Everything fits. All effects are a perfect match for the conditions that created them.
What about so-called “mysteries?” Does everyone have equal perceptiveness? No, there are clearly many mysteries that most people do not currently understand.
Before we review a few specific examples of contrasting levels of perceptiveness, note that some interpretations are more precise than others. Plus, when a particular interpretation has a lot of social validation, then skepticism and caution may be rare (and even intimidating to some people). If people presume that they comprehend something, then they may lack curiosity or even resist unfamiliar ideas. The more embarrassed that they are about their lack of competence in a subject, they more intensely they may attempt to distract from their lack of competence, such as by ridiculing unfamiliar ideas. They may even panic hysterically and explode in a jealous rage.
What triggers their jealousy? They may perceive that someone else may have superior competence in a subject of interest to them.
Next, let’s review a few quick examples of how everything fits. We can consider examples in the realms of health, wealth, and self-development.
First, in the field of health, some specialists may lack understanding of the mechanisms that produce a particular result. Everything fits, but not everyone knows how certain things fit together!
As a simple example, imagine that there is a glass jar that contains no Vitamin C in it. We can attach a label to the jar that has the words “incurable scurvy.” However, the label has no effect on the contents of the jar, right? Adding the label has no effect. Removing the label also has no effect. Altering the label or putting another label over it has no effect.
However, labeling can be very important to some people. Some specialists may label a particular set of symptoms as “incurable,” which simply means that they lack a comprehension of how to discontinue certain results. However, no matter how many specialists refer to a particular diagnostic label as “incurable,” their labeling still has no effect on the competence of other researchers and the effectiveness of other methods.
Next, in regard to wealth and financial trends, some analysts may lack understanding of the mechanisms that produce a particular result. They may label a particular development “surprising” or “unexpected” or even “unexplainable.” What would that labeling indicate about them? They probably did not have to skill to predict that outcome (possibly predicting some other outcome that did not develop).
However, no matter how many investment analysts refer to a particular development as “impossible” (or “inevitable”), their labeling has no effect on the competence of other analysts. More competent analysts may use other methods to take different measurements (or the same measure in more precise ways), then offer logical interpretations, and issue relevant forecasts.
In fact, when there is an extreme consensus among certain groups of investment analysts, there is a long history of a strong correlation to inaccuracy. When there is extreme discounting of an investment market, that means that most people are willing to sell that investment for a lower price than usual. That discounting can be measured. When discounting is most extreme, that consistently corresponds to unusually high long-term profitability and unusually low long-term risk (of continuing declines in market price).
When forecasting investment markets, measures of consensus (AKA “sentiment”) help to indicate whether a particular price trend is mature (ripe to reverse). When buyers are nearly unanimously enthusiastic, that means that they are exhausting their ability to continue buying, which is what has been driving prices up. When sellers have been pessimistically discounting a market (reducing the price for which they are willing to sell that investment), then that corresponds to a lot of unused buying power still available to sharply drive prices up.
When most investors are interested in social validation for their investment choices, then they wrongly associate extremes of optimism with safety and opportunity. The reverse is true. Extremes of hysterical optimism (optimism based on perceived social validation) have the least safety and least opportunity. Likewise, extremes of hysterical pessimism offer the safest and most lucrative buying opportunities.
In interacting with other people, different levels of hysteria and anxiety can be observed. The more perceptive that someone is to other people, the more quickly that various kinds of distress or comfort can be identified (“diagnosed”).
For instance, a very common indicator of anxiety is to make a distressed statement like this: “stop analyzing me! You always analyze everything too much. Analyzing is bad and negative and wrong. My analysis of you is that you analyze other people which you should not do because that is just wrong because obviously people should not analyze other people.”
Unless they are joking, they are clearly demonstrating distress (anxiety). They may be ashamed, plus embarrassed that they are ashamed, and likely to harass others who do not respect their “boundary traps.” In other words, they bait others in indirectly, then claim a “boundary violation,” then justify their harassment of others with their claim of a boundary violation.
Noticing their suppressed distress can avoid “unexpected drama.” Withdrawing and/or setting clear healthy boundaries can allow for moderate amounts of focused interaction without triggering them. Or, humor can be used to delicately “trigger” them (and if this process is being done attentively, then to can be refined or discarded as relevant).
What about assessing one’s own levels of stress (distress) and then responding to that stress? The methods available range from suppressing the display of stress (“burying it”) to altering stressful circumstances in one’s life (like improving wealth). We can also relieve some of the symptoms of stress, such as chronic physical tension in the muscles of the neck or back.
Further, removing the causes of stress may not automatically reverse habitual coping mechanisms. When there is no further underlying demand for a coping mechanism, then they may dissolve by themselves or may easily be interrupted once and then never resume. However, when we address symptoms without addressing the causes, then the symptoms predictably return eventually.
Why do people form habits as a way to cope with stress and the unfamiliar? People form habits because habits may provide an element of stability in the midst of instability. Habits are just “personal rituals.” So, if the underlying motivations remain (to cope with “real” stresses or with embarrassment regarding social validation) and then a particular habit is interrupted, what is predictable? A more extreme habit may form.