+- Subliminal Talk (https://subliminal-talk.com)
+-- Forum: Men's Journals (18+ NSFW) (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals-18-NSFW)
+--- Forum: Men's Journals (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals)
+--- Thread: Shannon's Journal Discussion (/Thread-Shannon-s-Journal-Discussion)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 07:18 AM)Steven Wrote: Shannon,
"To my surprise, the new technology idea has survived modeling for two rounds against 14 other competing concepts. I have more rounds of modeling to do, but it is looking promising."
Would you please tell us more about this new technology?
One of the major focii of 6g is getting past, or preventing resistance. So far this has been a very thorny issue, one that has required the development of several technologies working together. This one is I think the 7th or 8th. It's designed to help prevent resistance by making it too expensive. Beyond that I can't reveal what it's doing. But if it survives two more rounds of testing, it will be considered valid and useful enough to keep.
I have several more of these anti resistance technologies to add to DMSI yet.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - rayrocanaldo - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 11:27 AM)Shannon Wrote:(08-30-2016, 07:18 AM)Steven Wrote: Shannon,
"To my surprise, the new technology idea has survived modeling for two rounds against 14 other competing concepts. I have more rounds of modeling to do, but it is looking promising."
Would you please tell us more about this new technology?
One of the major focii of 6g is getting past, or preventing resistance. So far this has been a very thorny issue, one that has required the development of several technologies working together. This one is I think the 7th or 8th. It's designed to help prevent resistance by making it too expensive. Beyond that I can't reveal what it's doing. But if it survives two more rounds of testing, it will be considered valid and useful enough to keep.
I have several more of these anti resistance technologies to add to DMSI yet.
What other new 6G technologies do you have that doesnt have anything to do with overcoming resistance ?
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - chaosvrgn - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 11:27 AM)Shannon Wrote:(08-30-2016, 07:18 AM)Steven Wrote: Shannon,
"To my surprise, the new technology idea has survived modeling for two rounds against 14 other competing concepts. I have more rounds of modeling to do, but it is looking promising."
Would you please tell us more about this new technology?
One of the major focii of 6g is getting past, or preventing resistance. So far this has been a very thorny issue, one that has required the development of several technologies working together. This one is I think the 7th or 8th. It's designed to help prevent resistance by making it too expensive. Beyond that I can't reveal what it's doing. But if it survives two more rounds of testing, it will be considered valid and useful enough to keep.
I have several more of these anti resistance technologies to add to DMSI yet.
Interesting.
So, the first set of technologies dragged you through the resistance, come hell or high water.
The current technologies slows down the pace, kinda asks permission from the subconscious to proceed.
The latest informs the subconscious that it'll be less destructive to simply cooperate with the subliminal rather than fighting it.
I'm sure I've missed some stuff here, just curious.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Steven - 08-30-2016
Shannon,
"It's designed to help prevent resistance by making it too expensive."
What if responders felt it was too expensive to not pursue the user?
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 12:29 AM)Lowe Wrote: Shannon, before MSI, there were no public testing for a subliminal, and the longer single-stages took a couple of months at most (EPRHA 2.0) to come out fully fleshed out, and it appears to work like a charm for its users.
Meanwhile, it has been fully 3 months since the first MSI came out, and we're still not quite near the desired results. In fact, it would seem we're moving backwards in terms of results. Despite 3 successive revisions, V1 had the most noticeable impacts for me as well.
Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate? Did you use only models and private testing before to quickly determine if a subliminal works? Would that speed up the process? Surely future 5.5G+ subliminals will not have the long gestation we currently have with MSI? And when do you plan on finishing the 2.x series and move on to V3?
DMSI is the test bed for new technologies and it has a goal that is preposterously difficult. It's goal is to advance the 6G skeleton script while allowing me to get feedback while creating something you guys are interested in using and testing, while not killing the business because I spent so much time developing stuff and put nothing out. When I am finished with it, I'm sure it will be a very good seller, too, but for the time being, it's an experimental testbed for achieving unusual goals while helping me generate the 6G skeleton script.
In other words, it's not going to be a typical program in terms of how long it takes to create this.
Normally I would have done this whole process in the background without ever mentioning it, and you would be presented with a known working finished product. There are projects I have been developing like that for literally years in the background that you guys don't know about. But this one I chose to make public beta because I knew it would not take me years to achieve the end result, especially if I had much more massive feedback.
I can create a 5.5G sub in 1 to 8 weeks if I don't get bogged down in experimental crap like DMSI is currently. I've been working on MIR2 slowly because I have to finish something else to finish MIR2, and then of course developing DMSI, answering the forums, and working on the 6G prototype all take time. Lately I'm so tired that I just got to work today and it's not even today anymore, it's 1 minute past midnight. And I'm so tired that I feel like my eyes are going to melt out of my head because of the experiments I have been doing on myself causing subconscious turbulence that's exhausting me in ways I can't seem to get past for the last few days.
DMSI was something I originally thought would be much easier than it turned out to be, but it's not going to take forever. It's also going to be well worth the effort. But not all 5.5G subs are going to take this long to make. They're not intended to be experimental testbeds and aiming at crazy goals. DMSI is helping to make all of them better and stronger, and faster to build, too, as I develop the skeleton script through it.
The 2.x series is finished. I just need to have a little time and energy to get started working on 3.0. The additions to 3.0 are many, though, so it's reasonable to think it may take 4 to 6 weeks to finish.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 12:58 AM)AriGold Wrote: Shannon, thank you for the testing experience, we all learned much by doing it.
Couple of questions to DMSI:
- When will a final version be available that brings the results that are promised on the selling page?
We all bought it according to what is promised, but at the moment the outcome seems unknown. If we had started right away with SM3, we would be half through. Now we have 3 months in DAOSI, DMSI 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 and still the results are not overwhelming.
When I figure out how to script it.
You all bought it according to the knowledge that it is experimental, and may or may not work well yet in achieving it's design goals. The description is of it's design goals, not promises of what it will do, because it is unfinished and experimental. This is what it is designed to do, and what it is intended for it to do when it's finished.
If you're not happy doing DMSI, go do SM3. I'm probably looking at months before DMSI is finished. But consider this. When building a warship, it's not really effective or impressive until it's finished. And it may be a long time welding sheets of metal together and stringing and counting and verifying wires before that happens.
Quote:- What is the reason that the version with the healing module didn't work that great?
I mean, a lot of people here are talking about big inner changes and much more confidence on 2.3 - what does the healing module do? I thought healing would take away the GSF and make us confident, but it seems like it is the other way round. I personally don't see the anger as a problem, we just might not be used to it at the moment and have to find a way to deal with it. Let's call it boldness and it is something positive
The healing version worked fine - it wasn't allowed to finish it's job. The program is designed to prioritize removing the reasons for why you might resist or self cockblock, and when they're dealt with, then focus on the other goals. But this has to be done at the pace the person can handle, so it doesn't cause issues to get worse. You are the only one who can decide what speed that is.
The healing module includes OGSF, but you have to finish. Not a one of you did. That's why we have guys saying they want to go back to 2.2. The goal of the so-called healing modules weren't finished being achieved.
As for you not seeing anger as a problem, the question isn't if you see it as a problem, the question is of SHE sees it as a problem. I think that's one of the responses that is actually killing attraction. Boldness is positive, to a point, but anger by any other name is still anger and is still negative. It can motivate one to action (boldness), but it is perceived by women as threatening. The question is, is that threateningness sexually attractive? Apparently, it is not. As far as I can see, we have to find a way to transform the anger into motivation without projecting the discordant negativity in the process.
Quote:- What is the difference between V1 and V2.3?
In the first version many of us were surprised by the aura generation. But there were some inconsistencies. We could not control it, sometimes it was there, sometimes it wasn't. It also wasn't the right target area of the people we were attracted to (too young or too old). Only that one and the hunger needed to be fixed in my opinion.
There are so many differences that the easiest way for me to answer would be to make a dif patch and just have you read that. But there's no way for me to answer that without spending hours comparing the two scripts line by line to refresh my memory, and that's not going to happen. V1 is a lot more crude in comparison. V2.3 uses a lot more advanced technologies, but that's not going to solve the issue if it's not tuned correctly, and it needs to be tuned correctly still. What we are trying to figure out through this process of testing is... what needs to be tuned, and in what direction?
Quote:- I am not sure I want to ask about any more programs in 5.5G. If we want Ultra Success in an upgraded version, we will have so many other things in it, a healing module, a success aura or whatever, but all we wanted is a good program updated. If it becomes much more, it won't be the same anymore. Sometimes simplicity is king.
Except when it's not. Ultra success wouldn't need the healing modules in it, except perhaps for overcoming the fear of success and the fear of failure. If you wanted the same program, you could use the existing version. Updating it means changing it.
Quote:- What are the informations that you need to finish a successful version of DMSI?
Is it about our internal state? About our reactions to the outer world? About the reactions of the outer world to us? Do you need suggestions for a solution - then what kind of suggestions?
I need to know why we are not getting the desired results, and why different people respond differently. You telling me about your inner state and your actions and reactions to the world, and the world's actions and reactions to you is the best I can get.
Given enough of the right data, I can find the solution. Right now, we just don't have enough pieces of the puzzle for me to solve the puzzle. So I'm going to throw out a lot more options for me to work with and that should result in me being able to solve the equation.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 01:13 AM)Frosted Wrote: Shannon do you plan on upgrading LTU to 5.5g or 6g in the near future?
When I get to 6G.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 11:51 AM)rayrocanaldo Wrote:(08-30-2016, 11:27 AM)Shannon Wrote:(08-30-2016, 07:18 AM)Steven Wrote: Shannon,
"To my surprise, the new technology idea has survived modeling for two rounds against 14 other competing concepts. I have more rounds of modeling to do, but it is looking promising."
Would you please tell us more about this new technology?
One of the major focii of 6g is getting past, or preventing resistance. So far this has been a very thorny issue, one that has required the development of several technologies working together. This one is I think the 7th or 8th. It's designed to help prevent resistance by making it too expensive. Beyond that I can't reveal what it's doing. But if it survives two more rounds of testing, it will be considered valid and useful enough to keep.
I have several more of these anti resistance technologies to add to DMSI yet.
What other new 6G technologies do you have that doesnt have anything to do with overcoming resistance ?
You've seen a number of them already in 5.5G. They're listed in the description of DMSI. There are a lot more, but I haven't yet had a chance to extract them from the 6G script and figure out how to make them work outside that framework.
Otherwise, it's like asking, "What words are in the dictionary?" Kind of hard to answer.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 01:27 PM)chaosvrgn Wrote:(08-30-2016, 11:27 AM)Shannon Wrote:(08-30-2016, 07:18 AM)Steven Wrote: Shannon,
"To my surprise, the new technology idea has survived modeling for two rounds against 14 other competing concepts. I have more rounds of modeling to do, but it is looking promising."
Would you please tell us more about this new technology?
One of the major focii of 6g is getting past, or preventing resistance. So far this has been a very thorny issue, one that has required the development of several technologies working together. This one is I think the 7th or 8th. It's designed to help prevent resistance by making it too expensive. Beyond that I can't reveal what it's doing. But if it survives two more rounds of testing, it will be considered valid and useful enough to keep.
I have several more of these anti resistance technologies to add to DMSI yet.
Interesting.
So, the first set of technologies dragged you through the resistance, come hell or high water.
The current technologies slows down the pace, kinda asks permission from the subconscious to proceed.
The latest informs the subconscious that it'll be less destructive to simply cooperate with the subliminal rather than fighting it.
I'm sure I've missed some stuff here, just curious.
I'm not entirely sure what the first set versus the current set refers to. But the current set isn't asking permission, it's just approaching in a persuasive manner instead of an aggressive manner. Instead of forcing the goal, it's trying to get your subconscious mind to be willing and motivated to achieve it.
The newest anti-resistance technology has nothing to do with destructiveness. There's nothing destructive in these programs at all. It's designed to work by making resistance too expensive, so the subconscious chooses to cooperate as an easier way forward.
If you have two mountains you can climb to the goal, are you going to climb the higher more difficult one, or the lower, easier one?
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 07:39 PM)Steven Wrote: Shannon,
"It's designed to help prevent resistance by making it too expensive."
What if responders felt it was too expensive to not pursue the user?
That's sort of the goal, in a roundabout way, except that it's the subconscious. The goal is to make it more work to resist than to cooperate, and get the subconscious to give up on the idea of resistance because it's just not worth the effort to try to resist and then fail anyway.
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - apollolux - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 08:24 PM)Shannon Wrote: Otherwise, it's like asking, "What words are in the dictionary?" Kind of hard to answer.
The accepted answer is, of course, "All of them."
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - AriGold - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 08:05 PM)Shannon Wrote: The 2.x series is finished. I just need to have a little time and energy to get started working on 3.0. The additions to 3.0 are many, though, so it's reasonable to think it may take 4 to 6 weeks to finish.
I'm not entirely sure if I understand correctly:
Does that mean, there won't be a DMSI 2.4?
You wrote before the DMSI 3.0 will not be a free upgrade, is that correct?
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - apollolux - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 08:29 PM)Shannon Wrote: If you have two mountains you can climb to the goal, are you going to climb the higher more difficult one, or the lower, easier one?
Given that two separate mountains cannot be in the same place at the same time, essentially the only goal that would be satisfied by choosing either is some minor variant of "Climb a mountain."
RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 08-30-2016
(08-30-2016, 08:34 PM)apollolux Wrote:(08-30-2016, 08:24 PM)Shannon Wrote: Otherwise, it's like asking, "What words are in the dictionary?" Kind of hard to answer.
The accepted answer is, of course, "All of them."
Which is sort of the analogy of the answer I gave.