This is G o o g l e's cache of
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

Failure-To-Judge Syndrome

NT Home Page
Money/Power/Love Advantages
Search WWW Search

Neo-Tech Home Page
The Ultimate Leverage for Riches

Next Page | Contents | Feedback for Valuable/New Information | Previous Page

Neo-Tech Advantage #93

A central theme of today's existentialist culture is "do not judge others". The neocheating media, social "intellectuals", and theologians continually tout, both implicitly and explicitly, the themes "do not judge others", "there are no absolute morals, no rights or wrongs", "everything is relative". Neocheaters have strong motivations for sowing themes of nonknowing and nonjudgment. Their livelihoods depend on keeping others from knowing and judging the parasitism and destruction inflicted by professional mystics and neocheaters onto society.

The continuous campaign to repress moral judgment depends largely on the specious technique of pointing to various erroneous judgments and then implying that such errors are inherent in all judgments. From that false reasoning, neocheaters dishonestly assert that all moral judgments are wrong, unfair, or harmful. From that conclusion, they compound their dishonesty by further asserting that moral judgments should never be made. Moreover, armed with specious egalitarian slogans or Biblical parables, those neocheaters, especially media journalists, malign or castigate those who have the courage and confidence to make honest moral judgments about value destroyers. While, at the same time, those same neocheaters constantly, dishonestly, hypocritically attack their victims (i.e., the value producers) with negative moral judgements that are false.

How are valid moral judgments made? Such judgments are made by using the biological nature and well-being of the conscious organism as the moral standard. With that objective standard, human actions can be consistently and validly judged by acquiring adequate facts and knowledge:

1. Only volitional actions involving conscious choices can be morally judged. All other actions are amoral.

2. A volitional action is moral, for example, if the action is beneficial to the conscious organism. Likewise, a volitional action is immoral if the action is harmful to the conscious organism. Or more simply, if a volitional action is rational and "good for me", it is moral; or if a volitional action is irrational and "bad for me", it is immoral.

3. The ability and willingness to make moral judgments are necessary to make sound decisions and function effectively. The more important the personal or business decision, the more important is the need to make accurate moral judgments. In turn, such judgments are crucial for making the correct decisions needed for abiding prosperity, happiness, and romantic love.

Since making moral judgments is necessary for quality survival, a person must be aware of the possible traps and errors in making such judgments. Some of the traps and errors are those that the nonjudgment advocates take out of context to support their harangues that moral judgments should be avoided. ...Three common judgment traps or errors are listed below:

1. Erroneous or inadequate information to make a valid or accurate judgment is the most obvious and common cause of judgment errors. Everyone is subject to this error. But that does not preclude certainty over moral issues and judgments. The central argument of the nonjudgment neocheaters is that since no one can know everything or be error free, no one can be certain about anything, especially moral issues.[ 60 ] That argument is false. A person can be absolutely certain if given sufficient facts and context to validly measure against the axioms of objective reality. For example, questions of omniscience (knowing everything) and infallibility (being totally free of errors) do not enter into one's certainty of the axiomatic fact that two plus two equals four. The certainty of that fact is independent of anyone's thoughts or opinions of any culture, society, or time in history. And that fact also holds with certainty in other worlds and other universes. Indeed, that fact would hold true if no conscious life ever existed anywhere.[ 61 ]

In the normal context, therefore, anyone can be absolutely certain about the judgment and knowledge that two plus two equals four without fear of error or contradiction. Likewise, without being omniscient or infallible, a person can be absolutely certain that one will not be struck by a car while riding in an airplane at 30,000 feet. A neocheating philosophy professor might try to invalidate that certainty by positing the non sequitur that someone could smuggle a mini car aboard, unveil it, drive down the aisle, and strike someone.

With neocheaters and their non sequiturs dismissed, one can know with certainty the facts of objective reality on which abiding prosperity, happiness, and romantic love are based as identified by Neo-Tech. For, those facts of objective reality have always existed throughout the universe and will forever exist with certainty. And that certainty exists independent of consciousness and without requiring omniscience or infallibility by anyone. The function of human consciousness is not to "create" various realities (Plato), which is mysticism, but to identify and integrate the one and only reality as it resides anchored in existence (Aristotle). Identifying objective reality is the survival mechanism of conscious beings. For those identifications are the basis of rational judgments, beneficial actions, and rational successes.

Since no one is omniscient or infallible, everyone is subject to specific errors. But that vulnerability to errors has no bearing on knowing objective reality or being able to make moral judgments with certainty. For example, with inadequate information and judgment errors, a person can temporarily choose the wrong romantic-love partner. But, at the same time, he or she can still know with certainty the objective standards needed for a valid romantic-love relationship. With that certainty, a person can more quickly recognize and correct such judgment errors. In other words, with adequate objective knowledge, a person can make moral judgments with certainty without being omniscient or infallible.

A person can confidently proceed through life knowing that moral and character judgment can be performed with certainty. But again, that person must be aware of those areas subject to error because of inaccurate or incomplete knowledge or information. By always keeping the mind open to new information and being prepared to correct errors, the damage of judgment errors is minimized. All errors cause some damage, if only to waste a person's time. By nature, one is always responsible for and must bear the consequences of his or her actions and errors, innocent or not. But purposeful errors, of course, carry more severe consequences than innocent errors.

2. Infatuation is a subtler and often a more dangerous judgment error, especially when it occurs without realizing the error. Infatuation is the focusing on a single attractive or desirable characteristic of another person and then considering the total person as that one positive attribute. Infatuation is not only an unfair burden placed on the person being judged, but can lead to long-range disillusionment and pain for the person making the erroneous judgment. The infatuation-judgment error is a common "true-love-turns-sour" theme so often used in movies, novels, and magazine fiction. Infatuation is also the judgment error that delivers undeserved adulation to charismatic politicians, evangelists, and other neocheaters.

3. Reverse Infatuation is perhaps the most subtle form of judgment error. Still, reverse infatuation is a common error that can cause losses of potential values and happiness. Reverse infatuation involves the focusing on a negative characteristic of an individual and then considering that total person as that one negative attribute. That judgment error can be blinding, depriving, and unjust in obscuring areas of earned values and worth in other individuals. Even minor reverse infatuation puts unjust penalties on the person being judged. While valid criticisms about an individual should be identified and expressed when appropriate, the criticism should explicitly focus on those specific issues, not on the whole person. Reverse infatuation is constantly used as a grossly unfair, dishonest technique by media people as well as by politicians, clergymen, and academics to discredit value producers and their products, businesses, and ideas.

* * *


Segmented judging is a method to decrease judgment errors. This method provides a more fair, accurate, and valuable way to judge individuals, especially those important to one's life. This method is particularly important for judging potential romantic-love partners.

Segmented judging consists of two essential parts: First, the recognition that people are many-faceted combinations of complex character traits -- usually combinations consisting mainly of objectively positive traits with some (often hidden) negative traits.[ 62 ] And second, objective judgments require a breaking down of those various character traits into as many separate components as possible.

Once that breakdown is done, one can make more fair and accurate judgments by weighing specific positive traits against specific negative traits ("positive to me" values versus "negative to me" values[ 63 ]). The extent that the positive values outweigh the negative values is the extent one makes a positive moral judgment. Similarly, the extent that "positive to me" values outweigh the "negative to me" disvalues is the extent one makes a positive personal-value judgment.

During a person's life, many of the personal "to me" values can change. But objective moral values are constant and never change.

The most useful and accurate method to judge a potential romantic-love partner (or any person) is on a segmented "value-scale" basis. One cannot judge the whole of an individual on any specific aspect of his or her character, personality, actions, words, or behavior. Exclusively focusing on specific aspects of a person yields distorted, infatuation-type judgments. Instead, one should judge an individual by placing all the known characteristics and qualities of that person on either the "value to me" side or the "disvalue to me" side of the balance scale [Re: Table 58, Neo-Tech Reference Encyclopedia]. The person is then judged by the extent that the scale tips to the value side or to the disvalue side.

The evaluation of each person should always be kept open. In accumulating more experience or information about any person, the balance tilt can change. Growth, change, or deterioration of either the person doing the judging or the person being judged can cause the "value scale" to tilt more or less in one direction or even to switch to the other direction.

The "value to me" standard is the most reliable, valuable way for an individual to judge the personal value of another individual. The direction and extent the "value scale" tilts is influenced by the personal-value system of the individual making the judgment. For the value weights often depend on personal wants, goals, needs and thus will vary from individual to individual.

The same value scale can be used to measure the moral value of any individual. Unlike the subjective nature of many personal values, moral values are objective, definable, unchanging absolutes. [Re: Table 58, Neo-Tech Reference Encyclopedia] ...Personal values are both objective and subjective, thus vary according to personal tastes and emotions. But moral values are objective and absolute, thus never vary.

Next Page | Contents | Feedback for Valuable/New Information | Previous Page


[ 60 ] The certainty issue is a popular non-sequitur gimmick amon g anti-judgment mystics and neocheaters. They assert (often with ironic certainty) that since man cannot be certain about anything, he cannot know anything. If that assertion were so, which it is not, then all judgments and reason itself would be invalid. But professional mystics and neocheaters must constantly promote the false notions that reason is impotent and moral judgments are invalid. ...They must obfuscate reason and judgment to keep their own destructions from being recognized and judged by themselves and others. In a society of reason and judgment, the value producers would promptly put professional value destroyers out of business.

[ 61 ] Certain out-of-context, non-sequitur anomalies are used by neocheaters and mystics to falsely invalidate axiomatic facts such as two plus two equals four. They point to the mixing of two quarts of water with two quarts of alcohol. That mixture yields less than four quarts. But that anomaly occurs because of certain known intermolecular-bonding forces between water and alcohol. Such physical-bonding facts have nothing more to do with mathematical facts than if one tosses two parts of sodium metal into two parts of water to produce a fiery explosion and a caustic mess that does not equal four. But, ironically, both of those reactions can be precisely predicted and understood because of the exact, absolute nature of mathematics. ...Or the neocheaters and mystics point to various examples of relativistic, noneuclidean mathematics or quantum mechanics that seem to contradict standard mathematics or physics. Such illusionary contradictions arise only because those facts have nothing to do with standard mathematics or physics. Yet, those facts are dishonestly used out of context to create false illusions of contradiction.

[ 62 ] Value destroyers such as politicians and religious leaders are less complex than a value producer. For, they have more narrow or limited, anti-life characteristics. Moreover, all neocheaters have essentially the same destructive character. They differ mainly in their dishonest styles and the deceptions they project in concealing their harmful actions. ...All professional value destroyers, if given the guns and authority, have the criminal minds and characters for mass murdering to protect and expand their bogus livelihoods.

[ 63 ] To the extent that personal "to-me" values contradict objective values is the extent that one is judging on erroneous philosophical or moral premises. Segmented judgment is thus not only helpful for judging others, but is helpful for judging one's own values.

Not all "to-me" values, however, can be measured against objective moral standards. Many "to-me" values are personal-preference values that have no bearing on moral issues. For example, differences in attraction to various physical or personality aspects of another person or preferences towards different careers, recreational activities, tastes, intellectual interests, and appreciation of art and music usually (but not always) have no direct moral implications. Many personal values are merely preferences and tastes that develop from past experiences, interests, and motivations that are not grounded in right or wrong issues, but arise from the uniqueness of the individual and his or her past experiences and development.

Next Page | Top of Page