Do you believe what others say?

I have talked this topic quite a lot once. Remember when I talked about using emotions to persuade others for a statement being a fact when it is not a fact after evaluating things? Yes, that is one of the biggest reasons I left my previous job. Not predominantly because it was used a lot (because I think anyone can fall into this trap), but it was already so contagious through the whole eco-system of the working environment that clients used that form of communication which lead it to become the norm for the company on its way it solved the problems. At that time I was working, their strategy of handling the modules was not the optimal at all. It wasn't quantified. There was not a plan tracker on it that measured the value of the software. There were no realistic expectations in a way that it could be evaluated in a scientific way where these issues could become less predominant in the future over time and easily maintainable. Most of those problems are not in the technical field and you have to look those things at a different angle on making those decisions. In the same sense we make decisions for what to buy in stock for your warehouse in the external world, we have to do it also internally in our company. Using metrics, finding new metrics that are more effective and using different strategies based on the situation (patterns) are not exclusively for the decision making of making the company more profitable. This can be applied to anything, as long we consider the "different situation" of the topic and apply it in an appropriate way.

But that topic I can talk into depth another time. Today, I am just going to talk in the context of do you believe what people say? And if so, why? And if no, do you have other choice? I like to emphasize one thing again: Foundations are the most simple things anyone can learn but hard to master. We think that in grade school on whatever we learned on basic foundations is as easy as the technical topics that we had hard time to understand. We can say that those technical topics were more harder than the simple foundations we learned in elementary school. And that is precisely right. However, those basic foundations if looked at a different angle, we see that they are the source of all the derived products of technical thought we have brought today. For that reason, if looked at a deeper context, foundations are never ending and hard to master, gives you always the right direction, but technical thought always falls short as it only meets the need for a specific situation over a specific period of time.

So here, we are talking about another foundation, talking and experience. Both talking and experience with others or with nature is a circuit of getting Mercy experiences where if you get enough of them, they can build a Perceiver fact, and get enough of those and you can build even a theory about it. However, the source of each is a little different. Talking with people does not give you the opportunity to try it out with server actions in real life whether it really works or not. For instance, you can ask an expert about computers how a microchip is created. They will tell you the process of how it is created. Now, can you evaluate it in real life whether it is real or not? Can you go out and pick the ingredients, fabricate materials, create massive machines of production of microchips with those materials and be 100% reliable on working on every computer without defects? I don't know if you can, but if your whole lifeline was experiencing things instead of talking to people, you would have failed miserably. As many other people say, why re-invent a wheel? For practical purposes, it makes sense not to. But for the well being of society, to how much extent people should not know and know for a specific thing? For the above specific situation, I would say it makes no sense, as it only meets the need for a specific situation over a specific period of time. In contrast, foundations can be played like a deck of cards, where you can make as many combinations to create a playable card of set no matter the circumstances of the rules change over time.

However, we have to look at the set of circumstances our society has evolved over time. In pre-historic times, people evaluated things through experience instead of people talking to them what to do. If I want to eat, I will have to create tools myself to hunt them down. Re-invent the wheel? No, we don't have a person that can create tools for the hunter. By the way, what does re-invent the wheel mean anyway? After dozen generations pass, the need for each individual to learn how to create tools have diminished that only few need to create it and are expertise of it. When the hunter wants to hunt down an animal, he does not need to know how the tool is made or whether it can be more sharper or not or whether its defective or not. He trusts the expertise of the individual. The essence of talking started to come. Blame comes now not because of some error was done through experience out of scientific explanation, but the words of the individual that said "the weapon is good and can kill animals" and trusted him. Now can you explain the individual a scientific explanation to stop blaming you? No, how can you explain something that he does not understand? And here is one of the problems that arises: As civilization grows, technical specs are in growth within abstractions of abstractions that people can only grasp a general understanding of each topic instead of a depth understanding of each topic. The technological term "encapsulation" existed a thousand years ago, and used even in computer languages before the term became popular (i.e. high level languages vs low level languages). Is this the wrong approach to society? I am not saying that but people do not realize how to distinct when to use experiences and when to use talking as the source of value for making decisions.

Now here is the interesting part. Thousand years ago people were more interested to delve things through scientific ways of finding the real source of nature. Now things are opposite. You can buy anything from suppliers. The social media helps a lot to not re-invent the wheel at the sacrifice at believing what people say. All are done in a small secluded lab. However, most of those scientists, I assume, they take the value of each thing in a statistical way. They won't believe every word people say, but look for a pattern or the one that is most occurring (in the terms of testimony in a trial of court, it works the same way). However, do they have the ability to distinct which is the appropriate source of information to make decisions? Experimentation nowadays has no much credibility as having your thesis being piled with a bunch of references that may make the explanation of a thing less cohesive. Still, they are better far off than the average individual as at least they must have a slight node on their head how science is made.

The average individual in contrast is bombarded with people all the time more than we ever faced before (thanks to social media and the internet). The question to ask is: Are we really ready to face these challenges without any bumps? And the answer is presumably no. Our current society is bombarded with so much mercy lego pieces that are based on people instead of experiences that it will form a habit that in most situations it is more easier to rely on people that we don't need to constraint ourselves on "re-inventing the wheel". But it has gone so far to these days, that this is the decision people make when faced on uncertainties that they are better off to have a hybrid model (exploring and talking to people) rather than rely to only people. In our current society, a lot of people have a lot of depression. And that is reliably the cause as people put their face value down onto people more than they ought to. Their expectations are out of the bounds of real life that I can refer to as an emotional roulette gamble. There should be an appropriate focus on experiencing things to a certain degree than rely on people when expectations do not meet. However, the "habits" of people are so well formed and placed upon people, that when their situation is more appropriate to explore things themselves, they will still constantly put blame on the person as they have no other solution in their mind to handle the situation. People in nature love shortcuts, especially for people who are more focused on cosmic experiences can fall into that trap (either cause that is what they are more conscious). But more than that, it seems that this society, we are forcing people to look things though cosmic experiences, being that
1. The world is becoming more materialistic
2. Our main priority is to make the people lives more easier than making them better members of the community
3. The focus on our free time is more on entertainment and escaping real life than participating and understanding real life
4. The essence of understanding life is valued to less to a degree when there is a religion that we are just a figment of our imagination while ignoring all possibilities of our world being similar to "the matrix" movie where we were created, something went wrong, someone wrote the manual, then came a patch, and every new software needs its data to be migrated to a new version, etc.