Some of my clients get to the point where they actually directly ‘know’ that ‘some’ particular ‘mental or thinking’ things are NOT theirs. Some get to a point where they have 100% success identifying ‘managed’ thinking and managed evaluation efforts.
Those that are able to do this have much less of an investment in their thinking or evaluating abilities being ‘exceptional’ or accurate . . .
Below I describe some behaviour and attitudes that we have found are a VERY strong indicators (90%+) that your thinking is compromised and is being managed in some way.
By compromised and managed I mean that something is ACTIVELY working to limit or restrict your ability to openly think about, contemplate, properly evaluate or understand . . . .
- Unwillingness or an inability to keep in mind that your basic assumptions or beliefs are just that; ASSUMPTIONS and as such should not only never ever be considered ‘true’ but should be held as being very likely WRONG (I explain this more comprehensively here).
- Being unable to openly consider ideas, concepts or ‘data’ outside of what you already consider correct or true or which you cannot ‘verify’ by you current set of ‘assumptions’.
- When presented with information that contradicts what you already think you know you retreat and keep referring and reminding yourself of your basic assumptions, what is derived from them or what you already consider true or factual and so have a hard time reading, taking in or openly or properly appraising other areas of ‘knowledge’ or expertise and particularly those outside your own base of assumptions or beliefs.
- You cannot read something for it’s content or meaning, rather you are distracted by the presentation, format, spelling errors and so on, in fact ANYTHING that has you reducing the ‘value’ of the core presentation or worse jumping at the chance to dismiss what is ‘essentially’ being conveyed because of some assumed mistake, minor error or apparent contradiction.
- You cannot read something for its content or meaning. Rather, you are distracted by the presentation, format, spelling errors and so on. I fact, ANYTHING that has you reducing the ‘value’ of the core presentation or worse jumping at the chance to dismiss what is ‘essentially’ being conveyed because of some assumed mistake, minor error, or apparent contradiction.
- Inability to REALLY take notice of, think about, remember, accept or integrate repeated experience that contradicts your thinking, assumptions or understandings.
- Inability to look for, think about or accept contradictions present within what you yourself are doing or holding to or strongly involved with.
You might think that perhaps the list presented above is ridiculous?
In which case maybe you should ask yourself the following:
Why is it that for the most part many people and probably YOURSELF will stand in a direct or indirect way quite solidly for certain beliefs or way or understandings or truths as being REALLY true and become upset if anyone even suggests that they might ‘not be’. Why is it that MANY others will HOLD equally strongly to different ideas, beliefs, assumptions and so on that are a complete contradiction to your own and be equally upset if these are questioned. WHY do these people hold to different and contradictary understandings as strongly as you do to yours.
In ‘fact’ the more ‘rational’ someone claimed to be under these circumstances then you’d imagine that they’d be hugely more aware of the possibilities that it’s not a ‘rational’ idea to hold doggedly to any beliefs or basic assumptions as if these are ‘words of god’ . . . else . . . well you’d just be doing what everyone else does.
So, perhaps it’s NOT about what you yourself are holding to that is the issue. Perhaps the real question is;
WHY IS EVERYONE LIKE THIS?
So, yes you may think that the above list is ridiculous because I would imagine that just about everyone will do just about everything on that list and so doing this would be considered normal?
What is considered normal is understandable and sort of correct by default or is that another assumption?
What is the difference between ‘normal’ and ‘common’.
- Common is something that happens frequently.
- Normal is the assumption that something that happens frequently is actually ‘normal’ because it’s assumed to be ‘representative’ of a population.
The outcome of managing software acting on the already seriously feeble minded is that what is common is bizarrely often then re-classified as being normal. For example because sleep paralysis is pretty common it is now described by some seriously feeble minded academics as ‘normal’ for our population. In other words you are supposed to believe that sleep paralysis is a normal part of human functioning and ‘therefore’ it’s not ‘odd’ that people have this. It won’t be long before diabetes which is becoming more and more ‘common’ is also re-defined as being ‘normal’ for humans, it perhaps won’t take long before people that don’t suffer from diabetes are re-defined as abnormal.
After this client disappeared another client (whom we eventually found out was actually ‘related’ to the first) started working with me a few months later. This new client had an IQ the size of a planet.
They have an IQ of 185 and again they were ‘subtle realm’ enabled and aware (but not as well as the previous client though).
Again however they were also unable to take in ‘data’ outside of particular boundaries particularly with respect to what I’m presenting (in general) here and particularly with respect to their own issues. They too were not able to engage with what I was and am presenting and again they had day in day out practical ‘in their face experience’ of what I’m stating here.
At a certain point I gave them the original version of this article series for them to read. Which they eventually managed to do after I badgered them regularly for about 6 weeks. However in this instance they actually stated that what I’d written described themselves very well, they were able to recognize their own behaviour and attitude . . . and then amazingly, shortly afterwards . . . they too disappeared.
Those that have the greatest trouble EVEN contemplating the possibility that their thinking may be corrupted or managed in some way, even after experiencing repeated personal examples of what I write being 100% true are those whom would consider themselves the most intelligent, the most ‘rational’, whom would most likely bet large sums of money that their thinking and ability to evaluate is NOT compromised or managed.
The below is a quote taken from here that Paul Krugman made about future ‘AI’ intelligence.
“It’s just never been my experience that the higher you go up the IQ scale, the better people are at achieving their goals.”
Personally, I myself was astounded at how ‘poor’ academics and scientists are in terms of basic thinking skills as well as in terms of figuring out basic things that actually related to PEOPLE and LIFE. They are exceptionally good at constructing highly theoretical ‘in their heads’ models and theories that often don’t actually reflect ‘reality’ or how people function in the slightest.
So, when confronted with circumstances where reality ‘conflicts’ with ‘what is in their head’ which translated means:
“When their own or OTHERS regular and repeated actual real life experience conflicts with the ‘theoretical’ bullshit in their heads”
They bizarrely, preferentially ‘circle the wagons’ around their ‘in their head fantasies’. I observed the above for many years while working in science . . .