Dominance of One Constant over the Others

Introduction

In the previous articles, the relationship between the four human constants, mutual interdependence, synergy, conflict and competition were examined. Now we should turn to one of the most important cases of imbalance: dominance of one constant over the others.

In the Theory of Human Constants, survival, connection, meaning and order are four relatively stable and fundamental human needs or inclinations; but this does not mean that at all times and conditions their weight and priority are the same. Environmental conditions, crises, power structure, technology, culture, resources and historical experience can cause one constant to gain greater importance for a time.

The problem begins when this increase in importance transforms from a temporary and proportionate priority into a sustained and disproportionate dominance.

In this case, the dominant constant may not only receive more resources and attention, but gradually become the main criterion for decision-making about other areas of social life. Sociological literature on competition also shows that competition can be institutionalized in different social areas and transform into a general way of organizing behavior and evaluating performance.

1. The Concept of Dominance of One Constant

Dominance of one constant refers to a condition in which needs, goals and mechanisms related to one of the four constants dominate decision-making and resource allocation of a human system for a considerable period, and as a result the capacity for realization of other constants decreases.

Therefore, dominance should not be confused merely with prioritization of one constant.

For example, when war occurs, it is natural that survival and security be prioritized for a time. This situation is not in itself imbalance.

Dominance becomes relevant when emergency priority transforms into a permanent structure and, even after conditions change, continues to overshadow other human needs.

So we must distinguish between two conditions:

Proportionate prioritization to conditions and structural, sustained dominance.

2. Why Is Dominance of One Constant Important?

The four constants are interdependent. Therefore, a severe increase in the weight of one constant can, through mutual relationships, affect the functioning of the three other constants.

If this mutual effect is positive, the increase in weight of one constant can lead to strengthening the whole system.

But if the increase of one constant is accompanied by a decrease in capacity of other constants, an imbalance cycle may form.

For example:

Strengthening order → Increase in coordination → Increase in survival capacity

But in other conditions:

Increase in order → Increase in control → Decrease in connection → Decrease in trust → Weakening of cooperation → Decrease in survival capacity.

Therefore, the effect of dominance of one constant cannot be evaluated without examining its relationships with the other three constants.

3. Dominance of Survival Over Other Constants

Survival is the most fundamental issue of any human system and in conditions of natural or social threat can rightfully be placed at the center of attention.

But if survival requirements permanently dominate all decisions, connection, meaning and institutional order may be affected disproportionately.

For example, a society that constantly feels in a state of threat may allocate a large portion of its resources to security and postpone educational, cultural, social or institutional reform issues.

In the short term this policy may strengthen survival capacity; but in the long term, the decrease in human capital, social connection or institutional flexibility may itself become a threat to survival.

Therefore, dominance of survival under emergency conditions may be justified, but making it permanent can weaken survival from within.

4. Dominance of Connection Over Other Constants

Connection is an important condition for cooperation and information transfer. A society with extensive and efficient communications can receive information and transfer experience more quickly.

But an increase in connection does not necessarily mean an increase in coordination.

If the volume of connection exceeds the capacity for processing, verification and regulation of information, contradictory information, rumors and competitive messages may increase.

In such conditions, connection may, instead of strengthening order and meaning, lead to increased confusion and division.

Therefore, effective connection is not the same as maximum connection.

5. Dominance of Meaning Over Other Constants

Meaning helps humans interpret the world, life, identity and their future. From this perspective, its role in the sustainability of the human system is very important.

But if a meaning system becomes a dominant and unchangeable criterion, it may overshadow realities related to survival, connection or institutional order.

In this condition, decisions may be made more on the basis of loyalty to a meaning narrative than on evaluating the actual consequences of those decisions.

The main danger here is the absolutization of a meaning system, not meaning itself.

Because meaning can be a source of cohesion and motivation, but when the possibility of revision and dialogue about it is lost, it can become a factor of rigidity.

6. Dominance of Order Over Other Constants

Order is necessary for predictability, coordination and continuation of social activities.

But order, like other constants, can exceed its functional level.

If maintaining order becomes an independent goal separate from survival, connection and meaning, structures, rules and institutions may become goals in themselves rather than serving the human system.

In such a condition:

Order → More control → Decrease in flexibility → Decrease in connection → Increase in social distance → Decrease in legitimacy → Need for more control.

This cycle can be an example of a self-reinforcing dominance of one constant.

7. Dominance of One Constant Does Not Necessarily Mean Its Power

An important theoretical point is that dominance of one constant should not be confused with the "power" or greater "value" of that constant.

For example, if order is very prominent in a society, one cannot conclude that order is inherently more important than survival or meaning.

Dominance merely indicates that in a historical period, resources, decisions and institutional mechanisms have been more under the influence of that area.

Therefore:

Dominance ≠ Intrinsic superiority

and

Prioritization ≠ Greater value

This distinction is necessary to prevent misinterpretation of the theory.

8. Temporary Dominance and Sustained Dominance

Dominance of one constant can have two main types.

Temporary Dominance

Occurs in response to a crisis or environmental change and after the pressure decreases, the system again redistributes its resources and attention among the four constants.

Sustained Dominance

Transforms from a reactive condition into a permanent structure, and institutions, rules, culture and decision-making patterns are also reproduced based on it.

The second type is theoretically more important; because it may continue even after the initial cause is removed.

9. How Is Dominance of One Constant Established?

Dominance of one constant can arise from several paths:

First, recurring crises.

Second, concentration of power.

Third, resource limitation.

Fourth, formation of specialized powerful institutions.

Fifth, creation of justifying meaning narratives.

Sixth, social and institutional habit.

Seventh, path dependence.

Eighth, fear of change.

In this case, dominance of one constant is not only the result of conscious decision; it may gradually become institutionalized in social structure.

10. The Role of Power in Dominance of One Constant

Power can play an important role in determining which needs are prioritized.

More powerful groups and institutions may be able to generalize their own definition of "necessity," "danger," "value" or "desired order" to the whole society.

Therefore, to analyze dominance of one constant, we must ask:

Who determines the priority?

What resources are at their disposal?

Which institution implements the decision?

Which groups benefit from that decision?

Which groups bear its cost?

and Does a mechanism for revising the decision exist?

Without answering these questions, analysis of dominance of one constant will be incomplete.

11. Dominance of One Constant and Positive Feedback

Dominance of one constant may be reinforced through positive feedback.

For example:

Increase in attention to order → Increase in control institutions → Increase in control capacity → Increase in dependence on control → Increase in justification for more order → Decrease in role of other mechanisms.

In these conditions, the system gradually enters a path from which exit becomes more difficult.

The same logic can apply to survival, meaning or connection under specific conditions.

Therefore, dominance of one constant may not only be a condition; rather, it may be a self-reinforcing process.

12. Dominance of One Constant and Decrease in Flexibility

One of the important consequences of sustained dominance of one constant is the decrease in flexibility.

A system that analyzes all issues from one angle will have fewer options to respond to new conditions.

For example, if all social issues are viewed solely from the perspective of order, communication, economic, cultural and participatory solutions may be overlooked.

Similarly, if all issues are analyzed solely from the perspective of survival, meaning and communication capacities may receive less attention.

As a result, the diversity of possible responses decreases.

13. Dominance of One Constant and Resilience

Resilience is not just the capacity to endure pressure; it is also the capacity to change and rearrange.

If one constant dominates the structure of the system, the possibility of rearranging resources and institutions may decrease.

Therefore, in new crisis conditions, a system in structural dominance may have less flexibility.

From this perspective, one can assume:

Balance among the four constants may be one of the important conditions for maintaining resilience.

Of course, this statement is a theoretical hypothesis and needs empirical testing.

14. Dominance of One Constant and Transfer of Imbalance

Dominance of one constant usually does not remain confined to that area alone.

For example, if order increases excessively:

Excessive order → Limiting of connection → Decrease in trust → Decrease in cooperation → Weakening of survival → Increase in pressure for more control.

In this case, imbalance has transferred from order to connection and then to survival.

This is what within the framework of the Theory of Human Constants can be called transfer of imbalance among constants.

15. Does Balance Mean Equal Share of Four Constants?

No.

Balance in the Theory of Human Constants does not mean exactly equal allocation of resources or equal importance to the four constants.

Due to environmental conditions, it is possible that in one society, survival may require more attention for a time.

In another society, the main issue may be institutional order reform or rebuilding of social connection.

Therefore, balance should be defined proportionate to the conditions.

Balance means the ratio among the four constants is such that the system can maintain or restore its main functions; not that their numerical weight is the same.

16. The Boundary Between Prioritization and Dominance

To determine whether a constant is merely prioritized or has reached the stage of dominance, several criteria can be examined:

Duration: How long has this condition lasted?

Intensity: What amount of resources and system capacity has been allocated to it?

Scope: Has it affected only one area or the whole system?

Consequence: Has the capacity of other constants decreased?

Revisability: Is there a possibility of changing this priority?

Flexibility: Can the system change its priorities as conditions change?

These criteria can serve as a basis for transforming the theoretical concept of dominance into a measurable concept.

17. Dominance of One Constant and Crisis

Dominance of one constant does not necessarily cause crisis.

But if new conditions arise that the dominant constant cannot alone answer adequately, the weakness of other constants may become apparent.

For example, a system that has long relied on rigid order may be vulnerable to a crisis that requires trust, participation and innovation.

In this case, the problem is not only the crisis itself; the lack of complementary capacities also becomes important.

18. Regulation and Restoring Balance

To prevent sustained dominance of one constant, the human system must be able to adapt its priorities to new conditions.

This requires:

• revision of policies;
• redistribution of resources;
• institutional reform;
• increase in connection;
• creation of possibility for dialogue;
• revision of meaning systems when necessary;
• reduction of unnecessary controls;
• and strengthening of social learning capacity

is.

Here the concept of regulation, which was examined in the sixth article, gains importance again.

Effective regulation does not mean elimination of the dominant constant; rather, it means readjusting its relationship with the three other constants.

19. The Possibility of Measuring Dominance of One Constant

To operationalize this concept, a set of indicators can be considered.

For each constant, the following can be measured:

• allocated resources;
• political and social attention;
• institutional capacity;
• share in decision-making;
• presence in public discourse;
• and impact on policies

over time.

Then it must be examined whether the increase in weight of one constant was accompanied by a decrease in capacity of other constants or not.

The important point is that measurement of dominance should be dynamic; because a condition may be imbalanced in one period and completely proportionate in another.

20. Testable Hypotheses

Based on this article, several hypotheses can be proposed for future research:

First hypothesis: Sustained increase in the weight of one constant in resource allocation will be accompanied by a decrease in relative capacity of other constants, unless synergy is created among them.

Second hypothesis: Long-term dominance of one constant increases the likelihood of decrease in flexibility of the human system.

Third hypothesis: Systems with greater capacity for regulation and resource redistribution are less subject to sustained dominance of one constant.

Fourth hypothesis: Dominance of one constant creates the greatest risk when accompanied by simultaneous decrease of two or three other constants.

Fifth hypothesis: Temporary dominance of one constant under crisis conditions does not necessarily have negative effects and, if balance is restored, may even increase the sustainability capacity of the system.

Sixth hypothesis: Structural dominance of one constant increases the likelihood of transfer of imbalance to other constants.

These hypotheses should be examined with historical, comparative and empirical data, and at this stage should not be considered as proven results.

Conclusion

The four human constants do not always appear with equal weight and intensity. Change in conditions may cause one constant to be placed at the center of attention for a time. Such prioritization is a natural part of the adaptation of the human system.

The problem begins when temporary priority transforms into sustained dominance and the dominant constant absorbs resources, attention and institutional capacity in such a way that the functioning of other constants decreases.

From this perspective, dominance of one constant should be studied not merely as an increase in importance of one area, but as a disproportionate change in the structure of relationships among the four constants.

Therefore, the fundamental question of the Theory of Human Constants is not which constant should always be superior; rather, it is whether the human system can, as conditions change, readjust the weight and role of each of the four constants and prevent the transformation of a necessary priority into sustained and harmful dominance.

Key phrase: "In the Theory of Human Constants, dominance of one constant occurs when sustained and disproportionate increase in the weight of survival, connection, meaning or order decreases the capacity for realization of other constants; therefore the main issue is not the elimination of priorities, but the maintenance of the capacity for regulation and readjustment of relationships among the four constants proportionate to the changing conditions of the human system."