Shannon's Journal Discussion

[apollolux]

I'm also not a fan of AOS+BIABWS 5.5G being "gender neutral" since that might dilute its efficacy over something more direct.

Yeah, because you aren't smart enough to know the difference, right? lol

Let's see how hard this really is.

Gender specific version:

I now make myself irresistibly attractive sexually to beautiful women.

Gender neutral version:

I now make myself irresistibly attractive sexually to beautiful people of the gender I am sexually attracted to.

They mean and say exactly the same thing, except that doing a gender specific version takes 2-3 times more time. Gender neutral works for any gender and any sexual preference in just one program.

Oh ye of little faith. Or in this case, common sense. When are you guys going to figure out that yes, I actually do know what I'm doing?

My concern isn't over your knowledge or skill set, it's about processing. I know that you insist the subconscious mind can process a much larger and denser amount of data than the conscious mind can, and I know that consciously "beautiful women" can be equivalent to "beautiful people of the gender I am sexually attracted to," but "women" is objectively simpler to understand (i.e. takes less energy and effort to process successfully) than "people of the gender I am sexually attracted to," takes less time to input which allows the space that would have been occupied by the longer statement to be instead occupied with other script, and there's less likelihood of the qualifiers after "people" being ignored or downplayed by a potentially lazy subconscious.

Also, with another processing analogy, "beautiful women" may result in one set of neural pathways firing to associate the prompt with the mind's recollection of beautiful women, while "beautiful people of the gender I am sexually attracted to" may take more time and/or effort to process because it may process in parts, drilling down like the more general "beautiful people" first then having to expend effort (however significant or insignificant) to filter to those "of the gender I am sexually attracted to," potentially processing that in parts like "of the gender I am" (which is male in this example) then having to process "sexually attracted to" and expend more effort linking the two clauses together to make the proper filter.

I'm not trying to belittle your efforts, Shannon, I'm simply looking to present an alternative argument for simpler, more overt and obvious wording based on the fact that it's not quite conclusive how the subconscious definitively and undisputedly processes data, though you without question seem to have come the closest of anyone I've encountered so far to finding out that answer. Also, I would think the trade off of writing a shorter script that would only need a Find & Replace All to change "women" to "men" would be more beneficial than writing a longer script that is gender neutral.