(((((((0)))))))

Introduction
This Section is intended to cover those data and related information which are not considered to be included in the psychical science and arts material but which are necessary for providing a foundation on which to build and a structure for feeding back the results of the data and information on the psychical areas. It will be assumed that readers have access to a general body of data and information such as their own personal experience and a good set of reference material, so that only those items which are new and/or different will be covered, along with any which may seem to need special emphasis due to a specific relationship to the psychic areas. The large amount of information so covered will be in the first section, "General Assumptions".
The "desired result" in most cases will be to enable learning about the subject material and its use and to motivate the reader to try to answer and explore those which have open definitions. Taken altogether, these sections are intended to provide the reader with material for developing an attitude of reasonableness and confidence for a wholistic, integrated approach to the psychical sciences and arts, that is, its use within a framework that brings together both the psychical and the non-psychical areas of knowledge. As I mentioned in the last Psi-M, January '83, one of the objectives for this year is the development of a means of evaluating the completeness and accuracy of models in general.The bulk of this issue is taken up with the description of a system for modelling our activities as it applies to us in general. When I started the project, the main idea in my mind was to simply describe a process of getting and using information, that is, a learning system.
As it took shape in the many drafts, it became apparent to me that such a model was fairly new, at least in my experience. I drew from a plethora of sources (this is one of those cases where the use of that word is justified), rejecting some, adding to others, and so on. I make these points so as to arouse your interest in reading through several pages that may seem to be, at first glance, to be rather dry, academic, or pedantic. In some instances, the words are really fairly put into this category; but, I think it's worthwhile for clarifying our views and methods. I really hope that you will take the time to read it and to send me your thoughts about it. It's intended to be a group effort, not merely one person's ideas of what it should be. Like any other tool, it must be shaped to fit the needs of the users.
In this particular case, The Model is a General one; the key use is in aiding you to develop your own personal model. The next step is obviously that of gathering up as many personal models as is practical to see if the General Model can be enhanced: Are there common points to be added?;
Do many people find the same faults; deficiencies; benefits; uses?
Are there significant differences between identifiable sub-groups of users?
Answers to these questions can only come from you; they are needed to improve the model, so the next move is up to you. Please, don't let it merely gather dust on the shelf, but, rather try it out and see if you can find some ways to improve it yourself, then share your finding with us.
I should note that the model also has the basics of another model we mentioned within it, that is, the one we mentioned as " a scale of quality of life in terms of traits and emotions, similar to the aura color scale". Of the three mentioned, the next one will be the skeletal framework of a typical lifespan flow of a person. This is alluded to in the simple model, but, it needs a lot more work to bring it up to some level of usefulness. The germ of the idea is embedded in the model, so we may have a common basis for it. It may turn out to be a subset of the model, which would be nice, from the viewpoint of keeping things more integrated.
As a starter, I'm thinking along the lines of taking a cross between the ideas of the article printed in a previous Psi-M by Vern Tomkins, "THE PATH OF THE MYSTIC". As we go along, each selected key area will be explored and then melded into the model, so that we'll continually expand and clarify as we go.
This will benefit from your participation immensely and, conversely, of course, suffer from your non-participation. I think that this structured approach will enhance the flow of information; though I recognize some risk that it might tend to stifle or to suppress some spontaneous flowswe'll try to keep the channels free. The notions and ideas of the model are paragraphed, titled and numbered for convenience as follows.

01. LOOKING AT DIRECTIONS
It may be timely for us to pause and see what our directions are and so GAIN SOME INSIGHTS INTO WHERE WE ARE MOST LIKELY HEADED.

02. ASSESSING OUR INFORMATION In particular, we might take time to try to head off some of the problems that we see in other studies of our subject. This is particularly important since the psychical science and arts are so volatile and are developing so rapidly. In our early days, we were looking for data, and now that we have accumulated quite a bit in this process, we may attempt to EVALUATE OUR DATA. In other words, to increase its quality. We might also set up some guides for seeking, acquiring, and assimilating, and using data. at this point, we have voluminous detail, from which we may be able to induce a higher level of quality through ORGANIZATION of information. The usual search of the literature is difficult because the organization of the information is poor; certainly we would not use the usual Dewey system as found in libraries of much practical use. Unfortunately, most of the psychical research to date has been focussed on the "the answer", rather than on developing systems for continually discovering, assimilating, and using many answers, that is, sciences and arts.
IT'S NOTED THAT THERE ARE NO COMMON MODELS TO BE FOUND IN THE PSYCHICAL LITERATURE DATA BASE THAT MAY BE READILY USED AS ORGANIZING TOOLS FOR TEST OR EVALUATION.03. COMMUNICATING STYLES It seems, as we said in the introduction, that much of the literature and other forms of communication suffer from a lack of usefulness because of the STYLE or way they are written, that is, the MODE OF COMMUNICATION. Oftentimes, the problems are not so much with the basic information that's being communicated as it is with the MANNER in which the information is being communicated to us or by us.
This also includes the PURPOSE. As an example, the purpose of the author or provider of any data may be to entertain or to sell something or to promote an ideology, rather than to inform or present for consideration. If we are to avoid falling into the same pitfalls, we should try to learn our lessons from others.

04. LOGICAL FALLACIES
Many pitfalls might be avoided were we to simply recognize and avoid the fallacies in formal logic described in many books on that subject. Such fallacies such as:
1) "appeals to inappropriate authority";
2) the "false limits on alternatives"; and
3) "appeals to emotions" are easily avoided.Others may be worthy of some discussion.

"...nothing we ever imagined is beyond our powers, only beyond our present self-knowledge."
Theodore Roszak

05. LEVELS OF VALIDITY
Another view is in contrasting and comparing LEVELS OF VALIDITY, such as:
) "facts" that describe "what is" or "what has been seen" in a limited way, that is, they apply to relatively unique things or people and that may or may not be used to induce more general truths;
2) "truisms" that have patterns of application to classes of items or people or situations and seem to be "reasonable", that is, there is a fairly good relationship to some underlying verity; or
3) "verities" that are generally universal and timeless in their applicability for ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES.

06. EXTRAPOLATIONS IN LEVELS

A common fallacy of logic is incorrect extrapolation of the level of validity. Here, an example is a case where a factual observation may be extrapolated to an untruthful conclusion, i.e., not a truism. Sometimes, a FACTUAL OBSERVATION or report is inferred to an assertion of IMPLIED TRUISM when it would be more accurate to state it as an OBSERVED FACT particularly where an indicator or measure or some form of interpreative device (including language) is being used.

07. ALLNESS IN SEMANTICS
Taking this a step futher from fact-to-truism to truism-to-verity, the same potential error appears. The exlusiveness problem that appears in the field of General Semantics has been referred to as "the ALLNESS problem", which then goes on to explore how the exclusiveness and extrapolation with levels get applied to make problems in utility with verities.

08. ALLNESS AND VERITY
It seems that oftentimes a truth is taken to be or implied to be a verity. ONLY VERITIES ARE ALWAYS TRUE. As an example, the classical logical case of , "All swans are white.", is assertive, making a flat statement that appears to be a verity, when there may indeed be many non-white or black swans. If it's accepted as meaning or implying only a small percentage of all swans, then we say, "Well, practically speaking, all swans are white." If we are looking for more information to, say, fit into a larger pattern, we might ask, "If all swans are not white, then WHY are they all NOT white?".

09. ALLNESS OF PYSCHICAL PEOPLE
Likewise, while ALL people are NOT functional psychics, this does not mean that NO people are. Conversely, the fact that SOME poeple are psychic does not mean nor imply that ALL people are. The fact that SOME psychics can do or know SOME things does not mean nor imply that ALL psychics can ALWAYS do or know the same things and conversely, the fact that a psychic does NOT do or know a particular thing does not mean nor imply that ALL psychics ALWAYS do or do not do or know the same things. On the other hand, should it be decided that a psychic or SOME psychics may not be operating up to expectations, or, at the extreme, are not psychical at all, that is, they are "pseudo-psychics", this certainly CANNOT be extrapolated to a conclusion such as, "All people who call themselves psychic are frauds." Here again, the purpose or UTILITY of the statement is of utmost importance.

10. LESSON STATEMENT IN ALLNESS
A lesson to be learned and used then is: In any case where a single example or even several or many examples or observations and extrapolations to the general population for all time and in all situations should be carefully qualified so as to avoid the problems of underapplications or overapplications or misapplications for the intended purpose. THE WORST CASE CONDITION MAY BE SEEN IN ANY SITUATION WHEREIN A FALSE NEGATIVE STATEMENT OF ALLNESS BLOCKS ANY ACQUIRING OR ASSIMILATION OF A VALID STATEMENT. Commonly, this is also seen in false fears and phobias of all kinds.

11. NECESSITY
Another brief detour may save us a lot here, so we view the notions of sufficiency and necessityis the answer ENOUGH and ONLY ENOUGH? The answer to the first part depends on the purpose of asking the question as to what is NECESSARY for a good answer. Oftentimes we associate SATISFACTORY with this. This usually depends on notions of short term and long term and on a personal purpose basis. Generally, facts are not sufficient in themselves to serve our long range purposes.

12. SUFFICIENCY
As an example of sufficiency, when we pass an acquaintance and are asked "How are you?", we don't feel obliged to give a thorough medical, psychological and economic report; a simple "O.K." is all that is necessary in most cases. In some cases, we may not want to nor NEED to know "everything there is to know" about a particular subject in order to do what we want to do. Anything beyond what is needed is merely "data", since it's of no PRACTICAL use, that is, we are not intending to put it into practice. How often are we given MORE THAN WE WANT or need and suffer from that feeling of being drowned under a waterfall? Another way of looking at the data-versus-information problem is the matter of NEWNESS. A common example is factual data that are NOT NEW. What price yesterday's report? HERE WE WISH TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH REPEATING INFORMATION THAT WILL YIELD VALUABLE INFORMATION ON HOW OFTEN AN EVENT OCCURS.

13. SPECIAL LIMITS ON CONDITION
Another viewpoint or aspect is seen in research where a theory is tried and the results show that, within certain LIMITS and under certain CONDITIONS, it has been shown that certain information appears to be "VALID", at least to the extent of the CONDITIONS or SITUATIONS that are ASSUMED to prevail for the testing.

14. CHANGING CONDITIONS
This (13.) is ESPECIALLY important whenever there are changes and there are apparent CONTRADICTIONS because the changes in the conditions or situations are not described or modeled adequately. In many cases, it may be a simple matter to SPECIFY the changed conditions. As a minimum, the change should at least be recognized as possible if it's not described.

15. QUALIFICATIONS OF HUMANS
As an example, whenever we speak seriously of an automobile, we use the brand, the year, and the model; yet how often do we qualify people the same way, even when we know for sure that people change more than anything else? We often recognize this when we say, "When I was younger...", or "When I was doing such-and-such...". problems do exist when we attempt to qualify and specify humans in the English language. (This is especially so when we consider sub-personalities or split personalities or role playing when the identification of the subject becomes complex.) For our purposes, simply identifying what " a psychical person" means is a challenge.

16. PARAMETERS FOR DESCRIPTIONS
There's a desire to have some kind of evaluation of the information so as to have some idea of HOW GOOD IT IS. Since we often communicate from DIFFERENT BASES of tempting to say it's useful to be able to clearly describe these MEASURES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INFORMATION for a common model data base.

17. PARAMETERS FOR DESCRIPTIONS
These measures, or parameters in the case of OVERALL MEASURES, are yet to be described in many areas of psi. Indeed, the general field of the psychical, or psi, per se, has yet to be described adequately for the satisfaction of many skeptics. It is often only described by EXCEPTIONS to other UNDEFINED information or data, such as " PARAnormal" (and just what is mant by "normal"?) or PARApsychological (and exactly what is meant by "psychological", when it has so many conflicting theories and is as incomplete as it is?)

18. DESCRIPTIONS OF REALITY
Most of the inormational material we deal with is essentially intended to be DESCRIPTIVE in nature, that is, something "real" is being DESCRIBED or, to be more specific, some INFORMATION is being MODELLED. So we would like to have some measures for describing our models.

19. ASSIMILATION
It has been observed that, generally speaking, whenever a person is presented with a bit of new information, a four-stage process of assimilation occurs.
The first stage, Denial, is the initial reaction that the bit of information does not exist at all.
The second stage, which usually occurs only if the bit is persistent, is call Delusion, in which the person tries to fit it into the memory's established data.
The next stage, Deliberation, involves the person studying the new information to decide whether or not it fits and what it means in context of all memory information outputs. In practice, this may be thought of as a "HOLD" basket on your desk.
The final stage, Decision, is critical in that the person's evaluation leads to either Acceptance or Rejection of the information. Acceptance implies that the new information is of some utility. Rejection may mean either that the information is considered either to be false or that it is relatively unimportant. In the latter case, it may be mentally filed for future retrieval. It's expected that this process will occur as the reader continues throughout the book and either assimilates the common model into the special model or rejects it and attempts to change the common model so as to recognize the user's requirements. With a model, we hope to ease the process of assimilation.

20. MODELS OF INFORMATION
Whenever we use the terms "information" and "models", we know that all models of information are not the same as regards their RELIABILITY, ACCURACY, or COMPLETENESS, or RELEVANCE. We would like to have some COMMON MODELS to use as a means of communicating between our personalized internal models. It's quite common to suppose that different people will provide different models of the same information (as with the ten blind men describing the elephant in ten different ways in the old fable.) That is, the SOURCES of the models VARY in QUALITY depending upon the quality of specialized personal internal models, which includes the facility for being communicated.

21. RATING THE PROVIDER SOURCE
We'd like to have a means of rating of the source even before we begin looking at the data. (And wouldn't it be nice to have ratings available on your favorite psychic readers -they're available for predictors, but not for readers.) In our minds, I think that we naturally and habitually assign some kind of rating to the source of the information ,base upon any of several notions discussed below.

22. PRIMACY
Some rating techniques use the primacy of the source. We tend to respect the leaders in the field, using such criteria as academic credentials, various kinds of rank, and so on. In our own relations, we might ask, "Well, who is he to be saying that -I never even heard of him before!", or, "Well, if Joe said it, it must be so.", or, "Well, if you want to discuss philosophy, you've got to read Whitehead or James.")

23. AUTHORITY
Another technique uses AUTHORITY, or authorship, distinguishing between original sources and second- or third-hand interpretations of the originals, on the theory that the data suffers in each interpretation. Naturally, the primary sources are considered to be the best, although language translation does pose problems, as does interpretations of symbols.

24. CONSISTENCY
One very important measure is consistency, for who would put any trust in a source that contradicts itself? Certainly, a model based on CONTRADICTION, like house divided against itself, must fall. So also is consistency with OBSERVATIONS of reality important.

25. CORROBORATION
Oftentimes, we look for corroboration of information from more-or-less independent sources as means of minimizing biasses or other inaccuracies based on the theory that "two or more sources reporting the same data are generally unlikely to make the same error, whether the sources be human or machine". In some cases where many sources are polled, statistics are used to quantify the reliability in numerical terms, so as to provide some indication of the reliability of the source as a sample of the whole population. However, this is seldom used in mass media communications ("a reliable source" is a often quoted) and is commonly found in technical areas (95% with a 90% confidence level may be cited, as an example). We look for corroboration in our surveys where we seek data from all sources in the group.

26. MEASURES OF QUALITY
One of the common ratings for the quality of data is the "star-scale", wherein quality is very crudely described by an annotation of stars, say, a "three-star movie",***, or a "four * whiskey", ****. It's of interest to note that some movie-raters are now using the one-to-ten scale. Those who prefer single digits use 0-9.Dubious Valid0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Fig. 3.0.1 Source Rating Scale

27. RELIABILITY AND UTILITY
In the field of military intelligence, data have been categorized using two simple 1-to-5 scales of RELIABILITY OF THE SOURCE and the UTILITY for the PURPOSES. As an example, "1-1" information is rated as being very relible and very important, whereas "5-5" information is rated as dubious and of little value.

R 5 tops!
E 4 good
L 3 fair
I 2 poor .
1 ?? 0 1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE
Fig. 3.0.2 Combined Scale

28. THREE LEVELS
In the final analysis, we have only a few cases:1) We DON'T KNOW what it is (so we tuck in the backs of our minds for future reference);2) we ESTIMATE it as between zero and hundred percent, with some confidence level; or3) we have a VERY CLEAR idea of how good it is and can state it or describe it rigourously. This gives us three general levels of the characteristic of reliability of the source. We might even assign values of (0), (1-8), and (9) to the levels as a guide to begin with on a tentative basis.

29. "CAUSE" AS A PURPOSE
One last step may be worth taking before we set up the specifics of our common model. More than any other single reason for learning about the psychical sciences, or psi, the reason of understanding the "WHY?" of things happening is given. Perhaps, in the lack of a closed definition of the extent of psi, there is at least the possibility that it may encompass ultimate cause in its scope, although such has certainly not been shown to be an accepted tenet. This singular question is translated directly into understanding the causes of things and life. As regards meaning and purpose, from certain kinds of philosophy and law, we often hear of "cause" as being an event that precedes another event in physical time, while "effect" is taken to be the event that comes next after the causal event in time. Yet, many events are the result of combination of potentials for change that involve at least two elements. In other words, the so-called "effect" is seen as attracting the so-called "cause" just as much as the other way around. In law, we hear of the "PROXIMATE cause", such as conclusion that the last driver into an intersection, having the LAST opportunity, is the CAUSE of an accident, even though the other driver ran a red light. Such definitions are of limited value to us, it would seem. The problems seen here are that the accident is not traced back to where the errors were made, so they are not corrected, assuming that there is some way to determine IF an error was made, according to some pre-existing standard. LITTLE OPPORTUNITY IS SEEN FOR FITTING SUCH CAUSES INTO MUCH LARGER PATTERNS OF REALITY. We will seek better causes.

30. REASONS WHY
In addition to noting the time sequence of events, we should look for the underlying process for its occurrence rather than blindly associating cause and effect merely on the basis of time. Surely, you've heard the old fable of the cock whose crowing allegedly caused the sun to rise? What possible REASON might exist for such a conclusion, what PROCESS would lead to it? We might note how the particular process correlates with the general overall reality process.

31. COMPLEX CAUSES
Furthermore, whenever two or more factors act in combination, neither one can be singled out as "THE CAUSE", so it is perhaps more fitting that we refer to each as "A casual factor".

32. COMPLEX EFFECTS
Likewise, whenever we have multiple effects, the same kind of situation arises with the added complication being more obvious that the effects may continue on and on in time until they are extinguished somehow, or more likely, so dissipated as to be impotent.

33. ULTIMATES AND PRACTICALITY
This raises the question of "The Ultimate Causes" as well as "The Ultimate Effects", which would logically involve "The Ultimate Processes". We just might have some difficulty in discerning such ultimates with our limited perceptions. An ALTERNATIVE, and this might be good from a PRACTICAL viewpoint, would be to recognize that events are initially perceived as being somehow not connected and that they simply start, go, and stop independently throughout time, and then work towards inducing the ultimates.

34. COMPLEX MODELS OF CAUSE
Perhaps it's more useful to consider "immediate effect factors", at least to begin with, and then use them like building blocks. (Bear in mind the old question concerning how an event is rated, "What's that got to do with the price of rice in China?").

35. COMPLETE MODELS OF REALITY
An even more common problem is seen in the aspect of "completeness". As regards models, it's inherent that any model will never be as complete as the thing that is being represented in reality, whatever it is. Since we have so many different ways and means of modelling reality, it would seem to be useful to have a clear idea of this aspect.

36. LEVELS OF COMPLETENESS
As an example, we have the common observation that "one picture is worth a thousand words". Yet, even a picture is only visual and, in many cases, a single snapshot. We see the media industry constantly trying to achieve greater and greater fidelity by adding motion, color, high-fidelity sound, three-dimensional effects, etc., etc. Science fiction writers even write about "feelies" where theater seats are provided with tactile sensation stimulators. With each added measure of FIDELITY, a COST is taken on, so the optimum is being sought. More on this in paragraph #41. below."It ain't much that we don't know enough - it's more like we know so much that ain't so." An American Philosopher

37. OPTIMUM MODELS
Ultimate knowledge may be far beyond the abilities of the physical senses to model and the mind to comprehend, so we might consider what our optimum level of knowledge is as a matter of defining our purposes.

38. THE SIMPLE COMMON MODEL
Assuming that we have a handle on the source of the data, we can look at the data, itself. IF WE MAKE ONE ASSUMPTION, THAT TOTAL REALITY IS A PROCESS, RATHER THAN A STATIC ITEM, WE MAY PROCEED MUCH MORE EASILY. This is thought to be so because there is a great deal of commonality of process in all things in general. We would like to avoid using mere names as descriptors and USE OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS that show what happens as a changing process wherever practical. As a beginning, we might set up a vertical linear scale of "FIDELITY", and a horizontal scale of "UTILITY". At the zero point on the vertical would be simply "No Description", and the zero point on the horizontal wuld be "No Use".

39. FIDELITY RANKING SCALE
For our model, we can replace the vertical scale of reliability of the source with the fidelity of modelling reality, ith the reliability of the information rated appropriately for each item that describes a change process. Here, we may see LEVELS OF FUNCTIONING in terms of capability or POWER as regards POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE, and MODES OF OPERATION or KINDS OF CHANGING. Using a simple relative-ranking scale, the top of the vertical scale, at, say, 999,999, would be "True Reality Process". The levels may be thought of as "degrees of freedom" in the mathematical sense, that is, the higher the level, the more freedom there is to have a change towards orderliness. On it, we could put, in some kind of ascending rank, simple non-life forms of matter, more and more complex life forms from moss to amoeba to humans, including their thinking in simpler-to-higher level functions. This might be reflected in the kinds of brains and brain functions involved or vertebrate structures involved. As an example, the various levels of perception or reality would appear here, ranked according to the degree of information that they provide about reality. We might include communications processes beginning with primitive language based on emotional utterances and progressing to simple symbol codes such as Morse Code, writing in common English, writing in complex English, all languages, song, mathematics, sculputure, music, sketching and painting, color pictures, 3-D hi-fi holographic 360 degree motion color pictures, adding sensory inputs/process that model theEternal Universe as we go up. We might extend on to larger and more highly developed groups, tribes, nations, and civilizations, always increasing the power for CREATIVE ORDERLINESS and harmonious potential for change. We might intuitively assign a ranking of the supernatural and extra-sensory perception above non-extrasensory perception. Somewhere on the model, we might expect to find the psychical sciences and arts, which might be ranked somewhat as we have the areas ranked on the membership application poll (except it would be upside-down, with the first items to the bottom and the last items towards the top). The general scheme is to have it arranged so as to more and more approximate reality as one goes up. The structural bonding is thought of as being a matter of linking common points between the items, such as forming strings as in plastic polymers. One might think of a string of A-B-C-D--where A causes B, B causes C, and so on. Hence, the Boolean Algebra may be useful as a means of modelling. It may be worth noting that the Al Gebra was developed to solve the thorny problem of the distribution of wealth in extended families. From the dramatic genre, one might think of it as a matter of scenes forming acts that form plays that form cycles that forms sagas, etc. Notice that normal time is not considered as a structural matter, since the patterns are fairly independent of normal time, that is, things don't happened BECAUSE "it's time to".

40. MODELS OF UNTRUTHS
It seems that we should recognize that there are, in fact, some models that are just outright misrepresentative, that is, they are untruths, at whatever level of completness or in whatever form of qualification they may have. We may set up a negative scale below corresponding to the upper scale, going down to a MINUS 999,999. (CREATIVE POTENTIAL) S +999,999 (+HI) O F U QII I QI R//////////D/////"X" C E / E U T I L I T Y/ (+HI) I / QIII T / QIV Y / -999,999 USER (DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIAL)Fig. 3.0.3 Model with scale

41. NON-VERBAL MODELS
We might take a brief detour here. In general, we experience severe problems in modelling and communicating the non-verbal, dynamic, pictorial, or aural items of all kinds, such as feelings, whenever we use a time-fixed verbal mode or media, including our own internal thinking models in our communications. However, it would seem that, so long as the basic information may eventually translated to a higher order of fidelity, this is not a serious problem. It is seen as a matter of RELATIVE COMPLETENESS, not as a matter of fidelity or accuracy. Here again, we can set up some kind of scale for relative completeness. For our model, we may visualize this measure as third dimensional axis that applies to each fidelity level. We might look at it from an "X" and have it arranged so that the simplest models were on the axis, with the more elegant models extending to the sides, with the right side having the plus fidelity and the left side have the minus. The models would likely look like cycles showing the process of changes in each one's manner or mode of communication. 42. VISUALLY IMAGINATIVE PEOPLE
The Visually Imaginative Person, V.I.P., who may wish to liven up and enhance the model, might look at the vertical axis from an "X" in QI and imagine it to be a wall with writing on it. This might then be enhanced further to be an index file, as in a library. The files might be arranged so that the information is laid out in patterns of association, or as pictures. The V.I.P. may wish to add another feature to the model such that the pictures may be viewed best from a particular location on the utility scale correspondingto a particular situation or condition of life. The V.I.P. may even wish to tilt the horizontal scale and stretch it out to make a plane, to match the wall, and imagine that going to the right is going up on the plane as if it were a hillside with various signs of life situations on it. The V.I.P. might then imagine that for certain locations corresponding to certain situations, there are certain opportunities for viewing the pictures on the eall, with higher levels on the hillside giving vantage points of better views of higher levels on the wall. The V.I.P. might shine a light on the wall to add a model, with the appropriate filters on all of the senses and memory banks for sending or receiving information. The wall may be mural. The V.I.P. might perceive some information through inspiration from the sky overhead or imagine flying over the landscape for viewing other location situations and shared views of the mural might be used.

43. INTERACTIONS
Here, we are looking for some transform or translation, SOME COMMON LIFE EXPERIENCE which is actually embodied in the typical person who gets that information and turns into action. Here we suppose that there must be some degree of correlation between our common model that is objective and external and the user's special model that is subjective and internal. The interaction may depend on the relative difficulty of changing as compared to the WILLPOWER OR DESIRE to make the change, and the ANTICIPATED RESULTS.

44. QUADRANTS
Using "X" as a point of interaction, we can place the point in several locations in the model. We may assign a pattern of characteristics to the model using a four-quadrant scheme as follows: In the first quadrant, QI, we have creative information of BENEFIT to a typical user; In the second quadrant, QII, we have valid information that may be DETRIMENTAL; In the third quadrant, QIII, we may have invalid, i.e., false information that may be HARMFUL; In the fourth quadrant, QIV, we may have false information that may be BENEFICIAL to the user. Examples of each will be given.

45. UTLILITY OF INFORMATION
As a matter of getting a firmer handle on utility, we might consider RELEVANCE TO THE USER. It's worth noting here that the user of one bit of information may be the provider of another bit, so a cycle may be working with the common model acting as the hub of a wheel with the users and providers as the rim. A piece of data may be perfectly correct, yet be of no value to us. This may be said to be the difference between "factual data" and "useful information". The former is seen to be of little or no VALUE while the latter is what we WANT. The intent or purpose will then be to TRANSLATE data into information that is of value for decision-making and action.

46. UNDESIRABLE MODELS
As an example of QII, one might reach technical specifications for a household product, say a refrigerator. A comprehensive brochure may be needed to adequately describe the product and still fall short of telling us exactly what we want to know for our purposes. At the ultimate, we may NOT WANT TO KNOW what 110-volt electricity feels like. THIS IS THE SITUATION IN QII OF OUR MODEL. As odd as it may seem, while most of our Members are seeking knowledge OF the psychic as regards actuallyBEING psychical, we also have several Members who ARE psychical and are trying to learn how NOT to be, because of the negative stress it has created for them in their personal life situations.

47. USEFUL DISTORTIONS
There may be no good or there may be some value to distortions or useful misrepresentations, such as symbology for the purpose of adequately describing a HAZARD, like a warning sign. THIS IS A SITUATION WE MAY HAVE IN QIV OF OUR MODEL. Generally speaking, each partial truth that points in the right direction, that is, encourages one to learn a better truth, is contained in this quadrant. Most of the lessons in psychical development have a place here.

48. USEFULNESS OF THE MODELS
The end of the horizontal scale, since it depends on the user, will be more of a question, since the user, you, the reader, constantly change.

If we assume an average person, for general purposes, we might come up with some scheme for this, but, for the moment, it would seem to be a subject for further development. Such a model would be more suitable for the personal development section later on. At this point, it might be assumed to correspond roughly with the survey responses to the general list of subject areas as shown on your membership application, but this is very tentative. Your comments as to what you think the scale should look like will be welcome.

The direction to go is UP.
"He climbs highest who helps another upwards."

51. Expanding with Experience:
Now, many Members have consistently indicated a desire for a more structured approach to personal development, without getting into dogma-- a way of more detailed explanation of how it works and what to do. We have the Simple Common Model as a very bare skeleton to begin with and might be able to expand it with our accumulated experiences and references so those who wish to could find some help.

52. Inconsistencies if Data:
In our studies, we've gained numerous insights into the ways that people operated with psi as a matter of bits and pieces and wide global views. Still we don't have any comprehensive framework that works in most cases. It seems that, for every theory or set of explanations,

there are many cases to which they don't apply, so it gets a little frustrating at times. To make it simple, we might get some benefit from "doing it by the numbers", to keep track of all of the things that are going on. The main point would then be to have a kind of formula for understanding how psi works and what to do to predict and control its use and benefits.

53. Three Frameworks:
Now, most commonly, whenever we think of writing down some description, we start off bysaying or writing, "X is...", and so on. We'd like to also write, "X does...". We'd also like to write, "X affects people by...".

54. People Groups:
We're beginning to get a handle on how people act with our various kinds of descriptors of people as regards groups, so maybe we can approximate how psi works with groups, if not for each and every individual person. That would require truly individualized instruction and tutelage, which might be all very well for an ideal wise teacher and good student relationship, but quite out of the question for us in our group.

55. Combine Groups & Psi Kinds:
We just might be able to put together a usable combination of some kinds of psi with some kinds of people in some kinds of situations. One potential problem I've mentioned before is the difficulty involved with describing complex human beings, you and I.

56. Complex People Descriptors:
As an example, when I was attending the P.A. convention in Dallas and the President of the California Institute of Technology, CalTech, had finished his somewhat critical speech, I discussed this. I attempted to get him to see that, whereas he as a physicist was dealing with only a few described elements that made molecules and so on, there was really no way to describe or predict human beings. I used an analogy of the complex detailed technical specifications for the Lockheed C-5 airplane, which required three railroad cars to carry-- just tons and tons of paperwork with endless measurements of numerous parameters, just to describe the airplane design. I pointed out that we, as a society, could not even describe an ideal human being as regards how s/he really functioned. The main point I was trying to make was that, even if we actually found a psychical person who could reliably and repeatedly perform truly psychical feats that defied conventional scientific explanation in an intentional, controlled manner, it might be practically impossible to describe the person and the function in our limited language in terms that would be meaningful to anyone else. Can we reasonably expect to accomplish something remotely like this with a small group of people working in their spare time? As an INF type, I am bound to look at the possibilities!

57. Basic Formula:
Let's take a look at an internal model, a formula for describing psi and start simply by assuming, "It all depends.", that psi depends on things linking together like a chain reaction with each factor separate and distinct. We can write a general formula that says psi is a function of several factors, as the logicians would say:
Psi = F (€f1, f2, f3, fn...fm€).
Then we can begin by identifying the factors and how they interact. From the identification, we can build up each factor in more detail, as with a scale of percentages, and fit them into a training course.

58. Probabilistic Common Model:
Just to make it easier to deal with, let's recognize at the outset that we're dealing with group events that happen sometimes and do not happen other times, in other words, they're what are called probabilistic events. We can improve the formula by stating that the probability of a psi event occurring depends on the combinations of specific probabilities.

59. Need for Specific Detail:
We would truly like to have it simpler, but experience has shown that it's not a simple matter and is akin to learning to fly or play the piano. If we accept the observations that psi works well under the "right" conditions, then we must accept the meaning that we need to identify what the "right" conditions are in terms of the probabilities. "The more specific, the more accurate, and vice versa."

60. Need for Unlearning:
To fully appreciate what this means to many of us, one might consider that many of the factors will involve unlearning falsehoods and/or "bad trips" that block natural developments and uses of psi, so to speak. We may use a tactic of assigning a probability of truth to such data of zero.

61. Common Psi Data as Probabilistic:
Whoops, you say, back up! What is psi in the first place? How would you know if psi were operating? How do you tell a psi event or operation or happening from a non-psi event, maybe a coincidence? It ain't easy, for most of the cases studied in parapsychology involve statistical probabilities in a very gross total mode. We could improve this for our understanding and use by refining the gross total into two interacting basic sets of factors that consider: (1) the group personal characteristics of the people involved, and; (2) the processes or techniques or procedures used, as with the various taxonomies or checklist procedures, such as RISE. We have no lack or procedures and testing for processes; however, the troublesome area seems to be the former, so let's look at this first.

62. Probability in Psychometry:
The most common cases of psi, involving so-called psychometry readings, are not even studied by the mainstream of parapsychologists, probably because they simply don't know how to handle information in the complex real world as contrasted to simple card runs and binary testing that can be written up in a 20-page paper. I read and identified a person's father by name, Francis X. ----; what would you say the factors were? Would you call that psychical?

63. Rigorous Definition Problem:
Some of the best cases, such as sending a 50-digit number with telepathy, can be described statistically in terms of odds of one in a zillion. Others such as, finding the corners of a building buried in a remote desert to within a few inches, elicit expressions of wonder but defy precise description in rigorous factor terms.

64. PK & Many Kinds Definite:
The problem is involved with all of the areas of the psychic that have people as a basis. When we look at the physical areas of PK, there's much less controversy when something "paranormal" happens. It defies the popular physical laws and that's that! No question when things fly around without any means of doing so in the conventional sense. This calls to mind the Ted Owens differentiation of the four kinds of PK to match four forms of psi energy. We obviously need to be able to describe the various forms of psi and we already have a framework for this, our interest area list. All we need do is to expand the list as we know of psi in much greater detail.

65. Many Psi Cases Definite:
I propose that many areas of information are also not a matter of gross statistical probability in the practical meaning, such in the common expression, "There's no way s/he could have known that!" Probability = 1 !?

66. Need for Factoring:

Indeed, one can calculate the gross odds of, say, sending messages telepathically, simply by calculating the random chances of a particular sequence, as we did in the telepathy experiment, but it really is impractical to extend that to rigorous descriptions of when psi happens and when it doesn't without factoring.

67. Auras not Probabilistic:
Let's look at aura perception as an example. Now when a person sees an aura, especially the "coat of colors" type, with the shimmering radiance, there is no doubt that something is happening. But is it VISUAL AURIC psi? How does one answer the question of probability? What are the factors ?

68. Definition of Psi Event:
We might ask, "If so many people want to develop and learn psi, then what is it that they want to be able to do?" Let's start off by saying simply that, "Psi is a process of people getting information from sources other than the normal senses."

69. Dowsing as Defined Psi:
As an example, we have dowsers who ask very specifically for information that cannot be gained in any other way and they get the answers fairly consistently. Is this psi? Getting warmer.

70. Internal/ External Factor:
Let's take this last item and expand on it. Immediately, we can pair this with the personality types and see that:
a) those who prefer to use intuition are compatible with internalized psi, while
(b) those who accept sensory information are compatible with externalized psi functioning.
Recall the "switch act" in the previous extravert-introvert discussion.

71. Factor 1- Preference:
So we have a factor to start with, call it "f1", an expansion and clarification of the old "sheep-goat" differentiation. Now let's try to define this a bit further in terms of what it means to people. We might say that f1, the ability to use intuition, is the ability to use internal psi, and that the terms are synonymous. This might call for some reflection on the part of those folks who like to differentiate between the two functions. In a more practical sense, it's simply a way of measuring the acceptance of a person's psychology for information that is obtained from sources other than: (1) the senses; (2) intentional imagination; (3) hallucination; (4) dreaming; or (5) memory, which are the five main sources of information.

72. Methods from Preferences:
It's important to note here that some people seem to have ignored or suppressed these functions to the point that they do not have imagination, especially as regards visualization. However, it seems that many folks compensate or use other means to achieve similar results to overcome the suppression and that many folks use both methods selectively.

73. I.Q. a Potential Factor:
At this point, I should mention that it would be highly desirable to have some measure of ability to use imagination and intuition. As regards imagination, this seems to be a staple of many I.Q. tests; however, I've yet to see any published parapsychological test result that even hinted at any correlation with I.Q.. I'm speaking here of the kind of I.Q. test that requires mental imagery, not those so-called I.Q. tests that merely measure one's knowledge of words as a matter of memorizing data. This kind is what Cattell refers to as "crystal intelligence" as contrasted to what he called "fluid intelligence" that is the measure of how well one thinks.

74. Sub-Factors of F1:
So let's complicate things a little in order to clarify them and have subsets of f1 for the various modes of perception, such as f1v for visual, f1a for aural, and so on. So we can identify the subsets and the factors for the subsets easily. Obviously Psi-remote viewing would depend heavily on f1v, as would areas such as auric vision, but sub-areas such as aural telepathy would use f1a. It does seem reasonable to assume we can measure relative ability to perceive f1v on a scale of 0-100%, using raw scores of I.Q. tests.

75. Ability vs. Preference:
Let's take one more factor before we end this discussion. Let's call the ability to perceive the f1 and the preference the f2, just so we keep them separate. This will show up in controlled voluntary events versus involuntary spontaneous events. It's obvious at this point what we might do to measure this factor as regards instruments; perhaps subjective estimates might serve or maybe some common examples would be useful. MBTI scores would seem to fit in here very well. Now the pattern begins to jell. Caution is advised as regards the Sensing v. Intuition scale, however, due to the "switch act".

76. Factor 3- Situation:
Let's look at one more factor now. For f3, let's pin down the essence of the will and define it is a matter of need/ desires and lack of emotional involvement from the personal viewpoint for the given situation. How many times have you heard someone say they can never get it to work when it's highly charged with personal desire that blocks the flow? Plenty, I'd bet.

77. Desire in situation:
For f3, let's imagine a scale from 0 to 100% with the zero probability for the extreme of personal desire that obstructs the flow. The converse of this is that one needs to really want to have the flow occur. What seems to be a paradox or contradiction may be easily resolved by simply differentiating between the need or desire for a particular answer to come through as contrasted to a need or desire for true psi to occur. This latter point will be the opposite extreme at 100%.

78. Stress Scale for Desire:
In terms of group personal aspects, a simple way to look at f3 may be seen by using our scale of social readjustment factors. The overall situation may be described in terms of relative stress levels involved and we have a convenient scale that's already set up on a scale of 0-100; all we need do is add the stress scores, subtract from 1,000 and put in a decimal form for multiplying as a factor.

79. Factor 4- Proficiency:
I look at the possibilities now of including the specific person in a formula that reflects ability as a matter of proficiency. With this factor, anticipate just how well s/he might perform a specific psi function. Here one might expect to see something like a typical "learning curve" as the interaction between the two main groups that says something about the number of times the person has used the procedure.

80. Calculation of Proficiency:
Obviously, some will succeed right off the bat while others will require more practice. This personal learning curve can obviously only be developed by comparing with a generalized population curve. We need to develop such a relational curve factor. We might anticipate something like, say, a percentage equal to the number of times practiced. Whoops! what about the obvious fact that we get out of practice sometimes? Not to worry, we can anticipate solving this by incorporating a time factor. Suppose we visualize initially something like the rules for pilots making landings recently, such as the number of times practiced during a recent time interval, say the past month or the past year. We might foresee something such as:

f4 = N(times practiced total) X N(times in last month)/10

81. Success in Proficiency:

The question arises as to how successful the practice was and how to account or measure the success. I'd like your inputs on this. For now, we might visualize a subjective estimate of the percentage successful such as 75%. This might give a percentage of, say, 50 X 10/10 x .75 = .375.

82. Taxonomy of Procedures:
The taxonomic procedural step factors may be set up in the sequence in which the procedure is performed, one after the other, like links in a chain, and multiply them as decimalized sub-factors. We can look forward to measuring our procedures and trouble-shooting and improving them based on the results of actual practice, if we set our minds to it and work on it. Naturally, we cannot consider the job to be done without making allowances for "unknowns" and "unknown unknowns", so leave room for fX.

83. Formula as an Array:
We can then look forward to having a fairly structured matrix of our formulae set up as an array of specific formulae and their equivalent factors. Those who like to visualize models may recall the imagery of the wall structure of the Simple Common Model featured in a previous Psi-M. We can see the array of formulae as a spreadsheet/mural showing the overall picture of psi functioning, in terms of groups and procedures, to which anyone can add in their own personalized aspects.

 84. Brief Review:
Now let's briefly review what we've covered. We have a generalized formula for describing psi based on a simple definition. We can refine this to identify the various kinds of psi in terms of our list of sub-areas and refinements of the sub-areas in terms of the various senses. Recall from the H/M Section 8 that we use 23 senses and the combinations thereof. We next considered the two main groups of factors in terms of personal characteristics of groups of people and the techniques or procedures to be used.

85. Analysis Yields Confidence:
So we can see an attainable goal by analyzing psi and breaking it down to pieces that are small enough to bite off and digest, one at a time, rather than trying to swallow an elephant at one gulp, which many folks try to do. From the goals, we can develop very specific objectives for learning and practicing. It does take more time, but I'm confident we'll find it's a lot more reliable and rewarding this way.

And after all of the thinking is done, we can turn it loose with high confidence it'll work right!

86. Potential Applications:
Remember my plea for feedback of a few issues ago? Well, developing the next phase of the Simple Common Model (what do you mean, "You call that simple?) will require some real feedback inputs. Take our telepathy experiment as an example. There we got some pretty good data, but we can do better. This might be the best place to start, since we have the procedures all set up already. We're about due for another experiment to be accomplished with the recommendations included in the report. Another good place to follow that might be remote viewing. Another might be in the area of precognition. (Note that two of my predictions published, #9 and #14, have come to pass, "MERCEDES" on the beach in Florida and the Japanese telescope development). We might do a group weather forecast, since we can pin it down to standard weather descriptions and we can easily verify the occurrence; all we need is to set up a simple standard procedure using weather descriptions similar to our telepathy card set. If the team idea catches on, we might ask the teams to run the experiments.

87. Process Steps Example:
Looking again at the overall process, we have a tentative framework for developing that involves a continuous trial-and-error correction approach.

We can set up the first steps as being the first areas of our interest list, that, is, from Handbook/Mindbook pages 1.5.0 or 9.0.1D.

 88. Use of Survey for Factor 1:
The annual survey on Page 9.0.1D requested the respondents to fill in their ability to perform the function related to the interest area based upon a scale of 0-10.
These ratings would obviously convert readily to multiplying factors on a scale of 0-1 by dividing them by 10.
All other factors being at a combined probability level of 1, the probability of doing any particular procedure in any particular sub-area of any given topical area is then directly proportional to the ability factor.

89. Initial rating for F1:
Obviously, we have a chicken and egg situation here, for we need some procedure defined to be used to find out what the ability factor is. We can use the procedures and techniques described in Section 6 to start with for this, in conjunction with a reporting instrument such as the forms mentioned before. This "bootstrap" approach, using an initial baseline and then using the trials to improve each factor, will be the basic process for developing ourselves and our model and our techniques and our instruments. Also obviously, this will call for re-writing our techniques into a fairly simple procedure that most folks can pick up and read and follow consistently, as with "Guidelines".

90. Factor 2- Preference:
Paragraph 75 above skimmed this factor quickly; here we will try to define it more clearly. As a practical matter, the use of the MBTI may be problematical due to the availability of test instruments and data. Subjective data might not ever get us the accuracy we're looking for due to individual variations. Again, we do have some indications in our interest survey we can use, albeit somewhat subjective and self-evaluated. While we may get more precise measures later on, we can begin now with what we have.
These may be developed further with the use of a suitable testing instrument with specific questions later on. The questions might address the specific procedure to be used and the kind of situation the event is to be performed in.
Again, the ratings would be divided by 10 to get a multiplier.
If all other factors were held constant, the preference for doing the given function in a controlled way, not as a matter of spontaneous eruption of an ability or gift or talent, would depend on the relative preference.

91. Factor 3- Will:
This factor is admittedly somewhat complex at this time and it's expected that member input will be needed to put it into a practical definition. Several notions are combined here. Let's take them one at a time to clarify them.

92. Positive motivation/Need:
First, how many times have you read cases of "crisis telepathy" or precognitive dreams of a tragic nature? The notion here is that the stress level scale reflects the relative value or importance of the event as the participant sees it. At the other extreme, we have numerous reports of college students participating in bland emotionless tests that would have little, if any, importance to those participants.

93. Negative motivation/Fear:
Looking at it from another angle, take a hypothetical case of a dowser trying to find lost pennies in a park versus finding a well as a matter of survival.

94. Practice Learning Stress:
Somewhere on the scale, we expect to place a rating, or set of ratings, for the practicing that leads to our own personal development. This might likely correlate with Factor 2. This calls for member input later. How about the parapsychological tests showing that participants prefer likable (positive) images as targets in remote viewing?

95. Negative as Artifact:
On the other hand, if the participant is highly motivated to get a particular erroneous psi perception, it may result in an artifact. How many times have you heard of the lonely spinster wishing to hear a premonition about her new love coming into her life, or the self-fulfilling prophecy, or the wish that the psi event wouldn't happen at all and then raise questions that would be hard to answer, as in psi-missing? How about the decreasing motivation in performing repetitious parapsychological tests, as in the "decline effect", where scores drop off rather predictably?

96. Both Kinds are Stressors:
Again, the specifics might be clarified by referring to a stress scale with expansions from more experience. The specific effect here is tied in with the personal implications of the event for the participant. It's crucial to bear in mind that positive stresses are just as likely to result in illness as are the negative stress factors; the degree of change is the basic rule here. One might look for correlations with meditation to decrease the effects of stress. In review, we keep in mind that an accumulation of 300 stress points within a year's time will probably indicate a disabling illness that requires hospitalizing.)

97. Examples of stress:
If we use the procedure described in paragraph 78 above, we'd subtract from 1,000 and put in decimal form. An example is shown on how to use the stress scale. Suppose we take cases that are already on the scale. We can choose, say, 20 points for changing schools, 40 points for pregnancy, or 63 points for going to jail. If we were doing future-dowsing or precognition, we might expect to find the factors as being the following.
Let's look at two cases, one of positive motivation, Case A, and the other of a negative motivator, Case B.

98. Examples of Positive :
For the "changing schools", we'd have a factor of 0.02 as a positive motivator and we look for a predictability factor of 0.02 for getting the information. For getting info on the pregnancy, we'd use a factor of 0.04 and then, for the getting put into jail, a factor of 0.06. For a Boolean combination of getting all three items, we'd have the result of:

0.02 X 0.04 X 0.06 = 0.000048 or about 1 in 20,000 odds.

For the combination of getting any one of the three, we'd have:

0.02 + 0.04 + 0.06 = 0.12 or about 1 in 8 odds.

We can see that the low stress level associated with routine testing is so low for Case A, around, say, 0.005 to 0.010, we'd not expect much. At the other extreme, we'd have a probability of 0.10 for getting the death of the spouse.

99. Examples of Negative :
(Note: Somewhere I've seen reference to "dols" of pain - anyone know about this?) For Case B., we see a decrease in effectiveness for increasing stress, where the participant wishes to avoid the stress. Necessarily, we'd have to work it from the top down. For the changing schools, we'd see 0.98, for the pregnancy, a 0.96, and a factor of 0.94 for going to jail. This allows for combinations of getting all three items where we'd have:

0.98 x 0.96 x 0.94 = 0.88

100.Combination Example:

So we have a combination of Cases A & B for predicting the situation of a participant trying to psych her future with all three items of: 0.00048 X 0.88 = 0.00042

101.Performance Stress:
Somewhere on the scale, we'd expect to find an indication of social stress in the way of "performance pressure", as with entertainers. It's interesting to read comparisons with other stress scales; where the top event of the Holmes-Rahe scale, death of a spouse is at 1.00, another scale has it at 0.40, while giving a speech to peers rates at 0.60.

102. Procedural Calculations:
Let's take a simple initial example of calculating the F-5, that is, the Procedural Factor. Here, we would first set up the particular psi procedure as a string of steps, each of which is separate from the other, necessary to perform, and in the sequential order of performing the overall procedural task. As

the complexity increases, we would expect the overall probability of successful performance to decrease. We keep in mind that the very best we'd expect would contain a 2% error rate for each step. We'd expect a 10-step procedure to initially have a probability of success of 0.98EXP10 = 0.817, at best.

103. A One-Step Procedure:
Take Woody's first use of the dowsing pendulum. We simply ask the pendulum to show its response for "Yes.", a one-step procedure, it would seem. We just might use this as our basic "calibration" for the other factors, since it's easy and observable and it should score right around 0.97 as a probability of performing it.

104. Higher-Level Stresses:
One of the more obvious questions this raises is how the para-psychics are motivated or stressed to perform almost perfectly at times. What might be the motivator? For those who use notions of a "High Self", does this imply a higher or clearer stress drive? This would be consistent with many philosophical notions. The notions of centering and clearing may also hold the answer. We can at least speculate on the possibilities of having higher motivation at higher levels. In short, what we really seek is not the mundane formula, where we might "luck out" and exceed expectations slightly as a matter of coincidence, but an appreciation of the total problem and then - that flash of insight when all of the probabilities of all of the factors shift to zero and: