Mistake And Bluff In Graphical Form.

[disman3]

Mistake and bluff in graphical form.

Like for workers and peasants, briefly in the beginning and then in detail and scientifically - you better not read this if you do not want to "lose your appetite".

The path of human development is the acquisition of knowledge and their transfer to generations. What is knowledge about the subject if not the separation of one from one another: awareness. The faster and using less data, we can make accurate conclusions about what is happening, the cleverer is the person in this matter. If the cumulative evidence was treated incorrectly, then the process is called a mistake. When an individual for his own unchallenged leadership in the group is trying to hide some important information, giving ambiguous and incomplete answers, this is called bluff. There are two diametrically trends – a lot of data are incorrectly combined into a single one - a mistake, and in the other case everything is intentionally dissociate into difficult logically separate parts - bluff.

 

Though, intuitively or on the basis of life experience a lot of people understand what do the terms "bluff", "to bluff", "bluffer" mean, neither dictionary articles nor specific literature provide clear description of the word meaning. What is the reason? It would seem that "psychology" as a science has more than a century, but for the reason, to say the least, of absurdity of the "founders" there are no effective tools to operate with what people already for Millennium are able to use with competence in everyday life and professional career.

So, a mistake occurs due to the unintended wrong belief of a person, while bluff is the opposite. The individual tries, by unclear and a lot of unnecessary, attaching wrong priorities or incomplete information about what is happening, to mislead others in such a way that in case of debunking it is possible to avoid responsibility for a non-performed deception.

Having dealt with the description of the terms let us move to visualization models, and then to the graphical representation. Trying to get out a message to others or listening to others we use certain concepts of objects and processes of the physical world. The more detailed is the description, the better is understood the meaning. At the same time unnecessary information is a barrier, as there appear a lot of side analogies or the memory becomes overloaded. Thus, as we have used to, we think up the missing, saying yes or, on the contrary, trying to catch a meaningful glance of the interlocutor. If we imagine different qualities of the object in the form of colored dots, then any idea will look like an incomplete description of the signs, where the missing is liquidated with associativity (Fig.506).

Trying to restore the transmitted idea, in case of a mistake there happens the incorrect data joining – from the incomplete list of different characteristics of the same object, we draw the only, but wrong conclusion. Visually it can be represented as a transition from a lot of less significant quantities to the dominating one - the top of the “pyramid” or the term.

For example, having forgotten the name of a specific person from the past, but wanting to share the information about him with others, we list his main signs and circle of friends, these or those memorable moments of public life. Once in the mind of the interlocutor the numerous associations are matched, he correctly or not, will say the most important to everything else - the name.

The task of the bluffer is opposite to the mistake – he tries to prevent the restoration of the idea by adding a lot of other unnecessary data: mistaking the secondary qualities for primary and vice-versa, resulting in a greater number of simultaneous associations (see the fig.509).

As the main purpose of a human being is the acquisition of knowledge about objects in their description with the appropriate term, the alternative option will be represented as a transition from a single module to randomly plural. The more active and impudent is the bluffer, the large numerical values takes the negative value (Fig.128, Fig.61a).

Ask yourself, why is it so important to have a graphical tool to display mistakes and bluffs? For psychologists and psychiatrists the ability to display the violation of logical thinking in person in the form of graphs is of priority, as delirium, madness and other diseases are a kind of a combination of two of the above concepts. Any complex idea can be divided into its constituent components like musical notes and the corresponding lyrics, a personal matter turns into several drawings. Thanks to the scientific approach, a customer is able to find peace of mind and confidence without clogging the brains with all possible nonsense, not looking every day for "odious people" – being armed with dozens of simple algorithms any illogical statement can immediately be turned into a familiar formula, debunking the impudent fellow.

For example, if we combine bluff and mistake, we get lie. First of all, we "cool", praising and deliberately ignoring the worst of other disadvantages, and then draw a wrong conclusion: "My product is the most profitable". Why is bluff the first and mistake the second? The fact is, that people think in two-dimensions, i.e. we are not able to operate simultaneously with more than two data: 4+7+5 = 11+5=16 – with a record of the result in the third cell. So, if mistake is the first and then fooling around with bluff you try to shun the responsibility, then you can be beaten in face – they will easy "make you talk", because the integral data has two units. If first of all you “cool” with bluff, it will already be obvious whether a person can think, showing persistence in clarifying the vague, and then you can group multiple data and draw a "conclusion". It is better to represent in the dotted line down and then up, symmetrically to the correct decision – the lying subject: graphically.

 

In general Fig.506 can pretend to be the emblem of psychology as a science as it describes any process of thinking with a possible mistake...

[LaurieAG]

Hi disman3,

 

It might be easier for you to rephrase your statements and diagrams in the format of one of the accepted models of communication like the Transactional Communications Model i.e. encode/decode, zone or field of experience, communications context, feedback and noise etc as you only appear to portray one side of a communication from an absolute viewpoint while missing out a couple of the components. You seem to miss many of the different variations that can occur naturally during the communication process, which already have names, i.e. when there is no overlap in the zone/field of experience of the two entities communicating or if the communication context is not articulated clearly resulting in a message turning into noise. These simple models can also be used to describe human/machine/software communications / interactions in things like mobile phones and expert systems as opposed to one way broadcast type communications such as TV and movies etc.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_communication

[LaurieAG]

Hi disman3,

 

If you put your theory into a transactional feedback loop type construct (already implied in your diagrams by time and mistake) you can make distinctions between a normal learning process i.e. restatement, clarification, modification etc (as would be evident with interactions between a human and an expert system) and deliberate bluffing i.e. ignorance, abuse, avoiding clarification etc which may be indications of what you describe in your diagrams. The difference between sophism and paralogism and their modern political equivalents would be good test examples for a multi cycle walk through.

 

You could then develop your concept further by using this extended model to show how certain postmodern learning theories (every child is a winner, there are no losers, eliminate all negatives etc) tend to reinforce either good or bad outcomes depending on which cyclic pattern they mimic and therefore reinforce through repetition.