Psychologies Taint (4 MemoryShock)

Ok.
I don't know if this is correct forum but I took a wild guess.
Sorry if it was the incorrect forum.

I said this:

Facts are facts and that is very true.
But what someone states as facts is tainted by a few things.
Even so called "experts".

The person is saying what they are saying for a secret reason of their own and using their credentials to achieve whatever that is.
The person has truly has had some sort of break from reality. For whatever reasons.
The person has misinterepted the facts no matter what their credentials.
After all even the most intelligent person is given to mistakes it is after all human nature.
The person is embelishing facts.
The person is allowing their opinion taint the facts.
The person wants to see that as being true and is pretty sure but not positive and makes up for the lack of complete positivity with gusto.

Any of those and a number of other possible reasons (and any number of combinations) makes me take anything any so called "expert" has to say with a grain of salt.

After all I have been told by a "expert" that since he is a aircraft maintence tech he is more or less a high velocity impact physicist.
Which I honestly find to be a leap.

Psychology plays a large part in everything we do and it seems to me everyone tends to ignore that nasty little fact.

*italics means I added that making this thread*

And it was from this thread:NEUROHEADSET mind control gaming headset unveiled for 2008

I agree whole heartedly that people tend to ignore the psychology of their daily lives. It has been my insistence from the first day I started posting to this site...

And facts can be different, depending on the perspective. The closest we can get to an absolute fact are physical measurements, such as the boiling point of water...

The psychological aspect of the NeuroHeadSet is that the technology is a means to measure the physical status of the individual and associating that data to a pre-determined action. That is what I don't like and find myself skeptical of, the reality that someone else is going to determine the action and then present to others how to think everytime that stimulus is repeated.

What about thinking for one's self? What about the possibility that people are going to get caught up in the novelty of the gadget and fail to see the science that went into creating it? What about the time that was used for the research into the ideas that lead to the suggestion that this could be made?

I'm pretty sure that the concept(s) behind this invention could be applied in other areas and I'm willing to bet that some brainstorming was done on what they could do with it. Not all applications are negative. But I doubt that all are positive, relatively speaking of course.

My point with the ultra sound was similar...someone came up with the idea, pondered what it could be used for and then made some things. It had to have been tested somewhere and in some way to see the reactions of people....

And people are pranksters. There are many out there.

The NeuroHeadSet may actually be a fun toy, but I see it as a way to learn about the interactions that take place between an individuals thoughts and physical actions. There is a tangible relation there; one that others have already learned to measure and influence.

I'm not advocating paranoia, rather, I am advocating a broader discussion regarding its' journey into existence. This is an oppurtunity to reflect on what is actually possible with science and how people can be blindsighted by the technical complexity of something in favor of the novelty of it.

I do believe that many advancements were made for war application and then redesigned/reapplied for the consumer market. Why would this be different? A way to measure physical actions of thought and then using that data instantly for an immediate exterior result sounds like a topic that the government/military/psychological (fill-in-the-blank)/etc. would be very interested in....

And whomever else has an opinion....drop your two cents...