Opening Pandora’s Box

There’s no point denying it anymore… Socionics is the future… it has to be… the MBTI craze is now over…

The Subjectivist World Chooses Specialism

Yet another dichotomy in society exists between specialists and generalists. Like anything else traditional you have to start somewhere as they say although life will inevitably get boring and dull if you don’t strive towards the rational and individual quest for happiness.

What is specialism?

The limitation of practice or study to a particular branch of a profession.

It is philosophically distinct from the generalist theory in which familiarity with a wide cross-section of a particular discipline is favoured.

What is specialism synonymous with?

Essentially, a single source of value generation and resulting happiness. A lone profession that you get good at doing which inevitably gets repetitive, boring and unsatisfying in the long-term although provides a reasonable amount of wealth and happiness in the short-term.

What is generalism?

It first begins with a renaissance, that is, a revival of intellectual or artistic achievement and energy.

A person can then be known as a renaissance man or woman, a person who has acquired profound knowledge or proficiency in more than one field.

What is generalism synonymous with?

Essentially, multiple streams of value generation and resulting happiness. A varied profession that provides different outlets of achievement and sources of increased self-worth in the long-term although not immediately available in the short-term.

– The Curse of Specialism –

A problem of insanity in the form of long-term specialism described by the following quote:

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” –Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)

A solution to this specialist insanity in the form of long-term generalism described by the following quote:

“The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.” –Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)

– Renaissance Men & Women –

These people are like a secret society who you’ll never hear about until they remove the shackles of specialism and turn a few of their areas of expertise into marketable products.

Stern’s Learning Skills

Here’s my chance to claim some fame for my very own small group. (I apologise in advance if it already exists in another form as I have not yet found a comprehensive list of all known small groups).

The idea for this came from the previous two posts: How To Deal With The Democratic World and How To Deal With The Subjectivist World which you may like to peruse first.

So without further ado…

Socionic types (sorted by Stern’s learning skills):

• Subjectivist-Aristocrats — “I need a structured taught course with a prestigious qualification awarded”
  • The Enthusiast (Ethical-Sensory Extratim) (ESFj)
  • The Guardian (Ethical-Sensory Intratim) (ISFj)
  • The Director (Logical-Sensory Extratim) (ESTj)
  • The Inspector (Logical-Sensory Intratim) (ISTj)
• Subjectivist-Democrats — “I need a modular taught course with a modest celebration of my achievement”
  
  • The Marshal (Sensory-Logical Extratim) (ESTp)
  • The Craftsman (Sensory-Logical Intratim) (ISTp)
  • The Ambassador (Sensory-Ethical Extratim) (ESFp)
  • The Mediator (Sensory-Ethical Intratim) (ISFp)
• Objectivist-Democrats — “I need to research ethical problems with a modest recognition of my solutions”
  • The Psychologist (Intuitive-Ethical Extratim) (ENFp)
  • The Romantic (Intuitive-Ethical Intratim) (INFp)
  • The Actor (Ethical-Intuitive Extratim) (ENFj)
  • The Humanist (Ethical-Intuitive Intratim) (INFj)
• Objectivist-Aristocrats — “I need to research logical problems with a prestigious award for my solutions”
  • The Searcher (Intuitive-Logical Extratim) (ENTp)
  • The Critic (Intuitive-Logical Intratim) (INTp)
  • The Pioneer (Logical-Intuitive Extratim) (ENTj)
  • The Analyst (Logical-Intuitive Intratim) (INTj)

Stern’s learning skills – at a glance:

• Subjectivist-Aristocrats also known as traditional learners expect to follow a linear course leading to a recognised qualification or certification at the end that should guarantee employment based on the closed-mindedness of mainstream employers who recognise traditional awards like a bachelor’s degree.
• Subjectivist-Democrats also known as liberal learners expect to follow a non-linear course leading to any qualification or certification at the end that should guarantee employment based on the open-mindedness of mainstream employers who recognise special achievements like an associates degree.
• Objectivist-Democrats also known as utopian learners expect to study and research ethical problems and gain recognition for their ability to offer solutions in order to receive appropriate respect.
• Objectivist-Aristocrats also known as conceptual learners expect to study and research logical problems and gain recognition for their ability to offer solutions to receive appropriate honours.

As we can clearly see now, there is no right or wrong type of learner, there are only results for self and society. Also remember that democrats believe in social equality and usually discount rank based on titles and vice versa with aristocrats.

We do however get another dichotomy where the subjectivist types are short-term learners and the objectivist types are long-term learners. This in turn would explain the notorious nature of those types with potential “inferiority complexes” and “superiority complexes” respectively.

The aristocratic-democratic divide is dissolved by emphasising the unique differences in learning curves i.e. the relationship between the duration of learning or experience and the resulting progress.

Essentially, everyone lives their life on their own personal level of achievement where leader boards and whatnot are designed to exploit your deep-rooted complexes to make you perform better.

This kind of Psychology in the wrong hands usually results in companies and businesses that deploy “ball and whip” tactics to make you more cost-effective. In the right hands however work is engaging with an element of healthy competition.

Thanks for reading! 🙂

How To Deal With The Democratic World

According to G. Reinin there is a dichotomy (split) in society between democrats and aristocrats which like the previous dichotomy discussed I also concur with. Similarly I add to this by suggesting that there is a bias towards democracy as some kind of “holy grail” for society leaving an aristocracy as something despised.

I shall present a brief overview of the major differences between a democracy and aristocracy.

Democrats essentially believe in equal rights and that anyone from any background, creed, race or religion should be allowed to take part in the political process of government. Thomas Jefferson believed that a democracy is “nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”.

Aristocrats essentially believe that born out of equal rights eventually comes a natural progression to inequality where everyone grows up fundamentally different and therefore only the greatest minds from society should take part in the administration of government. Thomas Jefferson declared, “let us in education dream of an aristocracy of achievement arising out of a democracy of opportunity”.

Assuming you have read the previous post entitled “How To Deal With The Subjectivist World” you are most likely noticing an important pattern.

Again we have a synergy essentially between the democratic “equal opportunities” and aristocratic “unequal opportunities” points-of-view. Society is inherently biased towards the democratic view. However the sum of both views is more important then a singular view so we get my forward-moving attitude as follows:

Ethically we all deserve equal rights although logically we inevitably develop unique abilities, talents and areas of expertise and should be treated accordingly for as much time until someone else learns from and surpasses us.

So, as we all know time generally moves forward and people grow at different rates due to upbringing, education and inborn characteristics etc. that affect this.

The people that don’t see this ‘bigger picture’ are the same people who abuse their positions of power hence the various reports of ‘the elite’ trying to control the rest of us.

So just when you thought we live in a perfect world of employment with its grandiose notion of “equal opportunities” think again. So now I come to a short reflection on how the democratic world has recently affected me:

As you may have gathered by now I’ve been actively job searching. In fact I’ve now been looking for over 2 months with a relatively high ratio of applications to interviews, about 1 in 4 secured.

When you generally apply for a job you quietly acknowledge that you accept the nature of the beast so to speak, that a job can and may get repetitive and boring especially if you’re an INTj “Analyst” like myself who expects constant challenge and improvement.

I attended an interview for an IT job. I took the whole thing seriously. I dressed smart and prepared my notes. I had already accepted in the back of mind the above issue. I later got asked if I was aware that the job may get repetitive and I immediately go berserk in the back of my mind.

It would seem to me that the employer was unfairly trying to weed out any aristocratic types from the opportunity presented. Being aristocratic is not stereotypically about arrogance or having high prestige but having an awareness that there is little or no such thing as “equal opportunities”.

It was “objective democracy” and a well-written application that got me to the interview. It was then “subjective democracy” that thought, “You look too intelligent for this position” or some other biased presumption. I never did receive a call back from that interview.

My interviewers were both an ESTj “Director” and ISFp “Mediator” producing a strong democratic bias towards my aristocratic orientation.

Despite my attempts to assure them that a) I can and want to do the job and b) I accept the potentially repetitive nature of it, they still remained stubborn to most likely perceiving me as out of my league with this role.

Its one thing to apply for a position you’re not qualified or experienced for and quite another to get rejected on the grounds that you might get bored because you are qualified and experienced.

Had I been interviewing me I would been more positive and constructive complimenting me on my apparent skill set and potential ability to push the company forward rather than subjectively contradicting the facts.

Oh no, can’t do that, can’t employ a 20-something year old who may some day be running the company so we’ll have to use our secret weapon. Deploy The Dilbert Principle i.e. recruit, promote and reward based on loyalty and incompetence rather than increased actual valued to the company.

From that little rant and reflection I can now come to yet another conclusion about democracy. It is biased towards subjectivism because that’s always “easier” for the masses.

So if we take this and the last post together I can propose the following debatable ratios for a fair way of selecting someone for a private, public or governmental role:

25% subjectivism + democracy with 75% objectivism + aristocracy

Where a strong objectivist and aristocratic bias leads to a forward-moving society of excellence where we will eventually solve all problems and live happily ever after free from our shackles of fear and guilt instilled by authoritarian regimes that masquerade under the “holy grail” of democracy.

In reality however it is more like this:

95% subjectivism + democracy with 5% objectivism + aristocracy

Where a strong subjectivist and democratic bias leads to a stagnant society of stereotypes where ‘the elite’ usually compose of idiots ruling over the intelligent who don’t get involved with politics for two reasons.

They will likely get rejected by the powerful media who would rather promote idiots since its more profitable in an upside-down society. There is also strength in numbers where stupidity is concerned so intellectuals seldom get a look in and get scorned by the mass population that have developed “inferiority complexes”.

Let’s round this up with a general course for a modern civilization and how we are currently stuck due to a few biases that exist…

I think its absolutely natural to be subjective in your youth and gradually become more objective over the years. Conversely I also believe its natural for a democracy to get established first and like Thomas Jefferson implied, it will eventually lead to an aristocracy because after all we are supposed to be forward-moving rational civilization that rewards excellence not incompetence.

Now relating this all to Socionics I would simply argue that how subjective/objective and democratic/aristocratic you are will likely be dictated by your type and your cognitive development.

How does a subjective democrat keep you from reaching a rational state of objective aristocrat? By keeping you and everyone else essentially fighting amongst ourselves with divide & conquer tactics propagating “guilt”, “fear”, “the Dilbert principle”, “fixed educations”, “restricting taxes” etc.

I rest my case. Peace out! 🙂

How To Deal With The Subjectivist World

According to Gregory Reinin there is a dichotomy (split) in society between subjectivists and objectivists which I concur with. I will add to this by arguing that there is in fact a bias towards subjectivists because more people in my view are inherently just that until they choose to swing the other way.

I have devised a very simple and effective model for understanding the key differences between followers of subjectivism and objectivism.

Subjectivists employ what I call the T.E.A. method of interpreting the world, that is, Touch, Experience & Assimilate. It is based on acquiring knowledge of the world through circumstances that directly affected your senses. For example, navigating through life with previous hands-on experience that got “imprinted” in your knowledge-base.

A clichéd subjectivist phrase would be something like, “I was scarred for life by…”. Thus we could say that subjectivism is synonymous with short-range thinking, closed-mindedness and distorted truths.

Objectivists use what I call the T.O.E. method of interpreting the world, that is, Test, Observe & Evaluate. It is based on acquiring knowledge of the world through external factors that remain detached from your senses. For example, identifying principles of how society works from trends you’ve noticed and using that knowledge as a guide.

A clichéd objectivist phrase would be something like, “I use what I know…”. Thus we could say that objectivism is synonymous with long-range thinking, open-mindedness and impartial clarity.

There is a synergy of course, the sum of both ways of interpretation is greater than the use of just one except there is usually a bias towards subjectivism fostering a world of stereotypes. It affects everything from selecting a suitable candidate for a job to trusting a potential partner again after being scorned previously to having the mental freedom to act differently to cultural norms.

Now its time for a quick reflection on how the subjectivist world has recently affected me…

After completing an application form for a position at a charity I miraculously got short-listed for interview. This stage of the selection process represents the power of objectivism where I could really sell my self – on paper. In other words, I could only be judged relatively fairly based on the information stated.

So I eventually got to the interview day and was taken in for some psychometric testing. To me this represented “good enough” objective evaluation of my suitability. I later had my interview with real people.

I could almost instantly tell I was dealing with two ISFj “Guardians” thus creating two super-ego relations aimed at my poor brain. In accordance with Socionics I could feel the predictable nature of our interactions unfolding.

They were getting egotistical so I remained as quiet as possible to not stir things up so to speak. Like any triadic-relationship there was a power-struggle between the two ISFj’s competing for the same social niche whilst agitating me with their behaviour.

Now when someone says that they have “presence” as the thing that makes them special in a social environment this would be one of those times. I believe they were psychically feeding off my mental energy periodically saying something profound having a chance to feel and act “superior”.

As an INTj “Analyst” I take this phenomenon for granted i.e. knowing that I can come across with a “superior attitude” periodically due to all that Scrabble playing in my childhood which widened my vocabulary usage. 😉

Anyway, to cut a long story short although they asked me set questions from a previously drawn up outline they didn’t really want to go beyond the scope of them by talking to me as a person not another candidate. This represented subjectivism at its worst in my view.

At the end of the day I apparently got beaten to the role by a candidate who performed better on the psychometric tests. I also believe that had I been in their position I would have asked more probing questions as to why I want the job since all candidates could blatantly do it.

I can now come to another conclusion that subjectivism is also synonymous with “specialist thinking” in the sense of a job that will inevitably require a mindless drone so to speak who does set tasks with little or no room for new challenges and promotion.

A role is not usually designed for an objectivist because it would be self-designed leading to true happiness, satisfaction and performance-related promotion.

I have experienced one such role that I excelled at and got paid accordingly which I took and made my own. My subjectivist friend was pretty useless when I brought him on-board, he wasn’t hungry enough to excel and learn as needed I could tell at the time.

Why would a small company or corporation run by subjectivists at the top want to employ an objectivist when they have the potential to excel at their “specialist” role and get too big for their boots so to speak? It happened in my very first office role and it will happen again unless I employ a new strategy.

They must either get fairly promoted in accordance with their forward-moving business value or resign, its that simple. Its the subjectivists who will likely expect or ask for raises on the basis of loyalty rather than their ability to push the business forward which would increase their true employee value.

Perhaps its now clear to see who forms a corporation in the first place, an objectivist who then “retires” and leaves the running of the company to subjectivists who keep it going but close the door on innovation and the employment of future potential executive objectivists.

Through annoyance and frustration of this fact they are forced to either go freelance as business mavericks or work their asses off to change an existing company to a new way of operating that will inevitably push the business forward ready for a new generation of employees.

The bad news for subjectivists is that change is inevitable unless you’re a stagnant Marxist (anti-capitalist). Loyalty is not a good basis for promotion or raise in the 21st century. Modern employment should not be a “ball and whip” scenario, it is a chance to make a difference to yourself and society and get compensated accordingly. A business model or company is simply the “vehicle” to achieve this.

The good news for objectivists is that you can rise above your subjectivist colleagues by digging in with disciplined impartial clarity turning any “specialist” role into your own with a strategy for pushing the business forward. It will then become a case of “how can we, ‘the company’, not promote you and give you a raise?” due to your increased worth to them.

Related post: How To Deal With The Democratic World

Intermission: Parody of The Secret

As I break for the weekend I thought I would leave you with a short trailer to a longer 10 minute film parody of The Secret.

For the full length video visit http://guruyou-u.com/ 😉

Here’s a run-down of the types I think that have been ridiculed in this video including my own parodied titles of how they came across to me:

• “Earnest Hunt” as The Baffled Analyst (INTj)
• “Ike Abraham Michaels” as The Infantile Analyst (INTj)
• “Joseph Witherspoon” as The Wise Critic (INTp)
• “Tabitha Luckett” as The Aggressive Pragmatist (ISTj)
• “Ray Marshall” as The Sincere Humanist (INFj)
• “Athena Lisette” as The Infantile Psychologist (ENFp)
• “Genie” as The Firm Pioneer (ENTj)

It seems to me like a parody of the researcher and humanitarian clubs who tend to know stuff (using intuition with logic/ethics) that want to share their powerful insights with society. And of course there’s a pragmatist thrown in to actually manage the whole thing.

The mass-marketing of The Secret otherwise known as The Law of Attraction is an example of such knowledge that non-philosophers could make use of, if only they understood it on some level or another.

However, as Friedrich Nietzsche (German classical Scholar, Philosopher and Critic of culture, 1844–1900) once implied:

“There are no facts, only interpretations.”

So when it comes to mass-marketing a collection of interpretations you obviously have to choose your words carefully if you wish to promote them as facts that ‘regular’ people want to hear and make use of.

As discussed in a previous post to do with the bicameral model of the mind, preaching is one form of consciousness that plays on the deep-rooted tendency of ‘lazy minds’ who indulge in what others have to say.

This is okay if the preacher has ethical intentions where they are trying to promote you to an ideal state of consciousness having complete control of your ability to reason independently and thus control your destiny.

Few people swing from this traditional form of psychology to a more efficient quantum psychology so to speak that is predominantly concerned with getting results immediately benefiting self and society.

Network marketing is one such business vehicle for this because it turns an inherently aggressive ‘dog eat dog’ society into essentially a more territorial ‘cat help cat’ society (and yes, you get nine lives to play and learn from).

That’s why this form of working capitalism usually gets praised as ‘the perfect business’ or ‘the most ethical way’ although is heavily opposed by many anti-capitalists who essentially don’t see the bigger picture.

Anyway since society is poorly structured this way where the traditional norm is to compete rather than create most people don’t learn to appreciate the true benefits of rational capitalism where essentially ‘success breeds success’.

In essence, compete means comparing salaries for specialist jobs whilst create means pursuing your creative dreams building unique values for society that get richly rewarded in the long-term.

As Jim Rohn (American Speaker and Author) has said time and time again:

“Work harder on yourself than you do on your job.”

To round up this post I would comically say that I’m yet to find a job that will tolerate my immense logical-intuitive ego as normal e.g. as an author I don’t seem to get much respect from employers who expect specialist skills for their company’s benefit.

Just for fun I would like to see your comments about the parody video above regarding what social types you think were ridiculed: –

Clubs, Religion and Politics (part one)

Socionic clubs are very similar to the four temperaments that have been revised over the centuries. In this study I wish to relate two out of four clubs incorporating my views on social-political systems and religion.

The other two clubs don’t correspond with the four temperaments unless we subdivide them to match up thus I will return with that conundrum in part two.

On a basic level we could generalise that sensory clubs tend to do-more-think-less whilst intuitive clubs tend to think-more-do-less which can obviously change over time with motivation.

Let’s begin…

The Researchers Club [NT] {intuition & logic}

This set of types matches perfectly to what David Keirsey (1998) called Rationals. They are usually responsible for intellectual thinking with an eye for understanding business.

Alpha NT’s have a knack for exposing or creating new models of business. Gamma NT’s have a knack for blueprinting how these new models can be used for mass-market profits.

We might also say that Alpha and Gamma NT’s are the masterminds and initiators of the business world. This would make them advocates of laissez-faire capitalism.

Members of the researcher club can come in all shapes and sizes regarding religious beliefs although they are all likely to have something in common, that is, the way they think about the Almighty or not.

The picture on the right represents ‘critical thinking’ which is likely how this club would treat the subject of religion. They would unlikely act like blind devout followers of a doctrine since they are essentially theorists with a constant degree of scepticism until their ‘retire’ to one way of thinking.

If you’ve seen the film The Secret then you would likely have come across the term Law of Attraction which is one of various laws probably invented by the researcher club to explain how your thoughts create your reality where the Almighty remains in the background whilst you exercise your free-will.

This club would also likely be advocates of Libertarianism, “a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty.” –from wikipedia.

According to Dreikur (1912), members of this club can and may develop a mistaken goal of power in regards to individualism.

The Humanist Club [NF] {intuition & ethics}

This set of types matches perfectly to what David Keirsey (1998) called Idealists. They are usually responsible for emotional intelligence with an eye for personal welfare & development.

Beta NF’s have a knack for creating deep meaningful relationships with others. Delta NF’s have a knack for uncovering the potentials in others and society.

Therefore we can say that Beta and Delta NF’s are the soul-searchers and soul-enlighteners of the spiritual world. This would make them advocates of idealism.

Members of the humanist club in my experience tend to either be full on religious with a pseudological argument for the existence of an infinite being or relatively agnostic/atheist with a belief in the spiritual realm.

The picture on the right represents spiritual enlightenment or healing. They usually promote religious teachings or mystical beliefs involving morals and ethics. They can also act like catalysts who reassure and inspire people who have found themselves leading ’empty’ or distraught lives.

You might find that many life-coaches tend to be from the humanist club. In fact any profession that involves helping others such as social worker, nutritionist, EFT practitioner or counsellor etc.

The club would likely be advocates of Humanism, “a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality.”
— from wikipedia.

According to Dreikur (1912), members of this club can and may develop a mistaken goal for recognition in regards to altruism.

---

Relevant quotations:Ayn Rand (1905-1982), a famous member of the researcher club and one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century (and beyond) made the following statement about religion:

“Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, [the] attempt to offer a comprehensive view of reality.”

And here’s a statement from Rand advocating capitalism:

“Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him.”

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), a famous member of the humanist club and previously a major political and spiritual leader of India made the following statement about religion:

“A religion that takes no account of practical affairs and does not help to solve them is no religion.”

And here’s a great Ghandi quote describing the adoptions of new idealisms in society (e.g. how Socionics will slowly but surely penetrate the Western world):

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

The Bi-Cameral Model of the Mind

What is Bi-Cameral?

Bi, as in two, and cameral as in chambered.

What is the Bi-Cameral mind?

A two-chambered mind similar to the idea of a left-brain and right-brain with distinguished cognitive functions.

What is the Bi-Cameral model?

It is based on the controversial idea that one side of your brain does the ‘speaking’ whilst the other side can do nothing but listen and obey.

It is therefore equivalent to the modern day Schizophrenic who claims to be ‘hearing voices’ or a ‘normal’ person who simply follows society blindly without an independent will.

The bi-cameral mind is the notion of what the mind was like before it achieved ‘consciousness’, the ability to reason and introspect.

Why is this relevant to today’s society?

The bi-cameral model describes your level of ‘freedom’ and can justify why some people simply let themselves slip into a life of ‘default existence’ whilst others strive to live their lives fully ideally to the point of self-actualisation.

And now for the model in three simple stages:

Bi-Cameral Stage One – The Pre-Conscious Person:

• Automatic visions and voices tell you what to do.
• You automatically obey ‘the voices of authority’.
• You think and speak like a slave.
• Obedience towards society is paramount.

Bi-Cameral Stage Two – The Proto-Conscious Person:

• Automatic feelings and thoughts tell you what to do
• You behave like:
  • A true believer (sometimes a fanatic for a ‘great cause’); or
  • A helpless wimp (languishing in apathy, sometimes complaining); or
  • A self-righteous preacher (making self ‘right’ and others ‘wrong’); or
  • A macho rebel (compulsively fighting ‘the system’, ‘the IRS, ‘the government’ etc.).
• Being ‘right’ is paramount.

Non-Bicameral Stage Three – The Concious Person:

• You have largely mastered your feelings and emotions.
• You have the ability to critically examine every concept, thought and action.
• You strive to increase your competence in every aspect of your life.
• You carefully observe the results you produce, using that as feedback to improve your concepts, thoughts, communications, and actions.
• You live free and creatively – you are a Freeperson.
• Producing results is paramount.

A pre-conscious person will likely resemble a zombie who has simply ‘switched off’ from society with no desire to take responsibilities as an adult. A proto-conscious person will likely act like either a martyr, a slave, a prophet or a hacker as a way of dealing with society and gaining something out of it.

A conscious person resembles someone who has learnt the use of honest introspection to examine themselves and their sensory experiences. By eliminating and releasing all blame on others they are free to take responsibility in creating the life they want through sustained self-discipline, thought and control.

The Forer Effect

Too many ‘You are’ statements in a personality type description could make you believe it as gospel truth along with everyone else who reads it.

The curse of ‘are’ and all it’s contractions: ‘is’, ‘be’, ‘was’, ‘am’ and so on can ‘be’ reduced through the use of English Prime. This idea ‘is’ to essentially stop or avoid as much as possible using passive voice statements because they don’t accurately reflect reality.

For example if you said that all duality relations ‘are’ conflict free and ideal for marriage then you might mirror the opinion of the larger community but fail to recognise that reality from different points of view does not always agree.

In essence, using a lot of passive voice statements closes down your thinking whilst active voice statements re-open your thinking whereby there ‘is’ always something more to ‘be’ said.

Of course the curse of ‘is’ and ‘are’ etc. ‘is’ passable with the use of speech marks to at least show you have an awareness of this issue. It ‘is’ also because I ‘am’ too lazy to expand my reality right now and write this post exclusively in e-prime.