Use LOGIC.
Logic is what's left after "beLIEfs" have been run through the filter of reasoning. Same way that theories are put to the test with experience & experiment. If it's still a theory or belief, it's not yet a logical conclusion.
Belief is powerful, no doubt about that. Leaps of faith change lives every day. I'm certain to make the distinction though between faith (some would say it's right brained)and logic/reasoning (some would say it's left brained). However, faith is not necessarily logical, and not every belief held can or will align with facts.
Facts deduced by logic are inherently neutral. We can do what we want with them. We project good, evil, good, bad, right, wrong, according to our own perceptions.
They play into people's doubt & uncertainty, more so into people's tendency to take things on face value, easier than taking the time to dig deeper. Folks like 0 hour will disappear form the scene when it's time for them to. Best to ignore them & let those who want to follow them, follow away. Until they can't any more.
Ah, I see what you mean. Building the map. Imperator Rex's thread comes to mind, re: informed speculation (deductive reasoning). With the data points that we are given (point A, point C), point B would be that informed speculation, using A & C as context to deduce a logical conclusion. The chances of being correct are higher when using deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning, is what tends to happen on the board though, and slide after slide is the result. Occam's razor is the solution for that, keeping assumptions to a minimum.
Disinfo does throw off the process a LOT, can't be discounted. I keep in mind though that anons aren't the only ones trying to figure this out. "Others monitoring (friends and enemies)" are the reason why disinfo is necessary. I'm satisfied with that, & do my best not to overthink things (that's where Occam's razor comes in), knowing that it's meant to cause confusion for enemies (not for anons, although many take it that way). At the end of the day, trusting yourself is what matters more than trusting Q. Anyone ever notice that Q has never said "Trust Q"? It's because Q depends on us to trust ourselves as we did before Q came along, Imo.
Tl;Dr version:
Deductive reasoning Inductive reasoning
This will help us to be less reactionary.
Disclaimer: I could be wrong, still waiting on covfefe to be delivered