Why Focus On Mid-Level Goals?

Human action plans are often organized around goal hierarchies, with lower-level subgoals helping to achieve higher-level goals. For example, a plan to achieve a travel goal may use a subgoal of flying for part of a trip, which has a subgoal of getting on a plane, which has a subgoal of sitting down when you get to your row. Many subgoals below that are planned and achieved unconsciously. Different plans involve different goal trees, and we often search in a large space of possible trees when we pick plans.

Many parameters correlate simply with this high-to-low goal axis. For example, lower-level goals and actions tend to take less space, time, and other resources. They are less likely to conflict with other goals, and more likely to be time-consistent. They are more easily evaluated for success, better described by simple abstractions, more reliably controlled, and more easily optimized by hill-climbing. They seem more observable, reversible, and substitutable, give faster feedback, and are more easily automated.

However, other related parameters depend on this key high-to-low goal axis in less simple ways; they instead peak at some mid-level, and fall away from that in both directions. For example, we have more conscious awareness of, give more conscious attention to, and make more deliberate choices re mid level goals. We can more clearly articulate them and their relations to other goals, and we can more easily teach others to manage them. People coordinate with each other more here, and our blame, credit, norms, and laws focus more here. There is more cultural variety of behaviors at these mid levels; other behaviors are more set by DNA.

A noteworthy exception is that such mid-peaking parameters often peak at much higher levels in large for-profit orgs, and in other large orgs, like militaries, with strong incentives tied to concrete goals. Such orgs often can and do articulate, measure, credit, and blame the behaviors of top people who mange high-level goals.

A simple interpretation of these patterns is that cultural evolution of coordinated behaviors faced a key tradeoff. Let me explain.

As thinking and talking takes time, there is a lowest level of goals and actions where we can discuss them as we choose and do them, so that such talk greatly influences those actions. While humans can and do watch and learn details of others’ behaviors that are at much lower-levels, we mostly do this non-verbally and unconsciously.

However, to enforce norms, including the norms that say that we should keep our promises, we humans need to be able say to others in sometimes-verifiable words what we and others have or have not been doing lately. So that we can complain about such actions, and recruit others to exert social pressures toward norm enforcement. To defend ourselves against such accusations, our conscious minds were created to manage key stories of what we’ve been doing lately and why.

So cultural evolution got into the habit of having us think and talk consciously about goals near this lowest-articulable level, and also to notice, copy, and teach chunks of behavior near these levels. And in addition, we mostly manage our norms, status markers, and key coordination mechanisms near such levels. As this cultural evolution process is pretty random and uncoordinated, efforts to abstract these norms and chunks most naturally expressed at these mid levels into higher level goals don’t usually achieve much clarity or coherence. Also, we seem reluctant to explicitly name cultural adaption itself as a big higher level goal.

So why didn’t we instead define and manage our social coordination using much higher levels goals? The simple correlations above say that such higher goals would tend to be less modular, less observable, and less easily described using abstractions. Making it harder for us to see and describe them, and to enforce norms about them.

However, with the invention of money and for-profit orgs, the world has now found new ways to use modular observable goals at quite high-levels. When we allow such orgs to manage key areas of life, they have shown remarkable abilities to effectively coordinate our behaviors. The problem is that, in many minds at least, their wider use would violate other key norms that we have inherited from cultural evolution.

Notice that cultural natural selection of individual behaviors seems insufficient to evolve better norms and status markers, as these are features of key game-theoretic equilibria, where individual deviations are punished. We need instead to have collective deviations of entire cultures, i.e., units with much stronger internal than external conformity pressures.

Alas this process has been greatly hindered in the last few centuries by decreasing variety and selection pressures, and increasing rates of environmental change and internal cultural drift. Which is plausibly causing such norms to decay, plausibly leading to civ collapse and replacement in a century or two.