Black Swan Me | Unified Behavior Model™
<p>On July 8th, in what can only be described as an <strong>act of reckless clarity</strong>, we published a <strong>white paper (</strong><em>grab it here—>)</em> <a target="_blank" href="https://zenodo.org/records/15844153"><strong>Unified Behavioral Model</strong></a><strong>™</strong> — Read more… listen now.</p><p><a target="_blank" href="%%checkout_url%%">Subscribe now</a></p><p><em>“</em>Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification.” ― <strong>Karl Popper</strong></p><p><strong>What makes UBM so unique—so different from prevalent behavioral models?</strong></p><p>First, let’s clear up a common misconception:</p><p><strong>UBM</strong>—specifically the <strong>Behavior Echo-System (BES)</strong>—is a <em>model of behavior</em>, not a model of a person.</p><p>People often see the graphic and assume it represents themselves, or a diagram of the human body. It doesn’t.</p><p>As <strong>Dr. Popper’s</strong> statement above suggests, UBM simply articulates how behavior is influenced <em>in the moment</em> and shaped <em>over time</em>—within the system.</p><p>Now, here’s the <strong>B.I.G.</strong> claim:</p><p><strong>UBM is falsifiable.</strong></p><p>In science, that’s the gold standard.<strong>(Period.)</strong></p><p>If a theory can’t be tested or broken, it’s just storytelling. Worse yet, Karl Popper would say it’s <em>non-science</em>.</p><p>What’s <em>his</em> core claim? </p><p>Science and non-science are divided by a single demarcation: <strong>Falsifiability.</strong></p><p>UBM asks—check that, <em>insists</em>—“Go for it… <em>Please</em> try to break me.”</p><p>Apparently, no other behavior model—certainly not a unified one—has ever done that.</p><p><em>Kind of interesting? Maybe just a bit?</em></p><p><em>Worth mentioning, at least?</em></p><p><em>Or dedicating, I don’t know… twenty-plus years to uncovering?</em></p><p>UBM/BES Comparison Table & Major Prevalent Models as provided by DeepSeek.</p><p>According to <strong>Dr. Karl Popper</strong>—and as noted in the <em>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</em>, “<strong>Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the twentieth century</strong>”—if a theory can’t be tested (or broken), it’s just storytelling. Worse, he’d call it <em>“non-science.”</em></p><p>Just to be clear: that’s <strong>Dr. Popper</strong>, philosopher <em>and</em> trained psychologist, who introduced the idea of <strong>falsifiability</strong> (and gave us that delightful bit with the Black Swan).</p><p>So yeah—if you can’t at least attempt to break it, he says, it doesn’t count.</p><p>UBM is so confident in its falsifiability that it’s offering a <strong>$1,000 reward to the first person </strong>to prove there’s a missing fifth element—<em>one that isn’t reducible or emergent</em>. (See below and bottom for official entry details.)</p><p>So far: <em>nearly </em><strong><em>500 downloads</em></strong> and…</p><p><strong>Nada. Zip. Zilch. NOTHING.</strong></p><p>Even the world’s top AIs—ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek—took their shots.</p><p>They’ve <em>all</em> struck out. </p><p>Attempts include: Time (environmental), Consciousness (emergent from the system), Willpower (embodied environment), Self-Organization (embodied environment—note the “self” in <em>self</em>-organization).</p><p>The list goes on, and it’s kind of funny. Google’s Gemini, for example, offered a “someday” quantum property we don’t even know of yet.</p><p>Seriously.</p><p>Just to be clear: if we don’t know of it yet, and we can’t test it—it’s not a valid fifth element.</p><p><em>DeepSeek’s parting words?</em> Also comical...</p><p><strong><em>“UBM 1. DS 0... Game respects game.”</em></strong></p><p>And, here’s Gemini’s best response after half dozen attempts…</p><p>Gemini tries desperately to break the Unified Behavior Model and fails.</p><p><strong><em>The difficulty in falsification, as intended by the model’s design, is a powerful indicator of its conceptual strength and it’s potential to serve as a TRULY UNIFYING FRAMEWORK FOR BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE. ~Gemini 8/4/2025</em></strong></p><p>Some have argued, <em>“Well, UBM is overly simplified.”</em></p><p>Really?</p><p>Then why hasn’t anyone discovered it before—or more accurately, uncovered it and brought it to light?</p><p><strong>Surely, by now—150 years in—some behavioral scientist, somewhere in the world, would’ve presented this kind of systematic “oversimplification,” right?</strong></p><p>Let’s go over that one more time:</p><p><em>“</em>Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification.” ― <strong>Karl Popper</strong></p><p>This is precisely Dr. Popper’s point: science progresses by oversimplifying—<em>systematically</em>.</p><p>Voila: UBM. 👇</p><p><strong>“Great theories have simple pictorial representation.” </strong><strong>—Michio Kaku</strong></p><p><strong>The Behavior Echo-System (BES):</strong> the systematic simplification of behavior.</p><p>Which makes it—by definition—the <strong>elemental science of behavior.</strong></p><p><em>Allegedly.</em></p><p>Until—and unless—you produce the <strong>Black Swan</strong>.</p><p><em>(Looking at you, top psych departments—according to</em> <em>U.S. News & World Report, 2025): </em><strong>@StanfordPsych, @HarvardPsych, @UCBPsychology, @UCLPALS, @Psych_at_Yale, @UMichPsych, @UCLA_Psych, @UCSDPsych, @OxfordPsych, @PrincetonPsych.</strong></p><p><em>Please, with all due respect, step right up.</em> 👊 🤙 🙏</p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://habits2goals.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2">habits2goals.substack.com/subscribe</a>
