Author Topic: Mass Conscious Triangulation with Scanning (By TakeV)  (Read 8175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

December 01, 2007, 07:27:39 PM
Read 8175 times


  • Veritas Teacher
  • Posts By Osmosis

  • Offline
  • *****
  • B̮̜̳̲͕ͦ̍͟ͅe̡̋̈́ͬ̐ả̬̹̳̼̫̜̟͂͛ͣû̓͑̚t̀̉҉̤y̌͂

  • 1161
  • Karma:
    • View Profile
Mass Conscious Triangulation with Scanning
By TakeV

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to explain a technique to (hopefully) more accurately find a desired thing that is hidden behind one of several possible choices, with the requirement that a reasonably large number of people also know about said thing, and have desire attached to it.

So, as the abstract says, let's get down to it. Imagine a hypothetical situation, let's say you are on the game show Deal or No Deal.

Note that in this article, I specifically use desire, as it is a great example. However, it could be any type of emotional attachment, such as love, hate, happy, sad, want, do not want, and quite possibly strawberry flavored.

I shall describe this show briefly, for those of you who are unfamiliar with it. The basic premise is that there are around 20 possible cash prized for the contestant to win, which range from one cent, to one million dollars. Obviously, the contestant wishes to win the million dollars. Challenge from the show comes from the fact that there are also 20 identical cases, and each case contains one of the 20 prizes. At the start, the contestant must choose one of the cases, and hopefully, it is the million dollar one. Than, he will start choosing the rest of the cases, and hopes that they are low amount, because throughout the game, "The Banker" will make offers to buy the case, judging from the chance that he has a high amount of money in the original case.

What matters to us with this stops when the contestant chooses the first case. Now, this seems much like a game of chance, and it really is. Yet to a psion, it is a game of scanning. Most psions I know would attempt to scan each case directly, to see what number value is inside. However, this way is problematic for two reasons:


      This way is greatly subject to analytic overlay, and

      Even among the best, the ability to accurately scan for something, such as a number, is lackluster at best.

Obviously, with these two issues, the task of scanning the most desirable of the cases (The one containing the million dollars) is difficult; providing a slight edge at best, and horrible misinformation, at worst.

But wait. Notice how I said "the most desirable of the cases". Indeed, the case that contains the million dollars is quite desirable, and you can use this to your advantage. You see, there are a few hidden benefits to being in a situation like this, namely:


      There are many people viewing this situation, and

      Almost everyone, whether they know it or not, also desires the million dollar prize, and thus have some emotional attachment to it.

This is your edge. In scanning, it is possible to scan, not only hard information, but also how much emotional attachment is attached to an object. I'm sure you can see where I am going with this. Basically, the entire method relies on the fact that people also desire what you desire, and that desire gives you a much easier target to scan for.

So, back in our game show situation, rather than scanning for the number each show contains, a better way would be to see how much (positive, in this example) emotional attachment is attached to the number inside the case.

Note that you must scan for the attachment on the number, as scanning for the attachment on the case would prove to be disastrous, because everyone has their own preference on cases. You must also scan for the quality of the attachment, for example, both the million dollar case and the one cent case will have great emotional attachment; however, the million dollars with be relatively positive, while the one cent will be relatively negative. Your own judgment and common sense is the best way to decide what you are looking for, in a situation like that.

Now, there is an issue with this method. For one, it involves scanning for the greatest amount of emotional attachment. This is problematic for a few reasons, but the most important is that the least desirable may also have great emotional attachment, usually in the negative (Or the positive, for the really, really cynical people). I doubt that you'll find much in the middle road of choices, so most of the problem comes between deciding which of the two with the greatest attachment is the correct one.

So, how is this practical? Well, there are situations that you could use this for, and it doesn't have to be an object. It could be a person, place, thing, etc, just provided that people have emotional attachment to it, and there are several possible places it could be. Just scan for the desire attached to the object at each place, and the greatest will be your correct answer, provided that your target has the greatest attachment.

I hope that some of you may find this way to be useful.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2013, 12:22:17 AM by TakeV »
<@kobok> And if you push hard enough, you can shove quite a lot into a chicken.

<@Trowa> When someone told him to jump off a cliff, he argued the semantic meanings of "jump" and "cliff", and then proceeded to do just that.