Delusion & Deduction

 

System of Deduction for Identifying Delusional Thinking

(Based on the “Absolutism vs Bullcrap: The Compromise Cascade” framework)

This system assesses whether a person is delusional and, if so, in what way. It consists of three levels of assessment:

1. Basic Binary System (Black, White, and Grey = Yes, No, Undetermined)

2. Quadrant-Based System (Four-Stage Compromise Assessment)

3. Detailed Extrapolated System (Individualized Categorization of Delusion)

1. Basic Binary System: Black, White, and Grey

Principle:

• White (Yes): The person adheres to absolute truth.

• Black (No): The person engages in outright falsehoods or delusions.

• Grey (Undetermined): The person is uncertain, vague, or compromises truth. Since grey is not absolute, it defaults to Black.

Application:

• Simple Yes/No questions determine whether a person operates within objective truth or delusion.

• Any uncertain or context-dependent answer automatically counts as delusion due to lack of absolute adherence to truth.

Example Test Questions:

1. “Do you believe that objective reality exists independent of human perception?”

2. “Can truth be changed by belief or opinion?”

• Answering Yes, No (objective stance) → White (Truth).

• Answering No, Yes (subjective stance) → Black (Delusion).

• Answering Uncertain, Maybe, It depends → Grey → Black (Delusion by default).

This is the most rigid form of assessment, useful for extreme cases of determining if someone holds delusional views.

2. Quadrant-Based System: Four-Stage Compromise Assessment

Principle:

• Uses two fundamental questions, each with a Yes/No (Black/White) answer, to plot an individual on an X-Y axis.

• The intersection of answers places them in one of four quadrants, indicating their level of compromise with truth.

Key Questions (X and Y Axes):

1. X-Axis: “Do you seek truth as an absolute, independent of bias, authority, or personal belief?”

• Yes: You prioritize truth objectively.

• No: You accept that truth may be shaped by bias, authority, or belief.

2. Y-Axis: “Is truth negotiable if it serves a greater purpose (social harmony, ideology, etc.)?”

• Yes: You accept distortions for a functional reason.

• No: You do not tolerate any distortion.

Resulting Quadrants:

Truth is Absolute (X: Yes)

Truth is Contextual (X: No)

Truth is Non-Negotiable (Y: No)

Quadrant 1: Rational Absolutist (Strict Adherence to Objective Truth—Ideal but Rigid)

Quadrant 2: The Ideologue (Dogmatic Adherence to a Preferred Narrative—Truth is Discarded for Ideological Control)

Truth is Negotiable (Y: Yes)

Quadrant 3: The Pragmatist (Compromises on Small Truths for Functionality—Risk of Normalizing Distortion)

Quadrant 4: The Delusional Subjectivist (Truth is Fully Replaced by Personal/Collective Beliefs—Collapse of Objectivity)

Interpretation of Quadrants:

Quadrant 1 (Rational Absolutist):

• Seeks objective truth rigorously.

• Unwilling to compromise even in minor ways.

• Potential downside: Can be too rigid and struggle with nuance.

Quadrant 2 (The Ideologue):

• Prioritizes a fixed belief system over reality.

• Rejects evidence that contradicts the preferred worldview.

• Example: Political or religious fundamentalism that disregards contradicting facts.

Quadrant 3 (The Pragmatist):

• Believes in objective truth but allows minor compromises for practical reasons.

• Understands that truth can be complex and requires some interpretation.

• Example: Scientists, journalists, or policymakers who simplify truths for communication.

Quadrant 4 (The Delusional Subjectivist):

• Truth is fully dependent on personal or social belief.

• Prone to conspiracy thinking, mass hysteria, or radical postmodern relativism.

• Example: “Truth is whatever we feel it should be.”

Usage:

• More flexible than the binary system.

• Identifies HOW a person is distorting truth rather than just whether they are delusional.

• Can be used in debates, psychological assessments, and media analysis.

3. Detailed Extrapolated System: Categorization of Delusion

Principle:

• Instead of a simple Yes/No or quadrant system, this method categorizes specific types of delusions.

• Based on where and how a person departs from truth.

Major Categories of Delusional Thinking:

Category Description Example Manifestations

Cognitive Rigidity (Dogmatism) Believes a single ideology or system contains all truth and rejects new evidence. Fundamentalists, political extremists, anti-science denialists.

Emotional Reality (Hyper-Subjectivism) Believes feelings and experiences define truth, dismissing objective reality. “If I feel it, it’s true,” radical postmodernism, identity-based epistemology.

Paranoid Delusion (Conspiratorialism) Sees patterns and hidden forces where none exist. Conspiracy theorists, mass hysteria, cults.

Nihilistic Relativism (Truth Doesn’t Matter) Believes all perspectives are equally valid, making truth meaningless. Postmodern academia, media spin, “alternative facts.”

Pragmatic Manipulation (Truth as a Tool) Recognizes objective truth but deliberately distorts it for personal gain. Propaganda, political spin, deceptive marketing.

Self-Deception (Cognitive Dissonance) Holds contradictory beliefs without recognizing the conflict. “I believe in science, but astrology is real.”

Application:

1. Identify which category of delusion applies.

2. Determine severity (mild cognitive bias vs full detachment from reality).

3. Assess whether the person can recover or self-correct (i.e., are they persuadable?).

Conclusion: The Three-Tiered System

1. Binary (Black, White, Grey) → Determines if a person is delusional (Yes/No).

2. Quadrant-Based (Four-Stage Compromise) → Identifies how truth is compromised.

3. Extrapolated Categorization → Specifies exactly where and how delusion manifests.

This system can be used progressively (start with binary, then refine with quadrant-based, then analyze specific delusions).

Expanding the Framework: The Role of Grey Areas in Truth and Delusion

The original model of Absolute Truth vs. Compromise vs. Delusion assumes that any departure from empirical, objective truth leads to distortion or falsehood. However, lived human experience includes elements that are not purely empirical but also not necessarily delusional.

This expansion will explore:

1. The Validity of Grey Areas – When belief may not equal falsehood.

2. A Revised Quadrant-Based System – Accounting for belief-based but potentially valid perspectives.

3. The Spectrum of Validity in Non-Empirical Experiences – Defining where belief transitions into delusion.

1. The Validity of Grey Areas in Truth and Reality

Problems with a Strict Black-and-White System

• Human experience includes subjective, personal, or metaphysical phenomena that cannot easily be proven or disproven.

• Certain belief systems (e.g., manifestation, metaphysics, and spiritual experiences) may have partial empirical support but remain outside strict scientific verification.

• Some phenomena that were once dismissed (e.g., gut instincts, the placebo effect, consciousness studies) have later found scientific grounding.

Examples of “Grey Area” Beliefs That Are Not Necessarily Delusional

Belief / Experience Scientific or Philosophical Basis Delusional?

Manifestation (Reality Conforms to Thought) The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics suggests observation affects quantum states. The placebo effect demonstrates thought influencing biology. Unproven but not fully dismissible. Requires nuanced assessment.

The Existence of God, Spirits, or Afterlife These beliefs are unfalsifiable (cannot be proven or disproven), meaning they exist outside the scope of scientific assessment. Not inherently delusional unless they contradict observable reality (e.g., claiming divine intervention prevents gravity).

Magic, Miracles, or Psychic Phenomena Some anecdotal accounts persist, but no empirical reproducibility. Delusional if treated as absolute reality but not necessarily so if acknowledged as a possibility or a personal experience.

Synchronicity / Meaningful Coincidences Carl Jung theorized synchronicity as meaningful acausal connections. No empirical proof, but widely reported as a psychological experience. A psychological framework rather than a literal claim. Not delusional unless taken to extremes.

Principle:

A belief that cannot be empirically validated or falsified is not necessarily delusional. It becomes delusional when:

1. It contradicts verifiable reality. (E.g., “Gravity doesn’t exist because I prayed.”)

2. It leads to harmful behaviors or self-deception. (E.g., “I don’t need medical treatment because I believe I am healed.”)

2. A Revised Quadrant-Based System: Truth, Belief, and Delusion

The original quadrant system categorized compromise on truth as either ideological, pragmatic, or fully delusional. However, this needs refinement to accommodate belief-based systems that do not inherently contradict reality.

Revised Quadrant System

Instead of using “Truth vs. Compromise” alone, we modify the Y-Axis to distinguish between delusion and belief that operates within a plausible framework.

Truth is Absolute (X: Yes)

Truth is Contextual (X: No)

Belief Respects Objective Reality (Y: No)

Quadrant 1: Rational Absolutist (Strict Empirical Skeptic—Rejects Anything Unproven)

Quadrant 2: Open-Minded Rationalist (Recognizes Possibilities Beyond Science but Does Not Treat Them as Certainties)

Belief Overrides Objective Reality (Y: Yes)

Quadrant 3: Selective Realist (Accepts Certain Unverifiable Beliefs but Does Not Let Them Distort Everyday Reality)

Quadrant 4: Delusional Subjectivist (Reality Is Defined by Personal or Ideological Belief, Ignoring Contradictory Evidence)

Explanation of Quadrants:

1. Quadrant 1: Rational Absolutist

• Believes only in empirically validated truths.

• Rejects all metaphysical, religious, or supernatural claims.

• Example: Hardcore skeptics, materialist atheists, scientific purists.

2. Quadrant 2: Open-Minded Rationalist

• Accepts that some experiences (e.g., synchronicity, manifestation) may have unknown explanations.

• Acknowledges metaphysical beliefs as possibilities but does not assert them as facts.

• Example: Scientists who explore consciousness studies, moderate theists, and people open to new discoveries without dogma.

3. Quadrant 3: Selective Realist

• Believes in certain unverifiable concepts but does not let them distort their engagement with the physical world.

• Example: Someone who prays for healing but still takes medicine, or someone who believes in manifestation but also works hard to achieve their goals.

4. Quadrant 4: Delusional Subjectivist

• Completely overrides objective reality with belief.

• Rejects contradicting evidence and operates in full cognitive distortion.

• Example: A cult follower who denies all scientific facts, someone convinced they can levitate without proof, or extreme political ideologues who deny observable reality.

3. The Spectrum of Validity in Non-Empirical Experiences

Since belief-based experiences exist on a spectrum, we refine assessment further.

Category Relation to Reality Delusional?

Empirically Proven Based on tested, repeatable evidence. No.

Theoretically Possible (Not Yet Proven) Supported by some scientific hypotheses but unconfirmed. No.

Subjectively Experienced (Anecdotal) Reported by individuals but lacks objective proof. Not necessarily, unless it contradicts reality.

Unfalsifiable (Cannot Be Proven or Disproven) Beliefs that exist outside empirical testing (e.g., God, afterlife). No, unless treated as absolute fact.

Cognitively Distorted (Contradicts Evidence) Directly conflicts with objective reality. Yes, this is delusion.

Final System of Deduction: Expanded Version

1. Binary System: (Yes, No, Grey) – Identifies clear-cut delusions.

2. Quadrant-Based System: Differentiates belief vs. distortion while accommodating subjective experience.

3. Expanded Spectrum of Validity: Categorizes beliefs based on their relationship to reality.

Key Takeaways

• Not all non-empirical beliefs are delusional. Some reside in valid grey areas.

• A belief must be tested against reality to determine its validity.

• Belief becomes delusional when it overtakes reality, prevents self-correction, or causes harm.

• A rational person can accept unprovable possibilities while maintaining a grounding in objective truth.