There are Wise men and there are not so wise men. There are not so wise men, which on reflection are very wise. There are also men who think they are wise men who when examined turn out to be not wise men at all. WISEMANISM A report on the discovery of what appears to be a widespread psychological disorder that has previously gone unreported This little recognized until now disorder, seems to be one that afflicts academics, journalists and other groups of what would normally be considered fairly intelligent and fair minded people. These affected individuals have no idea that they are different from normal members of society. They think that there irrational actions and thinking processes are the norm. They are devoid of what in the normal sense is fairness in their reasoning, honesty and integrity. It seems nothing is important to the affected person other that there own ego and self-interest. Very often the desire for money and fame is the force that drives them. In a world such as we live today, one thing that is important is that our children are taught to have respect for others. To have respect for the truth and for law and order and to make any judgments in an open and seen to be fair way. In Wisemanism these attributes are lacking. For example, in Wisemanism “consent” is taken, as submitting to an agreement even where the consent is not informed and is not understood. Where as normal people consider “consent” to be something given when all reasonable information is made available to the consenting party and understood by them prior to consenting. Those inflicted with Wisemanism on the other hand consider that it is sufficient to coerce or otherwise deceive a person in order to obtain consent. Another example of Wisemanism would be having small print in an agreement so small it could not be read or in a language unknown to the consenting party. For example A Russian child is asked to consent to an experimental protocol that she could not possibly understand even if it were presented to her in an open and honest way. After all, such a child is neither a scientists nor claiming to be one. In these circumstances it would be the correct practice to have a matching and unbiased member of the scientific community to explain and ensure that the said protocol and its implications are fully explained and understood. Another very recent example is that of the football star David Beckham. In the weeks before the world cup 2004 members of the press ran many stories about his alleged sexual indiscretions and the result was that David's relationship with his wife Victoria was put under a huge emotional strain. Now, why is it that these journalists thought that you could put a man under this pressure, but then also expect him to at the same time play at his best on the football field? David was in a no win situation. Were those who induced this intolerable pressure of David, victims of Wisemanism? It seems reasonable to assume that you do not create emotional strain and upset in a person who you then expect to do well in any human activity. For any human to perform at his or her best, the best possible mental and physical environment should be provided. A person suffering from Wisemanism seems to be totally unable to comprehend these basic requirements for any human being to be able to perform at the upper limits of functioning. It is this inability to understand that the best conditions are required to produce the best results in a human subject that we call Wisemanism. The way to obtain, test for, and evaluate the highest limits of human mental and physical functioning is therefore to provide the very best conditions for a proper period of time, prior to, during, and for sometime after the experimental assessment. To conduct any test or assessment other than under the optimal conditions is unfair to the subject being examined and also to the scientific value placed on the results. Any results obtained under other than optimal testing conditions should always be considered invalid. Experimenters who believe otherwise could be suffering from Wisemanism How can we place any value on results obtained in an experiment, clearly not conducted in conditions conducive to the proper exhibition of the phenomena being examined. We would not test a sensitive astronomical optical instrument in conditions of poor atmospheric stability. We would not do this because we understand the thermal and other effects on such equipment. When we are testing, an unknown and unexplained phenomenon, we do not know what conditions may or may not be detrimental. Indeed, we do not know what may facilitate any effect either, so for these reasons we should listen to the claim and test it under the claimants preferred conditions. A person suffering from Wisemanism may try to argue that to do so under the claimants conditions will enable the claimant to cheat and fraudulently obtain positive results. With proper controls however and a desire to be honest and fair, it should always be possible to work within the conditions that the claimant works normally. In some people there is a desire to prove a negative; this is not a rational thing to want to do. How can it be? If main stream scientists all had this desire where would we be? Take the Loch Ness Monster. To prove it exists is easy; we just have to find it. To prove it does not exist is not so easy unless you can view the whole of the loch at the same time and then say you cannot see it. If you cannot view the entire loch at the same time you cannot say it is not there. A person suffering Wisemanism would take a quick look at the surface of the water and say because I cannot see a monster no monster exists. It is obvious then to most who read this that Wisemanism is a real affliction. Look around you and see how many people appear to have this disorder. It is fairly widespread.