them a multitude of advantages

over those without.

Single advantageous mutations in one species give rise to selection pressure on mutations that give

rise to the equivalent of an ‘arms race’ with competitors (citation). In this, any relative advantages

accruing to one party are continually eroded by those of another until a state of equilibrium is

arrived at. The evolution of even rudimentary universal processing in organisms would have the

potential to create a multitude of advantages. So where an advantage arising from a single mutation

improving an organism’s strength may be countered by any one of a number of complimentary

mutations affecting another’s strength, size, speed, etc., the advantages provided by rudimentary

intelligence would not be so easy to counter, requiring either a sequence of mutations particular to

the evolution of intelligence, or multiple mutations to counter each of the multitude of

performance-enhancing advantages provided by intelligence. This might make it possible for an

intelligent organism to satisfy all its basic needs with significantly less energy. Such an advantage

may give rise to an effective surplus of resources that may prove difficult for mutations in

competitor genomes to erode.

If the circumstances were such that any resulting evolutionary niches could not be filled by

disadvantaged competing species, and competition arising from an expanded population of the

intelligent species also failed to fill this niche (perhaps as a consequence of the intelligent species

being able to exploit, and spread out into, other environments), there would be greater potential for

subsequent disadvantageous mutations in that species not to be eliminated by natural selection;

merely reducing the effective surplus. Some of these mutations may give rise to ‘risky’ behaviour;

i.e. that which carries a short-term cost but offers the potential for long-term gain. Just as people

said to be ‘caught in the poverty trap’ have no surplus resources to invest in non-essential items that

might offer them a means of escape citation, organisms lacking a surplus of resources lack the

capacity for investing in non-essential behaviour. Just as randomising the behaviour of artificial

complex adaptive systems enables them to escape a sub-optimal rut in a fitness landscape

(Kauffman, 1995), the investment of surplus resources in random behaviour by organisms may lead

them to discover information and behaviour capable of improving their fitness. Such chaotic,

inessential behaviour can easily be associated with loose experimentation of having fun: i.e.

hedonism.

It would seem reasonable to hypothesise that natural selection, in favouring genes enabling

organisms to use neural networks to better judge others on the basis of information coming from

them (achievement): i.e. the advertised power potential of their fitness indicators, would also

endow organisms with the capability to judge the power potential, or utility, of other variations in

their environment. Both arise from chaotic interactions between systems: the genetic mutations

33

and epigenetic effects ultimately responsible for the changes in appearance and behaviour being

judged by the value-equivalent of achievement being the result of chaotic interactions between the

systems of an organism’s DNA and its environment (citation). Without the necessity for the

equivalent of a hedonism or stimulation drive in organisms, unbidden events in their environment

present organisms with new information and hence learning opportunities.

An ability to extract information from remote sensory observation in this way would also seem to

present opportunities to learn from observing the experiences of others, as, from the perspective of

an individual organism, these are also simply the product of chaotic interactions between systems.

While the equivalent of an achievement drive provides an evolutionary advantage through its ability

to increase efficiency: saving the expenditure of energy in unproductive interactions with other

systems, it offers little potential for innovation. However, once organisms acquire the ability to learn

from chaotic interactions in their environment, and this yields survival and reproductive benefits,

selection pressure will emerge for genes that accelerate both the ability to learn and, subsequently,

the ability to generate opportunities for learning (de Castro & Zuben, 2002; Johnston, 1982): the

equivalents of hedonism and stimulation. From this point on, the ability of natural selection to act

on memes as well as genes accelerates the pace of evolution: memes being able to replicate and

disperse in a single life time of an organism (Dawkins, 1978).

Selection pressure in favour of genes that promote the values of hedonism and stimulation (and

thereby learning from new experience) by association increases the ability of an organism to think

and act independently (self-direct) and, as a consequence, the knowledge gained of its environment

(universalism). This creates selection pressure in favour of genes that increase the ability of an

organism to create its own learning opportunities, improve the quality of its learning and build a

greater understanding of its environment. These attributes contribute to a feedback loop in which

acquired knowledge increases the information on which to base subsequent decisions concerning

where best to direct resources in pursuit of new learning opportunities: the process upon which

discovery and innovation depends (Cohen & Levinthal, 1989).

Values-related evolution of human culture As the potential for people’s cooperative motivations to find expression through universalism

related benevolence (guided by self-direction) increases, they are less likely to feel compelled by

tradition or conformity. In a differentiated societal system, in which people have different value

priorities, while the evolutionary advantages offered by self-direction and universalism accelerate

exponentially, resistance from the values of tradition and conformity increase the significance of,

and potential for, internal conflict; the effects of which may be experienced by individuals and by

stretching the cultural fabric of wider societal systems.

This cultural stretching is reflected in the drawing up of the hierarchical structure associated with

the spiral form of the circumplex. At the bottom are the values of tradition and conformity (aligned

with related forms of benevolence) that encourage a belief in the worth of previously established

ideas - formulated so as to make sense of and manage the less complex and less well understood

systems of the past. At the top is benevolence as it relates to universalism and self-direction: that

encourage acting in the best interests of all based on the current state of knowledge relating to an

enlarged and more complex system. The values at the top act so as to accelerate progress, the

values at the bottom to inhibit change.

The vertical stretching of the spiral hierarchy is assisted by an innovation feedback loop in which the

newly captured information resulting from innovation enlarges human understanding as well as its

34

ability to share it: increasing the information base as well as the information processing and

synthesising capacity of humanity, and hence its capacity for innovation. The greater the quantity of

information made available to each individual, and the greater the potential for them to share

information with each other, the greater the selection pressure in favour of intelligence associated

with self-direction, universalism and benevolence.

Near the midpoint of the values spiral are the self-enhancing, competitive values of power and

achievement; those values that, in the plan view presented by the circumplex, oppose the self-

transcending, cooperative values at its top. While these values do not directly encourage

innovation, and are arguably more closely related to tradition and conformity than universalism and

benevolence, they are beneficiaries of self-direction and universalism. The greater the impact of any

innovation the greater the effect it will have on power and achievement, as it increases the potential

for competitive advantage to be accumulated by people who exploit the latest advances, especially

over those with more conservative, change-resistant values.

Given power and achievement promote a desire to be seen to be successful and be held in high

esteem by others, the risks of failure associated with the invention that precedes innovation are

likely to be perceived as unattractive. Instead they encourage the investment of emotional

resources into gathering knowledge and skills considered most likely to secure an advantage over

others as efficiently as possible. This tends to promote specialization and inhibit the type of wider

curiosity that helps build a broader understanding of the universal system that feeds creativity and

invention. Consequently power and achievement may promote antipathy toward new ideas, and

those who promote them; at least until they have established a track record of success: whereupon

they may become very attractive.

The effect of evolution on benevolence, as it is portrayed in the hierarchical spiral and circumplex

has been to divide in two: one component deeply rooted in genetic evolution, the other more

directly related to memetic evolution. Where once it represented the involuntary cooperation

between components of a system that evolved through natural selection to optimise fitness in a

competitive environment, as memes replaced genes as the principal agent of human evolution, it

split down the middle: one half closely attached to the traditions that slowly established themselves

as replacements and supplements to the genetic value-equivalents for tradition, the other closely

attached to the more refined, rational and knowledge-based values of self-direction and

universalism. However, given the apparently anomalously high correlations between benevolence

and the self-enhancing values of power and achievement in the average values profiles of those

driven by the latter reported by Griffiths, Thomas & Dyer’s (2017), it may be that rather than being

split in two, it would be more representative to consider benevolence as having been stretched out

between two anchoring points, so that it thins in the middle like chewing gum being stretched

between thumb and index finger. In this illustration the strong attachment to, and greater thickness

at the thumb and index finger reflects the more direct relationship and stronger correlation between

benevolence and both its traditional/genetic and universal/memetic roots, while the narrowing in

the middle reflects the more indirect relationship between benevolence and self-enhancement.

Before the evolution of intelligence and the realization of the universal value-equivalents of

hedonism to universalism as personal values, benevolence enjoyed a more direct relationship with

achievement: the manifestations of which are still evident. At one level, achievement reflects the

qualities of an organism related directly to the cooperative integrity of its internal system. At

another it relates to its survival in competition with others. At its highest level it relates to survival

as part of a larger system. Only when achievement is fully subordinate to universalism and

benevolence is the third level likely to be attained. Otherwise it will tend towards using intelligence

35

as a means by which to take advantage of the benevolent instincts of others: playing a competitive

strategy to secures an advantage for the individual and give others the sucker’s pay off (Axelrod &

Hamilton, 1981), and inclining the species to evolve on a path determined by the Nash equilibrium

(Nash, 1950), rather than one based on an optimised cooperative strategy. This is consistent with a

negative correlation between achievement and benevolence, yet those driven strongly by

achievement are not necessarily incapable of benevolence. More likely is it that their benevolence is

qualified and subordinated by achievement, so that it is more freely expressed in relation to

members of a more tightly defined in-group (family and friends) and in ways that are worthy of

admiration by others (public donations to good causes).

Given, as previously considered, the type of competitive strategies encouraged by achievement will

tend to contribute to the destruction of a system unless their role is subordinate to a wider

cooperative strategy, it might seem surprising that the dominant culture of the large organizations

analysed by Griffiths, Thomas & Dyer (2017) were, as hypothesized, centred around the values of

power and achievement. However, any system with surplus resources may accommodate

competitive strategies, even dominant ones, for as long as these last.

The effect of surplus resources on natural selection One consequence of the vertical stretching of the values hierarchy, and the exponential growth in

technological innovation it supports, is the growing capacity of human culture to satisfy the basic

physical needs of individuals while generating a surplus of resources. Natural selection tends to

erode surpluses in species without intelligence because they create a niche for future mutations in

the genes of competing species to fill; thereby creating selection pressure for such mutations

citation. In order for the accumulation of such surpluses to be permitted by natural selection there

must either be an absence of competition or these surpluses must be invested advantageously.

Competition is abundant in human culture, therefore the averaged out returns from the indirect

investment of resources surplus to those required to satisfy individual physiological needs must

exceed those available from direct investment. This is analogous to the relative sustainability of

commercial organizations that choose to invest profits in research and development instead of

better satisfying the more immediate needs of their business. While research and development may

offer no, or inferior short-term advantage, the innovations that spring from them may provide such

advantages that competitors may be unable to adapt and compete sufficiently quickly to survive.

That investment in research and development is proven to correlate positively with business

sustainability, and lack of it correlates negatively (citation), demonstrates the potential evolutionary

advantages associated with indirect investment strategies.

The previously outlined hypothesis relating to the emergence of selection pressures in favour of the

value-equivalents of achievement, hedonism and stimulation illustrates how natural selection could

accommodate the initial diverting of resources away from the immediate satisfaction of

physiological and reproductive needs, and how eventually self-direction and universalism enabled

mankind to delegate the satisfaction of many of its basic needs to technology. The current

dominance of the human species is such that it generates surpluses capable of accommodating all

manner of apparent inefficiencies. Some, based on cooperative strategies, like allowing theoretical

physicists to devote a lifetime to the contemplation of intellectual challenges without any certainty

of resolving them, may, when considered collectively, provide an excellent return on investment.

Others, based on competitive strategies embracing the popular misconception that competition is

the primary contributor to innovation and economic growth, have allowed competitive values to

36

exert a greater influence on global culture than rational judgement might otherwise consider to be

in the best interests of the system as a whole.

As considered previously, in the type of lean, cooperative systems that tend to evolve through

genetic (as opposed to memetic) evolution, competitive sub-systems will tend to be confined to

roles such as waste management that complement the overall cooperative strategy of the system.

Systems capable of generating a surplus may do so providing the energy/information they absorb

and aggregate exceeds that they lose. Technological progress and economic growth have enabled

not only the entire human system to generate a surplus sufficient to enable population growth, but

for the majority of the individuals in the system to benefit from personal surpluses. Consequently,

not only is internal competition tolerated at the macro level, it is also tolerated at the level of

personal psychology, as is the inefficiency of irrational thinking, poor decision-making and the

motivational friction arising from conflicted personal value systems (other citations Griffiths, Thomas

& Dyer, 2017).

Costs associated with sub-optimal competitive strategies are not the only ones human culture has

been able to bear. Self-direction and universalism may promote independent thought and action

and a desire to empathize with others and understand the universal system, but they do not

guarantee the quality of that thinking, the actions it promotes or the understanding that results.

While there is evidently a correlation between these values and improved decision-making, logically,

creatively and in moral terms, those motivated most strongly by thee values are not immune from

illogical and counter-productive decision-making (other citations Griffiths, Thomas & Dyer, 2017).

Self-direction and universalism have contributed significantly to such innovations as agriculture

(although the universal value-equivalents of hedonism and stimulation (genetic mutation) more

likely account for its evolution in ants 50m years ago (Mueller, Rehner, & Schultz, 1998), with a

proven ability to improve the inclusive fitness of the human species citation. However, they were

also likely responsible for such inventions as deities believed to intervene favourably in the lives of

those offering prayer and sacrifice.

Agriculture and a belief in responsive, all-powerful deities have both become traditions. That the

latter persists in man but has no equivalent in any other species citation perhaps serves to illustrate

how the benefits of some decisions humanity has made have tended to outweigh the costs of

others. Agriculture has enabled increasing numbers of people to be fed with the investment of

fewer resources (citation). While religion may have served to increase social cohesion within

particular groups (citation) and promote an equivalent of morality within such groups (citation), it

has been a significant factor in enabling and promoting of inter-group conflict (citation), as well as

inhibiting the dispersal of scientific knowledge (citation) and independent thought and action

(citation).

Beneficial and harmful ideas may end up being sustained by the suite of values from tradition (more

so) to achievement (less so). While short-term benefits may lead achievement to promote harmful

behaviour such as polluting the environment, in the long-term, as knowledge accumulates,

achievement will tend to respond to enlightened thinking in the elimination of harmful behaviour.

The openness, curiosity and independence promoted by self-direction tends to bring about their

replacement more quickly as knowledge becomes increasingly universal.

Mapping cultural change on the circumplex In attempting to chart the evolving culture of humanity from year zero in terms of the values that

dominate in one era, it is inevitable that, for the reasons previously explained relating to ‘all stable

37

things’ and illustrated in fig. 5, the starting point is aligned with tradition and conformity: values at

the bottom of the evolutionary hierarchy. Assuming the starting point for the cultural mapping of

would-be humanity, as distinct from the culture of man’s closest relatives: bonobos and

chimpanzees, comes at a time at which our human ancestors were no more, and probably less,

intelligent than these living animals, it seems likely their habits remained relatively constant from

generation to generation; possibly for hundreds of generations. This being the case it seems

reasonable to suggest the value-equivalents of tradition and conformity were dominant.

An identifiable shift in ancestral culture is considered to have taken place at the time of The Great

Leap Forward 70-100,000 years ago (citation). The appearance of creative art at this time is perhaps

the first evidence of self-direction and universalism; an awareness of the environment, an ability to

comprehend elements of its construction and the ability to represent these in a creative form. The

hierarchical trickle-down effect of innovation from self-direction and universalism in shaping the

dominant values of the culture would slowly increase the influence of the values from conformity

upwards. However, while any individual innovation capable of having a significant impact of the

culture is likely to come from self-direction and universalism, poor communication, limited

education and the cultural inertia of tradition and conformity inhibit increase in the influence of the

higher values at a cultural level; particularly self-direction and universalism. Consequently, it might

be that in terms of the dominant values of any human society little discernible shift would have

taken place before the appearance of the first civilizations some 4,000 years ago citation.

In the type of hierarchical societies that have been so widespread throughout human history, in

which power is invested disproportionately in leaders (emperors, kings, barons, etc.), irrespective of

the source of any innovation, there is great potential for the value of any innovation to be seized

upon by leaders and exploited for personal competitive advantage: either by crushing the inventor

and invention to reduce the risk of internal competition from below citation, or by appropriation or

patronage citation, so as to increase both the power of the leadership and the relative power of

their realm in relation to others.

Whenever the latter strategy is pursued it is more likely the society in which the innovation is

adopted will benefit as a whole citation, and there will be trickle down benefits and associated

change management challenges for its members. Traditional ways of doing things will come into

question, prevailing conformist customs will change and new rules may be required to prevent new

opportunities being exploited in ways that undermine the society or its leaders citation. In

expanding power-led societies, i.e. those in which innovation is encouraged by patronage, the power

of the society as a whole increases and the number of people enjoying power increases; as was

evidenced by the emergence and expansion of a mercantile and manufacturing middle class through

the latter half of the twentieth century (Blumin, 1989; EncyclopaediaBritannica, 2015).

Despite the increasing dispersal of power and increasing democratizing of society, and concomitant

improvements in the ability for people to communicate, access technology and information,

innovate and gain the power to capitalise on their innovations, one might argue the dominant values

in society remained tradition, conformity and security at least until the 1960s in Britain, and possibly

until around 1980. Prior to this period widespread deference to and respect for institutions and

institutional attitudes was such that these were arguably more influential than personal ambition

and achievement. While religion perhaps only represents a small part of Britain’s traditional,

institutional establishment, it is telling to observe that in 1970 71% of Britons stated they belonged

to a religion and attended religious services, yet by 1983 this had declined to 55% and by 2005 to

31% (BSA, 2006).

38

This being the case, despite the exponential advances in technological capability and related impact

on affected cultures, the gathering pace with which we might assume the cultural marker ascends

the hierarchy, or moves around the hierarchy, would only have moved the marker to the boundary

between security and power over the 70-100,000 years between The Great Leap Forward and the

latter half of the twentieth century.

The approximate coincidence of the widespread arrival of personal computing, deregulation in the

City of London, the privatization of public utilities and Prime Minister Thatcher’s claim that there

was “no such thing as society” perhaps mark the point at which the self-enhancing values of power

and achievement became dominant in British culture.

Continuing technological progress in broad agreement with Moore’s law citation(Moore, 2006) has

since accompanied increasing cultural acceptance of such self-transcending goals ethical business

practices, ‘equal-opportunities’ and the greening of the environment. However, given the slow

progress being made in reaching in global agreements relating to climate control citation, repeated

revelations of corporate misconduct citation and the persistence and continuing influence of

conservative, right wing agendas citation, it would be difficult to argue universalism and

benevolence have yet become dominant in national or global culture.

IMAGE 5 – insert about here - include DNA references, introduce and cite below

Fig.2 Cultural Evolution in the UK

Fig. 2 illustrates the past and predicted evolution of culture in the UK based on this hypothesis.

Given the ability of memes to support exponential growth in knowledge and technological

innovation, the concomitant rate of cultural evolution is continually increasing. Our conjecture is

that while it took the 14 billion years until around 1980 (or c.200,000 years from the perspective of

anatomically similar homo-sapiens) for the marker to progress anti-clockwise into the power and

achievement driven domain of the circumplex, in 2017 it has perhaps now moved to somewhere in

the vicinity of the segments of achievement and hedonism.

If technological progress continues to run in broad agreement with Moore’s law (Moore, 2006), our

increasingly technology-dependent culture will continue increasing the pace at which the marker is

drawn around the circumplex. People driven by self-direction and universalism will be increasingly

able to communicate with each other, share ideas and put these into action - whether through

39

Internet based businesses or remote or IT enabled manufacturing. The speed with which innovative

products and newly acquired knowledge can be disseminated is now beginning to be such that the

relatively conservative mind-set associated with the power and achievement values is beginning to

become too cautious to take advantage, and it is those with more pro-change orientated mind-sets

(i.e. dominated by the values stimulation, self-direction and universalism) that seem better placed to

gain an involuntary competitive advantage, and therefore to play a more influential role in

determining the prevailing culture.

The continual stretching of the values hierarchy and the increasing influence of the values at its top

presents certain challenges relating to the fragmentation of societies. At the cutting edge of

technological and cultural change are globe shrinking initiatives that, amongst other things, enable

goods to be manufactured anywhere in the world to a high specification and at minimum cost. The

benefits to global society of spreading employment and raising average living standards, while

simultaneously pushing prices down for consumers in the developed nations, may not appreciated

by all. Those who lose their jobs as manufacturing is moved abroad, or who witness their local

communities becoming increasingly populated by foreigners attracted by the prospect of

employment at wages above those available in their own countries, are less likely to see these as

evidence of welcome progress.

In the context of addressing real-life prisoner’s dilemmas Poundstone (1993) describes US

conservatives as defectors and liberals as co-operators. Poundstone (1993, p128.) describes

conservatives as seeking “the best outcome possible on their efforts alone”, and fearful that greater

cooperation in the form of paying higher taxes will result in their receiving the sucker’s pay off. One

might reasonably consider this definition of US conservatives to comprise people belonging to the

motivational types described by Griffiths, Thomas and Dyer (2017) as ‘SDs’ and ‘OD’s (Griffiths,

2013), i.e. those motivated most by the conservation values of tradition, conformity and security and

the self-enhancing values of power and achievement respectively. Guided by their values SDs are

cooperative, but conditionally so on the basis of tribal loyalties associated with tradition and

conformity and a respect for authority and national boundaries associated with security.

Consequently, in addition to an instinctive fear of change, they are as likely to be as competitive, and

as likely to ‘defect’ as self-enhancing ODs when it comes to addressing the challenges of culture

change now facing the US and other developed nations. With only people belonging to the ID type

(Griffiths, 2013), i.e. those most motivated by self-direction, universalism and benevolence,

qualifying as cooperative liberals, explicit democratic support for ongoing cultural change cannot be

guaranteed: as evidenced by the apparent support for the radical conservative agenda of US

presidential candidate Donald Trump citation and nationalist support for Brexit in the UK EEC

membership/independence referendum citation.

Testing The Theory The ten value-equivalents described here are perhaps not ‘real’ in the sense that atoms, electrons

and brains are real. They are concepts that can be used to describe certain aspects of all systems,

including systems within systems. They describe recurrent patterns of characteristics that appear to

play similar roles in their evolution. One could argue that the value space they occupy, as described

by the Schwartz/DNA circumplex is not real, yet personal values are real and the correlations

between them and on the thinking and behaviour of people who hold them is well established

(citations). These values form a system: i.e. they are functioning parts of a whole, in which a change

in one will affect others and the function of the whole (citation from book Axelrod recommended or

other). Values must have evolved or emerged from a pre-existing system, as all systems in the

40

universe have (citation). Research into and the modelling of complex adaptive systems has

demonstrated that all such systems have common characteristics, and virtual models based on

relatively simple strategies by which agents act on artifacts (Axelrod & Cohen, 2001) reproduce

many aspects of the evolution of living systems with sufficient accuracy to suggest that the universe

may be regarded as a complex adaptive system citation. If the universe is a complex adaptive

system, and the agents and schema within it can be regarded as having appeared with mass and

energy in accordance with universal laws in its early history, if it is meaningful to state that all such

agents and schema may be described in terms of their ability to promote or inhibit change and do so

in relation to cooperative and competitive strategies, then it must also be meaningful to map the

evolution of such systems in relation to the space bounded by corresponding axes. If it is then

possible to attach meaningful descriptions to the nature of the different strategies associated with

different areas of this space, it follows that such descriptions will apply universally to all such

systems. This being the case, given the descriptions provided by Schwartz (2012) satisfy this

condition in his system of values, they can, with minimal contextual adaptation, be considered

appropriate to all systems.

This being the case, while it may be difficult to verify their existence by experimentation, it should be

possible to validate their virtual existence by predicting consequences of this and testing for these.

If, as hypothesised, personal values, along with all other aspects of cognitive function, develop from

preconscious potentials arising from value-equivalents in the system of the developing infant brain,

evidence of the shared origin of these functions is likely to be present in children and adults.

Prior research has supported hypothesised links between particular values and particular

behaviours, attitudes and decision-making, and further validating the pattern of correlations

suggested by the arrangement of values around the Schwartz (1992) circumplex. It has also

established that there are significant correlations with Big Five personality traits. Support for the

novel elements of the evolutionary theory presented here will be found in hierarchical patterns of

correlations, particular details of correlations with other elements of cognitive function and

personality and in correlations with particular aspects of neurological function.

Formally testing the hypothesis first aired by Griffiths (2013), Griffiths, Thomas & Dyer (2017) found

support for a hierarchical pattern of correlations between values and intelligence: those driven most

by self-direction, universalism and benevolence (IDs) performing the best in fluid intelligence tests,

and those driven by tradition, conformity and security (SDs) performing the worst. The same

pattern was also found in decision-making regarding preparedness to take on risk in respect of

isolated losses (Griffiths, Thomas & Dyer, 2017).

Hypothesis 1

The Flynn effect (Flynn, 1987; Trahan, Stuebing, Hiscock, & Fletcher, 2014) – i.e. that intelligence as

measured by such psychometrics as Raven’s Progressive Matrices appears to be increasing

continuously – is a function of the previously described evolving dominant values in a culture.

Hypothesis 2

The dominant values of western democracies will continue to drift up the hierarchy of values as long

as the counteracting forces exerted by radical conservatism are subordinated.

Hypothesis 3

Personality, as defined by Big Five assessment, is a product of pre-conscious value-potentials,

personal values and environmental conditioning.

41

Hypothesis 4

Pre-conscious value potentials are heritable, and while personal values have been shown to be

mutable (Bardi citation) and environmentally sensitive (citation), this should still be manifest in

correlations between related individuals.

Hypothesis 5

Preconscious value potentials are genetically encoded and expressed in neurological development

and function; the effects of this will be present in correlations between neurological activity and

physiology and characteristics of individual value systems.

Hypothesis 6

Due to the fractal nature and universality of values-equivalence in systems, sympathetic fractal

patterns should be present in neurological activity, and these should correlate with values-related

biases in cognition and behaviour.

Hypothesis 7

Values are the most significant factor in determining the nature of irrational decision-making biases,

and those with value systems based on the conservation values (SDs) are those most likely to exhibit

biases consistent with organisms of low and zero intelligence, and IDs are those least likely to exhibit

such biases, and the most likely to make irrational decisions that appear uniquely human.

Hypothesis 8

The ability for individuals to absorb new information covering a broad range of subjects and varying

degrees of complexity, to learn and develop will also follow a hierarchical pattern from SDs (lowest)

to IDs (highest).

Hypothesis 9

The tendency for individuals to suffer from modular myopia (Greene, 2013), i.e. to give undue

consideration to the effect of direct action rather than to indirect consequences of an action, will

follow a hierarchical pattern from SDs (highest) to IDs (lowest).

Conclusion If presented with a complex challenge capable of being resolved by a computer, there would be little

point in presenting it to hundreds of computers with the intent of discovering the most popular

answer. Given one could be reasonably confident each would present the same answer, it would be

as well to present it to one and proceed on the basis of its decision. Computers are completely

rational and self-transcending, inasmuch as they are unconcerned as to the effect the answer they

give will impact on them. People are both irrational and concerned about the impact of decisions on

themselves. Democracy serves to smooth out the effects of individual irrationality and self-serving

bias in the hope that from a Gaussian distribution of opinions the ‘right’ answer will emerge.

This paper presents the argument that the values-based decision-making process used by humans

evolved from a congruent system of universal value-equivalents, in which equivalents of the

conservation and self-enhancing values are to be found in all local systems (including unintelligent

organisms) in service of a system specific equivalent of benevolence: preserving and enhancing the

welfare of the in-group (i.e. the local system). They do this by maximising the system’s ability to

conserve energy. Because local systems tend to compete with each other, and larger more

42

energetic systems tend to outcompete others, those systems most able to preserve and enhance

their ‘welfare’ will be those governed by benevolent, cooperative strategies. This equivalent of

benevolence applies only to the local system itself. The ability of such systems to conserve and

enhance their energy, and so reduce entropy locally, is exceeded by their tendency to increase

entropy in the universal system as a consequence of competing with other local systems.

The strategies represented by the same values in the Schwartz (1992) system replicate the

unconscious, involuntary decision-making processes of the systems from which humanity evolved.

The conservation values act so as to preserve and carry forward the past strategies deemed

responsible for keeping us on the evolutionary path. The self-enhancing values encourage us to

pursue strategies that will enable us to outcompete other systems. From the perspective of the

genes from which these strategies are ultimately derived, the immediate local system is the genome

in which they are carried. The measure of the success of a gene’s strategies is the frequency with

which it appears in subsequent generations. The gene exists in several tiers of local systems: its

genome, the organism in which it is replicated, any group or tribe of which this is a member, the

species, local ecosystems, etc. The strategies that evolve in each are shaped by the interactions

between them; each system’s strategies representing the accumulated strategies of their potentially

very numerous components. While the principal vehicular systems of the gene pursue

predominantly cooperative strategies, the boundary between systems where inward facing

cooperative strategies and outward facing competitive strategies may not be distinct. The cells of a

healthy organism behave in accordance with cooperative strategies, but members of the same

species may cooperate and compete. Organisms from different species are more likely to compete

with each other, but may also cooperate.

Lacking universalism, most organisms have little or no appreciation of the greater universal system

of which they are part. Lacking foresight and understanding, the strategies of their genes develop by

trial and error, and accordingly the persistence of organisms, groups of organisms and species is

more likely to be the result of evenly balanced competitive strategies than a shared cooperative

strategy. While it is possible for one species to consistently deliver suckers’ pay-offs (Axelrod, xxxx)

to other systems within its ecosystem, this will eventually bring about its extinction due to resource

depletion. The illusion of species living in harmony with their ecosystem, effectively managing their

population and food source in a sustainable manner, arises from a form of Nash equilibrium

(citation), in which the interplay of competitive strategies keep the system as a whole broadly stable.

Should environmental conditions change to the detriment or advantage of any particular species the

whole system will be affected. This may result in shifting populations until a new equilibrium is

established, but on the way may result in the extinction of some species within that environment.

Humanity has unique capacities for self-direction and universalism. It is uniquely placed to develop

and effect sustainable cooperative strategies by which to maximise its welfare. It is able to build an

understanding of the universal system of which it is a part, and the global ecosystem on which its

continued existence depends. However, until self-direction and universalism are dominant in global

culture, most decisions will remain subject to the myopic and irrational influence of the conservation

and self-enhancing values.