Social Noetics and the Economics of Productivity

1. Introduction

What factors contribute towards shaping our productive attitudes? Recent study by Singh, Srivastava & Singh, (2025) indicates that our attitudes to productivity is shaped by our mindset—and for this reason, mindset matters. In this paper, we shall examine the contributing elements that explain human productivity and its social aspects. Let us put the idea of productivity into practice in perspective first. Then, let’s introduce the concept of social noetics—based upon the idea of “social intelligence theory”, which is a capability to explore, navigate, and perceive complex environments. Social intelligence, according to Kihlstrom and Cantor (2019), is a total fund of knowledge of an individual about social contexts and the social world. Social noetics fits into this concept as a practical extension of the idea that is based on deeper knowledge. The idea could be traced further back to the first series of ongoing works related to the subject quantum noetics metaphysics (Chatterjee, 2024) and noetic capital (Chatterjee and Samanta, 2025).

As part of a special, interesting inquiry, these concepts will help us know, understand, and enlighten ourselves and others about the interrelations between the economics of productivity, the owner of productive capability, intelligence level, and the owner of productive power—the willpower of the agent. The will defines what it means to be productive, which in essence, is defined by the will to action. Until and unless the “owner of capability” decides to create or produce something, nothing fruitful would ever be conceivable. This—according to Gürak, (2024), is the creative mental effort of the human mind that makes an individual productive. Only human beings have the will to action and the power to produce things of economic utility and value. Machines—including AI agents don’t have their own willpower, and are commanded by the directives of their owners—us. In addition to these, this study introduces a novel concept called social noetics, which examines the economics of social productivity and productiveness.

The economics of production and productivity is indeed a science because it is the basis of production, i.e., it provides the means to “produce” things of value and utility. Production involves organisation of efforts and means and methods and other resources, including physical and intellectual capital, tangible or intangible resources. The entire framework clearly defines a positive programme: understanding productivity. The owner of capability in this sense if the human agent—the will that powers the mind into action (Ainslie, 2021). Willpower, according to Ainslie (2021) is the psychological function about which we know much and yet much remains unknown. It is directly related to motivation as motivations drive the will into action or inertia (resisting actions, habits, etc.). Hence, this study aims to probe deeply into the metaphysics of productivity to provide a general philosophical podium enabling one to examine the issues confronting individual productivity, by providing itself an inspiring ambience in support of that. We present a constructive metaphysical hypothesis on the nature of human productivity at the organisational level, which also considers the law of productive propagation of ideas.

2. Discovery of Means and their Effective Uses

Social Noetics & Productivity

The general notion of productive means relates to those that we encounter in general, i.e., discovery of methods and processes and the owner of productive power, capital, and capability. Every one of us have within us the noetic potential in latent states: each of us own productive means—the intellect, cognitive tools, and noetic machineries—which constitute our core capabilities, beyond those things that are physical or could be termed as “capital” resources. So, we are owner of capabilities, and we are capable of owning many things with our productive power. And this argument—the very context, is itself against the principle tenets of Marxian philosophy set by Karl Marx in his manifestos, against capital means, and against “means” of productive power. His ideologies, later on, proved not only to be precarious to the “poor, politically oppressed and socially neglected”[1] but it all along created a confused state of economic machinery that failed to employ efficiently the productive power of humans, which he so fervently championed for. Hence, to gain a clear conceptual understanding of human productivity, it may not be so indispensable to secure a glimpse of the mistakes propounded by Marxian ideologies. And this could be rather crucial for giving a solid foundation to the modern conception of productivity, based upon which we propose the concept of “social noetics.”

But again, how all these relate to the discovery of means and their effective, and productive usage? There is beauty in productivity. Just as an economic prosperity of a nation depends upon its productive power and capacity, so at the individual level, success is reliant upon—or conditioned to constraints of power, ability, and productive capacity of a system. This is one of the primary reasons behind education, the benefits of which is accrued when it instils productive and useful habits in the learner, and so it goes equally well for productive training aimed towards augmenting performance level of the performer.

The principles of productive philosophy could be derived from the masters of the trade—the most productive philosophers who have emphasised the importance of productivity in philosophical point of view. The most prominent among them being Immanuel Kant, Wilhelm Hegel, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Martine Heidegger, among other greats, who have studied the various stages in the mind’s necessary progress to mastery and expertise. Hence, it wouldn’t be too foolhardy to assume that these prominent philosophers actually laid the foundations of social noetics far back in time when humanity was being rejuvenated with their knowledge and wisdom. Hence, productivity, in philosophical point of view, relates to the motivating connections between the will and agentive actions that help conceive things to have come first into being. It is in our understanding of the productive means, which may be tools, methods, and processes that contribute positively by motivating the will into action, or help generate thoughts (ideas) that have the power to propel productivity. Whichever or whatever, it is the power of the will that sends reactions to the mind, and the mind’s reaction is the cause of action manifested as effects. The actions may be proactive, “productive”, or wasted aimless efforts misdirected without any specific purpose. Some individuals possess greater capability in performing certain actions from learned practice, while many others fail in doing so. In the next section, we shall explain this concept of productivity in the light of social noetics with the help of a simple model.

3. Material and Method

The concept of productivity may be described in terms of output produced given a certain amount of labour involved in the production of tangible manufactured products or intangible service products (Walters and Deborah, 2020). Understanding the dynamics of productivity is essential towards realisation of the full productive potential of a unit, an individual, or an organisation. However, as Mihai (2021) argues, measuring productivity in economic sense is a challenging task, although various means exist for measuring the economic footprint of productivity. Productivity, therefore, is an important variable of progress, whether it be growth in labor productivity, productive labour hours, output per hour of work, industrial productivity growth (Bernanke, 2005), or growth in individual productivity. Similarly, the goal of every management is to minimize the amount of capital needed—including labour, to produce the maximum effect—the goods having effects to maximize the satisfaction of consumer needs (Mella, & Gazzola, 2013).

Within the realms of the traditional economics of productive philosophy, the philosophy of productive economics can be understood as categories of themes semantically connected from where the conceptual aspects of productive value arise. Values arise from constructive actions that are transformed into productive outcomes, having utilities for the consumer, as well as being the means for the producer. Indeed, economics can explain “how” value arises out of products. Herein, we propose a simple modelled equation to explain the dynamic functionality of productiveness, and how it can be stirred by means of noetic principles that promote productivity in human beings. The equation is defined as follows:

$\rho ={\alpha }_{0}x+{\beta }_1{\left(1-\left(a_{\mathrm{i}}+{\delta }_{\mathrm{j}}\right)\right)}^n+{\beta }_2\left(1-{\gamma }_{\mathrm{i}}\right)+\left(l+\theta \right)+{\epsilon }_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}$ ….eq. 1

The equation thus defined has several variables included in the model framework which are as follows: $"\rho "$ denotes productivity factor, ${\left(1-\left(a_{\mathrm{i}}+{\delta }_{\mathrm{j}}\right)\right)}^n$ signifies efforts $a_{\mathrm{i}}$ and actions ${\delta }_{\mathrm{j}}$ based on ideas $\text{'}n\text{'}$ that powers these two structural variables, whereas, ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{i}}$ denotes capabilities, $\left(l+\theta \right)$ signifying the parameters learning and practice, and ${\epsilon }_{\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j}}$being the error term. The symbol ${\alpha }_0$ takes the coefficient term, ${\beta }_1$ and ${\beta }_2$ signifying the two coefficients measuring the scaling effect of nonlinearity, and “lack of capability” impacts productivity level. The interplay of all the variables create an equilibrium ambience as a setting for maintaining optimality in productivity function “$\rho$”, as measure of outcome out of productive endeavors. ${\alpha }_0$ is a coefficient which denotes how efforts translate into productivity, the conversion influence of the factor of productivity showing the contribution of effort to productive outcome as a linear term. The total input of ideas into measurable outcomes help ascertain real productivity level, but given that there is always a diminishing return which is a nonlinear effect denoted by the power factor$\text{'}n\text{'}$. The limitations and constraints are defined by the capability factor (1 - γᵢ). A reference standard base level of productivity is always maintained (see Figure 1 below), but which is positively affected by learning$\left(l+\theta \right)$.

The above equation when plotted generates a graph showing the significance of several variables and how they affect productivity and productiveness. As it shows, one can attain through practice and productivity a higher state of capability.

4. Results and Discussion

The above model being a theoretical representation of a productive system explains the effects of both exogenous and endogenous elements (variables) on human productiveness and productivity level.

All knowledge gained so far result from cognizance. The universe is a mine of infinite knowledge, as there are infinite things to be known. So whether the knowledge presents before us or we present ourselves before it to inquire its true nature isn’t a big dilemma, but it matters regarding the risk of raising problems, and solving them, which manifest as dynamic abilities—our will to action.

The value of actions is determined by the value of truth being sought, which is beyond falsehood, uncertainty, and ignorance. The origin of productive value could, therefore, be traced to the nature of actions that define human productivity. Therefore, a precise “definition” of human productivity is wanted, which can satisfy our idiosyncrasies to understanding the properties of productive efforts: the quality of effort sufficient to become highly productive. This can also help explain the nature of noetic inertia—inactivity, within the actual sphere of a production economy, i.e., in terms of the economics of productivity. It will also help explain the basis of reasoning, i.e., under what conditions do “productivity shifts” occur, which are sometimes predictable, and yet most often, stochastic in nature.

The role of social intelligence as a component of social noetics cannot be undermined, as well, and especially in this respect when knowledge and sufficient actions promise success, and when intelligent thinking and ideation ensure that success when attained justifies productive endeavors as being an effective means by which one could attain so. Success, in essence, depends on the quality of thought, which determines the quality of actions, and finally, the quality of outcome being the effect. Thus, to validate the effects of productive pursuits, success need be meaningful and effective.

5. Conclusion

In this paper, we have modelled a dynamic system of productivity which is contingent on various factors acting as either constraints to or facilitating productivity in terms of noetic cognizance framework. The concept of social noetics is introduced, which defines the boundaries of social intelligence, and how it affects human productivity in a dynamic way.

[1] See, Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1975). Collected works. Vol. 3, Marx and Engels: 1843-44. Lawrence & Wishart.