Modelling the Donor: Part 1- The Predictive Brain and Free Energy Principle

Welcome to this edition of Behind Each and Every Product covering the latest products and features in our platform at Click and Pledge.

We're the team here at Click and Pledge and our goal today is to dive into something a little different.

That's right. We're gonna take a bit of a detour right into your own skull actually. We're talking about neuroscience.

Which might sound strange but we think if you really want to understand effective fundraising you first have to understand what the brain, you know, fundamentally hates.

Right. But before we get into all that heavy cognitive science, let me warm us up with a quick joke. It's a classic.

Okay. Let's hear it.

A grasshopper hops into a bar. The bartender looks at him and says, Hey, you're in luck. We've got a drink named after you.

Okay.

The grasshopper looks surprised and says, You have a drink named Steve.

It's a good one, it really is.

I love that joke. But, you know, why does it work? Why is it actually funny?

Well, works because your brain in that what ten second window was actually engaged in some pretty intense prediction right up until that punch line.

Exactly! Even though it's a silly setup your brain doesn't just switch off it starts running its internal model immediately. Prediction one is, ah, okay this is a talking animal joke.

Right, setting the stage.

Then prediction two, the bartender recognizes the species, the grasshopper.

Mhmm, makes sense.

So prediction three has to be, the punch line is about the drink, the grasshopper.

And then the name Steve comes out of nowhere. Yeah. It's the absolute definition of, cognitive surprise. It's sensory input that just completely shatters the model your brain was building.

And that kind of surprise makes us laugh in a joke. But as you were saying, in the real world, the brain has this this profound aversion to it.

A deep existential hatred of it, really.

And that aversion, that hatred of being wrong, is really the core mission of this deep dive. We suggest that understanding this is just crucial for structuring an effective ask.

So let's get into the big idea behind it. The theory is called the free energy principle.

Okay. That already sounds a little intimidating. Who came up with this?

It's credited to a really influential British neuroscientist, a psychiatrist named Karl Friston. You can find it all in his work, Active Inference, the free energy principle in mind, brain, and behavior.

So free energy principle. Can we boil that down? What does Friston suggest is the one single goal of every living thing from like a single cell to a donor looking at your email?

Absolutely. The big idea is this. Every single living system tries to do one thing.

Okay.

Minimize surprise. That's it. At its core, the FEP is just a theory that explains why we exist, why we persist.

And when we use that word surprise, What does it mean in these cognitive terms?

It's simply a mismatch. Think of surprise. Sometimes it's called entropy as any sensory input that your internal model of the world didn't predict.

So like if you're a fish.

Yeah. If you're a fish and you predict a wet environment, but you suddenly find yourself flapping on dry sand, that's a profound catastrophic surprise. It's a high entropy state and it means immediate danger.

That makes perfect sense. To survive, you have to stay in predictable non surprising states. I mean, about your own body. A surprising body temperature is a fever.

Exactly. That's a dangerous high entropy state you have to resolve immediately. And that's the key insight here. The brain isn't just a passive receiver, just, you know, waiting for things to happen.

It's an active prediction machine.

An active predictor machine. It's constantly running simulations, thousands a second, generating a model of what the world should be like and then checking that against reality.

So the real work of the brain isn't just seeing or hearing, it's minimizing the error of its own predictions.

Precisely. That mismatch between what the brain expects and what it actually gets. That's what we call the prediction error.

Okay.

So minimizing surprise is really just about minimizing prediction error. If your brain is experiencing a lot of error, it's under stress, it's using up precious mental energy.

So if everything the brain does is about resolving these errors, how does it actually fix them? Because this feels like where the actionable advice starts to come in.

Well, the theory outlines two primary ways the brain does this, and they use completely different resources.

Right, what's the first one?

The first way is by changing your belief or your perception. This is when the sensory data is so strong that the brain just has to admit its internal model was wrong and needs an update.

Can you give us an example?

Sure. Let's say you predict your coffee mug is full, you just filled it. Your internal model predicts the weight of a full mug.

Okay, I can picture that.

But when you pick it up, it's light. That sensory input is a huge prediction error. So the brain immediately and very easily just updates its belief, 'Ah, the mug is empty.'

So the error is resolved, you just change the internal model.

Right, that's perception.

Okay, that seems pretty cheap cognitively. What's the second way?

The second way is the total opposite changing the world through action. In this case, the brain trusts its own model and decides the error is actually out there in external reality.

So the error isn't I was wrong, it's the world is wrong.

That's a perfect way to put it. You've predicted a comfortable room, which is a key part of your survival model, but you feel cold. You trust your expectation of comfort more than the current reality.

So you act.

So you act. You get up, you walk across the room, and you close the window. You make the external world match your internal prediction.

That is a crucial distinction because one is just cheap mental processing, but the other action that takes real physical energy.

And that's why the brain has to prioritize. It has to decide which errors to solve first and which method to use. And that prioritization is always based on what poses the biggest threat to your predictable state. Your survival, your comfort.

Okay. Let's make this really concrete. Let's use that analogy we talked about. Imagine you wake up, you get dressed, you reach into your pocket, and there it is, a crumpled $10 bill you totally forgot about.

Nice little surprise. But a surprise that immediately creates a new task for the brain.

Right, that $10 is now available, but the brain isn't just randomly assigning a purpose to it. It's wanting checks against its environment, prioritizing its errors based on survival and comfort, what we call homeostasis.

Exactly. So the brain is scanning for its most urgent problems. Maybe the prediction is, I predict I am alert and ready for the day, but the sensory input is, I feel groggy, I have low energy.

That's Error one: A Biological Need

A biological need that takes immediate priority. The action to fix that error to change the world to match the prediction of being alert is to use that $10 for coffee. The problem is solved.

Okay, but let's say that biological need is covered. What's next?

The brain moves instantly to high priority logistical needs. Maybe error number two is I predict I will get to work on time, but the reality is I need to find a parking spot and parking costs $10

So the action is to save the $10 for parking. It's another survival need, just a logistical one. If I don't solve this, I'm late, I'm stressed, maybe I get in trouble at work. That's a huge, unpredictable threat.

And this is the critical juncture for fundraising. If we look at that person who just found the $10 the question, who should I donate this to? It doesn't even make the list.

It doesn't even register as a problem to be solved.

It is a high priority one. No.

Why not? Why does the idea of donating fail to compete with coffee and parking?

Because there is no immediate personal prediction error for the brain to solve by giving that money away. The act of donating, especially an unplanned unsolicited one, it's an action that requires you to change the world by giving up a resource.

Without solving a core self centered survival problem that the brain is currently focused on.

Exactly. The free energy principle suggests the brain is just way too busy stabilizing its own state first.

So this insight, it really changes how we should think about spontaneous giving. It sort of confirms that the brain prioritizes its own internal stability above, well, everything else.

It does. The urgency of my need for coffee or my need for parking, it directly relates to my comfort and my predictable world. It will always win the mental resources over an external request.

The donation is a secondary action. It's not a solution to a primary prediction error.

Which means if you want a donor to move from just perceiving your mission to actually taking action and giving money, you have to find a way to connect your ask to a high priority prediction error that they feel well, that they feel need to solve. But that's a deep dive for next time.

That's fascinating. So our job as fundraisers isn't just asking for money. It's it's managing the prediction errors that we present to our potential donor.

That's the core of it.

Please join us for part two of this discussion where we talk about the the Entropy of an Ask Why Bad Fundraising is Surprise.

For more information about this and all Click and Pledge products, make sure to visit clickandpledge.com and request for a one on one training or demo. Whether you are a client or curious about our platform, just ask us and we will gladly get together with you to chat.

And don't forget to subscribe to this podcast to stay up to date with all the latest and greatest features of the Click and Pledge Fundraising Command Center.