Ideas
Most Recent Changes
13 Dec 2024
A paragraph & a list were added to the end of Not Enough Value.
Everything that I’ve posted on this page doesn’t apply to anyone who has been a part of my personal life. If you haven’t been a part of my personal life, then please remember that if you were to please read any of the ideas and my thoughts about it that I’ve posted on this page, then you could begin to feel more self-conscious about yourself.
TOPICS (↑T) in Ideas | The Meaning of Life | Cosmic Laws | Negative Things| Me
On this page, I’ve posted multiple ideas that I’ve heard and/or read, and then I’ve posted some of my reactions to each of them.
“All the time,” “Everywhere,” and “Forever”
An Adult’s Taking-1-Or-More-Liberties “For”
Arrogance, Hypocrisy, and Insensitivity
“Caring” about a Stranger
“Have a Good Day/Night/etc.”
“Having/Have/Has a Sense of Humor”
“Bullsh*t”
“Can I ask you a question?”
“Can’t we all just get along?”
Conflict and Self-Applied Exception/Exemption (SAE/E)
Empty Encouragement
“Friendliness”
“Have” Emphasis
“Honesty is the best policy.”
Human Intelligence in the USA
“Money can’t buy happiness.”
Not Enough Value
One-Sided, Human-Decided Connection/Convenience
The Goldilocks & 3 Bowls Effect
Two Euphemisms in the US Society
Two Principles
US Societal English to Actual English
“You get what you pay for.”
One-Dimensional But Value Is Multi-Dimensional
Zero Reliability in Practice
My Website
Sources
“All the time,” “Everywhere,” and “Forever” | ↑T
Every time that I’ve heard someone else in the US society say “all the time,” “everywhere,” and/or “forever”, “all the time” has never meant all of the time, “everywhere” never everywhere, and “forever” never forever. “All the time” always meant sometimes, “everywhere” always meant in some places, and “forever” always meant an amount of time that’s less than 100 years.
Here’s an example of how I’ve heard and seen “all the time” used:
A Stranger: I do it all the time. *says a stranger who isn’t doing it while talking about it*
An Adult’s Taking-1-Or-More-Liberties “For” | ↑T
1 of the values that exists in this society–the US society–is an adult’s taking-1-or-more-liberties “for”. In my opinion, 1 of the most popular examples of this that multiple adult-level professionals aligned with another value in this society that I mentioned (i.e. the “Have” Emphasis), was when all of these adults were in a grocery store that I was in, & they took multiple liberties because they all decided “for” me to “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.”
In my opinions, 1 of the best qualities of this society is the abundance of liberties in it. 1 of the definitions of “abundance” is “an extremely plentiful or oversufficient quantity or supply”[11]. To please explain some of my thoughts about this idea, I chose the “oversufficient” part of this definition, which also means “more than enough” because 1 of the definitions of “over” is “[ . . . ] more than”[12] & because 1 of the definitions of “sufficient” is “[ . . . ] enough”[13].
Why did multiple adults in this society who had more enough liberties choose to take multiple liberties? I please believe that they did this because they all aligned their lives with the “Have” Emphasis value, so instead of using 1 or more of their more-than-enough liberties, they needed &/or wanted to have more. The result of this was that they took 1 set of multiple liberties so that they had more than more than enough liberties.
Why didn’t all of them advance this idea like the way that I explained that–in my opinion–“Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” represents 1 level of advancement beyond “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.” so that they advanced this “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.” idea past multiple levels by taking a 2nd set of multiple liberties so that they told me which size of a product to have (e.g. “Have a good, small Roast Beef”)? I thought of 1 reason: They didn’t do this because they aligned their lives with a 3rd value that I noticed in this society & that I named The Goldilocks & 3 Bowls Effect.
Arrogance, Hypocrisy, and Insensitivity | ↑T
The USA has a culture of arrogance, hypocrisy, and insensitivity. Here are three examples: “caring” about a stranger, “have a good day/night/etc.,” and “having/have/has a sense of humor.”
“Caring” about a Stranger | ↑T
I’ve written my response below as my reaction only toward every American stranger who has used entitlement by criticizing or by disapproving of my apathy toward him/her. To each of these Americans, my not using my apathy to interfere with anything in his/her life wasn’t entirely enough. He/she showed off his/her greed by talking about me as though I owed him/her the mental and emotional investment called “caring.”
Here’s my understanding of the hypocrisy and arrogance of “caring” about a stranger: “I don’t care if you want me to care about you. I assume that you do, so I’ll care about you.” This isn’t completely enough to all of the Americans who do this because they must also show off their insensitivity toward their hypocrisy and arrogance. How do all of these Americans know if a stranger wants to be cared about without asking the stranger if he/she wants to be cared about?
All of these Americans who “care” about a stranger live their lives as though they’re all generic, mass-produced automatons that can’t think for themselves and that treat everyone else also as a generic, mass-produced automaton that’s been preprogrammed to want a stranger to “care” about it. The definition of “generic” that I’ve chosen is “Lacking imagination or individuality; predictable and unoriginal.”[7]
If increasingly more American jobs have been replaced with automatons, then this has been a totally fitting result because why would anyone pay a stranger who acts like an automaton more money to do something that an automaton could do but that would require less money to get it done?
“Have a Good Day/Night/etc.” | ↑T
Below are seven of my reactions to this idea:
I. “Have” Emphasis | ↑
“Have” in this idea represents an emphasis in the US society with having something that’s positive. Some examples of this emphasis are “Have a good night,” “Have a great weekend,” and “Have a nice day,” but I have zero interest in participating in this emphasis because this idea to me represents an implied deficiency/inadequacy that the speaker has assigned to me, and this deficiency/inadequacy, which doesn’t exist, is my inability to decide, as an example, any of the below five things for myself.
I can’t think of any reason that I would tell a customer this idea because throughout a customer’s shopping experience, the customer was the one who decided one or more times to have or to not have a product by taking it from a shelf, by not taking it, or by putting it back on a shelf. The customer, not me, was the one who had all of the qualifications to decide this, so if I were to care about a customer’s day, then why would I show that I have zero interest in caring about this part of the customer’s day by not thinking all of these thoughts about it even though it was the most relevant to me, and it was the part of a customer’s day that I’ve benefitted from the most?
This is my conclusion of this idea: As a customer, I decided that one or more employees were completely adequate to receive a part of my money, but in return, more than one of these employees implied that an inadequacy existed in me by talking to me as though I couldn’t decide what to have or to not have even though throughout my shopping experience, I was the one, not any of these employees, who decided which product(s) to have or to not have. I can’t think of any reason that I would treat any customer with this disrespect after he/she showed me his/her support by spending some money without implying that any deficiencies/inadequacies existed in me.
II. Telling Someone to “Have” | ↑
“Have” is a verb in this idea, and I’ve learned that to start a phrase or a sentence with a verb is to tell someone to do a task, and if I’m told to do anything, then my reaction is to please avoid doing it. Other than the interaction between a manager/boss and a lower-ranked employee, telling a person to do something is one of the most prevalent types of arrogance in the US society because the speaker treats me as though he/she is my parent, and I’m his/her child or kid; he/she is a pet owner, and I’m his/her pet; he/she is my commander, and I’m a soldier; or I’m a robot that can’t think or feel. I’m not any stranger’s child/kid, I’m not someone’s pet, I’m not fighting in a war, and I’m not a lifeless machine.
III. “a . . . day/night” | ↑
If to some people, they can “have a good night,” then this to me would be completely valid, but every second of my life that has passed wasn’t an amount of time that I have now, so I can’t have an entire “day/night.” I have zero interest in having something that I can’t have.
IV. “Good” | ↑
Good doesn’t exist in my world, so this idea is like saying “Have a non-existent night,” but I can’t have a non-existent night/day/etc. because I can’t have anything that doesn’t exist.
V. Debt, Bill, and Food | ↑
When I felt some stress because I was in debt, because I didn’t know if I could pay my next bill, and because I couldn’t buy all of the food that I needed with less than 1$ in my bank account, I’ve never thought this to myself: “Oh wait, someone I have zero interest in caring about told me to ‘have a good day/night/etc.’ GOLLY GEE WILLIKERS! I feel better already!! How about I skippity doo wah tralalalalaaaa~ my way to my next destination with cheerfulness?!?!?! :D!!!!”
Have multiple Americans been able to repay a debt or to pay a bill by using their memory of a stranger telling them to have a good day/night/etc., or if they needed food, did they instead use their memory of this as a form of payment to buy some food or to feed themselves? If so, then why hasn’t anyone told me how this could be done? If not, then do multiple American professionals have zero understanding about everything that’s been involved in repaying a debt, in paying a bill, in buying food, and in feeding a human body?
I please thank you everyone who has told me this idea at a professional level because you’ve proven the existence of my arrogance and self-flattery: I’ve been assuming that a collective American, professional-level intelligence exists and that it’s higher than this, but I’ve been repeatedly dumping two less-reliability-than-trash ideas into my mind.
VI. A Gift | ↑
Every time that I was told this idea, it was a gift that was given to me because it stayed in my mind until I noticed the accumulation of it. I please thank you everyone who has told me this idea because I began to understand the reason that I repeatedly felt anger, dissatisfaction, and frustration. The reason is that by living in the US society, I chose to align my thinking with this “have” emphasis, and because of this, I decided to have increasingly more things.
VII. “Good,” “Better,” and “Best” | ↑
This post isn’t about anyone who said “have a good day/night/etc.” to someone who wasn’t me because every one of these interactions was none of my business.
I learned at a public, elementary school in the USA that “better” is more positive than “good” and that “best” is more positive than “better” and “good,” yet at a professional level, after I paid to buy one or more products, I’ve been repeatedly told to “have a ‘good’ day/night/etc.” Here’s an unspoken message of this idea: Even though you’ve bought one or more products so that a part my pay/salary will be guaranteed, you’re not worth investing any effort to use elementary-school-level knowledge when I say this idea to you. Who cares if “good” exists to you or if you’ve thought about having a “better” or “best” day? Who cares if you can have a day? Not me because I don’t care, but I’ll show you my pretense of caring about you.
Here’s my reply to the above paragraph to myself: This is 100% understandable. All of these professionals who have been saying this idea to you have been earning work time that’s been used to calculate their pay/salary. Who wouldn’t want to show another person their multiple lower standards when the result will be that they’ll be paid to have done this? Who cares about any higher standards when they can get paid to practice mindless conformity?
To all of the professionals who have been doing this, I please thank you because you’ve all been providing an abundance of evidence that “You get what you pay for” has been false because I haven’t been shopping at a grocery store so that I could pay for someone to pretend to care about me when he/she didn’t care.
I also please thank you every professional who has had this elementary-school-level knowledge and who told me to “have a good day/night/etc.” after I bought one or more products because you’ve proven that HCL has been, is, and will continue to be true in both ways:
1) Having
Just because you’ve had elementary-school-level knowledge, this didn’t determine a positive outcome.
2) Containing
Just because the USA contains this abundance of evidence that shows that “You get what you pay for” is false, this won’t determine the positive outcome that multiple Americans will use it to understand that this idea is false.
One more of my thought about this idea is that why have multiple people been hired because they’ve met the requirement of having a high school diploma or equivalent when they can’t even use elementary-school-level knowledge to understand the arrogance, hypocrisy, and insensitivity of this idea? Here’s my reply to my question: In the US society, having matters more than using, so who cares if these people can use it when they have it?
“Having/Have/Has a Sense of Humor” | ↑T
In the USA, both honesty and “having a sense of humor” are valued, but these two values conflict with each other because all of the people except one person whom I’ve heard or read doing one or more of the following five things seemed to have flattered themselves into thinking that they were funny or that they “had a sense of humor” (The one person who didn’t seem to have flattered himself was me because I flattered myself. I didn’t seem to have done it. I did it, and I did it repeatedly.):
1. Lied about something or knowingly said something that was false and then said something such as “It’s a joke”
2. Faked a reaction of anger
3. Asked a question and then admitted knowing the answer (e.g. someone asked if water was moonshine but when given
the answer, the asker admitted to knowing that it wasn’t moonshine)
4. Said something that was false to tease another person
5. Smiled while and/or after doing one of the above
A person can’t show that he/she values honesty and “having a sense of humor” without involving hypocrisy because honesty conflicts with lying, with knowingly saying something that’s false, with faking a reaction, and with pretending to not know something. If anyone were to start doing any of the above five things while talking to me without having been invited to do it, then this person wouldn’t “have a sense of humor”; it would be a demonstration of arrogance by showing his/her conformity to some of the lower standards in the culture of the USA.
Anytime that I did one of the above five things without having been invited to do it, I was also showing my insensitivity toward my own arrogance, hypocrisy, and self-flattery.
One other thing about this idea of “having a sense of humor” is that, based on my understanding of HCL, just because a person “has” a sense of humor, this doesn’t result in a positive outcome as some of the people in the USA seem to believe.
“Bullsh*t” | ↑T
“Bullsh*t” is defined as “Stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense,”[3] but not even once has anyone used this word while talking to me to say anything about any existing amount of sh*t that came from a bull. This means that every time someone has said this word while talking to me was using “untrue talk.”
The hypocrisy of using this word to talk about one or more things that aren’t any existing amount of sh*t that comes from a bull is that “bullsh*t” is bullsh*t.
“Can I ask you a question?” | ↑T
Multiple people in the US have asked me this question as though they didn’t understand the meaning of “can.” Did they also not understand what a question was? “Can I ask you a question?” is a question. The goal of asking this question is about getting permission from someone else to do what the asker is doing, but by asking this question, the asker gives himself/herself the permission that he/she doesn’t need from anyone else. Did none of these people know whether or not they could do what they were doing while they were doing it?
This idea/question represents false humility because a person who asks this question acts as though his/her goal is to avoid the arrogance of assuming that he/she can ask a question, but by asking this question, this person involves this arrogance.
“Can’t we all just get along?” | ↑T
I’ve used my sardonicism with zero intended humor to answer this question: Yes because the meaning of my life is that I become increasingly more stupid by lowering all of my standards. I would do this by getting along with all lower-standard show-offs (LSSs) who flatter themselves into thinking that they know something about me by regurgitating one or more ideas such as “You get what you pay for.” How could anyone not completely love listening to one or more LSSs dump their verbal regurgitation into his/her mind as though it’s a bottomless pit, a trash can, a toilet, or a vomit bag? To not completely love this is totally impossible because the meaning of life is that all people become increasingly more stupid.
Conflict and Self-Applied Exception/Exemption (SAE/E) | ↑T
By mimicking some adult-level people in the USA because I thought that their level of intelligence was higher than it was, I learned to introduce and to add conflict into multiple minds, including mine, by repeatedly giving myself an SAE/E. Below is the 1st example of conflict and SAE/E that involves the ideas of “bullsh*t” and “have a sense of humor”.
Multiple adult-level people can show their disapproval toward false information that’s given by someone else by calling it “bullsh*t”, but these same adults can show approval toward themselves by giving themselves an SAE/E. They can do this by using the “bullsh*t” of the word “bullsh*t” to label false information that isn’t any amount of sh*t that came from a bull because they can give themselves an SAE/E so that they become an exception/exemption to this idea.
They can also give themselves an SAE/E by combining the following 3 things:
A. They say false information
B. They smile and/or laugh while and/or after they say it
C. They show approval toward themselves because they combine A and B as though by doing this, a less-reliability-than-trash idea (LRTTI) that they said stopped being an LRTTI because they did B
Instead of admitting that they said an LRTTI, all of these adults can give themselves an SAE/E by doing C. They can do this by showing approval toward their own “bullsh*t” that they avoid calling “bullsh*t” because they decide for someone else that the LRTTI that they said wasn’t “bullsh*t”. The reason is that they smiled and/or laughed while and/or after they said it as though they “have a sense of humor”.
Below is the 2nd example of an SAE/E that involves the command, “Question everything”.
“Question everything”, said a stranger who gave himself/herself the qualification of giving the command to “question everything” but who gave himself/herself an SAE/E so that he/she became an exception/exemption to this idea because he/she didn’t phrase it as a question. Did this stranger exist at a level of specialness and/or superiority that he/she didn’t need to apply this idea to himself/herself?
III. “The only thing that is constant is change.” | ↑
Conflict
The word “constant” in this idea is an adjective, and 1 of the definitions of “constant” as an adjective is “INVARIABLE [ . . . ]”[9], which means “not changing or capable of change : CONSTANT”[10], so the conflict in this idea is that change is constant even though “change” means the opposite of “constant”.
SAE/E
The sentence itself is evidence that this idea is false because every time that I looked at it, the total number of words in it was 8, not any other number of words, so this number didn’t change at all. This is an example of human intelligence that I’ve noticed: Multiple adult-level people say an idea that itself is evidence that the idea is false, and in this situation, this idea as a sentence is, in my opinion, completely visible evidence that this idea is false, yet all of these adult-level people don’t use this evidence because they treat it as an exception/exemption to this idea.
This, in my opinion, is one of most baffling things that I’ve ever seen in this lifetime because I didn’t do the below 3 things:
1) I became the top scientist out of all scientists
2) I was granted access to the state-of-the-art laboratory
3) I used the most advanced laboratory equipment to examine this idea/sentence at a microscopic level
All I did were the below 3 things:
1. I used my eyes to look at the sentence
2. I thought about it
3. I repeated 1 and 2
My question about this idea is this: Is this a joke? Here’s my answer: Nope it’s not a joke. It’s an example of human intelligence, but this isn’t the full extent of this situation because I proved to myself that this idea is false 2 more times by using 0 math and then by using the period in this idea:
0 Math
(1) I looked at the first “is”, and I thought to myself that “is is is”
(2) I closed my eyes for about one second
(3) I looked at the first “is” again, and I thought to myself that “is is still is”
(4) I understood that because of (3), “is” didn’t change from being “is”
(5) I decided that because of (4), this idea must be false
The Period
(1) I looked at the period, and I thought to myself that “. is .”
(2) I closed my eyes for about one second
(3) I looked at the the period again, and I thought to myself that “. is still .”
(4) I understood that because of (3), “.” didn’t change from being “.”
(5) I decided that because of (4), this idea must be false
Empty Encouragement | ↑T
An empty encouragement that I’ve heard and read is “anything is possible.” This is an empty encouragement because I’ve thought of two reasons that “anything is possible” will always be false:
I. If “anything is possible” were true, then everything being impossible would be possible, but if everything were to become impossible, then everything being impossible itself would be impossible, so “anything is possible” will always be false.
II. An idea that I’ve read online is “everything is a lie.” If “anything is possible” were true, then “everything is a lie” could exist as a fact, but if everything were to become a lie, then “everything is a lie” itself would be a lie, so “anything is possible” will always be false.
“With God all things are possible.” | ↑
If this idea means that “only with God could all things be possible,” then this idea would always be false because it would never include the possibility, which is implied to exist by the idea that “all things are possible,” that without God, all things are possible.
“Friendliness” | ↑T
This idea exists at a “professional” level in the US. Every time that an employee who is a stranger at a workplace has asked me about something that hasn’t been, that isn’t, and that will continue to be none of the asker’s business . . . was this considered as friendliness? If it was, then why did this happen? A stranger is called a “stranger” because he/she is a stranger, not my friend.
Does a difficulty exist in understanding this? If so, then what’s the difficulty? Does one or more American “professionals” flatter themselves into believing that if they label one of their actions by using a different word (e.g. “friendliness”) instead of calling the action what it is (e.g. asking a question about something that hasn’t been, that isn’t, and that will continue to be none of their business), then by doing this, they somehow magically transform their action into the idea that this word represents?
If this were true, then the arrogance, hypocrisy, self-flattery, and insensitivity of this American, “professional” idea is like when I used my arrogance to flatter myself into thinking that when I called a lady “ma’am” or that when I called a man “sir” that I was showing “respect” when I didn’t ask any of them if they wanted to be called “ma’am/sir.” The results of this were that multiple people proved the existence of my arrogance, hypocrisy, self-flattery, and insensitivity by telling me to not call them “ma’am/sir” or that they didn’t want to be called “ma’am/sir,” and the response from a lady and from a man was that my having done this “makes me feel old.” Because of this, I’ve stopped assuming that all other people want to be called “ma’am/sir.”
Each time that I assumed that I was showing “respect” at a “professional” level because I chose to conform to the arrogance, self-flattery, hypocrisy, and insensitivity of this idea, I didn’t somehow magically transform my disrespect into my “respect.”
“Have” Emphasis | ↑T
The “have” emphasis exists in the US society, & here are 4 examples of it: 1, “have” one thing; 2, using “have/had” to talk about eating &/or drinking; 3, using “have/had/has” to talk or to write about a need/necessity/requirement; & 4, a person only “having” something guarantees that this person will use it to get a positive outcome. Below are 5 examples:
1. “Have” a good day. | ↑
I explained 7 of my thoughts about this under “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.”
2. What did you “have” for breakfast (or lunch, etc.)? | ↑
The purpose of this question is about asking someone if he/she ate &/or drank anything, but instead of using 2 words that mean eat & drink–“eat” & “drink”–“have” or “had” is used; however, just because I “had” food, this didn’t guarantee that I ate or that I drank it because I sometimes “had” food without eating or drinking it by carrying it in a bag.
3. (i) Do you “have” to . . . ? (ii) You “have” to . . . (iii) I “had” to. (iv) “has/have got” (v) “have to have” | ↑
In the first 3 examples, rather than using any of the three words–need, must, or require–that means something is needed, is a necessity, or is a requirement, “have” or “had” is used. In the fourth example, instead of saying that something “needs to be” done, that it “must be” done, or that it’s “a requirement”, someone sends the message that something “has/have got” to be done. This “have” emphasis is doubled because “got” is the past tense of “get”, which is defined as “to gain possession of”[4]. In the fifth example, this “have” emphasis is again doubled when someone says “have to have” rather than “need to have”, “must have”, or “required to have”.
This double “have” emphasis also exists when someone does the following 2 things:
1) Combines a pronoun, such as “he” or “they”, with “has” or “have” to form a contraction (e.g. “he’s” or “they’ve”)
2) Adds “got” after this contraction (e.g. “he’s got” or “they’ve got”)
4. “Having” a sense of humor | ↑
Here are 2 assumptions of this idea:
1) Just because a person “has” a sense of humor, then this guarantees a positive outcome
2) A person did something that was perceived as positive because he/she “has” a sense of humor
In both assumptions, it’s not about how someone uses his/her sense of humor or about how this person uses 1 or more words &/or gestures to express his/her sense of humor. It’s about this emphasis with “having” a sense of humor. I please disagree with both of these assumptions, & I explained some of my thoughts under “Having/Have/Has a Sense of Humor.”
5. “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” | ↑
This idea is the name of a song[5], & in my opinions, it represents 1 level of advancement beyond the 4 levels of familiarity that “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.” represents because this idea also includes size: “Little”.
“Honesty is the best policy.” | ↑T
Honesty is used in this idea without any mention of compassion or sensitivity, and without them, my honesty has always involved harshness, which is more negative to me than the absence of it. Below is the 1st example of an answer in bold font, that involves profanity, that’s based on my honesty, and that my darkness/cruelty side has thought about saying to someone who hasn’t been a part of my personal life but who has asked me about it:
It’s none of your fucking business. You haven’t needed to know, you don’t need to know now, and you’ll continue to not need to know, so why don’t you shut the fuck up and mind your own fucking business?
Below is the 2nd example of my honesty as some of my reactions to the idea of “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.”
A Product | ↑
I’ve explained some of my thoughts about this idea as if it were a product, and in a way, it’s been given to me as a product because after I paid money, I was given this idea/product in exchange for some of my money. If this idea were a product, then here’s an example of the information that would be on the front and back labels if total trustworthiness were practiced in explaining this information:
Front Label
Have a Nice Day!
Because We Care®
100% We Care®*
MINIMALLY PROCESSED**. NO ARTIFICIAL INGREDIENTS.***
Back Label
INGREDIENTS: We Care® Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, …
Below is an explanation of how we as professionals add conflict in five ways to your mind by pretending to care about you while disguising our apathy toward you (NOTE: WDC means we don’t care)****:
1. We Care® about you, but WDC if you care to, need to, or want to be treated as though we’re the bosses of your life.
2. We Care® about you, but WDC if “nice” has been an opinion that you’ve been using.
3. We Care® about you, but WDC if you can have a day.
4. We Care® about you, but WDC if you care to, need to, or want to think about a day.
5. We Care® about you, but WDC if you care to, need to, or want to have a day that’s better than “nice” (e.g. “nicer” or “nicest”).
* ↑ On a scale of 0% to 100% reliability (i.e. 0% equals zero reliability and 100% equals total reliability), “We Care®” is at 0% because, as the author explained under the INGREDIENTS list, we don’t care about you in five ways.
** ↑ This product was MINIMALLY PROCESSED because the mental process that was involved in showing this idea to you was at the minimum level. Here’s the author’s explanation: As a customer, you’re not worth the efforts of adding one letter (i.e. “r”) to the end of the word “nice” and of asking ourselves, “How do we know that a customer wouldn’t care to, need to, or want to have a ‘nicer’ day instead of a ‘nice’ day?” We don’t know, but why would we care about that? In the US society, a person doing something “for” a stranger is a value, so we’ll decide for you that we know the following four things about you:
1) You “have” an amount of time because you haven’t been able to decide for yourself how you’ve lived your life (e.g. enjoyed, experienced, savored, etc.)
2) We decide for you the number of the amount of time that we command/tell you to have (e.g. “a” equals “one”)
3) We decide the quality/type of an amount of time for you to have (e.g. nice, good, great, amazing, lovely, wonderful, etc.)
4) We decide for you the amount of time to have (e.g. day, night, evening, weekend, etc.)
Here’s the author’s interpretation of this idea: You as a customer aren’t worth any of our efforts to do any of this thinking by us as multiple professionals, so, again, the mental process that was involved in showing this idea to you was at the minimum level. The reason is that we’re not interested at all in beginning to do the work of thinking one level above the minimum by adding one letter to the end of a word.
*** ↑ The reliability of this is at 0% because as the author explained under the INGREDIENTS list, we don’t care if you can have a day. Even if you’ve been able to have a day, we don’t care if you’ve thought about having a nicer or nicest day. We don’t care, but we’ll show you that we artificially care about you, and we’ll be paid a part of our pay/salary after we do this.
**** ↑ Are you a customer who has spent a total of more than 300 minutes (i.e. 5 hours) of doing physical, mental, and emotional work to ensure that a part of our pay/salary will be guaranteed by repeatedly buying our product instead of a competitor’s product? If so, then we don’t care that you’ve done all of this work because you’re not even worth the one-time investment of doing less than 30 minutes of mental work to think about everything that has been explained from the beginning of this sub-topic (i.e. A Product) even though we would earn some work time that would be converted to some of our pay/salary, plus a part of multiple paid vacations depending on the rank/importance of our employees, by doing this mental work. You’re not worth it because we don’t care.
To us, you’re like a mass-produced automaton in the form of a customer that was manufactured by using the most generic human-drawn blueprint, that has bought our product, and that can’t decide any of the above five things for yourself.
Below is the 3rd example of my honesty that involves my contempt and that again involves profanity to the idea that “You get what you pay for” when I applied it to all of the times that I paid to get a product, and then I got it:
No shit Sherlock . . . in a completely successful transaction, that’s how buying something works. After I gave a seller some money, I took a product from this seller in exchange for the money. I understood this before I started third grade at an elementary school. What did you think that you were doing when you said this? Did you think that you were saying one of the most profound ideas or the most profound idea that has ever existed? Did I assume that you did any thinking at all? Did you even think, or did you feel, feel like, or feel that this idea is true? What the fuck is this? Am I missing something? Did someone decide that today is state-the-totally-obvious day?
Below is the 4th example of my honesty that again involves my contempt and profanity to the idea that “Money can’t buy happiness”:
No fucking shit money can’t buy happiness because money can’t buy anything, or do you live in a land of magical magicalness where money can spend itself to buy something?
V. Fake “Help”, Fake “For”, Fake Care, & Fake Knowledge | ↑
After I accumulated about 4,000$ in debt, I please remember that I chose to earn 5$ or fewer an hour to complete some tests. Because of my choices, I also please remember that I couldn’t pay a bill before or on the due date multiple times & that I couldn’t buy all of the foods that I needed, so I decided that I could start a 1st test to please see if I could buy less gasoline & if I could avoid using more electricity.
I started this test after I bought a scythe, which I used instead of a gasoline lawn mower or an electric mower when I mowed my lawns. I please remember that all of the plants that I mowed were some of the tallest plants on my lawns & that all of the plants that I couldn’t mow were the grass that were the shortest plants, so I decided that I would complete my 2nd scythe test after some of the grass on my lawns grew longer.
I thought to myself that I could please start to live–in my opinion–a better life by paying each of my bills before the due date & by mowing my lawns without introducing any unwanted sounds, such as from a gasoline mower, in the neighborhood that I lived in, & I thought that I could live this way without interfering in anybody else’s life. Doesn’t the most obvious question about all of my thoughts in this paragraph exist, & isn’t it “Whom did I flatter myself by using my arrogance into assuming I was?”
2 men (M1 & M2)–without any of my permissions–who were neighbors in the neighborhood that I lived in, who didn’t live in my house, & who were strangers mowed my lawns so that I please know that I couldn’t start my 2nd scythe test. Neither 1 of them asked me if I needed &/or wanted any help with mowing my lawns, but M1 communicated with M2, so because of this, M2 mowed my back yard, & M2 introduced some dirt on 1 of my window covers inside my house because 1 of my windows was open. Who wouldn’t want unwanted dirt on his/her/their window cover as the result of fake “help” from a man-level stranger?
How can I not appreciate the lack of logic in this situation? M1 communicated with M2 about a task that was 0 of their responsibility, but M1 didn’t communicate with me about this task that was my responsibility. I talked to M1 & M2 before they did this, & I noticed 0 sign that they suffered from any types of brain damage, any mental disabilities, or both.
Wouldn’t you appreciate if 1 or more of this type of men were to decide fake “for” you that they fake care about you by fake “help”ing you with a task that you would please need 0 “help” with? Wouldn’t you appreciate if they were to do this because they would decide fake “for” you that they would have fake knowledge about an aspect of your life that they wouldn’t have because they didn’t participate in this aspect of your life at all? How could I not appreciate that M1 & M2 were both men, yet they weren’t men enough to admit their ignorance to themselves by asking me if I needed &/or wanted their help or by not handling a responsibility that wasn’t theirs to handle?
This is an example of adult-level, man-level intelligence of some of the men in this society: they don’t always understand that when they don’t know something, then they don’t know something. They can sometimes fake their knowledge by telling themselves that they have knowledge about me that they don’t have, & by doing this, they can somehow gain this knowledge that they don’t have & that they have 0 access to because they’re not participating in my life, but this isn’t all. They can also overestimate their importance to me while they underestimate my importance to me AT. THE. SAME. TIME! How can their importance to me not be equal to or greater than my importance to me when they spent less time in my life than I did? How can I not appreciate the lack of logic in each of these situations?
Another way that they did this was that they talked to me after they convinced themselves that false information about me that they told themselves was true: 1 or more of my levels of development (LsOD) were stuck at 1 or more of their LsOD that they kept at the same level from longer than 1 decade ago. How can I stop myself from needing to approach each of these men & to tell him, “I please thank you because you treated me like 1 or more of my LsOD were equal to or lower than 1 or more of your lower LsOD that you kept stuck at from longer than 1 decade ago. You did this when you showed your inability or unwillingness to apply logic by using the words ‘time’, ‘equal to’, ‘greater than’, & ‘less’. What an honor & A PRIVILEGE!
The situation wasn’t that you were a boy with 1 or more types of brain damage, 1 or more mental disabilities, or both; that you were a boy without any types of brain damage or any mental disabilities; or that you were a man with 1 or more types of brain damage, 1 or more mental disabilities, or both. It was that you were a man who showed 0 sign that you had any types of brain damage &/or any mental disabilities; who had more than enough liberties, which included the liberty to ask 1 question; & who chose not to ask 1 question by using English-only words in a society where English was the official language! WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE?!”
I thought that when I had 0 knowledge about something, then I had 0 knowledge about something. Doesn’t this thought or type of thought come only from 1 of the most moronic people or the most moronic person in all of existence? Don’t 2 of the most logical questions exist about all of my thoughts that I explained above this paragraph & under the title of this sub-topic, & aren’t they the questions below?
1. What type of moron (M) thought that M could please start to live–in M’s opinion–a better life without interfering in anybody
else’s life such as by paying each of M’s bills before the due date & by not introducing any unwanted sounds in a
neighborhood?
2. Whom did M flatter M’s self by using M’s arrogance into assuming M was?
Why don’t I begin to aspire to become more like M1 & M2 by using my arrogance to flatter myself into assuming that just because I would tell myself that I would know 1 or more aspects about a stranger, then, without doing any work to earn all of this knowledge, I would gain all of this knowledge that I would flatter myself by using my arrogance to assume that I would gain even though I would gain 0 of it? Why don’t I start to talk to a stranger like my importance to this stranger is greater than it is & like the importance of this stranger to this stranger is less than it is? Who wouldn’t need &/or want to be treated this way all because a man wouldn’t be man enough to admit his ignorance by asking 1 question (e.g. “Do you need any help with mowing your lawn?”) in a society where more than enough liberties/freedoms exist, including the freedom of speech that would involve the use of English-only words in a society where English is the official language?
Why doesn’t 1 or more of this type of men who are leaders or who aren’t leaders but who talk &/or act like they’re leaders in this society complete every task below?
1. Begin to eliminate the entire school system by teaching all of the students in a class that they don’t need to go to school or to
participate in an online class to earn any knowledge
2. Teach all of these students that education isn’t the result of their doing work to earn knowledge but is the result of their
convincing themselves that they have knowledge that they don’t have
3. Tell them that, as though they live in a fairy tale, all of these students would gain this knowledge because the false information
that they would convince themselves is true would be an incantation that would grant them access to a stranger’s knowledge
about this stranger that they have 0 access to
Why don’t M1 &/or M2 take a 2nd set of multiple liberties by completing all of the tasks that I explained in the above paragraph? whoa . . . what? Why would either 1 of them or both of them do this if by doing this, they would each take “too many” liberties? Why didn’t M1 &/or M2 ask me 1 question? WHOA . . . WHAT?! WHY WOULD THEY HAVE DONE THIS IF BY DOING THIS, THEY WOULDN’T HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH LIBERTIES AS THOUGH THEY EACH HAD NOT ENOUGH LIBERTIES EVEN THOUGH THEY EACH HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH LIBERTIES?!
Between M1 & M2, M1 took 1 set of multiple liberties 1st, & I please believe that in my life, 0 coincidence exists: 1 part of M1’s name is “Goldi”.
VI. “Feel”, “Feel like”, and “Feel that” | ↑
In my opinions, the overall human intelligence in the US society is becoming lower, and it will continue to become lower at least to the end of the year 2024. An example of this is that some adult-level strangers who have each been in a leadership position don’t seem to know the difference between “think” or “think that” and “feel”, “feel like”, or “feel that”, and some of these strangers are preparing and will continue to prepare multiple younger strangers to become the next generation of leaders.
Human Intelligence in the USA | ↑T
I’ve noticed 2 examples of human intelligence in the USA:
Over 20 years ago in the USA, I learned about 2 types of information processing that always involved mental processing: “think” and “think that”. Since then, I’ve learned about 3 more types of information processing, but they don’t always involve any mental processing: “feel”, “feel like”, and “feel that”. With the addition of these 3 options, multiple strangers don’t need to process information by “thinking” it’s true or “thinking that” it’s true because they can “feel”, “feel like”, or “feel that” it’s true, or if they do think or think that it’s true, they sometimes talk as though they don’t know that they did any thinking because they use “feel”, “feel like”, or “feel that” instead of “think” or “think that”.
A 2nd example of human intelligence in the US society is under “Honesty is the best policy.”
“Money can’t buy happiness.” | ↑T
If anyone who says this idea is implying that my money can buy some things, but not happiness, then this idea is false because none of my money has ever bought anything in my life. Every time that I bought something, such as water, I was the one–not my money–who did all of the actions of buying the water. I showed an example of this in the following 3 pictures about how I bought water every time that I bought it:
1. Each arrow symbolizes “had”, so as the buyer, I had my money, & the seller had the water.
2. I started the process of buying the water by giving my money to the seller.
3. At the end of this process, I had the water, & the seller had the money.
A definition of “buy” is “to acquire possession, ownership, or rights to the use or services of by payment [ . . . ]”[6], so every time that I bought some water, my “buying” it completely fit this definition of “buy” because I acquired possession of the water by payment. However, if my money could “buy” something, such as water, then by definition, my money could “acquire possession” of the water “by payment”. Below is a picture that shows in 3 parts how my money would do this:
1. My money is ready to buy the water from the seller. Each arrow symbolizes “has”, so the seller has the water.
2. My money buys the water, so my money becomes the seller’s money.
3. At the end of this payment, the seller’s money has the water, so the seller has both the water & the money.
In this imaginary situation, my “possession” of water “by payment” didn’t exist, so the buying that happened didn’t fit the definition of “buy” that I mentioned earlier. What would be the level of challenge or difficulty in adding “be used to” to this idea so that it would match how I bought a product in practice? It would be at the level of applying public, elementary-school-level English because “be”, “used”, & “to” are all public, elementary-school-level words, but who cares about adding “be used to”? Who cares about using English at multiple public, elementary-school-level standards in the US society even though English is the official language of the US?[8]
Not Enough Value | ↑T
A value that multiple leader-level professionals in the US practice is their implication that, as an example, not enough information exists when more than enough information exists↓. I’ll please explain a set of results that I saw at a workplace that was also a grocery store either where these leaders worked or that they operated: A customer (C) bought 2 products, & in my opinions, C showed every type of generosity below:
1. level 2 generosity*
2. beyond level 1 generosity**
3. level 1 better generosity***
4. level 1 greater generosity****
*C chose 2 products, so I matched this number 2 with level “2”. Could you please know that among multiple leader-level
professionals, their matching information in front of each of their eyes by using multiple words & a number below 10 to
mention this information isn’t a value to them?
**C showed generosity at level 2, which was at a level beyond level 1.
***I chose “level 1” because this was about 1 comparison, which I explained below, & I chose “better” because of 3 reasons:
1) “better” is in the opinions category that “good” is in
2) “good” was 1 of the most common opinions that multiple leaders in the US attempted to apply to my life, so my use of
“better” wasn’t a word choice that was beyond each of their knowledge
3) I learned at a public, elementary school that “better” meant a comparison between 2 total things. In my opinion & from a
seller’s perspective, C’s purchase of 2 products was “better” than a purchase of 1 product.
****Again, I chose “level 1” because this was about 1 comparison, & I learned–again at a public, elementary school–that “greater”
was used in a comparison that involved 2 numbers: C bought 2 products, which was greater than 1 product (i.e. 2 was greater
than 1).
C bought 2 products at a store among more than 100 stores that a company operated. This company hired me, & then I learned about 1 of this company’s corporate-level ideas that a leader/manager who worked at this company tried to apply to some of the work that I did: they (i.e. this company) “do the right thing“. This company was in business longer than 50 years, yet multiple top-level leaders in this company acted as though they had not enough time to confirm if just a part of this idea was true or not by sitting on a chair & thinking about how they can elevate their customer appreciation just by using multiple English-only words & a number below 10.
Above the previous paragraph, I explained 4 opinions that I chose about C, & an example of a customer-appreciation expression that would include 1 of these opinions would be “I thank you because, in my opinion, you showed level 2 generosity”. Could you please know that this would be a “right thing” that a leader-level professional could say to a customer? It would be a “right thing” & not “the right thing” because it would be a choice among multiple choices, not “the right thing” as in “the” 1 & only “right thing” that would exist.
How is this not completely obvious to this company? I looked at this company’s website, & I saw 2 types of information. 1 was about an offer, & the other 1 was about store location:
i. At the top of the home page, this company showed 6 offers. Only 1 of them was about a free set of services, & the word
choice–between “the” & “a”–was “’the’ offer”. The way that I thought about this was that it was “the offer” because it was
“the” 1 & only offer that was about a free set of services.
ii. At the bottom of the home page was “Find A Store”. The word choice was “A” instead of “The” because this company
operated more than 100 stores, so the word choice was “A” because among more than 100 stores, 1 store was “A” store,
not “The” store, which would mean “The” 1 & only store.
Here’s my 2nd explanation about this difference between “the” & “a”: Multiple leaders who worked at this company attempted to apply a set of ideas to my life: “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.” Why was this idea about “a” & not “the”? How is an answer not totally obvious? Here’s an answer: Because multiple days existed in my lifetime, so “a” matched this fact because “a” meant that “1” day existed among multiple days in my lifetime. The word choice wasn’t “the” because “the” 1 & only day that existed in my lifetime didn’t exist.
Here’s my 3rd explanation about this difference between “the” & “a”: In the above paragraph, in my question “How is an answer not totally obvious?”, my word choice was “an” & not “the” because “an” answer that contained a right set of words (i.e. “Because multiple days [ . . . ]”) existed among multiple other right sets of words rather than just “the” 1 & only right set of words:
A. “Because more than a day [ . . . ]”
B. “Because more than 1 day [ . . . ]”
I mentioned that more than enough information exists↑, & then I explained 4 opinions that I chose about C. This set of 4 opinions was more than enough information that I needed when I proved to myself that this corporate-level idea–multiple professionals, including more than 1 top-level leader who was hired by this company, who “do the right thing”–has 0 credibility. Why was it more than enough? It was more than enough because the minimum number of opinions that I needed was 2, & 2 opinions existed as enough information. Any number beyond 2 (i.e. 3, 4, etc.) represented more than enough information. Here’s the public-school-level logic that I applied to this:
2 represented enough
A number beyond 2 (i.e. 3, 4, etc.) represented more than 2
So 4 represented more than enough (more specifically, because 3 represented more than enough & because 4 was more
than 3, 4 also represented more than more than enough)
In this example, “the right thing” didn’t exist because I proved that 4 options (i.e. “right things“) existed & that each of them would be “a”–not “the”–”right thing”. Could you please know that 1-5 below are true?
(1) A purchase of 2 products from 1 customer was more than enough information that I needed to please prove that multiple
top-level leaders who “do the right thing” just through their use of English-only words & a number below 10 never existed.
(2) Longer than 50 years to an entire company was not enough time &/or all of the information that this company accumulated
within this period of time was not enough information to this company to confirm if just a part of an idea–multiple top-level
leaders who “do the right thing”–was true or not.
(3) More than 100,000 purchases existed, & each of them involved 1 or more customers who bought more than 2 products from
this company, but all of this information was not enough information to this company.
(4) All of the “paid vacations” & the increasingly more amount of money in a retirement account that multiple top-level leaders
each had because of (3) were all not enough motivation to all of them to think about just 1 transaction that involved 1
customer who bought a total of 2 products.
(5) 1 set of my beliefs is that an amount of money in the US represents 1 approval &/or 1 permission, that this was true longer
than 50 years ago, & that this will continue to be true. However, like I mentioned earlier, all of the time, money, motivation,
approvals, &/or permissions that multiple top-level leaders had because of (4) were not enough to all of them to use to
prove to themselves if a part of an idea–that they “do the right thing”–was true or not because they’re busier just having–
rather than having & using–time, increasingly more (IM) money; IM motivation; & IM approvals &/or IM permissions while
acting as though they’re victims who have not enough even though they’re each accumulating increasingly more.
In this example about multiple opinions, what was “the right thing” that they (i.e. multiple top-level leaders) did? They used words to try to minimize a type of increasingly more such as more than enough, more than more than enough, more than more than more than enough, etc. to the 1 & only result that they implied to exist but that never existed: not enough.
Why do multiple top-level leaders say an idea or a set of ideas that isn’t a truth? They do this because they like to practice a combination of a top-level-leader & a human-level value: they communicate information as though it’s always worth hearing &/or reading by, as an example, multiple other professionals, but they act like it’s not always worth their time & efforts to complete the set of tasks below:
A) Listen to &/or read it
B) Think about it
C) If its quality doesn’t match their top-level rank & value, edit it so that its quality matches more closely to their rank & value
D) Repeat A to C until they ensure that its quality matches their rank & value
One-Sided, Human-Decided Connection/Convenience | ↑T
One of the behaviors that I learned by living in the US society was to show this type of connection/convenience (C/C). Does anyone else want or need to join me in showing this type of C/C like a stranger in the US society? Below are my demonstration and explanation of an example of this type of C/C in the US society:
Here’s my message to you: hi friend.
Did you see what I did? I decided “for” you that you became my friend, so I became your friend. How did I do this? All I did was label you as “friend.” This was a one-sided decision because this decision came only from one side, which was my side. I formed this connection “for” you because I didn’t need to do any work to earn any qualifications to become your friend. Who cares if you’ve established for yourself that someone else would need to do all of the work to earn one or more qualifications before this person could become your friend? In the US society, a stranger could label me as his/her “friend,” and then to this stranger, I would become his/her friend because this stranger decided “for” me without my permission that I became his/her friend and that he/she became my friend.
In my opinion, this is one of the most convenient things in the US society. I please thank you every stranger in the US society who has given me the gift of this idea by applying the word “friend,” “friends,” or “brother” to me. Why don’t I advance this C/C to another level by approaching one of these strangers and by calling this stranger “my fellow account holder” of his/her bank account like the way that an American politician in the US society has used “my fellow”? Then, like this American politician, would I be able to establish a bond that wouldn’t exist as though it would exist? After this, could I gain full access to this stranger’s bank account and all of the money in it as though this stranger had become “my fellow account holder”?
The Goldilocks & 3 Bowls Effect | ↑T
I based this name on the fairy tale with the title “Goldilocks and the Three Bears”, not on the “Goldilocks principle”[14] because I thought of the name “The Goldilocks & 3 Bowls Effect” before I saw the name “Goldilocks principle”. Below is my summary of the most relevant part of this fairy tale:
Goldilocks, a girl, walked through a forest. She saw a house that belonged to a family of 3 bears. All 3 bears left their house before Goldilocks saw it, but none of the 3 bears locked the door to their house because they didn’t think that anyone would do all of the things that Goldilocks did next: She went into their house without any of their permissions, she saw 3 bowls of porridge on a table, she needed to eat, so she tasted some porridge in each of the 3 bowls. Her reaction to the 1st bowl was that the porridge in it was “too hot”, 2nd bowl “too cold”, & 3rd bowl “just right”. Then, she ate all of the porridge in the 3rd bowl.[15][16]
I. “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.” | ↑
The 2nd bowl represents more-than-enough liberties, & the porridge in it to Goldilocks was “too cold”, which to multiple adults in this society where a 4th value exists–their being “friendly” or their showing “friendliness”, “too cold” to them would mean that they wouldn’t be “friendly” enough, so they took multiple liberties because they decided multiple things “for” me when they each told me to “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.”
When they did this, this represented the 3rd bowl, which to Goldilocks was “just right”. My question about this is, “Why didn’t all of these adult-level professionals advance their being ‘friendly’ or their showing ‘friendliness’ (i.e. their taking multiple liberties) beyond this level by, as an example, their telling me which product to have, such as ‘Have a good, small Roast Beef’?” The reason that I thought of was that beyond this level is represented by the 1st bowl, which to Goldilocks was “too hot” & which to multiple of these adults would mean that they would be “too friendly”.
All of these adult-level professionals didn’t eat from the 1st bowl because then they would’ve been “too friendly”, & they didn’t eat from the 2nd bowl because then they wouldn’t have been “friendly” enough, so they metaphorically ate from the 3rd bowl because when they did this, they were being “friendly” or they showed their “friendliness”, & this was “just right”.
This “just right” is connected to a professional-level value that I learned about at the grocery store that I worked in, & this value was all of these adult-level professionals’ “doing the right thing”: They avoided being “too cold” (i.e. not being “friendly” enough), & they avoided being “too hot” (i.e. being “too friendly”), so they chose to be “friendly” or to show their “friendliness”, which was their “doing the right thing”, & this was “just right”.
II. Multiple Adults Who Each “Had A Sense Of Humor” | ↑
Multiple adults told me an idea that wasn’t true, & then they smiled &/or laughed as though they each “had a sense of humor”. They talked to me as though they convinced themselves that this combination of 2 behaviors was right. They also said an idea to me that didn’t apply to my life: “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.”
After I posted some of my thoughts to my website about 1 or more ideas that they said to me, they talked to me as
though 1 or more of my thoughts to them were insults. Why didn’t they take a 2nd set of multiple liberties by telling me & by deciding “for” me that I “had a sense of humor”, which would’ve been another idea that wasn’t true, in the same way that they told me to “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.”? Why didn’t they do this so that the 2 results below existed?
#1 They were right that they each “had a sense a humor”
#2 They granted themselves invulnerability from each of my thoughts that to them was an insult
3 of my beliefs are that (1) these multiple adults didn’t choose both of the options above because then they would’ve taken “too many” liberties; (2) they didn’t avoid talking to me as though they each “had a sense of humor” because then they wouldn’t have taken enough liberties; & (3) when they chose to just be right because they metaphorically ate from the 3rd bowl when they chose just the 1st option above, then this was “just right”.
Another 1 of my questions about this idea & the practice of it was, “Why don’t multiple adult-level professionals–who talked to me as though they were leaders of my life because they decided ‘for’ me that I cared about, that I needed, &/or that I wanted them to talk to me as though they each ‘had a sense of humor’ even though I had 0 interest in this–establish the practice below & then tell themselves that their accomplishment would be that they ‘improved’ their ‘sense of humor’ that they ‘had’ to another level?”
Within the next 1-month period starting from today, all of these professionals would choose 1 of the least popular products (i.e. a product that nobody bought) in a store, & rather than assigning a “Clearance” price to this product, they would replace the price tag assigned to this product that wouldn’t be on sale with a “sense-of-humor”, “Clearance” price tag so that this “Clearance” price wouldn’t be the true price. They would all do this without providing any explanations about this practice to any customers in the same way that they all talked to me as though they each “had a sense of humor” without providing any explanations about this idea & their practice of it to me.
Multiple customers would buy 1 or more of this product believing that they would be paying a “Clearance” price. On the checkout screen that would show the name of this product & on the receipt, the regular price assigned to this product would be shown with a smiling or laughing face, the words & abbreviation “Just kidding! LOL”, or the words “It’s a joke!” next to this price to indicate that all of these professionals “had a sense of humor”.
I please believe that 1 of the reasons that they don’t do this is that they all aligned their lives with a 6th value in this society: they decided the extent to which they applied an idea, & they did this by keeping this idea that they said or that they practiced at the same level throughout more than 1 decade as though within this period of time, 0 of them had enough time that they could use to think about the validity of this idea or to improve it to another level. The next example of this is “bulls***”.
III. “Bulls***” | ↑
An adult-level professional who was a man–I specified “man” because I heard “bulls***” more times from multiple men than I heard it from multiple women–in this society told me more than once to “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.” Some time later, he said “bulls***” to criticize false information that someone else said as though he existed at a level of superiority so that he didn’t need to apply this idea of “bulls***” to himself. Why didn’t he admit to himself that “bulls***” was bulls***, & then why didn’t he use 1 of 2 sets of multiple liberties below that existed?
#1
(i) Thinking of “fi” as a part of “sci-fi”[17]
(ii) Knowing that “fi” was a shorter form of “fiction”
(iii) Using an online, free dictionary to read 1 of the definitions of “fiction”: “something that is not true”[18]
(iv) Saying “fi” instead of “bulls***”
#2
(i) Thinking of the words “false information”
(ii) Using an online, free dictionary to read 1 of the definitions of “false”: “not true”[19]
(iii) Understanding that because of (ii), “false information” meant information that wasn’t true
(iv) Forming the acrynym “FI” from the thought of “false information”
(v) Noticing that the pronunciation of “FI” as though it’s a word is exactly the same as the pronunciation of “fi” in “sci-fi”
(vi) Saying “FI” instead of “bulls***”
Oh no because this wouldn’t have involved taking any liberties, so this wouldn’t have involved taking enough liberties.
I please know that when this man said “bulls***”, he affected my sense of hearing. Why didn’t he expand the range of this idea by affecting another 1 of my senses: my sense of smell? Why didn’t he do this by taking a 2nd set of multiple liberties by completing every task below?
(i) Clocking in at a workplace where I worked
(ii) Entering a restroom at this workplace
(iii) Plugging his nose before he pooped into a toilet so that his brain wouldn’t have needed to process the scent like the way
that he didn’t mentally process this word–“bulls***”–after he said it
(iv) Taping a sign to the toilet tank with the words “Good S***” like the way that he decided “for” me the type of day or night to
have when he told me to “Have a Good Day/Night/etc.”
(v) Leaving the restroom without flushing his poop
Oh no because this would’ve involved taking “too many” liberties, but 2 liberties weren’t “too many” to this man because he chose to take 2 liberties when he criticized false information (FI): even though the FI wasn’t any amount of s*** (liberty 1) that came from a bull (liberty 2) because neither the s*** nor the bull existed, he called the FI that he criticized as “bulls***”, & this behavior was “just right”.
Why was this behavior “just right”? It was “just right” because 3 options existed, but this man limited himself to just 1 of them:
(1) Expanding (3) by taking 1 or more other liberties
(2) Using multiple liberties in a society where more than enough liberties existed & avoiding taking any liberties
(3) Taking 1 or more liberties as though having more than enough liberties wasn’t enough, which he did because he took 2
liberties
This man limited himself to just the 3rd option above, & he did this at a workplace where his “doing the right thing” was a value, so this was “just right”. 1 other reason that this was a “right thing” is that a 7th value exists in this society: when multiple adult-level professionals say an idea that has 0 credibility (0C), they do it as though because they &/or multiple other adult-level professionals said this idea more than once at a workplace & because they were repeatedly paid some money as a part of their wages, then this combination of results added increasingly more credibility to this 0C idea as though more money, like magic, can add more credibility to a 0C idea even though it can’t.
Two Euphemisms in the US Society | ↑T
Two euphemisms that I’ve learned about in the US society are “care” and “trying to help”. Each of these euphemisms has been used by multiple American professionals to disguise their inability or unwillingness to mind their business by focusing on their responsibility. An example of this in my life is that they did this either by handling my responsibility for me without asking my permission or by telling me information that I didn’t ask about, but instead of admitting this, they called it “care” or “trying to help”.
The most recent example of this was when I was working at a grocery store. After I put two of my drinks in a shopping cart, an American professional started to tell me that I could put one or both of them in a freezer. I didn’t care to, need to, or want to hear about this, but according to this professional, he was “just trying to help”. Some time before this happened, I asked and I requested that he please minimize his conversations with me, and I explained to him that the reason was that I’ve needed to stop myself from verbally abusing him. Even after this, he didn’t show that he understood my request. In the paragraph below are some of the things that I’ve thought about telling this professional:
I haven’t been the only one who has said something about some of your actions, such as your talking, at work. On a day that you weren’t at work, a second professional (SP) talked about something that you said, and SP called you “trash”. On another day that you weren’t at work, a third professional (TP) talked about you with increasing annoyance, and TP said that TP needed a vacation from you. On a day when you weren’t in the same area as a fourth professional (FP) who was working as a manager, FP said that you were still getting things wrong. You haven’t been totally innocent of doing any of these things because I’ve heard you use the word “monkey” to insult one or more customers when you were in a work area away from all of the customers, but in an area where multiple customers were shopping, I’ve heard you use the words “ma’am” and “sir”.
Isn’t this a 100% obvious example that “You get what you pay for” is true? Which American customer in the USA who shopped at a grocery store and who had a grocery list didn’t have a grocery list that looked like the one below?
milk
eggs
talk to a professional who will pretend to show me respect by using his arrogance to assume that I would want and/or need to be called ma’am/sir even though I haven’t told this professional about any of my preferences regarding this, and if luck is on my side, this same professional will go to an area of the store that’s out of my hearing range so that he could insult me, and then I could show my support of this pretense of respect and, again, if luck is on my side, this disrespect in the form of an insult by shopping at this store
Who doesn’t shop at a grocery store to “pay for” this type of shopping experience? This same professional told me that he ranked higher than I did, so if he has been paid more money including a paid benefit such as a paid vacation than I’ve been paid because my rank has been lower and I haven’t gotten any paid vacations, then isn’t this more 100% obvious evidence that “You get what you pay for” is true? How could it not be? How could the worth of this professional not have been higher than mine when I didn’t insult any customers and when I stopped flattering myself by using my arrogance to assume that all customers wanted to be called ma’am/sir?
Congratulations, multiple American professionals. You’ve “cared” about me and “tried to help” me to the point that I’ve reached my breaking point so that I felt 100% motivated to please post this on my website, but I haven’t been completely innocent of doing this. When I thought that the intelligence of multiple American strangers was higher than it was, I mimicked this behavior by treating multiple people this way. While and/or after I did this, I used “care” and/or “help” as euphemisms to avoid admitting to myself that I was showing unwillingness to mind my business by not focusing on my responsibility.
To all of the American professionals who have “cared” and/or “tried to help” me, I please ask and I please request this: could you please continue to please “care” about me and/or please “try to help” me so that I could please reach my next breaking point? Who knows what I would please post next if this were to happen again?
Two Principles | ↑T
Two principles that exist in the US society are (1) caring about one or more strangers, and (2) being humble or displaying humility. The opposites of these two principles are (1) treating one or more strangers with apathy, and (2) being arrogant or displaying arrogance. However, I’ve noticed that one of the most apathetic ways combined with one of the most arrogant ways that multiple strangers have talked to me has been that they’ve all been assuming that an opinion that they’ve been using has been an opinion that I’ve been using even though I haven’t been using it.
Here’s an example: “good.” This is my understanding of the apathy and the arrogance that are displayed in this example: “I don’t care if good has been an opinion that you’ve been using. I assume that you’ve been using it, and I’ll talk to you as though my assumption is true.” Below is a list of 50 opinion-based words:
good, bad, nice, mean, big, small, huge, tiny, fast, slow, high, low, beautiful, ugly, skinny, fat, rich, poor, smart, stupid, heavy, light, smooth, rough, thick, thin, strong, weak, bright, dark, young, old, hard, soft, far, near, deep, shallow, expensive, cheap, simple, complex, long, short, tight, loose, happy, unhappy, hot, and cold
“You get what you pay for.” | ↑T
I read the belief (B) that “You get what you pay for”, which implies that the value & quality of something are determined by its price, so the lower its price, the lower its value & quality. Lower quality results in lower reliability, so if B was true when I didn’t pay anything to read it, then the value of B was 0$ because I paid nothing–or 0$–to read it. This means that its reliability was also 0, so B was false if it was true.
The irony of B when I paid 0$ to read it was that it was true but only when it was applied to itself because I paid nothing to read it, & this nothingness fully matches the 0 value, 0 quality, & 0 reliability of B.[1]
One-Dimensional But Value Is Multi-Dimensional | ↑T
B is one-dimensional (1D) because it implies that the value and quality of a product are determined by its price, which is only one aspect of any product, but value is multi-dimensional. I’ll explain my reasoning:
If I buy a $10 product, and I use it once, then its value would equal $10 per use; two uses = $5/use, 10 uses = $1/use, etc. In this example, the product has two types of value: its price and the number of times that I use it. The more times that I use it, the higher that its value of reusability becomes to me, but its monetary value that I think of as price-per-use becomes lower. This idea about anything that I buy having two values is 2D, which doesn’t fit the 1D idea of B.
Zero Reliability in Practice | ↑T
On 9 Jan 2014, I started to work as a floor-and-restroom cleaner at a grocery store. I met the hiring manager only once, and I was told that she lived in another city that was about 60 miles from the store, so I didn’t see her again after I met her. Because of this freedom, I decided to test this idea, “You get what you pay for,” to see if it was true, and after testing it more than 140 times/days, I’ve proven to myself that it has zero reliability in practice.
I worked from 9 Jan to sometime between 15 Aug and 22 Aug of the same year. I was paid 10$/hour, and I was told that the work hours that I was assigned were between 6A and 10A. In the first two or three days, I worked from about 6A to 10A, but I wasn’t 100% satisfied with all of the results of my work, so I began to work from 6A to 2P, and sometimes past 2P.
This meant that I was paid about 5$ or less an hour. The minimum wage in Florida at that time was $7.93.[2] I worked five days a week, and to please avoid any mistakes, I’ve counted only my work days between 16 Jan (seven days after I started this job) and 8 Aug (seven days or more before I ended it), so the total number of work days that I’ve counted equals 145. Here’s the math:
Total number of work weeks = [(31 – 15) + 28 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 8] / 7
= 205 / 7
= 29 weeks rounded down to the nearest whole number
Total number of work days = 29 x 5 days
= 145 days
My debt was about 4000$ before I started this job, and I added more to my debt so that I could finish all of my tests, but every test was 100% worth all of my efforts because I’ve learned four things:
My Website | ↑T
If this idea were true, then all of the information that I’ve posted on my website would be worthless because I haven’t monetized it.
Sources | ↑T
1 ↑ Some of the information were from two other people, but to please protect their privacies, I’ll please avoid saying anything
else about them.
2 ↑ McKenna, Edmund J. “Florida’s minimum wage to increase on January 1, 2015.” LEXOLOGY®. 27 Oct 2014. URL. Date of
Access 16 Sep 2018.
3 ↑ Oxford University Press (OUP). “bullshit.” Lexico.com. Lexico.com, 2019. URL. Date of Access 20 Feb 2020.
4 ↑ “get”. 1st Definition. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2023. URL. Date Of Access 13 Mar 2023.
5 ↑ Witter, Brad. “How Judy Garland’s Influence Changed the Lyrics to ‘Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas.’” Biography.com. 19
Dec 2018. URL. Date Of Access 12 Mar 2023.
6 ↑ “buy”. 1st Definition. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2023. URL. Date Of Access 13 Mar 2023.
7 ↑ Oxford University Press (OUP). “generic.” Lexico.com. Lexico.com, 2019. URL. Date of Access 17 Mar 2020.
8 ↑ CRS (Congressional Research Service). “English Language Unity Act of 2017”. CONGRESS.GOV. Library of Congress, 9 Feb
2017. URL. Date Of Access 12 Mar 2023.
9 ↑ “constant”. 2nd Definition. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2023. URL. Date Of Access 12 Mar 2023.
10 ↑ “invariable”. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2023. URL. Date Of Access 12 Mar 2023.
11 ↑ “abundance”. 1st Definition. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, LLC, 2023. URL. Date Of Access 11 Mar 2023.
12 ↑ “over”. 13th Definition. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, LLC, 2023. URL. Date Of Access 11 Mar 2023.
13 ↑ “sufficient”. 1st Definition. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, LLC, 2023. URL. Date Of Access 11 Mar 2023.
14 ↑ “Goldilocks principle”. WIKIPEDIA The Free Encyclopedia. 8 November 2022. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. URL. Date Of Access
11 Mar 2023.
15 ↑ “Goldilocks and the Three Bears”. AmericanLiterature.com. AmericanLiterature.com, 2022. URL. Date Of Access 11 Mar 2023.
16 ↑ “Goldilocks and the Three Bears”. WIKIPEDIA The Free Encyclopedia. 8 March 2023. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. URL. Date Of
Access 11 Mar 2023.
17 ↑ Bruce Sterling and The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “science fiction”. 21 Apr 2023. Britannica.com. © 2023
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. URL. Date Of Access 4 Jun 2023.
18 ↑ “fiction”. 2nd Definition. Britannica.com. © 2023 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. URL. Date Of Access 4 Jun 2023.
19 ↑ “false”. 3rd Definition. Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2023. URL. Date Of Access 4 Jun 2023.