Black Swan Me | Unified Behavior Model™

On July 8th, in what can only be described as an act of reckless clarity, we published a white paper (grab it here—>) Unified Behavioral Model™ — Read more… listen now.

Subscribe now

“Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification.” ― Karl Popper

What makes UBM so unique—so different from prevalent behavioral models?

First, let’s clear up a common misconception:

UBM—specifically the Behavior Echo-System (BES)—is a model of behavior, not a model of a person.

People often see the graphic and assume it represents themselves, or a diagram of the human body. It doesn’t.

As Dr. Popper’s statement above suggests, UBM simply articulates how behavior is influenced in the moment and shaped over time—within the system.

Now, here’s the B.I.G. claim:

UBM is falsifiable.

In science, that’s the gold standard.(Period.)

If a theory can’t be tested or broken, it’s just storytelling. Worse yet, Karl Popper would say it’s non-science.

What’s his core claim?

Science and non-science are divided by a single demarcation: Falsifiability.

UBM asks—check that, insists—“Go for it… Please try to break me.”

Apparently, no other behavior model—certainly not a unified one—has ever done that.

Kind of interesting? Maybe just a bit?

Worth mentioning, at least?

Or dedicating, I don’t know… twenty-plus years to uncovering?

UBM/BES Comparison Table & Major Prevalent Models as provided by DeepSeek.

According to Dr. Karl Popper—and as noted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Karl Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the twentieth century”—if a theory can’t be tested (or broken), it’s just storytelling. Worse, he’d call it “non-science.”

Just to be clear: that’s Dr. Popper, philosopher and trained psychologist, who introduced the idea of falsifiability (and gave us that delightful bit with the Black Swan).

So yeah—if you can’t at least attempt to break it, he says, it doesn’t count.

UBM is so confident in its falsifiability that it’s offering a $1,000 reward to the first person to prove there’s a missing fifth element—one that isn’t reducible or emergent. (See below and bottom for official entry details.)

So far: nearly 500 downloads and…

Nada. Zip. Zilch. NOTHING.

Even the world’s top AIs—ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok, DeepSeek—took their shots.

They’ve all struck out.

Attempts include: Time (environmental), Consciousness (emergent from the system), Willpower (embodied environment), Self-Organization (embodied environment—note the “self” in self-organization).

The list goes on, and it’s kind of funny. Google’s Gemini, for example, offered a “someday” quantum property we don’t even know of yet.

Seriously.

Just to be clear: if we don’t know of it yet, and we can’t test it—it’s not a valid fifth element.

DeepSeek’s parting words? Also comical...

“UBM 1. DS 0... Game respects game.”

And, here’s Gemini’s best response after half dozen attempts…

Gemini tries desperately to break the Unified Behavior Model and fails.

The difficulty in falsification, as intended by the model’s design, is a powerful indicator of its conceptual strength and it’s potential to serve as a TRULY UNIFYING FRAMEWORK FOR BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE. ~Gemini 8/4/2025

Some have argued, “Well, UBM is overly simplified.”

Really?

Then why hasn’t anyone discovered it before—or more accurately, uncovered it and brought it to light?

Surely, by now—150 years in—some behavioral scientist, somewhere in the world, would’ve presented this kind of systematic “oversimplification,” right?

Let’s go over that one more time:

“Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification.” ― Karl Popper

This is precisely Dr. Popper’s point: science progresses by oversimplifying—systematically.

Voila: UBM. 👇

“Great theories have simple pictorial representation.” —Michio Kaku

The Behavior Echo-System (BES): the systematic simplification of behavior.

Which mak