www.areyoulogical.com

The thing rational people are more likely to notice about honesty, is that it comes with a big responsibility to be as accurate as called for given the situation and given the level of their ability to be accurate. Whereas less rational people will instead interpret the responsibility another way: to openly recite what they feel is true regardless of the condition of the information that produced the feelings.

These are two very different definitions for the same word.

People that realize the full scope of this responsibility are less likely to claim that they are honest, as they are more likely to realize that this is a big thing. And if you are paying attention to what I say here at this website you'll discover that my claim regarding subconscious programming all ties into how honest you are with yourself. And that once people realize that honesty and accuracy are practically the same thing, and they take on the responsibility of being honest/accurate with themselves, that they will ultimately develop stronger more rational minds that are capable of shielding themselves from Psychological Mind Control. These issues are all tied together.

"Inaccuracy" is a close cousin to "dishonesty". Nothing separates them by the first dictionary definition ("to tell an untruth" = to tell something that isn't correct, which includes not being accurate). And only an "intent to deceive" separates them by the second dictionary definition ("pretend with intent to deceive" = to intentionally tell an untruth). I would like to change both definitions to this one definition: "dishonesty = to communicate in some manner an untruth with or without untrue words, with either an awareness of the untruth, and/or an intent to deceive". In each of these definitions, "accuracy" plays a huge role in "honesty".

These same people who profess such "extreme honesty", oftentimes turn around and make an illogical or otherwise inaccurate statement as though it were fact. For example, someone hears a rumor that their neighbor is a thief, and then turns around and says to someone else, "my neighbor IS a thief". In order to be honest, their words would have to be accurate. In this example, it would be honest (accurate) to instead say, "I heard a rumor that my neighbor is a thief". Or, "I'm trying to figure out whether or not my neighbor is a thief". Or, "I'm concerned about a rumor that I heard about my neighbor." Any of these could be accurate and therefore honest statements. However, given the information provided, saying "my neighbor IS a thief", would be an inaccurate (and therefore dishonest) statement.

That was an exceptionally simple and rather obvious example. However, in many real scenarios it is not so obvious or simple. In many instances the wording is catchy and feels right - you may even get that great feeling that you did the right thing - and yet be inaccurate and therefore dishonest.

Society constantly feeds us a number of rationalizations to look at all this in other ways. We are told that our gut feeling is correct, when this may or may not be true (gut feelings come from subconscious programming, and in many cases the subconscious is processing more information and therefore could be giving you a correct answer, or some clue leaning in that direction, however, gut feelings ALSO arrive from illogical subconscious programming - there is no truth formula in your mind, it all works by association, and can be programmed just about any way imaginable). We are also told to "follow your heart", which means practically the same thing. And that first impressions are always correct. These rationalizations (and many more) keep us blind.

Now the act of being honest is far more challenging. Because an honest statement may require a considerable process involving logic. And, because of this, logic becomes a necessary component to value systems that require honesty.

The irony is that these value systems often refer to the "plain and simple truth". While it is quite clear to me that truth is rarely "plain and simple". People who view it this way are very likely over generalizing about the issue, and in doing so are actually being quite dishonest with themselves and with others, effectively railroading (at a subconscious level) "their truth" overtop the real truth.

This makes me suspicious of each and every one of these value systems. And that doesn't mean that I don't have my own value system. It means that I keep seeing indoctrination that sets people up for Psychological Mind Control, and that asking myself whether or not that just happened as some sort of coincidence, or whether it was designed into these systems to facilitate unspoken agenda, is the main question that I have about these "value systems".

A good way to see these points in other people (and in yourself) is to practice making what you tell yourself, accurate.

Use logic every day to reword your statements so that they are 100% correct statements. And do the same with statements that you hear, that you consider of value. Even over generalizations can be made accurate with the right qualifiers. If you form this habit it will become a skill that gets better and better with time. This skill will help you to solve psychological problems, to boost IQ, to boost creativity, and to boost awareness. It will open your eyes, little by little, to the differences between perception and reality. Your emotions are likely in a tug-of-war between these two, so resolving this is quite important to your sanity. And if you go down this road long enough, and with enough persistence, you'll eventually see that perception issues stack up, often resulting in a complete 180 degree turn around from the truth. Questioning "your truths" from the start is not likely to work while your mind is still weak. However, refining your statements to make them accurate, though round-about, is far more likely to clear things up.

If you cannot determine what is accurate then label it "undetermined". Label as "fact" only what you can BOTH prove AND word correctly. Label as "fiction" only what you can BOTH disprove AND word correctly. Label as "undetermined" what you can't figure out or otherwise prove or disprove given your current resources (including time). (And you may decide on more categories than this for works in progress.)

The subconscious responds to your conscious act of labeling the information. However, it also helps to reimprint the information with the corrected wording. This requires putting it to use. i.e. every time you speak, write, think, or act on that thought, be sure to use the new wording, including the new label. If it doesn't work then the reimprint process was either incomplete or the new wording was incorrect.

It helps to revisit the same emotions and/or repetitious patterns that were involved in the original imprinting process for the thought.

It is even better to try stepping through the event or events that resulted in having the thought in the first place. In every way that you can, replay the same event (go to the same location, wear the same clothes, think the same thoughts in the same order, etc.). What you can't repeat, imagine repeating. Relive every thought and emotion as you do this, one step at a time. And with each step, consciously replace the old wording of your thoughts at that step with the new more accurate wording of your thoughts at that step. This is probably the most valuable skill that you can ever learn, and will produce many spin-off benefits. (And I've noticed that in general, people with psychological problems do the exact opposite: they continually reimprint very negative and inaccurate over generalizations. However, instead of thinking that this is about positive versus negative, its important to realize that this is really about self-honesty and accuracy. By switching to this new way of looking at it you'll be doing yourself a BIG favor as this is THE key to sorting out most mental conflicts.) After five years of this I became a calm level-headed thinker with much greater focus and clarity than I ever had.