Manipulating a Person to Create an Imbalanced Trade

Hahahahah!!

But really, just like how hacking improves security, I believe that understanding how manipulation works could improve the sophistication of trade. I'm going to describe a 2-step case of manipulation with a story. Environments this can be used in include flea markets, used car lots, with real estate agents, garage sales, craft fairs, black markets, vehicle/computer repair stores, or with your 'friends' you jerk. Basically anywhere where the person you're purchasing from owns the rights to the item being purchased.

Imagine a situation where you and somebody, lets call them Jack, have some items to trade. Alright, before we can begin to describe the process of manipulating Jack to create an imbalanced trade we must first take heed of two things: what Jack wants and what Jack knows. The reason why we must know what Jack wants is so that we may appeal the emotions of Jack. The reason we have to know what Jack knows is so that we can avoid getting detected in our disingenuous schemes!

Go: Jack comes up to you and is like, "Look I just got a lot of [magical item]!" Jealous, and wanting to get more of this [magical item], you start your game.

The first step you can take is to make Jack think less of the [magical item]. THE BEST way to do this is to find REAL faults with the [magical item]. For example, when you go to purchase a used car you may notice that there is a dent in the door or a crack in the windshield. Call those things out -> ????? -> Profit! You can also do this by providing false information about the [magical item] or by devaluing the positive impact of the [magical item]. The reason you may wish to provide false information alongside real information is because perhaps you just can't get the price low enough being honest! And if you can get better than the honest price, why not?

The easiest way to have somebody believe false information is to guise it in an informal fallacy. The reason that informal fallacies are useful in this situation is because Jack isn't stupid, and he knows the basic information about his [magical item]. If we tried telling him that his [magical item] does something extra or doesn't do something that he knows it does, he'll [b]catch us[/b]. Boo. But if we used an informal fallacy such as "Oh, everybody I know that has [magical item] actually say it isn't that great in regard Y" then he will generally be more willing to assimilate your proposition, rather than to just discount it. Also, a key about using informal fallacies is that they are generally difficult to verify! That means two things: Jack would have difficulty verifying it on the spot, and that Jack probably hasn't had the chance to verify such information in the past, especially if the proposition false.


Particularly useful informal fallacies:
-Argumentum Ad Populum: It is of my experience that people tend to trust - at least somewhat - the popular opinion. Nevertheless, be careful because there are some people that - for some reason - are inclined to reject popular opinion.
-Argumentum ad Verecundiam: Similarly you can tell somebody that a very respectable authority claimed something to be true. The awesome thing about this is it doesn't have to be true at all! Precede what you're claiming the authority to have said with the fragment "Dr. X said something like" and all of a sudden your claims are unverifiable.
-Slippery Slope: Oh, this one is slightly harder to employ but so useful. To use this one effectively you could tell Jack "Hey, I heard people that use [magical item] tend to get addicted to [magical item], which leads to [negative habit]."
-Appeal to Emotion: This requires knowing a little about your victims values. Lets say that Jack has a strong aversion to stupid people. You could then claim that the people that generally use [magical item] are stupid, and you don't really want to get caught up with that crowd.

These are all methods of making Jack feel as if his [magical item] isn't quite so valuable. That is, the process we are undergoing is lowering the oppositions wealth inherited from the desired item. Also, the opposition will assume you will not trade quite as much as you would have for the item. It is important that you don't overdo it because the next step is to do the first trade!

Step two is to encounter your first trade with Jack. For some reason you want some of this devalued item. Luckily people don't make sense and you don't have to either. Besides, you're just "trying it out" for the first time! You're not certain of how much the product will benefit you! So you make an offer to give Jack something, probably money, for his [magical item]. Depending on your success at changing Jack's opinion of his [magical item] through information manipulation, you'll get a lower price.

Again, Jack isn't stupid, he wants to get the best price, too, so he's going to try and haggle the price upward! How might he do this and how can you detect it?

1) He may take a long pause or seem undecided, which means he wants more. In these cases your job is to IMMEDIATELY withdraw your offer for trade. A statement like "Oh, well don't worry about it then" does the trick. This does two things: (1) It makes it so that Jack must make his decision to trade or not trade immediately, and (2) If Jack keeps a supply, it makes possible for you to reissue the same offer next time the situation arises.

2) He might lie to you. It's generally hard to tell if somebody is lying, especially if they know how, but a few indicators are: (1) They look towards the right, which indicates creative rather than factual thinking, (2) they touch their face which indicates a rush of blood to the head, (3) they act defensively.

3) He might just outwardly claim he feels like he's being tricked. Just dismiss this with "Well, hmm, I don't know, hmm..."

Beware of:
Competition: Most industries tend to have competition. If Jack is aware of the market conditions for his good then make sure you do not ask for the same quantity of that good that the market provides. That way there is no direct way for Jack to tell if the transaction is inferior or not. Competition can also be used in your advantage if Jack isn't aware of the market conditions. This allows you to claim market conditions. When claiming market conditions you must make sure you're claiming the market sells a different amount than the amount you're buying to avoid any direct indicators of what the price should be in your transaction. I'm sure by this point you're already thinking about making the market look like it offers a better deal than the one you're asking for. ;) Prepare a couple reasons for why you're willing to buy at a worse price than the market offers, ofc. My favourite two are: (1) I just don't want to head over to [place where market is] right now, and (2) I know you have to make a profit.

Useful Phrases:
 "That sounds about right" <-- When accepting offers
"Well, hmm, I'm not so sure, hmmm" <-- To avoid confrontation
"Yeah, but I heard"  <-- To acknowledge information in passing while changing the focus in your favour
"But here's what I'll do for you" <-- When offering to do a trade.

Keep In Mind
Build rapport with your victims!
Stay flexible as the process is highly circumstantial!
Don't be evil!

Markedness

This will be brief, because the idea is simple. The purpose of this writing is to make adjectives more meaningful. I will be doing this by discussing the concept of markedness and by attempting to show the applications of it.

You're at a meeting. Eight people are dressed in suits. One person is dressed in a hotdog outfit. The person in the hotdog outfit is the marked person. Why? Because they are the person that stands out. Another way we can state this is they are the person that makes us think about something special. Now, check out the following statement:

You are my favourite reader!

So, which word stands out? That's the marked one. Check out this next sentence:

You are my favourite reader!

The same word is the marked one, but it doesn't stand out as much. That is, it's not as marked. What we can tell about this information is that something is not only marked or unmarked, but rather something is placed along a spectrum of markedness. We can relate that to almost all adjectives. One is smart or not smart, but rather they are somewhere along the spectrum.

Markedness: The quality of an object that determines how much that object innately provokes thought.

What are the requirements for something to have markedness? Well, we can easily deduce that all objects have some level of markedness, so the real questions is: What makes something more marked than something else? There are a few conditions making something especially marked:

(1) It is out of context.
(2) It is a large part of the context.
(3) Attention is purposefully directed toward it.

Gotta fly.

Schedule Optimization

"The key to success is motivation. The blueprint to success is organization."
-Gary Shikora

Opportunity cost is the price encountered when one decides to do one thing and is thus unable to do the next best alternative. I define Schedule Optimization as the process in which one attempts to use their time in the way that results in the least opportunity cost. The concept of opportunity cost is frequently used in not one, but two models. I will temporarily refer to these two models as (1) the exchange model, and (2) the time model. I find one of these models to be primitive. In any case, I would do well to illuminate what I mean by the two models.

Let the exchange model of opportunity cost be used for exchanges. Let there be two parties. When these two parties are to trade goods they must consider if they are using their resources optimally. Lets say there is another party. This new party offers the first party a finer deal than the second party. The second party is rejected and the first and third parties undergo trade. The objects of trade can be anything of wealth, i.e., anything we value. The reason why the first party opted to trade with the third party is because the third party offered more wealth to the first party. As such, the opportunity cost of trading with the third party was less than the opportunity cost of trading with the second party.

Let the time model of opportunity cost be be the process in which one makes a decision to better their lives, with their lives being the set of all time they are sentient. One may quickly make note that one must decide to make an exchange. Yes, it is then true that the exchange model preforms only one of the many functions of the time model. Furthermore, the time model has the capacity to be used within the realm of one's personal productions, extending it's authority to all possible living human phenomena. Let us now assert that the exchange model is totally worthless as it only looks at a very narrow part of the opportunity costs we all endure, and move on to explaining the possible situations of living human phenomena.

A very simple rendition of the processes of a given human would be: Sensory input leads to internal learning functions which result in outputs. Because one is constantly queued to make some sort of action, we can determine that all individuals decide at the margin. We can also assert that margin extends for what we call a moment. Now, within each of these moments a human decides what to output. When making this decision they are - consciously or not -  determining their opportunity cost. I assert there is a dichotomy of the decisions a human can make. One category shall be contemplated decisions, with the other category being decisions not completed. The two categories should be handled very different for schedule optimization.

Before moving onto the complexities of contemplated situations I will first assert that decisions without contemplation are much easier to facilitate. That is, there are two very direct ways to improve decision making without having to contemplate decisions. The first method is through good health. The second method is through conditioning. I assert that the more one becomes familiarized with a given subject the easier thought becomes on that topic. I would attribute this phenomena to the concept of intuition. The concept of intuition shall be defined as the process in which a human rapidly comes to a decision by recomposing past ideas. Exampli gratia: the more one reads economic textbooks then the less time they will have to spend consciously thinking in order to produce a decision related to economics to the point in which no time is spent consciously thinking at all. Furthermore, I believe one can build an intuition for building intuitions. So, to optimize a given area of decisions made without conscious thinking you must build an intuition for that given area of decisions. What about decisions made with conscious thinking?

Decisions made with contemplation require a lot of work to optimize. I will assert that the optimal understanding of a decision is when the decision can be made both accurately and intuitively. However, when building an intuition one is faced with their conscious. When communicating with one's conscious I think it is very important for one to remain open and to not take themselves too seriously. Any other way and one may very well establish an intuition that is not sound or accurate. It is much harder to learn things once learned wrong than to learn things not learned at all. I digress, when handling one's conscious one must be very keen on weaknesses. If we assert that an intuitive understanding for something is a strength, then any lack thereof would be a weakness. If one is able to locate and eradicate these weaknesses at some positive rate, then they will be able to move toward an intuitive understanding.

Finally, there is a category of contemplated decisions which are just so freaking complicated nobody has the time to intuitively understand them. Rational ignorance. With these sort of subjects comes the heavy labor of schedule optimization. Humanities primary method of retaining and building ideas that cannot be readily produced is to immortalize the ideas with symbols, namely language. I am by no means qualified to tell anybody how to organize their ideas, but I am able to express how I handle mine. When I want to handle ideas I don't wish to commit to memory I think of one thing: technology. The goal of technology is to minimize production costs, and there just so happens to be plentitudes of technology available that would minimize almost anybody's personal production costs ....

1. GOOGLE CALENDAR "Free"
-I think this is like the best thing ever for people that are constantly moving/have something to do. I hate having to remember when everything is due, when that dance is, who I need to see tomorrow, so with Google Calendar I gleefully abstain from any such duties. Google Calendar allows one to create recurring events, which is why I opted for it over other calendars I could have chosen.


2. Smartphone/Tablet Pretty expensive
-The smartphone/tablet PC is becoming more popular than 'conventional' PCs. For good reason. Without my smartphone I wouldn't have constant access to countless news feeds, Wikipedia, The World Factbook, Google, Wolfram, and Dictionary.com. All these internet technologies are very essential to expediting the expression of ideas. If one hasn't the ability to readily pursue their thoughts then they are bound to forget at least some of them.

3. Notecards Becoming peculiarly more expensive
-I like to carry a couple notecards in my pocket because I am a student. More specifically, I hate taking notes but I love listening to lectures. However, there comes certain times during lectures when I wish to pursue more information, but can't take my iPhone out and do so, because I am listening to the lecture. In these cases I write down on a notecard a couple things. The first thing is what idea I am interesting in pursuing. The second thing is the way I plan on pursuing it, be it the book for the class or a simple Wiki search.

4. A Briefcase Like 50-100 bucks, but who carries a briefcase?
Ok, so it's kind've a weird fashion statement that a lot of people probably just don't want to make, but a briefcase is an amazing tool for organization. There are plenty of alternatives like backpacks, purses, satchels, binders, etc, but briefcase has been my favorite because I am able to neatly organize and readily access my belongings in a single compartment. Furthermore, I hate wearing backpacks.


5. Good Friends Is it ok to be calling humans technology? No, really?
My friends tend to remind me things about my life without even trying all the time. They are also there to talk to when I feel like expressing an idea but don't know how. Friends can generally help with that, because you can generally tell when somebody does and does not understand you. Also, good social health is important, etc.


So, a recap. 
-Opportunity costs are always present.
-The process of minimizing opportunity cost for decisions differs depending on which types of decisions are being addressed (those that are contemplated, and those that are not).
-Conditioning builds stronger intuition.
-Effective use of technology helps one to stay organized.

-Khriss

An Essay on Debate for the Maximization of Utility

It is no doubt that with the ever-expanding nature of human production, and thus demand for capital, that we – as a society – are ascending toward a more economical attitude. However, while the stress of keeping an able economy is mounting, the idea of using resources economically has been around since deep into antiquity. If one were to take a brief look into history one would observe different, independent, unique forms of government that all aim at one common deed: to provide supply for the demand of a union by making the best use of the union’s commodities. Let the term union be defined as the persons living within the affected body of the provided government(s). And Let the term commodities be defined as it would in Marxism (Marx). I believe that the crux of government is the ability to use debate and reasoning to maximize utility. Out of interest, I shall provide an abridged system of debate which aims to provide the best argumentative medium for maximizing utility .

First, it is rudimentary to explain two things: 1) what is meant by debate, and 2) the purpose of debate. Let debate be all argumentative discourse (Lyon, L.I) between two parties that proposes change. Ideally, the two parties of the debate would be working together to find the best adaptation of the proposed change. Let it be decided that a proposition shall be formatted in a manner that states a single subject should undergo some definite change. Let it also be decided that in order to affirm a change should take place we must first find - through debate - if the net acceptance of the affected body is positive or negative. Therefore, we can currently consider that the goal of a debate is to find the most economical model of ethics for the given proposition based on the affected body. Now, let it be decided that the purpose of debate is to establish changes which would create a net improvement amongst all domains of economy. Later on, I shall provide that all of the most pragmatic, and formal models of ethics can be represented economically.

Next, I shall explain what I mean by the domains of economy. I would first like to provide that an economy is by no means bounded by a monetary connotation, id est, the economy of one’s emotions should be personally relevant in issues which one has invested sentiment. I will adopt the system of academia that segregates Economics and Ethics. In order to keep terminology clear throughout my explaination I will temporarily refer to the academic disciplines of Economics and Ethics as, respectively, the financial domain and the moral domains of economics. Let it be asserted that the purpose of financial domain is to provide the most money. Let it be asserted that money is to provide a type capital that can be easily traded for other commodities. Let it be asserted that the purpose of commodities is to bring their bearers pleasure. Therefore, the purpose of the financial domain is to bring its bearers the most pleasure. Therefore, the financial domain is a device in pleasure, and thus also a device in pain. Let it be asserted that the system of pleasure and pain is a device in utilitarianism (Amicus). Let it be asserted that utilitarianism is a device in the moral domains (J.S. Mill). Therefore, the financial domain is a device for the moral domains, id est, ethics.

Now that the two domains of economics have been consolidated into a single entity, I will no longer refer to the Economics and Ethics as previously provided. Instead, I shall observe that Economics is a tool for actualizing the goals of Ethics. Therefore, I can now clearly state that the goals of debate are to: 1) Determine if a proposition is ethical, and 2) Improve and manipulate the proposition to its most ethical form. I shall now go on to describe the processes inherent to achieving these goals.

Let the process of determining if a proposition is ethical be described. A natural method is to observe the amount of demand for commodities. Let it be asserted that as the demand of a commodity increase so does the perceived positive impact by society. A notion against this method one must take heed of is the notion that a commodity can be unproductive. Furthermore, a commodity may be partially unproductive and partially productive. Exempli gratia, a steak may overall be productive due to the rich protein and efficiency of distribution, but the unwanted fats and the sufficiently less diligent workers are still unproductive commodities. One can draw the line between productive and unproductive in the same spot one would for desired and undesired.

The process of determining the demand of a commodity shall now be addressed. To do this it is important to analyze statistics in both the marketplace as well as in any relevant polls within the affected community. Exempli gratia, if there existed a family where five people wanted corn and three people wanted peas, and the cost of obtaining both were equal, then the corn is clearly the more popular choice. However, if the price of peas were double the price of corn, then determining which one is truly more desired becomes more complicated. If the family were to observe that while a majority of them enjoy peas more than corn, it could still turn out that most of them would still rather choose corn in the marketplace due to the cheaper price. However, if, perhaps, the town they lived in realized that their residents wanted peas more than corn, then, perhaps, they could shift their agricultural focus in order to improve utility and happiness for the residents. The key concept is that while the marketplace may suggest that the affected body enjoys one substance more than another - due to the elasticity of the market - that may only be due to a lack of other resources that would have been purchased instead. To be able to identify situations like these and investigate accordingly is a talent of a good debater.

Let the process of manipulating a proposition to its most ethical form be described. The debater’s duty of maximizing utility is fulfilled by: 1) maximizing prospect of all the productive commodities a proposition presents, 2) minimizing the possibility of all unproductive commodities a proposition presents, and 3) identifying how desirable productive commodities are. In achieving this, the two teams shall work together. Let the teams be bisected into the affirmative team and the negative team. The affirmative team shall: 1) exhibit the productive commodities a change would produce, 2) manipulate the proposition to avoid unproductive commodities the change would produce, and 3) identify how desirable the productive commodities are in relation to each other. The negative team shall: 1) argue the positive effects of the presented productive commodities are minimal, 2) exhibit the unproductive commodities the change would produce, and 3) identify how undesirable the unproductive qualities are in relation to each other.

With this system of debate defined, I am now to compare it to other popular systems of debate to ensure that it prevails above them in its goal of the acquisition of utility. First, one may disqualify all forms of debate that preclude written argumentation, for written argumentation has: 1) a higher capacity for logical analysis inherent to its immortalized state, 2) an easier method of distribution, which allows for more opinions and thus more refinement, and 3) the ability to be continued over an indefinite amount of time by an indefinite amount of persons. Secondly, one may disqualify all forms of debate that rely on an appeal to an audience, for these are intrinsically manipulative as the teams have an incentive to win (Lyon, L.V). With these two disqualifications of debate devices one would find that there are no contemporary systems of debate left to consider. Therefore, this is the best current system of debate for maximizing utility.

While I would argue this system is not the best possible system, I would argue that it is better than all other current systems. I believe that improvements could be made upon this system, such as the addition of a faction of each debate team that participates in a judged, oral debate. With this faction running concurrently and under the right conditions, perhaps it would promote better research and intuitive understanding of the debated issues. The infinite series of improvements like this is only limited by the resources of human imagination.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism can be succinctly defined as a perspective dictating that the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is ideal. Pragmatically, this is hard to refute.

If we are to define utility then we would be compelled to assert it as something that provides some fashion of benefit. Furthermore, when handling matters concerning human productions, benefit would be defined as whatever aids the mentality of humans, or rather, whatever makes humans happier. Therefor, utility coincides with subsequent happiness encouraged from utilization of said utility.

Utilitarianism. The best is what makes the most happy. Seems easy enough, right?

One fatal flaw. Happiness is not all encompassing. The countless variations of emotional state are all vital for integral development. Not a single one can be objectively stated as inferior to another. Happiness as an ultimate goal is a childish perspective of 'good and bad' with ambitions far too restricting. I'll use guilt as an example.

Guilt is an emotion that one feels when they observe that others have found their actions to be inferior or insufficient. When one feels guilt they normally feel obligated to rid the possibility of such guilt occurring in the future. This is true with other 'negative' emotions, as well. I digress. With the attempt to solve the problem of guilt one will better their situation. While they may not immediately remedy all such faults, they will *definitely* produce thoughts that will increase their mental activity in such a way that they will be better equipped for the future. In fact, all situations encountered cause a response that will give the person the *opportunity* to become better equipped for the future. Whether or not somebody is open-minded and creative enough to harness each moment is another thing.

So on the scale of personal development we can see that total happiness would fall short of allowing one to have complete development. Seems obvious, huh?

That's not all. Humans aren't the only thing in this universe, and there is absolutely nothing that causes us to fall under a different criteria for physical interactions. Gravity still affects us. We can't produce things against the will of the ever powerful wavefunctions that persist a stable flow of all universal actions. The most simplest way to put it is, the best is what happens. Because that is what is *stable*. Everything else would make the universe bluescreen. Crash. Kaboom.

So utilitarianism? A *convenient* ideal that should be encouraged in situations in which there are multiple people involved when no other superior system is available. Logically sound? Not quite.

The First Steps in Learning

Is amplifying your capacity to learn. Seems like a catch-22, huh? Learning how to learn? Sounds gnarly. It's actually a very easy process, though, and I'm sure you can do it. I'll be supplying you with a list of different activities, behaviors, and topics. With these you may select the ones that appeal to you and ignore the rest as you see fit. While deciding though, remember that reading all of it will produce the best results.

Best results -> Best learning -> Best information -> Best responses -> Happy

Diet
I cannot stress this too much. The benefits of a good diet are tremendous. It would be nearly impossible to go through all of the different details on how to diet, but there are some very basic measures you should take.

1. Avoid drugs and alcohol. This should be obvious
2. Drink tons of water. A gallon a day if possible.
3. Don't let yourself get hungry. When you're hungry, your body is sending you a panic response.
4. Take a multivitamin designed for your profile (age, gender). This will ensure that you get all of the proper vitamins your body and mind needs.
5. Invest in some Fish Oil. The Omega-3 fatty acids support development of your brain.
6. If you have internet handy ... look up the foods you're eating. Some things may surprise you.

Lifestyle
Lifestyle changes are also fundamental aspects of improving your brain, assuming you don't already have amazing lifestyle choices.

1. Get enough sleep. I know that if you woke up at 4 in the afternoon on Sunday going to bed at 11 doesn't make much sense. So don't. But don't stay up all the way until six AM like you did the night before when you were out practicing bad habits. (; Go to bed the second to feel tired.
2. Exercise. At least do something. This will improve memory, reaction times, catalyze new nerve cell formation, increase neurotrophins, promote nutrient delivery, increase volume of certain neural regions, and inhibit the thinning of your cerebral cortex.
3. Keep your mind stimulated. You can do this in a large number of different ways. Like any sorts of puzzles? Maybe you like writing? Do these things when you wake up and your brain will be ready to accept and organize information for the rest of the day.
4. Learn new words. The more words you can formulate situations in the more accurate your internal model of representing the world about you will be. Don't do a word of the day system. I've done those. They don't work. Just learn a single word, use it until you master it and move on to the next. I like to take new words I use and apply them to the specific terminology they would be present in.
5. Listen to music when not anything else. This is a very simply lifestyle changes that will build intelligence and neurons in otherwise untouched regions.

Topics
There are definitely topics that you should learn before learning other topics. In fact, you've probably noticed that there are classes you can only take after you've taken prerequisites. Well, there's a topic that I find to be a prerequisite for all learning, and that topic is Logic.

LOGIC
Logic is a very well defined science. There is very little art to it at all. In fact, top debaters don't even worry about logic anymore because they've mastered it, and the debate becomes entirely about using deception and creative tactics. There are plenty of ways to work on your logic (go chess!), but this is my method:

Facts and Inference: We know what facts are and what opinions are. I think opinion is a term that people use for preferences when they don't know the reason that they have that opinion. I think opinions are stupid. (: Inferences are conclusions that we draw from the facts. Like, (premise, fact) pain hurts, (premise, fact) this person is in pain, (conclusion, inference) this person hurts.

Also, don't just blindly accept your own opinions, always try to rationalize your reasons. My conscious might say I prefer fruit to candy, but I'll have to think further to outline the reasons of that preference. Maybe I do like candy more but I'm stuck in the *shallow conscious* mindset that I like fruit more. It might not be true even though I'm saying it. Though, upon further investigation I can find the reasons like it's healthier, tastes better, promotes a better mood, etc.

Argument: An argument must have all of these to be complete:

1. Stated thesis Arguing can go on forever if somebody doesn't know what they're arguing against
2. One or more premises Otherwise you're simply stating a conclusion. Make sure your premises are logical or concrete facts, and if necessary have premises for your premises
3. Conclusion Your premises need to lead to something. Kinda ridiculous not tell the opposing views _what_ it leads to
4. Acknowledgment of opposing views Otherwise you're kinda just stating information

Don't leave room for error. If somebody asks a question or makes a statement, do not sit there trying to figure out what was implicit about what they were saying. Ask for further details if necessary, or, if possible, just answer it straight-forward. This leaves a lot less room for error and the ever so popular red herring (a reply that does not reference the original issue).

Signification: Not everyone will assume the same mental image or thought to the same words. Environmental development is different for pretty much everyone, so not everyone will be relating in the same exact way. For example, if I say "Soup Bowl", not everyone is going to be able to picture the same soup bowl in their head because not everyone has seen the same soup bowls.

That brings us to

Definition: When you use a term, be sure to define exactly what you mean by it. Not everyone will define the same term the same way unless the person who introduces the term sets exactly what it's supposed to mean for the discussion. Arguing over the definition of a term is also rather ridiculous because the presenter of the term and thus the presenter of related data concerning use of the term is ... well, presenting a term. A set variable that holds information that is being discussed. If you want the term to mean something different, just present a _different_ term.

Logical fallacies. I'm sure everyone has heard at least one person call out a logical fallacy, possibly even in Latin. I do it. If you can simply identify the exact reason why something is wrong, there's no more need to consider it's right. It's not. There's no debate. This is a nice feeling, and leads to a much clearer mental environment. Learn your logical fallacies. There are too many to list so hit up Google and Wikipedia. Eventually it will become second nature, if you're dedicated.

Deduction and Induction: There are two types of logic. Induction is informal, but practical. If everybody said a movie was bad, then it's probably bad, but that's that deductive, ergo, it's not essentially true. Induction is a method of making conclusions based on patterns. Deduction, however, is a method of making conclusions based on cold hard facts.

Assume the following statements are true:
The man has a hat.
Hats are worn on the head.

Then we can deduct that:
The man is wearing a hat on his head.

Boring, but once you get comfortable with it you will be making some very exquisite deductions that will make you the envy of all of your friends ... or something.

OTHER TOPICS
Significantly less important topics that can improve your ability to learn include the following:

1. Linguistics
2. Mathematics
3. Physical Sciences
4. English (especially if you don't have a high school understanding of it)

(:

How much you can suck at aiming a ball

In the sports of Basketball and Soccer your goal is to get a ball into a net. I've decided to calculate the number of degrees that you can make the shot within while still having the ball going into the net.

Soccer
*This assumes a 24 ft wide net and that you are in front of one of the net.
F(x) =  57.3(8/x)
Where x = distance from net in yards
("8/x" calculates radians, and multiplying by 57.3 converts that to degrees)

This outputs roughly:

05y: 91.7 deg

10y: 45.9 deg

15y: 30.6 deg

20y: 22.9 deg

25y: 18.3 deg

30y: 15.3 deg

40y: 11.5 deg

50y:  9.2 deg

As you can see, the further you get away from the net the substantially harder it is to make sure that you're shooting within the right range.

Basketball
*This assumes a 17" hoop, 9.4" ball and that you are aiming for the hoop, not the backboard. I am also considering the range in which the ball can hit the rim and still go in, which makes the arc that you can shoot into roughly 14.3" wide.

F(x) = 57.3(1.2/x)

Where x = distance from hoop in feet

05 ft: 13.8 deg

10 ft: 6.9 deg

15 ft: 4.6 deg

20 ft: 3.4 deg

25 ft: 2.8 deg

30 ft: 2.3 deg

FREETHROW: 5.3 deg

THREE POINTS: 3.5 deg 

Ok, so if you play basketball and know what percentage of the time you make Freethrows you could theoretically calculate the amount of times you will land three pointers. Neat, huh? Just run this function:
F(x) = 3.5/(5.3/x)
Where x = percentage of time you make a freethrow (without the backboard) in decimal
Note: If you replace 3.5 with the degrees from another distance your result will correspond to that one.


Trigonometry sucks.