Some believe that we learn by modeling others. Here, however, is the rub. While most people in day-to-day living do learn from, mimic, and model each other, they are at heart theoreticians. In their subjective experience, people act more like theoreticians than they act like modelers. Some like to think that people operate with a model of the world, a reproduction so to speak, that people are model-makers. However, we think that people are not so much model-makers as reason-makers. Being incessantly grilled by a four-year-old with a endless series of "why" questions should be enough to convince anyone. Children don't want a description of the world they need a causal theory of the world. They're trying to figure out the rules.

Whereas the function of a model is to describe, the purpose of theory is:

(1) to organize and summarize knowledge gained from models
(2) to focus attention on important variables and relationships
(3) to clarify what is observed by providing guideposts for interpreting, explaining and understanding
(4) to predict cause-effect relationships.

Mental maps or models are not created and utilized as much for the sake of description, as for the formulation of theory that will allow the individual to predict his or her world. The primary reason for a mental map or model is to point the way to the 'why' of the world. The central function of a map is its predictive ability--to help assess the consequences of actions before they are taken. And to do this we need some specific notion of why the world works the way it does.

CAUSALITY: SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE AS THEORY

There are some whose theory of psychology derived from linguistic theory--the interaction of vocabularies and syntax; or, to put it another way, the interaction of objects and the rules which govern them. This schema worked wonderfully well in Chompskian Linguistic Theory because syntax was considered to be hard wired in our brains--syntax comes with the package. However, there's one huge problem using linguistic theory as the basis for a behavioral model--language has an obvious syntax, the world does not.

Since we are born without a syntactical map of the world we must create one in order to function successfully. In our every-day, subjective experience maps aren't so much about the apparent sensory-based features of the world or descriptions of those features as they are guesses about the rules of the world. Our maps are representations of our guesses about these non-apparent, non-sensory, non-intuitive features of the world. We'll say it again--the syntax of the world is NON-SENSORY, and thus can't be directly perceived. For the detection of non-sensory patterns sensory awareness is of limited value. In order to create a world map or elicit those of others non-sensory awareness is required; something that can be called syntactic awareness. While we wont delve into the methods of syntactic awareness in this paper we'll leave you with the following analogy. Suppose a slightly edited film (consisting of doctoring the film by removal of the ball) of a soccer match were shown to a person unaware of the game of soccer. Could the viewer perceive the rules of the game? It would depend on the viewer's syntactic awareness

Fundamentally, our maps are the embodiment of our concepts of cause and effect--the reasons why things happen as they do. Since the rules which govern the world are not objects, our only conception of them must be abstract in the form of high-order generalizations. The best one can do toward objectifying them is to point out examples where she believes a rule is functioning. We find it important to stress that an example doesn't contain a rule, it is the result of a rule. Because one can't directly experience a rule he can only make guesses of possible rules and test them.

What a strange and intriguing affair--we are born into a world for which we must create the theory, the syntax, the reasons, the 'why' of it all. At the core every person's behavior is guided by a map that is the manifestation of a personal causal theory of the world--a basis of action.

With this page we're postulating that mental maps:

1) are syntactically based. They aren't representations of sensory objects, but the non-sensory rules of the world.
2) they change only as reasons change--as ones conception of the world's syntax changes. Maps change only when syntax changes because maps are syntactically based. A different perception of the world requires a different map -- a different causal theory. Your personal map is only as useful as the causal theory it embodies. To make more than a superficial change one must change some portion of his or her underlying causal theory.

THE SEARCH FOR SYNTAX

We're not suggesting that mental maps are conscious--they usually aren't, but that they can be. And the starting point involves the identification of the most prominent and central universal feature of personal maps--that of causality. Because maps are simply the outgrowth of the consequences of a particular brand of causality we can know a great deal about them by directly investigating causality.

So what do we mean by causality? Causality is the reason things happen the way they do. Some people understand it as power--the ability to make things happen, whether it be personal, electrical or political. Gregory Bateson understood it as 'the difference that makes a difference'--that the difference which makes a difference, in fact, is the causal operator.

Everyone has an impression that things change. The sun comes up--it goes down. Sometimes people are kind to us--sometimes not. Some days we feel better than other days. Whether we know it or not we all have at least a vague idea (sometimes multiple, even competing ideas) of the reason things happen the way they do.

In the Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin movie, "All of Me," a third world mystical holy man, Prakalapsa, finds himself alone in a luxurious hotel suite in a U.S. city. With fascination he explores his new environment. He is in the bathroom running his hand gently across the handle on the toilet. At the precise instant he first presses down on the flushing handle, the telephone rings. Startled, he quickly raises his hand away. Pause. Silence. Tentatively he presses down on the handle a second time just as the telephone rings a second time. Pause. Silence. Smile. Less timidly he presses the handle a third time and the phone rings again. Confidently he presses a fourth and fifth time as the phone rings again and again. Just as his cause and effect understanding is about to be solidified he pushes the handle a sixth time and the phone does not ring. Pause. Silence. Perplexity. He had a good theory going there for a minute, but is now confused by the meaning of "press handle/no ring" sequence.

Causal theories tend to be age and experience specific, for example, small children and parents usually have different ideas of how the presents got under the Christmas tree.

News magazines and day time television talk shows currently are rife with competing causal theories. "What causes Uncle Bob to act the way he does?" Genetics, biochemistry, being a Gemini, abuse as a child, substance abuse, alien abduction, the grapefruit squirted him, etc.

A great deal of what people argue and fight about has roots in differing causal notions. Books like When Bad Things Happen to Good People struggle to defend certain causal theories against contradictory evidence. Religions are the result of the flowering of the logical consequences of causal theories. Diligent and sincere spiritual seekers will find that in the end their questions are really ones of causality. Thus such a search has direct implications about the core of our personal maps.

What we're really asking about when we go seeking is WHAT ARE THE RULES? We're hunting for answers to our 'whys'.

Competing psychological theories are essentially competing causal theories. "What caused(s) me to be the way I am?" Freud has an answer in the form of a causal theory--as do Laing, Maslow, Korzybski, Marx, Sullivan and so on. The point we're making is that everyone has a causal theory, some just got theirs published.

Our business isn't to create an even more novel causal theory but to become familiar with the fundamental types of causality and to appreciate the direct function of causal theory in subjective experience.

THE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL CAUSAL THEORIES

Two conditions impede our being "in control" of our lives: limitations of syntactical knowledge and limitations of power. One is the limit of not knowing what to do. The second is the limit of not being able to do so. Due to the fact that we aren't all-knowing we must rely on one or more of the four basic forms of causality to provide us with our belief about the world's syntax.

1. DETERMINISM

This causal theory postulates that everything, including ones choice of action, is the necessary result of a sequence of causes. Genetic determinism traces the cause of human conduct to our biological make-up. Social determinism points toward institutions and large scale organized political and economic activities and policies as the cause of individual behavior. Religious determinism identifies deity as the creator of a plan that becomes a causal blueprint for individual conduct. In the deterministic theory a powerful and endless chain of events is the cause, and individual human behavior is the result. For one who adopts this theory, the basic structure of moral experience is the Blame Frame. The identity is that of Blamer. The cause, hence the responsibility and the blame, always lie outside oneself. One may be angry and frustrated or resigned and apathetic about this condition. One may enjoy what has been determined. One may rail or one may whine. But ultimately there is nothing one can do. "I am not responsible; I will point the finger elsewhere."

The world acts.

2. RETRIBUTION

System of reward and punishment administered by an agent of vastly superior power. Individual behavior is a response to the dictates of authority. The key moral stance is to be supple (pliable and yielding). Wisdom is discovering what pleases the agent of authority and results in rewards. One who is supple survives to become a supplicant, or to use Virginia Satir's term, a Placater.

The world acts with an agenda.

3. RECIPROCATION

Deliberate effort and the exercise of skill, talent, and insight. You get back what you put out. The causal concept underlying symbiosis. In this theory cause and effect become a function of the interaction of individuals and their world. The world acts and reacts. The individual acts and reacts. In this dance one gets back some form of what one puts out. The presupposition, "the meaning of your message is the response that you get" fits within this theory. The basic moral stance is to create deliberate effort and exercise skill, talent, and insight. Resourcefulness involves knowing when one is at cause and when one is at effect. Meta-resourcefulness results from being able to reframe cause into effect and vice versa. The basic communication style of an individual utilizing reciprocation as a cause/effect theory is that of the Computer.

The world acts and reacts.

4. CHANCE

This theory appeals to those who must act in a world when syntactical knowledge, foreseeability, and reason no longer furnish one with secure guidance. Chance involves the infallibility of prediction. Despite all efforts and precautions -- or lack thereof -- one just winds up being in the right/wrong situation and the right/wrong time. The syntax of the world is not consistent, but appears random or chaotic. The moral stance is one of acceptance. Satir's description of the Distracter characterizes one whose theory of causality is chance.

The syntax of the world isn't consistent.

We find interesting work currently occurring in Chaos Theory. At one level, the most readily apparent level, events are random and unpredictable. With a significant shift to a much larger or smaller time and/or space frame size one moves to a different level where what seemed chaotic is now tightly patterned into clearly organized fractals. Chance turns into determinism.

Some individuals hold contradictory and competing concepts of causality to be used at different times for different purposes in different contexts. For instance, causality as applied to cancer, baking a cake, or raising a child may be appropriately different. The musical composer John Cage used tables of random numbers to select the sequence of notes in composing his works. Chance determined the resulting sounds. One the other hand, Cage was one of the world's foremost amateur authorities on mushrooms. He was purposeful in his selection of which mushrooms to eat and which to avoid. Using a table of random numbers to select which mushrooms to eat could poison one quickly.

Even though individuals sometimes hold contradicting and competing concepts of causality, we are convinced by experience that usually there is a dominant causal theme in each individual's mental map. That theme is the basic "reason why" which results in resourceful behavior in some contexts and not in others. To elicit ones central causal theory is to produce the most valuable information toward effecting change as any significant change is a change of causal theory.

As an anthropological sidelight let us give you two contradictory causal views: that of Navajos and Taoists. Navajos believe that ritual reinforms nature with cultural intent and that culture is the imposition by man of order and good on nature, resulting in beauty, harmony, happiness and health. Disorder and evil constitute a return to the original ugliness and disorder of nature. Taoists believe just the opposite, that man's interference in the world's affairs is the cause of turmoil and tribulation. Lao Tzu is specific in his recommendation: "If nothing is done, then all will be well."

Fundamentally, our mental maps are important because they are theories of causality, not because they are models that represent the sensory world.

Your task--answer the following:

What do you think causes misery and unhappiness? Or more specifically: What do you think causes your misery and unhappiness? What do you think causes health, happiness, and love? Causation makes all the difference--it's a question of syntactic awareness.

Top of Page