Made a reckless mistake on Saturday that I'm still paying for in physical pain, which forced my hand in that "take an execute week/take another input week" decision. It also caused disruption in sleep, food, and a number of other areas too, so, if this was resistance or running away, I was apparently also trying to resist or run away from food and sleep too -- which I highly doubt.
I intend to resume listening, eating properly, sleeping properly, etc, as soon as I have a few extra things available to me that weren't around on Saturday and that haven't yet been available to me since. Things that should help to get things back to normal, if I decide to use them. Things that I plan to acquire later today.
To take my mind off of the remaining pain, I'm feeling inspired to share two of several ponderings that have crossed my mind recently. Ponderings will follow shortly.
Pondering #1:
We know that DMSI is supposed to make us look, sound, taste, etc sexier. This sensory-differentiated concept makes me wonder about our tendency, in the case of subtle indicators, to rely so strongly on the visual sense to detect not-yet-stated attraction in others.
I'll start with an example of something similar: I view the popularized notion of IOIs as an enemy of real body language, since it promotes shorthand over fluency, like insisting that five isolated English words can adequately replace the entire English dictionary and the value of sentence structure. Distracting from better understanding with the "promise" that a shortcut is comprehensive.
Along similar lines, I wonder if strong conscious emphasis on subtle visual indicators (body language) may unintentionally allow us to overlook the wider array of counterparts available to us through our other senses -- e.g. subtle changes in the responder's semantics, vocal tone, inflection, volume, types/degree of physical contact, body temperature, smell, etc. There's plenty of focus on the DMSI user's words, timbre, smell, etc, but how much attention are we really paying to the other side? Now, I may not be one of the pheromone junkies on this forum, but it still seems to me like it would be helpful to to pay attention when the responder's pheromone shift and vocal shift and temperature shift (and so on) indicates increased interest in you. Saying that "men are visual creatures" is a self-limiting cop-out when we have at least four other functioning senses, and, if it can at least be agreed that women don't have the same self-fulfilling adage to live down to, it doesn't seem far-fetched to consider that they might communicate attraction more than just visually or by stating it plainly.
Of course, for all that I know, all of this may be in DMSI's scripting, and this may just be coming to my attention because it is.
Pondering #2:
I know that mentioning hypotheses to the cat herd rarely ends well, but this isn't meant as an excuse for anyone to torpedo their results.
I occasionally wonder if any of the biggest DMSI resistors out there may be subconsciously resisting on the basis of "not joining a club that would have [them] as a member" and/or past "practical joke" trauma, seeing attraction to themselves as an unattractive quality in others ("too keen") due to:
- Perceiving low value in the female (poor decisions) for showing interest
- Perceiving ulterior motives in the female (suspicion) for showing interest
- Perceiving danger in the female (distrust/fear) for showing interest
- Perceiving a need to defend against the female (expectation of attack) for showing interest
- Perceiving less sense of accomplishment (no conquest) with interested females versus uninterested females
I'd also wonder if men who adopt that subconscious point of view also actually see others' rejection of them (while clearly
consciously undesirable) as an attractive and encouraging quality for inverse reasons, under the impression that the not-attracted (misread: IDGAF) females are too trustworthy to betray them, too sensible to consider them, or a more tempting challenge than attracted women are... and, counter-intuitively, higher value. Essentially, if they've subconsciously cross-wired rejection as positive/safe/appealing and attraction as negative/dangerous/unappealing. If this is the case, then I'd also wonder if the snipers and anti-sniper might do more harm than good for such a person until they're healed, focusing them even more on the not-attracted and even less on the attracted.
As a side note, I wonder if this same logic, with roles reversed, might explain why IDGAF seems to work so well at attracting others. If so, that might say quite a bit about who's attracted by the IDGAF treatment. Not sure that I like what that says about the wisdom of fishing for a healthy-minded partner with IDGAF bait. Hmm.
So, this past weekend's social time left a bit to be desired. Both Friday and Saturday nights (different locations) were upbeat, positive, and full of friendliness. About 6 hours in total between both nights, so twice my usual weekly time spent around other people. Lots of compliments, some dance-flirting, some drunken promises from women who probably won't follow up on them, and some intimate contact with women who, for various reasons, I could tell weren't planning on taking things anywhere.
Yeah, that might sound harsh or pessimistic, but I mean it more observationally than it sounds. Of the most physically interactive responders, one was a friend's girlfriend (unwise), another stressed how much she really wanted to become friends with me (non-attracted or protesting it), and another (after having spent a lot of Saturday night wordlessly flirting with me) left the building within a few minutes of grinding me on the dance floor for an entire song. As that exit followed her return to her friends (and included them), I'm not sure if it'd been a pre-planned or unrelated departure (pragmatism), if she'd prompted it (fear, shame, or disappointment), or if they'd persuaded her to leave (fear, shame, jealousy, etc). But the reason itself hardly matters. She'd barely spoken, I hadn't, and I'd never seen her before, so there's probably little chance of us crossing paths again. And lesser opportunities during those 6 hours were... well, lesser opportunities.
Dropped back down to 4 loops too. The stress/anxiety (?) from 6 loops of B seemed to kick up way too much reflux, even while consuming aloe to soothe it, and, after 25+ years of intermittent ulcers and LPR, "Dragon Breath" and "warm chest" imagery isn't going to sell me on unnecessary esophageal damage or avoidable sore throats. If I can get back up to 6 loops eventually, that's great, but, I'd rather stick with something sustainable and balanced than ride the overdo-underdo seesaw. Besides, 4 loops of 3.1-B still seems like a respectable amount.
Since I wasn't really around other people during the past week and since I won't be until this weekend, I'll mention the only potentially DMSI-related anecdotes that I have for the past week:
- Got a ~$12 discount on Saturday night's take-out because the staff there like me.
- The drugstore employee who usually chats with me for at least 10 minutes happened to be working when I had to run an errand yesterday. Not only did she immediately start up a conversation with me, but a female co-worker of hers joined in.
The only other semi-relevant thought that's crossed my mind is that, lately, several forum members (on various subs) have seemed focused on seeking and responding to the "cause" of their issues, dedicating blame, frustration, and worry toward that perceived cause instead of seeing those reactions as a form of resistance against change. As I see it, if you decide (accurately or not) that X is why you're Y, congratulations! You've effectively identified an excuse to stay Y and never have to become Z. When Z is exactly what you want to become. X is now a fully-formed excuse not to change. Or, as something that I see as almost as detrimental, X is something to rage against, under the guise of change, still limiting yourself to the binary options of submit (surrender/prove X wrong by failure) or rebel (anger/prove X wrong by success), ignoring the freedom to choose from all available options and also letting X continue to control you, even in rebellion. If my goal is to become Z, I want to become Z, not Q, even if Q is the opposite of Y and still qualifies as change. I see freedom of choice (and -- by extension -- of past, present, and future) in liberating myself from X, not in restricting my options relative to X. Whether X is a person, a group, my past self, a psychological/physical trait, an -ism, an unproven theory, a proverb, an expectation, a prediction, etc.
Not sure if hearing that point of view helps anyone, but it seemed worth saying. Of course, people often see this as my own excuse not to do what "everyone does" and offer me their own "good reasons" for doing whatever it is that everyone's expected to do -- reasons that rarely apply to my own life. Excuses tend to be in the eye of the critic, either way, so it's worth taking my opinion with a few truckloads of salt.
(07-11-2017, 01:48 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]"I don't believe you should go to your garden and chant, 'There's no weeds, there's no weeds,' and think that that's going to solve something." - Tony Robbins
http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-robb...ork-2016-7
Presuming that you mean that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, you're misunderstanding my point.
What I'm saying is that blame/anger/etc is baggage that you don't need to carry forever. It's a guest that's sleeping on your couch indefinitely, preventing you from using that couch for sitting. To me, dwelling on the fault of others (even in the name of justice) is often as empty as putting a "so-and-so broke me" sign on an elevator -- it doesn't fix the elevator to know who broke it or why or to punish or shame them for breaking it. Fixing the broken elevator is what fixes the elevator.
I'm not saying to ignore the broken elevator or wish it away. I'm saying that blaming someone or focusing on why they broke it is not a useful step in fixing the actual elevator. When the goal is to fix the broken elevator, not start a war against people who've broken elevators (rebel) or start breaking them yourself (submit). Those are just distractions from the real problem -- the elevator needing to be fixed and (hopefully) reinforced against further breakage. And, again, that's just an opinion, and I apologize if my earlier explanation was unclear.
(07-11-2017, 02:21 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2017, 01:48 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]"I don't believe you should go to your garden and chant, 'There's no weeds, there's no weeds,' and think that that's going to solve something." - Tony Robbins
http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-robb...ork-2016-7
Presuming that you mean that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, you're misunderstanding my point.
What I'm saying is that blame/anger/etc is baggage that you don't need to carry forever. It's a guest that's sleeping on your couch indefinitely, preventing you from using that couch for sitting. To me, dwelling on the fault of others (even in the name of justice) is often as empty as putting a "so-and-so broke me" sign on an elevator -- it doesn't fix the elevator to know who broke it or why or to punish or shame them for breaking it. Fixing the broken elevator is what fixes the elevator.
I'm not saying to ignore the broken elevator or wish it away. I'm saying that blaming someone or focusing on why they broke it is not a useful step in fixing the actual elevator. When the goal is to fix the broken elevator, not start a war against people who've broken elevators (rebel) or start breaking them yourself (submit). Those are just distractions from the real problem -- the elevator needing to be fixed and (hopefully) reinforced against further breakage. And, again, that's just an opinion, and I apologize if my earlier explanation was unclear.
Ah, I got you. Thank you for clarifying that.
I agree with you in that we need to focus on "fixing". However, if there were a bunch of criminals that kept breaking elevators, what would be gained by simply fixing the elevators? Justice is needed to restore balance and to keep bad things from reoccurring. So the criminals would have to be punished in some way.
Now, I don't know what those are metaphors for, just thought I'd point out that simply fixing something does not necessarily fix the real problem.
Anyhow, to fix anything you need 2 things:
1. Know what's wrong
2. Know how to fix it
I'd say we're still in the process of developing those 2 in regards to DMSI.
(07-11-2017, 02:36 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, I got you. Thank you for clarifying that.
Well, my original explanation was a bit abstract. Using the abstract terms of my original post, I could've rephrased by distilling it to: People often focus on blaming X instead of solving Y (as a way to resist solving Y). But an analogy seemed clearer.
(07-11-2017, 02:36 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you in that we need to focus on "fixing". However, if there were a bunch of criminals that kept breaking elevators, what would be gained by simply fixing the elevators? Justice is needed to restore balance and to keep bad things from reoccurring. So the criminals would have to be punished in some way.
Now, I don't know what those are metaphors for, just thought I'd point out that simply fixing something does not necessarily fix the real problem.
Justice solves a different problem. For example, regarding DMSI, we're trying to become sexier, not start a war against people (including our past selves) who prevented us from being sexier in the past. Solving the wrong problem is often a distraction from solving the right one.
(07-11-2017, 02:36 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Anyhow, to fix anything you need 2 things:
1. Know what's wrong
2. Know how to fix it
I'd say we're still in the process of developing those 2 in regards to DMSI.
Well, what's wrong varies by person. And will take more time with some than with others. Or, in elevator terms, each person's elevator is broken differently. The more guinea pig elevators that test it, the better it'll probably turn out.
And I'm beginning to regret choosing elevators as an analogy.
(07-11-2017, 03:15 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2017, 02:36 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, I got you. Thank you for clarifying that.
Well, my original explanation was a bit abstract. Using the abstract terms of my original post, I could've rephrased by distilling it to: People often focus on blaming X instead of solving Y (as a way to resist solving Y). But an analogy seemed clearer.
It's all good man. I appreciate you taking the time to make sure you're understood. Forum communication is difficult in the best of times, so thanks. :)
(07-11-2017, 03:15 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2017, 02:36 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you in that we need to focus on "fixing". However, if there were a bunch of criminals that kept breaking elevators, what would be gained by simply fixing the elevators? Justice is needed to restore balance and to keep bad things from reoccurring. So the criminals would have to be punished in some way.
Now, I don't know what those are metaphors for, just thought I'd point out that simply fixing something does not necessarily fix the real problem.
Justice solves a different problem. For example, regarding DMSI, we're trying to become sexier, not start a war against people (including our past selves) who prevented us from being sexier in the past. Solving the wrong problem is often a distraction from solving the right one.
True, however, I'm talking about addressing undermining behaviours or thoughts/beliefs.
For example, I have a tendency to be idealistic. It doesn't matter how much I learn, if there's a tiny chance I can believe in the disney fairytale (or, [insert belief here]) and it can work, I'll JUMP in, abandoning all reason and evidence to the contrary.
Simply resetting that and giving me more proof idealism doesn't work won't fix it (I don't think it will at least), I believe I need to stop wanting it somehow. I don't know why I want it to work, but I do.
So I guess I'm saying we need to trace all our faulty beliefs, behaviors, etc to the root, and fix them by not just replacing them with works, but something that's more powerful in some way. I honestly don't know how, but I think that;s what needed.
I could be wrong, though.
(07-11-2017, 03:15 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2017, 03:15 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ][quote='SargeMaximus' pid='173674' dateline='1499812602']
Anyhow, to fix anything you need 2 things:
1. Know what's wrong
2. Know how to fix it
I'd say we're still in the process of developing those 2 in regards to DMSI.
Well, what's wrong varies by person. And will take more time with some than with others. Or, in elevator terms, each person's elevator is broken differently. The more guinea pig elevators that test it, the better it'll probably turn out.
And I'm beginning to regret choosing elevators as an analogy. :)
Lol, I think it's a good analogy. I agree with you tho. I think things may go deeper, but going deep may be the wrong choice too (for example: an elevator may work just fine, but because we are now focusing on each molecule in the elevator, inspecting them, and trying to fix them, we're "out of service" even though it would work just fine)
Who knows tho.
(07-11-2017, 03:30 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]It's all good man. I appreciate you taking the time to make sure you're understood. Forum communication is difficult in the best of times, so thanks.
Clear communication occasionally takes a little effort, and you're welcome. I'm not above confusing myself, sometimes.
(07-11-2017, 03:30 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]True, however, I'm talking about addressing undermining behaviours or thoughts/beliefs.
For example, I have a tendency to be idealistic. It doesn't matter how much I learn, if there's a tiny chance I can believe in the disney fairytale (or, [insert belief here]) and it can work, I'll JUMP in, abandoning all reason and evidence to the contrary.
Not to sound insulting, but I'd agree that you seem to let unproven theory overwhelm reason, and I'd also say that you do seem to misread certain cause-and-effect relationships from time to time. I wouldn't necessarily call that "idealistic." Hasty, maybe.
(07-11-2017, 03:30 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Simply resetting that and giving me more proof idealism doesn't work won't fix it (I don't think it will at least), I believe I need to stop wanting it somehow. I don't know why I want it to work, but I do.
So I guess I'm saying we need to trace all our faulty beliefs, behaviors, etc to the root, and fix them by not just replacing them with works, but something that's more powerful in some way. I honestly don't know how, but I think that;s what needed.
I could be wrong, though.
Well, first of all, I wouldn't presume to have your answers. I barely know you.
Second, you don't seem to have your answers, so I get that you don't want to throw anything out that you think might help. But your aim sometimes seems like you're playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with a hot stove in the room. I'm simply suggesting that it may be more important how and why you do things than who put them there.
Third, you can still succeed without ever having met your great-grandfather. Archaeology isn't always required.
Fourth, analysis/debugging of a faulty process is entirely different than taking a history class to find out how it evolved from primordial ooze into today's mess. Upgrading a good process definitely benefits from understanding how the original process worked... but a faulty process that doesn't work sometimes benefits more from a fresh set of eyes and a blank page than anything else.
And, in all cases, I'm not saying to ignore history completely -- just to avoid hopping in your time machine to see a historic ballgame and then deciding to stay there, trying to fight the entirety of WWII while you're there. That's just losing sight of your goal.
(07-11-2017, 03:30 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, I think it's a good analogy. I agree with you tho. I think things may go deeper, but going deep may be the wrong choice too (for example: an elevator may work just fine, but because we are now focusing on each molecule in the elevator, inspecting them, and trying to fix them, we're "out of service" even though it would work just fine)
Who knows tho.
Yeah, well, for once, I agree with an adage -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
(07-11-2017, 05:53 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2017, 03:30 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]It's all good man. I appreciate you taking the time to make sure you're understood. Forum communication is difficult in the best of times, so thanks.
Clear communication occasionally takes a little effort, and you're welcome. I'm not above confusing myself, sometimes.
(07-11-2017, 03:30 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]True, however, I'm talking about addressing undermining behaviours or thoughts/beliefs.
For example, I have a tendency to be idealistic. It doesn't matter how much I learn, if there's a tiny chance I can believe in the disney fairytale (or, [insert belief here]) and it can work, I'll JUMP in, abandoning all reason and evidence to the contrary.
Not to sound insulting, but I'd agree that you seem to let unproven theory overwhelm reason, and I'd also say that you do seem to misread certain cause-and-effect relationships from time to time. I wouldn't necessarily call that "idealistic." Hasty, maybe.
It's funny because I think you're referring to something that today I disproved. It's funny because I think that you think what I disproved is what is true, and what I now believe is what I'm being "hasty" about lol!
But I agree with you about the bold part 100%. I'm working on it, but it is an issue I have.
(07-11-2017, 05:53 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2017, 03:30 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Simply resetting that and giving me more proof idealism doesn't work won't fix it (I don't think it will at least), I believe I need to stop wanting it somehow. I don't know why I want it to work, but I do.
So I guess I'm saying we need to trace all our faulty beliefs, behaviors, etc to the root, and fix them by not just replacing them with works, but something that's more powerful in some way. I honestly don't know how, but I think that;s what needed.
I could be wrong, though.
Well, first of all, I wouldn't presume to have your answers. I barely know you.
Chill, bro. I wasn't asking you for answers. Just thinking out loud.
(07-11-2017, 05:53 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ]Second, you don't seem to have your answers, so I get that you don't want to throw anything out that you think might help. But your aim sometimes seems like you're playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with a hot stove in the room. I'm simply suggesting that it may be more important how and why you do things than who put them there.
No idea what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
(07-11-2017, 05:53 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ]Third, you can still succeed without ever having met your great-grandfather. Archaeology isn't always required.
Ok seriously, what are you talking about? lol
(07-11-2017, 05:53 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ]Fourth, analysis/debugging of a faulty process is entirely different than taking a history class to find out how it evolved from primordial ooze into today's mess. Upgrading a good process definitely benefits from understanding how the original process worked... but a faulty process that doesn't work sometimes benefits more from a fresh set of eyes and a blank page than anything else.
Maybe. I find everything leads clues, though, and success can be found by following those clues. Like in the book "The Alchemist"
(07-11-2017, 05:53 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ]And, in all cases, I'm not saying to ignore history completely -- just to avoid hopping in your time machine to see a historic ballgame and then deciding to stay there, trying to fight the entirety of WWII while you're there. That's just losing sight of your goal.
Ok, I obviously haven't communicated well. In no way am I saying we need all our history and all our "why's" to find success. I am saying, however, that if we don't have success right now, it would do us well to ask "why?" a bit more. Not in a "why is this happening to
me?
But in a seriously-searching-for-an-answer "why is
this happening?
(07-11-2017, 05:53 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2017, 03:30 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, I think it's a good analogy. I agree with you tho. I think things may go deeper, but going deep may be the wrong choice too (for example: an elevator may work just fine, but because we are now focusing on each molecule in the elevator, inspecting them, and trying to fix them, we're "out of service" even though it would work just fine)
Who knows tho.
Yeah, well, for once, I agree with an adage -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I agree with that too. In fact, trying to fix things that aren't broken is a good way to break them.
(07-11-2017, 06:55 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]It's funny because I think you're referring to something that today I disproved. It's funny because I think that you think what I disproved is what is true, and what I now believe is what I'm being "hasty" about lol!
As it sounds like you hastily discarded something that you finally took more slowly, I'd agree!
(07-11-2017, 06:55 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]No idea what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
Not very usefully. Basically, addressing the beliefs that you currently have rather than the beliefs that they used to be.
(07-11-2017, 06:55 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Ok seriously, what are you talking about? lol
Only that you don't always need to play "This Is Your Life" just to make a decision tomorrow that differs from one that you made today.
(07-11-2017, 06:55 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, I obviously haven't communicated well. In no way am I saying we need all our history and all our "why's" to find success. I am saying, however, that if we don't have success right now, it would do us well to ask "why?" a bit more. Not in a "why is this happening to me?
But in a seriously-searching-for-an-answer "why is this happening?
This sounds like the cause-and-effect confusion that I'd mentioned earlier. I may be misunderstanding, but you seem to be looking for a single universal answer that explains 100% of things 100% of the time. If so, 42's a popular choice.
Or, more seriously, the willingness to accept multiple contradictory answers and less than 100% of things less than 100% of the time. On most days, I choose answer #2.
(07-11-2017, 09:06 PM)myth Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2017, 06:55 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]It's funny because I think you're referring to something that today I disproved. It's funny because I think that you think what I disproved is what is true, and what I now believe is what I'm being "hasty" about lol!
As it sounds like you hastily discarded something that you finally took more slowly, I'd agree!
(07-11-2017, 06:55 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]No idea what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
Not very usefully. Basically, addressing the beliefs that you currently have rather than the beliefs that they used to be.
(07-11-2017, 06:55 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Ok seriously, what are you talking about? lol
Only that you don't always need to play "This Is Your Life" just to make a decision tomorrow that differs from one that you made today.
(07-11-2017, 06:55 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, I obviously haven't communicated well. In no way am I saying we need all our history and all our "why's" to find success. I am saying, however, that if we don't have success right now, it would do us well to ask "why?" a bit more. Not in a "why is this happening to me?
But in a seriously-searching-for-an-answer "why is this happening?
This sounds like the cause-and-effect confusion that I'd mentioned earlier. I may be misunderstanding, but you seem to be looking for a single universal answer that explains 100% of things 100% of the time. If so, 42's a popular choice. Or, more seriously, the willingness to accept multiple contradictory answers and less than 100% of things less than 100% of the time. On most days, I choose answer #2.
Lol. I go with what works most of the time. Doesn't have to be 100%, but 60% is better than 0%