The law of optimality governs the sequence of topics. The law instructs us that to end right, we must start right. The effort to stop and reform a failing approach is invariably judged to be too much mental work to pursue. What, infallible me make errors? To start with, there is a necessary foundation for having a rational, fruitful discussion about social behavior. Graham Wallas set the stage for us a century ago. Still applicable.

Edmond Burke told his Bristol, England constituents in 1774, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment.”

Since Burke spoke an enormous extension of the range and complexity of political society has made us all increasingly dependent on the judgment, not only of elected representatives in Parliament, but also of innumerable officials, from the diplomatist who prepares schemes for national security or world-peace to the traffic policeman who has to prevent every hour a score of motor collisions. Outside the sphere of politics we are dependent on the judgment of the company directors who employ us, whose goods and services we buy, or in whose shares we invest; of the physicians and lawyers whom we consult; and of the writers and scientists and teachers who explore and describe to us the new world in which we live.

And in 1932 we all recognize that the judgment of the statesmen and administrators and thinkers of our time has failed to protect modern civilization from political confusion, economic distress, and the growing threat of a war more dreadful than the last. Our distress is largely the result of the uncoordinated growth of specialized science, but specialized scientists themselves are to a constantly increasing degree refusing to accept responsibility for the social results of their work or to give advice on social policy. The gap between knowledge and judgment is steadily widening.

 

Foundation

This page elaborates on the choice-making theme introduced in the opening page. Until this foundation is poured and set, there’s no GPS for navigating the relationship. The root system of all social behavior is how its actionable choices are made and the value system of the chooser. Where else could you start?

Until you know how the fundamental intellectual process of choice making is carried on by your correspondent and why he chooses as he does, the unanchored interaction is likely to be troublesome. Flying blind, there are many more ways to fail than succeed in arriving at your target destination. This starts our sociotechnology transfer process.

How can we be so sure that the process of choice-making is the essential factor in social behavior? Because we can use nothing but choice-making/value-system sociotechnology to change social behavior for the very much better, and “all the King’s horses and all the King’s men” can’t. Further, the procedural ensemble that performs this magic, the FLLP, is generic.

Importance

Start by casually asking your partner how he makes his choices among his candidates – his thinking process. Whatever he says you go with as true and without judgment.

The empirical evidence we have gathered over decades of testing the working population with this approach falls into four categories, demonstrable. Anyone can perform this triage, and should.

  1. The great bulk of the Homo population has no notion of the process they employ to make choices or even that a mental process is underwriting their choices. They have never thought about the subject or experienced an impulse to do so. They are nonplussed at the question.
  2. The next largest category are those people who have convinced themselves they don’t need to learn better methods of making important choices. The ones they use, whatever they are, have worked good enough for them. To deliberately refuse learning in changing times is a choice to progressively degenerate. Those in this category can have both attitudes at once.
  3. The next category includes those who have tentative ideas on their choice-making process enough to articulate them. They do not know that the science on choice making set the standard of care a century ago. That the standard never became obsolete in a century is another mark of validity.
  4. The last category consists of the few who accept the importance and logic of prudent choice-making and wish to advance in their own skills. The many streaming benefits that attend this choice seal it in for life.

 

A glance at the statistics chart reveals why starting with “triage” is critical. Just because you have your act together and your audience doesn’t, decides nothing. The amount and variety of streaming benefits never influences their choices. Other, higher-ranking values come into play, social status for one, that overshadow conscious-mind choice making.

Category 80%: Don’t know, never thought about it

Category 60 %: Overlap: Don’t need to learn. Convinced that methods used are satisfactory

Category 12%: Have tentative thoughts in how they make choices. Unaware better methods exist.

Category 1%: Ready to improve their choosing skills

The statistics tell the story about the choice-making process that has delivered the social dysfunction we have today. With 90% of the population running on Stone Age nobrainer autopilot, could any other outcome be possible?

The operational reality is the supreme court of all selection, all intelligence, all value systems, and it is incorruptible, deaf to persuasion. The driving force for all choice making originates with the 2nd Law, activated in the big Bang. Because of the 2nd Law, there cannot be a viable life form in the universe that does not have choice-making capability to allocate its finite resources.

Until this issue of approach is resolved, there are no rational grounds for making assumptions that will safely simplify the task. If one partner has his choice-making act together and the other doesn’t, if one partner has a value system in conflict with his partner, misunderstandings and unresolvable conflicts are inevitable – nothing to do with personalities. You can calculate the final score before you engage.

Use choice-making competency to assess your audience. If they don’t know how they make their choices or care, how do they control goal-seeking? Use choice making skills and value system as measure. It explains their trajectory through life.

As the individual’s choice-making prowess is key to understanding and predicting, it also separates chance from deliberate ignorance. A healthy value system (prudence) and appropriate selection is the quickest, most expedient way to assess the individual for fitness for handling disturbances to the operational reality. If he lacks prudent, effective choice making skills and refuses to acquire them, necessary and sufficient, what is the basis for trust? Prudent choice-making is the basis of resiliency, not blind luck.

Until you make your choice making explicit, your subconscious mind will direct your life. Hello!

Silence breaking: The value system of the Establishment and its lackeys does not want you to know how to make prudent choices.

Quoted verbatim from the Establishment:

  • Choice is based on a “knowing” emanating from deep within. Some refer to it as a gut feeling, intuition, or a calling. It requires no thought or reasons, only trust, and awareness that you are moving in the right direction. In the realm of choice, work is effortless and when doubt and uncertainty appear, it grounds you. It is your “safety” net.
  • Choice is the absence of judgment, reason, or belief. Decisions are reason-based and require explanations. Choice is the right, power or ability to choose but Decision is a conclusion reached …
  • Choice connects to the place of desired intention, values and beliefs. Decision connects to the place of behavior, performance and consequences. You might say that choices are connected to reasons and decisions are connected to causes.
  • Choice vs decision: A decision is defined as a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration and choice is an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.  It is the exercising of agency, meaning the use of free will to make choices.

 

There’s a billion definitions of choice provided on the internet no more useful than these examples.

In making choices that turn out to be beneficial, luck has little to do with it. To get any progress requires creativity and effort to identify candidates and rational criteria for going on with the process when enough candidates of adequate quality have been identified.

The principal principle for gathering actionable quality information (AQI) out of the GIGO swamp and recognizing the value system in use is POSIWID. It is the most effective, reliable tool in the social behavior toolchest. POSIWID can never be wrong in the identification of choice-making trouble spots. In fact we originated the acronym, now in popular use in 1996. Yes, the Purpose Of the System Is What It does. Thank you Ross Ashby and Stafford Beer.

The unconditional pledge of Plan B: The risk-free transposition of a Plan A organization languishing in dysfunction, as-is, to a flourishing collective performing to assure a bright future. See the transposition for yourself in situ.

Inference engine POSIWID

Your subconscious mind makes decisions from choices complete with an intellectual alibi in a centisecond using a powerful hard-wired computer that is physically altered every day when its programs are updated by a higher-level control system no one knows anything about. If you don’t know the process used to make your choices, they are being made by this unknowable apparatus for you. Our rationale for coping with Cat 3 problems is based upon the pertinent science and our long experience on the bleeding edge of reality.

Every process/value system combination used to make choices, conscious or not, is graded by the indifferent operational reality, not opinions.

The value system in use in descending order covers:

  1. Decision for acting posted on your subconscious/conscious mind interface teleprompter
  2. Choices among the candidates
  3. Identification of invented, plausible action candidates
  4. Identification of a disturbance requiring remedial action

The value system in use, the essential reference, can only be determined by black box testing – the actual choice-making process being unknowable. Your subconscious mind does not give you a bunch of options to evaluate. You get an explicit imperative and an excuse in case it flops in application. It issues final decisions, cycle by cycle. Its program initializes, runs, and completes until events trigger another cycle.

The information stored in the memory banks of your mind to be processed on autopilot is, to be charitable, a combination of obsolete truths and fantasy – garbage. It was ingested and invented with no reference to distinguish actionable quality information, AQI, from rubbish. GIGO and the Bad Burrito rule rules.

The primary task to prepare for the selection process that works is to identify and describe the value system in use. It is your navigational reference for what events trigger the need to select and invent candidates to go into the pool to select from. The value system controls what is selected for posting on the imperatives teleprompter, its decision.

POSIWID takes the imperatives posted and infers back to what sort of values might make the selection rational. The one-way interface of the teleprompter between your conscious mind and the unknowable other about social behavior is the only one where your conscious mind can intervene with veto power. For the other vital systems that your subconscious mind controls on automatic, like the endocrine system, it takes the chosen regulatory action directly by itself by dumping chemicals into your bloodstream.

The one-way interface between your subconscious mind and your conscious mind regarding social behavior.

When it comes to social behavior, the subconscious mind stops at the interface teleprompter. Since the conscious mind has complete control of your social-behavior efforts, it can allocate them as you think best. The conscious mind is guided by the same value system in use, but it can take the time to prepare actionable quality information and apply formal logic checks to detect errors in its rationale.

Using the POSIWID inference engine to validate the value system in use takes time. Like all black box testing, there are many tests to run with different inputs which also have to be invented and engineered for use. Eventually the accumulated evidence forms recognizable patterns that are consistently experienced with no exceptions.

In decades of experience with POSIWID, some patterns are discerned where just few tests are sufficient to make conclusions and move on. If the top value is social status, e.g., it will continue to show up in governance actions.

Creative demands

The need for individual creativity in choosing and solving cannot be overstated. It shows up everywhere. Since it shows dependency upon the individual, the Establishment does everything it can to downplay its role. Infallibility needs no creativity.

The pile of information and data available about the issue points nowhere towards solution candidates. Accordingly, nothing identifies candidates but an individual brain in create mode. Like all creativity, it cannot function under force. To put pressure on choice making is to halt the necessary creative process. The inevitable result is bad choices

Anytime you Google on a keyword like “choice” and you get over a billion hits with no consistent definition of the keyword in sight, you have identified an intellectual skill the Establishment does not want you to acquire. That means big streaming benefits for you. How convenient!

Ashby’s law of requisite variety is a prominent natural law in social affairs today. A benchmark of choice making, it’s the essential component of resiliency. The pace of change to the social environment in these times demands an array of control response capabilities that is larger than the behaviors the system to be controlled may exhibit. Context change is the offense and appropriate responses are the only defense. If you have no effective means for controlling the kinds of disturbances in the arriving future, resiliency is impossible. This ain’t the Stone Age.

Prudency and choice-making defines us and predicts our future. How to do it best is known empirically and can be learned. It has fast payoffs and huge benefits. That’s why the Establishment doesn’t want you to acquire this pioneering-spirit skill.

Trying to defeat the laws of choice-making is like trying to defeat the 2nd Law. It is a bad idea on several fronts, each one bringing punishment from Nature for the insult. The punishments continue until the defiance stops. Nature’s indifference works the other way as well, when you align with and leverage Her laws, She will deliver through thick and thin.

Carl Jung laid it out in his 1912 book. If you allow your subconscious to make your choices for you, you will encounter endless adversity that you will ascribe to fate. A century later it is painfully apparent that mankind had abandoned conscious-mind choice making for keeps.

It is win-win to know how a person makes his choices. It is essential for assessing trustworthiness. It is sufficient evidence by itself to account for his life’s trajectory, his state of affairs, and projecting his future. We are our choices. You are your value system only when acting it.

People encountering bad outcomes of their choices have a system problem. Their choice-making system is defective and insufficient and consistently delivers choices that prove to be wrong. Damage control is not a system fix. Because of the Nash Equilibrium, treating one consequence in isolation from the other consequences is futile. Reductionism doesn’t work for making choices, the prelude for making sound decisions for problem solving.

The processes of choice-making, decision-making, and problem solving are inherently nested, fractal, and complex. There are many causes and the consequences cascade. The effective processes are cognitively demanding and reductionism doesn’t work. You can’t wish the complexity away. Many of the subprocesses involved are subconscious and unknowable.

If your choice-making proficiency doesn’t keep up with the changes in the operational reality, resiliency, it’s a choice to fall behind and live the life of obedience the Establishment wants its nameless deplorables to live. You are witness to the consequences of that popular choice all around you. It is the prime mover of organizational dysfunction (OD).

The Establishment had a century since the sturdy choice-making standard of care was derived and developed for the benefit of person and community. The results obtained by neglecting the sociotechnology speaks for itself. The gap between the challenge of reality and satisfactory response has progressively widened. The choices being made by the Establishment today are demonstrably harmful to their constituents while the corruption it nourishes is ubiquitous and rampant.

There is a parallel between leadership and choice-making. The characteristics of an effective potentate have been fussed over for over twelve thousand years. There are no examples where the various characteristics chosen over the Ages ever resulted in successful potentates. Quite the contrary. Obviously, there is no correlation between personality and proficiency in leadership. The Big Kahuna role itself prevents doing those things necessary and sufficient to benefit the parishioners. No one studies value system assembly. The investigators are afraid of what POSIWID might reveal.

Without the possibility of a correlation to performance, all the effort that went into the personality fiasco is waste. There was and is no success reference available for navigation. The case for choice-making differs in that a success reference was worked out a century ago and published. When the pioneers passed, nothing took their place, so everything languished on the vine.

There are 10K firms ready to tell you how to make choices. Not one teaches the art of POSIWID testing or invites you to examine and evaluate living implementations of their signature wares. What has compliance on faith ever done for you?

Make a choice that entails losers? Your subconscious is always eager to make your choices for you and it always chooses first. When you learn of the various value-system limitations of the subconscious mind, you discover that having it choose for you is an invitation to trouble. Your amoral subconscious mind is oblivious to making losers out of the stakeholders.

The marriage of your value system to your choice-making process occurs in your mind to decide action.

Historical background

As we see it, the Book of Genesis on social behavior begins with the subconscious mind trigger to deal with events in the operational reality. In practice, most operational realities are nested with other realities, often fractal.  It is a subconscious mind impetus from constantly-running environmental recognition programs that sets the stage for the choice-making opera to commence. We consider the opera house as the tabernacle where the patterns of social behavior are on display.

The choice-making process has had a long run for life on planet earth. It is a basic functionality of  all living creatures. The more complex the organism, the more choices it has to make to remain viable. Some choices are made on autopilot, others by habit. Few are made by applied cognitive effort. Science has shown that amoeba have personality. When exposed to the same test conditions, they make different choices which means they have different value systems. You are channeled by universal law. Things don’t just happen to you.

Choice making goes back to the Big bang. Making the connection from Homo back to the ultimate prime mover is, perhaps, the most incredible journey the human mind can take. Granted that life began with single-celled organisms. To survive and multiply, each cell had to make choices for itself in allocating its limited resources. They were the ones that raised the oxygen level in the atmosphere so that multicellular species could evolve.

Building more complex life significantly raised the ante and one unavailable to the simpler species it evolved from. The process of evolution where some intelligent control mechanism takes one species and complexifies it into a higher-order species repeated for billions of years. On earth, our species seems to be the most advanced one, intellectually, so far. That we are a work in progress is beyond dispute.

If Homo sapiens is the pinnacle of evolution, what conceived and operated the evolutionary process itself? What force of Nature developed the evolutionary process? Talk about a miracle of miracles.

Going on to the next version of a species requires outside higher-level intelligence and intervention. The design and assign process was never simple or guaranteed to be successful. Every choice had to fit together in a coherent viable system and controlling context is often impossible. Note that the standard of care is not contingent on any particular context.

There is neither evidence nor reason to suggest that the mechanisms of action that brought life to earth, when it became habitable, did not originate at the Big Bang and, along with the universe, it has an end date. No mater what the future holds in store for our species, Homo sapiens can not remain at the top of the species kingdom. We will be displaced by another more-advanced species or we will go extinct.

The significance of the intellectual activity called choice making has varied greatly with the context of human society, the size and distribution of the membership, and the technology of the civilization.

Over time, the Stone Age epoch evolved the genome that served for Stone Age conditions, requiring nothing but intuition on automatic to survive. You have been issued the same genome to cope with the conditions of  today. The choice-making process that evolved for Stone Age living does not work for the social organization of modern times.

On our planet, today, you can compare the happy social success of primitive tribes still in operation with the failures of the high-density, smart-phone societies of today in unhappy progressive degeneration.

The virtue of cold showers

Dealing with patent attorneys over the decades had a tremendous impact on the evolution of our choice-making process. Before patent lawyers will proceed on your case, you get a grilling about the choices you made in your invention that is brutally frank, detailed, and intensely objective. The grilling intentionally reduces you to rubble because your attorney is headed for the same grilling by the Patent Office examiners, and he wants all the ammunition he can gather. Having a reputation to uphold, he then decides whether or not he will pursue patenting your invention.

We learned how to grill ourselves as we went to minimize the humiliation awaiting us on “L” street D.C. If everyone making choices about their social behavior had to go through this grilling, there would be no such thing as class distinctions or organizational dysfunction.

 

Road-block reality

  • The Establishment
  • Your social systems
  • Your built-in handicaps from your genome

The Establishment

The Establishment value system wants you to be incompetent in choice-making so that you will follow the choices they make with their own incompetence and ugly value system for you. Doesn’t that fact alone explain the ubiquitous social dysfunction we have today?

Understand that the Establishment’s self-interest does not want you to acquire and develop intellectual skills in making prudent choices for yourself or your collectives. Appreciate also that the Establishment, by virtue of its remoteness from and denial of reality renders it incapable of making prudent choices itself.

Consider the verity that to the degree the Establishment doesn’t want you to have an intellectual skill, like choice-making, is the degree of its value to you for improving your life trajectory. The pushback put on you because of your new skills in making choices is directly proportional to the streaming personal benefits for doing so. We are constantly on the lookout for keywords, like safety and intelligence, that should be properly and thoroughly defined but aren’t.

What trust, intelligence, and choice-making have in common as keywords is that the Establishment doesn’t want you to be knowledgeable and proficient about them. These words are a test of your obedience to authority, to unquestioning trust and faith in your ruling class.

These intentional and consistent reactions, to prevent transparency, like the elephants in the room, point to the low-hanging fruit for examination. What the Establishment doesn’t want us to learn or skill up are exactly what’s best for us. Only prudence is the fix for imprudence.

The amount of work done by science, controlled by the Establishment value system, to define and clarify functionalities fundamental to Homo viability is inversely proportional to their significance.

Anything that increases the intelligence and prudency of making choices is deliberately sabotaged by the Establishment, which intentionally does nothing along those lines for itself. Its value system is in concrete.

Why is the establishment opaque, deceitful, and corrupt? What value is cover-up to the stakeholders? When the truth slithers out, you learn what sort of subject matter is being suppressed. These are products of the value system in use. POSIWID.

What’s it going to do for social status of the head shed when the keystone class is doing the job of bringing prosperity to the organization. Isn’t that the platform the potentates used to get elected? The imposter syndrome.

In this activity so central in everyone’s life, why does the Establishment and its lackeys do everything it can to prevent the masses from developing effective skills in choosing and deciding?

It appears that in modern society people join in a common goal of engaging life beneath their capabilities, either engaged in or tolerant of runaway corruption. The workforce is not given a chance to satisfy their values, their instincts of workmanship.

The ruling class is, by definition, the best at choosing action for everyone else. All other sources of choice are to be considered inferior. Pay no attention to POSIWID.

When you realize the truth of the social context engineered by the Establishment, truth you can validate for yourself, you can:

  • Understand how things in a Great Society get into today’s sorry state of affairs
  • Understand what you are up against in improving your choice-making and problem-solving skills.
  • Understand what had to be learned and overcome to attain Plan B
The top value of the Establishment is class distinctions.

 

Your social systems

Any of your social systems that compete for status by zero sum gaming are locked in by the Nash Equilibrium to a self-policed status quo. That’s the death knell for resiliency. Defending status quo in a fast-changing environment is a loser. An example of that behavior is ongoing.

Do not expect encouragement from your family or your associates. Change for the better is noticed and interpreted in various ways, few of them supportive or rational. Their reaction to your progress is your marker that your acquired skills are working.

Understanding the influence of mathematical physics in channeling the choice field is imperative. You make social behavior choices with your conscious mind using your calculations of the likely performance of your candidate. Essential factors that are rarely included in the deliberations include:

  • The Law of Optimality
  • Control theory
    • Gain
    • Feedback instability
    • Feedforward regulation
    • Personalization: gateway to creativity
  • Value systems in use
    • Social status
  • GIGO avoidance, AQI acquisition

Social behavior and mathematical physics. What a combination!

The most egregious error universely made by large collectives is workforce depersonalization. When the revenue crew is reduced to employee numbers by the ruling class, for whatever reason, all bets on cooperation, creativity, and collaboration are off. Depersonalization tells the workforce the head shed value system in use does not acknowledge their inalienable right to contribute to the prosperity of their social systems, a basic human instinct and a requisite for self-actualization. Personalization is top priority in Plan B. It is the spreader and amplifier of prudent choice making.

Your DNA handicaps

There is a page on this website devoted to the unique characteristics of your subconscious mind, the one doing all the choosing for humanity. You can compute for yourself that the subconscious mind is an information processor of great power, loaded with bogus information, and much too fast to be trustworthy for making prudent choices.

Your subconscious mind can be very helpful in choice making but it can’t be trusted to make an important choice that you automatically act on. You can’t stop it from choosing, of course, but you can make it a habit to park its imperatives in a holding tank while you plod through the choice-making standard of care.

 

General Remarks

  • Intelligence is scored by how consistently you make appropriate choices, appropriate selection (Ashby). Always in hindsight.
  • You’ve witnessed punishments imposed for choosing for yourself.
  • Choice making is a series of thought experiments ala Einstein.
  • The ruling class, by role, controls disbursements from the treasury, but who produces the revenue?
  • Learning the top-line choice-making procedures is like taking a cold shower very fifteen minutes. Learning best methods by silence breaking is easy compared to the cognitive demands in applying those methods to a particular application. Yes, it’s a different way of life and the price of self-actualization.
  • There is nothing one-off in this field.
  • You can’t assess choice-making competence until after the choice of action has been implemented. There is no basis for mid-course corrections, which involves yet another set of choices.
  • An error-prone choice making process is not conducive for selecting appropriate goals. Choice making and value systems in goal setting are just as important as making prudent choices in goal attainment.
  • Since the choice-making process is called up for duty just about everywhere, a defective process is a virulent spreader of cascading troubles.
  • By results, it is obvious that what is taught about choice-making and problem solving is defective. What is taught makes matters worse.
  • If choice making is defective, how can problem solving with reality be effective?
  • Don’t try to simplify or truncate the authentic choice making process before the scope of candidates has been determined.
  • Since choices involve personal creativity and effort, choice is personal. Decisions are public.
  • There are no stop rules for causation
  • There are no stop rules for inventing choice candidates
  • There are no stop rules for information gathering
  • There are no stop rules for cascading consequences
  • Everyone agrees that choice-making is an all day, everyday affair and increasingly important in novel and changing times. There is a self-evident need for resiliency.
  • High value attends making better choices. The consequences of making bad choices are usually substantial.
  • Prevention is thought/choice making and creative
  • The choice making process and value system in use determines life trajectory, not fate. Their personal history is a result of their choices. We are the culmination of our choices. We are our value systems.
  • Why do most people choose to not improve their intellectual skills, abandoning their choices to people who treat them as numbers?
  • The severity of the consequences of Plan A and the benefits of a fix are valued far below social status.
  • A person who is cognitively unaware of his choice-making process is muddling through by emulation and obedience to authority
  • Finding temporary comfort in like-minded groups seals the deal
  • Sooner or later reality crawls into your being and explodes
  • Is there any other way but prudent choice-making to attain a happy, fulfilling, meaningful life?
  • What can you do for those who refuse to improve their thinking process? It’s equivalent to saying they don’t want to reach their potential. Afraid of the effort or appearing different to your social circles?
  • To satisfy their material needs, those responsible for choice making failures are drawn to corruption. While denial and deception don’t raise cattle, one is no worse than the others.
  • Creativity: the subconscious always plays a role moving things from one Act to another in the story line.

For a decade, we have repeated the offer to demonstrate that causal connection in Plan B, using the FLLP, on any organization with 150 or more individuals. While only MitMs go through the program, anyone can monitor the progress of the transposition.

The reflex you just experienced, triggered by this silence-breaking, is part of the empirical validation of the sociotechnology. Your reaction to the fact Plan B exists and can deliver what it claims, fully explains why the more Plan B is needed for the sake of humanity, the more a fix is refused. Simply explained by the actions taken by organized society, the value system of the ruling class places paramount importance on social status. And, part of maintaining status attained is harming the lower classes, keeping them in their place. History shows this pattern, unbroken, for twelve millennia.

Consider the implications of your reflex refusal to follow up on this significant opportunity. You implemented a choice made by your subconscious mind before you considered the ramifications and demonstrated the peril of nobrainer choice making to yourself.

The standard of care for prudent choice-making was developed by many people concerned after WWI about social dysfunction and published in 1924 by Graham Wallas. This best-practices manual is derived and provided in the GYAT gallery. It has not gotten out of date. It works today, as is.

It takes emotions, associations to complete and connect the four phases of the standard of care:

  1. Preparation
  2. Incubation
  3. Illumination
  4. Verification

Plan B exists.

Hits: 6