The biggest "omitted data" would be the whole scene.

A person who does not know how the scene should be can thereafter miss most of the outpoints in it.

An example is the continual rewrite of the International Code (signaling by flags between ships) by some "convention" composed of clerks who have never gone to sea. Not knowing the scene, the International Code of Signals now contains "How are your kidneys?" but nothing about lifeboats.

College education became rather discredited in Europe until students were required to work in areas of actual practice as part of their studies. Educated far from reality students had "no scene." Thus no data they had was related by them to an actual activity. There was even an era when the "practical man" or "practical engineer" was held in contempt. That was when the present culture started to go down.

On the other hand one of the most long-lived activities around is the wine industry of Portugal. It has almost no theory trained. It is total scene. Every job in it is by apprenticeship for years. It is very constant and very successful.

A good blend would be theory and practical in balance. That gives one data and activity. But it could be improved by stressing also the ideal scene.

Data classifies in similar connections or similar locations.

A body of data is associated by the subject to which it is applicable or by the geographical area to which it belongs.

A body of data can also be grouped as to time, like an historical period.

Illogic occurs when one or more data is misplaced into the wrong body of data for it.

An example would be "Los Angeles smog was growing worse so we fined New York." That is pretty obviously a misplace.

"Cars were no longer in use. Bacterial warfare had taken its toll."

"I am sorry madam but you cannot travel first class on a third class passport."

Humanoid response to such displacements is to be reasonable. A new false datum is dreamed up and put into the body of data to explain why that datum is included. (Reasonableness is often inserted as explanation of other outpoints also.)

In the smog one, it could be dreamed up that New York's exports or imports were causing LA smog.

In the car one, it could be imagined that bacteriological warfare had wiped out all the people.

In the train one, it could be inserted that in that country, passports were used instead of tickets.

The brain strains to correctly classify data into its own zones and is very rejective or imaginative when it is not.

Intelligence tests accidentally use this one very often.

It remains that an outpoint can occur when a datum belonging to one zone of data, location or time, is inserted into another zone where it doesn't.

Algebra is sometimes hard to learn for some because NUMBERS are invaded by LETTERS. 2x = 10. X is of course 5. But part of a new student's mind says letters are letters and make words.

Primitive rejective responses to foreigners is a mental reaction to a body of people, in this case, being invaded by a person not of that tribe.

If the scene is wholly unknown, one doesn't know what data belongs to it. Thus a sense of confusion results. Recruits can be sent for ruddy rods for rifles and apprentice painters can be ordered to get cans of sky blue lampblack.

A sense of humor is in part an ability to spot outpoints that should be rejected from a body of data. In fact a sense of humor is based on both rejection and absurd outpoints of all types.

Reasonable people accept displacements with an amazing tranquility by imagining connecting links or assuming they do not know the ideal scene. A reasonable person would accept a pig in a parlor by imagining that there was a good reason for it. And leave the pig in the parlor and revise their own ideal scene!

Yet pigs belong to a body of data including barns, pens, farms, animals. And parlors belong to a body of data including teacups, knickknacks, conversation and humans.

Possibly Professor Wundt who "discovered" in 1879 that humans were animals had seen too many pigs in parlors! And based the whole of "psychology" on a confusion of bodies of data!

Murder in a hospital, as done by psychiatry, would be a confusion of bodies of actions. Actions belong to their own bodies of data.

One drives a car, rides a horse. One doesn't ride a car but one can drive a horse. But the action, the motions involved with, driving a horse are very different than those used in driving a car. This is a language breakdown called a "homonym." One word means two different things. Japanese is an easy language except for its use of the same word for several different things. Two Japanese talking commonly have to draw Chinese characters (Japanese is written with Chinese characters) to each other to unravel what they mean. They are in a perpetual struggle to pry apart bodies of data.

"1234 Red 789 P 987 Green 432 Apple" as a statement would probably tie up CIA codebreakers for weeks as they would know it was a code. The same statement would tie up a football coach as he would know it was a team play. A mathematician would know it fitted into some other activity than his. Hardly anyone would classify it as a totally meaningless series of symbols.

So there is a reverse compulsion - to try to fit any datum found into some body of data.

The mind operates toward logic, particularly in classes of things.

The sensible handling of data of course includes spotting a datum, terminal, item, action, grouped in with a body of data wrong for it. And in spotting that a datum does not have to belong anywhere at all.

Included in mental abilities is putting similar data into one type of action, items, or data. Car parts, traffic rules, communications, are each a body of data in which one can fit similar data.

When a person has some idea of the scene involved, he should be able to separate the data in it into similar groups.

An org board is an example of this. Sections are broad classes of action or items into which one can fit the related data. Departments are a broader body of related data, actions, items. Divisions are even broader but still cover related classes of data. The whole org is a very broad class of data, determined in part by the type of product being made.

If a person has trouble relating data to its proper body of data (if he were unaware or "reasonable") he would have an awful lot of trouble finding his way around an org or routing despatches or getting things or wearing his own hat.

Orders are a broad class of data. Orders from proper sources is a narrower body of data. If a person cannot tell the difference he will follow anyone's orders. And that will snarl him up most thoroughly.

I once knew a carpenter so obliging and so unable to classify orders that he built knickknacks, cabinets, shelves, for any staff member who asked and wasted all the time and materials and orders from his boss that were to have built a house! The house materials and money and the carpenter's time and pay were all expended without anything of value to show for it! Not only was he unable to relate orders to their own classes but also couldn't relate materials and plans to a house!

In most miscarriages of projects it will be found that someone on the line cannot relate data or actions to their own classes. Along with this goes other illogics.

So the ability to spot illogics in a known scene can directly relate to efficiency and even to success and survival.

A switch intended for a house put into an airplane electrical system cuts out at 30,000 feet due to the wrong metal to withstand cold and there goes the airplane. A part from one class of parts is included wrongly in another class of parts.

So there is an INCORRECTLY INCLUDED DATUM which is a companion to the OMITTED DATUM as an outpoint.

This most commonly occurs when, in the mind, the scene itself is missing and the first thing needed to classify data (scene) is not there.

An example is camera storage by someone who has no idea of types of cameras. Instead of classifying all the needful bits of a certain view camera in one box, one inevitably gets the lens hoods of all cameras jumbled into one box marked "lens hoods." To assemble or use the view camera one spends hours trying to find its parts in boxes neatly labeled "camera backs," "lenses," "tripods," etc.

Here, when the scene of what a set up view camera looks like and operates like, is missing, one gets a closer identification of data than exists. Lens hoods are lens hoods. Tripods are tripods. Thus a wrong system of classification occurs out of scene ignorance.

A traveler unable to distinguish one uniform from another "solves" it by classifying all uniforms as "porters." Hands his bag to an arrogant police captain and that's how he spent his vacation, in jail.

Lack of the scene brings about too tight an identification of one thing with another. This can also exclude a vital bit making a disassociation.

A newly called-up army lieutenant passes right on by an enemy spy dressed as one of his own soldiers. An experienced sergeant right behind him claps the spy in jail accurately because "he wasn't wearing 'is 'at the way we do in the Fusileers!"

Times change data classification. In 1920 anyone with a camera near a seaport was a spy. In 1960 anyone not carrying a camera couldn't be a tourist so was watched!

So the scene for one cultural period is not the scene for another.

Thus a class of data for a given time belongs broadly or narrowly to itself. Including a datum in it or from another time or excluding a datum from it, or forcing a datum to have a class can in any combination produce an illogical situation.

Some knowledge of the scene itself is vital to an accurate and logical assembly or review of data.

The scene therefore, knowledge of, is the basic "omitted data."

The remedy of course is to get more data on what the scene itself really should consist of. When the scene is missing one has to study what the scene is supposed to consist of, just not more random data about it.