AIM and Existing Theories
How the AIM Framework relates to, extends, and integrates with established theories across psychology, economics, and social philosophy
A Framework for Integration, Not Replacement
The AIM Framework is designed as a plug-in to existing theories, not a wholesale replacement. It provides a neurologically grounded taxonomy that clarifies how different theories capture different parts of the motivational landscape.
Rather than dismissing established literatures, AIM shows how Self-Determination Theory, Girard's mimetic theory, behavioral economics, and neuroscience research all describe real phenomena—but through slightly different lenses. By providing unified categories (Appetites, Intrinsic Motivation, Mimetic Desire), AIM helps reconcile apparent conflicts between theories.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
How AIM extends SDT by adding the appetitive layer below and the mimetic layer above
SDT Framework
Core Insight: Three universal psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are essential for intrinsic motivation and well-being.
Autonomy
Self-endorsed choice and volition
Competence
Mastery and effective action
Relatedness
Connection and belonging
50+ years of validation (Deci & Ryan): Shows that extrinsic rewards often crowd out intrinsic motivation.
How AIM Extends SDT
A-Layer Below SDT
Adds physiological and safety needs (food, shelter, security) as the foundation. SDT's autonomy/competence/relatedness cannot flourish without appetitive sufficiency.
I-Layer Maps to SDT
Intrinsic motivation in AIM directly corresponds to SDT's autonomy, competence, and relatedness—but situates them within the broader three-source framework.
M-Layer Above SDT
Critically adds what SDT omits: status-seeking, social comparison, and mimetic desire as distinct from intrinsic motivation. SDT lumps these under "extrinsic motivation" without distinguishing them from appetites.
Why This Matters
AIM predicts when SDT interventions will succeed or fail:
- ✓Success: Autonomy-supportive workplaces/schools work when A-layer is secure (stable wages, safe environment) and M-layer is managed (compressed status hierarchies, reduced competition).
- ✗Failure: "Empower autonomy" policies fail when A-layer is precarious (food insecurity, housing instability) or M-layer is intense (visible pay gaps, public rankings, status tournaments).
Many SDT studies implicitly assume A-layer security and ignore M-layer effects, leading to inconsistent results across contexts.
| Layer | SDT Definition | AIM Extension | Real-World Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Not formally included | Physiological needs, safety, stability | SDT effects reduced if A unmet |
| I | Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness | Intrinsic Motivation (maps directly to SDT) | Suppressed by A/M threats |
| M | Excluded or lumped with extrinsic | Mimetic Desire, status, comparison | SDT interventions undermined by M |
Girard's Mimetic Theory
How AIM formalizes Girard's insights with neural pathways and weighting
Girard's Insight
Core Claim: Human desire is fundamentally mimetic—we want what we see others wanting. Desire is mediated through models, leading to rivalry when multiple people desire the same scarce object.
Triangular desire: Subject → Model → Object
Mimetic rivalry: When models and subjects compete for same goal
Scapegoating: Social mechanism to resolve mimetic crisis
Girard's work is primarily philosophical and anthropological, with less emphasis on neuroscience or other motivational sources.
How AIM Formalizes Girard
Neural Grounding
Mimetic desire corresponds to mirror neuron systems (parietal/premotor cortex) feeding into the ventral striatum. This provides a mechanistic account of how observing goal-directed actions triggers wanting in the observer.
Integration with Other Sources
AIM distinguishes mimetic rivalry (M) from appetitive competition (A) and intrinsic pursuits (I). Girard's framework underspecifies these other sources, making it difficult to predict when mimetic effects will dominate.
Weighting System
AIM adds formal weighting: wM varies with observability, model status, and social context. This makes Girard's insights quantifiable and testable through experiments that manipulate visibility and model prestige.
Not All Wanting Is Mimetic
A crucial distinction: AIM shows that not all desire is imitated. Hunger is appetitive, curiosity is intrinsic, and status-seeking is mimetic. Girard's framework risks treating everything as mimetic, missing the different neural and behavioral signatures of A and I.
AIM preserves Girard's key insight—that social modeling powerfully shapes wanting—while placing it within a broader motivational architecture. This allows for testable predictions about when mimetic effects will be strong (high visibility, prestigious models) versus weak (private contexts, autonomous projects, physiological needs).
Behavioral Economics
How AIM plugs into economics by replacing single preference variables with A/I/M weights
Traditional Model
Core Assumption: All preferences treated as uniform "utility." A single utility function U(x) represents how much someone wants something, without distinguishing the source of that wanting.
Problem 1: Can't explain why status goods command premium prices
Problem 2: Can't predict when social influence matters
Problem 3: Can't distinguish necessities from luxuries formally
Problem 4: Market failures for essential goods appear as anomalies
AIM-Enhanced Economics
Key Innovation: Replace single U(x) with three-component function:
Explains status goods: High wM creates mimetic premium
Predicts bubbles: M-amplification in visible markets
Distinguishes necessities: High wA for essential goods
Market failures: When A-needs compete with M-signaling
Luxury Goods & Veblen Effects
Traditional economics struggles to explain goods that become more desirable as prices increase. AIM explains this through high wM: the mimetic premium dominates, and higher prices actually enhance social signaling value.
Essential Goods Inelasticity
Why do people pay whatever is needed for food, water, medicine? Because wAbecomes dominant when appetites are urgent. This isn't just "high utility"—it's a different kind of wanting with different neural basis and behavioral properties.
Market Cascades & Bubbles
Financial bubbles occur when wM amplifies through social observation: people buy because they see others buying, creating self-reinforcing cycles. Traditional models call these "irrational"—AIM shows they're predictable consequences of mimetic weighting in high-visibility markets.
The Synthesis: A Unified Framework
What ancient philosophy suspected—that human motivation has distinct layers or parts—turns out to be neurologically accurate. Plato's tripartite soul, Aristotle's motivational distinctions, and modern observations across psychology, economics, and social theory all describe real phenomena.
The AIM Framework provides the missing taxonomy that allows these different theories to talk to each other:
- SDT captures the I-layer (autonomy, competence, relatedness) but misses A and M
- Girard illuminates the M-layer (mimetic rivalry, social modeling) but underspecifies A and I
- Economics needs all three to explain status goods, necessities, and intrinsic value
- Neuroscience confirms three distinct pathways converging in common valuation system
Rather than competing theories, we have complementary perspectives on a single underlying architecture. AIM provides the connective tissue.