Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
behavioralist

Reverse-engineering deception-leakage

9 posts in this topic

Consider a person’s secrets, the secrets he keeps because their exposure would render him a social pariah. The world would be disgusted by behavior that he himself has congratulated him for, and that would end his monopoly on judging his own ethics and on prescribing his just desserts.

The person does in fact have these secrets, but is he actually hiding them perfectly? Is he hiding them from perception? --or only from conditioned response, having been bullied into fear of perceiving?

That’s one of the leading issues of behavioral science. Everyone evolved a social conscience, a desire to see consistency of matter and significance so that the matter reads into the social significance (integrity), long before he was born; and so everyone is trying to expose himself even as they are consciously trying to accomplish the opposite (dissimulate).

So now we are asking a virtual question just to shed some light on what these signs are. In a virtual world, or as a “mental experiment”, find yourself already having the power to know all of a person’s secrets.

Would you then have to keep that knowledge of his secrets as memory, or would you find it there physically displayed on the person and in his behavior every time you saw him?

Is it in fact impossible to get away from a person’s secret life and ethic if you don’t actually stick your head into the sand of thought?

In the memory (which is where thinking resides when it is covert social processing or “opportunism”) all of a person’s deflections (employed to distract observers from secrets) are the star of the show, because memory can hold a profound aggregate of deflections but cannot retain a single frame of reality or of the faithfully detailed fleeting present? (The new present must satisfy every need to understand the bygone present.)

So thought is keeping cool by keeping your head deep inside the sand (deflections), just begging to be deceived again just so you will have more sand.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we are asking a virtual question just to shed some light on what these signs are. In a virtual world, or as a “mental experiment”, find yourself already having the power to know all of a person’s secrets.

Would you then have to keep that knowledge of his secrets as memory, or would you find it there physically displayed on the person and in his behavior every time you saw him?

This is a very interesting question. How could you come up with it? :) it depends on your experience. I believe it isnt done out of pure intention to do so but you right away go for the second (physically displayed on the person) at the start. Then you stop doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thyra, I'm not getting your point. The post is asking if it is merely hard to see how people express their duplicity, so that these displays would become quite obvious if we already knew the details; or if they really are effectively hiding what they are really up to with the pretense that they are up to something you approve of..

You may have seen the impressionists' work, Pictures that already look like your eyes are fogged over; have we been programmed to look at people's acting tricks through a similar effect? And is the effect accomplished by being distracted by thought, trapped in processing memory for opportunities to apply acting skills?

Looking into memory is unlearning how to be looking at reality, at things occupying space in a labyrinthian showcase of Cosmic and earthly evolution. Memory-watching becomes a rut we carry with us back into the present, so that how we used to see the present, the gift of sight we once applied, becomes "subconscious".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Consider a person’s secrets, the secrets he keeps because their exposure would render him a social pariah. The world would be disgusted by behavior that he himself has congratulated him for, and that would end his monopoly on judging his own ethics and on prescribing his just desserts.

The person does in fact have these secrets, but is he actually hiding them perfectly? Is he hiding them from perception? --or only from conditioned response, having been bullied into fear of perceiving?

That’s one of the leading issues of behavioral science. Everyone evolved a social conscience, a desire to see consistency of matter and significance so that the matter reads into the social significance (integrity), long before he was born; and so everyone is trying to expose himself even as they are consciously trying to accomplish the opposite (dissimulate).

So now we are asking a virtual question just to shed some light on what these signs are. In a virtual world, or as a “mental experiment”, find yourself already having the power to know all of a person’s secrets.

Leverage wouldn't be true power as the two concepts are different things thereof. Some people might say that leverage implies power by the suggestion of the implication of a lie of rendering the choice of actions to someone with leverage. That would not necessarily be so. Furthermore, this appears to a display or exposition upon the old story of a social expectation of voluntary to-peer confession. As if it were definitely and axiomatically proven so that there is correctness in public understanding of other peoples wrongdoings for the sake of the implication or appearance of peer-judgment. Nonetheless, if they were to judge, could they justify in their own right or would they reason to you that certain actions not so wrong ("ethically speaking" they could probably say.)

Would you then have to keep that knowledge of his secrets as memory, or would you find it there physically displayed on the person and in his behavior every time you saw him?

Is it in fact impossible to get away from a person’s secret life and ethic if you don’t actually stick your head into the sand of thought?

Are you attempting to say that a prior prejudice about a person would so become a basis of thoughts about that person that the prejudicial person would attempt to rationalize all actions coming from the so-called "criminal" as being related or underpinned but the logic of a criminal or wrongdoing having been attempted? Alternatively, do they just "see" that person as "weak" with regard with the aforementioned regard (that would or would not be called an ethical flaw.)

In the memory (which is where thinking resides when it is covert social processing or “opportunism”) all of a person’s deflections (employed to distract observers from secrets) are the star of the show, because memory can hold a profound aggregate of deflections but cannot retain a single frame of reality or of the faithfully detailed fleeting present? (The new present must satisfy every need to understand the bygone present.)

So thought is keeping cool by keeping your head deep inside the sand (deflections), just begging to be deceived again just so you will have more sand.

That being so, are secrets really the matter of thought for external observers? Are you suggesting a possibility of delusion or living in lies? Does that suggestion include the implication of illusion trapsia (et al not necessarily "insanity" per se, but would some speak of it?)

Edited by solubus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be depend entirely on the nature of those secrets. Are they just thoughts or actual actions kept secret? Is the person aware of the duality of their own ego. ( animal vs thinker.... Instinct vs thought).

There are many dark places in the hearts of men. I would worry about the person unaware or ignoring this. I would not fault a man for his thoughts but I could fault him for what he thinks about his own thoughts. Unaware people make me nervous in general, so yes if I knew these things about people I would see the thing first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The new replies manifest the same disassociation from the problem. If I solve the problem of a bank-robber as the problem of a customer cashing a check I am deluded.

What is harder to grasp is that, once I begin solving the "real problem" (of the robber) I have still not met the person, and he will Always insure that I never do. Even in "telepathy" (schizophrenia) he will speak and vocalize responses and challenges designed to dissimulate who he knows himself to be, and all his voice-hallucinations, considered to be real other people to him, will reflect the same duplicity where, because you can be made to hear us we can arrange that you will never get Close to finding out what kind of people we are.

We are conditioned such that our senses are the resource others employ to insure they are never understood. The restlessness with which thought processes these deflections in the adult or vulgar Child mirrors the restlessness resulting from how these deflections impressed upon us have freed the ones dissimulating themselves from observation. It is like making ice on a hill and then sliding down it.

Deflection first creates a memory and then a conviction that people's deflections by histrionic means are the real people. Even God can be kept in the pathetic storage space of memory if we are satisfied to Believe. We can only move into the simple space of memory, away from the profound space of the Cosmos, if we are convinced we are interacting with living things, and can rehearse these interactions with the recollections.

Edited by behavioralist
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm giving you a Like because what I think you asked was great, and because this whole thread is over my head. Whoosh! But fascinating as heck and because of that II will work to understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is such nonsensical dribble. Behaviorism is dead, buddy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm giving you a Like because what I think you asked was great, and because this whole thread is over my head. Whoosh! But fascinating as heck and because of that II will work to understand it.

Work at it by sharing what you think it means or infers. That will identify for us what part needs to be magnified.

It is not wrong to be baffled, but only to be sure; because a divided mind, conscious and subconscious, is divided into two extremely disparate scopes, and the lesser scope or prospect assumes it is the entire scope, and dominates the Place the greater part may play in arriving at solutions and actions.

You say, "I know what's wrong with that!" and you are asserting the virtue of a pathetic scope.

This is saying that "the mind" is saying "subconscious" to its greater scope in its role of the dominant "conscious", and this is the lesser scope (the conscious) dictatng what the greater one may be saying. The way we usually see this on television is where someone says "There is no such limit upon the possible as the conscious mind would Place upon it.", which I Think I Heard on Fringe when it was still a good series, not postapocalyptic.

A dominant conscious reflects a society where scullduggery is the virtue of advancement potential. It dominates because credulity is how to play the game. If you beleive the evil are good they will know how to play you, but if you do not they won't play you at all, which is supposed to be suicide but I have not found it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.