Yeah, I thought. What an excellent burn. He laid down the law. He spoke the truth. I probably gave this too much thought when I was younger, but I didn't want people to call me naive. In fact, I wanted to be the one who called others naive. I think I can say without too much challenge, that we all attempt to be this way to a certain point. No one wants to be perceived as naive, but how far do we take this? What do we do and what do we believe to avoid being perceived as naive?

An old phrase in the police force is: "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see." I'm sure it's an almost mandatory phrase beat into every cop's mind on a daily basis, but most of us don't deal with the worst of humanity on a daily basis. Most of us can provide a little leeway to our fellow man when it comes to believing in the worst or the best of them.

Having said that, I hate salespeople. To me, salespeople are some of the worst of humanity. They seek out weakness, they seek pause, indecision, and momentary lapses of belief.

I am a processor. I take people, places and things, and I process the material they've given me before making a decision on anything. I'm rarely one who makes snap judgements about anything or anyone. I like to think I'm a quick wit who takes a half a second to evaluate something, but I'm not. I'm a processor. Salespeople hate processors, and I hate salespeople.

How many of us process the people, places and things in our lives before making such a judgement about them? Before answering, you must remember that most people see processors as slow. "How could it take you more than a minute to decide what you think about that?" they ask "Isn't it obvious??

Enter objective thinking. An objectivist thinker wonders what would happen if the opposite were the case. An objective thinker pauses.  An objective thinker appears to be indecisive.  An objective thinking may appear ensconced in a momentary lapse of understanding.  In truth, an objective thinker attempts to consider a matter from all sides.

If man is causing global warming, for example, what would the temperature of the Earth be if man had never existed? A decent objectivist thinker tackles a subject matter from an angle others may not have considered.

Are UFO's landing on planet Earth? Well, why would they come here? To study our planet? How would they get here? We've studied our immediate universe, and we've determined that there are no such life forms in our vicinity...Life forms that could gather a degree of advancement to visit our planet anyway. The answer to this, say some, is that they are so much more advanced than we are. First of all, we have no proof this whatsoever, and I challenge that very idea. Due to the fact that we have no proof of their advancement, I think that the belief of their superhuman advancement comes from our own insecurities. Also, if they were so advanced why would they continually visit us? If I had the chance to travel back in time and visit the cro-magnon man, I might...once. I might even do it twice. It would be one hell of a novelty after all, but I would soon grow bored. They would have nothing to offer me.

Well, they say, I have an open mind to the belief.  The implication, therein, is that you have a closed mind. This idea strengthens their resolve on the matter. But couldn't it be said that their mind is closed to the belief that they are, in fact, visiting us, and that they are superior to us? In questioning them, in such a fashion, you're denying them a degree of valor they have in being of a minority opinion. For it is in gaining entrance into the minority opinion, and the open minded, that one feels provides them a shield against ever being perceived as naive.

The defense against being perceived as naive also focuses on being on the right side of matters. On global warming, for example, the intellectual Al Gore has said that the science is in, and that there should be no more scientific refutation of the idea that man is causing global warming. Isn't the very idea of global waming based on science?

When can we ever close the door on the objectivist thinking in science? Some of the science that is in on global warming is negative, but is it simply easier to believe in the negative aspects of any matter? Does it protect us against appearing naive to believe in the negative? Or am I on the naive side of the issue?

As for determining which side is the right side, I wrote a piece for my novel on this topic that I feel concludes this piece well.

Larry: "On which facts do you base your opinion? Whose ideas? When you hear an idea from someone you respect, or side with, are you more susceptible to running out to the streets without questioning the facts of the matter? And when you hear someone of the opposing viewpoint, do you instantly question his motives and his agendas? It's a natural inclination of all to question the information they hear, but it's also the human condition to question the people with whom they differ before even considering the facts. You're held in a prism of idea by your philosophy of life."

Dominic: "Well, I don't do that."

Larry: "Everyone says that. Everyone considers this practice something only people on the other side of the aisle do."

Dominic: "I have a new definition of intelligence I've developed just for you."

Larry: "Do tell?"

Dominic: "Intelligence is not only knowing the facts but being able to analyze the facts. The definition of an intellect is one who not only knows the issues, but he knows them well enough to provide astute analysis. A man treads a fine line in analysis however. He reaches a breaking point in which he begins to eventually overanalyze. In other words, one can be intelligent if he studies a fact for a truth, because there are basic truths in life. If a man studies a fact for too long he begins to see things that are not, in fact, there. It's equivalent to those dot imaging paintings that were so fashionable in the late eighties/early nineties. Twelve people could stand around staring at the same painting, and they could all see twelve different things. Who's right in such a situation? Who cares? They've all spent so much time and energy trying to create a truth for themselves that they've lost the basics."