This document provides an in-depth discussion of asymmetry, its origin, and its significance. It begins by outlining the author's theory of human behavior, which views behavior as transforming an initial physical reality into a subjectively desired form through actionable movements limited by controllable and uncontrollable factors. The optimization strategy is to maximize contributive conducts and minimize futile conducts. The notion of asymmetry arises from considering the relationship between actionable movements, which is determined by uncontrollable factors. This relationship can make some movements reversals of each other if they have opposing momentum in how they impact desirability, or cognates if they have the same momentum. The document aims to rigorously define and develop the meaning of

1. Wen 1
Defining Asymmetry: Its Origin and Its Significance
in the Broad Social Context and Contemporary
Market Economy
--- By Zhengyang Wen

2. Wen 2
Table of Contents
0. Prologue ………………………………………………………………………….………3
1. Preliminaries: the Theory of Human Behavior………………………………….……..4
1A.The Formation of Human Behavior…………………………...……………………4
1B.The Optimization Strategy of Human Behavior....……….………………………..6
1C.Human Behavior within the Socioeconomics Context……………………………..8
2. The Notion of Asymmetry: Its Origin and Its Interpretation………………………..11
2A.The Derivation of the Concept of Asymmetry.........................................................11
2B.The Interpretation of Asymmetry: Its Significance and Its Implication for
Human Behavior………………………………………………………………………..14
2C.The Origin of Asymmetry: a Theory of Structural
Qualification…………………………………………….…………………………...….15
2D.Concept Illustration, a Historical Example: the Society of Hunters and
Collectors………………………………………………………………………………..17
2E.The Specification of the Quantitative Model of Human Behavior and the
Determination of the Competitive Nash Equilibrium as the Source of
Asymmetry….…………………………………………………………………………..25
2F.Model Interpretation, a Qualitative Reflection…………………………………...37
3. The Manifestation of Asymmetry in the Contemporary Market Economy: Its Form
and Significance in the Contemporary Market Structure…………………………...41
3A.The Form of Asymmetry in the Market Economy………………………………..41
3B.The Significance of Asymmetry in the Market Economy: the Salient Anchor and
the Observable Indicator of Industrial Vicissitude…………………………………..47

3. Wen 3
0. Prologue:
This original article is dedicated to give a thorough discussion of the
most essential conceptpresented in the research of my Econ Honors
Program: the notion of Asymmetry. Different from any usual or
traditional way of interpretation for this term, this article is going to give
a precise exposition and rigorous development of the meaning of
Asymmetry under the context of social and economic concerns, and adopt
it as the basis of deduction for the later part of the research exploration. It
has been composed in a progressive sequence of exhibitions of ideas and
concepts, and each part of this dissertation has been logically built upon
the foundations laid in the former sections.
The building of the notion of Asymmetry starts with a comprehensive
illustration on my original theory of human behavior. This theory serves
as the rootand buttress for the entire derivation of the idea of Asymmetry,
and it is one of the most significant theoretical analysis that I’ve
developed in my undergraduate study of economics. It has highly
generalizable theoretical value, and most importantly, it provides me with
a behavioral perspective to understand economic and social issues.
After this, the texts would dig into the accurate derivation of the
definition of the notion of Asymmetry by focusing on its origin and its
manifestation, and explore the social significance and applicability value
of this notion in the environment of market economy.

4. Wen 4
1. Preliminaries: The Theory of Human Behavior
A. The Formation of Human Behavior:
Human behavior is the process oftransforming the exogenously
determined initial physical reality into a subjectively desired form by
realizing and executing the endogenously manipulative actionable
movements and changes.
Assumption1.1:The desirabilityof any given form of exogenous
realityfor a given person is biologicallyand culturallydictated, thus
remainsto be insensitiveand constant to endogenouslymanipulative
actionablemovementsand changes (i.e. the desirabilityof any given
form of physical reality for a given person is intrinsicundera
specified biologicaland culturalcontext).
Human behavior is fundamentally based on two distinctive aspects,
the controllable factors and the uncontrollable factors.
Controllable factors:Factors that are influenced and modifiable by
the person’s volitional determination, and are shaped endogenously.
The controllable factors characterize the entire spaceof choices and
options of actionable movements.
Uncontrollable factors:Factors that are external to the subjective
thinking and conducts ofthe person, and are shaped exogenously. The
uncontrollable factors delineate the framework through which human
behaviors are translated into exogenously influential stimuli that is
embedded with the power to alter the initial physical reality.
Humans are free to choosetheir actionable movements endogenously
within the limit of controllable factors; their choice of actionable
movements would not change the intrinsic desirability of any given
form of physical reality with respect to a specific biological and
cultural context; for each endogenous choice it would producea
particular alternation on the initial physical reality, and this particular

5. Wen 5
change is determined exogenously by the framework of translation
structured by the uncontrollable factors.
With the knowledge and understanding of this behavioral system, the
actionable movements within the range of controllable variables could
be generally categorized into two separate groups with respectto the
different types of alternations on the initial physical reality that they
would produceexogenously under the given framework of translation
structured by the uncontrollable factors.
Contributive Conducts: actionable movements within the limit of
controllable factors that would producean alternation on the initial
physical reality with increased desirability exogenously under the
given framework of translation structured by the uncontrollable
factors.
Futile Conducts: actionable movements within the limit of
controllable factors that would producean alternation on the form of
exogenous reality with equal or decreased desirability exogenously
under the given framework of translation structured by the
uncontrollable factors.
This dichotomy gives rise to the following postulate.
Postulate1.2:Human behavioris the process of selection of the
maximum amountof contributiveconductsand the minimum
amountof futileconducts within the limitof controllablefactors
underthe given framework of translation structured by the
uncontrollablefactors.
The formation of human behavior has been practically reduced to a
sequential process.
Postulate1.3: Human behavioris primarilyformed through three
steps 1.The identificationof the controllablefactors and the
uncontrollablefactors in the given physical reality. 2. The
separation of the actionablemovementswithinthe set of

6. Wen 6
controllablefactors intocontributiveconducts and futileconducts
underthe translation framework structured by the uncontrollable
factors 3. The choice of exhaustiveaccumulation of contributive
conducts and disposition of futileconducts.
This derivation reveals a model which captures the essentials of
human behavior with any prescribed combination of parameters.
Theorem 1.4:Given the followingfourparameters: 1.the initial
exogenous physical realitythat the human isfacing 2.the biological
and cultural backgroundof the human 3.the set of controllable
factors of the human 4.the set of uncontrollablefactors of the
human, the subsequentbehaviorsof the human and the eventual
form of the changed realityafter these behaviors could be
completelydetermined accordingto the three-step rule given in
Postulate1.3
B. The Optimization Strategyof Human Behavior:
As a natural reasoning, in an effort to transform the given initial
exogenous physical reality into a form with the optimal potential
desirability, humans have to analyze the various effects of changes in
these four parameters and endeavor to capitalize on these discoveries
for the most prudent strategy of shaping their own behavior.
Among these four deterministic parameters, humans only have the
freedom to influence the controllable factors as all the others are
either taken as given or exogenous.
Postulate1.5:Conditionalon a given combination ofthe other three
factors, the effectiveness of human behaviorisdirectly determined
by the composition of the controllablefactors: the largerthe content
of contributiveconductsand the smallerthe content of futile
conducts within the set of controllablefactors, the higher the
potential desirabilitythat the human behaviorislikelyto produce,
vice versa.

7. Wen 7
Consequently, the dominant strategy of shaping human behavior
given a combination of the other three factors for any person is to
maximize the content of contributive conducts and minimize the
content of futile conducts within the set of controllable factors.
Assumption1.6:The size of the set of controllablefactors is dictated
by the total resources (time, space, stamina, assets, human & social
capital etc.) possessed by the person underdiscussion. Thissize
remainsinsensitiveand constantto changesin both the endogenous
choices of actionablemovements and the exogenouslydetermined
uncontrollablevariables. Thissize is only influenced bythe person’s
own status during the formation of his behavior and isdetermined
previousto this process.
Cardinality: The size of a person’s setof controllable factors during
the formation of a particular behavior.
For a given combination of all the other three parameters and a
person’s own pre-determined cardinality, the aggregation of
contributive conducts and futile conducts is fixed.
Postulate1.7:The conversion between futileconducts and
contributiveconducts within the set of controllablefactors under the
framework of translation structured by the uncontrollablefactors is
endogenous.
Build from the several previous arguments, the formation of an
optimizing strategy is completed.
Theorem 1.8:Conditionalon anygiven combinationsof the other
three parametersand the person’s pre-determined cardinality, the
optimizationstrategy of human behavioristhe strategy that operates
to convert futileconducts into contributiveconducts at the largest
scale within the set of controllablefactors. This strategy would
result in a set of controllablefactors withthe highest content of
contributiveconductsand lowestcontent of futileconducts, and
subsequentlydeterminesa human behaviorthat wouldtransform

8. Wen 8
the given initial exogenousphysical realityinto a form with the
highest level of desirability.
C. Human Behaviorwithin the Socioeconomic Context:
A synthesis of a group of item is the summation of these individual
objects together with the interactions and synergies between them.
Society is the synthesis of a group of people, their aggregate
behaviors and their natural resources and artificial properties.
This definition would have particular significance for a society
based on the institution of market economy.
Historically speaking, the essence of human behavior has gone
through several stages of constant variations in consistency with
the progress of society. During the prehistorical era and the early
ages of agricultural society, the major concern of human behavior
is focused on the choices of allocation of their strength and stamina
into different types of labors of human production (cultivation,
construction, gathering, fabrication of daily utensils etc.). Humans
depend mostly on self-fulfilling economy by producing their own
life necessities. In this stage, the primary way that human beings
transform any given exogenous physical reality is by devoting their
personal labors directly to reshape their natural surroundings.
However, things begin to change when the society has entered the
stage of industrialization and scientific theorization, and the
traditional agriculturally-emphasized society embraces a brand-
new institution of value-exchange---the system of market
economy.
In a modern society with the profound incorporation and
assimilation of the institution of market economy, human beings
transform their physical reality primarily through their engagement
into economic activities.

9. Wen 9
Economic activities:the activities that occurin a social
framework of market economy in which people producegoods and
services, participate in exchanges and transactions, and acquire the
economic wealth (the right of access to the goods and services of
other people) as a result.
Economic Success:The effectiveness ofa person’s engagement
into economic activities.
These notions give a natural rise to the following simplifying
assumption in light of the most basic human biological needs for a
stable source of material support (food, utilities, the financial cost
of social interactions etc.) and amenity (health and medical service,
tourism demands, entertainment etc.) as well as the prevalent
cultural worships of economic success.
Assumption1.9:The desirabilityof an exogenous physical reality
for a given person under the socioeconomic context is directly
characterized by his level of personal economic success under
this reality. The higher the level of economicsuccess, the higher
the desirabilityof the reality, vice versa.
The influence of a society on the human behavior of its members is
not only concerned with the stipulation of the measurement of
desirability. The social implication of human behavior is more
heavily focused on the specification of the sets of uncontrollable
factors of its members.
Postulate1.10:Society is the largest macroenvironment
concerning human behaviorand itis the primaryinstitution
responsiblefor the determination of uncontrollablefactors for its
members.
Society determines the various methods and rules through which
its members’ volitional efforts could be translated into socially
productive goods and services and then be exchanged for material

10. Wen 10
wealth (the right of access to goods and services produced byother
people in the society).
More specifically, the society lays the foundational framework and
macro-environment of economic activities, and then determines the
rules and methods for its members to translate their endogenous
efforts into economic success.

11. Wen 11
2. The Notionof Asymmetry: Its Origin and Its Interpretation
A. The Derivation of the Conceptof Asymmetry:
As elaborated in the previous section, human behavior is confined
within the limit of controllable factors, and the endogenous choice of
actionable movements depends on the various alternation on the initial
exogenous physical reality that the different actionable movements
would produceunder the framework of translation structured by
uncontrollable factors. Given a combination of the initial exogenous
physical reality, the set of uncontrollable factors, and the biological
and cultural background of the human, the higher the content of
contributive conducts and the lower the content of futile conducts
within the set of controllable factors, the higher the desirability of the
changed exogenous physical reality that the human behavior is able to
generate. Thus, take the size of the set of controllable factors as pre-
determined, the optimization strategy of human behavior is the
strategy that operates to convert futile conducts into contributive
conducts at the largest scale.
Due to the endogenous nature of the controllable factors and its fixed
cardinality, an optimizing person would endeavor to realize the
maximum conversion of futile conducts into contributive conducts to
achieve a behavior that yields the alternation on the initial exogenous
physical reality with the highest level of desirability.
A natural question to ask at this point is that: To what extent can a
personconvert the futile conducts into contributive conducts?Or what
is the limit and boundary of this conversion?
Based their endogenous decisions on the exogenous translating effect
of the framework of uncontrollable variables, people are able to
unambiguously categorize the type of each actionable movements
within the set of controllable factors. But what determines the
relationship between these actionable movements? And what
prescribes the convertibility between them?

12. Wen 12
Postulate2.1:Any intrinsic, stable, resilientand binding
relationship between individual objects is determined byexogenous
factors and isisolated from the endogenousproperties of each of
these objects.
With the principle given in this postulate, the relationship between
each of these actionable movements must also be characterized by
some exogenous factors on which neither of these actionable
movements hold deterministic influence. Under the consideration and
development of this model, this fact provides a convenient answer.
Precisely speaking, the uncontrollable factors.
Theorem 2.2:The relationship between any twoactionable
movementswithin the set of controllablefactors is determined bythe
set of uncontrollablefactors.
The issue of convertibility between futile conducts and contributive
conducts is consequently a problem pivots around their exogenously
translated stimuli to the physical world under the framework of
uncontrollable factors.
Without the loss of generality, the translated stimuli either increases
the desirability of the initial exogenous physical reality, decreases it,
or cause no substantial changes to it. Thus, we could describe the
exogenous propertyof any actionable movement within the set of
controllable factors conferred by the framework of translation
structured by the uncontrollable factors in terms of their influence
over the initial exogenous physical reality.
An actionable movement within the set of controllable factors is said
to have a positivemomentum if the exogenously translated stimulus
to the physical reality under the framework of uncontrollable factors
increases the desirability of the initial exogenous physical reality.
An actionable movement within the set of controllable factors is said
to have a negativemomentum if the exogenously translated stimulus
to the physical reality under the framework of uncontrollable factors

13. Wen 13
deceases the desirability of the initial exogenous physical reality or
causes no substantial changes to it.
Contributive conducts have positive momentum, and futile conducts
have negative momentum.
As two actionable movements are either both of same type of
momentum (two contributive conducts ortwo futile conducts) orof
different types (a contributive conductand a futile conduct), their
relationship could be summarized as follow.
A pair of actionable movements are called reversals if they have
different types of momentum.
A pair of actionable movements are called cognates if they have the
same type of momentum.
For any given pair of actionable movements, they are either reversals
or cognates. This relationship is already exogenously determined by
the framework of translation structured by the uncontrollable factors.
In accordancewith theorem 2.2, for a given pair of reversals, there
must be another dimension of properties given exogenously by the set
of uncontrollable factors that dictates the convertibility between these
two actionable movements.
Central Concept 1: It is said that there exists Symmetrybetween a
pairof reversals if they are not convertibleto each other. The
existence of Symmetryis exogenouslydetermined.
Central Concept 2: It is said that there exists Asymmetrybetween a
pairof reversals if they are convertibleto each other. The existence
of Asymmetryis exogenouslydetermined.
One might feel peculiar about the fact that Symmetry and Asymmetry
between pairs of reversals are exogenously determined, as after all,
actionable movements are endogenous. But recall that even each of

14. Wen 14
these individual actionable movement is endogenous in nature, the
relationships between them are not, as resilient and persistent
relationships between different objects must depend on exogenous
factors.
B. The Interpretation of Asymmetry: Its Significance and Its
Implication for Human Behavior:
Asymmetry characterizes the existence of convertibility between a
pair of reversals. It permits the person who constructs his behavior to
optimize this duo by converting the actionable movement with
negative momentum into the actionable movement with positive
momentum. The net result is an increase in the eventual desirability
that his behavior is going to produce.
However, the determination of both the types of momentum possessed
by and the existence of Asymmetry between any two actionable
movements is given exogenously. Yet, given this confinement of
exogeneity, the endogenous choice of human behaviors is endowed
with the freedom of optimization by capitalizing on the inherent
Asymmetry between reversals in fulfilment of their subjective wants
and desires.
Theorem 2.3:Asymmetryis the most essential property inherent in
any exogenouslydetermined situation thathuman behaviors
capitalizeon in order to endogenouslyoptimizethe exogenously
yielded outcomes.
Asymmetry is the underlying bridge that enables human behavior to
transcend the indefatigable boundary between exogeneity and
endogeneity, and conveys people’s subjective psyches the power to
‘communicate’ with the objective physical world, and even the
potency to reshape it in any preferred manner.
The identification of Asymmetry betweenpairs of reversals gives
people the key to harness the intractable physical realities
through the exploitation of their exogenouslyinherent

15. Wen 15
relationships of mutual convertibility. It is the most cardinal
channel for human behaviors to externalize the internal human
desires.
C. The Origin of Asymmetry: a Theory of Structural Qualification
A natural question to proposeat this point is that: where exactly does
the Asymmetry between pairs of reversals come from? If people are
able to excavate the origins of the Asymmetry, it would be much more
convenient and handy to identify the underlying Asymmetry to exploit
in their behavior construction.
Up until now, the only influence that the uncontrollable factors caston
the actionable movements is the translational effect. In order to pin
down the existence of Asymmetry or Symmetry between pairs of
reversals, this translation process must possess another set of
underlying characteristics that serves as the origin of Asymmetry.
The Asymmetry is generated when a pair actionable movements are
translated into a pair of exogenous stimuli with opposite momentum
while they are convertible to each other. The determinants of
Asymmetry must be shaped as an intrinsic by-productof this
translation process itself. More specifically, the determination of
Asymmetry is accomplished at the threshold (the contactpoint of
uncontrollable factors and actionable movements, i.e. the point where
the actionable enters the environment of uncontrollable factors) of the
initiation of the translation process bythe set of uncontrollable
factors.
To be more precise, the origins of Asymmetry is neither directly
determined by actionable movements nor the uncontrollable factors
Postulate2.4:The determinantsand originsof Asymmetryare
conveyed at the momentof mutualpresence of actionable
movementsand uncontrollablefactors.

16. Wen 16
To summarize this configuration of the dual presence of actionable
movements and uncontrollable factors, we could incorporate these
two set of items into a single interactive entity called a complex.
A complex is an independent entity comprised of the actionable
movements and uncontrollable factors and their interactions with each
other.
Within the complex, actionable movements are reflected into
exogenous stimuli through the framework of translation structured by
uncontrollable factors, but not yet enter the physical reality. That is to
say, these interactions between actionable movements and
uncontrollable factors are internal.
What is the implication of the specification of a complex on the
origins and sources of Asymmetry? Inferring from its previous
definition and borrowing from the statement of Postulate 2.4, we
could acquire the following result.
Postulate2.5:The originsof Asymmetry is determined asa
structural product of the complex. It mediatesthe translated
exogenous stimuli intothe physical reality.
The origins of Asymmetry, consequently, must be characterized as an
abstraction of the complex’s structure.
The complex synthesizes the actionable movements, which are
connected to people’s volitions and subjective decisions, with the
uncontrollable factors, which describe all the objective physical facts
that are external to the human changes. Thus, the structural property
of this duo is rendered with essentially a competitive balance. The two
competing forces are the human behaviors and the physical
environment in which all the deterministic factors are finely
contained: the physical environment influence the final outcome of
the reality in the way it has previously determined exogenously
without any specific concern for any subjective wills and desires of
human beings; the human behavior observes this fact and embraces

17. Wen 17
the exogeneity of the world, while it exploits on the potential
opportunity of transformation between contributive conducts and
futile conducts in order to optimize the desirability of the outcome.
The equilibrium of this competing process happens when all the
possible conversions between reversals are realized, which implies no
further marginal conversion is permitted. At this equilibrium, both the
exogenously determined physical realities (holds to be constant in any
give situation) and the human behaviors have no incentive to deviate
unilaterally, which means that this equilibrium characterizes a Nash
Equilibrium.
The origins of Asymmetry, thus is fundamentally a competitiveresult.
The competition between the two forces determines the level of
underlying Asymmetry that is embedded in each complex.
This interpretation gives rise to the single most important qualitative
theorem of this article.
Theorem 2.6:The originsand sources of Asymmetryisthe
competitiveNash Equilibrium between humanintention and the
physical realityin anygiven complex.
Now we are ready to suspend our theoretical deduction for a moment
and look at an examples in which the competitive Nash Equilibrium
between humans and their physical realities provide abundant source
of Asymmetry for exploitation.
D. ConceptIllustration, a HistoricalExample: the Societyof Hunters
and Collectors
Postulate2.7: Humansaredifferentiated from animalsand plants
because they are ableto systematicallyand scientificallyharness the
powerof Asymmetry, whileall the other livingbeingsare only
confined to their own biologicallydependent characteristicsfor the
access of Asymmetry.

18. Wen 18
The very first stage of human society is characterized by small
communities comprised of a relatively small amount of fixed
members. These communities are often tied together through their
members’ genetically based kinship, and are assumed to be limited in
terms of their population sizes due to the low level of social
productivity.
At this stage, humans rely their sources of food supply upon their
hunting and collecting activities. They are heavily influenced by the
condition of their habitats: the exuberance and barrenness of the
environment often directly determines the prosperity and poorness of
the population, and some extremely fertile areas even give birth to the
first several most thriving human civilizations.
At this initial stage, the living style of humans are not very separated
from animals. The immediate physical realities in which they base
their behaviors are the natural surroundings, and their actionable
movements are primarily manual labors for food acquirement.
The physical realities evolve in a rhythmic way, changing from day to
night, spring to winter. Humans choosetheir own labors to acquire the
most abundant and stable sourceof food. As at this stage, nature is the
only food producer, humans take into accountof this exogenously
determined fact, and analyze the pros and cons of their behaviors in
terms of the effectiveness of exploitation on the nature’s food supply.
So, how does human systematically and scientifically exploit the
underling Asymmetry within their environment? And what is the
fundamental difference between human and animal at this stage? As
seen from the discussion right before, humans live in a basically
similar way as the animals, and they wield their biologically
determined muscles and speed for food acquirement. It seems like
humans are plausibly just one particular type of animals without
anything remarkable enough to presage their absolute dominance in
the future.

19. Wen 19
However, the truth hidden in any mystery is not always what it
‘seems’ to be. Humans differ from animals at this stage essentially in
two ways. First, humans not only depend their hunting and gathering
activities on their muscles and speed, but also on their ingenious
invention of tools. Second, humans have a comprehensive
understanding of the nature’s rhythm, and migrate occasionally from
place to place.
Tools refer to any human creation that are previously non-existent in
nature used to enhance the social productivity.
At this stage, the tools are physical utensils made from bones, stones,
plants etc. that are used to facilitate their gathering and hunting
activities.
But, how exactly do human beings make these artifacts which they
have never observed in their immediate realities? Or where do these
designs come from?
The answer to this question is rather unobvious, and it simultaneously
explains the root of the difference between humans and animals. We
proceed with a sequence of logical deductions to reach this answer.
Humans have a much stronger self-consciousness than the animals.
That is, humans are able to isolate their own existence from the nature
in which they live. Humans perceive themselves as not a
homogenous integralpart of the nature but an independent
species who absorbs natural resources to support their living. The
formation of this self-consciousness is the beginning that human
beings learn to systematically and scientifically exploit Asymmetry.
The formation of this significant self-conscious, in turn, is the result
of the intellectual development of human brain, more specifically, the
development of the capacious memory.
Humans are able to memorize the exogenous stimulations from
external world in the form of vision, sound, touch and smell, and use

20. Wen 20
these stimulations in associative mental activities to form abstract
concept---the process that humans internalize the image of the
external world.
With the memorized images of the sequences of alternations in their
physical surroundings, humans soondiscover the fact that: the nature
is cyclicalin essence: the sun rises and falls every day, the leaves
grow yellow and green, the rivers freeze and thaw…Humans then
understand that: their own subjective existence must be separated
from the tacit rhythm of the nature as they themselves remain to
be relatively unchanged in these cyclicalnatural process.
Their identification of independence from this cyclical nature is
precisely what gives rise to the stipulation of the most far-reaching
and most profound concept: time.
Postulate2.8:Timeis the human perceptual span overwhich the
physical world undergoescyclical movements.
Time is limitless, and this absence of limitation is rendered by the
human’s perception of the cyclical nature of the world: for any natural
event to take place, it must have a beginning and an end, and this
natural event repeats itself relentlessly. The antithesis between the
fixed human perspective constructed by their daily memories of their
physical surroundings and the ever-changing cyclical nature
enhances the self-consciousness ofhuman beings, and further
accentuates the human’s separation from the natural process.
As an inevitable consequenceof this strong self-consciousness,
humans begin to have a constructan ideology of persistent contrast
between their own wills and the pervasive rhythms of the nature.
This corresponds to the first step within our model of human
behavior: humans begin to be conscious ofthe dichotomy between
controllable and uncontrollable factors.
Instead of taking all their necessities from nature in an obedient way,
humans begin their own accumulation of the knowledge of nature for

21. Wen 21
creation. In their daily labor, humans memorize the shapes, texture,
and hardness of different natural objects, and store these information
in their reservoir of knowledge.
As an ultimate concern, humans abstract these particular properties,
and separate them into basically two groups: those properties that are
conductive to their acquisition of food source;those properties that are
hindering to their acquisition of food source. For the first group, these
properties are: sharpness, solidness, ductility, lightness, smoothness
etc. For the second group, these properties are: bluntness, softness,
unwieldiness, heaviness, and roughness etc.
All these characteristics would influence the efficiency of human
labor in some way, and humans, in their daily activities, engage with
different combinations of these properties.
For example, humans may collect big stones and throw them at their
preys to kill them, these stones are hard and some have sharp angles,
but they are heavy to carry and transport. This would cause humans to
be slow in their chasing for animals and give these preys chances of
escape. Also, humans may use the branches of big trees as weapons to
battle the animals. These branches are much lighter in comparison
with the stones and are thus easy and convenient to carry and
transport. Humans would use these branches with agility in their
hunting activities. However, these branches are generally less solid
then the stones, they are fragile to forces and crashes and are likely to
break, and again, beasts would have chances of escape. Humans
become aware of these inherent properties in their daily lives, and are
able to generalize them to the recognitions and analysis of other
objects.
With this familiarity, humans becomecapable of distinguishing
between the underlying pros and cons of every choice of action they
made in their daily activities of food acquisition in terms of their
influence on their labor efficiency.

22. Wen 22
This corresponds to the secondstep within our model of human
behavior: humans are categorizing the actionable movements
within the set of controllable factors (their choice ofweapons for
hunting, collecting, andways of doing it etc.) into contributive
conducts and futile conducts under the framework of translation
structured by the uncontrollable factors (the hunting arena:the
natural environment, the biologicalcharacteristicsofthe preys
etc.).
After the identifications of these different characteristics of the natural
objects around them, humans then choosetheir actionable movements
among their set of controllable factors by determining which natural
weapon to wield in their daily hunting taking into account both the
biological structures of the animals and the terrains of the locales for
their hunting.
For example, given that their preys are wild rabbits living in the
forests who have fast speed but fragile body, humans would choose
branches fallen from big trees as their weapon. Given that their preys
are large and bulky bears living in the high mountains with strong
bodies but slow movements, humans would chooseto carry the big
stones as weapons in their attacks.
That is to say, given any specific type of prey and the natural
conditions of their hunting arena, humans choosetheir weapons from
nature which possessthe maximum amount of conductive properties
while the minimum amount of hindering properties.
This corresponds to the third step within our model of human
behavior: humans build their behavior by making the choice of
exhaustive accumulationof contributive conducts and disposalof
futile conducts within the set of controllable factors
The story of human behavior in the society of collectors and hunters
doesn'tend here, because, after all, we haven’t reach the point on how
exactly does human invent their tools. This invention correspondsto
the process that humans systematically and scientifically harness the

23. Wen 23
power of Asymmetry, and, it is the competitive NashEquilibrium
betweenhuman intention and the physical nature in this complex.
Normally, humans would only be able to base their actions on the
peculiarities of their situations: that is humans have to choosetheir
actionable movements by comparing the specifics ofthe exact
situations that they are facing with: forest rabbits means the choice of
fallen branches, mountain bears entails the usage of boulders. A fatal
disadvantage is that: these choices do not have generalizable values.
Try to think the situation in which humans accidentally encounter
chimpanzees when they are hunting rabbits in the forest. Should they
wield their branches to fight these nimble and powerful beasts?The
more likely story is that humans themselves would be endangered by
the vicious attacks of the flocks of angry chimpanzees.
Another natural outgrowth of the separation of conductive properties
and hindering properties is the mental creationof an imaginary
gadgetwhich possessesall the conductive properties while excludes
all the hindering properties. This imaginary gadget is genuinely the
embodiment of the perfection of human choice in an effort to
maximize the efficiencyof hunting.
For example, humans imagine a hunting weapon that is: light, sharp,
solid, ductile, and smooth to hold. This imaginary weapon would
largely facilitate humans’ hunting activities.
In practice, this imaginary weapon is almost impossible to producefor
humans at that stage of civilization. A more reasonable guess is that
humans try their bestto approximateit by making moderate levels
of trade-offs in its fabrication betweenthe realizationof
conductive properties (sharpness, solidness etc.)and the
acceptanceofhindering properties (heaviness, roughness etc.).
The competitive relationship is evident and transparent at this point.
Occasionally, humans would get in touch with nature-produced
weapons that possess eachof these characteristics separatelyin their

24. Wen 24
daily lives. Humans then subjectively extract these properties,
separate them into groups, and invent a new tool to synthesize as
much beneficial properties and as less harmful properties as they can.
This approximating synthesis of characteristics is precisely what
generates the set of ingenious tools that human creates which are
originally heterogeneous from their nature. With the invention of
tools, humans transfer those various indigenous hunting choices
that they are forced to make every day in regards to the specifics
of the situation that they are facing into a single pre-meditated
humanized device with a combination of versatile characteristics.
The designing and making process ofthis artifact is what converts
their volatile experience of searching for the generally unreliable
natural weapons into the direct application of a definite and reliable
artifact that possessmostof conductive characteristics while less
hindering characteristics.
For example, humans are able to carve stone into sharp and thin edges
and cover the end of this edge with smoothfells for handling. Thus,
no matter what kind of animals they meet, a prudent hunter would be
able to wield this weapon to fulfil their duty: whether we are talking
about running rabbits, bulky chimpanzees, strong bears etc. they are
all vulnerable to it. As this tool incorporate the characteristics of
sharpness, solidness and lightness (they can be hollow), humans are
freed from their daily decisions and are able to carry this versatile
weapon in any occasions without the need to base their own decisions
on the natural conditions.
This corresponds to the stage describedin our model of human
behavior that humans convert the futile conducts into
contributive conducts within the setof controllable factors, the
process that humans exploit the hidden Asymmetry within the
sets of reversals to maximize the desirability of the eventual form
of physical reality after the alternations causedby their behaviors.
Our final concernfor this illustration should rest on the stipulation of
the source of Asymmetry, i.e. how the competitive Nash Equilibrium
between human behavior and the physical reality is settled in practice.

25. Wen 25
To accomplish this task, we establish a quantitative model and base
our analysis on the results produced bythe forecasts of the model.
E. The Specificationofthe Quantitative Model of Human Behavior
and the Determination of the Competitive NashEquilibrium as
the Source ofAsymmetry:
In order to quantitatively measure the interactive forces between
human behavior and physical reality, we pushthe definitions of our
original terminologies to a more detailed level.
First, we assign a cardinal number to any given form of physical
reality to denote its level of desirability.
The actionable movements within the set of controllable factors are
translated into exogenously effective alternations that would change
the level of desirability of the initial physical reality, and we denote
these alternations under the framework of translation structured
by the uncontrollable factors as either positiveor negativecardinal
numbersthat would be added to the level of desirability of the
initial physical reality.
Postulate2.10:Measured quantitatively, the eventual effect of
human behavioron the physical realityis the addition of the level of
desirabilityof the initialphysical realityand the alternationsof the
chosen actionablemovements underthe framework of translation
structured by uncontrollablefactors.
For a given set of controllable factors, there exists a cardinal number
that correspondsto the average alternationof all the actionable
movements under the framework of translation structured by the set of
uncontrollable factors, as the cardinality of this set is always pre-
determined and remains to be finite. To simplify our exposition, we
give the following definition.
Threshold: The average alternation of all actionable movements
within a given set of controllable factors under the framework of
translation structured by uncontrollable factors.

26. Wen 26
Threshold always measure the generalability of human behavior
to improve the desirability of a given physical reality.
Another important parameter in our model of human behavior is the
relative quantity of contributive conducts and futile conducts within
the set of controllable factors. The quantitative definition of
contributive and futile conducts, in this case, however, should be a
little different for our original one.
According to our original definition, the contributive conducts
increase the level of desirability of the initial physical reality, which
means that they possessa positive alternation under the framework of
transformation structured by uncontrollable factors. By the same
token, the futile conducts correspondto those actionable movements
that possess anegative or null alternation under the framework of
translation structured by the set of uncontrollable factors.
In order to accentuate the comparability between contributive
conducts and futile conducts, we modify this definition a little bit and
set the point of comparison as the average alternation, the threshold,
rather than zero.
Contributive conducts: actionable movements within the set of
controllable factors that possessan alternation largerthan the
threshold of this set.
Futile conducts: actionable movements within the set of controllable
factors that possessan alternation smalleror equal to the threshold
of this set.
Contributive conducts representthe potential momentum to
increase the effective alternationof human behavior, while futile
conducts represent the potential inertia to decrease the effective
alternation of human behavior.

27. Wen 27
Genuinely, the original definition of futile and contributive conducts
becomes a sub-case ofthis definition: when the threshold equals
zero, our new definition coincides with the original one. That is to
say: our new definitions of futile and contributive conducts is a
generalizedversion of the old one.
With these definitions, we could proceed to stipulate the gauge that
measures the relative quantity of contributive conducts and futile
conducts within a given set of controllable factors.
Effective content: the ratio of the number of contributive conducts
within the given set of controllable factors to its cardinality. The
effective content is always between 0 and 1.
Effective content always measure the potential efficiency of
human behavior, it characterizesthe ease withwhich human
behavior could searchfor and accumulate contributive conducts
within the set of controllable factors.
In our quantitative model of human behavior, we set the independent
variable as the threshold, and the dependent variable as the effective
content. And we incorporate the two competing forces: the
endogenous alternation effect of the human behavior and the
exogenous self-evolving physical reality which are fixed as given for
any complex (defined previously: an independent entity comprised of
the actionable movements and uncontrollable factors and their
interactions with each other).
We now continue our discussionby exploring these two forces
separately, and then superimpose them to complete our analysis.
The side of human intention: humans constructtheir behavior out of
their pursuit for maximization of the eventual desirability of the
physical reality. Thus, the higher the threshold, the higher their
satisfactorylevel of effective content. More precisely, the higher the
given level of threshold, the higher the effective content that human
intention is willing to have. This rule can be illustrated as follow:

28. Wen 28
The side of physical reality: physical reality is always external to
human decisions, as it does not take into accountthe pursuit and
attainment of human satisfaction. So, for any random level of
threshold, the effective content of the set of controllable factors in a
given physical reality remains constant, which means: from the
perspective of physical reality, the effective content is perfectly
inelastic to the changes in threshold. This rule can be illustrated as
follow. Here, we denote the given effective content determined by the
translational effect of the uncontrollable factors as the initial Level.
Now we are ready to superimpose these two curves and determine the
first equilibrium level of effective content.

29. Wen 29
As illustrated above, the first equilibrium level of effective content
is settled at the initial level. The equilibrium correspondsto a specific
level of threshold, we denote it as t1.
The next step is to introduce the alternations of human behaviors into
this model. As proposed previously, human behavior alters the
physical reality in ways that maximizes the potential desirability of
the eventual form of the initial reality.
Thus, the immediate consequence ofthe execution of a human
behavior is a rightward shift of the curve of physical reality.

30. Wen 30
We can see from the graph that: the curve of physical reality has
shifted from p1 to p2, the equilibrium efficient content has been
shifted to e1 from the initial level, and the equilibrium threshold has
shifted from t1 to t2.
These changes can be interpreted as: the execution of human behavior
caused an increase in the equilibrium level of effective content as
well as an increase in the equilibrium level of threshold. We will
analyze these alternations in turn.
An increase in the equilibrium level of effective content means that:
the ratio between the number of contributive conducts within the set
of controllable factors and its cardinality has increased. As cardinality
is fixed previously in our model, this increase must be
characterizedby an increase in the number of contributive
conducts. Again, the cardinality is fixed, this also implies that the
number of futile conducts must have been decreased. A
conversionbetweenfutile conducts and contributive conducts
must have takenplace.
This process quantitatively delineates the stage of our model of
human behavior that in order to maximize the eventual desirability of
the physical reality human behavior converts the futile conducts into
contributive conducts within the set of controllable factors by
exploiting the Asymmetry between the sets of reversals.
It seems like: if we constantly execute the desirability-maximizing
human behavior, we could always lead to an increase in the effective
content until it reaches its maximum value 1.
However, this is not true, because there is another change caused by
the execution of human behavior that accompanies the increase in the
equilibrium level of effective content: the increase in the
equilibrium level of threshold.
This implicates the fact that: in the given complex, more actionable
conducts are about to be categorized as futile conducts and less

31. Wen 31
actionable conducts are about to be categorized as contributive
conducts as the point of comparisonhas been leveled up.
The net effect of this series ofchanges is a decrease inthe effective
content in the equilibrium physical reality.
Consequently, the line of physical reality must be shifted leftward to
accommodatethis decline. Illustrated as follows:
By the same token, the line of physical reality is shifted from p2 to p3,
and the equilibrium level of threshold declines from t2 to t3.
This implies that the point of comparisonhas been pushed down,
and more actionable movements would be categorized as
contributive conducts and less actionable movements would be
categorized as futile conducts.
The net effect of this series ofchanges is an increase in effective
content in the new equilibrium physical reality.
Consequently, the line of physical reality must be shifted rightwards
(from p3 to p4) to accommodatethis increase. Illustrated as follows:

32. Wen 32
Just like in the previous deductions, there is a change in the
equilibrium level of threshold (from t3 to t4). This implies that the
effective content in the resulted equilibrium physical reality must
change subsequently, which, shifts the line of physical reality again.
This process repeats itself until it reaches a point that the change in
the equilibrium level of threshold is small enough so that it would not
substantially influence the effective content in the resulted equilibrium
physical reality, and we call this point the stable peak.
Stable peak: an equilibrium point from which no further shifts of the
line of physical reality is possible because the changes in the
equilibrium level of threshold from the previous equilibrium point is
small enough so that it would not substantially influence the effective
content in the resulted equilibrium physical reality.
The illustration of the stable peak after the execution of the first
human behavior is given as follows:

33. Wen 33
This stable peak corresponds to the net result of an execution of
human behavior. And it is the competitive result betweenhuman
intention and physical reality. The force of human behavior
always shift the physical reality in the direction that increasesthe
effective content; the physical reality absorbs this force and
oscillates due to the constrictionof the changes in threshold which
would generally alter the effective content in the opposite
direction .
Now, we are clear about the net effectof human behavior on the
physical reality and effective content described by its stable peak, a
natural question to ask is: what is the limit of the execution of human
behavior?
As we learned from the previous analysis, a human behavior that
intends to shift the line of physical reality rightwards in order to
convert futile conducts into contributive conducts within the set of
controllable factors by exploiting the Asymmetry hidden in the sets of
reversals is accompaniedby the increase of the equilibrium level of
threshold. This would result in a decreasein the effective content
and unwillingly force the line of physical reality to shift leftwards.

34. Wen 34
As a result, the relative position of the stable peak of a human
behavior with respectto the initial line of physical reality is
determined by the relative size of these two shifts.
If the shifting effect of human behavior is largerthan the shifting
effectof changes in threshold, then the stable peak of the human
behavior would be at the right of the initial line of physical reality
(as illustrated through the previous graphs), this means that the net
effectof human behavior is an increase in the level of effective
content: a successin exploitation of Asymmetry, meaning that
there still exists marginal Asymmetry that is not fully utilized. .
If the shifting effect of human behavior is smaller than the shifting
effectof changes in threshold, then the stable peak of the human
behavior would be at the left of the initial line of physical reality
(not graphically illustrated here, but can be generalized from the
previous situation), this means that the net effectof human behavior
is a decrease in the level of effective content: a failure in
exploitation of Asymmetry, meaning that there is no more
marginal Asymmetry on which human behaviors could capitalize.
Theorem 2.11:The existence of marginalAsymmetrydependson
the relativeshifting effects of human behaviorand changesin
threshold. If the shifting effect of human behavioroutweighsthe
shifting effect of changes in threshold, there exists unexploited
marginal Asymmetry, viceversa.
With this theorem, we are able to establish the final state of the
physical reality, or, the largestextent to which human behavior is
able to increase the effective content, as a competitive Nash
Equilibrium betweenhuman intention and the physical reality
As long as the shifting effect of human behavior outweighs the
shifting effects of changes in threshold, humans should always
execute desirability-maximizing human behavior, as there still exists
unexploited marginal Asymmetry, which means that there are

35. Wen 35
unrealized potential conversions between futile conducts and
contributive conducts.
So there must exists a point at which the shifting effectof human
behavior equals the shifting effectof changes in threshold. From
this point, no further shifting in human behavior is going to
increase the effective contentas further shifting would entail a
largershifting effectof changes in threshold and would decrease
the effective content.
At this point, all marginal Asymmetry has been fully exploited,
and human intention has maximized its ability of leveling up the
effective content. Thus, human intention would have no unilateral
incentive to deviate from this point. Moreover, this point
corresponds to the stable peak of the last human behavior, which
means that: the changes in threshold is small enough so that it
would not significantly change the effective content, then the line
of physical reality would not undergo further shifts as a pure
consequence ofchanges in threshold. Then, the physical reality
would not have unilateral incentive to deviate from this point.
Indeed, this point is the competitive NashEquilibrium between
human intention and physical reality.
We give a graphical illustration of this as follow:

36. Wen 36
As seen from the graph, eachhuman behavior produces a stable
peak, and we denote the stable peak of the nth
behavior by Pn
*
.
Eachhuman behavior would shift the line of physical reality
rightwards to a stable peak, until it reaches the Nth
human
behavior at which the shifting effectof human behavior is equal to
the shifting effect of changes in threshold, the line of physical
reality labelledwith Pn
**
.
At this line, no further leftward shifts of human behavior is possible,
and the intersection between the line of physical reality and human
intention produces the competitive Nash Equilibrium.
This competitive NashEquilibrium corresponds to an equilibrium
level of efficient content en
**
, and an equilibrium levelof threshold
tn
**
. The difference betweenen
**
and the Initial level is the Sources
of Asymmetry. This difference stipulates the largestextent to
which human behavior could exploit the Asymmetry hidden in the
sets of reversals to convert futile conducts into contributive
conducts. The difference betweentn
**
and t1 is what we call the
Threshold Enhancement. This difference is an inevitable by-
product of the improvement in the effective content realized by
human behavior.
Furthermore, the sources ofAsymmetry always represents the
underlying space ofoptimization for human behavior until it
reaches the limit stipulated by the competitive NashEquilibrium
betweenhuman intention and physical reality.
Thus this model has fulfilled its duty of providing a quantitative
description of the conceptof Asymmetry based on our theory of
human behavior and an illustration of the assertion that we made
previously: the source of Asymmetry is determined by the competitive
Nash Equilibrium between Human Intention and Physical Reality.

37. Wen 37
F. ModelInterpretation: A Qualitative Reflection
As we acquired in the last sub-section of the quantitative model for
human behavior, the competitive Nash Equilibrium between human
intention and physical reality is ultimately determined by the
exploitation of Asymmetry by human behaviors to the point at which
the shifting effect of human behavior is equal to the shifting effect of
threshold.
What qualitative explanation can we give about this quantitative
result? And what exactly do these two shifting effects represent
respectively pertaining our model of human behavior?
As a matter of fact, our quantitative model of human behavior has
revealedan astonishing qualitative property of human intention in
any given complex. We analyze this result step by step to reach this
property.
The effectthat any human intention seeking to convertfutile
conducts into contributive conducts under the framework of
translation structured by the uncontrollable factors (i.e. in the
physical reality) would have a twofold consequence:
First, the equilibrium effective content of the setof controllable
factors would increase. This indicates that humans are now able
to construct their behaviors by selecting more contributive
conducts and less futile conducts within the set of controllable
factors. Their behavior would generally leadto an alternation in
the physical reality with a higher level of desirability.
We cansummarize this fact that as follows: the Asymmetry-
exploiting human behaviors simultaneously improve their own
efficiencyto achieve desirability.
Second, the average levelof alternation (the threshold) would
increase in a positive direction, which stems the arbitrary growth
in the efficiencyof human behavior. Due to the dependence of the

38. Wen 38
categorizationofcontributive conducts and futile conducts on the
threshold, the immediate effect of human behavior that increases
the effective contentwould be confined to a smallerlevel, and,
when it reaches the competitive NashEquilibrium, this
confinement even outweighs the human and makes the net
outcome a negative one.
Remember the fact that the effective contents always measure the
potential efficiency of human behavior and the threshold measures the
general ability of human behavior to improve the desirability of the
given physical reality, the second effect of human behavior described
above leads to the surprising fact that: when the general ability of
human behavior to improve the desirability of physical reality has
been increased, the efficiencyof their behavior would decrease, as
now it would be more difficult for them to searchfor and
accumulate contributive conducts within the set of controllable
factors.
This conclusion seems to be an implausible paradox at the first glance.
However, it makes reasonable sense when one try to reconsider it in a
real situation.
Take the previous example on the society of collectors and hunters as
the context of understanding this fact. The choice of human behavior
in that context, as we already discussed, mainly correspondsto the act
of tool fabrication. Through the invention of tools, humans transfer
their daily decisions of picking up a suitable natural weapon into the
single usage of this humanized device which synthesizes much of the
conductive properties and less of the hindering properties than those
naturally generated weapons.
When a human behavior has accomplished the wills of human
intentions of making such a versatile tool, it actually increases the
effective content of the controllable factors: as now, human behaviors
would have more contributive conducts to choose(the functions of
their weapons determine the type of effective hunting they could
choose, the more the function, the more the effective hunting).

39. Wen 39
At the same time, however, with the boostup in their effective
content, human behavior also gains a higher level of threshold. This
correspondsto the fact that human behaviors now have a generally
higher ability to improve the desirability of the physical reality (with
the humanized hunting weapon, their hunting activities now become
generally more effective in comparison to their past).
As a result, it becomes more difficult for them to accumulate
contributive conducts within the set of controllable factors due to the
fact that: now, with those ingenious tools already invented, it is
unlikely that humans could again find some other way to push their
hunting effectiveness to a more advanced level. This correspondsto
the statement that we are trying to convey: the efficiency of their
behavior has been decreased.
Thus, we have consummated our discussion of the second effect of
human behavior. We could summarize these two effects qualitatively
in the following theorem, which is the secondmost important
qualitative theorem of this article.
Theorem 2.12:Each human behavior withina given complex under
the human intention of desirability-maximization wouldimmediately
increase the efficiency of the subsequent humanbehaviors. Also, it
willcausean increase in the general abilityof subsequenthuman
behaviorsto improvethe desirabilityof physical reality, and in turn,
decrease their efficiency.
The net result of human behavior on the efficiency of the subsequent
behaviors is a combination of these two oppositeeffects. The first
effect which increases the efficiency represents the willingness of
human intention or its idealized reality; the second effect which
decreases the efficiency represents the balancing rules of the physical
reality that is external to human intention.
At the very early stage of development, the effect that represents the
human intention to increase the efficiency outweighs the effect that
represents the balancing rules of physical reality to decrease

40. Wen 40
efficiency. We denote the difference between these two effects as the
operable range.
Operable Range:the difference between the relative strength of the
effect representing human intention to increase the efficiency and the
effect representing the balancing rule of physical reality to decrease
the efficiency of a given human behavior.
Operable range always represents the discrepancybetweenthe
human efforts to endogenouslymodify the physical reality
according to their idealization and the tacit rules of physical
reality to evolve and change in a self-determined exogenous way
The larger the operable range, the stronger the net effects of a human
behavior to improve the efficiency of the subsequenthuman
behaviors.
With more and more executions of human behavior, the operable
range shrinks until it reaches the point of zero. This point corresponds
to the competitive Nash Equilibrium between human intention and
physical reality, also, the point that fundamentally determined the
sources of Asymmetry.
Thus, an important qualitative implication of this model is that:
humans should endeavorto enlarge the operable range in order to
be able to push the competitive NashEquilibrium further to a
higher level of efficiency(effective content).
Next, we continue our discussionon the notion of Asymmetry in the
context of market economy.

41. Wen 41
3. The Manifestationof Asymmetry in the ContemporaryMarket
Economy: Its Form and Significance in the Contemporary Market
Structure
A. The Form of Asymmetry in the MarketEconomy:
As we’ve discussed before, the level of desirability under the context
of the contemporary market economy is directly related to the
person’s economicssuccess (his or her effectiveness of participating
into economic activities) in that situation. The larger the economic
success, the higher the level of desirability, and vice versa.
Economic activities are exchanges in essence. Myriads of human
beings are synthesized in a mutually presentplatform, and
virtually exchange their ownlabor translatedby the set of
uncontrollable factors (technology, capital, distribution channels
etc. that determines the exogenous form of the final product of
human labor) for the labor of other people translated by the setof
uncontrollable factors (technology, capital, distribution channels
etc. that determines the exogenous form of the final product of
human labor).
Take this fact into consideration, there are always two fundamental
decisions that humans need to scrutinize in their daily lives as market
economy participants: what kind of endogenous labor that they are
going to chooseas their own item used for exchange? And what
exogenous labor that they are going to chooseas the items that they
exchange for?
What bridges these two distinctive decisions and makes them a
continuous unity is the monetary system of the modern market
economy. The intermediary function of currency and other forms of
medium of exchange provides humans with a foundational gauge to
base upon when making these two decisions.
More precisely, humans ‘first’ exchange whatever their labor have
been exogenously translated into for the medium of exchange, or the

42. Wen 42
monetary instruments like currency; ‘second’, all the exogenously
translated labors of other participants of this market economy have to
be exchanged for by consuming these medium of exchange. To
simplify our exposition, we give the following definition.
Commonness of value: medium of exchange in the market economy,
including all the monetary instruments.
We’ll have to combine our theory of human behavior with the notion
of commonness of value.
Due to the assumption that we’ve made previously that the desirability
of any given physical reality in the market economy is directly
characterized by the economic success ofthe personinvolved, which
is ultimately determined by the person’s effectiveness of achieving
economic wealth, we can give the following postulates.
Postulate3.1: The desirabilityof any physical realityunder the
context of marketeconomy for a given person is determined byhis
abilityof acquiring commonnessof valuein this physical reality.
This postulate reduces the focus of our analysis to concern solely
about the human decisions on the choice of endogenous labor that
would be exogenously translated into services or products and would
be ultimately used to exchange for the commonness of value,
Then, according to our model of human behavior, the next step is try
to categorically specify the set of controllable factors and
uncontrollable factors and then spread the actionable movements
within the set of controllable factors into contributive conducts and
futile conducts under the framework of translation structured by the
set of uncontrollable factors.
The set of controllable factors are determined by the human’s choices
of exertion of different kinds of labors. To further clarify our analysis
and render it a sense of consistency with the larger background
setting, we stipulate that: the set of controllable factors are the

43. Wen 43
entirety of different occupationchoices facedby the person under
discussion.
We could also obtain the set of uncontrollable factors in the similar
fashion. As the set of uncontrollable factors translate the actionable
movements, i.e. the choices of different occupations, into exogenous
products and services that would be used to exchange for
commonness value in the marketplace, they are determinants of the
market price of eachform of service and products generatedby
their respective occupationallabors that are generally produced
by the transient market conditions of supply and demands.
With the knowledge of the contents of these two sets, we are ready to
separate the set of controllable factors into contributive conducts and
futile conducts.
Each occupation choice would brought about a specific amount of
cash flow, and as we defined in the quantitative model in the previous
section, we denote the average cash flow that these occupation
choices in the given set of controllable factors as the threshold.
Any occupational choice in a given set of controllable factors that
generates a cash flow higher than the threshold is defined as a
contributive conduct.
Any occupational choice in a given set of controllable factors that
generates a cash flow lowerthan the threshold is defined as a futile
conduct.
To maximize the eventual desirability of the physical reality, which
means to maximize the personal economic success,humans should
base their choice of occupation by the exhaustive accumulation of
contributive conducts and disposalof futile conducts.
Thus, the predictions made by our model coincide with the
phenomenon prevailing in the real marketeconomy: when the
market price for a certain product or service has been risen, the

44. Wen 44
occupationthat involves in the production of this product
becomes the contributive conduct in the setof controllable factors
for a largergroup of people, and subsequently enter people’s
choices ofoccupationon a wider scale, which leads to the
significant increase in size of occupationalparticipantions in the
relevant industries.
As we proceed with our analysis, a natural step has come forward to
the stage described in our model in which humans, aware of their
rational pattern of behavior construction, try to convert the futile
conducts into contributive conducts within the set of controllable
factors in order level up their efficient content.
This means that: the humans would endeavor to make shifts in their
set of potentially available occupations by sacrificing those
occupation choices that are unattractive from the economic
perspectives in acquirement for those occupationchoices that are
attractive. Recall from our previous discussionthat the cardinality of
the set of controllable factors is fixed. We now explore the
determination of this cardinality.
As stated from the past, the cardinality for any given person is
determined by his personal status. Here, the set of controllable factors
are specified as the potentially available occupationchoices for the
given person under discussion, as a consequence, the cardinality
correspondsto the total number of potential occupations that are
available to the person.
There are mainly three determinants of this number. First, the
person’s ability of learning. Holding all the other things constant, the
stronger this learning ability, the larger the professional practices and
knowledge that this personwould be able to accumulate, and the more
abundant the set of potential occupations available for this person.
Thus, a person’s learning ability is positively related to the
cardinality. Second, the person’s willingness for occupational
diversity. Holding all the other things constant, the stronger this the
willingness for occupational diversity, the larger the set of potential

45. Wen 45
occupations that this person is willing to have. Thus, a person’s
willingness for occupationaldiversity is positively related to the
cardinality. Third, the volatility of the market conditions.
Remember the old saying that: “Don't put the eggs in one basket.”
Holding all the other things constant, the more volatile the market
conditions, the more uncertain that the cash flow that the personis
going to achieve for any given occupation, the stronger the incentive
for this person to broaden the set of potentially available occupations
in order to be able to accommodatethe rapid changes in the market
conditions. Thus, the volatility of the market conditions is
positively related to the cardinality.
As our concerns about human behaviors so far are in short-run,
which means that we take these three factors as given, and
purposefully overlook its long-term dynamics. For a given set of
these three factors, the person’s cardinality of the setof
controllable factors has been fixed i.e. the total number of
occupations potentially available to the person is fixed.
With the knowledge of this fact, we can easily see that, when the
personunder discussionis confined with the fixed cardinality, or the
fixed number of potentially available occupations, the conversion
that takes place within the set of controllable factors is the only
way that will boost up the effective content. As the effective
content always measures the efficiency of the subsequent
behaviors of this human, the conversionmust be adopted to fulfil
the original function of human behavior that is aiming at the
optimization of the given complex.
We’ll turn to the explorations concerning the cases in which the
cardinality of controllable factors are allowedto change possibly in
the future works. These cases would correspond to the long-term
decisions that humans take to constructtheir long-run future
behaviors during which all the three determinants of the cardinality
are allowed to vary. But for now, we’ll only focus on the short-run
cases.

46. Wen 46
After our discussionon the issue on the cardinality of the set of
controllable factors and the short-run necessity of conversion between
actionable movements to level-up the effective content, we begin our
exploration on how does the parameter of this conversion, the
existence of Asymmetry, determine the extent to which these
conversions are feasible,
Again, borrowing from our previous assertion, the sources of
Asymmetry are determined by the competitive Nash Equilibrium
between human intention and physical reality. Human intentions
always try to convert the futile conducts, which corresponds to the
potential occupation choices generating a cash flow that is less than
the threshold, into contributive conducts, which correspondsto the
potential occupation choices generating a cash flow that is more than
the threshold. This means that under the desirability-maximization of
human intention the human behaviors would increase the efficiency of
occupational choice.
While the balancing forces of the physical reality will unintentionally
level up the threshold, which is the average cash flow that the
potential occupation choices within the set of controllable factors is
going to generate. This means that: the average ability of the potential
occupation choice of cash flow generation would be leveled up, and
reluctantly decreasethe efficiency of occupational choice.
Under this particular context, the efficiency of occupationchoice
is identical to the ease with which humans accumulate the
potentially available contributive occupationchoices, whichlays
an advancing momentum in the setof controllable factors that
would tend to increase the generalability of these occupation
choices to generate cashflow.
Note that: this momentum only tends to increase the general
ability of cashflow generationof the occupationchoices, itis
inequivalentto a concrete increase in this general abilityof the cash
generation. In fact, the concrete increase in this ability would
decreasethis potential momentum of advancement for the

47. Wen 47
average ability, as now one more marginal opportunity of
optimization has been exploited, and the further exploitation
would more difficult and uneasy to realize.
The sources ofAsymmetry under the context of market economy,
consequently, is determined when these two forces are equal to
eachother. When the conversions between the potentially
available futile and contributive occupationchoices have levelled
up the efficiencyto the point that upward force in the efficiencyas
a result of human intention has been completelyneutralized by the
downward force in efficiencyas a result of the increasesin the
generalability of cashflow generation.
B. The Significance ofAsymmetry in the MarketEconomy:the
Salient Anchor and the Observable Indicator of Industrial
Vicissitude:
The exploitation of marginal Asymmetry of people when making their
general choices of occupations has profound significance for the
formation in the institutional configuration of market economy.
According to the previous discussion that we’ve conducted onthe
specific form of Asymmetry in the market economy, the transient
market conditions serve as the basis of direction that lead people to
flux into those industries that benefit from a high level of market
equilibrium by increasing the ability of cash flow generation of the
relevant occupations and intentionally push them into the set of
contributive conducts ofa wider range of market participants.
Thus, the exploitation of Asymmetry simultaneously determines
the relative rivalry relationships betweendifferent industries
competing for socialresources. Any pair of industries between
which there exists unexploited Asymmetry would undergo the
process ofthe transfer of socialresources from the industry with
loweraverage levelof ability of cashflow generationto the
industry with higher average levelof ability of cashflow
generation.

48. Wen 48
This process wouldcontinue on until there exists no more
unexploited Asymmetry between any pair of industries, which
indicates the fact that all the participants in the market economy
has maximized his or her own level of effective content, or, the
efficiencyof their occupationchoice. This result would have a
twofold consequence:the average ability of cashflow generation
of different industries would be risen to a much higher level by
human’s exhaustive exploitation of the underlying Asymmetry in
the marketeconomy; the comparability betweenindustries tends
to approach a moderate level at which no further rivalry could
lead to any significant shifts of socialresources as the subsequent
increase in the generallevel of ability of cashflow generation
hinders the growth in efficiency of occupationchoice.
This argument would give rise to the third mostimportant qualitative
result of this article.
Theorem 3.2:On the macro-level of economicactivities, the signals
of market prices are conveyed through people’s exploitation of
Asymmetry, and the limitof this exploitation, i.e. the competitive
Nash Equilibrium between humanintentionand the physical reality
on the macro-scale, determinesthe eventual allocation of social
resources to each of the different industries involved in the market
process.
Marketprice generates the initial signal of resource allocation, the
behavioral exploitation of Asymmetry by myriads of people
transmits this signal through the spectrum of economic entities,
and the limit of this exploitation (competitive NashEquilibrium)
determines the extent to which these signals would continue to
reverberate and shape the eventual configurationof the allocation
of socialresources.
That’s why the Asymmetry under the context of market economy acts
both as the anchor to pin down the relative boundaries of social
resource absorption between different industries and the highly
observable indicator that demonstrates their respective state of

49. Wen 49
thriving and falling in terms of their relative positions in comparison
to the average ability of cash flow generation for all the industries
under consideration.