The claims made for the benefits of Plan B compared to Plan A, the previous page in this gallery, are by any measure, extraordinary – fantastical. You have never encountered claims of such scope and significance to your way of life – with nothing to buy to achieve them. Plan B is ultimately about survival of our species. How many ads do you see for that?!
The blunt fact is that the evidence backstopping Plan B is far more extraordinary than the claims. The evidence for Plan B is equifinality, more than one evidence pathway leads to the same validation. The evidence is both incontrovertible and beyond dispute. Transparent? Of course.
While “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is necessary, it is insufficient. The second impasse, a colossal chasm excavated by the subconscious mind, waits in ambush until the physical evidence meets all criteria and you emerge from the arena prepared for Popper’s principles of authentic validation. That principle means to provide transparency and practical methods arranged to make it convenient for skeptics to controvert claims. Discredit one and you discredit all. What could be easier?
The validating evidence is presented in two forms:
- Direct measurements of evidence at Plan B implementation sites
- Derivation of Plan B paradigm validity by mathematical physics
The core reason for the extraordinary difference between business as usual and Plan B is the fact that Plan A attempts to defy natural law and Plan B doesn’t. Indifferent natural law punishes those who would attempt to defy it. Indifferent natural law rewards those who would align it to goal-seeking use. The difference made by alignment with natural law instead of attempted defiance is enormous on all fronts.
The evidence of Plan A dysfunction
The historical evidence of organizational dysfunction (OD) is voluminous and full of guidance to Plan B implementation. The recognition of OD and the damage it heaped on humanity in the USA began prior to the Civil War. The nineteenth century produced many articles and books on Plan A OD consequences and the flood of dysfunction documentation continued until after WW I. The science of OD mechanisms of action began around 1880 CE and continues in fragments in some disciplines to this day. The disciplines and sciences of sociology and psychology are examples that were hatched during the same era for same OD reasons – social unrest brought about by the terrors of the industrial revolution.
The sociology disciplines and spinoffs started well enough but, in the face of pushback by the Establishment, Nash Equilibrium, disintegrated into subdisciplines too narrow to attract serious attention by anyone. The reason the psychological disciplines kept plugging away at OD causes was because their clinics were, and are, overflowing with its human debris. While the sociologists dug an escape tunnel, the psychologists had to face their fear-strangled OD clients every day.
A group is extraordinarily credulous and open to influence, it has no critical faculty, and the improbable doesn’t exist for it. It thinks in images, which call one another up by association (just as they arise within individuals in states of free imagination), and whose agreement with reality is never checked by any reasonable agency. The feelings of a group are always very simple and very exaggerated, so that a group knows neither doubt nor uncertainty. Sigmund Freud (1921)
The important lesson of OD history is in observing those that ignored OD history, deliberate ignorance. To this day with over a million books on management and leadership, none discuss the mechanisms of action of OD. This fact, using “POSIWID,” shows that hierarchy head-sheds deliberately drive their organizations into OD by attempts to defy the natural laws of ecosystems. Workforce abuse is a goal of top management deemed necessary to obtain and maintain social status by authority. This global condition is not going to be altered by stressing ethics and the social contract. What is more imprudent than shooting holes in your own boat?
Why would business and management schools consistently, deliberately avoid the lessons of businesses that failed? Wouldn’t academia be the first to know when it attempts to defy the very laws it illuminates? Toxic management practices are geared to maintain authority status above the survival and wellbeing of the institutional roster it governs. For those fixated on social status by domination, nothing else matters, including the fact it is an attempt to defy the laws of Nature. Class distinctions and legal inequality are artifacts of the ruling class consumers to perpetuate itself. For a brief time, it may seem to work.
The quickest, most direct way to falsify Plan B, by far, is by Plan B implementation site visits to examine and evaluate the algorithms of the ideology in action, face to face, cheek by jowl. With your direct experience as reference, you know that in all Plan A hierarchies there are many indicators of organizational dysfunction (OD) and dysrationalia and you know them by heart. In Plan B, since the social status focus is on performance, many indicators of Plan B are framed by Plan A indicators made conspicuous by their absence.
Plan B deserves direct assessment in the same way you experience Plan A organizations. There are hundreds of Plan B veterans to interview, administrative and financial accounts to audit, and community opinion to measure. On site, you are not accompanied by anyone, except in some work areas for safety reasons, so you can see productivity in action and chat with the revenue crew people as you see fit. One day on site and it’s a lock one way or the other.
There is a large body of philosophical wrangling in the literature about the value of direct evidence, going back to Plato. For two thousand years, philosophers concluded that direct knowledge was impossible, all sensing was illusion, and no concept could be proven. In recent centuries, philosophers, such as Locke and Peirce, put forth arguments that concepts could be proven valid by sufficient demonstrations of the ability to correctly predict the future. This is, exactly, our basis for declaring Plan B incontrovertible.
In the realm of formal proof, beyond dispute, there is no escape from the necessity of direct contact with implementations of concept. Even if the natural law route to proof were to be accepted as error-free, it is still secondary in finality to direct evidence in the operational reality. The concept of Plan B is ultimately proven valid because:
- It’s application is universal, unconditional, general
- It always delivers the results the paradigm predicts
- There are no exceptions in its implementations
- It is self-sustainable
- It satisfies the self-discipline requirement of prudence
You can print the claims list previously provided as a checklist for your investigation. It should be apparent by now that a dynamic system of such wide scope and sweep is impossible to fake. No company of actors could play all the parts in synchronization. For example, the government requires a monthly report of safety issues and that is public information. Trying to keep actual turnover rates secret is another waste of time.
You now have the invitation to make direct measurements at active implementations. If you don’t falsify by direct gathering of ground truth experience, you will certainly not be persuaded by a complex of interacting natural laws you don’t really understand. You know full well that refusing to audit implementations does not itself controvert Plan B validity. What it does is uncover the second great ambush impasse, #2, social status.
So, what you are personally experiencing by refusing to audition Plan B implementations on-site is the second great impasse writ large. Materialization of the impasse does not falsify Plan B either, but the contrary. The blockage is intended by the Establishment entitlementers because Plan B success is sensed as a threat to social status by opinion. It is a confusion between authority and social power. The authority of the Establishment only conveys the legal power to punish the producers.
While the website has abundant Plan A history, it has proven to be of no positive motivational value whatsoever. As mentioned, even though humanity has published a million books just on leadership (and regardless of total failure to change anything for the better). The flow of leadership books continues unabated. No lessons learned makes for great waste of effort. Remember the fiasco with “In Search of Excellence?” It became a poster child for the supremacy of social status in the hierarchy over organizational survival.
If liberty of speech is to be untrammeled from the grosser forms of constraint, the uniformity of opinion will be secured by a moral terrorism to which the respectability of society will give its thorough approval. Charles Sanders Peirce 1880
Mathematical physics platform of Plan B
While getting to Plan B the first time involved a lot of guesswork in choosing paths of action, our primary aid to navigation was derived from mathematical physics in general, and Starkermann’s dynamic simulations of hierarchical behavior in particular. The philosophical mandate of direct evidence was no help at all in finding the path from Plan A to Plan B, especially because no auditable Plan B existed. Our navigational aid was natural law, namely Starkermann’s dynamic simulations of Plans A and B.
We searched through the wreckage of previous attempts to fix Plan A, not to find the secret passageway to glory, but to throw away the stuff that didn’t work. Empiricism always contains the same poisons that drive species towards extinction. To advance towards Plan B, Plan A history and its notorious failures with leadership and management are utterly worthless for navigation.
This website is loaded with mathematical physics-based concepts, tools and practices for Plan B. Some silence-breaking tools are guaranteed show-stoppers. Many have their own page on this website for interventionist reference. If you require elaboration, by all means follow the hyperlinks. The great thing about designing with natural law as opposed to archaeology and empiricism is that error, oversights, and mistakes are easy to spot and easy to fix (e.g., the dynamic models of reality won’t compile). That is why in situ auditions of concept are strongly encouraged. They can only benefit.
While anyone can grasp and use some of the mathematical physics appropriately, very few will be able to assemble the scientifiker platform of Plan B, fitting the pieces and parts together into a process system. Learning to use Starkermann’s models in dynamic simulations is not for novices. Linear thinking is of no use whatsoever. History points nowhere. Incrementalism is hopelessly outclassed. That is why, exactly, billions of people and twelve millennia failed to find a system fix for Plan A malfunctioning. The law of optimality requires that the first guess in the series of guesses has to be on target. An off-track first step is a form of GIGO. Mechanisms of action of social behavior operate at a level far above the mentor line.
Philosophically, generic Plan B must be in alignment with natural law because its implementations deliver. Congruency with natural law had to be in place to consecrate Plan B in 2013. It did not come about spontaneously by happenstance first and then retrofitted with natural laws. What the 2013 advent proved was that Plan B did not need to harness another force of nature for it to bring a thriving prosperity.
Subsequent implementations of Plan B have settled the matter. Plan B is a transfer function. It is the algorithm the system follows moving from one state to the next in time.
Experience teaches which elements of plan B are already known (secretly) and which elements need intervention. With no need to dwell on what they already know, the time to critical mass ignition has been reduced by more than a month. That means angst blowdown and high-stakes trust, a requisite, is being established in fewer weeks.
A certain maxim of Logic which I have called Pragmatism has recommended itself to me for diverse reasons and on sundry considerations. Having taken it as my guide for most of my thought, I find that as the years of my knowledge of it lengthen, my sense of the importance of it presses upon me more and more. If it is only true, it is certainly a wonderfully efficient instrument. It is not to philosophy only that it is applicable. I have found it of signal service in every branch of science that I have studied. My want of skill in practical affairs does not prevent me from perceiving the advantage of being well imbued with pragmatism in the conduct of life. Charles Sanders Peirce 1890
Karl Popper’s rules for falsification
The criteria for when a theory should be considered scientific, and for how to distinguish between science and pseudoscience:
- It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory – if we look for confirmations
- Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory–an event which would have refuted the theory
- Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is
- A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice
- Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks
- Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory
- Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers–for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
If you can’t intelligently argue for both sides of an issue, you don’t understand the issue well enough to argue for either.
Of course your subconscious mind reacts to the social behavior you experience. Your subconscious uses its endocrine system to manifest its conclusions about control and it reports to no one. Accordingly, the human endocrine system provides a running ticker-tape of what’s going on. Together with the supply of glucose to the brain, it is the official chemistry scorecard.
Science has long established that the endocrine system causes both trademarked social behavior and reactions to social behavior, as well as adjusting your physical health on a continuous basis. That means a snapshot of the social situation can be taken anytime by bloodwork for assay measurements of social attitude. Since it is impossible for humans to willfully control their endocrine system, hormone level measurements are ground truth, overriding any other basis for social dynamics measurement. As you have noticed in healthcare, Bloodwork is ground truth, beyond dispute with your physician.
It is impossible to have endocrine bloodwork data incongruent with the operational reality at the time blood was drawn. Plan A has a characteristic endocrine profile that is very different from the endocrine profile produced in Plan B participants. Same people. Since there can be no middle between A and B systems, error in diagnosis is impossible. The clincher is that high testosterone levels, which are steroids, block the “angel” hormones, which are peptides, from attaching to cells to deliver their intended function. Testosterone has to depart first to make way for the happy hormones.
Refusing to do bloodwork to get ground truth about social status does not controvert the lock between social behavior and endocrine system functionality. Rejecting the truth speaks the truth about the social status values of the perpetrators. As you might suspect, Plan B people are eager to participate in the foolproof measure of psychological health. Roll up your sleeve.
Another measure of paradigm-in-use is democratic humor. In plan A, social intercourse follows the groupthink rules, monitored by everyone. As you well know, people are tense, defensive, and insecure. In Plan B, transactions are characterized by kidding. It happens automatically as the subconscious mind makes choices. Making fun of each other regardless of cultural variety, shows that differences are known, but they don’t matter more than performance. Kidding the interventionist by nickname tells everyone he is a guild member in good standing. Pranks tell the high performers their competency is recognized. The pranksters are affirming the social power of their targets, obtained by performance. It’s a show of appreciation, not ridicule.
Just for Fun
Once you acclimate to the reality that:
- Plan B exists
- Its extraordinary benefits are real
- The extraordinary evidence is real
You are positioned to test the second impasse anywhere, anytime, as you choose.
- Everyone knows about Plan A OD already. Some discuss it, some don’t.
- No one has ever discussed Plan B. Some have a deep, fuzzy suspicion it is possible, some don’t.
The procedure is simply to inform your target that Plan B exists. Then, after silence-breaking, inform that its claims are extraordinary and of great value and variety. Then the participants are informed that the evidence supporting the claims is also extraordinary. In fact, live implementations of plan B are available for audition and “When shall we go examine them?”
Instantly, the fog shrouding the impasse lifts and there’s your example of subconscious-mind-induced catatonia melting right in front of you. The entitlementers run for the exits and the producers gather around. Anyone can stage this scene. It’s simple, quick, and it works 100% of the time – the trademark of natural laws.
The A to B process page is NEXT.