Prioritization of Values Theory

[M30USA]

I have developed my own psychological theory:

 

I believe that all people share the same set of values in life. These values include:

 

Family

Money/career

Health

God/religion

Marriage/sex

Etc.

 

However, I believe that what accounts for ALL differences in personality and culture is not these values, themselves, but rather the EXACT order in which they are prioritized.

 

For example, a common example is whether someone puts family or money/career first. Obviously all people value both of these things. But logically one must be higher for everyone. We may not like to be conscious of how we rank these priorities, but everyone does and chooses to--even if they never stop to consider.

 

Many people also value God/religion. According to polls, 70% of Americans identify as Christian. This means a lot more are at least deists. Yet I've learned that everyone ranks God at varying places in their priority list--whether consciously or unconsciously.

 

I have known people, personally, who have made both the following claims, but at different times/situations:

 

"Family comes first."

 

"God comes first."

 

These two comments were made depending on which one, at the time, was deemed most beneficial for the advancement of their agenda.

 

However, according to my theory, it can only be one or the other. While God or family are BOTH highly valued, ultimately one must come first. I suggest that most people who identify as Christian do not put God above family. In fact, I suggest that people who do this are looked at negatively and called radical. Didn't Jesus say that whoever puts mother or father or brother above Him is not worthy of the kingdom? Why then are people who do this looked down on? I am not encouraging people to abandon their role as parent, etc, but here is a profound truth I have discovered:

 

In life we will eventually put (I believe by the direction of God) into what I call "crunch situations" where we will ultimately have to make logical, knowing decisions about how our priorities rank. A "family man or woman" may be able to successfully place family above God for years or even decades but, ultumately, God will send him/her a "crunch situation" where he must decide which is highest: God or another priority. Jesus said "you cannot serve two masters". This didn't just apply to money. It applies to even good things like family. And for those who think family is the highest value, think about this: the mafia puts family first, but look how much good it does for them.

 

Getting back to my original theory, life isn't just about priorities. (Who would argue the basic priorities that everyone values? You hear it all the time.) No, life is about the EXACT order in which you rank these priorities. And I hate to sound radical but any value, no matter how good, is "shifting sand" when you place it above God.

 

How do you rank your priorities?

Edited April 12, 2013 by M30USA

[Thegameoflife]

I don't quite follow how these values define someone's personality.

 

I've always thought personality is defined by genetics and life experience, or nature and nurture.

[M30USA]

I don't quite follow how these values define someone's personality.

 

I've always thought personality is defined by genetics and life experience, or nature and nurture.

 

Yes, you are right. I should have said the prioritization of values defines the path and direction a person takes in life--not their personality or culture. Thanks.

 

(But I do think there is a strong link with culture here. Many times culture defines for the individual how they should prioritize their values.)

Edited April 12, 2013 by M30USA

[TheFinalWord]

How does your hypothesis differ from say, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs or Vroom's Expectancy Theory or Locke's Goal Setting Theory?

[M30USA]

How does your hypothesis differ from say, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs or Vroom's Expectancy Theory or Locke's Goal Setting Theory?

 

LOL, one thing I realized in college psych was that most famous psychologists and philosophers seem to take things which, deep down, everybody knows are true and could figure out on their own--and they put their last name on it as if it's their idea. I'd bet 100 bucks my idea in the OP has been coined before.

[TheFinalWord]

LOL, one thing I realized in college psych was that most famous psychologists and philosophers seem to take things which, deep down, everybody knows are true and could figure out on their own--and they put their last name on it as if it's their idea. I'd bet 100 bucks my idea in the OP has been coined before.

 

haha well it actually contradicts nearly all of them. That's why I'm asking Most theories of human behavior are based on motivation. Human motivation is a very complex topic, especially when you integrate the environment. If human motivation were easy to operationalize, our chronic disease rates would be cut in half (and subsequently health care bills) b/c we could motivate everyone to workout and eat right.

 

For example, someone may want to go to church, but if they live in a hostile neighborhood or have unreliable transportation, then that will mediate their motivation. So, it's not quite so easy. I have read a few papers on multi-level modeling, which combines mirco and macro variables (i.e. policy, laws, social structure, etc.) to create more ecological models.

 

THE ECOLOGICAL MODEL

 

Everything makes sense in hindsight, but theories of human behavior are built by observation and experimentation. Bandura's Social Learning theory was developed based on observation of children (bobo doll), reinenforcement through Pavlov's dogs, etc. Not all of it is just intuitive. If a model offers no predictive power, it's basically useless.

[M30USA]

haha well it actually contradicts nearly all of them. That's why I'm asking Most theories of human behavior are based on motivation. Human motivation is a very complex topic, especially when you integrate the environment..

 

I think we are talking about 2 different things. What I'm trying to figure out is WHAT determines the things that motivates a person. For example, using the values I listed, does someone get motivated to protect their family? To serve God? To make money? To get "laid" as often as possible? Everyone is motivated, I agree. But WHAT are we motivated to do? And, most importantly, what is that #1 thing at the top of our lists? As I said, I think this is what differentiates us all.

[TheFinalWord]

I think we are talking about 2 different things. What I'm trying to figure out is WHAT determines the things that motivates a person. For example, using the values I listed, does someone get motivated to protect their family? To serve God? To make money? To get "laid" as often as possible? Everyone is motivated, I agree. But WHAT are we motivated to do? And, most importantly, what is that #1 thing at the top of our lists? As I said, I think this is what differentiates us all.

 

Sure, I can see what you're saying. Models have to be critiqued, that's one essential step

 

Motivation is driven by an unmet need. It's a state of tension that is not relieved until it is met.

 

Well according to Maslow (I don't fully agree with his model, but it's a good starting point). People's motivations are satisfied according to a hierarchy of needs. Basically, physiological needs (food, water, shelter) have to be met first. Once those are met, safety needs are next. These can be employment, security of resources, etc. Next, love needs (relationships, belonging, love). Next, esteem needs. Finally, self-actualization. Basically until lower level needs are met, the higher level needs cannot be met (these needs are usually illustrated as a pyramid).

 

Which is may explain why you can see people that go into various criminal enterprises to meet their basic survival needs. Many people will never attain self-actualization. Maslow believed one must master lower level needs to obtain self-actualization. There are numerous critiques to this model, namely these are not necessarily linear or universal across cultures.

 

BTW, this is an extreme cliff notes version. Motivation is an in-depth topic

[pureinheart]

Sure, I can see what you're saying. Models have to be critiqued, that's one essential step

 

Motivation is driven by an unmet need. It's a state of tension that is not relieved until it is met.

 

Well according to Maslow (I don't fully agree with his model, but it's a good starting point). People's motivations are satisfied according to a hierarchy of needs. Basically, physiological needs (food, water, shelter) have to be met first. Once those are met, safety needs are next. These can be employment, security of resources, etc. Next, love needs (relationships, belonging, love). Next, esteem needs. Finally, self-actualization. Basically until lower level needs are met, the higher level needs cannot be met (these needs are usually illustrated as a pyramid).

 

Which is may explain why you can see people that go into various criminal enterprises to meet their basic survival needs. Many people will never attain self-actualization. Maslow believed one must master lower level needs to obtain self-actualization. There are numerous critiques to this model, namely these are not necessarily linear or universal across cultures.

 

BTW, this is an extreme cliff notes version. Motivation is an in-depth topic

 

This could be wayyyy off the mark here, although God is becoming more and more my first priority- why? Met needs and unmet needs:

 

I've lacked money- and have had a lot of money

I've been alone- and have had many relationships

I've been successful in secular terms

 

Thinking it's obvious where this is going- nothing can satisfy "me" outside of God.

[TheFinalWord]

This could be wayyyy off the mark here, although God is becoming more and more my first priority- why? Met needs and unmet needs:

 

I've lacked money- and have had a lot of money

I've been alone- and have had many relationships

I've been successful in secular terms

 

Thinking it's obvious where this is going- nothing can satisfy "me" outside of God.

 

I don't think you are

 

Maslow caused a paradigm shift, but his model is not perfect by any stretch of the means. It's formation lacked scientific rigor, but it makes sense from a practical perspective so it is popular.

 

Here is the full paper. It's a seminal paper in the field of psychology, so even if it's not quite accurate, it helps to understand how the field has changed over time.

 

Classics in the History of Psychology -- A. H. Maslow (1943) A Theory of Human Motivation

 

Here is an overview with some critiques:

 

Hierarchy of Needs

 

The types of needs self-actualizers strive for:

 

Metamotivation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

There is actually a level above self-actualization, self-transcendence, which is more spiritual in nature. Maslow added it later.

[sb129]

I have developed my own psychological theory:

 

I believe that all people share the same set of values in life. These values include:

 

Family

Money/career

Health

God/religion

Marriage/sex

Etc.

 

Many people also value God/religion. According to polls, 70% of Americans identify as Christian. This means a lot more are at least deists. Yet I've learned that everyone ranks God at varying places in their priority list--whether consciously or unconsciously.

 

Everyone?

 

As an atheist, gods and religions don't feature on my list. At all. Ever. Except as possibly the source of exasperation and black humour.

 

Apart from that my ranking would go as follows-

 

Family/ Marriage (to me this is the same thing as my husband is my family and our children are our family so our marriage is the foundation for that)

Health- you need good health to enjoy everything else!

Career- get more fulfilment out of my career than money, so they are separate

Money.

 

Happy polling...

[pie2]

I'd bet 100 bucks my idea in the OP has been coined before.

 

Value Theory is a good place to start .

[Eve]

Family

Money/career

Health

God/religion

Marriage/sex

 

All very important themes but I think the priorities are often combined in quite a complicated way.

 

I have a fickle list which mainly centres on the size of my boobies, how I look in dresses and how often I have chance to go to the Cinema. I think my fickle list protects me from becoming overcome by the importance of the other stuff.

 

Health remains #1 though and may actually be the real basis of my fickle list.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Eve]

I reckon what is most interesting is why people prioritise as they do.

 

Attribution Theory always hit the mark for me in this regard - back in the days of study; self-serving bias, locus of control, dispositional attributions...

 

So much interesting research as been done through this lens.

 

I think I learned to accept my fickle side via this theory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(psychology)

 

Take care,

Eve x

[M30USA]

TFW brought up good points about how certain needs such as food, shelter, etc, must be met prior to self-actualization. I think this applies to all of us. But consider what Jesus did. He even refused food, itself, when offered to him by Satan as part of the temptation.

 

This is why I am highly interested in the exact order people rank their priorities. Would most of us disobey God for a good job? How about if we were starving: would we put food above God? Jesus didn't.

 

As far as I'm concerned, this is what life is all about. It's one big filtering process for God to refine us so that we would learn to follow him above all things. It takes years and decades of training. It can only be done on earth where, temporarily, we see the results of not putting him #1. God asks, "Will you choose me over this or that? Good. Now what about this? No? Okay, let's give it some time and soon you will see."

 

For those who think I'm mischaracterizing God and he'd never think in such a way, you need only look at when he tested Abraham to see if he'd give up his own son for the Lord.

Edited April 13, 2013 by M30USA

[pie2]

As far as I'm concerned, this is what life is all about. It's one big filtering process for God to refine us so that we would learn to follow him above all things. It takes years and decades of training. It can only be done on earth where, temporarily, we see the results of not putting him #1. God asks, "Will you choose me over this or that? Good. Now what about this? No? Okay, let's give it some time and soon you will see." For those who think I'm mischatacterizing God and he'd never think in such a way, you need only look at when he tested Abraham to see if he'd give up his own son for the Lord.

 

Yes, that is so true! Jesus said that the first two commandments (love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself) are the greatest commandments. In a fallen world though, anything can be placed above God. As you said, our basic needs can be prioritized as more important than God. We're imperfect, after all.

 

If we go with the assumption that there is God, and then everything else, I think it's less important to know the order that different cultures prioritize their needs/wants. It's an interesting and very deep topic to ponder. IMO, once you start to look at it though, it's much deeper than just making a ranking. As Eve mentioned, I think the "why" behind our priorities is a profound topic; much more complex than "I prioritize because my culture taught me".

 

That's why I think it's more crucial that each person at least have the opportunity to know that placing God first in our lives is a goal that will ultimately offer us everything that we really, truly need. We are imperfect though; we're just not going to get it right all the time. But thankfully, Jesus did the hard part for us.

[TheFinalWord]

Y But thankfully, Jesus did the hard part for us.

 

 

Perhaps related to M30 OP...

 

[M30USA]

I've realized that, while Jesus has allowed us to be accepted by the Father, we can still expect to receive trials. This is because, as a follower of Christ, we are "called according to the Spirit". The worlds system is directly against the Holy Spirit. Paul even wrote that friendship with the world is enmity with God. I used to think we should strive to be comfortable and happy until I realized that we are in enemy territory. We have joy, I believe, and not happiness. Joy can be felt even while sad.

 

For years I tried to rationalize and sugar coat some of Jesus' sayings. I thought, well, what he probably meant was such and such. But after more life experience, I've realized he meant what he said. There is a reason Jesus is so controversial. There really is no such thing as a comfy, happy go lucky Christian experience. There may be, but it's not what Christ spoke about. It's merely compromise.

Edited April 13, 2013 by M30USA

[sb129]

I never really get the types of people who say they prioritize "god" above their own family. It's kind of weird to me. I don't know. Family comes before everything to me.

 

Especially seeing as "god" has a pretty regular habit of letting you down..

[M30USA]

Yeah, I too, don't have any "god" values, or anything like that.

My values as follows:

Family

Health

Career/money

Sex

 

I never really get the types of people who say they prioritize "god" above their own family. It's kind of weird to me. I don't know. Family comes before everything to me.

 

I appreciate your honesty.

[pureinheart]

I don't think you are

 

Maslow caused a paradigm shift, but his model is not perfect by any stretch of the means. It's formation lacked scientific rigor, but it makes sense from a practical perspective so it is popular.

 

Here is the full paper. It's a seminal paper in the field of psychology, so even if it's not quite accurate, it helps to understand how the field has changed over time.

 

Classics in the History of Psychology -- A. H. Maslow (1943) A Theory of Human Motivation

 

Here is an overview with some critiques:

 

Hierarchy of Needs

 

The types of needs self-actualizers strive for:

 

Metamotivation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

There is actually a level above self-actualization, self-transcendence, which is more spiritual in nature. Maslow added it later.

 

This is awesome, and I love psychology, always have. Some church leaders call it secular and other labels, but I don't agree. I think we can learn from it.

 

I only got to the first link TFW, and am soooo rusty concerning the "language", but some of it came back...wow need to reread it a few times...but you have no idea how this is helping me in other areas that 've been seeking answers. Thank you Brotha!

[pureinheart]

I reckon what is most interesting is why people prioritise as they do.

 

Attribution Theory always hit the mark for me in this regard - back in the days of study; self-serving bias, locus of control, dispositional attributions...

 

So much interesting research as been done through this lens.

 

I think I learned to accept my fickle side via this theory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(psychology)

 

Take care,

Eve x

 

This theory is awesome Eve. This is something I've battled with all of my life- it has laft me feeling less than and condemned, not to mention defeated at times. Could go on forever with this!

 

Great thread M30, thank you:D

[wuggle]

I think this is a rubbish theory. I do not belive in God or religion, I care not for Money or career, am only mildly concerned about my health.

 

Truth above all else.

 

I presume by your rubbish theory I am an underling ?

[M30USA]

Truth above all else.

 

Nice!!!

 

Jesus answered, “...Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” (John 18:37c)

Edited April 13, 2013 by M30USA

[Eve]

This theory is awesome Eve. This is something I've battled with all of my life- it has laft me feeling less than and condemned, not to mention defeated at times. Could go on forever with this!

 

Great thread M30, thank you:D

 

I want to know more about this, if you are able to verbalise it. PM is ok if it is a bit heavy. Of course, that is if you want to!!!

 

I like the plain view of humanity within Attribution Theory. Often people lose sight of this within their claims/theories/priorities.

 

I first came into contact with the theory whilst working with people who abuse substances/alcohol. It is funny being on the outside, watching a person come to the realisation that they are doing what they are doing quite simply because they want to. Same with my observations of people in and not in the faith. I am quite convinced that most of true workings go on within our subconscious mind but is being fed by the internal/external attributions we hold onto most.

 

Jesus has always stood out to me because He was all about God. Nothing got in the way off his mission. He controlled the flesh, even to death and the Earth obeyed Him. Since understanding Him as being The Word I have found that I am not controlled/anxious anymore.

 

All in all, I am quite convinced that much of what we do is anxiety lead, even matters linked to perceiving the faith. For example, I was pondering today whether in fact those who Jesus healed were actually already believers.

 

Take care,

Eve x