Equifinality is the principle that, in open systems, a given end state can be achieved by many possible means. The term and concept date back to Hans Drisch, the developmental biologist later applied by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the founder of general systems theory, and William T. Powers, the founder of perception control theory. Driesch and von Bertalanffy prefer this term to „target” to describe the similar or convergent behavior of complex systems. Powers simply emphasized the flexibility of the response, as it emphasizes that the same end state can be achieved through many different pathways or trajectories. In closed systems, there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the initial and final state of the system: when a computer`s power switch is pressed, the system turns on. However, open systems (such as biological and social systems) work very differently. The idea of equifinality suggests that similar results can be obtained under different initial conditions and in many different ways. [1] This phenomenon has also been called isotelesis[2] (from the Greek ἴσος isos „equal” and τέλεσις telesis: „the intelligent direction of effort to achieve a goal”) when it comes to games involving superrationality. In short, each pattern between events and outcomes differs depending on the context of the system or user. For example, how someone chooses a remedy can also be influenced by values, beliefs, attitudes, or memories. Values guide actions and develop and maintain attitudes towards objects and situations.
(Leão et al., 2007) Equifinal and multifinal relationships are not mutually exclusive because an event can be equifinal and multifinal at the same time, such as falling asleep in Figure 1. These networks or constillations of multifinal, equifinal, unifinal and counterfinal relationships create systems or ecosystems. In closed systems, there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the initial and final state of the system: when a computer`s power switch is pressed, the system turns on. However, open systems (such as biological and social systems) work very differently. The idea of equifinality suggests that similar results can be obtained under different initial conditions and in many different ways. [1] Three aspects of radical behaviorist interpretation reveal the shortcomings of gender when judged not by its predictive capacity but by its explanatory exhaustiveness. The completeness of the explanation is essential to the plausibility of an interpretation. Any purely expansional operative interpretation of behavior poses three difficulties for a complete psychology of complex human behavior: presenting the factors responsible for behavioral continuity, adjusting what Dennett calls the personal level of analysis, and dealing with the problem of equifinality and the need to delineate the operative accounts of complex human behavior. In the case of behavioral continuity, the problem is that radical behaviorism lacks a mechanism to explain the continuity of behavior between situations and over time. Continuity is sought in discriminatory and other attitude stimuli that are constant from one attitude to another. The problem that arises in the context of the personal level of analysis is that neither physiological theories (which operate at a subpersonal level) nor theories of environmental behavior (which operate at a suprapersonal level) capture what the person as a whole knows (which is pain, for example). Finally, the problem that arises from equivalence and demarcation considerations is ambiguity about the behavioural response exercised, the specific discriminatory stimuli that should be held responsible, and the particular consequences that should be associated with their design and maintenance.
Any radical behaviorist interpretation must address not one of these issues, but all three. They are repeated in Chapters 5-7Chapter 5Chapter 6Chapter 7. The term equifinality refers to a particular characteristic of random movements, namely their ability to accurately reach targets under conditions where an unexpected transient external disturbance causes the moving system to deviate from its trajectory. In early work, the λ model was associated with the modification of the zero length of the „muscle spring”, and the EP hypothesis was more directly related to the control of a mass-spring system. This simplification led to a prediction of the equifinality of natural movements. This term implies that a transient disturbance applied during a motor task should not affect the final state of the system, which should depend solely on the parameters of the assumed mass-spring system and external forces in the final state. Equifinality is a natural consequence of the control method described with adjustment of the threshold of the tonic stretching reflex for the muscles. In fact, for a given value λ and the same external force field, there is a single equilibrium point, that is, a combination of muscle length and strength. Transient forces acting during the transition of the system from an initial steady state to a final steady state can change the trajectory along which the system moves, but not the final steady state. In fact, a number of studies have reported equivalence of postural movements and tasks under a small and brief transient disturbance (Kelso & Holt, 1980; Schmidt and McGown, 1980; Bizzi et al., 1982; Latash and Gottlieb, 1990).