28 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-12-24 1335 +nationalparksign

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-12-24 1335 +nationalparksign
https://plus.google.com/u/0/108131621397475586556/posts/BCUuZwkDpSn
https://pastebin.com/3KYkkWTG
__

+nationalparksign __ *Perfectly understood by me*. Just "briefly" (some of what I have to say may be confusing at first because I am typing quickly and I need to expand on these ideas later): *Some may argue that they trust you but yet also reject your claim to have showered today* (haha).

They might say: _"I know it is a fact that you shower only about once a month and so your claim to have showered today is probably a lie even though I can believe everything else you say"_.

However - *if a person rejects your claim [which was made without sufficient proof] then they don't actually trust you*. They are being whimsical and arbitrary if they claim to trust you for everything except X. (This touches on the idea that "an expert should only be listened to for matters that are relevant to his or her dedicated field" but I won't go into that with this message.)

It may well be that you shower only once a month *and today may have been that day you did shower* (or this month you showered twice!).

In an *honest* system (and for many things - such as things in nature) we *can* rely on "past behaviour as an indicator of future behaviour" but this is *not the case* in a lie system where *intelligent people* carefully present behaviours to us in a certain way so as to influence our expectations about future behaviour.

If you shower only once a month but yet every day you make the claim that you have showered then those people you tell *are justified in not trusting you* (because although they can't know which days you are lying [for any particular day of the month could have been your actual "shower day"] - they only know you *must have lied* on at least one (or more) of those days [*IF* it's a fact about reality that you shower once a month]).

But if you would lie about having showered every day when it is known as a fact about reality you shower only once a month - *then your audience cannot trust you* and they therefore cannot trust that you would not also lie about *anything else*. (Because you have revealed yourself as someone "willing and able to lie *to your audience*".)

And so when they say "I still trust you" what they are really saying is "everything else you say [without "sufficient proof"] resonates with my pre-existing belief bias and so I accept it as true even though I am aware you are a liar and are not restricting yourself to speaking only the truth to me".

Without "sufficient proof" that you have showered their imagination is forced to fill in the blanks. If they know you are lying about showering then the *only reason* they accept anything else from you is because what you say [again - when it is without sufficient proof] resonates and that you are "charming enough" for them to believe (they find your personality "convincing"). *You are a "charming scumbag" so to speak*.

However - let me finish with this: a point I want to make though is that the person who says "I know you're lying but I still trust you" - _if indeed they trust you_ - *will actually believe your claim to have showered*. This takes some time to sink in and appreciate. If you were to claim you got abducted by aliens it *will* be believed by everyone who trusts you provided you were really making that claim as a truth about reality and not just joking about it or saying it on "April 1st" etc. (This paragraph needs to be expanded on - the lie system routinely exploits this *foible* of human psychology.)

*Only someone who has lost trust in you can doubt your claim (no matter how true it is)*. This point is important because it means that liars who have a person's trust can tell them *incredible whoppers* (e.g., as mentioned - such as being abducted by aliens) and they will be accepted as truth. Just so long as the claim is told in a "plausible way". (Such liars are "charming scumbags" to those they have under their spell.)

Trust is only undermined when the person is faced with the reality that you MUST be lying (such as when you shower only once a month but every day of the month you make the claim you have showered). In this situation an audience member may invent "plausible explanations" to "explain away" your obvious deceit in order to maintain trust in you. For example: "perhaps this month is an exception or perhaps this month he has decided to begin showering every day!" (imagination is filling in the blanks once again).

Then again - a person who has no trust in you will doubt that you shower every day *even if you really do*!

Ugh! I am at risk of writing another essay so I'll leave it there. These are some nuances that need to be written about in future.



__________


(I'm aware that what I wrote above may be too confusing for many to untangle so when I have the luxury of time I'll write it again more clearly as a dedicated post.)



__________


+nationalparksign . __ I had been thinking about a flow chart in general with the alleged assassination of the Russian ambassador (to show how each side of the planned dichotomy predictably reacts). I'll probably get around to it in the next couple of days.



______________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta Nediam's YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w

Lesta Nediam's Google Plus:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Lesta Nediam's Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Public Comments:
https://pastebin.com/u/Lesta

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.