There is an ironbound rule in handling things:

I recently surveyed a number of possible new outpoints. Almost all of them were simply the basic outpoints in a different guise and needed no special category.

However, two new outpoints did emerge that are in addition to the basic number.

If several outpoints come to view in any scene (or even one), if you look further you will find a situation.

The new outpoints are

There is not any real art to finding situations if you can see outpoints.

ADDED TIME. In this outpoint we have the reverse of dropped time. In added time we have, as the most common example, something taking longer than it possibly could. To this degree it is a version of conflicting data = something takes three weeks to do but it is reported as taking six months. But added time must be called to attention as an outpoint in its own right for there is a tendency to be reasonable about it and not see that it IS an outpoint in itself.

The sequence is simple. (1) You see some outpoints in a scene, (2) you investigate and "pull a few strings" (meaning follow down a chain of outpoints) and (3) you will find a situation, and (4) then you can evaluate.

In its most severe sense, added time becomes a very serious outpoint when, for example, two or more events occur at the same moment involving, let us say, the same person who could not have experienced both. Time had to be added to the physical universe for the data to be true. Like this: “I left for Saigon at midnight on April 21st, 1962, by ship from San Francisco.” “I took over my duties at San Francisco on April 30th, 1962.” Here we have to add time to the physical universe for both events to occur as a ship would take two or three weeks to get from San Francisco to “Saigon.”

Statistics are leaders in pointing the way. They should be X, they are not X. That is conflicting data. Behind that you will find a situation.

Another instance, a true occurrence and better example of added time happened when I once sent a checklist of actions it would take a month to complete to a junior executive and received compliance in full in the next return mail. The checklist was in her hands only one day! She would have had to add 29 days to the physical universe for the compliance report to be true. This is also dropped time on her part.

If anyone has any trouble finding situations then one of three things is true (a) he cannot recognize outpoints when he sees them, (b) he does not have any concept of the ideal scene or want it, or (c) he does not know how to pull strings, which is to say ask for or look for data.

ADDED INAPPLICABLE DATA. Just plain added data does not necessarily constitute an outpoint. It may be someone being thorough. But when the data is in no way applicable to the scene or situation and is added it is a definite outpoint.

On the positive side, to find situations one has to (A) be able to recognize outpoints, (B) has to have some idea of an ideal scene and want it, and (C) has to be able to "pull strings."

Example: Long, long reams of data on an eval write-up, none of which is giving any clue to the outpoints on the scene. By actual survey it was found that the person doing it did not know any Why (not having used outpoints to find it) and was just stalling.

Evaluation is very much simpler when you realize that the art lies in finding situations. To then find a Why is of course only a matter of counting outpoints and recognizing what (that can be handled) is retarding the achievement of a more ideal scene.

Often added data is put there to cover up neglect of duty or mask a real situation. It certainly means the person is obscuring something.

Usually added data also contains other types of outpoints like wrong target or added time.

One often wonders why people are so "reasonable" about intolerable and illogical situations.

In using this outpoint be very sure you also understand the word inapplicable and see that it is only an outpoint if the. data itself does not apply to the subject at hand.

The answer is very simple: they cannot recognize outpoints when they see them and so try to make everything seem logical.

There is more about another already named outpoint:

The ability to actually see an outpoint for what it is, in itself is an ability to attain some peace of mind. For one can realize it is what it is, an outpoint. It is not a matter for human emotion and reaction. It is a pointer toward a situation.

WRONG SOURCE. This is the opposite direction from wrong target.

The moment you can see this you will be able to handle life a lot better.

An example would be a president of the United States in 1973 using the opinions and congratulations of Soviet leaders to make his point with American voters.

The human reaction is to REACT! to an outpoint. And then get "reasonable" and adopt some explanation for it, usually untrue.

A more common version of this, not unknown in intelligence report grading for probability, would be a farmer in Iowa reporting a Mexican battleship on Mud Creek. The farmer would be a wrong source for accurate naval reports.

You can safely say that "being reasonable" is a symptom of being unable to recognize outpoints for what they are and use them to discover actual situations.

A private taking an order from a sergeant that countermands an order he had from a lieutenant would be an example of wrong source.

What is sometimes called a “Hey You” “organization” is one that takes orders from anyone = a repeating outpoint of wrong source.

It may come as a surprise or no surprise at all that the ability to evaluate as given in this Data Series is not necessarily native to a being.

There are many examples of this outpoint. It must be included as a very important outpoint on its own. It produces a chaos of illogical ideas and actions when present.

In a native state a being detests illogic and rejects it. He seldom uses it for any other purposes than humor or showing up a rival in debate as a fool or using it in justice or a court of law to prove the other side wrong or guilty.

A being is dedicated to being logical and he does, usually, a wonderful job of it.

CORRECT TIME or the expected time period is a pluspoint.

But when he encounters illogic he often feels angry or frustrated or helpless.

ADEQUATE DATA is a pluspoint.

He has not, so far as I know, ever used illogic as a systematic tool for thinking.

APPLICABLE DATA is a pluspoint.

Certain obsolete efforts to describe Man's thinking processes stressed "associative thought" and various other mechanisms to prove Man a fully logical "animal." The moment they tried to deal with illogic they assigned it to aberration and sought drugs, tortures or executions that would "cure it." None of them ever thought of using illogic as a tool of rational thinking! Thus they did not advance anyone's intelligence and conceived intelligence as unchangeable and fixed.

CORRECT SOURCE is a pluspoint.

The only Greek school of philosophy that dealt with illogic was the Sophist school. But even they had no real idea of the illogic. They were employed by politicians to make their political acts seem reasonable!

Even humorists have no real idea of illogic. Reading their ideas of the theory of humor shows them to be off the mark. They don't really know what is "funny."

Laughter is rejection, actually.

And humor you will find usually deals with one or another outpoint put in such a way that the reader or audience can reject it.

The groan of most humorists is that too often their hearers go reasonable on them. PAT: "Who was that hobo I saw you with last night?" MIKE: "That wasn't no oboe, that was my fife." LISTENER (puzzled): "But maybe it was a very slender hobo."

The tendency of a being is to try to keep it reasonable, logical, rational. And that is of course a very praiseworthy impulse or all life's endeavors might unhinge.

The fear of being illogical is a secret fear of being crazy or insane. (Not an idle fear when psychiatry was roaming around loose.) Or at the least being thought a fool or dullard or at the very very least, unworldly and uneducated.

To evaluate and be a fine evaluator is to be able to prevent a slump toward a painful collapse. And to be able to steer the way from the non-ideal present to the ideal future.

A person who feels queasy about his sanity really doesn't dare look at outpoints or confront and use illogic. Yet it is the way to full sanity itself.

The ability to evaluate puts one at cause over both the mad and ideal. It places a being at a height it is unlikely he has ever before enjoyed in the realm of commanding the situations of life.

Evaluation is a new way to think.

It is very worthwhile to acquire such an ability as it is doubtful if it ever before has been achieved.