In the simplest terms that is it. However, this is a process that you can continually improve.
Your IQ will increase, your awareness will increase, your shield against Psychological Mind Control will get stronger, mental conflicts and psychological problems will disintegrate, and you'll become more and more capable and confident.
At a minimum, to sufficiently label your thoughts to thwart Psychological Mind Control, you should use these labels...
However, here is how I like to organize information, to make it useful and to handle works in progress...
Either process is easily cut short, even by reputable experts and scientists.
Generally, people will have already made mistakes in defining the problem, that then prevent them from correctly seeing which information is relevant to the solution.
The fact gathering process requires a mind that is open, patient, creative, logical, and detail oriented. It is usually thought of as the easiest part, and yet this is where the most mistakes are made.
Ambition is often-times counter to this process. The overly ambitious do not have the patience necessary to complete these two processes, thereby motivating the individual to "jump right into it", and learn the hard way instead. However, once a person realizes the necessity of detail mastery in their work, then it is far easier to redirect ambition to instead "do what it takes", to master the details, as this person sees that as a necessary step to satisfy their ambition.
Once these processes are completed, the list of what's relevant becomes clear, making success more of a possibility. Prior to this the list was likely way too short, and would likely doom the individual's plans.
Successful people are good at visualizing their list of rules, and how to prioritize their actions in consideration of those rules.
Though it is likely that their rules are not all logical, they are all effective. This is because they are relatively optimal given the objectives necessary to success. They agreed with themselves either to the idealisms that produced those rules, or to a logical process that produced ideally optimal generalizations, given the objectives necessary to success. Either way is effective, though not necessarily honest. And, either way, prioritization is key in their day-to-day decisions necessary to satisfy these rules.
It is easy enough to look up successful peoples' rules, many of them post their rules on-line to help others become successful too. Or you may want to come up with your own.
Regardless, your rules for success are only generalizations, and these could be wrong at times. A successful person is unlikely to make exception here and there because they need to keep their walls strong. If they come down once they may come down again. However, when a rational person develops a set of rules based on the ideally optimal, rather than on idealism, then he is able to make exception. This is a different breed of successful person.
Prioritization is necessary to both.
Just about everything in life should involve prioritization. Especially for those interested in some form of success.
Unfortunately we do not have unlimited time on our hands to go through the details necessary to logically deduce perfectly accurate decisions at all times, there are too many details to some of these tasks. This makes prioritization absolutely essential.
Understanding prioritization is necessary in refining the rules, in picking and reconciling tasks to the rules, and in efficiently accomplishing these tasks. A successful person finds prioritization essential, because it helps them justify saying "no" to all the things that would negatively impact their success.
There are multiple dimensions to the act of prioritizing...
Each day I take each new issue and add them into my master priority list by using the above ranked dimensions and facets (plus special rules) as only a rough guideline, to determine where each item (task) should be added. I use a single plain notepad file on my computer desktop for all my priorities. It lists everything that I need reminding of. The headings are permanent (see below). Each day I add, subtract, change and move items listed below the headings to intelligently rank the priorities.
An example special rule involves prerequisites. The reason I put it at the top of the list (above) is because it potentially overrides all others. However, in any specific situation, it only overrides the priority of the highest priority item that requires it.
This method does not handle "or" priorities very well. If you have an objective that can be satisfied in one of several ways, then you should prioritize all items for each of these ways as the highest priority that it would have from any of these ways, and then put a reference under each item linking to text explaining the special consideration where the priority may be obsoleted. A simple code can work for this.
Through the use of a simple notepad text file on my desktop, the flexibility is there to easily accommodate each dimension of prioritization, the ranking, and the special rules, to conveniently prioritize my work, my thoughts, and my personal objectives. And it only takes a few minutes each day to update this list manually. In this case keeping the system unsophisticated (a single notepad file) makes the whole thing quite manageable.
Though it may seem complex and unnecessary, forming an organized way to deal with priorities will make it MUCH EASIER to fit the complexities of detail mastery into a practical day-to-day process.
One of the biggest things to watch for are words that seem at first to apply, that actually encompass more or less scope than they should. And words that imply a specific way of looking at it, rather than remaining neutral. The wording is crucial. They should be as neutral as possible towards the conclusions suggested by each theory, and at the same time deliver the information accurately and completely, as required of each theory. The format(s) for the information MUST accomodate these requirements. Otherwise a biased outcome is likely inevitable.
With over 30 years experience trouble-shooting software problems, I can say with 100% certainty, that the theory that seems unlikely to be true, is far more likely to be correct, or pointed in a more correct direction, than it first seems. Therefore, if the matter calls for doing whatever it takes to get to the truth, then you must include these seemingly unlikely theories in your thinking. And, you must do the extra leg-work to get the additional information required for context-normalization for each of these theories. Otherwise, the real truth is likely to be drowned out by all the other commotion, and eventually replaced with "something" that helps to further promote popular misconception. (i.e. a railroaded conclusion that replaces the truth)
It is especially important to be exhaustive in this process wherever a conclusion is to be formed through the method of elimination. If you have 5 plausible theories, and 4 are ruled out, then the remaining one could be considered true IF AND ONLY IF it can be proven that no plausible theory was missed. Otherwise (I have found) that a seemingly unlikely theory that was carelessly thrown out early in the process (not even listed in the final 5 because it seemed unreasonable to include it), is oftentimes the one that is really correct.
The advantage to practicing logic through software trouble shooting is that the program generally won't work until you find the truth of the cause to the bug, and fix it. Years and years of troubleshooting has shown me how easily the wrong ideas can emerge from the clues. And in comparison, when I observe a court case I see so many logic fallacies flying around the room, illogically leveraging the clues, that I have to wonder if anyone is alive that is rational. From my observation a court room is one of the easiest places to cover up the truth, and this is accomplished through a mix of story telling, subconscious bias, and other railroading tactics. It makes me sick to think of what that has turned Democracy into. It has caused several ideals to Democracy to function in reverse of what we were taught.
In order to prove what's true, you have to start with a theory. If the right theory is not conceived, or is ruled out as "NOT PLAUSIBLE" when it really is plausible, then the truth will not be found. Subconscious bias is so powerful it can force this effect on even the smartest people in the world.
To truly list all plausible theory to an issue requires a special technique that I call "context-normalization". This causes the subconscious bias to drop, revealing the true relevancy of presented information, revealing all the dynamics that potentially interplay with the issue, revealing all of the assumptions, and making possible a full accounting for all possibilities from there. This is more of an algorithm than a skill.
Context-normalization is used to separate interpretation from observation, fallacy from deduction, misrepresentation from science, and inaccurate scope from generalization.
If you want there to be such a thing as Democracy, then you should have an interest in seeing the process that I call context-normalization added to the court room. [I plan to add a section for this sometime in the future.]
In my search for missed plausible theory I like to use an iterative algorithm. First I map out everything I can find for each of these sections. Then, I start at the top of my map and systematically check every step for inadvertent assumptions or incompleteness. I then exhaustively add the details necessary to logically deal with each one. Then I repeat the whole process, until there are no more changes to be made.
It is possible that issues within each of these dimensions may affect the priority of an issue. The algorithms to fully optimize prioritization are quite complex. First, here is how I rank the elements to each one:
Ranking each of these is the easy part. The hard part is deciding how to combine them into a single priority scheme. And to perfect this system would require not only ranking, but also a method for assessing probabilities, and combinatorial relationships. I have not yet taken this to that extent. However, I do have a crude method that is working well for me at this point.
Each item on your list would be assigned to one of these sections, and put in the order that they should be performed within that section, AND groups that should be performed at the same time can be listed after a couple "||" symbols to indicate a parallel effort, and projects that are prerequisites to other projects can be numbered on the left, and these numbers referenced by the projects that require them.
Determine the wording of...
"Context-normalization" is similar to the normalization of data for purposes of data processing. However, in this case the object is to produce the best wording and format for the information to facilitate analyzing it later. It is very important to be open minded, yet at the same time, restrictive. In otherwords, to include every dynamic that might impact the issue in question, however, to also describe these dynamics in a way that equals precisely the minimum comprehensive format necessary to logically analyze the issue without bias.
Determine the plausibility of...
The purpose here is not to determine the truth, and not to determine what sounds true, but rather, to determine what is potentially possible given the facts. And, to do that one must be open to all theories that do not contradict. In general this is a creative process. However, only logical theories are considered, and so creativity "invents" the theories, while logic restricts them to just the ones that are possible.
Determine the truth of...
I decided to rank methods for determining truth in the order that they are most likely to produce a correct answer. A fact is something that you can prove, and someone else can prove (verifiable). However, in consideration of the potential for mistakes (both intentional and unintentional), I first list six types of facts: A PERSONAL FACT is something that you have personally proven to yourself, and that you can prove to yourself again (because the scenario repeats whereby it can be proven again). A MAINSTREAM FACT is something that has been proven through a mainstream process, and where the scenario repeats, making it possible to prove it again. An OTHER FACT is something that has been proven yet for some reason NOT accepted by mainstream, and can be proven again. A PERSONAL OBSERVATION is something that you have observed and context-normalized. A MAINSTREAM OBSERVATION is something that was observed at some point through a mainstream process, and is represented using standard mainstream methods. An OTHER OBSERVATION is an observation by a 3rd party that is not recognized by mainstream. A PERSONAL LEADING THEORY is the specific theory that you personally chose as the most likely to be true. If there are four theories to explain something, and a decision must be made, then you are in a position where you must choose one. And this choice becomes your PERSONAL LEADING THEORY. A MAINSTREAM LEADING THEORY is the specific theory that mainstream thinking chooses as most likely to be true. A WORKING THEORY is a theory that was put into practice and at least appears to be working out just fine. A PROBABLE THEORY is a theory that once analyzed can be shown to be likely to be true. A TENTATIVE CONCLUSION is a decision, based on a notion, followed by action. And where the action is repetitive, this results in the production of empirical evidence. Even though the notion may be illogical, the empirical evidence may be of value. A BIASED CONCLUSION is a conclusion that is based at least in part on unstated assumption. Generally, the unstated assumption is subconscious. I put this lower than tentative conclusion because unstated assumption easily results in misapplied theory, whereas the tentative conclusion is open to logical analysis on the empirical evidence produced. Please keep in mind that ALL biased conclusion can be converted to higher ranking truths once the assumptions are properly labeled. The labeling does not change the truth of the conclusions, however, it does allow for better application of the truth that is there, by making known the assumptions, one can then determine whether or not they apply to a situation. UNKNOWN is something that is not proven one way or another. FICTION is something proven to be untrue. Or it may be negated, and then called a fact. Some people add a label called "nonsense" right about here. Nonsense is generally information that is so riddled with contradictions and/or poor language that its impossible to make any sense of it, let alone determine a possibility of there being some truth to it. However, I left this label out because anything that contradicts is a fiction, and anything that is unreadable is an unknown. And its up to the writer or speaker to make more sense.
home
snydermind
top
