This case study primarily focuses on the Instinct Component and process
development beyond Decision-Making Mechanisms within the Subconscious
Component and how Protocols in Genetic Codes behind different types of
Instances can impact a compromising style for finding a solution.
Synthetic profiles explore comparing Sequential map-matching Genetic
Codes beyond the different classes of Instances. The exploration analysis
initiates with a compromising style for attempting to detect a point of a
solution. Two case study scenarios can be selected for testing among many options.
It involves multiple instances of Genetic Codes beyond Instincts within the
Conscious Component.
Analytical Options can involve two people encountering a chaotic
situation in Social Contexts, and they need to decide by compromising strategy
to prevent chaos in a crisis. This paper can reduce various compromise styles
because of time constraints.
1- The first case study:
Men and Women with similar genetic factors, environmental Influences,
and a typical Superego Adjuster can decide possible events.
Men and Women can encounter stressful or dangerous situations. Survival
Instincts call designated Instincts for available resolutions. They need to
compromise and make a typical decision to avoid chaos. Genetic Instinct and
Gender Instinct may modify Survival Instincts through Secondary Instinct.
The output of the Instinct Component in Decision-Making Pattern is a
combination of Genetic, Gender, and General Instinct Codes. The First Map
(Figure1)
Similar Genetic Instinct Codes and homogeneous Environmental factors can
generate analogical attributes in the Decision-Making Process. Dissimilar Gender
Instincts in Subconscious Component may function and show Heterogeneous
Attributes in Decision Outputs. (Figure 1)
The First Map would probably encapsulate Analogical Attributes for
Genetic and General Instinct. But Non-analogical Attributes encapsulate Gender
Instinct. (Figure 2)
The Algorithmic Structure within The First Map interacts with instance
parameters of the Superego and Ego environment.
Homogeneous Environmental factors imply a typical Superego Adjuster,
which indicates a Homogeneous Superego. It refers to common principles and
values, similar Genetic Instincts, and Heterogeneous Gender Instincts within
the Second Map. Therefore, the Second Map contains A Friendly Compromise
Negotiation Style. (Figure 2)
2- The second case study:
Two Men can select with Genetic Diversity from a similar Competitive
Environment, which perpetuates Heterogeneous Superego Adjuster. They can decide
by compromising strategy through the following scenario analysis and possible
events:
An unsafe environment in a dangerous situation can occur in Competitive
Social Contexts. Consequently, the Survival Instinct is called the Network of
Competitive Instinct in the Conscious Component.
The output of the Genetic Instinct can produce and perpetuate
Heterogeneous Genetic traits. Gender and General Instinct generate Homogeneous
Instinct Codes. (Figure 3)
Two Men can hardly compromise because of the low Superego Adjuster and
Heterogeneous Genetic Instincts. Therefore, there is a low chance of having
common principles and similar algorithms within the Superego Framework. The
lack of a Superego Adjuster within the Social Context can fortify and
strengthen the Ego functioning. The Superego would have wicked cognitive
functioning. Harmonic Balance and regular mediation between Superego and Ego
can deteriorate Ego functioning and environmental factors. Finally, a
Compromise Style may attenuate in a possible encounter scenario, Although
Homogeneous Gender Instinct Codes can provide common Principles and Norms.
(Figure 3)
Two Men with different principles and values can compromise because of
their interests or advantages (Political Strategies). Decision-Making Patterns
and Logical Inferences can describe how these two men are on the path of a Bad
Compromise style.
The good and bad Compromise Styles can be identified and compared through
encapsulated attributes within the Conscious Component. Analogical Instincts can
accommodate collaboration mapping and instantiate the Network of Cooperative
Instincts for supporting Compromise Style. (Figure 4)
The first case study shows the minimum requirements for Optimal
Compromise Mapping. The second case study barely shows any need to fulfill the
Optimal Compromise Style. Politicians used to engage with this type of Compromise
Mapping. Therefore, they need more confidence in their unreliable Compromises.
Common Competitive Instincts between two compromisers can generate Super-sized
Hypocrisy in their Subconscious Components. Hypocrisy Instinct and Instance
Instincts can obstruct Superego strength, empower the Ego Framework, and attenuate
the Harmonic Balance between Superego and Ego Framework.
Observation:
Gender Instincts for men in specific Culture is significant
circumstances to an agreement. It can ensure the reliability of the Compromising
Style, regardless of the number of Homogeneous Instinct Codes between two
partners.
Observation:
Systems Owners can sometimes explore the Hypocrisy Instinct for reducing
costs, a competitive advantage, and maximizing Harmonic Balance in Social
Contexts. However, they would hardly target possible side-effects of Invisible
Hypocrisy Mode.
Observation:
According to an observational study, one of the main reasons the human
race can create on the earth is to develop and improve the harmonious balance
between Superego and Ego in the Conscious Component of the evolutionary path of
life.
Observation:
Harmonic Balance between Ego and Superego determines Harmonic Balance in
Decision Making and Social Behavior.
Specific Genetic Instincts and instance parameters in Social Contexts
can modify the property of the Ego/Superego. Humans hardly have control over
Genetic Instincts and instance parameters in Social Contexts. Therefore, they
can only change the Harmonic Balance in Ego /Superego with interference from
External Entities.
Observation:
Common-sense
beliefs can modify the characteristics of Human Nature and Social Life. Because
Humans can hardly predict and evaluate possible side-effects of common sense in
Social Contexts.
Observation:
The mechanism of Instincts is
preprogrammed genetically. Therefore, Making Decisions and Social
Cognition Processes can function according to algorithmic codes beyond
Instincts. Systems Owners and Modern Humans can modify algorithmic parameters
because of Global Competition, Economic Performances, and many other Complex
Strategies.
