The basis of stupidity is distorted and untrue data.
“Data” is “information used to make decisions or form conclusions.”
Data can be true, distorted, false, or incomplete. If there is something wrong with the data on the basis of which an inference is formed, then, even with brilliant analytical skills and brilliant conclusions, you will end up making a stupid decision.
More often than not, there are two ways to assess the validity of data (and both can lead you into an abyss of lies and misperceptions that make your decisions seem foolish).
Data are considered reliable if:
(a) Taken from a reliable/”credible” source;
b) taken from several sources, most of which provide similar information.
A “credible source” is a source about which the majority has a favorable opinion. That is, a source that is considered authoritative. Ask yourself the question: Who told you that your source is credible? And then assess whether the source is, in fact, reliable.
Usually, intelligence agencies considerdatato bereliable if they have obtained it from a proven “reliable source. However, the reliability of a source is such a relative concept that it cannot be fully relied upon. After all, you don’t always know the motives of a “reliable” source at every single moment of his life. Therefore, you cannot assess the truth of data by the criterion of reliability. If you believe that data from a “reliable source” is true, you are taking a huge risk.
Stirlitz was long considered a reliable source by the German Gestapo as an intelligence agent for the USSR. And Philby, who cooperated with the US CIA, masterfully played the role of a double agent, while being the main consultant of the British secret intelligence service MI-6. Thus, a certain Kim Philby for 30 years was considered a “reliable source” of information for US and British intelligence, cooperating with the USSR. Thus, the “credible source” received money and information from three interested sources, two of which delivered data of purposeful unreliability! In this way he “pawned” all Western agents working in Communist countries, with the result that most of them were caught, shot, or brought under the tight control of the Kremlin.
After such cruel blunders, the “West” came to the exaggeratedly “reliable” conclusion that the USSR countries were so strong in intelligence that it was virtually impossible to penetrate them with agents of influence, and, until the truth about Philby came to the surface, actually stopped trying to overthrow the Communist regime. So much for a credible source!
Psychiatrists are alsoconsidered the unquestioned “authorities” in the study and treatment of the mind. However, the statistics on crime and mental illness grow in direct proportion to the increase in funding for psychiatry in most countries. It would seem obvious that the increased activity of psychiatrists leads to the opposite of the expected results. But, at the same time, psychiatrists, like Agent Philby, remain the unquestioned “authorities” in the field of behavior and reason for both ordinary citizens and the government. That is, even the most trusted source, the luminary of science, under the weight of the Hippocratic Oath, may one day easily turn out to be a snake pit of false data.
The same goes for “information corroborated by multiple sources”. Remember, even if “everyone around you says” something, it does not mean that their information is a criterion for the truth of what is happening.
Remember, in Galilean times, the Galileandoctrine convinced most people that the Earth is flat and that this “pancake” is held up by three giant elephants. After all, this was purposefully and confidently stated by a great number of authoritative sources. However, this statement did not reflect the true order of things! Today, the same effect can be created by the media by simultaneously stating the same information. That is, by making a lie a source of data. For example, in order to sell irrelevant goods, declare the “arrival” of a huge meteorite or some long-wandering planet on Earth. Isn’t that right?
As L. Ron Hubbard wrote in his book Data (1970), the KGB had a “D” department, which fabricated false documents and distributed them around the world: “…if three people tell you the same thing, it is not necessarily a fact, because they may have all heard the same lie. Three liars do not equal one fact.”And Hubbard is right, in this case, outright disinformation was easily made “true” by various intelligence agencies simply because it was presented by different (false) sources in the same way.
To this day, trained propagandists – all over the world – report the same true or not so true information to the press, sung by the same different mouths. Positively or negatively presented, but ONE AND ONE, equally “true”. And such information begins to become “public opinion”, and therefore “truth” that does not require proof. For example, in this way, government agencies can easily lobby for the interests of a narrow group of people.
Remember, even five informants could have heard the same lie. And even 20 Internet sites could publish the same differently fabricated “duck”.
Forming inferences solely on the basis of “credible source” data and “information corroborated by multiple sources” is highly erroneous!If you don’t want to look like an idiot, much less be one, by making idiotic decisions based on false data – use the laws of logic! Logic is based on the analysis of correspondence and inconsistency of data. In the course of which – data inconsistencies are recorded as conditional minuses. By collecting such “minuses” you can understand whether the information provided to you is reliable or not.
For example, Yuri says that he has a happy marriage, but at the same time, his wife always looks tearful and agitated. This is the “minus” of inconsistency, which characterizes the presence of false information in the data initially provided to you. Therefore, for an objective assessment of the situation, you must have a variety of data on related to the same issue, taken from different sources. Different opinions just on the same issue are not enough to conduct a full analysis of the situation. Moreover, all received data should be analyzed for inconsistency or inconsistency with the declared “reliable information”. Learning to analyze information – you will learn to understand the reasons for what is happening and find the main reasons for seemingly idiotic mistakes that could have been avoided!
Think! Analyze! Succeed!
