Nothing hurts the process of truth seeking more than failed or deceiving arguments. The promotion of any falsity results in distrust and dissolves credibility. So, if you want to avoid fraudulence or apparent ignorance, I suggest you understand what the process of argument really is. Of course, if your goal actually is to deceive or sham, hopefully, at least, with a strong comprehension of argument, you’ll be more successful achieving these ends! Morals are an aside for now; first things first, let’s focus on making arguments which don’t result in immediate dismissal.
So, an argument is defined as a logical construct consisting of a set of premises, or declared propositions, along with a declared conclusion. A deductive argument uses straightforward logic to assert that a conclusion is the logical consequence of these premises. When these premises are certain, the conclusion should follow with certainty. If there is a fault in the logical reasoning, there exists a fallacy, or a logical failure. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can only suggest that conclusions are supported by their premises, which can result in generalizations for theory-building. Inductive reasoning is not deductively valid and is not formal, but informal, logic. It’s important to understand the differences between conclusions invalidated by fallacy, those proved with certainty, and those proved without certainty.
Strong and weak induction are the two types of inductive reasoning which lead to general, uncertain conclusions. If I say, “cats like to play with strings,” I’m not lying, but I’m not declaring that with 100% certainty, either. This is a strong inductively reasoned conclusion, and it forms a probable conclusion by simply inducing a universal generalization from the particular. If I say, “I know with certainty all cats like to play with strings,” then I’m being deceiving, even if I’ve never heard of a cat who didn’t like strings. If it’s only ever been observed that cats do like string (premise), then when I say, “cats like to play with string,” what I’m really saying is, “[all observed cats]…”. If you find a cat that hates strings, then I have to change that to, “[most cats]…”, which really means “[most observed cats]…”, because I still cannot say, “[with certainty, most cats]…”.
Weak induction, which makes a conclusion only possible from true premises, takes a specific observation to draw a general conclusion. This can be as ridiculous as saying, “stupid people cannot read, therefore all people who cannot read are stupid.” While the premise may be certain, there are plenty of reasons a highly intelligent person could not read. The logical connection of premise to conclusion here is false and the only certainty in the argument is that some illiterates are stupid. Of course, if the conclusion cannot be proven false, then it is actually possible all illiterates are stupid! Try disproving this weak conclusion: “rain is falling from the sky, therefore all rain falls from the sky.”
As inductive arguments, these arguments fail to “informal fallacy,” where the premises fail to support the proposed conclusion. Their merit is dependent on the inductive strength of the connection of premise to conclusion. Straightforward deductive arguments can also fail to informal fallacy if a premise is hidden or omitted. Along with informal fallacies are “formal fallacies,” which also affect both inductive and deductive arguments. These fallacies are always wrong because they are non sequiturs, or arguments with false logical structures in proving the conclusion from the premises.
A frequent type of formal fallacy is an ad hominem argument that attacks a person making a claim rather than the claim itself. An example of this would be to say, “Americans should not invade foreign countries, kill their leaders, and convert their citizens to Christianity, because that was a suggestion put forth by Ann Coulter, who is a batshit-crazy psychopath.” Even though it’s likely true that Ann Coulter is a batshit-crazy psychopath, you must counter the actual claim that America should invade every non-Christian country and mass murder their governments to avoid making a formal fallacy. Besides, stop being mean. Even though she frequently calls for ruthless genocides and shameless suppressions of freedoms, and unpredictably shakes and twitches violently while reciting incoherent Satanic chants, she’s probably a very loving, generous, and gentle soul at heart.
Additionally, arguments have or don’t have validity and soundness. Arguments which fail to logical fallacy are invalid, where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. However, because a valid argument could still have a false conclusion, soundness is used for clarification. A sound argument must have both A: True premises and B: A valid argument. The resulting conclusion of a sound argument is therefore always true. An explanation is the inverse of an argument, since it tries to determine the premises of why something is true. An argument, on the other hand, tries to show that something will be true based on premises and their resulting consequences. A look at frequently made fallacies warrants further investigation, which I will save for later! 
Right now if you’re reading this, you live in a reality where infinity exists. How do I know this? Read this post for an explanation of a never ending infinite in 3d. Even if you aren’t convinced your tangible reality exists on an infinite plane (itself a difficult argument to make), you can still simulate genuine infinity on a computer with ease. That simulation exists in the world of ideas, and the world of ideas is as real as your own senses. Yes, an idea is as tangible as the world you touch! The world you physically interact with can only be perceived through your senses, each of which is easily overridden. What you see on television are only visuals, not true reality manifesting in front of you (probably 
), but these visuals affect you through the same sense pathways “tangible” events do. In fact, it’s arguably impossible to make the case you’re not in a simulation or dream right now. Since your reality is defined by your senses which are permeable by an infinite realm of ideas, your reality is in fact infinite!!
Now that that’s out of the way, I don’t think it’s too difficult to argue we like to experience new things. What if every song on the radio were the same? Even worse, what if every measure was a repeat of the measure before it? Artistic repetition is along the lines of the concept an immortal astronaut stuck infinitely in space with only his own thoughts, a probably hellish experience. It’s creation, either scientific or artistic, which pushes life (and the economy) forward, providing new opportunities and ideas. Scientific pursuits are often fairly linear and involve the acquisition of knowledge through dedicated data accumulation and experimentation. Artistic creation, however, is less straightforward. I tried to craft a definition of art years ago, and while I don’t remember precisely, I know it was something along the lines of a creation which either resembles the perfection of a concept or deliberately enhances, distorts, or engulfs an observer’s reality.
Since the outpouring of the infinite trove of ideas is mere noise, the scientist must attempt to make sense of this data, and an artist must organize ideas in a fashion that creates an artistic construct. Science moves forward in a state of logic, blazing truths and falsehoods in its path, while art moves beyond logic and pushes easily beyond an observer’s capacity. The possible constructs of organized noise are endless, and by definition all their possibilities already exist. It’s only a matter of organizing these endless opportunities and promoting them into reality.
If you focus your energies on becoming a successful creator (or noise organizer?), boundaries neglect to exist, and the world acquires additional value with the gains of novel art or craft. If you focus your energy on rehashing existing creations without adding new technology or experiences, you may feed off the interest of that which you’re emulating, but it’s ultimately a very limiting strategy. Instead, drive for perfection, or artistic complexity, in your own unique pursuits. You’re rarely going to beat someone at their own game, and there is rarely a need to. Besides, nobody is playing the same game or even has the same goals. The thirst for fresh experiences is insatiable, and the creative vacancies waiting to be filled are limitless. Instead of competing, add to the world and fill in these vacancies!
Eclectic art magazines are flooded with new ideas on every page. Every new artistic exploration of a juxtaposition or manufactured reality is inherently interesting as long as it’s not self-contradicting, which can be a feat in itself. If you keep exploring and creating, fascinating results are virtually guaranteed, and the world becomes a more interesting and enjoyable place.
In the midst of writing a fairly serious blog post, the coffee shop I was at was closing, so I figured I’d simply close my laptop lid and finish it in the car. Unfortunately, the most recent Ubuntu OS has a known bug related to its suspend function, and when I went to open it: everything gone. It wasn’t a lot- three carefully edited paragraphs at best, but more importantly, my state of mind was shaken. I wasn’t mad, because well, you can’t be mad at a machine which follows imperfect instruction sets, you just have to surrender to its quirks. However, my focus on the topic as well as my emotional and memory associations have been thrown for a loop to the degree that I don’t wish to revisit the subject now. Unfortunately that blog post will have to wait.
Now what’s unavoidably on my mind is the unshakable relationship between flow and output. Output is easy if you’re in a state of flow. If someone cannot output, s/he cannot provide value because there is no product for a consumer to derive value from. Quality output -> value -> consumer interest -> financial capital. In short, the value of an unhindered flow should not be underestimated. So, what are some of these phenomena, or horizontal hindrances, which impede the vertical output we need so much, and how do we curtail some of them before they materialize into real distractions?
Piccola Necrofilaia by Gabriels
The most obvious disturbances are the minor stimuli in our immediate environment which most readily call for our attention. This could be something as simple as a drop of coffee spilled on a desk, a car’s headlights on a street, or crickets creating their own cricket reality right outside of a window. If your concentration and short-term memory are good, these stimuli should hardly phase you. If a telemarketer makes a call, it’s a bit more distracting, but it does not necessitate conscious attention. But, oh no, now a friend is calling! You probably wish to talk to him/her, there’s probably an interesting conversation awaiting, and you both want to talk and make the interaction the main focus. One option is to not answer, and return the phone call as soon as you’ve organized your most pressing thoughts. You can finish writing the paragraph you have floating around in broken mental pieces, or if you’re a programmer, you can first finish figuring out the repercussions of passing a public variable through a function you’re trying to incorporate before returning the call. The hopeful result is the call will feel like a refreshing break instead of a distraction that demands attention. We’re designed to feel in tune with our environment, and distractions are healthy when they don’t distract.
Other thought disturbances are less apparent, particularly those of a public or social nature which are more difficult to control. I believe Google did a substantial amount of research for the Googleplex and its offices focused on creating ideal work environments to maximize output and minimize distractions. Some of the results were recommendations to carefully manage colors in the environment, promote work space personalization and social relations, and avoid having foot traffic move behind anyone as they worked. This resulted in a colorfully creative and stimulating environment and an office setting which encouraged employees to face towards gathering spaces instead of the common trend of facing into walls. The focus on an efficient work space was well worth its research sticker, as Google’s top engineers provide millions of dollars of value to the company each year. If these human capital assets lose 5% of their focus, the output stream that has created the Google machine faces a real setback. It’s only logical to optimize as many objective environment details as possible before the law of diminishing returns sets in, which, in Google’s case is very, very high.
The most obvious distraction of all is that we’re biological creatures. We need food, sleep, and cellular metabolism to function, let alone exist. These are are greatest limitations of all. I have limited mental capacity, as my brain is biologically limited, and physical requirements simply take priority. If I didn’t have to eat, sleep, or even move and never lost mental clarity, I would be able constantly process input and output streams non-stop. That could be a state of mental nirvana, but it doesn’t manifest in our biological realm. Since our thinking operates off our brain and blood, it makes sense to keep that cardiovascular system healthy. I personally think a lot of this is tied to the human insulin system, and good insulin regulation is not only key to avoiding diabetes, but also to mental clarity. So, if you want to think effectively, take disciplined action to keep your insulin response healthy. Avoid any known risk of diabetes, such as high intake of sugary, high-glycemic foods, poor sleep, and inactivity. Two dietary sources known to prevent insulin resistance, and therefore support healthy insulin responses are actually coffee and alcohol. Try consuming coffee in upon waking and moderate alcohol later in that waking cycle.
For concentration, is your environment healthy, and does it prevent worry and induce creativity? Is the weather miserable or are you indoors all day? This is an aspect of where I live, North Texas, which I don’t like. Summers days here exceed 100 F frequently, and winters can be brutal. Homes here are large, often don’t have a gas line, and are built for Texas heat and often status. 40F on winter day is often less tolerable than 20F in areas further north which aren’t immersed in the humidity off the Gulf of Mexico. The low teens are painful, and for December and January of every year, the weather is unavoidably miserable. Some days have non-stop downpours of seemingly spiteful rain, and summers can span months on a few rain drops. Air often blurs like ripples through a pond on days which can be so hot and dry. A gem I stumbled upon in Wikipedia while reading about rainforests, was that the central region of the US experiences seasonal temperature shifts like no other region in the world. Unfortunately, this isn’t the most conducive environment for creativity, so I hope to travel more to offset some of what I perceive as geographical impediments.
External criticism and a need for self-reassurance are some of the most common impediments to a healthy output. I attach this to personal ego. Males often value themselves by their work and females are often sensitive and concerned with social approval. A failed entrepreneurial attempt can hurt anyone’s ego to the extent they avoid taking risks despite when smart management of these risks and perseverance can pave the road to substantial success. It’s hard to detach from the approval/disapproval system that’s been deeply ingrained in a social species throughout its evolution. Our drive for social approval feedback dates to the days we lived in tribes and had to be very careful about not upsetting a natural order. Consequently, fear of a negative feedback loop alters decisions which would have otherwise been made on clear judgment too often. On the other hand, a need for acceptance can induce financial impulsiveness.
Entrepreneurship author Seth Godin reflected in his blog yesterday that people are astounded when “someone shows up and acts without contradiction … When an athlete just does the sport, or when a writer just writes the words, we can’t help but watch, astonished at the purity of their actions. Why is it so difficult to do what we say we’re going to do.” When I read this, one of the first things that came to mind was actually Li’l Wayne. His output is substantial and he seems to have no self-doubt, stays dedicated, and shirks distraction. Now he’s in half the songs on the radio and has an enormous interlinking of other artists he artistically and financially collaborates with. He’s an example of someone who’s created an empire that was available to anyone with the capacity to take on. But, then again, Li’l Wayne might not be the best example of avoiding distraction; a few felony charges probably don’t make the best productivity enhancement.