Ineffable Ontological Detanglement .: Introspective Assistance & Mental Analysis Manual
You know what this means, right? It means you're stupid. When you see your conscious mind going "I think I understand you, I think I understand this situation" you need to understand what this means is you do not. If you're doing this, at best you're only ever going to get lucky and have a partial but oversimplified understanding of the situation. You don't have the ability to grasp at people or situations, other people need to do it for you, you need to understand what type of people are allowed to do this for you. What you don't understand is that semi-consciously you're going "I don't get it, but what I have still seems relevant." You compartmentalize a faulty understanding, you shape your view of the world. The worse you are at this, the less sense any of your perceptual filters make, you run the possibility of becoming my favourite thing in the world, a person with contradictions in perception where neither end of the contradiction make any sense. A brain fog masterpiece.
Semi-consciously you pick up on clues about people, they're all based in your societal, religious, parental or experiential education. Not just how to interpret this clue, but, what you think is a clue. You don't even know what the clues are. Tone, status symbols. Things that to you make sense within the education you do not understand that was already anywhere from partial bullshit to complete and total bullshit. Apply this kind of thing semi-consciously thinking what you're looking at is your perception of a person when actually what you're looking at is your perception of the educational manual of how to grasp at a person, the method of grasping a person, these are things that happen within the concept of people, these concepts are connected to the concept of people. This is now forming over half of the priors within your error correction, as you think and figure out, form your perception of this person, all of it is from the starting base of this incorrect analysis.
A person seems confident about something, it doesn't so much matter what's being presented all that matters is the confidence, even if they're dumber than you are.
You will do things like not semi-consciously understand the probabilities of the situation presenting itself actually being a thing that would occur and just rely on whatever click within your own semi-conscious thinking gives you the thing that makes sense based on your previously inserted collection of compartmentalized incorrect analysis or just whatever you feel it is you're going to require in this moment to maintain your ability to say "I think I understand you, I think I understand this situation." Such as... How often it is people actually lie, how often you'll ever actually see crime in this neighbourhood, how often anybody would ever be able to pull anything like this off.
Why on Earth anybody would ever lie about this kind of thing, how on Earth anybody could ever actually believe this kind of thing, whether or not this even makes any logical sense.
All you need to know is that every now and then there's crime in this neighbourhood and the potentiality is there you'll deal with it when you need to deal with it you probably won't need to deal with it chances are you're not one of the three thousand people a day who get mugged. No we're not being naive, we're just not falling into the same block thinking trap as you. You don't need to think CRIME IN THIS NEIGHBOURHOOD and enter it into your mind in the same manner as you would a neighbourhood where you know if you spend more than five minutes here you will be mugged. Now every little noise, every distant conversation, every squirrel is CRIME IN THIS NEIGHBOURHOOD. We're not dropping SOMETIMES PEOPLE LIE when we're thinking of the probabilities of this being a lie, we're not overlooking the potentiality for lies, we're just not automatically applying it and thereby sometimes ending up applying it where it doesn't even make any sense to apply it.