There are ways to motivate and other ways to dissuade. The challenge is to use the right method for the desired outcome. Innate in each of us is a willingness to please or not, or an unwillingness to cooperate or not. Supposedly the method used to resolve conflict is to elevate the issue to the highest level of agreement. Rather than argue over who is right the resolution might be found in what is fair, or can the inequities be resolved by a compromise. In this world a fourth alternative is available; who is willing to make the biggest sacrifice. As each decision is made our cultural and societal values are quantified and qualified. Not only do we have a mood ring to illustrate our current physiological state of being our relative worth is displayed on the retina display. We can actually see how we rank in relationship to our circumstances. For those of us who are masochists or egotistical maniac we can set our profile to register our value to the whole world. Which in and of itself is a negative value factored into the composite score but still a value calculated by the computer. The relative individual’s value become more and more accurate as the data was accumulated and the data sets were expanded both individually as well as intrinsically to the individual’s proximity, relationships, and responsibilities.
For example a child’s relative value to his family would be calculated in relationship to how valuable his behavior was and how willing he or she was to make a sacrifice for the family. A society’s laborer would be calculated in relationship to the value of his or her work and how willing a person was to accept responsibility and take accountability for a particular job or duty. Someone has to clean toilets, care for the sick, invalids, and elderly. Others have to dig ditches, build and repair things. While other’s can make the most of their physical and mental talents to benefit society.
The calculation of a person’s value will be a function of the computer program. The relative worth will fluctuate as decisions are made and the algorithm is expanded to inculcate the latest data and the ebb and flow of people, responsibilities, and requirements. With each action the relative value of the next activity is valued. If there is a flood the need for volunteers and people with equipment operating skills goes up so does the relative value of their efforts. If there is not enough food the efforts of a farmer may become highest until harvest when the skills of truck driver and dockworker raise in value. Politicians and lawyers are never ranked high except in those pursuits that enable others to benefit.
The most intriguing thing about the god complex is that those values are determined not by a single program but by confluence of organic applications which document, detail and determine the relative value and worth of a particular activity. I am hungry and want to eat a particular cuisine, or I am sick and want to find the best physician, I am unskilled and want to change my future through education or apprenticeship, I am a great ditch digger and I check the latest job announcements only to find that there are numerous infrastructure projects actually bidding for my skills.
There is a natural order of things which can only be manipulated to a degree, I can write and app which tries to value a particular activity but when very few people in their everyday activities don’t access or use my application its impact on the individuals relative value scale is minimal or inconsequential.
The god complex algorithms don’t assign value but simply report it. It is the society that values a particular activity or skill and it is society that determines the relative value of each industry. Actors and athletes are admired for their appearance and skill but their value to society is relative to the benefits perceived by the society they are in. Church leaders and motivational personalities are similarly credited with the good that they perform.