Attractor field theory

[Achichem]

This theory attempts to explain why this world contains "badness" and goodness"; privileged and underprivileged; low function and high function people the way it does; then furthermore, why the privileged are more powerful yet the underprivileged more in numbers. It also predicts a slow generally trend toward a new model that I believe we can see throughout human generations.

Basically the fundamentals of the model is that every being has a charge similar to that of a electromagnet(not physical) which attaches "blessings",resources, ect.. This charge is cause by how accurately the mind arranges its environment, and is some times refer to as a person's psychological state. Psychological state's are influence by both internal and outside factors.

Since charge influence the world, and the world your state(charge), it important to note that measurable progress(moving to the next state) takes twice as much charge as it did to progress from the previous state to the current state. (Charge is exponential)

Also of importance is how mindful beings have a threshold state. This is the state where in ones charge has enough attractive force to sustain need. If below this level, it would be necessary for this being to rely on a being with more then their threshold to meet their needs.

Ok now, let find the cool result this get when you plug it into a simple probability model, lets say we've got a population size of 440, and 10 identified psychological states: level 1(1 unit of charge), level 2(2 units of charge), level 3(4 units of charge), level 5(8 units of charge)...

First plug in a series of randomize beings, and you will observe: the standardized results will be:

1s: 20%
2s: 18%
3s: 16%
4s: 13%
5s: 11%
6s: 9%
7s: 6%
8s: 4%
9s: 2%
10s: 0.02%

Now with these Numbers even if you feed the model an unlimited amount of resources and set the survival threshold to 4, that still more then 50% in inherit poverty.

Also of note is how in this system everyone could have enough survival resources, if the high-attractors(rich) gave to the poor, yet they will not due to residuary of lower state poverty; this is the principle where by beings over survival threshold wait in till they have hit another threshold(let say 8) where in abundance is deemed enough to security provide for self and hence allow for charity. (it a false logic by the way, yet even with unlimited resources, would make over 50% of resources static, and thus wasted)

This system however does not take into account one more fact...the effect of higher states on the whole system, for if the high attractor fields(8+) give potential charge (teach men to fish) then it increase the probability of lower fields to increase, without cost to higher fields. This however usually only happen with 10s, as the residual effect still limits 8s to giving resources. the point is eventually, as the 10 appear more, the ability for lower levels to improve increase and the system is slowly moving to a new More fair model.

Anyhow, hope you find it food for thought,
Peace

 

[Maxwell511]

Are you just talking about the supposed trickle down effect?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What he's talking about is more like an anti-trickle down effect.

I think he's talking about theories about how, in a free economy, there will always be some gap between rich and poor. But I don't think this gap is "unfair" though, since a free economy will tend over time to increase the standard of living for both rich and poor. It is the trends seen in absolute measures that are the most important, not the relative difference between the two groups.

 

[Maxwell511]

What he's talking about is more like an anti-trickle down effect.

This sounds like the trickle down effect to me: "Also of note is how in this system everyone could have enough survival resources, if the high-attractors(rich) gave to the poor, yet they will not due to residuary of lower state poverty; this is the principle where by beings over survival threshold wait in till they have hit another threshold(let say 8) where in abundance is deemed enough to security provide for self and hence allow for charity."

As in if the rich get richer than it is good for everybody. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.

I would also disagree with the central thesis that a person attracts wealth by having a certain psychological state. Purely because if this were the case then the distribution of wealth would be alot more dynamic.

 

[Achichem]

First, this theory doesn't necessary apply just to economics, it is only a model type, but since that does happen to be an application that I am studying, I'd be happy to clarify.

Are you just talking about the supposed trickle down effect?

No, but I certainly see how you could get that idea....I did identify a long term trend toward trickle-down but since that is over generations and extremely slow it is certainly no solution to poverty.

As in if the rich get richer than it is good for everybody. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Well no, because in the model there is unlimited resources being pumped in, so in other words there is no difference between a man who has $1000 and a need of $100, and a man who has $100,000,000,000 with a need of $100(both may be 6s for example). The conclusion is that the amount of available resources have little impact on distribution.A demonstrable phenomenon often ignored by traditional models, or forcibly infused on them.

Also of note, because 8+(those who reach the second threshold) see little need to keep idle dollars, they will never be the richest in terms of net worth. In fact they may appear in poverty, as they truly just manifest their needs.Yet 7s certainly have a greater likelihood of being richer then 6s.

See, if the rich(5+) identify that it was their inherit ability to meet their need not their pocket book amounts which kept them safe, happy and prosperous then it would produce a trickle down; yet due to the philosophy of those before the second threshold, it also predicts this is very unlikely to happen for most. So in other words, ones wealth has little impact on their state, but ones amount of available wealth is heavily influenced by their state.

I would also disagree with the central thesis that a person attracts wealth by having a certain psychological state. Purely because if this were the case then the distribution of wealth would be a lot more dynamic.

I agree in so much as it not intuitive, and a direct study to test the correlation is still just in the works. Until such a time as a serious study conduces in favour of the correlation, it is certainly very lucrative proposition.

Also it is certainly not the only factor, I'm only arguing a large one.

That said, I must tell you that in my lighter studies it certainly appears a dominant factor. In the case where I interviewed a set of people currently impoverished, there were two outliers, that is to say people who demonstrated "wealthy physiological" indicators comparative to the others. When I checked back in a year, both were no longer in poverty, all others (who I could still get in contact with, which was a real problem in that case) were at best still struggling and in some cases even worse off.

BTW, I'm not of the school of thought that we should blame the poor for being poor, and I think the poverty cycle is a huge problem. I'm only interested in contributing to the design of a system to empower anyone with the will to reach their goals.

 

[Maxwell511]

In your model can a state be reduced? Can you go from a 5 to a 4 in a generation?

 

[michabo]

Apologies if English isn't your first lanuage, but I am having a hard time piecing together your argument. It's a complex subject, and I'm getting lost in the gramatical errors. Can you give a summary of what it is you are trying to explain with some examples?

Are you saying that there's something inherient in people (e.g.: a personality trait), or external and inherited (e.g.: wealth passed down from parents)?

How are these figures determined? What if the society is more egalitarian - does that disprove your model, or do you just change the figures (implying your model could apply to literally any situation)?

It seems like you're saying that wealth is all due to individual attributes and has no external component such as taxation, monetary and fiscal policies, inheritance of wealth or status, trade relationships, or access to natural resources such as land or water.

This theory attempts to explain why this world contains "badness" and goodness"; privileged and underprivileged; low function and high function people the way it does; then furthermore, why the privileged are more powerful yet the underprivileged more in numbers.

There are existing models for these which are complex admitedly, yet yield useful predictions and can account for what we see in the world. Why should we accept your model as a replacement?

 

[Achichem]

In your model can a state be reduced? Can you go from a 5 to a 4 in a generation?

Yes

 

[Achichem]

There are existing models for these which are complex admitedly, yet yield useful predictions and can account for what we see in the world. Why should we accept your model as a replacement?

I would say that from my experience and investigation the existing models are highly inaccurate; yet at this point, I don't necessary think you should agree to this one instead, but do eventually hope to present a full case in favour of the model.

This model is still being designed, and is missing some necessary constructors in order to make it applicable outside of philosophy and psychology. For one, with no identified physical "charge" there is no measurable variable. The data suggests there is one, but in till someone identifies it, any model using it is arbitrary in comparison to others. Sorry for not making that (among other things) clear.

I was looking more for criticisms and thoughts from a philosophic take or to see if anyone spotted gross jumps in logic I may have missed...It seems in retrospect however that may have been naive, and I may need to take some communication classes first not that they ever do much good.

One thing I hate about university is how I want to take writing courses, but since I'm just not good at English they always kill my GPA.

How are these figures determined? What if the society is more egalitarian - does that disprove your model, or do you just change the figures (implying your model could apply to literally any situation)?

Yes, the probabilities listed would be slightly adjusted, though that would be the approximate distribution layout in till you specifically address the underlying causes of "disparity".

It seems like you're saying that wealth is all due to individual attributes and has no external component such as taxation, monetary and fiscal policies, inheritance of wealth or status, trade relationships, or access to natural resources such as land or water.

That does seem the direction my studies have lead me. Though saying "no effect" is not actually correct, as it just more that they don't have the expected(intuitive) effect not "no effect". According to this way of looking at it, it is those factors psychological impact not their economic impact that is the dominate factor in resource allocation.

Are you saying that there's something inherient in people (e.g.: a personality trait), or external and inherited (e.g.: wealth passed down from parents)?

Both are players, though inherient traits are likely dominate.

Apologies if isn't your first lanuage, but I am having a hard time piecing together your argument. It's a complex subject, and I'm getting lost in the gramatical errors.

As it happens English is not my first language, but it is always good to get a polite reminder on why to improve, English is after all my predominate language.

Can you give a summary of what it is you are trying to explain with some examples?

I'll try, though I'm going to leave out examples for now since it still pretty arbitrary, but if your still intrested I will add them.

Summary:
1) Psychology is the predominate factor in sourcing ones quality of life
2) Current resource allocation is a caused by the spread in healthy-unhealthy psychological views of the world
3) Conditions are not directly effected by amount of relative resources
4) A healthy psychology is progressed to with exponential difficulty giving a certian exclusivity to the healthy
5) Lower forms of a healthy psychology produce static resources
6) Individuals are the main players of economics, spiritual development, politics, international relations, ect.

 

[Maxwell511]

Does your model have a spatial nature?

If it does:

Is wealth injected into the system and then distributed by following a path to the attractors or is wealth distribution defined by the gradient of a scalar field at some point near the attractor? (An analogy would be is wealth similiar to an object entering our solar system and in whichever planet the object crashes is where it is distributed, or is wealth distribution similiar to differences in the accerelation due to Gravity on the surfaces of the different planets?)

 

[Achichem]

Does your model have a spatial nature?

At this point I'd say yes, but that is somewhat iffy and could change as the model evolves.

 

[Maxwell511]

At this point I'd say yes, but that is somewhat iffy and could change as the model evolves.

I think that a spatial nature would be important. Since it would account for interactions of the different people. Did you understand my other question or have you not thought the definition of wealth in the model completely through yet?

 

[Achichem]

Did you understand my other question?

Yes I believe I understand both questions, my reservation with the second point steams from the fact that I've never seen any data to indicate that its a relationship, but I like you would see it as somewhat necessary to account for interactions of different people.

or have you not thought the definition of wealth in the model completely through yet?

Well in regard to your questions I have because in economic application it is easy to define wealth.

This model can also look to explain less tangible application though, like success in human relations; where in wealth can take on a specifically less measurable meaning.Since I still see those as legitment uses, it can skew my language a bit, sorry.

 

[Maxwell511]

Yes I believe I understand both questions, my reservation with the second point steams from the fact that I've never seen any data to indicate that its a relationship, but I like you would see it as somewhat necessary to account for interactions of different people.

If there is no relationship between people then that would suggest that a person coming from the third world has as much chance of having economic success as someone coming from the first world if they have the same state would it not?

 

[Achichem]

If there is no relationship between people then that would suggest that a person coming from the third world has as much chance of having economic success as someone coming from the first world if they have the same state would it not?

Well no,

The "conditions" of the developing world is an environment that promotes lower states, and hence causes lower attractor fields to prevail.

But please don't take that the wrong way, I'm not trying to say my friends who happen to live in Russia for example suffer due to a culture of poverty or their own choices. They are as much a victim as a cause, but what it does mean is that the poverty cycle exists not due to lack of funds, but because an impoverish person sees the world in a way which does not "attach" wealth.

Someone born into a wealthy family(society) is more likely to become wealthy even if you place them in an environment of poverty, for example. That has actually be proven quite a few times, I believe. If someone is born into a society of poverty(developing world) then it very likely that they will adopt the lower state persuasive in their society.

The important application for those who work with agencies designed to break the poverty cycle is that if this model were accurate, then it would be the the philosophic investment (aid) that must be emphasized, and the physical investment would just assist that.

(keep in mind wealthy does not mean necessary new worth, but the ability to increase that worth[ability to generate capital])

Btw, I'm not trying to say American values are superior in any way[in fact my current economic models predict collapse]. I don't know what causes the charges to be higher in one society and not another, but I have seen from the data that as it goes up ones description of the world changes[predictably].

 

[Maxwell511]

The "conditions" of the developing world is an environment that promotes lower states, and hence causes lower attractor fields to prevail.

But please don't take that the wrong way, I'm not trying to say my friends who happen to live in Russia for example suffer due to a culture of poverty or their own choices. They are as much a victim as a cause, but what it does mean is that the poverty cycle exists not due to lack of funds, but because an impoverish person sees the world in a way which does not "attach" wealth.

But are these "conditions" cause by a lack of "large" attractors? For example the stength of electrical field at the "edge" of a charged particle would be stronger if that particle moved nearer to another particle with a larger charge.

Someone born into a wealthy family(society) is more likely to become wealthy even if you place them in an environment of poverty, for example. That has actually be proven quite a few times, I believe. If someone is born into a society of poverty(developing world) then it very likely that they will adopt the lower state persuasive in their society.

The important application for those who work with agencies designed to break the poverty cycle is that if this model were accurate, then it would be the the philosophic investment (aid) that must be emphasized, and the physical investment would just assist that.

(keep in mind wealthy does not mean necessary new worth, but the ability to increase that worth[ability to generate capital])

If you are saying that education should be emphasized I would agree with you.

 

[Achichem]

But are these "conditions" cause by a lack of "large" attractors?

Yes, though not necessary since a system does not need a high attractor to exist in a higher state.

The presence of a high attractor in a lower field will increase the charges of lower field, but keep in mind the high attractors tend not to have a lot of net-worth, and are considered high due to their awing ability to manifest resources not their amount of static resources.

That said, medium field may be a detriment due to their need to create static resources, because resource "prefer" to be in the medium static field instead of a lower field.

 

[Maxwell511]

Yes, though not necessary since a system does not need a high attractor to exist in a higher state.

The presence of a high attractor in a lower field will increase the charges of lower field, but keep in mind the high attractors tend not to have a lot of net-worth, and are considered high due to their awing ability to manifest resources not their amount of static resources.

That said, medium field may be a detriment due to their need to create static resources, because resource "prefer" to be in the medium static field instead of a lower field.

Could you define what you mean by "static resources"? I'm not sure I understand this idea.

 

[Achichem]

lol, I actually deleted that from the end of my post

Static resources: surplus, or ones available resources minus their needs[expenses]. (The model allows the individual to define need)

Bill gates for example is not a high field but a middle field with a high count of static resources. Static resources come when you've attracted resources past your short-term expenses, and thus begin to collect "net-worth" or "static reasources".

As a side note: As I understand it Bill Gates plans to give away the majority of his fortune[static resources] before he dies, so he in particular may be very close to moving into high .

See the attraction to increased net-worth relationship is only untill a certain threshold. At which point ones ability to manifest grows beyond fear and where in there is no longer a reason to keep static resources around[fall off the traditional wealth scales].

This is why the richest men in the world are not necessary the best attractor of money, but just happen to have the right balance of attraction and fear to produce the largest pool of static resources.

In also of note that the larger the ratio between the middle fields and the high ones, the less amount of resources the lower fields are able to scrap over.

Hope that helps,
Peace,

 

[Maxwell511]

lol, I actually deleted that from the end of my post

Static resources: surplus, or ones available resources minus their needs[expenses]. (The model allows the individual to define need)

Bill gates for example is not a high field but a middle field with a high count of static resources. Static resources come when you've attracted resources past your short-term expenses, and thus begin to collect "net-worth" or "static reasources".

As a side note: As I understand it Bill Gates plans to give away the majority of his fortune[static resources] before he dies, so he in particular may be very close to moving into high .

See the attraction to increased net-worth relationship is only untill a certain threshold. At which point ones ability to manifest grows beyond fear and where in there is no longer a reason to keep static resources around[fall off the traditional wealth scales].

This is why the richest men in the world are not necessary the best attractor of money, but just happen to have the right balance of attraction and fear to produce the largest pool of static resources.

In also of note that the larger the ratio between the middle fields and the high ones, the less amount of resources the lower fields are able to scrap over.

Hope that helps,
Peace,

But if Bill Gates puts his money in the Bank then it used to create more wealth through loans for new businesses. Is this truely static wealth?