(07-31-2018, 12:17 AM)Mr. Anderson Wrote: Shannon, for the people who reverse resisted LM 4G, would you still recommend to start with version B?

(07-31-2018, 06:11 AM)Rebel_GQ Wrote: If there are several areas of your life that you are trying to make improvements on simultaneously, will US/LM help in all those areas?

(07-30-2018, 10:04 PM)Dmitry Wrote:

(07-30-2018, 04:47 PM)Shannon Wrote:

(07-30-2018, 06:57 AM)Dmitry Wrote:

(07-29-2018, 07:37 AM)thor2014 Wrote: I have stopped DMSI for now and plan to run SM. A few years ago I did begin to run it however at the time I felt I lacked the maturity to use it. Another thing is i am keen to given it a run as i feel alot more grounded now and feel I can take full advantage of its capabilities. Plus i feel SM will change you into a sexy masculine from the ground up.

Thor, I think if you run SM3 after DMSI you will be disappointed by far less intensity and clearing. I ran SM3 refresher with 3(!) subliminal programs from other vendor at the same time with NO tiredness at all. But even then I felt that DMSI do more than that, instruction-violating usage format.

Maybe you stick with DMSI but use 1:1 ASRB as MLS? As I already said DMSI is overwhelming subC, I’m now 100% sure.

And you are 100% sure based on what evidence again?

I’v done experimental Structural constellation group. Used human representantatives for different dmsi (and other subs). What that proccess revealed:

Quote:1. Each newer version DMSI induced more chaos in subC of the user. I guess thats why using personal usage format helped me to overcome some major resistance. And, yes, Shannon: DMSI is 3.2 REALLY works! It helped me to uncover such blocks and issues to light but failed clear it. Thats why I think that H&C must be seriosly revised to be not harder but smarter.

Quote:2. Experiment showed that DMSI and E2 combo usage somehow helped to clear something that DMSI failed to do stand-alone. Quite suprising, since DMSI is far superior as H&C, right?

Quote:3. A few a representatives (yes, I used a few people to literally “become” DMSI) showed that they: a getting in one way, then stop, go another way, confusion and so on. Of course, they can show my own reactions to DMSI but I don’t think of myself as a resister.

Quote:4. Another experiment. “Head”, “Heart”, “Gut” structural elements are losing coherence with each other then DMSI is used. Need more details about that.

Quote:5. Using simplier subs from Shannon and other vendors then used before DMSI somehow helped to frame my mind and get DMSI execute better.
Using some other subs helped DMSI to use that information for execution?

Thats all for now I like doing blind experiments.

(07-31-2018, 12:17 AM)Mr. Anderson Wrote: Shannon, for the people who reverse resisted LM 4G, would you still recommend to start with version B?

(07-31-2018, 06:11 AM)Rebel_GQ Wrote: If there are several areas of your life that you are trying to make improvements on simultaneously, will US/LM help in all those areas?

(07-31-2018, 07:33 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(07-30-2018, 10:04 PM)Dmitry Wrote:

(07-30-2018, 04:47 PM)Shannon Wrote:

(07-30-2018, 06:57 AM)Dmitry Wrote:

(07-29-2018, 07:37 AM)thor2014 Wrote: I have stopped DMSI for now and plan to run SM. A few years ago I did begin to run it however at the time I felt I lacked the maturity to use it. Another thing is i am keen to given it a run as i feel alot more grounded now and feel I can take full advantage of its capabilities. Plus i feel SM will change you into a sexy masculine from the ground up.

Thor, I think if you run SM3 after DMSI you will be disappointed by far less intensity and clearing. I ran SM3 refresher with 3(!) subliminal programs from other vendor at the same time with NO tiredness at all. But even then I felt that DMSI do more than that, instruction-violating usage format.

Maybe you stick with DMSI but use 1:1 ASRB as MLS? As I already said DMSI is overwhelming subC, I’m now 100% sure.

And you are 100% sure based on what evidence again?

I’v done experimental Structural constellation group. Used human representantatives for different dmsi (and other subs). What that proccess revealed:

You did this, but give no specifics as to how you did it or exactly what you did, how many test subjects you used, what the conditions of the experiments were, time frames, number of experiments performed, what the subjects knew and did not know, etc. etc. so your experiment(s) may be full of flaws, and we won't know. So all of the below is, really, moot, and only someone who doesn't really understand the scientific method is going to look at it and think it matters. That is exactly why

Quote:1. Each newer version DMSI induced more chaos in subC of the user. I guess thats why using personal usage format helped me to overcome some major resistance. And, yes, Shannon: DMSI is 3.2 REALLY works! It helped me to uncover such blocks and issues to light but failed clear it. Thats why I think that H&C must be seriosly revised to be not harder but smarter.

Based on what? What does "chaos in the subconscious of the user" really mean? I can tell you that each new version is inducing more and more motivation to act and achieve the goal, and I am trying to find ways to calm and relax the fears that trigger resistance. By "chaos", you must mean that each new version is creating more and more incentive to achieve the goal regardless of fears to the contrary.

And by doing this you're putting yourself out there, giving advice on a script and methodology you don't know anything about, because the H&C isn't about "harder". The reason it failed to clear is that I haven't yet finished developing and implementing the fear removal module. Humans tend to tense up in response to fear, and that includes subconsciously holding onto the very fear itself. So you're right in that it needs to be "smarter", but the assumption that it's about "harder" is not correct.

Quote:2. Experiment showed that DMSI and E2 combo usage somehow helped to clear something that DMSI failed to do stand-alone. Quite suprising, since DMSI is far superior as H&C, right?

DMSI is clearing what you need to clear to achieve it's goals. E2 is clearing everything. So naturally, E2 will clear things DMSI doesn't. DMSI H&C is not superior in the scope of what it heals and clears, and I never said it was. It is superior in how it goes about the process. But you are offering a red herring here, because they are designed to do very different things. DMSI will only clear what prevents you from becoming irresistibly sexually attractive.

Quote:3. A few a representatives (yes, I used a few people to literally “become” DMSI) showed that they: a getting in one way, then stop, go another way, confusion and so on. Of course, they can show my own reactions to DMSI but I don’t think of myself as a resister.

You'll have to explain how you "literally become" DMSI. DMSI is a set of instructions.

Quote:4. Another experiment. “Head”, “Heart”, “Gut” structural elements are losing coherence with each other then DMSI is used. Need more details about that.

This also needs explanation.

Quote:5. Using simplier subs from Shannon and other vendors then used before DMSI somehow helped to frame my mind and get DMSI execute better.
Using some other subs helped DMSI to use that information for execution?

Thats all for now I like doing blind experiments.

At this point, I have to wonder if you know that blind experiments are considered invalid scientifically?

I do blind experiments all the time, and they give me what is known as "suggestive" data, as tainted by my knowledge of the experiment in progress and thus become invalid for scientific validation because I could have somehow signaled what was going on without realizing it, thus influencing the results. For that reason, I only use data gathered from blind experiments that is consistent over hundreds or sometimes thousands of experiments, and even that is not considered "hard evidence".

Double blind experiments that are valid are extremely hard to perform with subliminals because too many variables have to be accounted for and controlled, some of which are very hard to account for and control. When we are ready to start doing clinical trials, it will be an extremely expensive process. That's why we haven't done any clinical trials yet. I have done a number of double blind experiments which strongly correlate to the results my blind experiments have produced, but they are not numerous enough to be "hard evidence" scientifically.

What experiments I have been able to do have only been "suggestive" by scientific standards, and they tell me that DMSI is progressively becoming stronger, more capable, more effective and more successful with each iteration. They also tell me that I am on the right track, but that things need to be added to deal with new and unexpected reactions exposed during each release.

You should know better than to think blind experiments done in less than hundreds of iterations and with only a few testers are really even suggestive of anything. You should also know better than to be mixing subliminals made by different producers, or using more than one of the 5G+ at a time. Especially given the background you claim.

I see nothing in what you reported that needs to be taken as scientifically valid from what you have said. And from what I have seen of the experiments of others in this field, I would probably not have a hard time punching lots of holes in your experiments even aside from the blind aspect, if I knew all the details.

I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to undermine me and my knowledge of the subject. I get the impression sometimes that you do that just for fun.

(07-31-2018, 09:18 AM)Dmitry Wrote:

(07-31-2018, 07:33 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(07-30-2018, 10:04 PM)Dmitry Wrote:

(07-30-2018, 04:47 PM)Shannon Wrote:

(07-30-2018, 06:57 AM)Dmitry Wrote: Thor, I think if you run SM3 after DMSI you will be disappointed by far less intensity and clearing. I ran SM3 refresher with 3(!) subliminal programs from other vendor at the same time with NO tiredness at all. But even then I felt that DMSI do more than that, instruction-violating usage format.

Maybe you stick with DMSI but use 1:1 ASRB as MLS? As I already said DMSI is overwhelming subC, I’m now 100% sure.

And you are 100% sure based on what evidence again?

I’v done experimental Structural constellation group. Used human representantatives for different dmsi (and other subs). What that proccess revealed:

You did this, but give no specifics as to how you did it or exactly what you did, how many test subjects you used, what the conditions of the experiments were, time frames, number of experiments performed, what the subjects knew and did not know, etc. etc. so your experiment(s) may be full of flaws, and we won't know. So all of the below is, really, moot, and only someone who doesn't really understand the scientific method is going to look at it and think it matters. That is exactly why

Quote:1. Each newer version DMSI induced more chaos in subC of the user. I guess thats why using personal usage format helped me to overcome some major resistance. And, yes, Shannon: DMSI is 3.2 REALLY works! It helped me to uncover such blocks and issues to light but failed clear it. Thats why I think that H&C must be seriosly revised to be not harder but smarter.

Based on what? What does "chaos in the subconscious of the user" really mean? I can tell you that each new version is inducing more and more motivation to act and achieve the goal, and I am trying to find ways to calm and relax the fears that trigger resistance. By "chaos", you must mean that each new version is creating more and more incentive to achieve the goal regardless of fears to the contrary.

And by doing this you're putting yourself out there, giving advice on a script and methodology you don't know anything about, because the H&C isn't about "harder". The reason it failed to clear is that I haven't yet finished developing and implementing the fear removal module. Humans tend to tense up in response to fear, and that includes subconsciously holding onto the very fear itself. So you're right in that it needs to be "smarter", but the assumption that it's about "harder" is not correct.

Quote:2. Experiment showed that DMSI and E2 combo usage somehow helped to clear something that DMSI failed to do stand-alone. Quite suprising, since DMSI is far superior as H&C, right?

DMSI is clearing what you need to clear to achieve it's goals. E2 is clearing everything. So naturally, E2 will clear things DMSI doesn't. DMSI H&C is not superior in the scope of what it heals and clears, and I never said it was. It is superior in how it goes about the process. But you are offering a red herring here, because they are designed to do very different things. DMSI will only clear what prevents you from becoming irresistibly sexually attractive.

Quote:3. A few a representatives (yes, I used a few people to literally “become” DMSI) showed that they: a getting in one way, then stop, go another way, confusion and so on. Of course, they can show my own reactions to DMSI but I don’t think of myself as a resister.

You'll have to explain how you "literally become" DMSI. DMSI is a set of instructions.

Quote:4. Another experiment. “Head”, “Heart”, “Gut” structural elements are losing coherence with each other then DMSI is used. Need more details about that.

This also needs explanation.

Quote:5. Using simplier subs from Shannon and other vendors then used before DMSI somehow helped to frame my mind and get DMSI execute better.
Using some other subs helped DMSI to use that information for execution?

Thats all for now I like doing blind experiments.

At this point, I have to wonder if you know that blind experiments are considered invalid scientifically?

I do blind experiments all the time, and they give me what is known as "suggestive" data, as tainted by my knowledge of the experiment in progress and thus become invalid for scientific validation because I could have somehow signaled what was going on without realizing it, thus influencing the results. For that reason, I only use data gathered from blind experiments that is consistent over hundreds or sometimes thousands of experiments, and even that is not considered "hard evidence".

Double blind experiments that are valid are extremely hard to perform with subliminals because too many variables have to be accounted for and controlled, some of which are very hard to account for and control. When we are ready to start doing clinical trials, it will be an extremely expensive process. That's why we haven't done any clinical trials yet. I have done a number of double blind experiments which strongly correlate to the results my blind experiments have produced, but they are not numerous enough to be "hard evidence" scientifically.

What experiments I have been able to do have only been "suggestive" by scientific standards, and they tell me that DMSI is progressively becoming stronger, more capable, more effective and more successful with each iteration. They also tell me that I am on the right track, but that things need to be added to deal with new and unexpected reactions exposed during each release.

You should know better than to think blind experiments done in less than hundreds of iterations and with only a few testers are really even suggestive of anything. You should also know better than to be mixing subliminals made by different producers, or using more than one of the 5G+ at a time. Especially given the background you claim.

I see nothing in what you reported that needs to be taken as scientifically valid from what you have said. And from what I have seen of the experiments of others in this field, I would probably not have a hard time punching lots of holes in your experiments even aside from the blind aspect, if I knew all the details.

I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to undermine me and my knowledge of the subject. I get the impression sometimes that you do that just for fun.

Okey. It seems that we are talking in different languages. Its strange that somehow I pressed some "buttons" without that intention. Sorry if insulted you and its strange for me how that occured then I personally want you to succeed with subs, hmm....

I don't care about scientific evidences because I work with people about 13 years and already made my 10000 hours in psychology consulting (psychiatry doctor, psychological consulting) and even NOW haven't seen any reliable statistics about human psyche. Pharmacological companies, yes, they like so called "scientific experiments" because they need to sell more of their products.

"Reliable scientific experiments" with human psyche, from my view, will take a few decades to be "reliable". At that time most forum members be dead, me included.

And one more thing: there is NO such thing as RESISTANCE, at first place. What is called "resistance" is a presentation of something to human psyche that is considered by it "dangerous".

By term "resistance" here I mean that sub goals were not achieved even with strict instructions. But the "resistance" itself is subC trying to avoid something it considers dangerous. If you don't understand that, I recommend you to update your knowledge about human psyche. By "smarter" I mean not "closing that loopholes so this stupid subC have no choice but execute (just feel how it feels then it is pronounced)" but create something that can communicate to subC that sub script instructions are not dangerous at all.

For now, we can stop this kind of conversation. And Nooooo intention to undermine you. I think that subliminal programs are GREATEST companion to traditional psychological treatment & healing, clearing, thats why I'm here.

Cheers!

(07-31-2018, 09:57 AM)Have at ye Wrote:

(07-31-2018, 09:18 AM)Dmitry Wrote:

(07-31-2018, 07:33 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(07-30-2018, 10:04 PM)Dmitry Wrote:

(07-30-2018, 04:47 PM)Shannon Wrote: And you are 100% sure based on what evidence again?

I’v done experimental Structural constellation group. Used human representantatives for different dmsi (and other subs). What that proccess revealed:

You did this, but give no specifics as to how you did it or exactly what you did, how many test subjects you used, what the conditions of the experiments were, time frames, number of experiments performed, what the subjects knew and did not know, etc. etc. so your experiment(s) may be full of flaws, and we won't know. So all of the below is, really, moot, and only someone who doesn't really understand the scientific method is going to look at it and think it matters. That is exactly why

Quote:1. Each newer version DMSI induced more chaos in subC of the user. I guess thats why using personal usage format helped me to overcome some major resistance. And, yes, Shannon: DMSI is 3.2 REALLY works! It helped me to uncover such blocks and issues to light but failed clear it. Thats why I think that H&C must be seriosly revised to be not harder but smarter.

Based on what? What does "chaos in the subconscious of the user" really mean? I can tell you that each new version is inducing more and more motivation to act and achieve the goal, and I am trying to find ways to calm and relax the fears that trigger resistance. By "chaos", you must mean that each new version is creating more and more incentive to achieve the goal regardless of fears to the contrary.

And by doing this you're putting yourself out there, giving advice on a script and methodology you don't know anything about, because the H&C isn't about "harder". The reason it failed to clear is that I haven't yet finished developing and implementing the fear removal module. Humans tend to tense up in response to fear, and that includes subconsciously holding onto the very fear itself. So you're right in that it needs to be "smarter", but the assumption that it's about "harder" is not correct.

Quote:2. Experiment showed that DMSI and E2 combo usage somehow helped to clear something that DMSI failed to do stand-alone. Quite suprising, since DMSI is far superior as H&C, right?

DMSI is clearing what you need to clear to achieve it's goals. E2 is clearing everything. So naturally, E2 will clear things DMSI doesn't. DMSI H&C is not superior in the scope of what it heals and clears, and I never said it was. It is superior in how it goes about the process. But you are offering a red herring here, because they are designed to do very different things. DMSI will only clear what prevents you from becoming irresistibly sexually attractive.

Quote:3. A few a representatives (yes, I used a few people to literally “become” DMSI) showed that they: a getting in one way, then stop, go another way, confusion and so on. Of course, they can show my own reactions to DMSI but I don’t think of myself as a resister.

You'll have to explain how you "literally become" DMSI. DMSI is a set of instructions.

Quote:4. Another experiment. “Head”, “Heart”, “Gut” structural elements are losing coherence with each other then DMSI is used. Need more details about that.

This also needs explanation.

Quote:5. Using simplier subs from Shannon and other vendors then used before DMSI somehow helped to frame my mind and get DMSI execute better.
Using some other subs helped DMSI to use that information for execution?

Thats all for now I like doing blind experiments.

At this point, I have to wonder if you know that blind experiments are considered invalid scientifically?

I do blind experiments all the time, and they give me what is known as "suggestive" data, as tainted by my knowledge of the experiment in progress and thus become invalid for scientific validation because I could have somehow signaled what was going on without realizing it, thus influencing the results. For that reason, I only use data gathered from blind experiments that is consistent over hundreds or sometimes thousands of experiments, and even that is not considered "hard evidence".

Double blind experiments that are valid are extremely hard to perform with subliminals because too many variables have to be accounted for and controlled, some of which are very hard to account for and control. When we are ready to start doing clinical trials, it will be an extremely expensive process. That's why we haven't done any clinical trials yet. I have done a number of double blind experiments which strongly correlate to the results my blind experiments have produced, but they are not numerous enough to be "hard evidence" scientifically.

What experiments I have been able to do have only been "suggestive" by scientific standards, and they tell me that DMSI is progressively becoming stronger, more capable, more effective and more successful with each iteration. They also tell me that I am on the right track, but that things need to be added to deal with new and unexpected reactions exposed during each release.

You should know better than to think blind experiments done in less than hundreds of iterations and with only a few testers are really even suggestive of anything. You should also know better than to be mixing subliminals made by different producers, or using more than one of the 5G+ at a time. Especially given the background you claim.

I see nothing in what you reported that needs to be taken as scientifically valid from what you have said. And from what I have seen of the experiments of others in this field, I would probably not have a hard time punching lots of holes in your experiments even aside from the blind aspect, if I knew all the details.

I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to undermine me and my knowledge of the subject. I get the impression sometimes that you do that just for fun.

Okey. It seems that we are talking in different languages. Its strange that somehow I pressed some "buttons" without that intention. Sorry if insulted you and its strange for me how that occured then I personally want you to succeed with subs, hmm....

I don't care about scientific evidences because I work with people about 13 years and already made my 10000 hours in psychology consulting (psychiatry doctor, psychological consulting) and even NOW haven't seen any reliable statistics about human psyche. Pharmacological companies, yes, they like so called "scientific experiments" because they need to sell more of their products.

"Reliable scientific experiments" with human psyche, from my view, will take a few decades to be "reliable". At that time most forum members be dead, me included.

And one more thing: there is NO such thing as RESISTANCE, at first place. What is called "resistance" is a presentation of something to human psyche that is considered by it "dangerous".

By term "resistance" here I mean that sub goals were not achieved even with strict instructions. But the "resistance" itself is subC trying to avoid something it considers dangerous. If you don't understand that, I recommend you to update your knowledge about human psyche. By "smarter" I mean not "closing that loopholes so this stupid subC have no choice but execute (just feel how it feels then it is pronounced)" but create something that can communicate to subC that sub script instructions are not dangerous at all.

For now, we can stop this kind of conversation. And Nooooo intention to undermine you. I think that subliminal programs are GREATEST companion to traditional psychological treatment & healing, clearing, thats why I'm here.

Cheers!

Good trolling. 3/10 trolls. You are the smartest and the most experiencest.

I pity your patients, if you, in fact, do have any.

Also, that "resistance is not resistance, it's fear" is, like, something Shannon's been repeating all this time, albeit in a less stupid manner. As in - the subC is resisting because it's considering something dangerous/scary. So yeah, resistance is resistance, and it is a result of fear and trying to avoid something the subC considers dangerous.

That bit of 'communicating to the subC that it is, in fact, not dangerous' is what's Shannon's been trying to achieve all this time, lol, and has made great progress in this regard. Doesn't change the fact that when the subC reacts with fear to something, it doesn't give a crap whether you're trying to tell it that what you're trying to achieve is actually safe. It's an emotional/survival response, it does not really give a crap about being told that something is safe when it believes the opposite. It'll simply RESIST the notion, lol. Because it's trying to keep you safe. And thus it attempts to use all sorts of means to avoid having to do it.