When one begins to apply data analysis, he is often still trying to grasp the data about data analysis rather than the outpoints in the data. The remedy is just become more familiar with the materials of this course. 

Further, one may not realize the ease with which one can acquire the knowledge of an ideal scene. An outpoint is simply an illogical departure from the ideal scene. By comparing the existing scene with the ideal scene, one easily sees the outpoints. 

To know the ideal scene, one has only to work out the correct products for it. If these aren’t getting out, then there is a departure. One can then find the outpoints of the various types and then locate a Why and in that way open the door to handling. And by handling, one is simply trying to get the scene to get out its products. 

Unless one proceeds in this fashion (from product back to establishment), one can’t analyze much of anything. One merely comes up with errors. 

An existing scene is as good as it gets out its products, not as good as it is painted or carpeted or given public relations boosts. 

So for any scene, manufacturing or fighting a war or being a hostess at a party, there are products. 

People who lead pointless lives are very unhappy people. Even the idler or dilettante is happy only when he has a product! 

There is always a product for any scene. 

Standard Action 

A beginner can juggle around and go badly adrift if he doesn’t follow the pattern: 

1. Work out exactly what the (person, unit, activity) should be producing.

2. Work out the ideal scene.

3. Investigate the existing scene.

4. Follow outpoints back from ideal to existing.

5. Locate the real Why that will move the existing toward ideal.

6. Look over existing resources.

7. Get a bright idea of how to handle.

8. Handle or recommend handling so that it stays handled.

This is a very surefire approach. 

If one just notes errors in a scene, with no product or ideal with which to compare the existing scene, he will not be doing data analysis and situations will deteriorate badly because he is finding wrong Whys. 

Thinking

One has to be able to think with outpoints. A crude way of saying this is “learn to think like an idiot.” One could also add “without abandoning any ability to think like a genius.” 

If one can’t tolerate outpoints at all or confront them, one can’t see them. 

A madman can’t tolerate pluspoints and he doesn’t see them either. 

But there can be a lot of pluspoints around and no production. Thus, one can be told how great it all is while the place edges over to the point of collapse. 

One who listens to people on the scene and takes their Whys runs a grave risk. If these were the Whys, then things would be better. 

A far safer way is to talk only insofar as finding what the product is concerned and investigating. 

One should observe the existing scene through data or through observers or through direct observation. 

One often has to guess what the Why might be. It is doing that which brings up the phrase “Learn to think like an idiot.” The Why will be found at the end of a trail of outpoints. Each one is an aberration when compared to the ideal scene. The biggest idiocy which then explains all the rest and which opens the door to improvement toward the ideal scene is the Why. 

One also has to learn to think like a genius with pluspoints. 

Get the big peak period of production (now or in the past). Compare it to the existing scene just before. 

Now find the pluspoints that were entered in. Trace these and you arrive at the Why as the biggest pluspoint that opened the door to improvement. 

But once more one considers resources available and has to get a bright idea. 

So it is the same series of steps as above but with pluspoints.