Goncharenko centre 2026-1-29: Analysis and reasoning

Post event notes: See farther down on this page, partially mixed earlier.

Translation: auto translation of this page into Ukrainian

Hello and welcome to the first meeting of 2026

First meeting of 2026, Thursday 29 Jan.: 14:30-16:00 (it was going to be 14:00-16:00, but the time slot was changed by the centre)

See the announcement page for the meetings of 2026-1-29 and 2026-1-30. A lof of what I wanted to discuss was not dealt with, from other topics such as Lviv and why to live in or near Kremenchuk. The rest we can deal with in the 3rd meeting.

I started showing this video SAFA Brian, Jungle boy, https://youtu.be/pSP2ybTbHY0 in which jungle scenes are projected onto various buildings. I asked attendees whether they knew a different name for a city, any city, related to these scenes. One of them knew. Think about it... You can read my comment with the answer in the comments with that video on youtube.

Some new attendees wondered why I am in Kremenchuk. I mentioned that there are a few reasons, such as cool or interesting things. I mentioned a few such as the giant Lenin statue, not for being about Lenin, but for being huge. You see nothing of that size in NL. There is a very big statue of Cossacks on horses in Zhovti vodi (Yellow waters), it would be cool to have something like that on the now empty square. Then there is the 'most dangerous bridge in the world' across the river, I like the parks, and there is more.

[ some of what I didn't tell: It was the fist time I saw a fountain with lights and music, later also in Ternopil (I think it was Ternopil, check), with a Roshen factory. This fountain no longer has the music for some reason. At the time the fountain changed colours and the height of the water varied with the music. Then the hotel where I stayed the first time in particular was cool, with a really nice outdoor eating facility, the Jolki palki hotel. The name always gave giggles, and I finally realised in 2022 what it meant. Nobody wanted to tell me but I found out while visiting houses near Zhytomyr, in 2022. There are other reasons but I think I mentioned most of them in previous talks ]

I mentioned that I like Kharkov and Zaporizhya more, but buying a house there is not a good idea, too close to the war zone.

I mentioned what I like in Kharkov, such as the style of buildings. Old pre soviet style buildings in pastel colours for example, and it is not so noisy.

Now to the interesting topics. In the announcement I suggested watching a few videos on youtube as preparation for the meeting, about arguing, morals, and why socialism doesn't work. The purpose of watching these videos is to develop your reasoning, analysis.

The first video is about some aspects of reasoning, and it is not complete but shows you a mirror, in the video for the guy to look at and examine his own actions which is of course what you should then use to examine your actions and examine the reasons why you argue a certain way. A lot of people argue improperly and for silly reasons such as in this video to always want to know it better, to be right.

The essential thing about analysis is to ask questions, why is something like this or like that, could it be improved in some way, what is the principle that makes something work, etc.

After analysis, and 'finding out the truth', which you can do yourself, depending on the complexity of the situation to be examined, you get to discussions and the problem of convincing people of what makes sense. That is a huge problem because people generally do not want to hear things that show that their world view is incorrect. [ This is why there are camps of political beliefs, 'left', 'right', etc., which are sect-like groups with people who do not want to hear the truth, they want to hear their beliefs confirmed. ]

I mentioned that in discussions related to computer programming, about Linux and licences for example, I experienced that people became irrational, even angry/annoyed about my posts. The reason for this was, as I later realised, that they could not find faults in my arguments, and they didn't like the implications of my arguments. One person for example stated, I am paraphrasing here: "I don't know the best way but your argument is no good". Ah yes, he couldn't find a counter argument, and that is because I make my arguments almost criticism proof by virtue of thinking ahead myself to what others could criticise and to adjust my views and arguments with that [ I did that to come to the truth, not to 'win arguments' but they are the same in the end because when you find the truth or come close to the truth then it will be impossible, respectively very difficult, for another person to show that you are wrong (by way of a counter argument)... ]

I mentioned that some of what is considered improper arguing is actually correct in many cases, such as referring to authority. Example: some proof on mathematics about prime numbers. Few people in the world can understand deep mathematical proofs, therefore stating "this mathematician said it is correct, therefore it is true" is not just good, it is the only thing you can do!

This topic was continued in meeting 2 (the next day, on Friday): I mentioned that what I do with nonsense that I see, is to post my views in comments/replies and I do not read nor care about responses. As someone guessed: I post my responses for others than the one to whom I reply (others who may be open to the truth rather than beliefs that they already have), to show reality rather than the nonsense that that person to whom I replied, wrote.

Regarding propagandists posting nonsense in favour of russia, to whom I reply on youtube now and then: There are 4 types: 1. paid propagandists (can be in any country), these are anti-social and/or emotion poor people as you can deduce from their comments, 2. russians (state propagandists or indoctrinated idiots), 3. people who hate their government and think that russia is an example of better government, 4. insane people. One attendee mentioned bots: The ones to whom I respond are not bots, they were already posting in 2022 and you can recognise bots from the style.

[ An example in the style/content of text: I watched a bit of a video on youtube and what the narrator said was weird, the text used by the (probably AI voice), listed details and was in a style that was strange, too much extraneouus information included, with details of the story in a way that no normal person talks. So I knew: This is fake: The text was not written by a human. Someone commented about this with the video, so not everyone is fooled...
Note: Recently it has become difficult in some cases to tell whether voices are real or fake. In particular I noticed that some channels are posting texts spoken using a voice that sounds the same as that of Alan Watts (on esoteric topics), but the texts are not his texts and the voice is a fake voice, but the voice sounds almost perfectly like him. ]

Related to that we came to psychology. I stated that I understand people better than psychologists. Why is this? Well, one of the problems in psychology is that they are not doing proper analysis. The other main problem is that people who get into psychology are most of the times not suited for research and not for therapy, because of the reason for which they get into psychology. This reason, as one of the attendees guessed (I also mentioned it in a meeting last year), and it is clear from talking to them and which many told me explicitly (even without me asking them about this) is one of the main reasons for people to go study psychology: To understand themselves. This is a problem, as if you don't understand yourself at 18 then you will not get a proper understanding of yourself and also not others, with 4 years' of studying. You will have then a theoretical bit of knowledge which you cannot apply quickly because you miss emotional understanding.

I mentioned that on many topics, I know how things work without doing any effort. I gather all knowledge from various sources just by glancing headlines of news stories or youtube videos, anything, and my views on a topic, created without doing any conscious effort (but note that analysis for me works in the background all the time), I form a view and it always turns out to be correct.

There is a specific reason besides the fact that I remember everything that stands out, which I can then use later, it just pops in my mind when there is a connection: connections are what determines what is reality. This is the essence of determining that scientific theories are correct or missing something, and the essence of determining what is real when people tell you something: Is it representative or an exception or something made up? Does it fit with the rest of what you know is reality? Contradictions tell you that there is a problem, in theories and/or your understanding. If a theory is good, then it fits with, which means it links to, all available data. So I develop ideas, partially using background processing, on these questions that I listed above: why are things this way or that way, etc. You solve this by laying connections, to a theory, to data/examples, etc. Then you know "the truth" or "what makes sense".

I mentioned after the meeting to one attendee that I watched a documentary long ago, about physicists talking about various topics and one of them, a Dutch physicist mentioned what they did in his student club (or was it with his friends? I don't recall which it was, I will try to find this documentary again, I think it was an old episode of the BBC's Horizon documentary series), which is a game of trying to link one topic to another topic, and these topics can be anything, in I think it was 5 steps. This is very good exercise to develop your understanding, as this is the essence of science and of understanding...

About psychological analysis I mentioned that I recognise people most of all in writing. One attendee found this difficult and that from the face you see more. [ This is true, but, and I didn't mention this in the meeting: It gives a lot of information but also you need to process it all while talking to a person. This means your attention is spread out. This means you can miss things easily because of distractions or just the conversation, so the realisation what a person is like can come later when you had time to process all impressions. However, with writing I see almost instantly what a person is like. Well, whether he/she is anti-social, manipulator, autistic, psychopath, in particular. ]
One attendee asked whether I could tell what she is like. I replied that my emphasis is on people who are anti-social, manipulators, autistic, psychopaths. The reason for that is that such people need to be recognised and people need to be warned about them (as to other people: Be what you want, I do not care. I do see some things in behaviour/comments and then later I realised that I knew something about a person. An example is Mel Gibson's behaviour in the film "Lethal weapon", with Danny Gover. He tells Glover at some point to flap his arms like a bird, to distract the criminal. The way he spoke and his mannerisms seemed strange to me, but I only realised this subconsciously, as I later realised when thinking back to this. I thought back to that scene and my subconscious thoughts about it many years later when I read somewhere about some mental issue he has (bipolar disorder, which gives extreme mood swings). I immediately thought back to this scene and thought: "Aha, that is why he acted that way in that film!", you can see this in his actions.
[ Note that generally actors do not act, they play themselves. You can recognise people from their talking and mannerisms which usually stay the same in any films and TV series in which they play. ]
So I could not say what she was like exactly, but in any case she is none of the types that I am good at recognising (the behaviour of such people, in programming related to Linux, and related to noise pollution from aircraft from airport Schiphol, was what caused me to start analysing especially such people). My sister is much better at this, she knows what people are really like and what they do, even what they like in life, just from the face (need not be in person, it can be from a photograph).
For me reading what someone wrote works best, and though it may seem difficult to others, each choice of word and the exact formation of sentences, gives me information about the personality. Everyone projects his/her personality in actions, in way of speaking, in way of writing, in facial expressions...

I mentioned that I can get angry reading a text and then I think: "Why did I get angry", and then I realise: "aha, he must be stating something in an anti-social manner or he uses invalid reasoning", and that always turns out to be correct. So subconsciously I know that the person uses invalid reasoning and makes anti-social comments. [ This is a form of background processing ]

[ I suggested to the former friend from Kharkov (see meeting 1 of 2025) how to start and use background processing, some years ago but I never got feedback on it. You start by consciously analysing everything you see and hear, you also need to listen to your inner voice (some people don't have one, this could be something to discuss in a future meeting) and in time you have background thinking as a running commentary going. I mentioned how it works for me in a meeting giving as an example my thoughts from while watching the old soviet film "My sweet and tender beast". ]

One attendee wanted to know more about my impressions of Lviv and I did that at the end of the meeting, continued in the next meeting.

The first time to Lviv in 2016 I didn't like it, too much noise from cars going over the cobble stones, too hilly, especially some parks I thought were pretty bad: not relaxation but sport. The buildings didn't appeal to me either. The park in the centre near the university is also not one I liked because of going up a hill, not so steep but too much for a relaxed walk. The buildings are more like in other cities in Europe though more colourful. [ Note: In Poland I saw buildings comparable to in Lviv in a few places, in particular the city centre of Wroclaw. ] One attendee mentioned in one of the meetings last year that she liked Lviv until she had visited other countries in Europe, after that it didn't feel special any more...

So in Lviv I went to the tower in the centre, Ratusha, and I saw a tourist centre first so I went in there to ask for the entrance. I got a little card that you need to give a security guard (the place is where the city council of Lviv gathers) to get in, strange. If you go to the entrance and don't have such a card, the guard will tell you to go to the tourist centre first. What is the point? When I went to the tower I saw that a few people were sent to the tourist centre... I said in the meeting that I had a pleasant talk with the woman from the tourist centre and I got talking a bit more with her, such as about living in Ukraine and having experienced in the rocket attacks in Zaporizhya in 2022. I said that I asked myself: "is this safe?", and that obviously the answer is no, but that I wanted to do certain things on that trip so I decided after some risk calculations: "but I will stay a little longer".
I asked what the attendees thought the woman thought about this. A few said something like "That you are crazy?", and they missed it completely which is why telling this is very interesting: She said "That makes sense"! I asked to make sure she was serious and it seemed so. This was very surprising to me at the time, and to everyone at the meeting. It was the first and only time so far that someone said something like this. Was she really serious? I'm not completely sure.

Attendees mentioned a few spots/restaurants that could be of interest. I may visit them next time I am in Lviv:

For this meeting I took some self made "ontbijtkoek", after 2 Dutch recipes, thermos bottles with hot water for tea and some lights, so power cuts were not a factor.