Kind of funny I inserted this correction because I remembered what I wrote in my initial description of this video, and having returned to the video I was agast at the mistake I thought I’d made. I wrote the following but when I went to insert it into the book, I realized that I had already corrected the mistake I thought I made. I made a mistake in thinking I made a mistake. The material it produced is still beneficial so I kept it here.

Fighting Racial Bias in an Age of Mass Murder: Prejudice from the Coffee Shop to Charlottesville (

Very embarassing error. I referenced this video as the source of a debate which was the focus of the video. I was almost immediately engaged in the controversy and I wasn’t paying much attention to the video. I didn’t return to the video either, because the content wasn’t important to the debate.

The only part of the video I remembered was “beliefs about social groups can influence our bias even when we’re not aware of it… biases that can influence our intentions and our motivation”. This is what I describe through Sequencing and Comparison, but I don’t say it based on surveys, I understand the causes of it and explain the causes. In the video description I stated in the book that her observations were consistent with mine based off of the only point of the video I remembered.

I understand bias in the context of perception to be based on impressions left from like groups.  Whether it be race, nationality, style, preferred music genre, impressions from individual’s with these characteristics are saved and serve as expectations.  Upon encountering people prior to interacting with them a person will experience feelings that influence thoughts and perceptions, which in turn influences feelings, and this occurs in anticipation of interacting with that person.  This occurs with all distinguishing characteristics, gender, clothing, music, race, hair color etc. In my book I use the example of people with red hair, where if all the people of red hair treated a person a certain way, even if the individual knows that the physical characteristic of red hair does not cause the behavior, when a person sees someone with red hair, their thoughts, feelings, and perception will adjust in anticipation of behavior experienced in past impressions.  Reversal is a long process, because individuals that contradict the stereotypes and experienced behavior, do not offset the physical response that results from anticipation of past behavior.  

Months before this video, in 2018 at a discussion group I expressed this idea as distinguishing between being prejudice and racist, where prejudice represents prejudice of perception, conclusions based on experience which are often subconscious conclusions, and racism represents a consciously chosen truth that a group is inferior to another group and not deserving of equal treatment.

In consideration of that quote that I remembered, I mistakenly associated that woman’s biased misunderstanding of human behavior she expressed more generally, with my observations. It was that quote alone that I was refering to.

Amy Goodman asked her to weigh in on a specific incident the Jessie Smollet case and she refused to, claiming to be a social scientist, but denying that every human experience is a social experiment. Of course she contradicted this principle when she weighed in on the Charlottesville incident, asserting her interpretation of people’s motivation without an explanation. She states “they were there to protest the removal of staue of Robert E Lee, so they were there to start a race war”. How does the protesting of a staue constitute anything other than exercising a guarenteed right to free speech? She say’s according to them they were there to start a race war. I presume she is probably relying on a few quotes from some groups who do not represent the intents of all or even a majority of the protestors. I think the scarcity of weapons on the protestor is also an objective indication that they didn’t attend the protest intent on starting a race war, rather they were intent on sharing a space with like minded people to oppose action from their government they didn’t agree, and whether or not their views are popular, doesn’t mean they are prohibted from expressing them.

She goes on to say “there were counter protestors there who were trying to protect their city and protect their values”. Of course video evidence contradicts this assertion as counter protestors came armed and were physically harassing the protestors. The very nature of them being there is not defensive, and they originally tried to prevent people from entering the area where they were permitted to protest. They were there to impose on the rights of other people.

She says “this led people on the campus to question why it happend and how it happend” in reference to Charlotteville, and it is very clear why it happend and how it happend. The words racism has lost its meaning, not in that it isn’t be applied but in that it is overemphasized to support causes against racism and the interests a racially polarized society serve. She is viewing the problem as there shouldn’t be racist people protesting the removal of a confederate statue. That isn’t the problem, the problem is that some was killed at this incident.

I mention overemphasis for the motivation of the staues removal and loosely responsible for the increase in white supremacist affiliation, both of which I’m not going to get into detail here because it isn’t essential to objectively understanding how and why Charlottesville happend, or why someone was killed. Politicans saw this action as being political advantageous since society has an artificially high value of the appearance of being anti-racists. There were reports that the mayor and city council antipated that the move would cause disorder and be dangerous and did it anyway. This is an action that does not improve the quality of life for most people, and I would argue is a detriment to the cause of understanding where we are based on where we’ve been. This is the first action, which is rooted in interests that primarily benefit the politicans while knowingly creating a hazard for the public. These are bad intentions because these people are imposing on the security of the public for their own personal gain, with no tangible gain by the public, other than a few people who don’t know how to appropreately contextualize information and claim to be offended by its presence.

Second, we have the counter protestors, who attended the event intent on preventing people from exercising their right of speech and assembly for the peacful addressing of greviences. If the counter protestors are exercising their right, what grevience are they looking to have addressed, the right of free speech? We know their intentions because there is video footage of the counter protestors attempting to prevent the unite the right protestors from entering their area. They came with pepper spray and other weapons which they can be seen using in offensive capacities. They wern’t there to protect anything, they were there to intimidate people from exercising their right to speech, which means they had bad intentions. Not the fact that they were there makes them the second most responsible party for the act, but the fact that there were seeking to initiate conflict, because they were intent on causing the kind of conflict that led to the murder and injury.

Finally, you have a person who overreacted in the conflict and unfortunately a young woman died because of a lot of people’s bad intentions. That is how it happend and why it happend.

She goes on to assert that the changing racial demographic is responsible for racial tensions, and asserts that this is the cause of people talking about white discrimination. Unfortunately, her only claim to continue to perpetuate the idea that race is a great disadvantage in this country is going to be data she applies biased causation to, which typically falls apart when racial disparities are compared by class as well as race.

One example I cite in the book, is the idea of a concert promoter who supported by others was charging white people double the price based on the idea that white people can afford entertainment in any area and colored people can only afford intertainment in their own community. It cannot be written off as an isolated incident because the decision itself is the product of this groups broader peception of reality. Two misconceptions, the first being that all white people are advantaged when white people make up a great majority of poor people in this country. The second is the many impressions that cause this group to think it is progressive and socially acceptable to discriminate against a people based on race, and based on a completely false fact of reasoning.

She calls herself a social scientist but she is not a social scientists, she is a survey analyst, whereas I am a social scientist and life is my lab. Where even when I leave the lab and become socially engaged, when I return I often go back to measure my thoughts, feelings, behavior, the enviornment, as well as the behavior of others in word and action.

The difference is I have an understanding of human behavior and of the mind that identifies all possiblilities and deducts until only a few possiblities remain or a certainty remains based on known principles. I understand the systems through which people think, their motivation, the cycle of mood. Whereas she is eager to find a new survey that reinforces what she wants to be true. Her causation is subjective, whereas my causation is observable through the human experience, my own experiences, and the behavior of others.

I am an unpaid author whose material relates to political, economic, and social function, and is suppressed by bias.  Bias Induced Denial is based on the understanding that people pursue what causes them to feel good and they avoid that which causes them to feel bad.  When information challenges what a person believes it causes a bad feeling if the object has value to them. If the information relates to a subject they have little or no value of, they typically do not experience a bad feeling or resist such information.  This bad feeling that occurs when information challenges a valued belief is the result of the information posing a threat to the value of the belief, showing something believed to be true is false, or something that is believed to be good is bad. In the reversal of a belief the belief can no longer generate good feelings.  Another value association is identity, where the value of the belief is associated with the value the individual has of his or herself, and so the feeling is in the interest of protecting the value of the sensations the belief produces, as well as the value of the individual. This is at the heart of all our problems as a species, the failure to communicate and arrive at truth, which would allow interests to be identified and serve as the basis for individual and collective decision making.  

Bias induced denial is the product of a theory of the mind called Sequencing and Comparison, which identifies the subconscious functions of the mind that produce thought, by the fact that the mind is always set to an objective, and in comparing defined detail, there is cause and effect sequencing, and comparisons of value, truth, and morality. 

Value is the comparison of greater than less than.  Every object has a value that is greater than and less than all other objects.  

Moral comparison is objects being either good or bad (morally)

True comparison consists of objects being either true, false, or uncertain with a leaning opinion towards true or towards false.    

Everything has value; either inherent value based on the sensation it produces, or for the purpose of obtaining an object of inherent value.  

True false thinking is activated by contradiction where information being received is inconsistent with what the individual knows or thinks they know about the subject.  True false is the basis for thinking, as what is regarded as true serves as the basis for all thinking: true cause and effect details in fulfillment of purposes towards valued objects, assigning the value to objects themselves, and the moral principles that determine how the individual perceives imposition.     

Moral thinking is triggered by perceived imposition.  The purpose of morality is to ensure individual liberty.  

Feelings are categorized as valued or prohibitive, or good or bad.  

The human mind is always intent on a valued objective. 

These are the basic components of Seq Comp, and in understanding the components of thought production, it reveals basic facts about human behavior.  

Another Seq Comp based theory is the effects of authority based thinking on human intelligence, where an individual’s service to an authority limits thinking to immediate value of reward versus detriment.  Other thoughts related to dictates are conditioned out of the individual because those thoughts have no bearing on the outcome. Something that is qualified more thoroughly in the article.  

All subjects reduce to basic details combined in cause and effect sequencing which means all things can be understood by all people.  Naturally, what people understand is a reflection of their values, as value drives attention, which kindles interest. BID is also responsible for reduced human intelligence, which as I stated, is a choice of value where an individual has a higher value of things than they do of what is true.  This can be considered stupidity, because self deception compromises value, where people like what they wouldn’t like if the understanding of the subject was true, and they don’t like what they would like if their understanding was true. BID affects motivation and also compromises know how.  

Within SeqComp there is moral philosophy that identifies objective good, and this picks up on points from the previous paragraph.  I won’t go into it thoroughly, but the basic idea is rooted in the fact that at all times all creatures want to do what they want to do.  The objective basis of morality is imposition, as all creatures can do what they want to do so long as they are not imposed on, and possess the means in know how and resources.  The application includes circumstantial imposition, where circumstances are the product of systems, systems are the product of collective consent, and therefore systems that produce trapping circumstances are collective imposition on those who are trapped.  There’s more to it of course, and an article separate from Seq Comp called Liberty as the Basis for Morality and Ethics, and the Establishment of Objective Good contains the thorough explanations of the moral philosophy, which is really a moral fact.  

I mention the morality of liberty mainly to bring up that all creatures, at all times, in all settings want to do what they want to do.  In acknowledgement of this, we understand that Bias Induced Denial is against the individual self interest of the creature, as well as against the collective interest of the species.  It’s stupidity as a choice of value not an innate disadvantage, and it is evil in the harm it causes to the species in obstructing meaningful communication. Which isn’t to say human beings are innately evil or stupid, only that they’ve created and passed down undestanding, customs, and a general organization of the world that causes people to be stupid and evil, in choosing to reinforce their biases instead of acknowledging what can be known to be true.  

It will be much too lengthy to concisely explain the long road to arriving at SeqComp, but it generally relates to efforts to advance ideas and being denied without a valid rebuttal or explanation.  I needed to know why when what is true is laid out before people, they refuse to acknowledge or take interest in it. In live settings people will be quiet but will not change their position. In written communication, people will not respond or they will attempt to circumvent points by inserting unrelated information, but they will not acknowledge your points even when you point it out to them.  Most of the research confirming this consists of email and social media exchanges, and the analysis of participation in life. There are a lot of them, which weren’t intended to serve as research, but consistently confirms the observations described above. Some recorded examples took place before the discovery of SeqComp.    

Much of this is chronicled in a book I’ve written called “Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True”, the title defines the intelligent value of the truth and the objective basis for morality.  I created SeqComp (in the book not above) with an error in definition that doesn’t affect any conclusions to determine if anyone actually understands it. Anyone who understands Seq Comp will see the error and point it out, and this is how I know it is understood.

As my ability to explain Bias Induced Denial increases the quality of my responses in exchanges where BID is occurring has improved.  While there are many examples in Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True, most of which are in the Youtube Comments and Debates section, with others in the Sequencing and Comparison section, my ongoing participation in social media exchanges provides more concise explanations.  I’ll often explain what is occurring in the debate, the purpose of statements and how it relates or does not relate to the point of controversy, and why the individual cannot accept the facts or address points. These are not debates of opinion, these are debates of fact and reasoning with defined points without dispute of fact.  Which is why it is denial and not a difference of opinion. It is repeatable, where any conversation or exchange produces the same effects for the clearly incorrect party.

Truth Over Everything and Liberty is True is not a book exclusively about BID or about Sequencing and Comparison.  It is primarily a book that discusses political and economic issues and shares solutions, some very comprehensive solutions for addressing systemic as well symptomatic issues.  Sequencing and Comparison and BID were discovered as a byproduct of trying to advance the morality of liberty and political and economic analysis and ideas, and essentially being ignored because the information doesn’t reinforce anyone’s bias.  If all people are the victim of their biases, any person who advances ideas absent bias will offend all people, and instead of people adjusting their understanding to arrive at a better version of their truth, they lock out information that challenges their bias when they cannot overcome the facts and argument against it.  I know BID can be overcome through understanding the value of the truth is one’s highest value. Which isn’t to say honesty is always required. I don’t get negative feelings of any persuasive degree when I discover I am wrong about something. I adopt the correct position feeling better about a more accurate version of my understanding