CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1 - An introduction to psychology's main errors :
Among the sciences, psychology has become distinctive in two ways, as a whole it is quite modest in its claims to truth and, secondly, many people outside the discipline would not even consider it a science. The reason for these distinctions is due to a lack of consensus among the discipline's adherents regarding an understanding of what constitutes a single explanation, or model, for the whole of psychology -- a model easily within its reach. This lack of consensus is due to the interference caused by the employment of ethical considerations, an employment which is standard in the discipline.

The sacred ethical ideas which interfere include the promotion of human welfare, the improvement of human life, and the use of humane procedures and methods in the collection of information. These ethical ideas are common to some other scientific disciplines, but within no other discipline are these ties so foundational. Also the subject of 'the truth of human nature' is a more sensitive issue to human beings than would be an issue from particle physics (for example) so ethics interferes in this discipline much more often.

What is interfered with is an accurate explanation of human and animal behavior -- the first goal of psychology. This interference happens if an explanation of psychology turns out to contradict the ethical considerations and the resulting conflict of interest will distort the final explanation; this is a probable reason for the lack of a single scientific explanation -- but this distortion allows many possible answers as long as they are politically safe ones. The main problem with ethics is that, as of yet, there is no scientific evidence demonstrating whether or not ethics are just fantasies or glorified values, or whether they represent something real. Until all ethics are studied scientifically they will confound all experiments which use them. (For clarity, ethics are distinguished from values in that values, which are relative and arbitrary, are -- in ethics -- represented as universal standards for people.) If ethics were ignored by science completely, in the interests of the value of greater accuracy (even in the study of ethics), this would be considered heresy.

A similar but less radical critique was made by psychologist Thomas Szasz, in 1961, who contended that psychology's ethics are used for social engineering (control) at the expense of accuracy . Historically, his critique had the effect of slightly mitigating the role of ethics in psychology, but he did not address ethics per se.

With this background in mind, I intend to dispense with ethical considerations, and I will attempt to eliminate ethics from psychology without challenging either the use of standards or the value of science. Simultaneously, I will propose a new theory which explains human behavior using the standard scientific data and by drawing new conclusions from them. This theory, the game gene theory, will also explain why ethics in general are used and why they are often allowed to interfere with the study of psychology.

The rest of this introduction will clarify certain related issues, like accuracy, science, standards and ethics. Then I will give an outline of the game gene theory as a reference. The main body of this paper will compare this new theory with the various standard concepts in psychology. It is divided up into relatively standard divisions of psychology, like emotions and motivation, but I have eliminated divisions which are irrelevant, redundant or ethical, like abnormal behavior and psychotherapy. For the sake of a greater accuracy I ask the reader as a matter of form to suspend his or her prejudices on a first reading.

2 - Accuracy:
Though I believe there are mistakes in the standard models of psychology, let me make it clear that I believe that, principally, every possible model has inaccuracies, including my own theory. I am aware that this is impossible to prove without testing every explanation there is. My conclusion is based on the historical record of explanations which have, with time, proven to be inaccurate, and on my own testing of past explanations. It is important to point out that mistaken ideas can be made useful irrespective of their accuracy (phrenology helped create the science of the brain ). I don't even think it is a mistake to make a mistake, it is only a mistake to believe that an idea is perfectly accurate.

3 - Science:
I should say that the scientific method is something which I believe has value, and the principle of relative truth which informs the scientific method is the only way to decide on the accuracy of any proposition. This statement may be misconstrued to imply an endorsement of a particular scientific method, but this is not intended. However, all methods and models within science employ a simple principal: can this be checked? Ideas are checked against past events or experiments through observation and measurement -- all relative methods. As a result, despite any division on method or model within the disciplines of science, this paper will still be referring to the scientific method based on the concept of relative truth versus any assertion of absolute truth. Nevertheless, there are several problems within science, like the desire to predict events.

The scientific effort to predict phenomenon is an excessive elaboration of the desire for reproducibility within some scientific methods. The problem with this desire is that experiments using the chaos theory model demonstrate that no two objects or phenomenon in space or time are exactly identical and so their behavior cannot be predicted perfectly. Forensics bases itself on the similarity of past events not on the duplication of events for reasons similar to these conclusions. The concept of reproducibility itself, is useful in science, but it is not the only measure of relative truth, for many things happen only once and cannot be denied as truths for that reason only.

Also, I believe that the intentions and the conclusions of scientists often have little connection to the experiments which they themselves designed to prove their intentions and predictions. For example, Franz Gall developed phrenology with the intention to show the divisions of the brain. He and others tested thousands of people in order to prove that the bumps on various parts of people's heads have a relationship to behavior and the brain. By this method Gall could discover where in the brain resided certain features described by psychology . He was being scientific while his intentions and conclusions were mistaken. But his mistake created data on skull shapes in relation to behavior which, if he had collected it correctly, was accurate data -- whether it can be used or not. So even though Gall's intentions and conclusions were wrong, a relative truth was created and used. Later, someone else may use the data less mistakenly, and so what was a mistake is made useful and another relative truth is created. There are thousands of examples of this in all the branches of science; it is often called progress instead of the genealogy of mistakes. Nevertheless, science creates the least inaccurate mistakes possible.

4 - Interpretation and Interference by Ethics:
A distinction must be made clear between scientists using science to make faulty conclusions and the methods of science itself. As I suggested above, science creates phenomenon to examine, but does not create the correct interpretation -- so the created phenomenon can be interpreted mistakenly over and over again. What is least in doubt is the created phenomenon (the data). What is most in doubt is the interpretation. If the data shows, for example, that people kill each other, this can be interpreted many ways. If an ethic is used as part of the interpretation, an ethic which says that people are basically good, then the ethic will cause a limit to the number of possible conclusions, a kind of limit which would not have been possible without the informing ethic. With this ethic the interpretation could be that people only kill when their environment trains them to kill. The interpreter then may pursue possible environmental causes of killing which may be very mistaken even if it creates useful data. Another interpreter without an ethic, but with a value attached to finding an accurate explanation for killing, would take the next step towards discovering the actual causes of killing. This could lead him to investigate the environmental causes first, just as the ethic caused the other person to do. However, if the scientific method is used in both cases two different results will probably occur simply because of the ethic's interference. The one with the ethic will not likely give up looking for environmental causes and will likely see partial evidence as complete evidence, while the one without the ethic may conclude the partial evidence is partial, then move onto looking for other possible causes, in his case, because the ethic did not prevent that avenue of investigation. So, while data and interpretation are different, interpretation with an ethic prevents the collection of conflicting data and prevents the fullest possible range of evidence being used for later interpretations. This argument is obvious to many people, but it is the basic formula regarding the interference of ethics in psychology.

5 - Standards:
The standards found in psychology which I use in this paper come from four text books on basic psychology published in the last two years. I also use a recent summation of the whole of psychology by Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works, another book on values and I use several recent experiments.

The fact that psychology uses standards and that ideas become standard ideas is not a problem because standards of all kinds are necessary to create relative meaning: i.e., if I do not know where things begin, I cannot measure how far they can go. Standards allow knowing where things begin. But the use of ethical standards has and will interfere with the accuracy of an interpretation.

6 - Toy Analogy:
Psychology can be best explained through an effective delineation between the mind and its behavior contrasted against to the rest of the universe. Think of a wind-up toy like a walking soldier. You place it on the ground on its feet, you wind it up and it walks. You might assume that it is designed to walk. Then it falls over and the feet move in the air. You might think it should be placed on its feet again, but resist doing that. That is the ethical interpretation interfering with observing and explaining a phenomenon -- for falling on its side is part of its behavior, and you are only a witness to this behavior. Just examine it and explain the toy.

Now explain the 'fallen' toy in relation to the rest of the universe. You might assume that its movement, for as long as its power lasts, is quite useless. However, there are three reasons why that thought is irrelevant: first, there was no greater purpose to its moving then in its not moving forward -- it was you that wanted it to move forward -- it has no use for that within itself; and second, the behavior of the toy was identical in both cases, you were only misled to think that the behavior was different by the shift in context (by it falling); third, the universe might change enough to cause the toy to walk on its 'feet' again which is how you defined usefulness, and your earlier intended intervention to put it on its feet would have then caused it to fall over again when the universe changed. The three arguments show how we impose usefulness on actions that are without any usefulness, how we see the same objects differently in different contexts, and how we impose our solution to our perception of a problem when doing so could cause worse problems -- even in our own opinion.

To avoid misunderstanding human behavior it is best to subtract the seemingly useful activities and see what happens. So it is best to figuratively ask, "When a human 'tips over' what actions has he/she been doing all this time?"

(A momentary digression. I ask one to subtract useful activities and not to subtract purposeful activities because 'useful' is an observer's perception that an action helps a subject survive or thrive -- perception is what I am concerned with here. Purposeful activities can be perceived in the toy on its side or in a tiger pacing a cage or in the man banging his head against a wall. Suicide is by definition a purposeful activity. I am not concerned with perceptions of purpose here, only with the assumptions regarding the use of an action, because usefulness depends on many factors of interest to me in this paper, only one of which is purpose.)

7 - Usefulness:
When we subtract seemingly useful behaviors like eating, walking, creating shelters, and many other things from an examination of human behavior, we are subtracting many of our own impositions, for someone eating may be causing a heart attack, or someone walking may be walking into a car accident, or a builder may be swindling an owner. So if we agree that the consequences of these behaviors are not useful, and yet we don't know what the consequences are when we see these behaviors, we can't say the behaviors are useful. All behaviors have consequences which are equally immeasurable and so we cannot ever claim a behavior's usefulness and be entirely sure. So our claims are impositions, we cannot see past them, and they counter efforts at accuracy.

If we decide that eating is useful and that something else then is not useful, like the human behavior of telling stories or drawing pictures or playing sports, then this is where to find a human being 'tipped over'. A list of seemingly useless activities can begin with the arts. Steven Pinker states in his book on psychology, ". . . tens of thousands of scholars and millions of pages of scholarship have shed almost no light on the question of why people pursue the arts at all. The function of the arts is almost defiantly obscure . . . " .

Further in the direction of seeming uselessness, are behaviors and thoughts that are destructive, pointless, repetitive, and harmful to individuals and society. Psychologists often call these behaviors 'disorders' or 'pathologies' or many other terms.

Other seemingly useless activities are called games and while not considered harmful in moderation they are rarely considered useful. It is the last of these seemingly useless activities which will form the basis of my examination of human psychology.

From the seemingly useful to the useless, from the life affirming to the life destroying, I believe a theory based on an examination of the behavior of a human being when he or she has no need to have any behavior at all, will be the more accurate theory. When a toy is tipped over it behaves the same way as it always did, but with different effects on the universe. When a human is tipped over, it is predisposed to play games, as it is also when it's right side up, but with different effects on the universe. This is my reason for the name, the game gene theory.

8 - This Paper:
In the upcoming chapters I will argue the details of the game gene theory in relation to the standards of psychology and how ethics interferes and why. The chapters are named after standard divisions of psychology which I reinterpret according to my elimination of the use of ethics and the room now granted to my theory. For now I will outline the whole theory as a preview and as a reference.

9 - The Game Gene Theory:
i) Why evolution is the place to start.
Philosophy and science are the basic disciplines of psychology and the question of human nature is fundamental, so human evolution is also of primary importance. I go back further to the question of the origin of life and the universe since only by this means can evolution, and so humanity, be explained sufficiently. The first reason for this logic is that causes always have preceding causes and they have their own preceding causes back infinitely and there is no reason to limit a search to recent causes. The further back in the causal chain one goes the more accurate is the claim to have identified the cause of something. A second reason for going back in the causal chain is that a (close-to-the-) original cause of something can have relevance to the recent cause for something. For example, if the original cause of life is a gene, a recent cause of life can be a gene. If an original cause of life could not be education, education will not be needed to cause life. If one did not look at original causes, one could claim that Catholic education, for example, can cause life by discouraging birth control. Instead, this education has a cause in the opinions of church leaders, which has causes in history, which has causes in environments and genetics, and so on and so on. The search for original causes is the search for recent causes (even though both are infinite and impossible).

ii) The universe and evolution.
The universe is infinite and all theories which offer an absolute beginning and/or an end are inaccurate. The reason is that no theory can avoid the concept of a preceding universe, a proto-universe, which causes the big bang, or causes god to snap his fingers. The universe is chaotic and matter is infinitely variable through chaos. As a result, matter eventually formed into a life at some point, if life was not already infinitely existing throughout time. It is like the story of the infinite number of monkeys working on typewriters with an infinite amount of time and how they would eventually write Hamlet. Life is vastly improbable, but given enough time, inevitable.

iii) The need for motivation.
Life is different from non-life primarily by its motivation to act differently from other matter outside a simple cause and effect scenario. The toy car is not life because it is not self-motivated to act, it is effected by someone else's motivation to act, or by other events. A rock does not act, so it needs no cause to act. A person needs a cause to act because it does act, but all actions eventually lead to death. Because all actions have the same effect there is no reason to act. As there is no reason to exist even when in existence, the motivation to act would need to be caused -- structured into the life form -- the cause is therefore called genetic. To survive without reason is possible for a brief moment, but life cannot live long without a cause.

iv) Gene for motivation.
A gene which allowed survival would need to motivate an action that aided survival when all actions eventually end the same way (death). However, chaos makes the survival of life unpredictable and so makes any measure of intelligence unable to ensure survival and makes even the simplest intelligence capable of seeing all action as futile. If life used a gene which motivated only actions which guaranteed survival, no action would be taken because no action is certain to improve survival. The motivation must be towards actions which are not certain, as all actions have uncertain consequences, and towards actions which cannot ensure continued survival. This is not to say that the motivation is against survival. It must be a motivation which is separated from survival, but which consequently helps survival in most cases. Because the structure of games can be found in all directed but irrelevant activities, the answer to this problem is a genetically programmed motivation to play games. (A 'survival gene' would need a perfect, telepathic intelligence to make it work, even when the dullest being can grasp the futility of any action, but a game gene allows the being with the smallest intelligence to still move forward.)

v) Seriousness of games.
Before explaining how game playing works, it is important to note that the general understanding of games by life is as serious as the gladiatorial games and as superfluous as 52 card pick up. Seriousness or superfluousness are irrelevant distinctions to be made regarding games. Games serve as the blueprint for a universal motivation, because what is true about games as understood generally by human beings is also true of all motivated activity by all life -- but I will restrict the discussion to human activities for this paper.

vi) Game components.
Games have several components. Games are chosen arbitrarily with one's values, and, like all actions, in the end serve no purpose, though the process towards winning and losing a game temporarily counterfeits a purpose by creating imaginary ends. A game will be chosen if it is valued and/or if it is the most available game which has value. Playing a game involves using some degree of intellect to understand the rules, goals, and risks/challenges in relation to values, and the reason games are played is for emotional rewards, which memory and intellect turn into new values. Emotions are the source of value even when substitutes for values, like money, or survival, are superficially considered the reward. Each component of human game playing has its equivalent in other forms of life: in fungi, in plants and in animals. But, in the same way that eyes may vary in structure from fly to horse to crab and still accomplish the same task, the game gene may vary in structure from fungi to plant to animal and still accomplish the same motivation to play games. However, I do not intend to demonstrate the commonalty of a game disposition among all life forms in this paper, I restrict my discussion to human beings and only refer to other life forms as game players now in order to explain where human beings sit in relation to the rest of the universe and by extension why human ethics have little relevance in relation to the universe.

10 - Introductory Chapter's Conclusion:
In this introductory chapter I have wanted to show that psychology is unusual among the sciences in its modesty regarding truth and that this is an effect of the interference caused by the ethical components in psychology which states that the promotion of human welfare is as important as explaining human psychology. I argued that ethics may have no actual foundation in the universe so ethics may not need to interfere with explanations of human psychology. Afterwards, I clarified issues regarding accuracy, science, interpretation and standards. I used a toy on its side as an analogy for how to approach an observation and explanation of human psychology. The issue of usefulness was derived from the analogy and I argued that the perceived usefulness of a human action needs to be put aside to better describe that action. I explained the paper's structure and finally gave an outline of the game gene theory as a reference. The following chapters will relate the standards of psychology with the game gene theory and excise the interference of ethics.

CHAPTER 2, EVOLUTION:
The greatest irony in the theory of evolution is the lack of an investigation into the question, why should anything be motivated to survive? Adaptability is held up as important to survival and natural selection purportedly sorts out the most adaptable thing relative to the environment. But why not die? Once you don't exist it makes no difference that you had lived three seconds or three hundred years and, eventually, we all die. And a second question is, before you are born, can you have any reason to exist?

Any teenager might ask these questions. The questions are also very easy to answer logically -- never! Assuming that death actually occurs at some point and is not replaced by a dream-like state for an infinite time (or some other version of heaven), then all death is equal in the absence of the self. So, irrespective of the type of death, any period of survival is irrelevant in the long run, whether individually or universally. Secondly, without existing you cannot need to exist. Even a parent does not ask foryou or desire you before you are conceived. The whole of life itself, similarly, cannot need to exist before each life is conceived. Yet despite all of the logic behind not existing and not surviving, life exists -- why? Evolutionary theories fall short by not asking or answering these questions.

The cause of life, if it has not always existed, can be simply the constant and chaotic reordering of the universe in its infinite bounds and time. Eventually something which is somehow motivated to exist and happens to survive in a limited way can be formed. (The alternative to this motivation, experience, cannot create a motivation. Learning is impossible without wanting to learn, eating is impossible without wanting to eat, these things do not just happen to people. If a baby is born without motivations, he could not cry for food, roll over when uncomfortable, and could not play with toys and words.) The trouble is to have the right motivation. The motivation would need to allow oneself to recognize the self, in relation to other matter, in order to maintain itself. It would need to accept a limitation on knowledge, and on the senses' ability to represent it -- which means it would need to accept that it cannot always avoid mistakes. It would need to be motivated towards limited goals even when the goals do not help survival (because chaos can make anything helpful to survival and can end the helpfulness of previously useful goals). It must be a motivation toward a general behavior, as any specific goal would eventually disappear due to chaos.

At this point the idea of human reproduction is an insignificant issue. Pinker claims, "the beneficial functions all have to be in the service of reproduction". This is not so. People produced today who happen not to reproduce are no less of "the beneficial functions " than others, and no less then a child who dies in the crib.

The desire to reproduce in order to maintain the survival of the species is often made a motivation of life. While the survival of human life does take place and is aided by certain motivated activities like sex, there is no evidence that the motivation is consistently towards the survival of the individual or of the species. Pinker admits that reproduction is not the ultimate goal of people but he calls self-preservation a universal biological imperative and says it needs to be programmed in. Yes, a motivation would need to be programmed in, but self-preservation is not the program that preserves life.

There are too many examples of life forms which complete suicidal actions which neither benefit the self nor the species. 'Selflessness' in war and generosity among strangers is not for the species, but for the emotional rewards created within the individual. Occasionally 'altruism' helps maintain the species through unforeseen consequences, however, that is quite irrelevant to an individual as the emotions cannot be activated by inconceivable consequences and so it is not 'altruistic', by standard definitions of that word. The intellect's use of the imagination can create a false sense of the unknown consequences and so can immediately create the emotions which would have been activated by an actual consequence. Then altruism will appear to have occurred, but this action is still not motivated by the needs of the species. The individual's need for an emotional reward is the only reward that works. Reproduction can be a goal in itself through the peculiar internal emotional need of the individual toward that value -- however, the individual cannot and does not act on behalf of the species.

Evolution often invokes ideas of progress and this is a mistake. This idea that evolution is not about progress is now becoming standard. 'Darwin's finches', for example, were studied in the 1950s and they showed this problem with seeing progress. Two of 'Darwin's finches', each with different sized beaks, ate seeds most suited to their beak sizes. During a drought the small beaked finches nearly died out as they couldn't open all types of seeds. However, with plentiful rain the reverse happened and the large beaked finches were decimated. Neither finch type was better at survival. The same seesaw battle takes place wherever the environment seesaws . One psychology text makes the point openly that evolution is not about the long term improvement of life. If one competing species happens to die out during a downturn, it does not mean any progress or any superiority regarding the surviving species. In fact, the loss of the competition might reduce the fitness of the survivor so that a survivor might not be able to survive the following normal downturn. This concept is standard and I agree with it. I would add to it that, regardless of the above, survival itself is irrelevant, so, based on that context, no progress can arise based on any comparison of relative survivability.

The standard concept of natural selection says that those best adapted to their environment will produce more offspring than those less adapted and so the genetics of those that are best adapted will thrive . One problem with this concept is that chaos makes a huge range of life very adaptable then suddenly unadaptable, and reverses the process with the less adaptable -- consequently, there is no such thing as the best adapted in any lasting sense. A second problem is, as is the case with humanity, recently the people better at adapting and thriving are the ones with the fewer offspring. Wealth has allowed the population to decrease in size. Conversely, those that have the most offspring are not always the best adapted to surviving. Natural selection is about chaos in relation to accident. All that can be said of survival is that it happens to what does survive, not to what humanity thinks should survive.

The eventual use of one adaptation for something it does not seemed designed for, is what Darwin called "pre-adaptation" and what Steven Gould calls "exaptation". This is a standard example; an insect is born with a large thin membrane which can be used to cool the insect down in hot weather. Then after several generations of use of the membrane in this way, one insect uses it to fly or at least to glide. The idea is learned by new generations and suddenly a clumsy wing is born. The standard way to understand this phenomenon is that the switch just happens without the need for motivation. There is always a motivation or a cause of motivation and evolution lacks any concept regarding it. This is where the game gene theory comes in to fill its first void. Not only do actions need to be motivated, but actions, which may not make any sense to the individual, must be motivated. If the motivation to play a game, like flying with 'cooling devices', is included in the concept of natural selection the next of Pinker's cited statements makes complete sense: "Selection is not invoked to explain mere usefulness; it's invoked to explain improbable usefulness.". A genetic motivation towards game playing make the improbable possible, while the idea that people are attempting to survive does not account for the improbable usefulness of a tiddlywinks. The game gene theory supplies an explanation of why the improbable is even attempted, while evolution, as it stands, does not. But the game gene theory also says that survival is irrelevant. How can one promote human welfare and also accept the game gene proposition? Ethics will block it every time.

CHAPTER 3, GENETICS:
The standard understanding within psychology of the effects of genetics on behavior is that many human behaviors must have originated with a genetically encoded disposition. A balance between genetics and the environment, or nature and nurture, as it is frequently called, is the standard explanation in psychology. However, any attempt to find the exact ratio is generally considered futile as the balance fluctuates given different genes and/or environments. I agree with this position.

The objections raised to the genetic influence in behavior are mainly raised externally from the discipline of psychology and are usually based on the ethical decision that humanity must be a 'blank slate' and each individual is equal in capability. There is no evidence for this extreme reading of humanity. The evidence that people are influenced and shaped by the environment, does not point to a blank slate or equal capability -- any more then saying that the evidence which shows that people can change the shape of their skull means that the skull had no shape to begin with, or can be formed into any shape. You have a psychology (and skull) which is genetically determined and you can alter it slightly, but not just any way in which the environment determines. The only way in which each human is equal at birth (and it is significant) is that there is no reason for his or her existence. The creation of reasons for living, and skills with which to carry them out, need to be unequal because chaos makes what is needed unpredictable and someone with an intelligence quotient of thirty may be more adaptable then someone with one-ninety-two IQ, Even living for stock car racing could be more a successful reason for existing then living for world peace.

Behavior can be genetically encoded and there are many standard examples that demonstrate it. A herring gull and kittiwake look similar, but the former nests on flat clearings and the latter on high ledges. The respective chicks behave appropriately to where they will be hatched: the formers explore the immediate area of the nest while the latter sit still until the day it flies. If the eggs are switched and hatch the behaviors remain the same for them despite the different locations and the herring gull chick walks off the nest to its death. This is just a sample of hundreds of cases among all forms of life which show that genetic encoding of behavior is very evident.

Humanity as a subject is no different from other forms of life, only the methods of collecting the evidence are ethically different. Every behavior is effected by genetic factors: television watching habits , the degree of risk one is willing to take, the sex behavior , the entire personality, political views, idiosyncrasies, career choices, talents, tastes in dating partners, vices, fears -- there is nothing which is done that is not influenced by genetic factors.

What confuses people regarding the genetic influence on behavior is how there could be a gene for political views or another for ideas that are anachronistic to one's original genetic makeup at birth -- especially when views change from day to day and new ideas seem to have no relationship to the shape of one's genes at birth. For example, imagine a genetically encoded value for food, if you live in a small town with one grocery store, everyone with this disposition to eat will end up there. This does not mean the disposition is for this particular grocery store, but genetics still disposes people towards that store.

To find the basic disposition which was encoded you don't look at the specific action or location, but at the full range of behaviors which satisfies the disposition. The value towards food is easy to define by the evident action of consuming organic matter for nourishment. I believe the need for television is a misnomer for the need is really for story telling, which is a nearly universal trait. Where there is no television, stories are read. Where there is no reading available, oral story telling takes place. Where someone is isolated from oral story telling, that person will tell stories to himself in the form of recollections which are not accurate recountings of events but like all stories, conform to the rules of game playing, which I mentioned above. In stories (and other games) there is a point, (or goal) it has plot and gammer, etc. (rules), the participants must want to tell or listen (play, value) and the story must be possible to understand, but cannot be known or predicable or it will be boring (risk/challenge, emotions, intellect).

If one looks into the genetic influence on politics, the values and so goals of politics vary, but the method employed eventually conforms to the structures of game playing, as is recognized by social and game theorists, and by military planners who run the practical affairs of many states. In the main, the genetically inscribed effects on behavior mentioned above are related to values and so to goals. (Values become goals when a game situation is developed or becomes available which can use that value as a goal. While the goal is attempted, new values are created from the emotions during the game and so the new values can become later goals and so on. More on this later.)

Genes effect other areas related to game playing. Some genetically determined effects on behavior are related to ability and the intellectual ability to play. Ability is strongly influenced by genetics. One single gene is even related to the level of risk and/or challenge at which a person is willing to enter a game. Genetically disposed 'vices' relate to rules and how they are used. Idiosyncrasies are inscribed to individuate the play of an individual irrespective of skill, as often there are many different ways to win a game, and variation in style, as well as skill, will allow a greater variety of game playing techniques. (These are all standard conclusions of the scientific evidence to which I have added the game gene theory interpretation.)

These standard ideas do not show signs of interference by ethics probably because the standard ethics are not violated by concepts of genetic influence, neither do these concepts suffer from approval by the standard ethics and so there is no ethical interference, either for or against.

The only gene that seems not to have been studied and isolated is the gene, or the series of genes, involved in the disposition to play games. This activity is what many consider the most useless, and, so, is most in need of a genetic disposition to exist at all. After all, if something as important as self-preservation must be programmed in, as Pinker agrees, why is something as unimportant and disposable as game playing not?

(Incidentally, if you have concerns about genetics because of Nazi type people, why not also have concerns about a blank slate theory because of conditioning and reeducation camps? Neither idea is free from the possibility of ethical slander, or free from the slippery road to immorality.)

Regarding the irrelevancy of survival and so the need for a motivation to be built in. Living, when it is irrelevant, is not like a toss up between choosing one action or another -- like eating an apple or an orange -- it is between doing nothing and doing something that equals nothing, there is no choice, so no choice can be made, which happens to be the same as doing nothing. Without motivation there is nothing.

CHAPTER 4, MOTIVATION:
Considering how no action would be taken by any life without a motivation to act, it is interesting how little effort is put into this issue by psychologists. This is not to say that there are not numerous attempts at solving the question. I only mean that each attempt is so deficient that each one is needed to cover the other's deficiencies. Robert Feldman typifies that this problem is understood in his admission that there is no single answer. And James Kalat says, "For many people, various abstract goals take priority over all of their practical goals, such as survival and reproducing. Why?. . . A great deal about human motivation is puzzling" . Motivations towards irrelevant goals are acknowledged as important, but they are not addressed except with perplexity.

There are at least seven separate standard theories attempting to account for motivation and these are the features that are acknowledged to be common to all motivation. A motivation is characterized by attitude, disposition, method, drive, ability and goals. There is a genetic component to motivation recognized by standard texts. The motivation is always towards goals of specifiable kinds, but of no fixed type -- meaning that goals can be particular things, but they are not from only one area of interest. Motivation is accompanied by emotions, often strong emotions; the emotions are connected to the achievement of the goals . The universal use of rules among humanity in the achievement of goals is understood. Even those who try to break the rules are using rules in the breaking of the rules they target -- rule one, break all rules.

Motives have hierarchies and so are valued differently. We decide to act out our motivation by reasoning the value of our action: we do this by weighing our relative values for the perceived goal and our means of achieving it, against our odds of succeeding. And we will attempt actions which are uncertain, because, as Pinker says, "...we mortals have to make fallible guesses from fragmentary information. Each of our mental modules solves its unsolvable problems by a leap of faith about how the world works, by making assumptions that are indispensable but indefensible -- the only defense being that the assumptions worked well enough in the world of our ancestors". The only aspect of game playing which is not already tacitly recognized in standard psychology to be a part of motivation is the need for uncertainty to be part of motivation.

There is something in psychology called the "motivation to certainty" which claims people desire certainty to be part of their lives, but they say only most of the time and that not everyone looks for certainty in their lives. I believe this is a misinterpretation of the evidence. People often look to secure their lives, but it is never a final end in itself. No matter what level of risk people want in their lives, people always look for some way to challenge themselves, whether it is watching TV, or gardening, or cabin fever, or solitaire. So someone who has every kind of security and sense of certainty about their lives can be witnessed looking for an uncertain goal to achieve, like a crime, sexual affairs or golf. These are just further instances which are like the previous example of the toy soldier tipped over to see what it has been doing the whole time. People without a need to be motivated, without a useful activity to achieve are tipped over and yet will still move as always. Whether someone is complaining about the quality of shoe polish, or watching a movie, or whether someone is working for a charity, a human being will never stop being motivated to do actions which are to some degree difficult or uncertain, and so, for that reason, made valuable even when they were not valuable previously. It is like the old magazine in the doctor's office, as soon as boredom sets in you will grab it for something to do. You may have read it before, but you have forgotten most of it and there might be something you missed, so it is at least uncertain.

Evolutionary psychology implies that the motivations are ultimately from the gene's eye view, and that whatever humans are motivated to do is a manipulation in the interests of the genes. Pinker says, "Our goals are sub goals of the ultimate goal of the genes, replicating themselves. This personification is not objectionable if genes are given the status of a life form and some kind of sense of self is assumed for the gene. Whatever the status of a gene, it is standard in psychology that motivations are genetically produced and I agree with this. However, this still does not answer the question of what motivates a life to exist at all.

Standard theories of motivation explain most aspects of motivation. To unify motivation it is necessary to acknowledge that games are what is motivated. From the virus to the divine, whatever the shape and function of the life form, including human beings, a genetic disposition to play games works as the solution to the question of motivation. Unless ethics are put in the way.

CHAPTER 5, SENSES:
So, if there is a motivation to exist, there needs to be a way to interact with the rest of existence. Actions will be dealt with in the section on intellect. Information gathering from external and internal sources is related to senses. First, I need to state there are not five senses but many more. A sixth sense could be a sense of balance, or many other things. The mistake of limiting the sense to five has become so powerful, even texts which show that there are more then five sense still refer to "the five sense" as though that is the sum total. This is an important point to make because this mistake leads into further mistakes, especially regarding consciousness and perception.

The senses include visual, auditory, smell (olfactory), taste, touch (cutaneous), balance (vestibular), body position (kinesthesis), time (circadian, the body has a twenty four hour cycle, even on another planet and it can measure time.), and internal regulation and control (peripheral nervous system) which can itself be divided by senses. The most important sense is the sense of self, consciousness, which I devote the whole next chapter to explaining.

Often there is the assumption that the sense of self is indistinguishable from the individual; in order to play games, this assumption allows the playing to seem important. However, consciousness is only a construction of the body, or of the genes that control the body. Consciousness allows for individualization and so allows for every action that follows, but is not the individual. It represents the person in the same way that the other senses represent the environment while not actually being the environment. More in my next chapter.

CHAPTER 6, CONSCIOUSNESS:
Psychologists, based on good evidence, can show that, as the brain is material, the mind is also material. Therefore consciousness is also material, so consciousness is a construction made up of some material which is a part of the brain, and the brain is only part of the body. Every action of the mind has a material action and location in the brain which corresponds to it.

What is non-material anyway? The air was once called incorporeal, but it is material. Energy was once considered incorporeal, but it is material. Thought is the same and was demonstrated to be material some years ago.

Consciousness is conventionally defined as "the sum total of all external stimuli and internal mental events of which we are aware at any given time". Given that only one stimuli is capable of being made conscious of at one time and only for a few seconds at a time the sum total does not amount to very much of the information available from the senses and memory. Also, for all the information that a consciousness seems to have at its disposal, there is no way for a consciousness to use it all, while other factors in the brain and in the body can handle the information without a major problem in the form of automatic functions. Consciousness has no control over most of 'its' own body functions while the rest of the brain does everything which a body needs to survive. Often conscious thoughts cannot even control body movement and speech as with Tourette's Syndrome and stuttering, but also it cannot in even more subtle instances.

The control which our sense of self has is only tenuously maintained in the dream states. In dream states we can walk, talk, or do and think many things which our conscious states would never allow and might not even be capable of doing while awake. I, for example, supposedly, while in Paris overnight, spoke French to a Quebecer when I was asleep. Awake, I cannot understand more than the occasional word and certainly cannot command that I do understand, but asleep I can understand and speak it. A second example: patients in surgery who are anesthetized, and who are insulted by physicians regarding weight or attractiveness, will recover from surgery much slower than those who are not insulted, even though they cannot recollect the insult. These are all standard bits of evidence which shows that consciousness is not the same as the mind or the self.

Consciousness does not exist as a single entity. When brains of people are split as a result of surgery to reduce epileptic seizures some components of consciousness lose touch with each other. For example, a subject with this condition can grasp a cup with the left hand while not allowed by scientists to see what object it was -- and the subject will not be able to state what it was. However, if the subject is asked to point to it, only the left hand will be able to point to it and the person will usually state they don't know why they pointed to the correct object. Various experiments with these people shows that not even consciousness is entirely controlled by consciousness. All the standard evidence points in the other direction, not only is consciousness created by the body but consciousness serves the body.

Before explaining how consciousness serves the body I will show how consciousness actually serves in extreme cases. There is a phenomenon called visual agnosia caused by damage to the occipital lobe of the brain. It causes people to mistake heads for hats and other bizarre representations of what the senses are sending into the brain. Consciousness can even be manipulated to create senses. Electrical stimulation of the brain directly creates sense impressions like the feeling of a leg being touched. The 'phantom legs' phenomenon of amputees also demonstrate that the senses are being created as much as they are representing phenomenon. All these sensations are created for one's consciousness because the brain needs information to play with, even if is wrong. By this I mean, consciousness is supplying a sense of self even though it may have no relationship to existence outside that sense of self. It does this because it needs the senses to have something to play with rather more then it needs to have accurate information.

People with damage to their somatosensory cortex of the brain have no sense of half their body; they even object to sharing a bed with parts of their own body which their sense of self will not recognize. Which is unlike numbness, where a person can still recognize the numb side of their body as their own. These people refuse to shave the side of the face which is not recognized and, in general, ignore and alienate the other side of their body. It is called sensory neglect syndrome and is mistakenly considered a lack of a touch sense; it is not only the numbness associated with the lack of function of the touch sensors which is happening, but it is the total lack of a sense which will represent that part of the body and maintain that part. Only one text mentions this syndrome and concludes that the somatosensory cortex: ". . . represent(s) the very existence of the body". Consciousness of the self, the sense of self, is needed to take care of the self, the body. Without that sense of self we cannot support our body.

According to the game gene theory consciousness exists because it is where value is assessed by the emotions and risk/challenge is assessed by the intellect. The standard understanding of consciousness does not seem to be directly effected by ethical principals in this case. The misunderstanding of consciousness in this case seems to be related to the history of philosophy and psychology and the power of the cliche of the five senses. The western historical idea of consciousness is that it is a privilege of humanity and that it is the person thinking: "I think therefore I am". This privileging and simple reasoning may be the cause of the confusion regarding consciousness.

CHAPTER 7, EMOTIONS:
Irrespective of culture or stimulus, emotions are universal because they are genetically based and the standards of psychology acknowledges that universality . The divergences of opinion revolve around how emotions work and what function they serve. There are at least four theories, but they are insufficient. There are at least eleven theories related to function, most of which take one aspect of emotions and try to make that the entire function -- like the theory that emotions are to prepare us for action. Theories of classifications are uncertain and the number of basic emotions vary, it could be eight or ten or a great many more. The ten set includes anger, contempt, disgust, distress, fear, guilt, interest, joy, shame and surprise. I personally would add at least two more: boredom and curiosity. They promote game playing and can be witnessed across humanity.

The errors in the study of emotion which are unrelated to ethics, can be as basic as this: "Imagine what it would be like if we didn't experience emotion . . . . Obviously life might be considerably less satisfying and even dull . . . ". Obviously we could not know dullness or satisfaction if we did not have emotions. So, if we did not have emotions and could not be satisfied with our actions, why would we take any action? No amount of intellect could motivate an action, as there is no reason to act when existence itself can have no purpose. So without emotions there would not even be a reason to interest oneself in one's lack of emotion. If one reasons against an obviously emotional temptation, it will be reasoned from the need for a better valued emotion, like peace of mind. It is not just any emotion which is valued, or just the most emotion, but some emotion must exist to potentially reward or prompt actions. Incidentally, goals are achieved, not by the crossing of a finish line, but when the emotions reward or inform an end of a game.

Darwin saw the value of emotions in evolution and viewed them as inherited, specialized mental states designed to deal with a certain class of recurring situations in the world. Despite the long standing of this theory it has not grown very much. However, Steven Pinker, demonstrates where that theory stands today by relating evolution to the creation of life-like, self motivating robots, "freely behaving robots . . . will have to be programmed with something like emotions merely for them to know at every moment what to do next". Pinker acknowledges that emotions differentiate values into a hierarchy so as to allow the selection of one goal at a time. If emotions did not work, all actions would have indistinguishable values and so none could be chosen. That all goals would be valued at zero without emotions Pinker does not concede. More ethical roadblocks exist here too.

How emotions work is generally acknowledged to be in relationship to what motivates people. As I pointed out in the chapter on motivation, motivations conform to game structures, so here I add that emotions do as well. Not only do emotions reward games, but only games (or the need for games) can create emotions. No one in psychology comes close to making that claim, but it is interesting that, even in standard models, emotions have so little connection to actions that directly effect survival and reproduction. For example, a man like Gary Gilmore can be told that he will be executed and be happy for the news, or a woman can be told that she's pregnant and be miserable. The goals of life are so arbitrary that one's emotions can reward murder or punish altruism; or they can reward complete physical inactivity, or repetitive actions that go nowhere. But they cannot reward mere survival, or mere financial security. Boredom makes sure that these two 'successes' will not be rewarded for their own sake, and it will prompt people to play the next game as soon as possible.

The only way to marry the evolutionary necessity of emotions to the actions they help motivate is by recognizing that even the most destructive or pointless action might have a function in evolution. The toy soldier laying on its side could be useful in some way -- an accident, like an arbitrary action, may make something useful. Pinker acknowledges a portion of this argument when he says that hurtful emotions are not malfunctions, but should be expected of 'well-engineered' (his term) emotions. However, he does not see the value of all that the concept of emotions entails: that emotions would not be expected nor need to exist if there was a reason for existence -- a reason for existence which would counteract the irrelevance of existence, which I argued in the chapters on evolution and motivation.

I believe it is Pinker's moral sense which interferes with that conclusion, as it prevents the other standard writers of science from even approaching Pinker's stand. Pinker's ethical interference is interesting considering that he recognizes ethics as a problem, "I think moralistic science is bad for morals and bad for science" .

CHAPTER 8, MEMORY:
Before I get into the more standard models regarding memory, I would like to mention the importance of emotions to memory. It is already well understood in psychology that personal incidents which have the greatest emotional effect will be most easily remembered. Just ask someone where they were when they heard that JFK or Princess Diana died.

Last year a Dr. V. S. Ramashadran, a neuroscientist and psychologist at the University of California San Diego, was able to show that emotions are necessary to create all memories. People with Capgrass Syndrome, who have no damage to the emotion centres and face recognition centres of the brain, but who have a severed connection between the two parts, are able to recognize their parents and pets, but considered them impostors, because these effected people cannot associate an emotional reaction to their recognition. Also, several photos of one absent person were shown to these same effected people and they could not memorize the faces from moment to moment, so each photo was considered a separate person. These same effected people could recognize anyone, from a parent to a stranger, over the phone. Only the face centre was disconnected from the emotional centre of the brain and so only faces could not be remembered. The value of this finding is that it shows, once again, the importance of emotions to memory and so to the intellect.

Memory is a well studied area of psychology probably as a result of the ease with which memory tests can achieve scientific results even if the results may not be salient. For example, when mistakes in the memory of hypnotized subjects was claimed to be three times greater compared to non hypnotized subjects. The researchers ignored their own results which additionally said that correct memories were also three times greater, making the results irrelevant to the hypothesis that hypnotized subjects cannot improve their recall of events . It is certainly easier to appear scientific with memory experiments than with experiments on emotions. I will not mention all of the areas in the standard concept of memory, only what seems relevant here.

There are two areas of memory creation, automatic and effortful. In many ways we remember as well when we try as when we do not try. But automatic memories seem to arrive as subsections of meaningful activities like pattern recognition and events, so emotions would most likely still be necessary for automatic memories. Effortful memories are created most effectively through the meaning which an individual gives. The more meaning that can be attached to an idea the better it will be remembered and the easier it will be recalled . And the most effective way that meaning can be created in relation to an idea called Elaborative Rehearsal which "involves analyzing the meaning of the new information and relating it to information already in long term memory" . Significantly, this method involves the most bizarre form of story telling. You might need to remember a stick, a pizza and a whale. With this method you imagine placing the stick under the pizza and balancing it, then you imagine the whale holding the stick with the pizza. The more absurd the usage the easier it is to remember. As the sense of bizarre is an emotion it seems that the more emotional the usage the better it is. Using the game gene theory to understand it, it is also a challenging game being referred to here.

The requirement to relate new information to old information is not only important for long term memory, but is so even for remembering a statement long enough to understand it. This old information is called schema and it is an individual's short hand rule book on how the world is supposed to function. If the new information can fit in the schema it will often be distorted significantly or even reconstructed in a way that bears little relation to the actual information . If the old schema does not have an existing category for the new information it can create one, but only if it does not violate the overall schema. The closer a schema is to the new information in kind the more that it can be remembered. The reverse is also very true to the point that it is possible that unless a schema can accept a piece of new information a person may not even be able to experience it.

Schema is one aspect of context. It is the imposition of contexts onto a frameless universe which makes even thinking possible. When we are drunk and we encode a memory, it is easier to recall it when we are drunk again. When we learn something in a classroom, we will be able to recall it best in that classroom. If we see a group of people in uniform, and we are looking for a friend, we sort the content of our visual image to ignore some information and highlight others. An enemy soldier might contextualize the people in uniform in a way that avoids any distinction and call them all the enemy. It is meaning derived from emotions which makes memory, but only if contexts are used. Whether the contexts are created to make sense of the frameless universe as with the uniforms, or whether they are created from the limitations of the senses, contexts are arbitrary and necessary parts of intelligence and they are how we create values. I will first discuss values because they inform intelligence, they direct it, then allow the creation of new values, which direct a further use of intelligence.

Before moving on to values and then intellect, let me conclude that the standard understandings of memory are not interfered with by ethics in a noticeable way. Unlike, genetics, values and intellect, the promotion of human welfare is not threatened by the findings of memory research. However, the game gene interpretation would unify memory research and be able to place it in an overall scheme, and as long as the total picture of a game gene theory is unethical, it prevents its use as an overall explanation.

CHAPTER 9, VALUES:
As I mentioned earlier, values and ethics are different in that values are recognizably arbitrary and ethics are values which are glorified to represent 'universal values'. This includes attaching issues of good and evil to decisions. Values, evaluation, worth, valuables; a person can value murder, another can disvalue love. Whatever is considered evil by one person can be valued by another who can still call it an evil nonetheless. Values are easy to prove scientifically to be in existence. After all, values can be proven to exist simply by examining the preferences of people -- preferences demonstrate value. Conversely, the problem with ethics is that claims of good and evil usually depend on harm and benefit to the general population. First, the consequences of an action are endless and infinite (always -- it is called the butterfly effect) so harm can only be gauged accurately on an infinite scale. Secondly, existence and survival are irrelevant so there is little justification for an ethic which accepts these as necessary. If an ethic is only a value, and argued as such, then a case can be made for certain ethical views as values, but it can only work among those in agreement, whether formally or informally. I will discuss what values are in psychology and what role they play in the game gene theory.

Unlike memory very little research has been focused on what values or even ethics are, despite their inclusion in the goals and even in the selection of goals. Only one of six psychology texts even mention values in the index and only briefly as part of one minor theory -- the cognitive social learning theory -- where it says, "What we value or find reinforcing is critical in determining our behavior". This is another way of saying values which are determined by emotions, in turn determine our goals and rules, which, then, determines our behavior. When it is remembered how important our goals are in standard models of motivation and that the goals seem to be completely arbitrary without emotions and values, then why would values, which are acknowledged to be related to the emotions, as they are to motivation, not be studied more seriously?

If values were studied as a phenomenon, like memory, it would quickly show that values are legitimately created in areas where there are 'ethical prohibitions'. For example, a serial killer who enjoys killing people will very often prove to have developed a taste for killing from exactly the same method as the saint who developed a taste for helping people. And this method would be from the game playing disposition. It would make distinctions of good and bad ethically bothersome from a scientific point of view, as both would be scientifically equal.

Steven Pinker points out that what is natural (his idea) is often considered good, so when evidence arises that a certain behavior proves natural, the conclusion that something is natural (or scientific, as I would term it) is left hanging precariously by scientists, rather than addressing it. The reason is that a fear arises that the 'untutored masses' might draw the awful conclusion for themselves that something which is 'immoral' is natural, and so the dangerous idea must be suppressed beforehand.

Pinker proposes a separation of the issues of nature and ethics into psychology and moral philosophy, but that both should be addressed by scientists when what is natural conflicts with the ethical. He acknowledges that scientists presently avoid reasoning through the ethical issues and that they generally buy off-the-shelf ethics, or "lobby for a feel good picture of human nature that would spare us from having to argue moral issues at all". Unfortunately, while Pinker recognizes the problem of the interference of ethics in science, he avoids supporting his own off-the-shelf value, and he comes to a far different conclusion then I do. I argue in this paper that the interference of ethics causes basic mistakes in science which prevents scientists from allowing conclusions which conflict with their ethics. Also that ethics are groundless. Pinker argues that ethics prevent evidence from becoming public or even becoming acknowledged by scientists, and that this evidence need not be suppressed, because even if an idea is natural (scientific) it can still be argued against successfully by moral philosophy. He fails to ask himself how moral philosophy works if it is unscientific, has no basis in reality or nature, or cannot even be reasoned through from a logical premise. Morality and moral philosophy has all three draw backs and Pinker tacitly acknowledges this by his separation of ethics and science.

What if the mere existence of ethics is mistaken? Ethics need to be proven to exist, as advertised, before someone can use them accurately or at all; and no one, to my knowledge, anywhere, offers proof or evidence that ethics are anything more then glorified values.

Ethics look and work exactly like most other values, so I will explain how values work using the game gene theory. In the chapter on genetics I mentioned how some values are genetically programmed, but these values do not represent what is a motivational behavior. These values need to be inscribed so that a behavior can be directed to some specific goal from the time of birth. For example, touch seems to be a genetically programmed value (a value for touching one's particular mother is not programmed). But how to get touch is complicated. A new born may reach out for its mother and not find it. The emotional reaction to failure would allow a memory to form: reaching out did not succeed. A value is attached to reaching out: reaching will not get the touch required. Then a baby cries for no reason other then it is unhappy, because it does not know how to get the touch it needs. Suddenly it realizes it has been touched and it feels good again. The new emotion of happiness is placed in the memory in the context of success associated with crying. Crying becomes a value. Then a day later, without having cried the baby reaches out for no reason but to feel the space, which previously had no direct value and it was attempted through curiosity, a cognitively created value tied to the game playing disposition. And by chance someone is there to touch. Now the reaching out has a new value in the memory that reaching out can sometimes bring the goal of touch.

The Bernardo/Holmolka case shows that values towards murder and rape are created much the same way. They raped the sister and she died by accident. They liked it. Afterwards, kidnaping and killing strange girls had a value for them, and would have continued to be valued until they became bored and looked for other values. Values have three sources, genetics, experience and cognitive fabrication (all are part of the game gene theory). The intellect is there not only to contextualize and harmonize but to fabricate when, like the toy on its side, a human has run out of values that can be used as goals.

Ethics are needed and used by psychology and by others, because they are the cheapest and easiest way to defend one's values. They become unquestioned, bluff premises for further reasoning, which allows a greater confidence in one's actions, even when one's actions are unpredictable, and even if one's actions are irrelevant. Also, with an ethic it does not matter what anyone else says which might show an ethic to be mistaken, one can always think that one is right. It is an absolute like all other absolutes -- imaginary. It is much easier to win this way than by defending some contingency, especially when no one really listens anyway.

CHAPTER 10, INTELLIGENCE:
Many standard psychological explanations of intelligence are looking for a universality in the use of intelligence, a universality like that which has been found in the use of emotions. Universality has been looked for through the use of IQ tests, factor analysis and other attempts to standardize the cognitive functions of people and then look for relationships amongst the variables . So far, no relationship between intelligence and all the other factors in psychology is even attempted by these methods. In other words, rather than harp on the greatness of intelligence, intelligence may be better described by a relationship with other factors like emotions and motivation.

A different standard approach is that of Robert Sternberg's. His theory attempts to show that testing does not grasp the full range of intelligent behaviors. He attempts to characterize intelligence as 'effective performance in the use of one's intelligence to carry out tasks'. However, as he has not established the function of intelligence in relationship to all of one's psychological make up, it leads him to characterize, in one section, effective performance as the repetition of a task with the least amount of new thinking, which is how I would describe a robot.

Howard Gardner's theory begins to establish the function of intelligence in relation to other functions of the mind, when he points out that whatever value is chosen, that value is instrumental in the determination of intelligence. For example, if I value murder, carrying out a murder according to a plan without being caught could be considered intelligent. However, he seems to limit the differences to cultural values -- so the value for murder would need to be culturally based, as it is in Sicily and it must conform to that cultures definition of a valuable murder. Gardner's theory also allows intelligence to be exhibited through an art or a manual skill.

Other standard attempts to understand intelligence include evidence that variations in intelligence from individual to individual within a cultural are individually partially genetic and partially environmental, and that individual variations in the level of acceptable risk in decision making are important factors in accounting for intelligence . However, very few, if any, scientists are attempting to answer the question: what is the function of intelligence in the mind? One text decries the lack of consensus regarding the study of intelligence and its author laments: "That is why the word intelligence always represents, a value judgment". I will twist the intention of that plea and view this as something like an answer -- it is value which helps us to judge intelligence.

Thomas Nagel states: "...when a person accepts a reason for doing something he attaches value to its occurrence". In the reverse case, when a person accepts a value regarding an occurrence there need not be a reason to go with it. Great intelligence is quite unnecessary to a decision, any reason will do if it conforms to our values. So much effort is put into claiming the importance of intelligence by western intellectuals that it might appear that intelligence tells us what to do, not our values. So when apparently idiotic actions take place, which are usually based on value judgments, observers call it idiocy or a disorder or pathological. If the action turns out to be successful, it's often said to be just blind luck and not due to a correctness of judgment. Pinker counters the idea of idiocy by saying that the person may have wanted to bang his head against a rock and may have succeeded brilliantly. In fact without a specification of a goal, the very idea of intelligence is meaningless. Which is perhaps the reason why intelligence theories have been so meaningless thus far.

In the game gene theory, intelligence is directed towards goals, not the goals of scientists, of politicians, or teachers, or clergy, but of the individual -- who may be influenced strongly by the goals of the others nonetheless.

Intelligence is directed towards any goal, any goal within the ability of thinking, from placing a finger, to directing a battle. But that is a very severe restriction. Memory cannot accommodate new ideas which cannot be adjusted into the old schema. The contexts through which we must experience the world is another limit. What the emotions can convert into values is another limit. Our material structure is another. The pressures put on individuals by the values of others or groups or cultures are further limits. This is not even the full list of constraints. Despite the limitations there is a huge range of possible goals for intelligence to be directed towards.

What is chosen might seem to be what is the most valuable, but this is not always possible. Whatever you value is not always available when you value it most. So you appraise what is available and decide which game to play.

Often the goal is so worthless you wonder why you play at all, but it is because you are motivated to play, and play with anything (more than the value of the goal that you are playing towards). It's like reading the old magazine in the doctor's lounge, you do so to avoid boredom, not because you think the goal of an article is worth pursuing. Your intellect can allow you to perceive the worthlessness of the goal compared to your regular situation, but you can ignore your own appraisal because the emotions can still function to reward the play as though it is the greatest goal there is (as long as the risk/challenge is the same). That is why the game playing disposition is so effective in maintaining life's reason to exist. You can be growing and developing and surviving and be rewarded exactly the same way for doing the most absurd things as for doing the most sublime.

The intellect is used to appraise not only the value of the goal but also the difficulty there will be in achieving it. This is the risk/challenge aspect of the game. If there is no element of unpredictability in an activity. The activity will not be played through the sense of self. Instead, the automatic functions of the body will take over. As in the case of driving. When you first drive, the goal is to become proficient, once you succeed, you can switch off your consciousness and drive anywhere while you think with some other game, like music. The driving will not be for its own sake, if the automatic functions come into play, but will be done for some other game which the sense of self wants to play, like visiting friends, or seeing the countryside. The intellect looks for, generally, the same range of risk all of its life. So if a task is accomplished, often it becomes less challenging and so the person must look for externally greater challenges, but which the individual will see as roughly the same challenge or risk as in the previous activity. The emotions are tied to one range in the perception of challenge, but the activities must grow more and more difficult to maintain that level. This is where the illusion of progress comes from. Actually, on an emotional and intellectual level, the maintenance of one risk level, while advancing through more and more technically difficult tasks, is more like trying to climb up a sinking ship and staying just above the water.

This need for the intellect to find difficult games to play is the interface, you might say, between the individual and the chaos of the universe. If an individual did not prefer to find some difficulty in his task, people would not be willing to confront chaos. The chaos is difficult. The intellect is so concerned about finding difficulties that the value of goals will fluctuate depending on the difficulty; "The grass is greener on the other side" cliche expresses the common occurrence of desiring something more when you cannot obtain it then when you can. For example, a doll is produced in limited quantities so that more people have fewer opportunities to buy it. It is so difficult to buy more people think it is valuable to achieve this goal. The intellect must be so adept at creating value where there is none, because the emotions are voracious beasts, never contented, never asleep.

Intelligence has a very important function in the creation of contexts, as mentioned earlier. There is the frequent misunderstanding that there are concrete and specifically natural contexts and we just pick them up with our cognizance. This is not the case. Contexts always function relative to the use to which we can put them. A friend can be considered in relation to his nose picking action, his room, his past life, as a collection of matter, as a hunk of guts, as a sex object, as a good baseball player, as a person who has not lost his legs, etc..... Whatever context is chosen is arbitrary, the least arbitrary in relation to how it is being use in someone's intelligence -- in what game it is being employed. Cognitive fabrication is a vital feature of intelligence when an obvious game, or goal to a game, does not present itself. This is the more or less random construction of games when no values are available. This is what the human does when divorced of seemingly useful activities. Cabin fever, loneliness, any isolation of an individual from novel objects or people, with which to play games, will make this aspect of intelligence evident. It is not a disorder, but the functioning of the game playing disposition.

Mental disorders are misnamed and are very much like idiotic actions in that they may have a use, as unlikely as it may be. Disorders and handicaps of various sorts even today have obvious advantages in some cases. A paraplegic may not be able to walk up a steep hill, but our society provides him with a living, sometimes an electric chair -- which is faster then walking -- and gives him special parking privileges. These could help him create the great novel-- who knows? Mental disabilities can allow some of the same supports which might allow someone peace of mind from the daily toils of making a living, and towards more personal values. The toy on its side, no matter how improbable it appears to be, may be in the most advantageous position there is. The worst intelligence there is could make the most advantageous decision there is.

Ethics interferes with the understanding of intelligence, as Crider and Gaus asserted, I believe, because it is hard for many people, especially therapists and social psychologists, to accept that choosing to destroy oneself or one's friends could be intelligent and could even be ethical within the standards of some societies. If the game gene theory were accepted it would mean that Pol Pot would be considered highly intelligent because he was able to carry out his personal goals effectively. It would also mean that high intelligence is irrelevant. Can a doctor call her own intelligence irrelevant, and then a call Pol Pot intelligent? If the promotion of human welfare is still a goal of her decision, this ethic would interfere with these conclusions.

CHAPTER 11, CONCLUSION:
In the course of this paper, I did not argue against the use of standards in psychology, nor did I argue against the science which has been accomplished in psychology to date. I did not argue that genetics accounts for all human behavior, nor that genetics is not contingent. I did not dismiss ethics without grounding my arguments in the foundations of life and science, neither did I give these arguments in the shape of mere claims. I did not escape from making mistakes, but I made the fewer mistakes, compared to other competing theories. I did not free myself from the bias of readers, but nothing can free me from a reader's bias. I did not succeed in creating a perfect structure which could eliminate unnecessary confusions for a reader, I have more work to do. However, I did create something which works to a degree.

I ignored ethics in my formulation of a new overall interpretation of psychology because there is no evidence for their existence except as values. I proceeded through the evidence for the standard explanations of psychology and attempted to show how the ethical considerations of the discipline interferes with various interpretations which are available. I offered the game gene theory as the interpretation which makes sense of the old data and shows why this theory would be interfered with by the ethical considerations and goals of the discipline.

The irony of any theory which ignores ethics in order to more accurately explain and describe human behavior, is that the resulting data and interpretations will allow more accurate treatment of people suffering from certain mental effects. This is not my concern, but it is ironic that the goal of promoting human welfare, may have been preventing the promotion of human welfare. You never know how a game will turn out until you play it.

GRH