Nexus State Theory

The Value Addiction Problem


The Mortality Problem

Human beings live with the awareness that life is finite — this is the Mortality Problem.  The Mortality Problem is the focus of Terror Management Theory, which is described in The Worm at the Core by Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski.  Before that, the idea originated with Ernest Becker’s The Denial of Death and has been confirmed by numerous psychological studies.  (“Mortality Problem” is my phrase for this idea.)

Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski assume that the Mortality Problem is particularly relevant for humans as opposed to animals.  Both humans and animals might fear many of the same things – fire, predators, and rivals of the same species – but only humans are entirely aware that they will die someday.  Imagine, if you will, constructing a robot and telling it that its main goal is to grasp a rainbow with its claw.  You then program the robot to realize it is impossible to grasp the rainbow with its claw.  This is the dilemma humans are in – we want to avoid death, but we know that ultimately that is impossible.  For an animal, each individual cause of death is feared, but the animal never puts it together that these causes amount to a single thing (death) and that this thing is unavoidable.  Humans, on the other hand, are capable of “correlating the contents” of our mind as H. P. Lovecraft put it.  (Although Lovecraft said that we cannot correlate the contents.)  In any case, the Mortality Problem can be both insoluble and intolerable, because humans have not been around enough in geological time to evolve innate defenses against death anxiety.

Reminders of the Mortality Problem prompt humans to seek safety – but also to seek a variety of values.  Humans’ values provide positive valence, and this positive valence provides some measure of protection against death anxiety.  This response can be helpful or unhelpful – and sometimes both.  As we have seen, values are often conditionally helpful; some amount of protection against death anxiety can be helpful, while unlimited protection can be unhelpful.

Four Common Responses to Mortality: “Addictive Values”

If we do not recognize the conditionally helpful nature of values, and we engage in them in an unlimited way, we can become addicted to our values.  Addictive values usually offer high arousal (they are “hard” values) and it is tempting to overindulge in this positive valence.  In fact, any value – soft or hard – can become addictive.  For example, I think of compassion as a soft value, but it can be addictive.  A compassion addict would act in what they perceive to be a compassionate way, even if their compassion seems to be hurting themselves or others.  They would be unable to stop.  However, it seems to me that hard values are more likely to be addictive, both because they have higher arousal and because they have more harmful consequences if pursued to extremes.  But it is entirely possible to become addicted to soft values as well.  Here are a few of the values to which we’re most likely to be addicted.

  1. Conformity

This implies seeking community and family ties for security and belonging.  Community has practical benefits, such as insurance, mutual aid, and protection.  It also has emotional benefits (positive valence), such as reassurance and shared identity.   Conformity reassures us that we belong to our group, and that we will be valued by our group in turn.  It assures us that if we follow the rules and norms of our group, our group will reciprocate.  Too much conformity can lead to group conflict, bad faith (that is, living the way others want you to live while thinking it’s your real self), and hostility toward outsiders.

  1. Esteem

Esteem represents our desire for status, self-respect, or external validation.  It may offer personal power as well as an alternative route to acceptance by the group.  In most cases, self-esteem is a good thing, and its opposite (self-loathing) may well be a worse outcome than having too much self-esteem.  Too much focus on esteem (or the wrong kind of focus) can lead to arrogance, perfectionism, and overreliance on external validation.

  1. Symbolic Continuity

Symbolic continuity focuses on ensuring that others will carry our ideas and values forward.  It is, in some respects, a meta-value.  (We hope that others will value our values.)  Symbolic continuity may be concerned with having children who will carry on one’s legacy.  We may also hope that our group identity will outlive us.  Too much focus on symbolic continuity can lead to coercion, indoctrination, dogma, and a need to control others.

  1. Safety

Valuing safety means making an effort to prevent specific mortality events.  This doesn’t become a problem unless we are addicted to safety, in which case we protect ourselves even if risks are remote or unavoidable.  Too much focus on safety can lead to risk aversion as well as wasted energy on futile precautions

In each case, the problem is the excess.  Self-respect and belonging are healthy; arrogance and conformity may not be.

One objection I can see to this framework is that arrogance is not a kind of excessive self-respect.  Rather, arrogance and self-respect have some similarities but are fundamentally different things.  On this account, the problem with arrogance is the quality or kind of things that it is, not the quantity or amount.  It could be argued that one does not get to arrogance simply by having more and more self-respect.

I can see and sympathize with this objection, but ultimately I disagree with it.  I don’t think every person’s self-esteem becomes arrogance when taken in unlimited quantities, but it becomes something – perhaps grandiosity, perfectionism, entitlement, overconfidence, etc.  There may be values that are unconditionally helpful, but if so, esteem isn’t one of them in my opinion.

Unconscious Nature of Mortality Responses

Most people don’t realize how much mortality cues shape their behavior.  For example, in one study (“Terror Management in the Courtroom: Exploring the Effects of Mortality Salience on Legal Decision Making”) judges were asked to imagine what would happen when they died; then, they assigned a punishment to an imaginary defendant.  The judges imposed harsher punishments after mortality reminders (Arndt et al.).  But the judges were unaware that the mortality reminders were influencing the degree of the punishments.

Is it possible to know whether one is influenced by mortality salience?  Perhaps, but if so, it requires detective-like self-reflection over time.  For example, one could keep track of one’s response to mortality events like 9/11 and covid – did these result in your being more interested in belonging, esteem, symbolic continuity, or safety?  I suspect that these interests can surface gradually, especially if the crisis has a long duration.  For example, 9/11 led to the Iraq War, which lasted for years, while covid is still a problem today.

Psychological Motives

Why do humans value esteem, conformity, and legacy in the face of mortality salience?  I can think of several possible explanations.

  1. Humans are seeking the survival of their group as a substitute for personal survival.  Perhaps we think, in effect, that our genes will be carried on by our group, so conformity will ensure that that happens.
  2. We instinctively seek the protection of our group, and conformity will get us that desired protection.  If we are a good (norm-following) person, then our group will support us and care for us, so conformity will ensure that outcome.
  3. I think the most important reason is this: humans want psychological regulation via comforting, positive thoughts.  The essential idea of Terror Management Theory is that people worry about death because humans aren’t psychologically equipped to handle the knowledge that we must die.  Therefore, the fundamental goal isn’t that we want to slightly reduce the likelihood of death.  Rather, it’s that we want to stop thinking about it.  Positive valence helps to distract us from death, and hard, addictive values are the most likely values to achieve that.
  4. In the case of the safety value, we are doing something that seems practical: we are addressing what appears to be the root cause of mortality by combating a particular cause of death.  We might wash our hands, for instance, to prevent ourselves from getting sick.  This is less about having generic comforting thoughts and more about a rational-seeming solution to the mortality problem.

The Addictive Value Problem

The core issue is that mortality concerns “hook” into motivation systems and start controlling us.  The bigger the mortality concern, the higher the arousal needed to address it.  It is easy to get carried away with this, and to pursue unlimited arousal through the hardest possible values.  In some cases, this might lead to addiction in the conventional sense – to alcohol or drugs.  After all, alcohol is a value too.  However, in this chapter I am thinking more about addiction to esteem, conformity, legacy, and safety.

Some examples include:  

  • Defending one’s group no matter what – even if that’s bad for the group.  For instance, the terrorist who assassinated the Archduke and provoked World War One was just supporting his group, but his actions led to widespread death and destruction.
  • Pressuring children to carry on one’s values.  For example, someone might demand that one’s children have exactly the same religious or political values as oneself, which might strain the parent-child relationship and make it even harder for the parent to influence their child.

Why Avoid Value Addiction?

If we cannot get actual immortality, then why should we avoid value addiction?  Why not live life to the fullest and pursue hard values to the fullest extent possible?  Fear of death is painful – why not try as hard as we can to defeat that fear?  Even if conformity can lead to group conflict – so what?  Didn’t we just say we’re going to die anyway?

The Buddhist answer:

Addiction causes suffering for oneself and others; this stems from clinging to overly “hard” values and pursuing them past the point of their conditional helpfulness.

The Existentialist answer:

Existentialist thinkers include: Sartre, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, etc.  They might say that freedom is essential, and addiction enslaves rather than liberates.

The Pragmatic answer:

We might say that unlimited goals (e.g., infinite status or legacy) can never be attained; limited goals are manageable.  Therefore, we may never be satisfied with an addiction, because the addiction will never let us say that we are done.  We are, after all, still going to die.  The answer is to focus on what can be controlled in the present.

The Individual answer:

Each person can have their own answer.  Everyone has something less addictive that they care about.

Biological and Reproductive Dimensions

According to life history theory, dangerous environments lead to increased reproduction rates.  I suggest that this is a version of mortality salience – but one that is more practically-minded.  That is, having more children isn’t just a way to experience positive valence – it’s a way to remedy the problem at hand.  In this way, increased fertility is more akin to safety – it is a response that directly answers the problem – than it is to conformity and esteem, which merely drown one’s sorrows in positive valence.

The demographic transition is a theory that societies first experience falling child mortality rates without commensurate reductions in fertility rates, leading to exploding populations.  Eventually, fertility rates decline to keep the population in check.  But why?  Shouldn’t people still want children?  If anything, in a wealthy society where it’s easier to care for children, you might think people would want even more children.

My suggestion is that child mortality is a kind of mortality salience that cues people to find a solution to the problem.  Having children is a practical solution that ensures one will have some surviving children.  If humans are somewhat risk averse, then the higher the child mortality risk, the more children you need to have in order to ensure that you will definitely be able to reproduce.  See studies: “From the Grave to the Cradle: Evidence That Mortality Salience Engenders a Desire for Offspring” and “Mortality Salience and the Desire for Offspring.”

Conclusion

Addictive values emerge as unconscious defenses against mortality anxiety.  While offering comfort and meaning, they risk excess, rigidity, and suffering when left unchecked.  Philosophical, psychological, and practical responses suggest ways to seek meaning without addiction or loss of freedom.  These responses are often “softer,” and they respect the conditional helpfulness of values rather than pursuing values without limit.