Irrelevant Stimulus

An explanation of my life for six years. These actions are those of MI6 and their unproved harassment of me.

Irrelevant Stimulus

 

(Actually, I had wanted to a write about this matter for a long long time, but it wasn’t till I was served dinner at a restaurant by a human angel on Xmas eve 2019 that I decided this essay would be worth writing. When you see something as naturally beautiful as the human angel that I was served dinner by, for the first time in your life it is then that everything else becomes irrelevant to you.)

Changing appearance, quantity, and behavior, of irrelevant stimulus doesn’t increase its relevance.

Abstract:

       Because this world is so beautiful, and because we live a life so short, it is important that we as individuals allot valuable attention, only on those things that are relevant to us. My intentions, for conducting all research in this short theory development paper were to demonstrate just how much of a waste of time it is paying attention to, or devoting any of our valuable psychological processes to, irrelevant stimulus. To demonstrate how important, it is that we not allot any attention to irrelevant stimulus please consider: what would happen if you allotted your concentration to a form of irrelevant stimulus whilst driving your car on a busy motorway? All previous research on irrelevant, or non-valuable, stimuli only describes the relationship between a stimulus, and its respondent, but does not state that a relationship should not be created in the first place. The significance of not creating a connection between an organism, and an irrelevant stimulus, is equivalent to the importance of not starting to smoke tobacco. It becomes a very unpleasant, and annoying, thing to have to quit. Here in this short theory development paper, my intentions were to show that just like smoking tobacco the irrelevant stimulus only wastes life, and provides no relevance at all. Even if an organism “accidently” allots some attention to an irrelevant stimulus, the stimulus simply does not have the ability to demonstrate any form of relevance. Here in this research it is demonstrated that attention should not be allotted to anything annoying, and irrelevant, no matter how annoying it is, because key psychological processes will not be affected. It was my intention to summarize six years’ worth of actual real-life experiences, and with the help of my two lovely assistants provide details of six field experiments which replicate some of the incidents encountered by myself. The results of this short theory development paper demonstrate that any form of irrelevant stimulus does not possess the ability to obtain an organisms (in this case me) attention, and also affect any of its fundamental psychological processes. So, the main findings of this short theory development paper suggest: do not consciously allot any of your attention, or psychological processes, to a form of irrelevant stimulus. The main reason, for this is, because if you do not then your body will not do it subconsciously, or unconsciously.

Introduction:

 Irrelevant stimuli do not realise they are not relevant, and therefore continue in their failed attempt(s) at disrupting, and stimulating an organism’s key fundamental psychological processes such as memory, and concentration. There are many different varieties of stimuli in the world that surrounds us. Most types of stimuli actually serve a purpose, because they stimulate with the intention of alerting an organism to a change in its body, or environment. However, there is an exception, and in this specific case it is known as the irrelevant stimulus. This is the stimulus that has no known purpose, and exists only to achieve the criteria of being irrelevant. The irrelevant stimulus has no method, or rational way, of communicating to others what it is trying to achieve through its actions of irrelevance. This is, because it is not capable of obtaining any organism’s attention long enough to explain what it is trying to stimulate. The problem featured in this short theory developmental paper is specifically: although it is irrelevant the irrelevant stimulus continues to exist, and attempts to obtain the attention of living organisms. This paper is important, because it presents new, and high quality, evidence through research that shows irrelevant stimulus have no known effect on an organism’s psychological processes. Furthermore, this paper “suggests” ways of coping with, and ignoring, any irrelevant stimulus. All six field experiments in this theory development paper support the notion that even “changing the appearance, quantity, and behavior, of an irrelevant stimulus does not make it relevant, and capable of affecting key psychological processes. A notable point of consideration might be even if you think your stimulus is relevant you should ask yourself why should the person that I am trying to get attention off actually want to pay me attention in the first place? Perhaps that organism, or person, is trying to mind their own business, and concentrate on their own life. This short theory development paper presents both a primary hypothesis, and a secondary hypothesis. The primary hypothesis for this short theory development paper is: “an irrelevant stimulus will not be able to obtain an organism’s attention, and affect its fundamental psychological processes, upon its attempts of stimulating.” The secondary hypothesis, for this short theory development paper is “changes, or variants, to the irrelevant stimulus appearance, behavior, or quantity, will not make it successful in obtaining an organism’s attention, or affect its fundamental psychological processes.” The objectives of this short theory development paper are to inform any interested readers that irrelevant stimuli are incapable of obtaining an organism’s attention. In addition, it attempts to show that irrelevant stimulus cannot affect any of an organism’s fundamental psychological processes. It does this through the six field experiments featured in the method section of this short theory development paper. This short theory development paper relates to the existing literature available through relevant search engines on the topic of stimulus, and response. To be more specific, one article on science direct states how “People can rapidly form arbitrary associations between stimuli and the responses they make in the presence of those stimuli.” The article then proceeds to talk about how these associations affect, or influence, the way individuals respond to the stimuli. For example, in this paper we can see, because the living organism does not pay any attention, or response, to the irrelevant stimulus no association of any kind is made. Another key research paper compared developmental changes in the ability to overcome interference from irrelevant stimuli, and competing motor responses. This short theory development paper differs from others on the topic of stimulus, and responses, in the terms that it focuses entirely on an irrelevant stimulus, and specifically how a stimulus that is not in any way relevant, or significant, to an organism will not be able to obtain it’s attention, interrupt, or affect, any of its fundamental psychological processes. This short paper focuses entirely on an irrelevant stimulus, and its inability to affect, or alter, any of an organism’s fundamental psychological processes. Just to make it VERY clear, the use of the word irrelevant throughout this short theory development paper, means not important, and worthwhile acknowledging. It means absolutely nothing to myself, my family, my personal life, my religion, my private business, and is not connected to the memories of all the people that helped me. It has no chance of ever getting my attention, and demonstrating any form of relevance to myself.  Furthermore, the irrelevant stimulus is a problem, but not to me, and not enough of one to be defined as annoying, or bothersome. This is due to the severe level of irrelevance that it possesses.

Method:

Participants: There were three participants in total involved in obtaining the evidence needed in this short theory development paper, and the six field experiments. These were myself, my assistant, and a 25-year-old female. I am 37 years old; my assistant is 40 years old, and the other individual in the field experiments was 25 years old. I am half British, and half Iraqi. My assistant is white British, and the other female is also white British. I have a maximum level of secondary school education, my assistant has a-levels, and the other participant has secondary school education. This was the first experiment that all of three us had participated in. However, the three of us were more than enough to complete the field experiments, and provide the necessary supporting evidence.

Materials:

The materials that were used in the six field experiments in this theory development paper were basic, but they provided all the necessary options, for completing all the required field experiments. The materials used in the field experiments were identical to the materials used by the irrelevant stimulus in my real life experiences with the irrelevant stimulus. The materials used were an irrelevant stimulus which was my assistant, who featured in all six field experiments, and her assistant who played the part of the other irrelevant stimulus in field experiment number four. Other materials used were high vis clothing bibs, camouflaged shirt, and trousers, and a hooded sweatshirt with the word irrelevant stimulus written on it. Then there was a pair of crutches which were used in field experiment number three. In all six field experiments there was a standard color television which was watched by myself during the irrelevant stimuli, and it’s unsuccessful attempts to obtain my attention, and affect my fundamental psychological processes.

Procedure:

The evidence, and research, in this short theory development paper was obtained through creating, and performing, six short, and simple, field experiments designed, and conducted, by myself. All six field experiments aimed to demonstrate how the irrelevant stimulus is not capable of obtaining the attention of a living organism, and they were all created to replicate my experiences with the irrelevant stimulus in real life as close to perfection as possible. The living organism in this specific case is the target that the stimulus is trying to gain a response from, and miraculously fails in all six field experiments. In addition, all six field experiments were designed with the sole intention of showing that changes, and variances, in the appearance, behavior, and quantity, of the irrelevant stimulus would still not be enough to evoke a response from living organism. The final aim of these six field experiments was to prove that all irrelevant stimulus is unable to affect key, fundamental, psychological processes in a living organism. The experiments progressed in terms of changes to the appearance, behavior, and quantity, of the irrelevant stimulus. These changes to the irrelevant stimulus were created, and documented, because they represented exact variances to it that were experienced by myself during the last six years. The first field experiment represents my experiences of an unknown irrelevant stimulus in its simplest form trying to obtain my attention, and affect my fundamental psychological processes. The irrelevant stimulus attempted to obtain my attention by entering my proximity, and proceeded to act in a bizarre, illogical, and irrational, manner. This irrelevant stimulus was disguised as a normal person, but it defined itself as irrelevant through the eventual demonstration of irrational, and abnormal, behavior, before quickly leaving the situation. This is highly similar to my everyday experiences with the irrelevant stimulus, and my intentions were to make it as close to them as possible. The second field experiment describes the first significant change in appearance of the irrelevant stimulus. This change was to its appearance, and more importantly the type of apparel that it attempted to disguise itself in. This experiment details how an irrelevant stimulus wearing high-viz clothing, or colours, then camouflaged clothing, and finally clothing with large writing on it (making sense to no one, but the irrelevant stimulus) enters my proximity, and attempts to obtain my attention, and affect my key, fundamental, psychological processes in three trials. Again, this second field experiment was designed with the intention of replicating my experiences with the irrelevant stimulus in real life as to demonstrate the level of irrelevance to any interested readers of this document. The irrelevant stimulus in the second field experiments was disguised in weird, and very strange clothing (for some unknown reason), and upon entering my proximity made the same efforts as the irrelevant stimulus in the first field experiment. Even with the added irrelevance of bizarre apparel the stimulus demonstrated a significant level of irrelevance to myself. To be more specific, it failed to gain my attention, and affect my fundamental psychological processes. In the third field experiment the irrelevant stimulus although not discussed this time presented itself on a single, or pair of crutches, into my close proximity. Again, the intention of the irrelevant stimulus was to obtain my attention, and affect some of my fundamental psychological processes. In a similar fashion to the first two field experiments the irrelevant stimulus once again failed to obtain my attention, and affect, or alter any of my fundamental psychological processes. Once again, this experiment demonstrates just how severe the level of irrelevance actually was from the stimulus, and the way it presented itself to me. In the fourth field experiment the quantity of the irrelevant stimulus was increased to two from a single stimulus. There were two trials in this field experiment. The first one was were both my assistant, and her assistant, entered my close proximity as two female irrelevant stimuli. They then acted in a similar fashion to the irrelevant stimulus in the previous three field experiments in terms that they acted in highly immature, and abnormal manner. Their intention was to obtain my attention, and affect some of my fundamental psychological processes. Similar to the previous field experiments they demonstrated a significant level of irrelevance, and failed to achieve both of their intentions. Then my assistant, and her assistant, presented themselves as two male irrelevant stimuli. Once again, they failed completely in their attempts to obtain my attention, and affect my fundamental psychological processes. In the fifth field experiment created, for the purposes of this short theory development paper my intentions, for the irrelevant stimulus were that it would enter my close proximity looking slightly like two, or more individuals from my recent, or past. For instance, this has included my former partner Kerry, members of my family, and most surprisingly, and unfortunately, myself. In a similar fashion to the four previous field experiments the intentions of the irrelevant stimulus was to obtain my attention, and disrupt some of my fundamental psychological processes. Upon entering my proximity, and personal space, the irrelevant stimulus once again proceeded to behave in an abnormal, and irrational, fashion. However, it failed in a similar fashion to the irrelevant stimuli in previous experiments to achieve any of its ambitions, and intentions. The failure of the irrelevant stimulus to achieve obtaining my attention, and affecting, fundamental psychological processes was due to the fact that it was irrelevant to myself, my family, my friends, those individuals who have attempted to help, and support me throughout my past, and finally my private life, and personal business in anyway at all. Because this specific type of stimulus (irrelevant) failed to obtain a response from living organism (myself) no connections between target, and stimulus, were created, and reinforced. This demonstrates in a very helpful way that unless a stimulus is relevant, and actually manages to provoke a response from its intended target that it can in no way affect the targeted living organism, and its memory.

Field experiment number 1: The first field experiment to be featured in this theory development paper was designed to test whether an irrelevant stimulus in its basic state has the potential to obtain the attention of an organism whom it has never encountered before, and has nothing to do with whatsoever. This experiment was designed to replicate my real-life experiences with the irrelevant stimulus. Obtaining the attention of an organism would mean distracting it, and changing the direction, and focus, of its conscious awareness. In this simple experiment my assistant entered the room whilst I was watching a standard television disguised as someone who I have never met before in my life. Before she entered the room, I was not aware what form of stimulus would enter the room, or even when. This was done to replicate the real-life experiences that were encountered by myself over the last six years with irrelevant stimulus. In addition, it was done to maximise the chances of the irrelevance of the stimulus attracting my attention. She was wearing a cheap brown fur coat, modelled a cheap haircut. and proceeded to stand in front of me. Similar to my real-life experiences with irrelevant stimulus the she began to act in an abnormal manner. To be specific, she acted immaturely, looked around, and then smiled to herself. I did not even notice that she had entered the room, and continued to watch the television until I changed the channel. It was at this point that I directed my attention away from the television briefly, and noticed she was in the room. This was a conscious choice by myself, and similar to my real-life experiences with irrelevant stimulus she left the scenario quickly. This fact demonstrates that my fundamental psychological processes were not disrupted, or affected by the presence of an irrelevant stimulus. To be more specific, the fact that I didn’t notice my assistant (the irrelevant stimulus) had entered the room demonstrates that it had not disrupted my ability to think, and concentrate on matters that were actually relevant to my survival, and my limited chances of reproduction. In addition, my conscious awareness remained focused entirely where I wanted it to be. In order to assess whether or not my memory had been disrupted my assistant asked me to write down a brief summary of what I had been watching on the television. My recollection of what I had watched was impeccable, impregnable, and very accurate. In fact, because this stimulus was not important to me in anyway shape or form, the scenario resulted with a failure on behalf of the irrelevant stimulus to achieve its intentions, and resulted in both hypotheses, for this paper to remain true, and the problem of the stimulus remains.

       Field experiment number 2: The second field experiment featured in this short theory development research paper was created, and designed, by myself with the intention of demonstrating how even with notable changes to the appearance of the irrelevant stimulus in terms of the clothing that it wears fails to obtain my attention. In addition, it was not capable of affecting any of my fundamental psychological processes such as memory, and concentration. In this specific field experiment the irrelevant stimulus attempted to obtain my attention by modelling different styles of apparel. First of all it adorned a brighter than normal high vis colored bib, and attempted to obtain my attention in an identical manner to the first field study. Then it modelled a heavily camouflaged Jacket, and trousers, and finally apparel with the writing “, Hi I am the irrelevant stimulus” written on the front of it.” In all three of these scenarios my assistant modelled the different styles of clothing, and attempted to obtain my attention at an unknown time. These scenarios in the second field experiment were also conducted in my apartment. First my assistant attempted to obtain my attention, and affect my fundamental psychological processes through wearing high vis clothing. She attempted to obtain my attention in high vis yellow, and then high vis orange. When she did enter the room that I was in the sound of the door opening alerted my attention to her presence, because it was a change in my environment. This stimulus is known as relevant as it had a purpose. However, my attention soon returned to the television when I realised she was irrelevant to my life, and meant absolutely nothing to me, my family, and most importantly my private, and personal life. My assistant then tried to obtain my attention again without causing any changes to my environment by positioning herself in front of me. However, because the stimulus was irrelevant to my private life, and personal business, she did not succeed in obtaining my attention, and affecting any of my fundamental psychological processes. In all three attempts to obtain my attention my concentration remained on the television in front of me. After my assistant had attempted to obtain my attention wearing high vis clothing, camouflaged clothing, and apparel with large writing on it I wrote down exactly what I witnessed on the television. This was with the intention of testing whether, or not my memory had been disrupted at any point during the experiment. Once again, my recollection of what was watched was remembered with great accuracy demonstrating that the irrelevant stimulus had not been able to disrupt my fundamental psychological processes.

Field experiment number 3: this third field experiment featured within this short theory development paper featured the irrelevant stimulus walking on a single, and a double crutch. This experiment was designed to replicate my real-life experiences with the irrelevant stimulus over the past six years. The intention of this field experiment was to demonstrate that even when the irrelevant stimulus was hobbling around me on a single, or pair, of crutches it could not obtain my attention. As predicted, it also did not affect any of my fundamental psychological processes. In this scenario, my assistant entered the room that I was watching TV in on a pair of crutches, positioned herself in front of me, and proceeded to act in an abnormal, and strange manner. To be more specific, she muttered a few words to herself, and then produced a very false smile before leaving the room. This once again failed to obtain my attention, and affect any of my psychological processes. To test whether, or not, the presentation of the irrelevant stimulus had affected, or disrupted, my memory in anyway at all I once again proceeded to write down exactly what I had watched on the television the entire time with amazing, impregnable, and uncanny accuracy. Once again, this experiment really demonstrated that a stimulus which is not relevant to a living organism in anyway at all is not all likely to be successful in obtaining its attention even, for a second. Furthermore, it does not have the ability to change the feelings, thoughts, and various conscious states of my mind through its presence.

Field experiment number four. The fourth field experiment to be featured in this short theory development paper builds on the work produced by the previous three experiments in terms of changing the appearance of the irrelevant stimulus. In this specific field experiment two irrelevant stimuli present themselves into my close proximity instead of just one at the same time. In this field experiment there were two trials. The first one was with two male stimuli, and the other with two female stimuli. In the first trial of this fourth field experiment two female stimuli were to enter the room that I was watching television in at an unknown time, and attempted to obtain my attention. When they entered the room I turned around, for a second, because there was a change to my immediate environment, but immediately returned to the comfort of watching the television in an identical fashion to the first three field experiments. They began to walk around the room, and then stood in front of me. Unfortunately, they then glazed at me to which I proposed no response, because they did not pose any sign of immediate, or necessary, concern to myself, my PRIVATE life, my family, or all the individuals who helped me in a positive way. In a similar fashion to the previous three field experiments the irrelevant stimulus began to behave in an abnormal, bizarre, and irrational, manner. To be more specific, they muttered a few irrational words between themselves, and smiled to themselves before looking in my direction, and then leaving the room. This experiment replicates the circumstances where I encountered the irrelevant stimulus in the real world during the last six years to the highest representation possible.

Field experiment number five: This experiment explains the fifth variation in appearance, and  documents it attempts at obtaining my attention, and disrupting my fundamental psychological processes from the irrelevant stimulus. Once again, this field experiment was created, and designed, with the intention of replicating my real-life experiences with the irrelevant stimulus throughout the previous six years. This experiment explains how the irrelevant stimulus attempted to look like two, or more, individuals from my past at the same time. After it presented itself into my close proximity it began to demonstrate bizarre, irrational, and paranoid behavior. Unfortunately, this field experiment has been created, and designed, by myself with the intention of demonstrating some of my real-life experiences L with the irrelevant stimulus. In this experiment the irrelevant stimulus (my assistant) portrayed itself as a poor resemblance of my previous partner, other family member, or even a childhood friend. It copied their appearance poorly, and irrationally, through the use of some very cheap makeup, and incredibly poor perfume. In this artificially created field experiment my assistant, the irrelevant stimulus, enters the room dressed like my former partner Kerry, and also my mother. Its intentions here are both related to the primary hypothesis, and the secondary hypothesis, and this was in a deluded attempt to obtain my attention, and even worse to alter or disrupt one, or more of my psychological processes. Similar to the previous four field experiments I was watching a standard color television in a room by myself, and had specifically asked beforehand that I was not told what the stimulus would be, or indeed at what time it would enter my proximity. This was intended to maximise the similarity of the experiment to my real life encounters with the irrelevant stimulus, and also to ensure that the irrelevant stimulus would achieve a good chance of being able to obtain my attention. After the irrelevant stimulus had entered the room that I was watching TV in she proceeded to circle the chair that I was sitting in, and this was done in a bizarre attempt at obtaining my attention. Once again, my conscious awareness, and focus was entirely on the television in front of me, and my attention only changed when she walked directly in front of me. After looking up, for a second, and realising that the stimulus was indeed significantly irrelevant to my PRIVATE life, personal business, family, and my future, my attention returned to the television program that I was watching. Soon after the irrelevant stimulus left the room. Afterwards, I wrote down in an accurate fashion exactly what I was watching in the television throughout the entire experiment, and once again demonstrating that my fundamental psychological processes had not been disturbed, or altered not even, for a second.

Field experiment number six. Again, this field experiment was designed to replicate my real life experiences with irrelevant stimulus in my life during the last six years. This specific experiment is slightly different to the others, because unlike the previous ones I have designed them. However, in this case my two assistants have designed them. Just to remind any interested readers of my personal definition of an irrelevant stimulus. An irrelevant stimulus is anything, or anyone, that is not my family, my few close friends, my private life, Alexa, my personal life, the memory of all those who helped, and supported me, and most importantly my religion. It literally means nothing to me, and has an algebraic, absolute value of zero. In terms of trying to get my attention it is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with me living a nice private quiet life, and will not affect god’s decision of sending me to heaven, (let’s die, and get the hell out of here) or not, in any way shape at all, and apart from my family I do not care about anything else. If it is none of these things then how can it be relevant to me in anyway shape or form? So anyway, field experiment number six is perhaps the most bizarre experiment to date. It is just as deluded, paranoid, and bizarre as it’s very paranoid, and irrelevant creator. It does not affect my slim, and limited, chances of reproduction although this is in no way important to me in anyway shape at all. This field experiment was designed as follows. My assistants travelled to the location that I was planning to go to the next day before me without me knowing. (As happens very frequently, and upon my arrival it makes a very poor effort to act as if everything is normal (the mental defence technique of denial), and that they are not suffering from delusional disorder) She arrived the morning I got there with my other assistant, and planned to signal the cue, for an irrelevant stimulus to make a pathetic attempt to try and get my attention when I arrived a short time after them. Because she, and my other assistant (the other irrelevant stimulus) had arrived before I had done (as usual), they had time to prepare the situation to a level of extraordinary bizarre irrelevance, and delusion. What I mean by this is they had prepared the area to a level of irrelevance that really displayed some form of bizarre paranoid disorder. Once again this has been replicated to represent my real-life experiences over the last six years with irrelevant stimulus. To be more specific, page 90 of the DSM- IV details a disorder known as Delusional Disorder, and even further still a grandiose version of this disorder. However, hope is available for the irrelevant stimulus, because this disorder, and specifically this type of behavior, can be treated with a heavy dose of antipsychotic medications. Part of the grandiose delusion here is that this particular irrelevant stimulus displays a bizarre belief that it is actually relevant to myself, my family, my private life, my personal life, and most deluded of all that I actually care about it to distract me thinking about my religion even for a second. There is a third hypothesis in this field experiment, and it is, “the irrelevant stimulus will not be able to change my attention from god to its direction.” Anyway, after entering the situation and relaxing there, for a while I began to talk to a “normal” caring person (not a fake person), when out of the blue a form of irrelevant stimulus enters the room, and acts in a bizarre, and deluded manner to get my attention. This has happened frequently over the last six years, and often when I am least expecting it, and begin to relax. This often happens when I begin to talk to someone normal, and actually relevant, usually interrupting the scenario, and attempting to distract my attention from the person that I am conversing with. The paranoid creator of this incident hides in the back of the room, and after a short period of time (most likely watching the situation through a camera, or binoculars, and most likely from a bunker in the Eagles Nest in Germany) after watching everyone in the room signals in a very bizarre manner through the process of shouting “Unsere Zeit ist gekommen”, and waving his arms in the air (like he just don’t care) a few irrelevant stimuli (who have all had poorly written lines to read, learn, and memorize of course) to enter the situation and once again try to (with the little bit of pride, and self worth that they surprisingly possess) to try to act in a normal way, and at attempting to rationalize that their actions are rational in some way or not. After parading around in front of me, for a while in an aimless manner, and managing somehow to carry out their lines, and behavior, that they have memorized to perfection (without too many mistakes) they proceed to leave the room, and I wonder to myself why do you think you pose any form of relevance to me in anyway shape at all when literally the only things that I care about are my family, my private life,  my personal business, my religion, my future, dying, and going to heaven? (let’s die, and get the hell out of here). (It is at this point that I would like to declare there is an old saying in English, and that is “Hitler shot himself” This was a reply by myself to a statement from someone who said to me this one time “there is an old saying in German, when you get a job you are free.” this person had most likely been paid a small fee, or had a gun put to their head to make them utter this filthy pig Latin. There is another old saying in English, and it is “mind your f**king business.” However, this bizarre situation unfortunately replicates my real life experiences with the irrelevant stimulus, and the after thoughts from myself which try to comprehend this deluded, paranoid, and disrupted behavior. (Only for a brief second as my thought processes return to thinking of actual worthwhile matters) Once again, this experiment demonstrates that all irrelevant stimulus have no chance of obtaining the attention of a living organism even, for a second and remain irrelevant to myself, my future with my family, and most importantly my PRIVATE LIFE, AND PERSONAL BUISNESS. This scenario is good, and surprisingly refreshing, because it reminds me that a: I’m not meant to be here, b: really don’t want to be here c: never really have done, and d: that I should probably say to my mum please do not have children next time. However, after giving part d  serious consideration, and realising it will not do much to resolve my circumstances i choose not to bother. However, this is only, because I do not want to upset my mother, and she has sacrificed her everything to feed, and love me. The biggest mystery in this life is as follows “even if an irrelevant stimulus does actually achieve its intention of obtaining my attention, for a second what do they hope to, or expect that will happen from their minor achievement?” This really is a big mystery in my life. There is a fourth hypothesis here actually, but you will have to read through the  discussion section to get it. (Life is unfair).

     A point worth noting is that during all six field experiments I specifically asked not to be told what stimulus I would be presented with, and also not to be told at what time I would be presented with the stimulus. The reason, for this was to give the stimuli an increased chance of obtaining, and maintaining,  my attention, and affecting my psychological processes in some way. However, as any interested readers may have been able to infer from the previous results all stimuli failed at obtaining my attention even for a second, and definitely did not manage to alter my psychological processes.

 

Results:

The results of all six field experiments demonstrate that the chances of a stimulus which is irrelevant to a living organism, and all aspects of its life, achieving its intention of obtaining its attention, and disrupting some of its fundamental key processes is practically impossible.

 

Discussion:

        All six field experiments included in the method section of this paper show that irrelevant stimulus which have no relation to your family life, biological wellbeing, private business, and anything important, or meaningful to an individual at all, cannot obtain your attention. In addition, the irrelevant stimulus is incapable of affecting any of your fundamental, and key, psychological processes such as memory, attention, emotions, and ability to learn. It does not change the way any of the 300 billion neurons in my body fire, and did you know there are six types of blood in the human body? Furthermore, changes, and variations, to an irrelevant stimulus such as it’s appearance, quantity, or even behavior, have not been able to obtain the attention of a living organism, or affect, or change, it’s fundamental psychological processes such as memory, and learning ability. Just to remind any interest readers there were three hypotheses in this short theory development paper. There was a primary hypothesis, a secondary hypothesis, and a third hypothesis in field experiment six. The primary hypothesis, for this short theory development paper was an irrelevant stimulus will not be able to obtain an organism’s attention, and affect it’s fundamental psychological processes, during its attempts at stimulating an organism. The secondary hypothesis, for this short theory development paper was changes, or variants, to the irrelevant stimulus will not make it successful in obtaining an organism’s attention, or affect its fundamental psychological processes. Both of these hypotheses, and the predictions they suggested, turned out to be true, and this was determined, and supported, through completion of five basic field experiments detailed in the methods section of this paper. My intentions, for this section of this short theory development paper are to discuss why the irrelevant stimulus really is irrelevant, and why it is not able to alter the fundamental psychological processes that we organisms possess. First, the irrelevant stimulus is irrelevant, because it does not possess the ability to evoke a physiological response from any living organism. By physiological response I mean a change in skin, breathing patterns, heart rate, blood pressure, pupillary dilation, or even state of conscious mind. For a stimulus to be able to obtain a response from a living organism it must be able to do just that, and it would accomplish this through being able to change a state of conscious arousal in an organism. Fortunately, as any interested readers will know the irrelevant stimulus is not able to evoke anything at all from the targeted living organism. My intentions now are to remind any interested readers of Sir Isaac Newton, and his first law of motion “An object will remain at rest, or in motion, unless acted upon by a force which changes its momentum” Secondly I would like to state that “my psychological processes in their entirety remain intact, and continue to function to their highest capability until a worthwhile, and relevant, stimuli actually manages to obtain my attention, and affect them.”

 

There is a force between every object on this planet. This paper hopes to confirm, demonstrate, and document this in scientific jargon (soon) by confirming that God was nice enough, and doesn’t hate me as much as once thought to make the force in between me, and all irrelevant stimuli, repellent towards their effects of irrelevance.

Field experiment number seven:

In this experiment it is the stimulus that is known as the depressing stimulus which will be the independent variable, and the level of depression which is experienced by myself as the dependent variable.

The research problem /question, for this humble field experiment is: Why do you want to feed me with your depression?

Variables: Independent variable = Depressing stimulus. Dependent Variable: Level of depression experienced by myself.

Develop a hypothesis:

Field experiment number eight. (Make this one a serious one Mark)

This experiment is by far the most important, because it involves the notion of being able to control oneself in the face of provocative, unwanted, and irrelevant stimulus, and situations. The ability to be in control of oneself in every situation in life that we are presented with is essential. This experiment is designed to test the psychological concept of relevance.

Research problem/ question: Is the incredible sense of self control that I possess enough to prevent me from reacting to the most irrelevant form of stimuli? Will I be able to think about Allah the whole time I am being provoked, and around, irrelevant stimulus? For this short experiment I recall both of my assistants into the scenario. If you remember correctly it is myself who designs the experiments (I am known as Professor habibi), and my two assistants who play the part (very poorly) of irrelevant stimulus. One of my assistants is 25 years old, and the other is forty years old. It is my aim in this field experiment to prove to myself that I possess the mental strength to think only of God, and my family, when presented with the most stupid, and irrelevant (to myself) stimulus.

Variables: Independent variable: irrelevant stimulus desperately trying to get my attention. Dependent variable: My own ability to continue concentrating, and thinking, of relevant matters such as (not limited to, but usually in most cases only the following) God, and my family.

Hypothesis: When presented with irrelevant stimulus (whilst doing my best to mind my own business, keep my private, and personal life, to myself as per usual) I will definitely be able to think of nothing else, but god, future wife, and son 🐣, and my family.

 

Although this is only a replica experiment, and my assistants are very poorly trained actresses, it is my duty to inform any interested readers that the hardest thing to replicate here is the incredible level of stupidity that is on all irrelevant stimulus faces. This is a level of stupidity (not irrelevance) that has managed to shock even myself. It was almost impossible to imitate, but I increased the wage of the eldest assistant slightly, and she didn’t fail to improve her acting ability in this particular scenario ((Typical). Once again, my real life experiences have presented me with stimulus who look at me as if to say, “ does he realise how stupid I am, and what can I do to get him to stop thinking about relevant matters, for a second? This is unfortunately not a joke L The hardest thing to ignore here is indeed the look of pure stupidity on these people’s faces. Its as if each specific individuals brain is trying to comprehend it’s own lack of intelligence. My own limited amount of intelligence informs me that these persons must be missing part of their frontal lobe. It is the way these people look at me which makes me want to bang my head of the wall, and once again inform my mother to next time not have children. As I try to comprehend the lack of wit these individuals possess I imagine they must be wondering, “even though professor habibi considers me to be irrelevant, and I know that I am irrelevant to him the level of stupidity (lack of intelligence) that I possess will still not stop me from some how making a fool of myself, wasting only my own time, and not managing to stop professor habibi from thinking about God, and his family. I wonder if I prescribed some of these people a small amount of cannabis (Stardawg Perhaps) would it help to relieve their symptoms? If I was a GP, and a patient came to me complaining of a headache I might say here you go smoke this three times as day. In a similar fashion, if one of these individuals came to me complaining about nothing really, but just complaining in general I might say, “well what do you expect look at the state of you?” If a pregnant woman came to my office, and complained to me that she could not afford to give birth, my response would be, “well today we have an ounce of Lemon Haze on sale, for half price. It’s great, for creativity, and good times. My personal recommendations are to use a bong, for maximum enjoyment. However, in future please try to control yourself, and keep your legs closed.”

       The real significance of this research paper is that it demonstrates, and supports, the notion that all unimportant stimuli (irrelevant stimulus) regardless of the desperate changes, and varieties, in their appearance, behavior, or quantity, are incapable of altering an organisms chances of survival, or reproduction. The high quality new, and ground-breaking, information that this short theory developmental paper strives to provide to its interested readers is supported by the results of the five field experiments included within its pages. In addition, the five field experiments show that all psychological processes will continue to function as normal whilst in the presence of irrelevant stimulus, and that the conscious mind will remain unaffected. The genius process of natural selection is capable of ensuring that survival occurs through only responding to important, and relevant stimuli (God, and my fanning) you can do what you want to be, but it remains irrelevant. When I die, god will say to me Mark why did you pay attention to these people? I will say I didn’t. This research paper, and the field experiments contained within it have shown that no one has to worry about anything in this life, because the process of natural selection, and sometimes the presence of the naturally beautiful stimulus, ensures our survival through only responding to stimuli that are worthwhile of our attention, and promoting our survival. We as individuals do not even have to waste our conscious attention span on irrelevant, and unnecessary stimulus. This is, because if a stimulus is not worth responding to then even our unconscious mind will not pay attention to it. The real reason that irrelevant stimulus have not been able to provoke any kind of response from myself is that they are not essential to my survival, and chances of reproducing (limited). My question is does the paranoid “creator, of the situations which these irrelevant stimuli have presented themselves in honestly think that by parading these irrelevant stimuli around in front of me might actually help his chances of survival, and reproduction? If so will his hypothesis, and research question, change upon reading that they have failed to obtain my attention?(Get a job... NUTS!!!!) My intelligence leads me to believe that nature is the best way of dealing with irrelevant stimulus, and eventually on a long enough time period they will all become extinct due to natural selection, and due to them being so annoying that they are eaten alive by hungry predators (perhaps a honey badger..poor badger) Not even through the process of parading the irrelevant stimulus with other irrelevant stimulus, or disguising it with bizarre, and unappealing, camouflaged apparel make it any more relevant or important to me.

6: Discuss how the irrelevant stimulus presents itself during times when it’s depressed, lonely, paranoid, and possibly impotent, creator is experiencing stress, anxiety, and mostly impotence. (Through the process of regression)

      After failing to understand why an irrelevant stimulus would attempt to continue to stimulate something it will never have the chance of doing so it was my intention to create a prediction as to when the irrelevant stimulus would try to gain my attention again. Upon not being able to concentrate on something so irrelevant my gut instincts informed me that the person who was initiating the appearance of the irrelevant stimulus was doing so in times when they were under periods of extreme stress, and denial, of their own miserable life circumstances. (Upham) Upon the paranoid director of irrelevant stimuli regressing to a deeper level of stress they raised their hands (like its 1999) and command the entrance of an irrelevant stimulus.

 

The Final research question, for this paper is “why would something that is not connected to an organism in any way at all make an attempt at obtaining it’s attention?” I cannot think of any single reason that something irrelevant would attempt at trying to obtain the attention of something that it has absolutely nothing to do with. What makes you think that you are important enough to even warrant a response from me, or any other living organism? Even with your desperate efforts at obtaining my attention you fail to secure my conscious attention. Even in some cases I may hear you (unfortunately) my body refuses to pay any attention to you in anyway shape or form. Just because me, and you are in the same room there will never be a connection between us in any way at all.

A final term to incorporate into this short paper is intention. It is my intention to state that life is all about intention. If you go out of  your way to hurt, or offend, another person, then you really cannot apologise. However, if you offend someone unintentionally then two options are available. First you can apologize, and second if someone is offended by your actions, or words, then it is not your fault, so you do not have to apologize. You do not have to do anything, because it is not your fault that they are offended. It is their fault entirely, and that is not your fault.

       Usually learning to ignore something irrelevant, and meaningless, to an organism involves the process of habituation. For any interested readers who are not familiar with the process of habituation, it is a simple process involving nothing more than a decline in the orienting reflex to a stimulus that acquires your attention. However, it is my intention (already discussed in this short paper) to now inform anyone who has not already fallen asleep from reading this paper of the sheer irrelevance the mentioned stimulus actually are to me, my family, my future, my happiness, and my personal life, this was not necessary. Thankfully the irrelevant stimulus arrived equipped with its own natural method of ensuring that I didn’t have to waste any time through extinction, habituation, or other methods of becoming decontaminated to it in all its forms. This natural method of ensuring I did not wate any time on it is nothing more than irrelevance.

Personality traits, and type, of the irrelevant stimulus.

Although, the irrelevant stimulus demonstrates, and possesses, a wide range of odd personality traits, it is the Paranoid Personality Disorder that best sums up all their traits into a singular unhealthy collective package. DSM-IV defines this specific disorder as, “A pattern of distrust, and suspiciousness, such that others' motives are interpreted as malevolent.” In addition, Histrionic Personality Disorder also very accurately describes their thought, feelings, emotions, and behavior. DSM-IV defines this disorder, “A pattern of excessive emotionality, and attention, seeking.” A personality type is a collection of personality traits, and therefore defines, and compiles, the ways that an irrelevant stimulus has to demonstrate its tendency to respond to everyday situations. For example, one of the big five, or six personality, traits is agreeableness. This particular personality trait represents how warm, or friendly, an irrelevant stimulus has the potential to be. As we have seen in this paper, the irrelevant stimulus is not friendly, or warm in any case at all (this is unlike the highly warm, fluffy, and cuddly honey badger). Anyway I am straying away from the topic. The significance of me including the personality types of the irrelevant stimulus in this paper act as a way of summarising it’s bizarre behavior in consideration for the correct medication. Correct medication refers to both the type, and dose. There is still room in this paper to discuss the inappropriate sexual behavior, and thought patterns, demonstrated by the irrelevant stimulus. This will be discussed after this section. From this paper it is quite easy to see that the irrelevant attempts to demonstrate some warped form of relevance to myself through bizarre, paranoid behavior. Depending on which model of personality traits you are most familiar with, you probably are aware that may psychologists will agree on five, or six. Another significant trait which is relevant (opposite to irrelevant) to this specific paper, and those circumstances discussed within it is that of, “extraversion”. Some of the irrelevant stimulus mentioned in this short paper demonstrate a warped version of extraversion. Specifically, the type of extraversion demonstrated is highly sexually inappropriate.

Sexually inappropriate behaviors, and inappropriate dialogue.

Poor honey badger.

       The emotions, feelings, and thoughts in this paper that are meant to represent my own due to these specific circumstances are not inappropriate, or offensive. This is, because they represent those of any other normal person on the planet who is trying to go about their daily business, keep themselves to themselves, and concentrate on matters relevant to their own family. Therefore, how can they be considered inappropriate? Actually, time to reflect on this, for a moment. Why would anyone in the planet not be concentrating on their own life? What is more significant than concentrating on your own lives and that of your family? Really, let’s take this seriously, for a moment. What on this planet is more important to myself, or anyone else, than their own family, and private life? WHY WOULD I PAY ATTENTION TO ANYTHING ON THIS PLABET OTHER THAN MY OWN FAMILY, AND PERSONAL LIFE? There is no relation between myself, and any irrelevant stimulus, so why am I going to waste time that could be devoted to my family, and close friends, to an irrelevant stimulus? Is there a person on this planet who would devote valuable attention, meant for their family, to a person dressed in heavily camouflaged clothing hobbling around close to you on a pair of brightly colored crutches? Unless you are speaking in German, and about to exchange your irrelevant shift for theirs then the answer will be no. Most other person on this planet would have started a war by now, but all I am doing is stating these matters are irrelevant to myself, and MY PRIVATE LIFE. You cannot even walk down the street these days and smile at someone, or their kid, without them saying something along the lines of, “Uh stay away from me.”

 

Graph of my results:

Table which shows how relevant stimulus effect my physiological senses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    This is the honey badger. In this photo he is happy, and free, as any interested readers can see. He is minding his own business, and concentrating on matters relevant to his own life, that of his family, and his PERSONAL BUISNESS. He appears to be relatively happy in this present picture. It’s a bit like me actually. He is likely to be thinking of boxing, Muay Thai, and food.

 

 

Now to draw your attention to this picture (below) for a second. In comparison to the picture of the badger above things have changed dramatically here. He is now not happy (nor free) and he is doing all he can to concentrate on his own life, and mind his own private business. This is representative of one of my field experiments (kind of). As you can see this is the irrelevant stimulus. Poor badger. As you can see the irrelevant stimulus proceeds to act in a bizarre, and irrational, manner in close proximity to himself, dramatically trying to get his attention. Although they are not on crutches, or wearing heavily camouflaged clothing. Actually, this particular area of desert is a crutch free area, and there is no need, for camouflage, unless it’s desert style, but there is no demand for that, because it’s shite. However, it is representative to my own personal experiences with the irrelevant stimulus of the last six years or so. Anyway, as the irrelevant stimulus circle him in a bizarre, and irrational, manner, the badger remains calm, and unaffected, in anyway shape or form. He is not a violent badger, far from it actually, but he likes his personal space, and he likes to think of his family. This particular badger is actually quite confused about this bizarre form of irrational, and irrelevant behavior. His attention remains loyal, and very committed to his family, and all those special badgers that have helped him over his lifetime. Let’s take a look at this scenario. As you can see below from left to right in a clockwise motion first he is surrounded by two irrelevant stimuli. Top right: irrelevant stimulus circles him in a bizarre manner, one produces a very fake smile, but did not leave the situation. Finally, bottom right they all forget their lines, and the badger has enough, and bangs his head off the wall. In the picture to the top right, you can see him warn the irrelevant stimulus to mind his business. Under extreme provocation, and only under extreme, and severe, and I mean severe, life threatening provocation this notoriously shy, but friendly honey badger has a few favourite lines. He chooses to deploy them as a psychological defence mechanism in an attempt to warn dangerous predators from damage. These include: listen you f**king ar*e, back the f**k up before you get smacked the f**k up. Also, his absolute all time favourite line is a tie between; mind your f**king business, and why don’t you mind your f**king business, because I am trying to concentrate on my family. Another  personal fave of this particular badger is:Let’s die, and get the hell of out of here. This is only his dialogue when seriously, and horrifically provoked, or stalked, by irrelevant stimuli, but all other times he is very sweet, and caring. (Poor badger)

 

 

       Anyway, this picture below demonstrates the badger in a happier state of mind. It represents a short while after arriving home, and not having to worry about the situation in the photo above due to the severe level of irrelevance these irrelevant stimuli posed to his family, close friends, private life, personal business, and future with them. In Quiet. In the picture below, the badger has been reunited with his lady friend, and they are enjoying a nice cuddle. (Relevant stimulus) Apparently, he told me that in this particular picture she had made him a nice cup of tea, and a corn beef sandwich, for being such a brave badger. What me brave he said? Yes she said, and you also remained calm, and thought of only your family, friends, and enjoying your PRIVATE LIFE, AND PRIVACY. Oh by the way: I was proud of the the fact your body did not once produce a conscious physiological response in anyway at all. The only change was the production of new blood cells. UPDATE TO THE NOTION OF CONSCIOUS RESPONSE. (Please refer to the bottom of this paper.)

 

       Actually, the significance of this particular badger, and the photo, is as such: he is a quiet peaceful badger, and he really hates trouble. He likes his family, Muay Thai, boxing, peacefulness, and food. Most importantly, the things he likes the most are: privacy, his personal business, and he really likes people to stay away from him. He is not fussy, nor antisocial, but he likes his privacy, and personal space. He really is not interested in anything you might want him to do, because he probably will not want to do it. This specific badger is pretty unique actually, because he likes to be alone, or with his family. He really does not like people knowing anything about him, and he does not care what you think. All he is trying to do is just mind his own business, and live on his own until he dies peacefully. Once again, he does not care what you think, nor is he interested in any plans for what you may have for him. He does not like those people who think they have even the slightest control over even just one tiny hair on his body. He does not want to have kids, get married, have a partner, or girlfriend, or any other relationships with the opposite sex. Why is this badger like this you might ask? There are two possible reasons. First: mind your business, because you mean nothing to him. (He really, really, really means this) Secondly: people always need to know stuff that is nothing to do with them. Anyway, this badger is not special, not important, and he doesn’t claim to be so, in anyway. All these details are on his birth certificate. What he really does not like is sexually inappropriate behavior directed at him when he is out, or just having a nice cup of tea with a corn beef sandwich. If you find him fluffy, or cute, or even funny, that’s your problem, and not his. This is, because you are irrelevant to him, and his private life. I wouldn’t touch him, because he would not like that at all. If you think you are different to other forms of irrelevant stimulus in the terms the you might be entitled to getting attention of him, or having the right to know something about him well this particular honey badger would like to inform you that you are not, and he wants you to leave him alone. Please do not think you are different to any other forms of irrelevant stimulus, because you are not. Finally, this is not a joke, and this badger had expressed himself very seriously. If you doubt him he might shoot you in the head. Poor badger.

       Another term that needs to be discussed is perception, and it is very relevant to this paper. Perception is a key fundamental psychological element. It is significant, because irrelevant stimulus have the habit of perceiving things that are not actual happening. This is okay, well not really, because it has already been mentioned in this paper, and it is part of a psychological illness called delusional disorder. In addition, the irrelevant stimulus like to see things, perceive them as something completely different to reality, and then cause a war, because of it. Just because the irrelevant stimulus likes to perceive reality through their own warped perception does not mean it is actually happening. Your perception of what is actually happening is not actually true. Finally, the field experiments documented in this essay came as a surprise to myself, beside I am really not special. Actually, I am just the same as all other persons, but probably a lot less important. This is the confusing part, for myself. I am really just a regular person, and there is nothing special about me in anyway what, so ever.

 

This part has been removed, because the level of irrelevance was starting to smell.

 

       Field experiment number seven.

In this field experiment we again return to a change in the appearance of the irrelevant stimulus. This time in an effort to replicate my experiences with the irrelevant stimulus in real life during the last six years or so, my lovely assistant wears contact lenses. These are not any ordinary contact lenses however, these represent the eyes of someone who has a wonky eye, or cockeye. This is in no way disrespect to anyone with an eye disorder.)

 

 

 

 

References:

(Need to add more references here Mark, this is supposed to be a serious document)

Eckstein, D., Frings, C., Horner, J., Henson, N.R., Waszak, F., (2014). Stimulus-response bindings in priming. ScienceDirect, Volume 18, Issue 7, 376-384.

Cragg, L., (2016). The development of Stimulus, and Response, interference Control in Midchildhood. Developmental Psychology Vol. 52,2 (2016): 242-52. DOI: 10.1037/dev0000074.