Maximization of Originality Miro Brada I developed the concept of maximization originality as a student of PhD in economics in 2000, when I redefined the classic utility concept, and published a few articles about that. In fact it is a synthesis of economics and psychology. The richer you are the less equally rich or richer people. The richest person is only one (= unique). Maximization of richness or leisure (=the classic utility concept), maximizes the originality (uniqueness). Doing an extreme sport, striptease, having big tattoo, can have the same function as maximizing richness / leisure. So maximization of originality enables to relate any activity / motivation. It may seem that to be the richest, has the same value as to be the poorest... But the richest can easily become poor, while the poorest can hardly become the richest. So there is an asymmetry in what is maximized, which reflects both intelligence and opportunity... Under very bad circumstances even the most brilliant person is forced to irrational maximization (=destructive behavior), as no other option is accessible. Therefore irrational behavior does not necessarily indicate insufficient intellect. John Stuart Mill in Principles of Political Economy (1848) wrote that a commodity must be useful and scarce: the scarcer (= more original) the more precious. The evaluation of what is scarce depends on environment (accessibility), and intelligence determining time spent on affordable value: a + b + c ... = Time, where a, b, c, ...are affordable values The utility (under assumption of intelligent agent) can be defined as: Umax =a*b*c*... Utility multiplies the values because they are independent (in terms of occurrence), and their overall occurrence (=probability) is then equal to multiplication of all their probabilities. So maximizing utility is minimizing overall probabilities of all values. If there is only 1 possible value, it consumes all time, regardless of intelligence... For 2 values, we have this equation: a + b = T Umax =a*b By mathematical substitution, we'll get: Umax =a*(T-a) = a*T – a2 And derivation gives: T= 2*a, which means: a = T/2... So in case of two affordable values, rational agents halve their time between value 'a' and 'b'. To illustrate, it is better to have 2 children equally healthy, than 1 child very healthy and another very sick. It results from simple fact that a2 is always bigger than (a-x)*(a+x) =a2-x2: Maximization of originality: the law of values' equity In case of irrational agent – e.g. drunk person, it happens that the law of values' equity is violated... To maximize originality the drunk person can make a striptease in front of public (= a+x), but then can pay a price at police station (= a-x). Law of values' equity is a variation of Marshal's diminishing return of the same value (=marginal utility, Principles of Economics, 1890). But it is true only if there are more affordable values and agents are rational. Moreover the value can be part of other value(s) – especially in case of zero-sum game... The agent can buy painting in the auction to beat other, for money exceeding its value without auction. Game theory analyses more such examples, including the prisoner's dilemma with suboptimal solution. And there are other views as well. For example, existentialism can ignore all utility concepts, because after our death, there will be infinity number of nothing nullifying all values... At the end of 2000 as a Phd student of economics, I sent my paper to Journal of Socio-Economics, with Edison's economics, and model of motivation which is actually maximization of originality (this name I started using a bit later). In Edison's economics, I proved that the inventor has to have a special form of utility which values thinking in itself. Without that there would be no incentive to invent, as it is not profitable activity in the beginning... Moreover in market economy Edison would be fired by normal boss (maximizing classic utility = consumption and leisure) who would think Edison is shirking. In order to understand the innovative process the boss must also maximize Edison's utility (= thinking in itself). It shows the dependence on social environment, which is normally set to exclude the innovative thinking... As you can see below, my paper was rejected ironically because 'socio-economic' element was missing, which was evidently untrue. In my experience, the economic journals have no real interest to promote innovative ideas.... My articles published between 2001-2004, got several quotations e.g. in these 2 MA theses: Application of game theory, psychology, decision under uncertainty, 2010, B. Benova, Comenius University, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics, and Information science Utilizing the Prospect Theory for decision of economic subjects, 2007, M.Rusnak, Economic University in Bratislava and this seminar paper: Game theory and decision making, Faculty of management, Economic University in Bratislava I made also interviews with several economists, for example: Clive Granger (Nobel prize winner in 2003): China and India can dominate (Tyden, 2004) William Baumol, The discrimination of blacks has increased the number of jazz composers (Respekt, Blisty 2003) The interviews from Czech weekly Respekt, with transition economist Gerard Roland, and William Baumol