...

Correct investigations depend on correct Whys. You can understand a real Why if you realize this:

A REAL WHY OPENS THE DOOR TO HANDLING.

If you write down a Why, ask this question of it: “Does this open the door to handling?” 


If it does not, then it is a wrong Why.

When you have a right Why, handling becomes simple. The more one has to beat his brains for a bright idea to handle, the more likely it is that he has a wrong Why. 


So if the handling doesn’t leap out at you then THE WHY HAS NOT OPENED THE DOOR and is probably wrong.

A right Why opens the door to improvement, enabling one to work out a handling which, if correctly done, will attain the envisioned ideal scene. Investigatory Technology can be applied to situations good or bad, large or small, dispelling many of life’s puzzles and making real solutions possible.

DOING AN INVESTIGATION

When one begins to apply data analysis, he is often still trying to grasp the data about data analysis rather than the outpoints in the data. The remedy is just become more familiar with the materials of this course. 


Further, one may not realize the ease with which one can acquire the knowledge of an ideal scene. An outpoint is simply an illogical departure from the ideal scene. By comparing the existing scene with the ideal scene, one easily sees the outpoints. 


To know the ideal scene, one has only to work out the correct products for it. If these aren’t getting out, then there is a departure. One can then find the outpoints of the various types and then locate a Why and in that way open the door to handling. And by handling, one is simply trying to get the scene to get out its products. 


Unless one proceeds in this fashion (from product back to establishment), one can’t analyze much of anything. One merely comes up with errors. 
An existing scene is as good as it gets out its products, not as good as it is painted or carpeted or given public relations boosts. 


So for any scene, manufacturing or fighting a war or being a hostess at a party, there are products. 
People who lead pointless lives are very unhappy people. Even the idler or dilettante is happy only when he has a product! 
There is always a product for any scene. 

Standard Action 

A beginner can juggle around and go badly adrift if he doesn’t follow the pattern: 


1. Work out exactly what the (person, unit, activity) should be producing.
2. Work out the ideal scene.
3. Investigate the existing scene.
4. Follow outpoints back from ideal to existing.
7. Get a bright idea of how to handle.
8. Handle or recommend handling so that it stays handled.
This is a very surefire approach. 


If one just notes errors in a scene, with no product or ideal with which to compare the existing scene, he will not be doing data analysis and situations will deteriorate badly because he is finding wrong Whys. 

Thinking

One has to be able to think with outpoints. A crude way of saying this is “learn to think like an idiot.” One could also add “without abandoning any ability to think like a genius.” 


If one can’t tolerate outpoints at all or confront them, one can’t see them. 


A madman can’t tolerate pluspoints and he doesn’t see them either. 


But there can be a lot of pluspoints around and no production. Thus, one can be told how great it all is while the place edges over to the point of collapse.

One who listens to people on the scene and takes their Whys runs a grave risk. If these were the Whys, then things would be better. 


A far safer way is to talk only insofar as finding what the product is concerned and investigating. 


One should observe the existing scene through data or through observers or through direct observation. 


One often has to guess what the Why might be. It is doing that which brings up the phrase “Learn to think like an idiot.” The Why will be found at the end of a trail of outpoints. Each one is an aberration when compared to the ideal scene. The biggest idiocy which then explains all the rest and which opens the door to improvement toward the ideal scene is the Why.

One also has to learn to think like a genius with pluspoints.

Get the big peak period of production (now or in the past). Compare it to the existing scene just before. 


Now find the pluspoints that were entered in. Trace these and you arrive at the Why as the biggest pluspoint that opened the door to improvement. 


But once more one considers resources available and has to get a bright idea. 


So it is the same series of steps as above but with pluspoints. 

WHYS

One uses the above knowledge and skill to track down the real reason for the positive or nonoptimum situation. This is called a “Why.”


Why = that basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of statistics.


Wrong Why = the incorrectly identified outness which when applied does not lead to recovery.


A mere explanation = a “Why” given as the Why that does not open the door to any recovery.


Example: A mere explanation: “The statistics went down because of rainy weather that week.” So? So do we now turn off rain? Another mere explanation: “The staff became overwhelmed that week.” An order saying “Don’t overwhelm staff” would be the possible “solution” of some manager. BUT THE STATISTICS WOULDN’T RECOVER.


The real Why when found and corrected leads straight back to improved stats (statistics).


A wrong Why, corrected, will further depress stats.
A mere explanation does nothing at all and decay continues.
Here is a situation as it is followed up:


The stats of an area were down. Investigation disclosed there had been sickness two weeks before. The report came in: “The statistics were down because people were sick.” This was a mere explanation. Very reasonable. But it solved nothing. What do we do now? Maybe we accept this as the correct Why. And give an order, “All people in the area must get a medical exam and unhealthy workers will not be accepted and unhealthy ones will be fired.” As it’s a correction to a wrong Why, the stats really crash. So that’s not it. Looking further we find the real Why. In the area, a boss gives orders to the wrong people which, when executed, then hurt their individual stats. We organize the place, train the boss and we get a stat recovery and even an improvement.


The correct Why led to a stat recovery. Here is another one. Statistics are down in a school. An investigation comes up with a mere explanation: “The students were all busy with sports.” So management says “No sports!” Statistics go down again. A new investigation comes up with a wrong Why: “The students are being taught wrongly.” Management sacks the dean. Statistics really crash now. A further, more competent investigation occurs. It turns out that there were 140 students and only the dean and one instructor! And the dean had other duties! We return the dean to his job and hire two more instructors making three. Statistics soar. Because we got the right Why.


Management and organizational catastrophes and successes are all explained by these three types of Why. An arbitrary, a false order or datum entered into a situation, is probably just a wrong Why held in by law. And if so held in, it will crash the place.
One really has to understand logic to get to the correct Why and must really be on his toes not to use and correct a wrong Why.


In world banking, where inflation occurs, finance regulations or laws are probably just one long parade of wrong Whys. The value of the money and its usefulness to the citizen deteriorate to such an extent that a whole ideology can be built up (as in Sparta by Lycurgus [a Greek lawgiver] who invented iron money nobody could lift in order to rid Sparta of money evils) that knocks money out entirely and puts nothing but nonsense in its place.


Organizational troubles are greatly worsened by using mere explanations (which lead to no remedies) or wrong Whys (which further depress stats). Organizational recoveries come from finding the real Why and correcting it.


The test of the real Why is “When it is corrected, do stats recover?” If they do that was it. And any other remedial order given but based on a wrong Why would have to be cancelled quickly.

INVESTIGATORY ACTIONS

Correction of things which are not wrong and neglecting things which are not right puts the tombstone on any organization or civilization. 


This boils down to correct investigation. It is not a slight skill. It is the basic skill behind any intelligent action. 

Suppressive Justice

When justice goes astray (as it usually does) the things that have occurred are: 


1. Use of  justice for some other purpose than public safety (such as maintaining a privileged group or indulging a fixed idea) or 


2. Omitted use of investigatory procedure. 


All suppressive use of the forces of justice can be traced back to one or the other of these. 


Aberrations and hate very often find outlet by calling them “justice” or “law and order.” This is why it can be said that man cannot be trusted with justice. 


This or just plain stupidity bring about a neglect of intelligent investigatory procedures. Yet all group sanity depends upon correct and unaberrated (rational) investigatory procedures. Only in that way can one establish causes of things. And only by establishing causes can one cease to be the effect of unwanted situations. 


It is one thing to be able to observe. It is quite another to utilize observations so that one can get to the basis of things. 

Sequences

Investigations become necessary in the face of outpoints or pluspoints. 


Investigations can occur out of idle curiosity or particular interest. They can also occur to locate the cause of pluspoints. 
Whatever the motive for investigation, the action itself is conducted by sequences. 


If one is incapable mentally of tracing a series of events or actions, one cannot investigate.

Altered sequence is a primary block to investigation. 
At first glance, omitted data would seem to be the block. On the contrary, it is the end product of an investigation and is what pulls an investigation along—one is looking for omitted data. 
An altered sequence of actions defeats any investigation. 
Examples: We will hang him and then conduct a trial. We will assume who did it and then find evidence to prove it. A crime should be provoked to find who commits them. 


Any time an investigation gets back-to-front, it will not succeed. 


Thus, if an investigator himself has any trouble with seeing or visualizing sequences of actions, he will inevitably come up with the wrong answer. 


Reversely, when one sees that someone has come up with a wrong or incomplete answer, one can assume that the investigator has trouble with sequences of events or, of course, did not really investigate. 


One can’t really credit that Sherlock Holmes would say, “I have here the fingerprint of Mr. Murgatroyd on the murder weapon. Have the police arrest him. Now, Watson, hand me a magnifying glass and ask Sgt. Doherty to let us look over his fingerprint files.” 


If one cannot visualize a series of actions, like a ball bouncing down a flight of stairs, or if one cannot relate in proper order several different actions with one object into a proper sequence, he will not be able to investigate. 


If one can, that’s fine. 

Investigations

All betterment of life depends on finding out pluspoints and why and reinforcing them, locating outpoints and why and eradicating them. 


This is the successful survival pattern of living. A primitive who is going to survive does just that and a scientist who is worth anything does just that.

The fisherman sees sea gulls clustering over a point on the sea. That’s the beginning of a short sequence, point number one. He predicts a school of fish, point number two. He sails over as sequence point number three. He looks down as sequence point number four. He sees fish as point number five. He gets out a net as point number six. He circles the school with the net, number seven. He draws in the net, number eight. He brings the fish on board, number nine. He goes to port, number ten. He sells the fish, number eleven. That’s following a pluspoint—cluster of sea gulls. 


A sequence from an outpoint might be: Housewife serves dinner. Nobody eats the cake, number one; she tastes it, number two; she recognizes soap in it, number three. She goes to kitchen, number four. She looks into cupboard, number five. She finds the soapbox upset, number six. She sees the flour below it, number seven. She sees cookie jar empty, number eight. She grabs young son, number nine. She shows him the setup, number ten. She gets a confession, number eleven. And number twelve is too painful to describe. 

Discoveries

All discoveries are the end product of a sequence of investigatory actions that begin with either a pluspoint or an outpoint. 


Thus all knowledge proceeds from pluspoints or outpoints observed. 


And all knowledge depends on an ability to investigate.

And all investigation is done in correct sequence. 


And all successes depend upon the ability to do these things. 

FAMILIARITY

If one has no familiarity with how a scene (area) ought to be, one cannot easily spot outpoints (illogical data) in it.
This is what also could be called an ideal scene or situation. If one doesn’t know the ideal scene or situation then one is not likely to observe nonideal points in it.


Let us send a farmer to sea. In a mild blow, with the sails and their gear creaking and water hitting the hull, he is sure the ship is about to sink. He has no familiarity with how it should sound or look so he misses any real outpoints and may consider all pluspoints as outpoints.


Yet on a calm and pretty day he sees a freighter come within five hundred feet of the side and go full astern and thinks everything is great.


An experienced officer may attempt madly to avoid collision and all the farmer would think was that the officer was being impolite! The farmer, lacking any familiarity with the sea and having no ideal as to what smooth running would be, would rarely see real outpoints unless he drowned. Yet an experienced sailor, familiar with the scene in all its changing faces sees an outpoint in all small illogicals.


On the other hand, the sailor on the farm would completely miss disease in the wheat and an open gate and see no outpoints in a farm that the farmer knew was about to go bust.
The rule is:


A PERSON MUST HAVE AN IDEAL SCENE WITH WHICH TO COMPARE THE EXISTING SCENE.


If a staff hasn’t got an idea of how a real organization should run, then it misses obvious outpoints.


One sees examples of this when an experienced organization executive visiting an organization tries to point out to a green staff (which has no ideal or familiarity) what is out. The green staff grudgingly fixes up what he says to do but lets go of it the moment he departs. Lacking familiarity and an ideal of a perfect organization, the green staff just doesn’t see anything wrong or anything right either!


The consequences of this are themselves illogical. One sees an untrained executive firing all the producers and letting the bad hats (corrupt or worthless people) alone. His erroneous ideal would be a quiet organization, let us say. So he dismisses anyone who is noisy or demanding. He ignores statistics. He ignores the things he should watch merely because he has a faulty ideal and no familiarity of a proper scene.

Observation Errors

When the scene is not familiar one has to look hard to become aware of things. You’ve noticed tourists doing this. Yet the old resident “sees” far more than they do while walking straight ahead down the road.


It is easy to confuse the novel with the “important fact.” “It was a warm day for winter” is a useful fact only when it turns out that actually everything froze up on that day or it indicated some other outpoint.


Most errors in observation are made because one has no ideal for the scene or no familiarity with it.


However there are other error sources.


“Being reasonable” is the chief offender. People dub in (presume or have a false, delusory perception of) a missing piece of a sequence, for instance, instead of seeing that it is missing. A false datum is imagined to exist because a sequence is wrong or has a missing step.


It is horrifying to behold how easily people buy dub-in. This is because an illogical sequence is uncomfortable. To relieve the discomfort they distort their own observation by ignoring the outpoint and concluding something else.

Accurate Observation

There are certain conditions necessary for accurate observation.
First is a means of perception whether by remote communication byvarious communication lines or by direct looking, feeling, experiencing.


Second is an ideal of how the scene or area should be.
Third is familiarity with how such scenes are when things are going wellor poorly.
Fourth is understanding pluspoints or rightnesses when present.
Fifth is knowing outpoints (all types) when they appear.
Sixth is rapid ability to analyze data.


Seventh is the ability to analyze the situation.
Eighth is the willingness to inspect more closely the area of outness.


Then one has to have the knowledge and imagination necessary to handle.


One could call the above the cycle of observation. If one calls handle number nine it would be the Cycle of Control. If one is trained to conceive all variations of outpoints (illogics) and studies up to conceive an ideal and gains familiarity with the scene or type of area, his ability to observe and handle things would be considered almost supernatural.

That one gains an excellent understanding of logic and a good grasp of the types of outpoints and pluspoints is vital to investigation. With this as a foundation, the two general steps one has to take to “find out what is really going on” are: 


     1. Analyze the data, 
     2. Using the data thus analyzed to analyze the situation.

The term data is defined as facts, graphs, statements, decisions, actions, descriptions, which are supposedly true. Situation is defined as the broad general scene on which a body of current data exists. 


The way to analyze data is to compare it to the outpoints and see if any of those appear in the data. 


The way to analyze the situation is to put in its smaller areas each of the data analyzed as above.

Doing this gives you the locations of greatest error or disorganization and also gives you areas of greatest effectiveness.

Example: There is trouble in the Refreshment Unit. There are three people in the unit. Doing a data analysis on the whole area gives us a number of outpoints. Then we assign these to employees A, B and C who work in the unit and find B had the most outpoints. This indicates that the trouble in the Refreshment Unit is with B. B can be handled in various ways such as training him on the duties of his job, his attendance, etc. Note we analyzed the data of the main area and assigned it to the bits in the area, then we had an analyzed situation and we could handle.

Example: We analyze all the data we have about the Bingo Car Plant. We assign the data thus analyzed as out (outpoints) to each function of the Bingo Car Plant. We thus pinpoint what function is the worst off. We then handle that function in various ways, principally by organizing it and training its executives and personnel. 


There are several variations. 


WE OBTAIN AN ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION BY ANALYZING ALL THE DATA WE HAVE AND ASSIGNING THE OUTPOINT DATA TO THE AREAS OR PARTS. THE AREA HAVING THE MOST OUTPOINTS IS THE TARGET FOR CORRECTION.

In confronting a broad situation to be handled, we have of course the problem of finding out what’s wrong before we can correct it. This is done by data analysis followed by situation analysis. 


We do this by grading all the data for outpoints (illogics). We now have a long list of outpoints. This is data analysis.

We sort the outpoints we now have into the principal areas of the scene. The majority will appear in one area. This is situation analysis. 


We now know what area to handle.

Example: Seventy data exist on the general scene. We find twenty-one of these data are irrational (outpoints). We slot the twenty-one outpoints into the areas they came from or apply to. Sixteen came from area G. We handle area G. 

Experience

The remarkable part of such an exercise is that the data analysis of the data of a period of one day compares to three months operating experience. 


Thus data and situation analysis is an instant result where experience takes a lot of time. 
The quality of the data analysis depends on one knowing the ideal organization and purpose on which the activity is based. This means one has to know what its activities are supposed to be from a rational or logical viewpoint. 


A clock is supposed to keep running and indicate time and be of practical and pleasant design. A clock factory is supposed to make clocks. It is supposed to produce enough clocks cheaply enough that are good enough to be in demand and to sell for enough to keep the place solvent. It consumes raw materials, repairs and replaces its tools and equipment. It hires workmen and executives. It has service firms and distributors. That is the sort of thing one means by ideal or theoretical structure of the clock company and its organization. 


Those are the rational points. 


From the body of actual current today data on the clock company one spots the outpoints for a data analysis. 


One assigns the outpoints to the whole as a situation analysis. 
One uses his admin know-how and expertise to repair the most aberrated subsection. 


One gets a functioning clock factory that runs closer to the ideal. 


Military, political and PR situations, etc., are handled all in the same way. 


We call these two actions: 


DATA ANALYSIS 


SITUATION ANALYSIS

PLUSPOINTS

There are one or more conditions which exist when a situation or circumstance is logical. These are called pluspoints. A pluspoint is a datum of truth found to be true when compared to the following list of logical conditions. 


Pluspoints show where logic exists and where things are going right or likely to. 


Where things get better or there is a sudden improvement in an area or organization, the cause for this should be found to reinforce what was successful. Such an investigation is done by use of pluspoints. 
The pluspoints are as follows: 


RELATED FACTS KNOWN. (All relevant facts known.) 
EVENTS IN CORRECT SEQUENCE. (Events in actual sequence.)
TIME NOTED. (Time is properly noted.) 


CORRECT RELATIVE IMPORTANCE. (The important and unimportant are correctly sorted out.)
EXPECTED TIME PERIOD. (Events occurring or done in the time one would reasonably expect them to be.) 
ADEQUATE DATA. (No sectors of omitted data that would influence the situation.)
APPLICABLE DATA. (The data presented or available applies to the matter in hand and not something else.)
CORRECT TARGET. (Not going in some direction that would be wrong for the situation.) 
DATA IN SAME CLASSIFICATION. (Data from two or more different classes of material not introduced as the same class.)
IDENTITIES ARE IDENTICAL.
(Not similar or different.)
SIMILARITIES ARE SIMILAR.
(Not identical or different.) 
DIFFERENCES ARE DIFFERENT.
(Not made to be identical or similar.)
In finding out why things got better so they can be repeated, it is vital to use the actual pluspoints by name as above.
Pluspoints are, after all, what make things go right.

Not Know

One can always know something about anything.
It is a wise man who, confronted with conflicting data, realizes that he knows at least one thing—that he doesn’t know.
Grasping that, he can then take action to find out.


If he evaluates the data he does find out against the things above, he can clarify the situation. Then he can reach a logical conclusion.

Drills

It is necessary to work out your own examples of the violations of logic described herein.
By doing so, you will have gained skill in sorting out the data of a situation.


When you can sort out data and become skilled in it, you will become very difficult to fool and you will have taken the first vital step in grasping a correct estimate of any situation.

The subject of logic has been under discussion for at least three thousand years without any clean breakthrough of real use to those who work with data. 


“Logic” means the subject of reasoning. Some in ages past have sought to label it a science. But that can be discarded as pretense and pompousness. 
If there were such a “science,” men would be able to think. And they can’t. 


The term itself is utterly forbidding. If you were to read a text on logic, you would go quite mad trying to figure it out, much less learn how to think. 


Yet logic or the ability to reason is vital to an organizer or administrator. If he cannot think clearly, he will not be able to reach the conclusions vital to make correct decisions. 


Many agencies, governments, societies, groups capitalize upon this lack of logic and have for a very long time. A population that is unable to think or reason can be manipulated easily by falsehoods and wretched causes. 


Thus logic has not been a supported subject, rather the opposite. 
Even Western schools have sought to convince students they should study geometry as “that is the way they think.” And of course it isn’t. 


The administrator, the manager, the artisan and the clerk each have a considerable use for logic. If they cannot reason, they make costly and time-consuming errors and can send the entire organization into chaos and oblivion.

Their stuff in trade are data and situations. Unless they can observe and think their way through, they can reach wrong conclusions and take incorrect actions. 


Modern man thinks mathematics can serve him for logic and most of his situations go utterly adrift because of this touching and misplaced confidence. The complexity of human problems and the vast number of factors involved make mathematics utterly inadequate. 


Computers are at best only crutches to the mind. Yet the chromium-plated civilization today has a childish faith in them. It depends on who asks the questions and who reads the computer’s answers whether they are of any use or not. And even then their answers are often madhouse silly. 


Computers can’t think because the rules of live logic aren’t fully known to man and computer builders. One false datum fed into a computer gives one a completely wrong answer. 
If people on management and work lines do not know logic, an organization can go adrift and require a fabulous amount of genius to hold it together and keep it running. 


Whole civilizations vanish because of lack of logic in its rulers, leaders and people. 
So this is a very important subject. 

Unlocking Logic

Scientology contains a way to unlock logic. This is a breakthrough which is no small win. If by it a formidable and almost impossible subject can be reduced to simplicity, then correct answers to situations can be far more frequent and an organization or a civilization far more effective. 
The breakthrough is a simple one: 
BY ESTABLISHING THE WAYS IN WHICH THINGS BECOME ILLOGICAL, ONE CAN THEN ESTABLISH WHAT IS LOGIC. 
In other words, if one has a grasp of what makes things illogical or irrational (or crazy, if you please) it is then possible to conceive of what makes things logical. 

Illogics

There are specific ways for a relay of information or a situation to become illogical. These are the things which cause one to have an incorrect idea of a situation. Each different way is called an outpoint, which is any one datum that is offered as true that is in fact found to be illogical. Each one of these is described below. 

Omitted Data

An omitted anything is an outpoint. 
This can be an omitted person, terminal (person who sends, receives and relays communication), object, energy, space, time, form, sequence or even an omitted scene. Anything that can be omitted that should be there is an outpoint. 
This is easily the most overlooked outpoint as it isn’t there to directly attract attention. 
Any things, events, objects, sizes, in a wrong sequence is an outpoint. 
The number series 3, 7, 1, 2, 4, 6, 5 is an altered sequence, or an incorrect sequence. 
Doing step two of a sequence of actions before doing step one can be counted on to tangle any sequence of actions. 
The basic outness is no sequence at all. (An outness is a condition or state of something being incorrect, wrong or missing.) This leads into FIXED IDEAS. It also shows up in what is called disassociation, an insanity. Things connected to or similar to each other are not seen as consecutive. Such people also jump about subjectwise without relation to an obvious sequence. Disassociation is the extreme case where things that are related are not seen to be and things that have no relation are conceived to have. 
“Sequence” means linear (in a line) travel either through space or time or both. 
A sequence that should be one and isn’t is an outpoint. 
A “sequence” that isn’t but is thought to be one is an outpoint. 
A cart-before-the-horse out of sequence is an outpoint. 
Therefore, it is far more common than one would at first imagine to see altered sequences since persons who do not think in sequence do not see altered sequences in their own actions or areas. 


Visualizing sequences and drills in shifting attention can clean this up and restore it as a faculty. 
Motion pictures and TV were spotted by a writer as fixating attention and not permitting it to travel. Where one had TV-raised children, it would follow, one possibly would have people with a tendency to altered sequences or no sequences at all. 

Dropped Time

Time that should be noted and isn’t would be an outpoint of “dropped time.” It is a special case of an omitted datum. Dropped time has a peculiarly ferocious effect that adds up to utter lunacy. 
A news bulletin from 1814 and one from 1922 read consecutively without time assigned produces otherwise undetectable madness. 
A summary report of a situation containing events strung over half a year without saying so can provoke a reaction not in keeping with the current scene.

In madmen the present is the dropped time, leaving them in the haunted past. Just telling a group of madmen to “come up to present time” will produce a few miraculous “cures.” And getting the date of an ache or pain will often cause it to vanish. 
Time aberrations (illogicalities) are so strong that dropped time well qualifies as an outpoint. 

Falsehood

When you hear two facts that are contrary, one is a falsehood or both are. 
Propaganda and other activities specialize in falsehoods and provoke great disturbance. 
Willful or unintentional, a falsehood is an outpoint. It may be a mistake or a calculated or defensive falsehood and it is still an outpoint. 
A false anything qualifies for this outpoint. A false being, terminal, act, intention, anything that seeks to be what it isn’t is a falsehood and an outpoint. 
Fiction that does not pretend to be anything else is of course not a falsehood. 
So the falsehood means “other than it appears” or “other than represented.” 
One does not have to concern oneself to define philosophic truth or reality to see that something stated or modeled to be one thing is in actual fact something else and therefore an outpoint. 

Altered Importance

An importance shifted from its actual relative importance, up or down, is an outpoint. 
Something can be assigned an importance greater than it has. 
Something can be assigned an importance less than it has. 
A number of things of different importances can be assigned a monotone of importance.
These are all outpoints, three versions of the same thing. 
All importances are relative to their actuality.

Wrong Target

A mistaken objective wherein one believes he is or should be reaching toward A and finds he is or should be reaching toward B is an outpoint. 


This is commonly mistaken identity. It is also mistaken purposes or goals. 
“If we tear down X we will be okay” often results in disclosure that it should have been Y.
Killing the king to be free from taxation leaves the tax collector alive for the next regime.
Injustice is usually a wrong target outpoint. 
Arrest the drug consumer, award the drug company would be an example. 


Military tactics and strategy are almost always an effort to coax the selection of a wrong target by the enemy. 
And most dislikes and spontaneous hates in human relations are based on mistaken associations of Bill for Pete.

A large sum of aberration is based on wrong targets, wrong sources, wrong causes. 
Incorrectly tell a patient he has ulcers when he hasn’t and he’s hung with an outpoint which impedes recovery. 
The industry spent on wrong objectives would light the world for a millennium.

Wrong Source

“Wrong source” is the other side of the coin of wrong target. 
Information taken from wrong source, orders taken from the wrong source, gifts or materiel (supplies) taken from wrong source all add up to eventual confusion and possible trouble. 
Unwittingly receiving from a wrong source can be very embarrassing or confusing, so much so that it is a favorite intelligence trick. Department D in East Germany, the Department of Disinformation, had very intricate methods of planting false information and disguising its source. 


Technology can come from wrong source. For instance, Leipzig University’s school of psychology and psychiatry opened the door to death camps in Hitler’s Germany. Using drugs, these men apparently gave Hitler to the world as their puppet. At the end of World War II these extremists formed the “World Federation of Mental Health,” which enlisted the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association and established “National Associations for Mental Health” over the world. These became the sole advisors to the US government on “mental health, education and welfare” and the appointers of all health ministers through the civilized world. This source is so wrong that it is destroying man, having already destroyed scores of millions.

Not only taking data from wrong source but officialdom from it can therefore be sufficiently aberrated as to result in planetary insanity. 
In a lesser level, taking a report from a known bad hat (corrupt or worthless person) and acting upon it is the usual reason for errors made in management. 

Contrary Facts

When two statements are made on one subject which are contrary to each other, we have “contrary facts.” 
This illogic could be classified as a falsehood, since one of them must be false. 
But in investigatory procedure one cannot offhand distinguish which is the false fact. Thus it becomes a special outpoint. 
“The company made an above average income that week” and “They couldn’t pay the employees” occurring in the same time period gives us one or both as false. We may not know which is true but we do know they are contrary and can so label it. 
In interrogation this point is so important that anyone giving two contrary facts becomes a prime suspect for further investigation. “I am a Swiss citizen” as a statement from someone who has had a German passport found in his baggage would be an example. 


When two “facts” are contrary or contradictory, we may not know which is true but we do know they can’t both be true. 
Issued by the same organization, even from two different people in that organization, two contradictory “facts” qualifies as an outpoint. 


In this outpoint we have the reverse of dropped time. In added time we have, as the most common example, something taking longer than it possibly could. To this degree it is a version of conflicting data—for example, something takes three weeks to do but it is reported as taking six months. But added time must be called to attention as an outpoint in its own right for there is a tendency to be “reasonable” about it and not see that it is an outpoint in itself.

In its most severe sense, added time becomes a very serious outpoint when, for example, two or more events occur at the same moment involving, let us say, the same person who could not have experienced both. Time had to be added to the physical universe for the data to be true. Like this: “I left for Saigon at midnight on April 21, 1962, by ship from San Francisco.” “I took over my duties at Saigon on April 30, 1962.” Here we have to add time to the physical universe for both events to occur as a ship would take two or three weeks to get from San Francisco to “Saigon.” 


Another instance, a true occurrence and better example of added time, happened when a checklist of actions it would take a month to complete was sent to a junior executive and compliance was received in full in the next return mail. The checklist was in her hands only one day! She would have had to add twenty-nine days to the physical universe for the compliance report to be true. This was also dropped time on her part. 


Just plain added data does not necessarily constitute an outpoint. It may be someone being thorough. But when the data is in no way applicable to the scene or situation and is added, it is a definite outpoint.

Often added data is put there to cover up neglect of duty or mask a real situation. It certainly means the person is obscuring something. 
Usually added data also contains other types of outpoints like wrong target or added time.

In using this outpoint be very sure you also understand the word inapplicable and see that it is only an outpoint if the data itself does not apply to the subject at hand. 

Incorrectly Included Datum

There is an outpoint called incorrectly included datum, which is a companion to the omitted datum as an outpoint. 
This most commonly occurs when, in the mind, the scene itself is missing and the first thing needed to classify data (scene) is not there. 
An example is camera storage by someone who has no idea of types of cameras. Instead of classifying all the needful bits of a certain camera in one box, one inevitably gets the lens hoods of all cameras jumbled into one box marked “lens hoods.” To assemble or use the camera one spends hours trying to find its parts in boxes neatly labeled “camera backs,” “lenses,” “tripods,” etc. 
Here, when the scene of what a set-up camera looks like and operates like, is missing, one gets a closer identification of data than exists. lens hoods are lens hoods. Tripods are tripods. Thus a wrong system of classification occurs out of scene ignorance. 


A traveler unable to distinguish one uniform from another “solves” it by classifying all uniforms as “porters.” Hands his bag to an arrogant police captain and that’s how he spent his vacation, in jail. 


Lack of the scene brings about too tight an identification of one thing with another. 


A newly called-up army lieutenant passes right on by an enemy spy dressed as one of his own soldiers. An experienced sergeant right behind him claps the spy in jail accurately because “he wasn’t wearing ’is ’at the way we do in our regiment!”


Times change data classification. In 1920 anyone with a camera near a seaport was a spy. In 1960 anyone not carrying a camera couldn’t be a tourist so was watched! 
So the scene for one cultural period is not the scene for another. 
There are three other types of outpoints which should be known for use in an investigation. 

Handling Data

There are hundreds of ways these mishandlings of data can then give one a completely false picture.
When basing actions or orders on data which contains one of the above, one then makes a mistake.
REASON DEPENDS ON DATA.


WHEN DATA IS FAULTY (as above) THE ANSWER WILL BE WRONG AND LOOKED UPON AS UNREASONABLE.


There are a vast number of combinations of these data. More than one (or all) may be present in the same report.


Observation and its communication may contain one of these illogics.


If so, then any effort to handle the situation will be ineffective in correcting or handling it.

Use

If any body of data is given the above tests, it is often exposed as an invitation to acting illogically.


To achieve a logical answer one must have logical data.
Anybody of data which contains one or more of the above faults can lead one into illogical conclusions.


The basis of an unreasonable or unworkable order is a conclusion which is made illogical by possessing one or more of the above faults.