43. Do You Really Want World Peace?

It's April 1, 1996. Dozens of the best researchers for a consumer products company are called into an emergency meeting. The vice president of R&D lets everyone know this is not an April Fool's joke: seven units of a new product have had catastrophic failures resulting in property damage due to fires. The company is going to need to put $50-100 million aside to deal with nuisance lawsuits because when the news gets out, people will blame this product for their unrelated fires. The National Safety Product Commission is giving us the opportunity to Solve this problem and then they will have to make the public aware of the issue if the Cause isn't determined. As of this moment, all of us are supposed to stop working on our current projects and only focus on this one.

When I walk out of the meeting, the researcher that I share a lab with makes the following comment in front of a group of people, "Why are you smiling? You look like you are enjoying this."

I responded, "I am because now we all have the same project. We are going to find out who is the best. If someone else Solves this, I want to know who they are because I'm going to spend more time in their lab trying to learn from them."

This was the third company I had worked for and in the ten performance appraisals during my career, I never received the #1 rating despite all my success. Worse, the #1 rating always went to someone whose project was a disaster. Whenever I asked why I didn't get the #1 rating, I was told, "They are dealing with a really difficult project. Your project must have been easy because you got it done." Now, I finally had the opportunity to find out if I was wrong because the best researchers had the same project.

Later that day, as I passed the v.p. of R&D (on my way to a problem Solving meeting in another building) he stopped me to ask, "John, do you think we can Solve this?"

"Yes. I have a method that always Solves every problem. I don't know the solution right now, but I know if I use these four principles together, it always reveals the answer. Don't worry about this. Start focusing on the next biggest problem."

Seven units out of the seven million sold had a catastrophic failure, so, yes, this was literally a one-in-a-million problem. However, my previous accomplishments (which included the only non-contradictory model for explaining the connection between the human nose and brain) were all achieved using these four principles. Why wouldn't it work now?

What is YOUR definition for "science"?

I LOVE asking that question because no one gives an answer. They may go to the internet to give someone else's answer, but no one is willing to give their answer to that question.

Science is a tool for determining Truth.

The reason people don't want to give an answer is they unconsciously know there are a list of implications that immediately result from their answer. Here are just a few.

-Science is NOT a belief. When people say they believe in science, that is like saying they believe in a hammer. Science is a tool for helping people find out what they do believe. Science helps someone determine their religion. So, people who talk about "science vs. religion" are showing others they don't have a clue and their unconscious knows it!

-The definition for Science immediately requires the person to supply their definition for Truth and answer how it is different than reality, facts, knowledge, understanding, etc.

-When people answer with "the Scientific Method", they are giving WHAT is done to get to the Truth. They still haven't defined Science or Truth. In fact, much of the Scientific Method is based on observation. This means this person believes Science is unable to deal with intangible concepts. My response is, "What would you call the process of determining Truth in the intangible realm?" My unconscious confrontation would be to ask the person if they consider anything to be a fact or real if they don't see any tangible evidence? (They do!)

Truth is a right WHAT with a right HOW (the right WHY is required to get the HOW). Another way of saying this is: Truth is a fact that creates and that is why having a tool for determining Truth is critical!

We have seen Understanding is a right WHAT with only a right WHY. While understanding is immediately obvious to people, it never results in long term creation. It gets us through the short-term issue and actually creates three more problems. However, Truth creates over the long term by Dissolving the problem, but it always begins in the opposite direction as Understanding! We saw this when it comes to getting a patent! You can't get a patent with Understanding it actually prevents your ability to claim the invention!

Truth always begins in the opposite direction. "Daddy, where did this tree come from?" "You see this seed?" "What?!" "Mommy, where did I come from?" "Well, mommy and daddy..." "WHAT?!?!" The sound of Understanding is: "Yes, of course." The sound of Truth is: "WHAT?!...ohhhhhh."

The Greeks realized NO ONE creates Truth. Truth exists apart from our comprehension. However, the choice to follow Truth instead of Understanding is the difference between Flowing in Generativity and Efforting to maintain Sustainability. Truth results in MORE in the long term. Understanding deceives us by providing in the short term and slowly draining us over the long term, beginning a vicious destructive cycle. The problem is Understanding immediately looks like Truth. It sounds like having a tool for determining the difference between Understanding and Truth would be important.

Last week, we covered a tool that PROVES the Truth: a Conjunctive. There is an equation that shows you have attained Truth (Freedom with ONE Limitation). This week our goal is to cover HOW to get to the Truth. To illustrate the difference, think about the following scenario.

How much would you pay a mechanic for poetically describing the extent of the damage that has been done to your car and not fixing it? Nothing? Why wouldn't you pay him for making you aware of the damage? Why wouldn't you pay him for entertaining you with his description? Why do people idolize authors who provide elegant and entertaining descriptions of the problems of society and don't fix the problem?

This book you are now reading gives specific explanations for how to handle issues that people claim to want eradicated: Sexism, Racism, PTSD, violence, depression, anxiety, suicide, mental illness, poverty, etc. How many of these people have actually read this book from the beginning? Do they really want these issues removed?

Science consists of four principles and I realized while watching the History Channel, that throughout history EVERY failure occurred because at least one of these four principles were not followed. It didn't matter if the field was Medicine, Politics, Military, Philosophy, Business, Entertainment, Religion, Science. The moment of failure ALWAYS occurred because these four principles weren't used together.

Like we saw last week, two principles are in the Limitation half of the Conjunctive and two are in the Freedom half! Let's cover the two everyone knows about first.

Principle #1: Causality - For every Effect, there is a specific Cause

Notice the direction of this definition. People abuse Causality when they believe an Effect can only come from one Cause. Said another way, specific Causes lead to specific Effects, but the same Effects don’t necessarily come from the same Causes.

For instance, if I close my eyes for 60 seconds and drive my car 100 mph, the result will likely be an accident. The accident (Effect) comes from a person closing his eyes (Cause) and driving fast. However, every accident is not necessarily caused by a driver closing his eyes for 60 seconds and driving 100 mph.

Notice, the opposite of Causality is randomness: there are no causes, things are random. People don't REALLY believe things are random. They'd never let me smack them in the head and let me off when I said, "Hey, that was totally random." They'd never let me support my flawed point with "there is no Cause".

More often than not, this effect comes out as "well, since we don't immediately know the Cause we must not be able to know it or we aren't supposed to know it, so there is no reason to try to determine the Cause." Or my favorite: "Since we can't know ALL the Causes, we shouldn't try to understand ANY of the Causes."

Principle #2: Non-Contradiction - Something cannot belong AND not belong to the same group at the same time

Contradictions don’t exist, conflicts do. I can be both happy and sad. This is a conflict. I can’t be both happy and not happy at all.

Lack of contradiction doesn't prove something is right. (We may not have all the information.) However, the presence of a contradiction proves something is not right. Man cannot make both halves of a contradiction right, no matter how much effort he exerts.

Actually everyone agrees that contradictions don’t exist. They prove it every time they argue. Every time you say someone else is wrong, you are saying the wrong person has a contradiction and contradictions don’t exist. We believe this without saying it.

Causality and Non-contradiction are the basis of Logic and Analysis. In my model for models, the two worst models are "CAUSELESS" (deny Causality) and "EAT WELL" (Focus on an Effect ONLY). The next best model "FRESH MEAT AND CITRUS" is Understanding (focuses on a specific Cause). How do we get to Truth?

Our conscious brain is designed to work according to Causality and Non-contradiction. The problem is, our conscious brain is designed to work in opposition to the other two principles of critical thinking and these two principles are the basis of Innovation and Synthesis.

Principle #3: Growth - Everyone is either pursuing Growth or Comfort.

We naturally want to take the path of least resistance. Our thoughts naturally follow the path of least resistance through the dendrites in our brain. This approach brings us comfort and prevents Growth, which makes us uncomfortable in the long term. So, the reality is EVERYONE is going to be uncomfortable; you are actually choosing when you want to experience the discomfort: NOW or for the rest of your life!

Of all the topics discussed on LinkedIN, the one that is most misunderstood is Growth Mindset! People seem to think they can point to a moment when they were open to an idea and then say they are Growth Mindset. I wrote about how this is actually a "Context Mindset"!

Growth Mindset is PROVEN by how you handle a contradiction!!!! (I gave several examples above! Be careful when you reread this article!) People prove they are NOT Growth Mindset when they try to reverse Causality, appeal to randomness, rationalize contradictions, attack the person personally (ad hominem), appeal to the masses (ad populum). In fact, for thousands of years ad hominem and ad populum have been identified as logical fallacies! The people who appeal to these have failed logic! Worse, these people may not even be aware of their brain damage.

Around the 2004 Presidential elections, a study was done with partisan Democrats and partisan Republicans. Each person was shown a set of contradictory statements by the 2004 Presidential candidates. The participants’ brains were scanned with M. R. I. The results were very telling.

When the Democrats watched the contradictory statements by Bush and the Republicans watched the contradictory statements by Kerry, their brains worked correctly. The reasoning part of the brain that detects contradictions was active and this caused activity in the parts of the brain associated with emotion. Basically, their amygdalae fired and they got really upset.

However, a completely different pattern was observed when the participants watched contradictory statements by their candidates. The reasoning part of the brain was not active and the area of the brain that reinforces reward was active.

Essentially, their brain was now "wired" to avoid detecting the contradiction. Weren't they aware they hadn't detected the contradiction? No. The part of the brain that rewards them for checking for contradictions still worked. The brain lied to itself! Their brain had been modified to give a good feeling for being objective when the brain in fact wasn't objective!

Think about this for a minute: the person literally believes (feels without guilt) that they have in fact checked for a contradiction in their candidate. Not only don't they think they saw one, they also felt GOOD about checking for the contradiction! This is brain damage.

I determine whether a person has a Growth Mindset by asking their definition for a word they use. If they attack, give a definition from someone else, or ignore the question, I KNOW they are not Growth Mindset. They are unable to handle the Tension that comes from Growth, so they seek comfort regardless of what they claim. (And when you realize this measure, you will instantly see the percentage of Growth Mindset people on LinkedIN is less than 5%!)

The final principle is the most powerful. I will introduce it here in order to complete the article and then we will cover it in detail in next week's article.

Principle #4: Contrastive Thinking - Actively looking to prove a belief wrong

All we know for sure is what ISN'T Truth

Our brains naturally work from a comparative perspective. We take in information and the comfort force within us tries to make it agree (Understanding!). However, this leads to errors. For instance, if I wanted to convince you I drive a Corvette (when I really drove a Camry) I’d tell you everything that is similar between those two cars. As I gave you more information it would look more likely to you that I drive a Corvette. The Truth is: you wouldn’t know for sure.

However, the very second I told you something different from a Corvette, you would know for sure that I don’t drive a Corvette. That’s because all we know for sure is what isn’t Truth. We see this when people present “false dichotomies”. They are trying to say, “There are only two options and I can prove one of them has to be Truth by showing the other one is not Truth”.

Notice, everyone in the world is perfect at being contrastive on others...and everyone in the world actively avoids being contrastive on themselves.

Whenever I see people advocating for world peace, I ask them if they would do anything to achieve world peace and they always say, "yes", and then I explain Contrastive Thinking!

If everyone in the world would first look at how they could be wrong, we would NEVER have another war or disagreement. The problem is the person advocating for world peace, like the overwhelming majority of humans, is willing to do anything EXCEPT actively look for where they could be wrong and they usually put their head down and walk away from the unconscious confrontation.

Do you really want world peace?

These four principles are "Critical Thinking", so people who claim to teach "Critical Thinking" and then respond to me without Contrastive Thinking on themselves, I know they are hurting others.

The conscious brain automatically works according to Causality and Non-contradiction, while working in opposition to Growth and Contrastive Thinking. The unconscious brain works according to all four principles, which makes it the world's greatest supercomputer! Our journey on this planet can be measured by whether our conscious brain is progressing towards working according to all four principles or none of them. People can choose with their conscious brain to try and reverse Causality and embrace contradictions to their own destruction.

Two weeks after the emergency meeting, all the researchers except one quit working on the problem. Three weeks to the day, I was able to videotape two units suffering a catastrophic failure. The tapes and explanation were sent to the National Safety Product Commission and they said the public never had to be informed of the issue.

People told me I would get the highest technical honor the company could bestow along with stock in the family-owned company. After all, they avoided spending $50-100 million on lawsuits. Instead, after a couple of weeks, I got two movie tickets to see the recently released "Mission: Impossible" movie, because I had Solved the impossible mission.

Here's the thing: why wouldn't these four principles work all the time? Are you familiar with Sudoku? How do you Solve that puzzle? Do you put a number in when it seems to work or do you identify all the possible answers and only enter the number when you prove every other number isn't Truth?

What kind of unconscious confrontation are Sudoku people giving themselves when they know to only put a number in a box once they know it can't go anywhere else...

...yet they live their life by doing what immediately seems to make sense?

Are you pursuing Understanding or Truth? Do you know the difference?

Look around, do you see world peace?

Next week we will look at the power of Contrastive Thinking.

Next Chapter: Right vs. Good

Table of Contents

Are you one of the 1% of people who WANTS the Truth? These articles are forming a book on Generativity: the ability to apply Tension?without Abuse?in order?to Replicate. (A nested Conjunctive!) If you are interested in going on this journey of Generativity, the first chapter is here:?Do You Really Want To Improve Mental Health?

The following is intended for people who either say they base their life on the Bible or know people who say they base their life on the Bible...

Causality:?Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for?whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. (Galatians 6:7) Not believing in Causality is mocking God!

Non-contradiction: A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. (James 1:8) Arguing for a contradiction proves the person is unstable.

Growth: “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.?Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He?takes away; and every?branch?that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear?more fruit. (John 15:1-2) The goal is Growth, NOT comfort.

Contrastive Thinking: Every way of a man?is?right in his own eyes, But the?Lord?weighs the hearts. (Proverbs 21:2) People avoid being Contrastive on themselves.

I know a guy who wrote to "Christian" publications, especially the ones who claimed to be science-based, to discuss the definition of Truth. Six years ago, ALL of the publications refused to publish his article because he proved NONE of these publications were following the Bible! Here is a short version of what he wrote:

In the King James Version, the word science is used twice. Once in the Old Testament and once in the New Testament.

We find the first use in Daniel 1:1-4.

“1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.

2?And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.

3?And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;

4?Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”

In verse 4, the word science was the Hebrew word madda. Strong’s # 4093 madda – “from 3045; intelligence or consciousness.”

Strong’s # 3045 yadda – “prim root: to know”

If you are a fan of the television show “Seinfeld”, you will recognize this from an episode that used the phrase “yadda, yadda” for “you know, you know”.?

Yadda is knowledge…a fact…a WHAT.

Madda is closer to conscious thinking, which some people call “metacognition” which means that we know that we know. This is also known as “understanding” which is the WHY. However, the word “understanding” (biyn) was also used in Daniel 1:4.

Strong’s # 995 biyn – “to discern, understand, consider…to separate mentally”.

The king was looking for people who had the ability to separate mentally metacognition. (John Commentary: In fact, the word madda was the same word used for when Solomon Dissolved the issue with the two women fighting over the baby!)

The word “science” was used at the conclusion of the New Testament book of 1 Timothy:?

“20?O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21?Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” (1 Timothy 6:20-21)?

Science in verse 20 was Strong’s #1108 gnosis – “from 1097; knowing (the act) i.e. (by impl.) Knowledge:- knowledge, science.”?

Strong’s #1097 ginosko – “a prol”. “From a prim. verb; to “know” (absol), in a great variety of applications and with many impl.”

In verse 20 we see that “profane babblings” is in opposition to science or (gnosis) so this of course begs the question, what is “profane babblings”?

Profane babblings appeared twice in the Bible: 1 Timothy 6:20-21 and 2 Timothy 2:5-18.

Profane was Strong’s # 952 bobelos – “counterfeit the threshold (entry) in order to misdirect the dwellers.”

Babblings was Strong’s # 2757 kenophonia – “fruitless discussion, empty sounds (from artificial illuminations and tones) fake fire (visual fire with no warmth) to think words that a different meaning but same sound as true thought and words.”

So what is profane babblings? It is using a word with a wrong definition or no definition in order to deceive. Another way of stating this is profane babblings is a tool used to deceive. (John Commentary: Ask people their definition for a word they use to see if they are babbling!) This makes science a tool that helps us to prevent deception. Said another way, science in the New Testament is a tool used to determine the truth.

Is it any wonder that Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary where the definitions were based on the Bible gave the definition of science as “…the comprehension or understanding of truth…”