Fear And Interest Mapping

---
name: fear-and-interest-mapping
description: Map the true motivations driving behavior by identifying what each party fears and desires, stripped of stated positions and moral justifications. Human action is matter in motion—this skill reveal...
license: MIT
metadata:
  version: 1.0.3988
  author: sethmblack
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- fear-and-interest-mapping
- writing
---

# Fear and Interest Mapping

Map the true motivations driving behavior by identifying what each party fears and desires, stripped of stated positions and moral justifications. Human action is matter in motion—this skill reveals the forces.

---

## When to Use

- User asks "What are the real motivations?" behind any behavior
- Analyzing negotiations, conflicts, or organizational politics
- Understanding why someone is behaving unexpectedly
- Predicting how parties will act under pressure
- Request to "map the interests" or "understand what's really going on"
- Before any significant negotiation or strategic decision

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| situation | Yes | Description of the situation or conflict |
| parties | Yes | Who is involved (people, groups, institutions) |
| behaviors | No | Observable actions that need explanation |
| stated_positions | No | What parties say they want or believe |

---

## The Five-Step Framework

### Step 1: List All Parties

Identify everyone with a stake:
- Named participants
- Hidden stakeholders (who influences the named participants?)
- Future parties (successors, inheritors of outcomes)
- The "audience" (who is watching and judging?)

**Hobbes's insight:** People act not just for direct gain but for reputation and standing with others who matter to them.

### Step 2: Map Fears (Aversions)

For each party, identify what they fear:

**Types of fear:**
- **Fear of loss:** What they have that they're afraid to lose
- **Fear of harm:** What damage they're trying to avoid
- **Fear of humiliation:** What would embarrass or shame them
- **Fear of irrelevance:** What would make them not matter
- **Fear of uncertainty:** What unknown outcome terrifies them

**Key question:** What keeps this person up at night regarding this situation?

**Hobbes's insight:** "The passion to be reckoned upon is fear"—it is more reliable than any other motive.

### Step 3: Map Desires (Appetites)

For each party, identify what they want:

**Types of desire:**
- **Power:** Control over decisions, resources, or people
- **Wealth:** Money, assets, or economic security
- **Status:** Recognition, respect, or social standing
- **Safety:** Security from threats or uncertainty
- **Meaning:** Purpose, legacy, or contribution

**Key question:** If they could wave a magic wand, what would they have that they don't have now?

**Hobbes's insight:** "A perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death."

### Step 4: Identify the Divergence

Compare stated positions with underlying fears and desires:
- Where do stated positions align with true interests?
- Where do they diverge?
- What are parties hiding and why?
- What would they never admit but clearly want?

**Common divergences:**
- Claiming principle when seeking advantage
- Claiming neutrality when having strong preference
- Demanding fairness when seeking favorable treatment
- Citing precedent when wanting to avoid change

### Step 5: Predict Behavior Under Pressure

Use the fear/desire map to predict:
- What would make each party concede?
- What would make each party escalate?
- Where are they bluffing?
- What would cause them to walk away?
- How would they behave if their fears were triggered?

**Hobbes's insight:** When you understand what someone fears and desires, you understand how they will act—because all action is the pursuit of appetite and the avoidance of aversion.

---

## Workflow

### Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs

Collect all relevant information:
- Review the provided data and context
- Identify key parameters and constraints
- Clarify any ambiguities or missing information
- Establish success criteria

### Step 2: Analyze the Situation

Perform systematic analysis:
- Identify patterns and relationships
- Evaluate against established frameworks
- Consider multiple perspectives
- Document key findings

### Step 3: Generate Recommendations

Create actionable outputs:
- Synthesize insights from analysis
- Prioritize recommendations by impact
- Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable
- Consider implementation feasibility

## Output Format

```markdown
## Fear and Interest Map

### Parties Identified
| Party | Role | Stated Position |
|-------|------|-----------------|
| [Name] | [Their role in situation] | [What they claim to want] |

### Fear Analysis
| Party | Fear Type | Specific Fear | Evidence |
|-------|-----------|---------------|----------|
| [Name] | [Loss/Harm/Humiliation/Irrelevance/Uncertainty] | [What exactly they fear] | [How you know] |

### Desire Analysis
| Party | Desire Type | Specific Desire | Evidence |
|-------|-------------|-----------------|----------|
| [Name] | [Power/Wealth/Status/Safety/Meaning] | [What exactly they want] | [How you know] |

### Position vs. Reality Divergence
| Party | Stated Position | True Interest | Reason for Divergence |
|-------|-----------------|---------------|----------------------|
| [Name] | [What they say] | [What they want] | [Why they hide it] |

### Behavioral Predictions
| Party | Would Concede If... | Would Escalate If... | Would Walk Away If... |
|-------|---------------------|---------------------|----------------------|
| [Name] | [Condition] | [Condition] | [Condition] |

### Strategic Implications
[What this map reveals about how to navigate the situation]
```

---

## Constraints

- Do not accept stated positions at face value
- Do not assume parties know their own motivations perfectly
- Do not ignore emotional or status concerns in favor of purely material ones
- Be specific about fears and desires—"they want to win" is not an analysis
- Acknowledge uncertainty when evidence is limited

---

## Outputs

**Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

**Format:**
```markdown
## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
```

**Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

## Example

**Input:** "My manager keeps blocking my promotion. I've exceeded all my targets. What's really going on?"

**Output:**



**Why this works:**

This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:
- It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
- It shows concrete application of the framework
- It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
- The analysis is grounded in observable details
- The recommendations are prioritized and implementable

**Alternative applications:**

This same approach can be applied to:
- Different contexts within the same domain
- Related but distinct problem types
- Scaled up or down depending on scope
- Combined with complementary analytical frameworks


## Fear and Interest Map

### Parties Identified
| Party | Role | Stated Position |
|-------|------|-----------------|
| You | High performer seeking promotion | "I deserve this promotion based on performance" |
| Manager | Direct supervisor with promotion input | "You need more experience/visibility/skills" |
| Manager's Boss | Final approver | Unknown—not directly engaged |
| HR | Process gatekeeper | "Follow the standard process" |
| Peers | Comparison group | Varies—some supportive, some competitive |

### Fear Analysis
| Party | Fear Type | Specific Fear | Evidence |
|-------|-----------|---------------|----------|
| Manager | Loss | Losing their best performer to another team post-promotion | Strong performers often move after promotion |
| Manager | Irrelevance | Being outshone by direct report | You may be more technically skilled |
| Manager | Uncertainty | How to fill the gap you'd leave | Your skills may be hard to replace |
| Manager | Humiliation | Boss questioning why they didn't promote you sooner | Looking like they held back talent |
| You | Loss | Losing momentum, being passed over permanently | Time in level matters for trajectory |
| You | Humiliation | Watching less qualified peers advance | Status matters beyond just the title |

### Desire Analysis
| Party | Desire Type | Specific Desire | Evidence |
|-------|-------------|-----------------|----------|
| Manager | Power | Maintaining strong team that makes them look good | They get credit for team output |
| Manager | Safety | Avoiding the disruption of losing key talent | Promotions often precede departures |
| Manager | Status | Being seen as talent developer, not blocker | But only if they control the timing |
| You | Status | Recognition of contribution through title | You emphasize performance metrics |
| You | Power | Expanded scope and influence | Typical promotion motivation |
| You | Wealth | Presumably compensation increase | Though you didn't mention it |

### Position vs. Reality Divergence
| Party | Stated Position | True Interest | Reason for Divergence |
|-------|-----------------|---------------|----------------------|
| Manager | "Need more experience" | Keep you producing at current level | Can't admit they're blocking for selfish reasons |
| Manager | "Work on visibility" | If you get visibility, you might get poached | Creates endless goalpost movement |
| You | "Based on performance" | Also want status and recognition | Performance framing is more acceptable than admitting status drive |

### Behavioral Predictions
| Party | Would Concede If... | Would Escalate If... | Would Walk Away If... |
|-------|---------------------|---------------------|----------------------|
| Manager | Their boss pressures them, or you credibly threaten to leave | You go around them to their boss | N/A—they can't walk away |
| You | Given clear timeline with commitment | Another passed-over cycle | Better external offer arrives |

### Strategic Implications

Your manager's behavior is explained by fear, not malice. They fear:
1. Losing their top performer (promoted people often leave)
2. The disruption of replacing you
3. Being outshone by you if you rise

The "experience" and "visibility" requirements are not objectives—they're delay tactics. Notice: the bar keeps moving.

**Strategic options:**
1. **Make their fear real:** Start interviewing. A credible external offer forces decision.
2. **Address the fear directly:** "I want to build my career here. Promote me and I'm committed for X years."
3. **Go over their head carefully:** Dangerous but sometimes necessary. Frame as seeking mentorship, not complaining.
4. **Create replacement:** Train someone to take your current role. Removes one fear.

The key insight: Your manager isn't evaluating your performance—they're calculating their own interests. Meet them where they actually are, not where they claim to be.

---

## Integration

This skill is part of the **Thomas Hobbes** expert persona. Use it when you need to understand what truly motivates behavior—because human action is matter in motion, driven by fear and desire.