The 1:1:1:1 Ratio is a principle to which the functions in Affect Engineering always adhere. Specifically, it holds that a 1:1:1:1 ratio exists between the individual, the purpose in question, the entity being valued, and the judged value of the entity with respect to the purpose. In other words, one individual may assign one value judgment to one entity as that entity relates to the fulfillment of one purpose.
The implications for this are subtle, but vital to keep in mind. For instance, the objective of drinking water to stay alive is not understood as one purpose, but as two separate and complementary purposes (i.e., purposes in direct opposition to one another). The two complementary purposes would be:
1) Drinking water in order to hydrate (e.g., avoiding death through dehydration)
2) Not drinking water in order to not hydrate (e.g., avoiding death through over-hydration or hyponatremia)
For the purpose of drinking water to hydrate, an entity, such as a glass of water, would be assigned one value by one individual. For the purpose of not drinking water to not hydrate, that same entity would be assigned a separate value by the same individual. The glass of water possesses two separate valuations made by the same individual, but because the valuations are for different purposes, the 1:1:1:1 ratio is upheld.
Under most circumstances, the individual’s valuations of the water would be different for the two purposes, thus facilitating goal-directed behavior. In the multiplicative form of the function thus far, the Utility value of a glass of water for the purpose of hydrating would approach positive one, while the Utility value of a glass of water for the purpose of not hydrating would approach zero.
Similar to the above example, a single entity might receive three different valuations for the same purpose (e.g., a knife’s judged value as a murder weapon), but those value judgments would have to come from three separate people in order to uphold the 1:1:1:1 ratio. Likewise, four separate entities (e.g., a nail, a pin, a needle, and a screw) could all receive the same value judgment from the same person for the same purpose of popping a balloon, and the 1:1:1:1 ratio would by upheld because the entities are separate.
Two people may share the same judged value of one entity for the fulfillment of one purpose, but the conception of the value judgment, the purpose, and of the entity actually belongs to each individual distinctively. Hence, the ratio would be 2:2:2:2, which simplifies easily, and the 1:1:1:1 ratio is still upheld.
However, one person can not assign two value judgments to one entity for the fulfillment of one purpose without violating the 1:1:1:1 ratio.