The Secrets of Mind

Find out what you don’t know about it

To Say or To Suggest?


Have you ever noticed how quickly you can refuse to do something if you were asked to do that? It is normally enough to simply say ‘no’. Why is it that easy and how to make it more difficult for others to refuse from what you want them to do? Read onwards to find the answer and you will see how quickly you can understand this technique and apply it immediately to everyday life situations that you previously didn’t have success at. 

There is a lot to human nature that makes us see the freedom that we will have by making our own decisions. Hence, when we are obliged by others to do something we immediately notice that and special protection inside us gets activated. It tells us that our freedom has been discriminated and that it may be dangerous or unpleasant for us so we naturally start to resist that. We start to try to get our freedom back by refusing to do the orders of other people. Otherwise, we could be easily controlled by anyone without that person even building rapport with us and I think I don’t have to explain to you what our world would be like if it were so.

That all means that you shouldn’t get surprised when people are not willing to do something that you asked them to even if they are your kids, colleagues or husband…

Instead, try to make the visibility of their choice while keeping your initial intentions in place. It is called ‘ making a pseudo-choice’. By making a pseudo-choice you’re giving the same command to a person as in direct orders but the difference is that the result is effective. An example of pseudo-choice is introducing an ‘or’ statement into your expression. So if you want your kids to tidy up their room it wouldn’t be really effective to just say: ‘Jamie, tidy up your room!’ or even ‘Kelly, tidy up your room please’.  This is what most parents would say if they wanted their children to tidy up their rooms but in a lot of cases those parents wouldn’t be pleased with the results.

The more effective way of doing this is the following:

1. ‘Jamie, would you like to tidy up your room OR have your dinner first?’

2. ‘Kelly, would you like to tidy up your room before OR after you get disappointed with the way it looks?’

3. ‘Chloe, would you like to tidy up your room before OR after i get really upset that it’s messy?’

If your children still resist doing what you ask them, say: ‘ I just want to give you some choice, otherwise I can’t ‘ 

How to use this technique?

Always talk with a calm but firm voice and lowered intonation. Don’t show other people that you get really nervous about something that you want them to do because it’s such a big deal for you. Try to seem relaxed, be relaxed. It should look like they are doing what you’re telling them because any bad outcome of their disagreement with you will not be your fault or concern.

So, pseudo-choice statement:

  • ‘Would you like to finish the project before or after you may start to worry that it’s too late ‘

And now, compare it with the following:

‘Finish the project! We can get late!’

I’m now sure that you will make the right choice.

© Efim Bychkunov. All Rights Reserved.                                             


February 6, 2008 Posted by | Psychological Tricks | 8 Comments

Did Universe Always Exist?

Did Universe Always Exist?

This question has always worried people as its answer
may define us in terms of our origin and will explain to us the history of the
universe. There have been a lot of theories regarding this point and a lot of
people tried to explain it in the way they considered logical or ‘proper’.

However, people change as well as time does, and what was
considered absolutely true in the past becomes irrelevant in the present.
Dogmatic ideas now have no priority at all and it’s time to look at things from
a new perspective testing all the theories where possible.

After a long time of filtering of such theories many
researchers have arrived at one of the most popular present ideas about the
origin of the universe which can be stated concisely in the following way: our
universe always existed. As logic testing of this theory may be disputable it
became one of the favorite ideas about the origin of the universe.

Not everyone can easily imagine the possibility of anything that never ends or has no
beginning. It is so that whenever a person thinks of something that has no
beginning, he or she imagines its progress as limited time periods following one
another and logically adds the fact that the sequence of these periods had no
starting point. But that person could not be able to imagine the whole process
of infinity. It means that whenever we think of something that has no end or
beginning we normally perceive its infinity as an object with boundaries that
represents absence of end or beginning but not the whole infinite time period.

To demonstrate the way people view infinity in
comparison with ‘limited’ concepts I will give you now an exercise. Imagine
some limited area and two small red bars. Very simple, isn’t it? And now
imagine one million red bars on the same area or better one quintillion. Now,
you noticed that in the first case you could distinctly imagine two red
bars and you didn’t have to count, you could simply visualize it. But in the
second case you wouldn’t select visualizing one million red bars in front of
your eyes because you could represent the number as a concept and combine it
with the image of a red bar. When I asked you to imagine one million bars you could do so
without seeing one million bars and without counting them using what
I call Conventional Representation.

Throughout lifetime we perceive the reality and categorize
objects that we encounter, we form concepts based on combination
of observation and fundamental logical deductions. Any logical thinking can
promote the observations as it goes beyond what we see.  And this can be simply
demonstrated on the way we count.  To know how to count we
have to know what’s the smallest part of the concept is and what can be done
with it. For example, if we know that the smallest element is one and we can add it, then we
can add it to itself to get number ‘two’, therefore we received a new concept
‘two’. As we arrived to a new deduction from a ground concept we can then use
this deduction as a ground concept to receive a new deduction and so on.
Therefore, we can arrive at very complex concepts. But whenever we have to
recall the last deduction we will not have to go through all previous stages
because we already formed a concept. Whenever this complex notion has to be
recalled it will not be fully revisited, but the reference to that concept will
be present. Such a reference will let you understand what the concept is about
and what it means without going through the concept itself, unless you want to
do so.

Now if I asked you to imagine infinite number of red
bars on a limited area you would still be able to understand what I am talking
about. However, unlimited number of bars which take certain amount of space of
the field is impossible on a limited area. A limited area would never suffice
to contain unlimited number of objects because they are all are using its
‘resources’ (space) which are limited.

People normally represent infinity as no-end
continuation of existence. Infinity in the human mind is a generic concept. And
generic concepts can even be mistakenly combined in unrealistic or absolutely
impossible ways by some people, and as some areas of the concept elements are
not referenced, because they haven’t been considered, there may be contradictions
in coexistence of these concepts which are also ignored. As well as there is a
contradiction in understanding of infinite number of red bars on a limited area,
but if we ignore the fact that red bars take space or any resources at all it
may be possible  because the red bars
will no longer be dependent on limited characteristics of the area they are
located on.

A sequence of events took place in the existence of
the universe. As any sequence it has limited characteristics of events and their
order. Finally we formed the deduction
that if we represent the sequence of events before moment now as real matters,
then the universe would not have to be bound by their limited characteristics to
reach the moment now if it always existed. So it means it would have to
overcome unlimited continuation of limited sequences before present moment and
to do so the existence of the universe must not be interdependent or logically
connected with limited characteristics of this continuation as well as infinite
number of bars on a limited area discussed previously which means that the
existence of the universe must not exist.
Now you see that this point contradicts itself or it appears to be that
to accept it we should be fine with theory that we and our universe do not

Anything that can be represented as a whole or item
can be divided into smaller parts or can be divided by two equal parts as
otherwise it would not have enough matter to be considered as something that
exists. A second, for example, can be divided infinite number of times. But the
number of particles each time it is divided will always be finite. It is
impossible to create an infinite number of particles for a matter to consist of
as this way it is not defined as an object or any finite matter. Each time the
division of a second occurs it will result in a finite number of parts that can
be enumerated to reach from the start of a second to its end. The division
itself can be eternal but the resulted outcome will always have boundaries.

Just think about it, if you subtract a million from
infinity it will still be infinity, if you add a million to infinity it will
still be infinity and even if you divide it, it will still be infinity.

Researchers may still argue that at some stage the universe was
a solid nothing and that time did not exist then, that nothing
always existed and then suddenly the universe appeared out of it.

If the existence of nothing as a solid mass with no
time and space took place then the universe would never appear as without time
there is no progression of events and hence no change of state, the boundaries
of past and present are not defined or there is no difference between them. So
the state in which time exists would never come because a change of state
itself requires the existence of time as no past states can be present if there
is no past or present at all. So any change of state will require the one
currently present to be replaced, otherwise, it is the same state. And any
change of state of any matter cannot be reached with the present state of this
matter being the same so for any change to apply the current state needs to be
in the past implying the existence of present and past, therefore, the
existence of time.

© Efim Bychkunov. All Rights Reserved.

December 21, 2007 Posted by | General | Leave a comment