2015-07-24 11:56:53 UTC
am trying to inject into the noosphere is too complex for a chat
session, and putting it inside a tweet it would require a level of
genius I can only dream of.
Meanwhile, I've been holding off from posting here, maybe from the idea
of not blemishing my record when I'm slowly mentally degrading with age
and disease. But I'm still following developments, such as Ilya trying
to better his life and Cujo turning out to be just incurably evil.
Ilya's main problem however doesn't seem to be him being evil, but just
the talking about things he clearly doesn't understand, kind of
reaching above his level. Related to that is what the David does, in
that it is the opposite, he seems smart but only because he writes
intelligent seeming prose without ever touching anything important. I
wonder what he'd think about this enticing song, a woman with a bottle
of whiskey trying to convince a guy to hang out with her during the
night and reminisce the past.
But let's not get too distracted, the concept I am trying to introduce
is too important to waste time for on trivial or tribal matters.
Have you ever been to a doctor's office wondering why they seem to
remain oblivious to you listing your symptoms and then proceed to make
some vague generalizations about what could be done for people with
your disease even if it can't be cured yet?
I guess not, because you'd be so lucky to have some rare disease that
can't be cured.
Still, being an ex psychologist (that ex is just there to signify I
never got accepted into the holy temple, even though I met all the
requirements) I tend to look for reasons why people do things.
So I've come up with the general idea of how this works and I decided
to call it 'I told you so science'.
First, one has to take control of your audience's destiny, for example
by profiting from the fact that your client is in a temporary critical
phase and relayed to you, this can happen with diseases but also with
people asking for financial assistance at a welfare institute. One
gives them pills, or, in case of the welfare institute, makes them
waste a lot of precious time doing fruitless applications. If you're a
religious institute just forbid your clients to have sex or impose some
other arbitrary rule that keeps them busy. The idea in this phase is
just to take control of the situation, capturing your audience's
attention by forcing them to go through the hoops, while at the same
time not making any falsifiable claims.
The next stage is very simple, just wait until something happens to or
with the client.
It could be the case that nothing ever happens, but this is not a
problem since you've covered your bases, no one can ever accuse you of
not having taken the necessary steps.
But what if something happens? Bingo, you can now take credit for
having succeeded at providing your client with a job, cured their
disease or whatever. Whatever good the client did or accomplished it is
now your's, not their's.
Now, if something bad happens there's another profit, if one has taken
the precautions of vaguely listing possible complications, we can say "I
told you so, this is proof my analysis of your situation was very right
from the beginning and you must now take more or stronger pills", or, in
case of worsening job prospects, claim it is the result of some fault in
the client's nature or personality that can now be handled by sending
them to some other link in the chain, say a psychiatrist. Extra points
for you for dealing with the problem.
But apart from these systems, there obviously is room for a more
general theory of I told you so science. Just make some outrageous but
vague claim and when it seems to come true one can claim credibility.
If it doesn't, well one has many other claims that could come true.
In fact, thinking about it, this thing is everywhere, from the patent
system, to scientific research into medicine, to hedge funds and
economics or even climate science.
Maybe even our brains function by generating many hypotheses in
parallel and by capitalizing on the one that seems relevant. Paranormal
research is even famous for abusing this scenario.
It's all fine, just don't think I don't know what you are doing when
I'm sitting in your chair, even if you don't.
"no, it's not that one about the thunder only happening when it's