Operating Systems & The Ulterior Motive Hypothesis
This weblog is nearing its first anniversary. To mark the occasion, I am going to release an account from the darkest corner of Pandora’s box. What is initially parched analysis of the ‘Human Operating System’ moves to my second cornerstone – the ulterior motive hypothesis, complete with sordid detail of my first encounter with a manipulative, game-playing woman.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand the concept is through allegory. UMH is to a person as a component of an operating system to a computer. The industry jargon tells us that the operating system is the bridge between the hardware and software that governs procedures, interaction and operation between the two.
Technologically, an operating system is an extremely complicated piece of engineering – tens of millions of lines of code that do everything from play an audio CD automatically to manage physical memory. It follows therefore that the ‘operating system’ that people use has intricacy far beyond even the most advanced computer. The ‘Human OS’ presides over all aspects of how we, as organic creatures, interact with the external stimulus of environment, which is enveloping of the physical world, other people and intangible circumstances and situations.
The type of life you have is in part a function of your Operating System, which in turn is a function or paradigm of your values, ideals, perceptions, attitudes and intelligence that may be instinctive or learned in nature. Having established that tentative reality, we can draw further from our computer analogy and make the deductions that follow.
a) A computer running Windows XP can do significantly more than an identical computer running MS-DOS.
b) Further, that the existence of an operating system gives rise to vulnerability – viruses that debilitate or corrupt certain functions of the operating system. There’s a whole topic to this point, which may come as a second installment at some point.
We can apply the same underlying logic to people.
Evidently, the human species doesn’t subscribe itself to the simple dichotomy of Windows/Macintosh, no – we have operating systems that are the opus of thousands of components. Whilst many people share certain ‘core’ modules, the little ‘plug-ins’ that fuse to the core to complete the picture are what drives our uniqueness as people and the ultimate standard to which we interact with the environment. There are literally countless of these ‘plug-ins’ out there – here are a couple of examples:
Experiential compassion – a life experience that shifts our perspective toward being compassionate, such as spending time in the plight of a third world country or one of those inexplicable everyday miracles.
Noncommitance – often the experience of a bad relationship incites a strong disposition against committing oneself emotionally to future relationships, and is often linked to antisocial tendencies and supernormal levels of self-interest.
These plug-ins manifest themselves in the observable personality traits we see as kindness and dispassion respectively. The association has now been forged between plug-ins and character traits. Now it’s time to build the third tier: how said plug-ins subsequently define our interactions.
For the purposes of illustrating how they characterise our interactions, I want to talk about a very specific plug-in. An unadulterated and fully-functional version of this particular plug-in is extremely rare and you’ll never know if a person has it through direct observation. But its existence can be reverse engineered from status, influence and strength of character. Whenever we say that a person is ‘switched-on,’ we are alluding to this particular plug-in, and many of the most influential people have it. The best fictional illustration of this plug-in is perhaps Lex and Lionel Luther from the Smallville television series.
Still haven’t got it? Well this ‘special’ plug-in is none other than the Ulterior Motive Hypothesis (UMH).
UMH in many respects is a close cousin of plain-vanilla cynicism, but it works on a higher level and is an advancement many a revision ahead of your run-of-the-mill scepticism. The distinction is made in personifying the two plug-ins. A cynic or sceptic will treat much of the stimuli in their external environment with suspicion and has tendency for distrust. By contrast an…what shall I term it…‘Ulteriorist’ goes a step further. The ulteriorist will assess elements in their environment (read: other thinking entities) on the basis of ‘hidden’ motivation.
By virtue of being, the ulteriorist has certain characteristics that diverge greatly from the standard of normality. Of particular note is substantially lower susceptibility to emotional angst caused by manipulation. In all likelihood, before undertaking to interrelate, our ulteriorist has already deliberated upon an evoked set of impetii that may be driving the other party. In doing so, they afford themselves a degree of prescience into relations with the other person. That is to say: dissolution of relations will inflict considerably less damage upon the ulteriorist because they initially approached the relationship prepared for plausible adverse outcomes based on counterparty ulterior motives. As a direct result, if things go sour, angst is assuaged.
Here’s the inevitable personal anecdote to illustrate:
As I try to recall all the lucid details; a consideration to keep in mind is that this was back in 2003, I was 16 at the time and running a somewhat archaic and clunky version of the ‘ulteriorist’ plug-in. Very much on my ‘P’ plates for social interaction, and acquiescent to the dubious ‘L’ plates with women. To put things into perspective, looks and intelligence naïvely topped my criteria list for women at the time. The two are strong merits, but followed on their own, will consistently deliver the dangerous emotionally manipulative type that seem to have a penchant for me lately.
Now, where to begin? It was the glory days of Year 12, and I was attending classes for University economics on Wednesday evenings as a nerdy adjunct to my VCE studies. There were seven or eight others the tutorial class, fellow ‘over-achievers’ seeking a taste of university life.
Among my classmates was a particular girl who I shall call ‘Vicki.’ Providence had it that Vicki and I developed what is best classed a ‘close friendship,’ stipulated by flirting on her part. To her credit, she was both (a) attractive and (b) intelligent. Did I neglect to mention? Also (c) a psychotically scheming and vicious backstabbing wench. *Ahem*
I don’t profess to be an exceptional judge of character (maybe good), and there has been many an occasion where my right brain gets quite taxed figuring a person out. Vicki was one of these people; and so the left hemisphere takes out insurance by relegating attachment. In this way I maintained the ‘relationship’ for about six months – essentially a normal ‘close friendship’ with the differential being I’d emotionally placed myself to be outside the blast radius should a bomb metaphorically detonate.
My approach here could easily be viewed as morally depraved, but there were very good reasons; two worthy of particular mention. The first is that I realised the type of shameless manipulator she was after a week. I can’t help but digress to particular amusing incidents:
> Out for coffee/lunch – conveniently ‘forgetting’ her purse at home on multiple occasions
> At the shopping centre with a group -batting her eyelids and putting on a sugary voice to get one of my classmates to carry her bags
> Leading on and subsequent denial when confronted about it
> Covert allusions to revealing attire when she needed a favour – the age old and highly successful ‘carrot on a string’ (Read: effectively low-level prostitution) control technique
> Never actually returning favours – the classic ‘user’ who takes advantage of a person’s good nature and does not reciprocate
I put up with these – the price paid for pursuit of knowledge, but they exemplify warning signs that should be heeded dutifully.
The second reason, logically, was I needed to learn – about how this type of person operated, and so I’d attain the dexterity never to get caught in an involved relationship with one. Needless to say it was a long six months, and true to the format of a MasterCard advisement:
“$63 shouting coffees and lunches, hours of deadweight time lost pursuing hunches, dozens of wasted favours gaining zero traction, and like Mick Jagger said; ‘I can’t get no satisfaction’
…getting a potent immunisation shot for emotionally manipulative women– priceless.”
Those rhymes came far too easily, kudos to Slim Shady and Nate Dogg. Rapping up, (if you’ll excuse the bad pun), there isn’t much for a conclusion, only perhaps that UMH is a double-edged sword. It’s highly practical in the sense it removes much of the pain that inherently comes when dealing with people. The flipside of course is that it will often create something of an affliction in the way it is perceived/misperceived.
Peace-out,
P. X. Waterstone
Leave a Reply