What actually drives human behavior?

I recently stumbled upon a pretty radical concept that I actually find quite appealing because of how simple it is: the notion that every single human action is driven by one of two things:

a) escaping pain

b) seeking pleasure

Obviously, an idea like this essentially (if not literally) dismantles the last century of psychology and psychoanalysis. Naturally, anyone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo will push back against it. But let’s look at this hypothetically—is there truly anything people do that cannot be explained by one of those two motives?

So, here’s the gist of how some people operate...

1. A literal craving for pain and suffering.

2. Or, on the flip side, a desperate need to dodge any kind of discomfort...

You think it's more complicated than that? Honestly, you'd be surprised just how deeply twisted some people actually are...

Look, you can boil everything down to these basics—even all that heavy psychoanalysis nonsense that comes bundled with it. CHEERS TO BANTALIZING AND GENERALIZING EVERYTHING!😉

Nothing new here. ☕
Well, that is precisely what psychoanalytic theory entails—Freud’s pleasure principle... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure_principle_(psychology)

How exactly is it supposedly ruining the last century of psychology, if it has managed to persist as a foundational theory for that long? 😬

What one person finds deeply unsettling, another might find strangely comforting. Conversely, some people find even pure pleasure uncomfortable, often because it triggers a sense of guilt.
One could argue that much of psychology is built upon the principle of pleasure—for instance, instrumental conditioning relies heavily on rewards and punishments as direct consequences of specific actions or inactions.
That premise holds water; we all naturally gravitate toward pleasure (which isn't always physical, but can be psychological) and seek to avoid discomfort. However, that is merely a baseline. What brings me satisfaction may be entirely different from what satisfies you. To truly understand someone and predict their behavior, you have to identify what specifically constitutes "pleasure" for them.
Furthermore, human behavior frequently involves a calculated trade-off between pleasure and pain. We are often willing to endure a certain amount of discomfort if our internal calculus suggests the resulting reward will outweigh the cost.

Any smart person should have those exact reasons driving all their moves😕

My mother believes this isn't just the logic of intellectuals, but a fundamental drive shared by all living things—animals included, even plants. At its core, a plant turns toward the light and stretches its roots toward the water.
I might be exaggerating slightly, but the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is essentially about survival and the preservation of a species.
With humans, it’s a bit more nuanced due to various psychological variables, but I maintain that we find pleasure in things that align with our identity. This alignment serves to protect our psychological existence and internal integrity.
Of course, for some, this evolutionary mechanism hasn't quite kept pace with modern life. For instance, the massive spike in diabetes cases is a direct result of overconsuming sugar.
The link between sweet foods and pleasure used to be functional because such nutrients were scarce. Today, that connection is no longer an advantage; it's a liability.

look, my motivation is basically

if I can't actually enjoy the money, then I might as well focus on avoiding the headache

Personally, I’d toss that idea out.

If you define things that way, you’d have to massively stretch what we actually mean by "pain" and "pleasure"—beyond just how the brain processes stimuli and dictates behavior.

For instance, anyone who’s ever finished school has felt that "pleasant" rush of clarity—you know, that "a-ha!" moment. It’s the same feeling when someone finally cracks a riddle.

Can we really deny that people solve puzzles because they're chasing that sweet "a-ha!" high? Or that people go to college because they want to dodge the "pain" of being broke or stuck due to lack of education? No, we can't.

And that’s exactly where the issue lies.

Take physicists, for example. They study wave functions and hunt for a single master equation that describes every possible state given certain initial conditions. We could argue that every human action—every thought and decision firing through our biological hard drives—along with every natural phenomenon, is just the result of one universal equation. Wouldn't that be the "correct" explanation?

The reason those explanations technically work is that you can expand the definition so wide that the theory becomes impossible to disprove. But at the same time, you lose any ability to actually predict anything.

I’d ask you: "Predict what I’m going to do next." You’d say: "You’ll do A, but since you’re seeking pleasure by doing the opposite of A, you’ll actually do B... unless I say X... blah, blah." Get my point?

A theory like that doesn't actually help us understand the world because (a) it fails to satisfy curiosity ("Dad, why does it work like *this* instead of *that*?") and (b) it offers zero predictive power, meaning zero control over our environment—no planning, no medicine, nothing to alleviate discomfort.

Regarding (a): even physicists won't settle for "because it's the result of a universal equation." They’ll push further: "But why is the equation shaped like *that* specifically?" Regarding (b): no engineer on Earth gets any value from a law of nature that answers everything but allows for zero actual calculations or predictions.

Honestly, a theory claiming the final answer is just 42 because it's funny would be way more useful.

jadebear72 said:I’d personally pass on that...

If you define it that way, you’d have to completely redefine what we mean by "pain" and "pleasure." It wouldn't just be about how the brain processes stimuli or manages actions anymore... it would go way beyond that.

Think about it... anyone who’s ever gone through school has felt that "aha!" moment at least once. That sudden rush of clarity. It’s just like when you're finally cracking a tough riddle... everything just clicks...

Can we really say people tackle puzzles just because they're chasing that sweet "a-ha!" moment? Or that they hit the books solely to dodge the sting of being left behind... or the frustration of missing out on opportunities because they aren't educated enough? No.

And that's where the problem lies...

Physicists... they study the wave function of matter. They're out there hunting for that one single equation—one master formula that describes every possible state once you have the initial conditions set. You could argue that everything we do... every thought, every decision firing through our electronic brains, even every phenomenon in nature... it's all just the result of the universe's equation. Wouldn't that be the "real" explanation?

The reason all those explanations work is because you can just stretch the definition so far that the theory becomes impossible to disprove. But at the same time... you lose any ability to actually predict anything.

I’d ask you: "predict what I’m going to do next." And you’d just say: "you'll do A, but since you're looking for satisfaction by doing the exact opposite of A, you'll actually do the opposite of A, unless I say... blah, blah blah." You get my point...

That kind of theory doesn't actually help us understand anything... because (a) it fails that basic curiosity test—you know, when a kid asks, "Dad, why does it have to be this way?"—and (b) it gives us zero predictive power. We can't control our environment if we can't plan ahead or solve problems, like finding ways to shield people from discomfort...

Even physicists won't just settle for saying, "because that's what the universal equation says." They aren't satisfied with that. They’ll push further... asking why the equation looks the way it does instead of something else. But engineers? They can't really use a law of nature if it answers every theoretical question but fails to provide any actual calculations or predictable results. Not useful at all...

Then there’s the much better theory that the final answer is just 42... because honestly, it's funny.

I get what you're getting at—or at least I think I do—but I just can't see it your way. Even if everything we do is just some cosmic equation playing out, that math doesn't actually do anything for us. It’s useless to us humans. We can't use it to predict a single move (like you said), and evolution didn't exactly design our brains to solve for the universe's master formula, right...? 😉

You're leaning way too hard into physics and totally ignoring biology. Sure, you can explain plenty of behaviors using game theory math models, but that's not the whole story. In my opinion, the common thread in everything we do is simple: we avoid pain and chase pleasure. That’s just how evolution and natural selection carved us out. The ones who acted against those instincts—like eating poisonous berries just to see what happened—didn't survive to pass on their genes. They were wiped out. We aren't so far removed from animals that these rules don't apply to us... The difference is, we have advanced cognitive processes. Unlike animals, we can actually predict the future—both the immediate stuff and the long term. Because of that, our actions aren't always based on instant gratification, which makes it a lot harder to categorize them as purely "pleasure-seeking"...

Right now, I’m stuck grinding for this exam, and honestly? It sucks. It feels more like pure misery than studying. But looking ahead... if I don't nail this, I fail. Then I lose an entire year of college. That’s even more suffering. If I actually pass, though... man, that'll be huge. Plus, once I've got the knowledge under my belt, I can finally flex it whenever I feel like it...

So what’s actually driving you to write this post? 😉 (forget about the math for a second)

I’d argue that every single human action is driven by self-interest.🙂
(Actually, you could probably boil those first two sentences down to that same point)

Everything anyone does stems from their own interests. Even things that look completely selfless—like helping the sick or volunteering—can be traced back to that. It’s about making YOU feel better, or maybe just avoiding a guilty conscience later on.

If you look at everyone on this planet and how they act, everything seems to support this theory.

I definitely agree with that theory.
Recently, I heard some fringe idea—which I don't buy, by the way—suggesting that pure sadism is what drives everything.

I think we’re running into an issue of explanatory depth here.
An explanation needs to operate on the same level as the question being asked.
For instance, if I ask what this table is made of, telling me it consists of "carbon and hydrogen" isn't particularly helpful. While technically accurate, it doesn't match the scale of my inquiry.
The same logic applies here. Claiming that human behavior is driven by the principle of pleasure might be true, but it doesn't explain why I decided to drink like a fish yesterday.
A real answer has to descend to my personal level—factors that might apply to me and absolutely no one else, given my specific upbringing and unique circumstances.
That’s why you have certain psychologists who deal with universal truths applicable to everyone, while others—clinicians—focus on individual cases. They use general principles as a guide, but their work is centered on the specific person they are trying to help.

Andrew Parker3 said:I definitely agree with that theory.
I recently heard a different take (which I don't buy!) suggesting that pure sadism is what drives everything.

Well, I don't think that holds up,😢
for instance, I don't see any sadistic motivation behind going to college.
I see more of a masochistic vibe🤮, but that's a whole other conversation.🙏

Gerald Rivera60 said:I think we’re hitting a level-of-explanation issue here.
An answer needs to actually match the scale of the question being asked.
Like, if I ask what this table is made of, telling me "carbon and hydrogen" doesn't really help much... even if it's technically true, it's just not on the same level as my question.
Same thing applies here. Saying human behavior is driven by the pleasure principle might be right, but it doesn't explain why I went on a massive bender yesterday.
To get that answer, you have to look at my personal level—things that might only apply to me and nobody else, given how I was raised and all those other factors.
That's why you have some psychologists looking at general theories that apply to everyone, while others (clinicians) dig into individual cases, using those general principles but focusing on the specific person they're helping.

Sure, that isn't the immediate reason why you drank like a fish, but if we're hunting for the root cause, every single action eventually leads back to the ultimate answer from that first post. 🙂

ambasadorica said:well, I don't think that's quite right😢
for instance, I don't see any sadistic motive in deciding to go to college.
I see more of a masochistic🤮 vibe, but that's a whole different conversation🙏

I'm not on board with that either. It’s hard to sum up quickly, but I view it as having a pessimistic outlook on the world.

A simple example would be how certain guys get off when a woman wears a corset or high heels. To her, it's uncomfortable, it pinches, it restricts movement—all that. But he's drawn to that sense of restraint. The way she walks in those heels, for example. She might stumble because they aren't practical, and that's exactly what he finds appealing. That's the gist of it.

Andrew Parker3 said:A simple example is how some guys get turned on when a woman wears a corset or high heels. She finds them uncomfortable—they pinch or feel too tight—but he’s attracted to that sense of restriction. It’s the way she walks in those heels because she isn't quite used to them. That's the gist of it.

It isn't her being restricted that turns him on; it's the visual of her in the outfit.
If she wrapped herself up so tightly that she couldn't move at all, he probably wouldn't be interested...

*Spike Lee* said:Sure, that isn't the immediate trigger for why I drank myself under the table, but if we're looking for the root cause, every action eventually leads back to the point made in the very first post. 🙂

That’s true, but it’s incomplete.
Saying I drank like a fish to avoid discomfort is accurate, but it lacks depth. Saying I was trying to drown out the memory of my breakup is a much more precise answer.
It’s like my previous example... saying a table is made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen is technically correct, but it's more complete to say it's made of cellulose, and even more specific to say it's made of oak.

Mad Scientist said:It isn't about her being restricted; it’s about what he sees (her in the corset).
If she were wrapped up in layers that made her even less mobile, he probably wouldn't be turned on at all...

Everyone is different. There's so much variety in what people find attractive, but if it's someone who specifically finds that sense of restriction hot... well, whatever. It's just complicated to explain. Even while I was listening, I wasn't entirely sure myself.

I'm sure there are some people who find the restriction quite a turn-on
... maybe those into BDSM and bondage might see a connection there...

*Spike Lee said:So, what's actually driving you to write this? 😉 (leave the math out of it for a second)

It’s just what I said at the start: you can explain anything if you stretch the definition of "pleasure" wide enough. Like, ridiculously wide—to the point where it basically means everything. Someone might say we do what's useful and avoid what's useless. Another person might say we do good and avoid evil. To answer your question directly: I'll say I'm doing it because I seek truth and fight lies. Or I'll say I'm seeking knowledge and fleeing ignorance. It's simple: words are just symbols. If you stretch "pleasure" and "pain" so far that they encompass "good/evil," "truth/lies," or "knowledge/ignorance," then suddenly you've "proven" your point.

Of course it works. In that scenario, "pleasure" just becomes a catch-all for "anything that motivates people to act," and "pain" becomes "anything that makes them stop."

Mathematically speaking, he just said: if a person does something, they did it for reason A or reason NOT-A. Since NOT-A is just everything that isn't A, and A is everything that isn't NOT-A... well, yeah. Great job, genius!

I could argue: I'm not running from fire to avoid pain, I'm running to experience the pleasure of not being in pain.

Honestly, it's just nonsense and empty philosophical posturing about logic.

Using that kind of shallow logic, you could claim: sure, he was a pure atheist who endured torture knowing he'd die without ever feeling "pleasure," simply because his "pleasure" came from the realization that his sacrifice would prevent someone else from feeling "pain."

The question is: why? Why would that give anyone pleasure in the first place.

These kinds of clichés masquerade as profound truths, but they don't actually satisfy any real curiosity.

-------

My personal take, politically speaking, is that the motivation behind these theories is always political: by stating the obvious and the undeniable, you reduce humans to machines, relativize morality, and ultimately strip individuals of all accountability.