12-21-2017, 02:49 AM
Haven't updated this journal much lately, but I've also only been around other people a couple times in the last two months. Was still enjoyed and rewarded on those occasions, often by new people, but not in any strikingly new manner, so my prior reporting (which was positive, albeit summarized) still stands. I'm not bored or displeased with 3.1 (quite the contrary), but repeating myself is a habit that I'm trying to overcome. It's also why I'd skipped yet another DMSI 3.1 results poll, having already answered these questions before.
I've also been unenthused by insinuations from the less experienced that past experience and concurrent relationships disqualify the value of our DMSI feedback. "Maximum sexual irresistibility" and "sexy enough to get laid" are not the same goal, so mutual respect and tolerance for others putting in the same time (or more) with DMSI, regardless of experience level, wouldn't be unwelcome. It's getting harder to tell whether people prefer feedback or silence anymore.
There's another reason that I've been disinclined to report. Been noticing for a while that some DMSI users seem extremely preoccupied with anecdotal reporting and equality of results. Put an unbaked souffle in the oven, and a baked souffle comes out. Put an unbaked cake in the oven, and some DMSI users still want a baked souffle to come out. Put an unbaked pot roast in the oven, and they still want a baked souffle to come out. Ovens bake things; they do not souffle them. But I keep seeing this cycle of: 1) another story where baked souffle is credited solely to the oven -> 2) applause and envy -> 3) others wait for the same oven to produce a baked souffle for themselves -> 4) complaint that the same oven didn't turn an unbaked apple pie into a souffle and only produced a baked apple pie -> 5) conclusion that the oven doesn't really work -> 6) demand for new oven -> 1) another story where baked souffle is credited solely to the oven -> repeat.
A baked apple pie may not be a souffle, but it's a whole lot more baked than an unbaked apple pie. And it's tasty in its own right. We can become sexier than we were without having identical sexual escapades to show for it. Without being disappointed by our interpersonal differences (or unduly proud of them), just willing to make the most of them. On my own personal scale, I've gotten sexier. Had more sex too, even though life taught me years ago that more sex isn't what measures my sexiness (e.g. might only measure my partners' emotional state, my partners' need for sexual validation, my partners' low self esteem, my partners' high libido, my partners' standards, and several more things that aren't even about me). And I don't credit improvements solely to DMSI -- because it's a team effort, because I'm ultimately the only member of that team that can choose or act/react, because my raw material is different than anyone else's, because there are many parts of me independent of DMSI, because there are factors other than DMSI or myself, and because some improvements require me to supply the external factors that neither DMSI nor I already possess. But this whole "I'm supposed to get those results too!" thing makes me more and more wary of posting anything, even my daily realizations (which are filling my private journal rapidly, BTW). Since I can't decide what others envy, I'd figured that I could at least reduce my own contribution to the pool of possibilities. But the thing that I'd forgotten is: that pool's going to stay filled by others whether or not I contribute to it or ever experience anything that anyone else desires.
I was prepared to stop journaling altogether. I still am. And then I'd read the latest edition of 3.2 impatience. Despite being someone who normally knocks off important projects in under a week (if not a day), I once spent 10-11 months on an "impossible" project that four other very talented people (who were given 3-4 years) gave up on (one of the four, twice), during one of the worst years of my life, and I vividly remember spending over 40x the amount of time that I wanted on a project that I absolutely loathed catching in my peripheral vision. A project where 70% of the total work and time was frustratingly spent on maybe 10% of the end product, trying to turn disparate (and often incomplete) input into something uniform enough to achieve the goal for all input. I remember not being able to set a perfect schedule for what no one else had actually managed to do. Even when they had 3-4x the amount of time. And I remember doing it anyway. When I could've walked away. I remember needing more patience than those waiting for the finished project, just to endure others' impatience and get on with the work. And having to leverage side projects to advance my way to the goal. And succeeding, because I knew what it took to build and how little the project's eventual users knew about how to achieve the goal that they understood only from a user's perspective, the ones who thought that fitting a whole world inside a thimble was as quick and simple to do as it is to say. When I think that something's simple enough to do quickly, I actually do it myself; I don't wait for others to do it. I've done projects that others took too long to do, proving that it could be done more quickly when it was simple, and, when it wasn't, I discovered and accepted that their original timetable wasn't unreasonable. But I wait to judge others' deadlines until I try doing it myself (or find a faster option) first.
I also see a difference between buying a finished product and buying access to a test project, and DMSI, while available pre-completion for a fee, is not stated to be "on the shelf" yet. Our early access is a privilege -- because we asked for it, offered to pay for the option to try it before completion, and agreed to be cooperative test subjects. We helped set the terms, including whether or not to keep DMSI testing strictly limited to volunteers requesting to pay to be testers. Testing it (for a fee) is only publicly accessible because we insisted on it, not because DMSI has ever had a real first public release. I remember waiting years for E2 because we didn't get the same pre-product option. Yes, there are more test subjects this way, but some of us seem to be touting the early-entrance test subject fee as if it's a product price tag. Timed upgrade increments were also not part of the agreement, and no firm completion date was given. IMHO, being impatient for DMSI's end result does not make a backstage pass into a shelved product or invalidate the original deal. I do think that the version numbering may be misleading for some, though, and that 0.31 would better remind us of DMSI's pre-product status.
Today, I've been reminded why I started this journal: To contribute a (hopefully respectful) perspective on DMSI that may not be a strongly represented one. This journal's never been about my own importance or because anyone else cares if I reach my goals; It's been because I often hear several people parroting one contagious reaction in different voices (a reaction which I still respect, whether or not I agree with it) and a comparative few mentioning the thoughts that cross my mind or the things that I observe. I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their minds or to agree with me, just offer a perspective.
I've also been unenthused by insinuations from the less experienced that past experience and concurrent relationships disqualify the value of our DMSI feedback. "Maximum sexual irresistibility" and "sexy enough to get laid" are not the same goal, so mutual respect and tolerance for others putting in the same time (or more) with DMSI, regardless of experience level, wouldn't be unwelcome. It's getting harder to tell whether people prefer feedback or silence anymore.
There's another reason that I've been disinclined to report. Been noticing for a while that some DMSI users seem extremely preoccupied with anecdotal reporting and equality of results. Put an unbaked souffle in the oven, and a baked souffle comes out. Put an unbaked cake in the oven, and some DMSI users still want a baked souffle to come out. Put an unbaked pot roast in the oven, and they still want a baked souffle to come out. Ovens bake things; they do not souffle them. But I keep seeing this cycle of: 1) another story where baked souffle is credited solely to the oven -> 2) applause and envy -> 3) others wait for the same oven to produce a baked souffle for themselves -> 4) complaint that the same oven didn't turn an unbaked apple pie into a souffle and only produced a baked apple pie -> 5) conclusion that the oven doesn't really work -> 6) demand for new oven -> 1) another story where baked souffle is credited solely to the oven -> repeat.
A baked apple pie may not be a souffle, but it's a whole lot more baked than an unbaked apple pie. And it's tasty in its own right. We can become sexier than we were without having identical sexual escapades to show for it. Without being disappointed by our interpersonal differences (or unduly proud of them), just willing to make the most of them. On my own personal scale, I've gotten sexier. Had more sex too, even though life taught me years ago that more sex isn't what measures my sexiness (e.g. might only measure my partners' emotional state, my partners' need for sexual validation, my partners' low self esteem, my partners' high libido, my partners' standards, and several more things that aren't even about me). And I don't credit improvements solely to DMSI -- because it's a team effort, because I'm ultimately the only member of that team that can choose or act/react, because my raw material is different than anyone else's, because there are many parts of me independent of DMSI, because there are factors other than DMSI or myself, and because some improvements require me to supply the external factors that neither DMSI nor I already possess. But this whole "I'm supposed to get those results too!" thing makes me more and more wary of posting anything, even my daily realizations (which are filling my private journal rapidly, BTW). Since I can't decide what others envy, I'd figured that I could at least reduce my own contribution to the pool of possibilities. But the thing that I'd forgotten is: that pool's going to stay filled by others whether or not I contribute to it or ever experience anything that anyone else desires.
I was prepared to stop journaling altogether. I still am. And then I'd read the latest edition of 3.2 impatience. Despite being someone who normally knocks off important projects in under a week (if not a day), I once spent 10-11 months on an "impossible" project that four other very talented people (who were given 3-4 years) gave up on (one of the four, twice), during one of the worst years of my life, and I vividly remember spending over 40x the amount of time that I wanted on a project that I absolutely loathed catching in my peripheral vision. A project where 70% of the total work and time was frustratingly spent on maybe 10% of the end product, trying to turn disparate (and often incomplete) input into something uniform enough to achieve the goal for all input. I remember not being able to set a perfect schedule for what no one else had actually managed to do. Even when they had 3-4x the amount of time. And I remember doing it anyway. When I could've walked away. I remember needing more patience than those waiting for the finished project, just to endure others' impatience and get on with the work. And having to leverage side projects to advance my way to the goal. And succeeding, because I knew what it took to build and how little the project's eventual users knew about how to achieve the goal that they understood only from a user's perspective, the ones who thought that fitting a whole world inside a thimble was as quick and simple to do as it is to say. When I think that something's simple enough to do quickly, I actually do it myself; I don't wait for others to do it. I've done projects that others took too long to do, proving that it could be done more quickly when it was simple, and, when it wasn't, I discovered and accepted that their original timetable wasn't unreasonable. But I wait to judge others' deadlines until I try doing it myself (or find a faster option) first.
I also see a difference between buying a finished product and buying access to a test project, and DMSI, while available pre-completion for a fee, is not stated to be "on the shelf" yet. Our early access is a privilege -- because we asked for it, offered to pay for the option to try it before completion, and agreed to be cooperative test subjects. We helped set the terms, including whether or not to keep DMSI testing strictly limited to volunteers requesting to pay to be testers. Testing it (for a fee) is only publicly accessible because we insisted on it, not because DMSI has ever had a real first public release. I remember waiting years for E2 because we didn't get the same pre-product option. Yes, there are more test subjects this way, but some of us seem to be touting the early-entrance test subject fee as if it's a product price tag. Timed upgrade increments were also not part of the agreement, and no firm completion date was given. IMHO, being impatient for DMSI's end result does not make a backstage pass into a shelved product or invalidate the original deal. I do think that the version numbering may be misleading for some, though, and that 0.31 would better remind us of DMSI's pre-product status.
Today, I've been reminded why I started this journal: To contribute a (hopefully respectful) perspective on DMSI that may not be a strongly represented one. This journal's never been about my own importance or because anyone else cares if I reach my goals; It's been because I often hear several people parroting one contagious reaction in different voices (a reaction which I still respect, whether or not I agree with it) and a comparative few mentioning the thoughts that cross my mind or the things that I observe. I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their minds or to agree with me, just offer a perspective.
