Where the Knowledge Meets the Node!
- To find out if raising a human's mentally
malfunctioning brain's negatron content via the elevation of
that human's air supply's negatron content increases that
subject's ability to function mentally more appropriately.
- If you could establish that the answer to #1 of XII
was that a subject's ability to function mentally was improved
via the elevation of that subject's brain's negatron content,
the next goal would be to find out by what, more natural, means
could one derive the same result with stresses on obtaining the
least dramatic unwanted side effects, not the least of which is
the expenditure of yet greater amounts funding, unless of course
your job entailed seeking faster ways to use up people's excess
assets for them, so that they would be driven to staying busy,
so that they could keep their minds off of what was bothering
them. (A little joke: maybe so; maybe not so.)
- A mentally sub-optimally functioning human. What can you say?
They/we exist. You probably are aware of one or two, or possibly
you could be able to admit that at some points of your own life,
your reasoning power could have been better. If however, you
wanted one that you could use that you could be sure wasn't
going to endanger your data via their possibly skewing it by
introducing a placebo effect component into it, you could
select for your subject, provided one was at your disposal, an
autistic child, possibly, or a child that had ADD; the target
feature here being the subjects lack of cognizance of your
intentions. This property of your experiment could prevent this
introduction of this synthetic factor into your data.
Breathing a somewhat negatronified air supply has, only derived
beneficial results, in my case, IMO. If after you
experienced the beneficial effects of a GIN�
yourself, so that you feel that it could be beneficial
for some other particular person, it seems as though it would be
an omission on your part to avoid attempting to assist them via
its use, kind of; wouldn't it?
Let me add though that if the person were able to understand
what you were trying to do, I believe that you should tell them
what is going on, because if you didn't and you hooked up a GIN�
on them, they could wind up making incorrect calculations about
what was occurring in their world and somehow suffer, due to
their then, generated by you, synthetically skewed reality base.
The effect could be like spiking their life with an
hallucinogenic drug, or something. I, for one, like to know why
what is happening is occurring. Knowledge of why is what
you would be denying people if you didn't inform them of your
actions when they could understand what you were up to. It would
be like treating that other person like they were something less
than what you were. That's not good for either of you,
especially you, if someone that doesn't like you finds out about
it after something has gone askew in your plans. The more ideas,
in the more heads the more stable reality is. Let your subject
in on your plan if they can understand you. They will appreciate
what you are doing the more if they deserve your help and if
they don't want you to try to help them, there are a whole lot
of other people around that probably won't mind your assistance
- A GIN (Generator Injecting Negatrons; negative ion
- Privately write down the main points that you
notice about the subject's behavior that seems to be skewed in
some fashion from what you consider to be normal while you also
write down what you figure to be normal, so that someone can see
later which was the more prominent feature of your experiment�the
ion generator, the subject, or you. (A little joke, maybe, but
maybe not, also.)
- Get a GIN going pretty close to where the subject
sleeps, and then if you can, have one running where they spend
most of their active time too�the
Play Room, TV Room, Day Room, etc.
- Write down your observations of the behavior that
you notice. Try to be honest about what you are witnessing. If
you are working with a subject that is incapable of installing a
placebo effect factor, that doesn't mean that your observational
abilities are not vulnerable to like phenomena. Keeping the
writing of your observations as simple as possible may help them
be accurate. Write down only observations in this step, not
interpretations. Let me add here that the ability to accurately
observe, devoid of interpretation, seems to me to be one's who
is trying to find out the truth's greatest asset.
Fill this step out with the observations that you've written
down via doing section C of the experiment.
Fill out this step with your take on the phenomena that section
D of the experiment seems to be showing to you.
Fill out this step with your interpretation of how section E
of the experiment fits into the general scheme of
activity that it seems to be situated with you.
- Negatively electrically charged particles;
electrons, generally speaking