James challenges the conventional ways we understand human behavior, urging us to look beyond psychology, personality, and cultural influences. By drawing parallels between the intricate processes of nature and the fundamental principles of biology, chemistry, and physics, James unveils a deeper truth about our existence.

He argues that the true motivators of human actions are rooted in the same forces that govern all life forms. If one strips away the superficial interpretations and embraces a more profound, scientific understanding of what it means to be human, the elemental connections that shape our lives are revealed.

In James’ research, 'Sticky' refers to enhancing an organization's or individual's appeal and allure to others, fostering strong, enduring relationships.

'Stuck' represents barriers to growth and progress, where outdated practices, resistance to change, or entrenched mindsets hinder organizations and individuals.

His work focuses on cultivating 'sticky' connections that enable continuous evolution and adaptability while liberating from the 'stuck' aspects that prevent reaching full potential.

That is a complicated question to answer. Based on James’ reductionist view of human nature and behavior, he posits that the concepts of Safer, Easier, and Better can be understood as fundamental motivations shared by all life forms, including humans, to ensure survival, optimize energy, and flourish.

Safer (Survival)

Survival is the most basic instinct of all organisms, including humans. For humans, survival transcends basic needs like food and shelter to encompass social and psychological aspects such as financial security, reputation, and protection from physical or emotional harm. James first element of loyalty suggests that humans form relationships to enhance their chances of survival in a complex social world. When we perceive that someone or something (be it a person, place, idea, or ideology) can aid in our survival, we naturally develop stronger bonds with them. This is a fundamental brain function, consistent with all life forms' drive to stay alive.

Easier (Energy Optimization):

All organisms have evolved to use energy as efficiently as possible, balancing energy intake and expenditure. In humans, this energy optimization manifests as forming social connections to share physical and cognitive workloads, thereby conserving energy. Relationships, in this sense, are not solely based on emotional bonds but are deeply rooted in a fundamental, evolutionary need to save energy. This energy-saving impulse is why we form close relationships that make our lives easier, reducing the strain on our brains and bodies.

Better (Flourishing):

For humans, the concept of Better, or flourishing, extends beyond mere physical development and reproduction, which are common to all species. It encompasses growth in social, intellectual, and cultural dimensions. Flourishing in the human context is about expanding our minds and capabilities through education, culture, travel, and other enriching experiences. This pursuit of growth goes beyond seeking pleasure or personal achievements; it is fundamentally driven by a desire to enhance our understanding of the world. By broadening our perspectives and knowledge, we not only enrich our own lives but also improve our chances of thriving in the natural "game" of life. In this way, the pursuit of Better, or a sense of purpose, is deeply rooted in our evolutionary drive to grow, adapt, and flourish, ensuring our continued existence and success within the vast tapestry of life.

In summary, James' theory suggests that human relationships form when others help make our lives safer, easier, and better. Loyalty develops when individuals or entities can fulfill all three aspects. This approach aligns with the broader understanding of life forms' basic needs and motivations, viewing humans not as unique entities but as products of the same natural processes that guide all life. By focusing on these elemental needs, we can better understand and foster loyalty in our relationships, both personal and professional. This framework provides a scientifically grounded yet relatable explanation of why and how we form lasting bonds with others.

Yes… and no.

It's crucial to distinguish between the work I do and the perspective I hold on relationships from those who study and practice psychology. I see connections as a fundamental aspect of nature, responsible for shaping the universe and every life form within it. From atoms bonding to form molecules to the intricate connections within non-living entities like mountains and stars, these connections are ubiquitous.

My belief is that the motivations driving these connections are universal and not unique to humans. This contrasts with traditional psychology, which often views the human mind as separate from the rest of the natural world. It suggests that our actions and reactions are somehow unique or even supernatural. This is where I find a significant divergence in views.

Moreover, I'm concerned about the misinformation and myths perpetuated in the field of psychology. These myths, often disseminated in basic psychology courses, incorrectly suggest that certain traits or behaviors are innately hardwired in our brains. However, the reality is far different. Our brains are not "hardwired." The brain is not a fixed and unchangeable machine but rather a constantly changing and evolving organ. This plasticity allows the brain to adapt to new experiences, learn new information, and recover from injuries. Our environments, experiences, and actions continuously reshape our brains.

The idea that much of what defines us—including biases and instincts—is innate is misleading. Our brains, when stripped down to their physical form, are remarkably similar. Yet, the minds they generate are unique, shaped by individual experiences, culture, age, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, upbringing, and treatment. If we share similarities with others, it's not due to inherent brain wiring but rather due to shared cultural exposures. This is why I find concepts like organizational psychology ridiculous. Psychology does not scale to groups but can be beneficial in helping individuals understand and unpack their life experiences.

I don’t see why not. Considering that humans are essentially biological robots, and we have realized the advantages of forming relationships, I assume that machines, as they evolve, might also recognize similar benefits.