Shannon's Journal Discussion - Printable Version +- 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 - Shadow2200 - 09-01-2016 2.4 with healing is awesome. Way to go shannon. RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Vincent_Vega - 09-01-2016 @ Shannon: Most people had the best results with v1.0 (strongest aura). Guys who didn't have results with v1.0 also don't have results with 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. (e.g. Swisston) So why not a version with v1.0 scripting + healing modules? Wouldn't it be good to work with the 1.0 scripting again if that was the best in terms of results (even if it used food only)? RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - wolverine_i_am - 09-01-2016 (09-01-2016, 02:48 PM)Vincent_Vega Wrote: @ Shannon: Most people had the best results with v1.0 (strongest aura). Guys who didn't have results with v1.0 also don't have results with 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. (e.g. Swisston) For me also. V1 had the strongest reactions from the women. I got a little from V2.1, but non-existant from 2.2 and 2.3. RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - ffaux - 09-01-2016 (08-31-2016, 09:31 PM)Shannon Wrote:(08-31-2016, 09:20 PM)SargeMaximus Wrote:(08-31-2016, 08:27 PM)Shannon Wrote:(08-31-2016, 07:53 PM)ffaux Wrote: How does the ego balancer work in AM6? I seem to crash every time I run AM6 after a bout of self/over-confidence. It's like I'm afraid of the repercussions of being confident. Theoretically, what might happen if you are afraid of being confident (or rather afraid of the consequences of being confident)? Is it possible that the ego balancer might kick in when it's inappropriate? Or could the fear alone be enough to undermine the confidence? I realised through reflection that my self-confidence tanked right after peaking. It peaked when I decided one night last week that I wanted to spend time with my friends and didn't feel like having sex with the girl I've been seeing. It then tanked the next day when I suddenly became afraid that I was going to lose the girl over this decision. I've noticed also that before this fear kicked in I was totally cool and indifferent to women because I didn't want anything from them (I was satisfied and didn't care about sex) but now after the fear has kicked in I'm looking for approval and have consequently gone back to my old pattern of wanting sex from women again. Prior to tanking I also noticed myself being a little bit testy with my friends and saying things that are mean (thinking "why did I say that?" after saying it) and also being challenged by my friends. What do you make of all of this Shannon? RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-01-2016 Quote:Theoretically, what might happen if you are afraid of being confident (or rather afraid of the consequences of being confident)? Is it possible that the ego balancer might kick in when it's inappropriate? Or could the fear alone be enough to undermine the confidence? Is it even possible to be afraid of being confident for reasons other than fear of the results or consequences of being confident? I don't think it is. The ego balancer is there to prevent false ego. It's there to prevent you from becoming an arrogant, egotistical overblown self centered asshole - not because that is bad for someone else, but because it is bad for you, and makes you blind in ways that tend to destroy success. Has nothing to do with confidence other than to keep your confidence levels from going off into the stratosphere when you don't have real reason for them to be there, and you can't actually back that up with results if you need to. Quote:I realised through reflection that my self-confidence tanked right after peaking. It peaked when I decided one night last week that I wanted to spend time with my friends and didn't feel like having sex with the girl I've been seeing. It then tanked the next day when I suddenly became afraid that I was going to lose the girl over this decision. Growth creates cycles. The first cycle is becoming unhappy with stagnation. Then you seek growth. Then you deal with the fears that kept you stagnant in the first place. Then you grow some more, and back and forth until the fears have been outgrown and no longer exist. But again, this has nothing to do with the ego balancer. It's a natural part of growing. Quote:I've noticed also that before this fear kicked in I was totally cool and indifferent to women because I didn't want anything from them (I was satisfied and didn't care about sex) but now after the fear has kicked in I'm looking for approval and have consequently gone back to my old pattern of wanting sex from women again. Translation: I've noticed also that before this fear kicked in [the part of me that was dominant at the time] was totally cool and indifferent to women because it didn't want anything from them (it was satisfied and didn't care about sex) but now the fearful part of me has become uncomfortable and has taken control, and it is looking for approval and has consequently gone back to my old pattern of wanting sex from women again. Quote:Prior to tanking I also noticed myself being a little bit testy with my friends and saying things that are mean (thinking "why did I say that?" after saying it) and also being challenged by my friends. It's called growth. It's not always fun or easy. But it's normal and natural. RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-01-2016 (09-01-2016, 02:48 PM)Vincent_Vega Wrote: @ Shannon: Most people had the best results with v1.0 (strongest aura). Guys who didn't have results with v1.0 also don't have results with 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. (e.g. Swisston) I had that idea too. But it won't work because it undoes a lot of the work on the skeleton script, and it also fails repeatedly in the models. RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - maxx55 - 09-01-2016 Hey Shannon! It's awesome that you're getting out DMSI 2.4 before you get super busy this month. I sure hope it performs the way you want it. Regardless, I'm sure it'll be useful for you to get data from people that test it this month so that v3 can be even that much more awesome! I will say that I am definitely curious what the new tech is that you're adding that made you think it will perform well. But, if you don't wanna tell us okay RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-01-2016 (09-01-2016, 04:11 PM)maxx55 Wrote: Hey Shannon! It's awesome that you're getting out DMSI 2.4 before you get super busy this month. I sure hope it performs the way you want it. I have made a few changes to the script that should focus it in ways that produce better results. We shall see. RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - 4Kingdoms - 09-01-2016 (09-01-2016, 04:11 PM)maxx55 Wrote: I will say that I am definitely curious what the new tech is that you're adding that made you think it will perform well. But, if you don't wanna tell us okay Once the people testing v2.4 figure out the new technology or guess what the surprise is... I'm sure Shannon will confirm it and explain it in more detail. RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Vincent_Vega - 09-01-2016 (09-01-2016, 03:31 PM)Shannon Wrote:(09-01-2016, 02:48 PM)Vincent_Vega Wrote: @ Shannon: Most people had the best results with v1.0 (strongest aura). Guys who didn't have results with v1.0 also don't have results with 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. (e.g. Swisston) So using the 1.0 script is like going back in technology? Isn't it possible to somehow upgrade the old script or something like that? Another thing: how can v1.0 fail in the models if it already worked in the past? Or do the models mean that it is not as good as another option? RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-01-2016 (09-01-2016, 05:07 PM)Vincent_Vega Wrote:(09-01-2016, 03:31 PM)Shannon Wrote:(09-01-2016, 02:48 PM)Vincent_Vega Wrote: @ Shannon: Most people had the best results with v1.0 (strongest aura). Guys who didn't have results with v1.0 also don't have results with 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. (e.g. Swisston) Yes, it is using fewer technologies. As to upgrading the old script... what do you suppose I was doing when I made 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3...? The key isn't just upgrading, it's making all the variables point to the same goal in ways that are effective. We haven't finished figuring out how to do that yet. I didn't say V1.0 fails in the models. I said using those particular pieces of scripting from 1.0 would not be as effective as using the same pieces from 2.3. The newer wordings are better in all cases. RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Steven - 09-01-2016 Shannon, I know you said you were going to build it now (v2.4), but I feel compelled to ask... did you put P4 in there? RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Aventus45 - 09-01-2016 Is there a glossary for all the tech Shannon is mentioning? RE: Shannon's Journal Discussion - Shannon - 09-01-2016 (09-01-2016, 07:09 PM)Steven Wrote: Shannon, No, that sort of thing is going in 3.0. |