The Ability To Discern Well [Part 2]

I decided to extend this into five parts as I thought I'd also give you a fast method to process data quickly and most importantly accurately, plus some other goodies too.

You'll probably find you already apply this technique without knowing you do... But the important piece is what comes after it.

In the Military, they have the OBDI problem or the ‘observational dilemma problem’. You have two or more conflicting scenarios, so how do you determine which one is accurate and which one is false, or misrepresented, or misunderstood?

When it comes to accurate thinking, in the Military lives are on the line, so speed and victory are essential. As it turns out, lots of lives were on the line, possibly billions of them, but thinking fast was not essential, however, accuracy was. 

I have always used (without thought) numerous of the methods taught on thinking well, such as first principles thinking, or more simply put, “think like a scientist.” 

E.g. What are we absolutely certain is true? What has already been proven? Or just keep doubting until you can't doubt anymore. I use this one when I get deeper into a subject, as I'll show in part three.

However, if I'm looking for speed, I use (without thought again) this technique: who / what / when / where  / why. 

E.g. Who is this person? What is he saying? When is he saying it? Where is he? And why is he saying it? In fact, I only learnt the terminology for this recently. Before it was just something I did effortlessly without thinking.

As I said this is a natural process so we all do it for most things when we don't have emotions exerting pressure on us for things to be one way or another... I.e. when we are afraid or anxious it affects our ability to discern well. 

Because people were afraid at the start of Covid, for themselves, or for loved ones, their ability to discern well went straight into the toilet, and still for the most part has remained there.

Back in Feb 2020, I seemed like a lone voice saying, look this data is saying this is no more deadly than the flu...

I was ridiculed endlessly for this and ostracised by a number of my friends and peers as I was obviously some wacky conspiracy theorist. No, they had just been scared, or anxious, or needed to fit into society etc.

So they had external forces that they had allowed to affect their ability to discern well.

It is important to remember who has been right, and how they came to their conclusions so as you can then give extra weighting of trust or distrust onto their predictions for the future.

Even though at the start of all this I was sure it was being overblown as a problem, I considered what the most appropriate thing to do was.

Which was, get my Mum to self-isolate as she had just turned 80 and was at risk, and do it as a precaution.

She told her Church friends she wouldn't be attending for a while as she was just being careful and staying out of the way.

The following week countries in Europe began locking the citizens down, which I said at the time was ridiculous and would cause way more harm than good. Another statement that stood the test of time.

I later found out that, in the past, villages used to isolate the old folk and the young went and got ill, got over it and then the old folk could come out safely again. So my discernment had gotten to that conclusion without the benefit of history.

By the end of March, early April I had learnt the only people dying or suffering badly were those with a serious vitamin D shortage, and that Zinc, Vitamin A & C were also the easy way of staving off getting too ill.

The whole family went on this protocol straight away, and my Mum didn't need to be isolated anymore. She didn't suffer the way others did through loneliness during the lockdowns.

All because I was able to discern well, I was able to put in place a strategy which meant we were in the tiny few members of society not fooled by the propaganda and were protected from whatever ‘the virus’ was by simple means.

I had passed the discernment test for this subject, and it enabled me to do the right thing, and keep doing the right things as more data emerged... Most crucially, to avoid the deadly things which were to follow.

I shared all this with my close friends and those few people who had joined my Rational Thinking Webcast, and who gave up their time and money because they could feel I was on the right track. I bet they got a lot of grief from family and friends for doing so... But I digress.

So who failed the test...

The governments - completely failed everywhere except Sweden

The mainstream media - completely failed everywhere (though recently after 22 months some glimmers of insight are beginning to emerge on GB News in the UK)

The Scientists/Doctors/Nurses, and their governing bodies - the vast majority failed the test

The officials/Teachers - they failed the test

The business leaders - they failed the test

The institutions like WHO, CDC, UN and countless others etc - they all failed the test 

Basically, everyone in the mainstream 'trustworthy' sources, ALL failed the test!

Who passed the test:

David Icke - called this as early as 2008 (maybe earlier)

Max Igan - called it from the start

Jeff Berwick - called it from the start

Side note: Just two years ago it would be almost unthinkable for most to listen to these people. However, on this subject they have proven to be extremely accurate. 

So anyone with a first class ability to think and handle changing their thinking ‘when the facts change’, should also be able to handle overcoming their programming around areas/people they previously may have found ‘uncomfortable.’

So all of the 'wacky woo' sources who were already marked as conspiracy theorists all got it right, and all the trusted authorities all got it wrong, or I'd go as far to say all probably colluded, or all at the very least suffered from 'group think'.

But I'm not going to spend too much time on bashing all those who got it so badly, and so deadly wrong. With any luck, we'll all enjoy doing that when they are on trial for crimes against humanity in the not too distant future! 

So moving on to the technique :-)

Using the example of the Doctor I mentioned in the first part of The Ability To Discern Well, here was what I thought;

Who is this person? - A Doctor of some note, who clearly has an understanding of the subject matter he is discussing. - (green flag, move on, come back later if deeper evaluation is required). 

What is he saying? - He is giving a purely academic answer to the material he is looking at and confining what he is saying to what he knows for certain - (so he's working from within a box - 1st red flag).

When is he saying it? - He is right up to date as this is a bleeding-edge paper from The Lancet medical journal - (a usually reliable source, but often medical trials are not clean, and can be biased, or have too few participants, or have someone exerting pressure on scientists to produce this result, move on, come back later if deeper evaluation is required).

Where is he? - He is from the UK - (I already have previous data on academic Doctors in the UK - partial red flag as I have seen groupthink in this area fail numerous times before, move on, come back later if deeper evaluation is required).

Why is he saying it? - He is attempting to look at this scientifically and not stray from the path of his version of science. He is also trying to disprove certain things because of his personal bias - (having personal bias can be fine at times, e.g. when the person having it is clear about them having it and is aware of it when they are drawing their conclusions. But in the realm he is in this is a big red flag)

He fitted quickly into a group of people selling the mainstream agenda except he had no noticeable vested interest other than his religious-like service to his academic god, which meant he was likely and almost highly likely to be mistaken simply because he refused to look outside the box - which meant I could probably move on and dismiss his findings on this subject.

However, I also had the benefit of previous insight on this subject which, had he considered it, should've changed his conclusion. But as I knew his religion I knew he would not be able to accept that conclusion (side note: about 18 months later that individual conclusion within this whole thought process was proven to be right).

This whole evaluation process took a few seconds and was later proven to be completely accurate.

But that does not mean to say, I did not occasionally check in to test my premise. Each time I did, the premise strengthened.

This does not in any way mean he is useless at everything he says, just that his conclusions are likely to be very risky.

Now, some people will say, ‘yes I can do that too in a few seconds’, which is true, often we are right.

It is, in my opinion, that this is a natural technique, some will be better or worse at it depending on if they have been schooled too hard, or if they are good at self-education. 

However, the BIG problem is, most fail the test of checking their premise again. Checking for proof they were right, or that they were faulty in their conclusion.

To prove that most fail in this part is now easy for me.

All we have to do is just look at everyone who has fallen for the mainstream narrative. They have simply failed to check their premise...

Anyone who checks that now is smacked in the mouth with so much fact, proving the original premises false, that you can never unsee what you see.

Later, I'll prove this in detail showing a process in Part 3 of this mini-series which showed where my ability to discern on this subject was, way before we had enough facts to prove something one way or another.

But my reason for pointing it out is, by far the majority of people fail to check back on their premise...

In other words, they do not doubt their hastily drawn conclusions...

This is an essential part of developing your ability to discern well or discern so well that you end up looking like a prophet.

So why do they do that?

Numerous reasons, but one for sure is because they didn't truly think about the subject. They were looking for markers which meant they could put the subject straight into a nicely and previously arranged box.

Then they could forget about it and move on, except later they will use this hastily, and poorly drawn conclusion to help in their discernment on a future subject. 

This means they are now so way off course that they have no chance of figuring it out...

This process continues on and on until we end up with people so lost, that they end up thinking 'being woke' is a good idea.

And never forget, their ego would probably help out in this box-fitting solution as it helps keep their human trapped in the wrong place.

So yes, all of us can probably do this to varying degrees.

The more you practice this structured thinking the better you become at it.

The more you fail with part of it, the further you will get lost on a subject.

However, without continuous doubt, which is very, very good doubt (not all doubt is bad), then a person can find themselves way off in a direction that they know is right but is actually wrong, and potentially deadly.

Thus you find the people who accepted an experimental gene therapy for something that was approximately as deadly as the Flu (or the so-called vaxxxine, because they changed the dictionary definition so it fitted the term vaxxxine). 

There is also the problem of ‘too much doubt’ to consider very briefly...

The people who suffer from this most are likely to be those who have been schooled most. They second guess themselves to death and do an Oozlum bird on the subject, and are trapped inside their head instead of using their intuition and feelings.

They are listening to their ego continually second-guessing every intuitive thought and feeling and allowing it to close off true consideration of it before giving it an opportunity to germinate.

The secrets here are to never know for certain you are 100% right, to always be open to being wrong, even to always look forward to being wrong, as that is an opportunity to hone your discernment ability.

This puts you in a position of being comfortable with uncertainty.

From there, your vision and discernment ability really gains strength and power.

***

In Part 3 I'll cover a very useful tool for more in-depth analysis which can be used to find where you are on a subject when everything is at sea.

Best wishes, 

Andy

P.S. I think I've decided to write a book on how to benefit in all areas of life regarding the point in time we find ourselves in now.

After researching and concluding what was going on regarding the Covid War, I turned my attention to what would be the effects of it in the near and semi-distant future.

After that, I went to work on altering my life to suit that future, positioning myself so that I could endure and definitely prosper from what I have discerned is coming.

So I think I am going to write a book on all this, please feel free to tell me if you think this is a good idea or not in the comments. Feel free to encourage or discourage, all is welcome as well as anything you’d specifically like to hear from me on.