I speculate that many like to “win” an argument and be “right”. Some dread being demonstrably wrong. But the diamond sutra advises against seeking the absolute…

Our schooling demands answers which correspond in alignment to the quasi-consensual mark scheme. I have seen “A” level students marked wrong because, even though their answer was correct and accurate {according to my expert opinion}, it did not comply with the dogmatic mark scheme prepared by the thought police. Straying from the agreed dogma yields a poor grade and can prohibit further education.

There is an ethos to conclude, to be right, and to want to know where one stands. People can seek certitude when in fact there is none. They may misconstrue adamant assertion with accuracy and broad applicability. In fact, over simplification can be very attractive. There is a bit of laziness. Many rely on the imagined omniscience of “they”. If the herd deems it so, then it must be. Individual thinking and the expression thereof can lead to prompt and irrevocable social isolation.

One of things, I like to do is to take some kind of conceptual framework and then apply it to my life, to see if there is any fit. I don’t do this in a quantitative way rather I try it on like a moccasin. If it appears to fit as a thought experiment, I note the fit and then like a child with a sandcastle rub it out. I am really not fussed if I am right or wrong, nor with the quality of fit. I am fluid and don’t need fixed descriptors nor to be corralled by a conceptual framework. I am mindful that were the outcomes of these experiments accurate and those within the framework aware of this, implications might follow. Some of these within the model could be wide ranging.

Some might find this annoying.

“Tell me the answer!!!”

I also like the idea of all or nothing situations in which there is no negotiable middle ground. Herein lies a problem. Whenever I mention that I do not negotiate people immediately see it as a negotiation strategy which it is not. I am not responsible for the perceptions and conclusions of others. If they like to interact transactionally via negotiation, they may transfer their preference onto their interpretation of me. They may see me through their lens, which may have aberration and distortion.

Which model, which thought experiment applies? The answer is quite a few.

It would be very easy to characterise me as a spendthrift quasi-functional alcoholic who threw it all away, and as a result is a socially isolated loser eking out his end of days in self-induced poor health.

This model has only a very local implication and using Occam’s razor, paraphrased:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

As a model which fits it is the simplest and the best.

Therefore all other models are speculations and by way of embellishment.

People like complexity and may not be satisfied, though it is possible to leave things here with this characterisation. My (our) physical plane life does not impinge beyond a small geographical radius and a set of healthcare professionals. I very rarely travel more than 35km in radius. I have only travelled more than 150km once in six years.

There is no need to invoke any other explanation. I have played with various alternatives.

This then is a nothing situation, a null, a default

There are various other interpretations which may be a tad more grandiose, but although there is a hint of applicability, they are inconsistent with observable circumstance. These interpretations may further be inconvenient. Any model must have use or else it cannot be tested thus a theoretical possibility remains speculation and likely to fade into the mist. There is no point developing a use-less model, when viewed from one angle. Inconvenience is also not a desired property of a model. This can lead to jettison.

Reductionist thinking can limit but it also simplifies.

The thought experiment in the absence of tangible and measurable data often leads back to the null or near null hypothesis, which is the safe conclusion.

We all often unconsciously apply the model or bias which suits us best, which is easiest for us to assimilate and has little inconvenient implication for us.