Shannon's Journal Discussion Thread, Vol. 5

[apollolux]

With regards to the latter, it is noted that female shit testing may be getting in the way of success for some of you.  I'll have to think about how to deal with that.

If shit testing is an issue, wouldn't running AM6 program be a better solution by the people having this specific issue rather than transforming DMSI into a 8 slots smart toaster with an AM/FM radio and an integrated LCD touchscreen to browse remote weather forecasts?

I'm not saying DMSI will ever deal with shit testing.  I'm not sure it should.  It's about creating sexual attraction, not teaching you how to deal with skepticism from those who see incongruencies when you run it, and want to figure out what's really going on.

But at the same time, DMSI isn't much good for those who lack the experience to express what DMSI is trying to express in a way that is congruent, if those incongruencies result in the first place.  It seems to me that instead of trying to make DMSI deal with shit testing, we need to make it produce a result that is more congruent, so the shit testing doesn't happen.  Which may or may not be possible.  It is those who lack experience who need this.  Can I do anything about it through a set of instructions?  

I don't think I can just write up a list of things to do or not do that will solve this problem.  What these guys need is experience, and in the cases where they don't have it, it's going to be because of a cycle of Be inexperienced > make mistakes > feel hurt > prevent getting more experience.  So I'll have to break that cycle, enable getting more experience and thus allow them to grow into being congruent with what DMSI is attempting to accomplish.  Or at least more confident expressing DMSI's expressions.

I agree with most of this with a few of notes from my personal experience:

• I 100% agree that it would be much easier to accept and absorb DMSI programming when one has relevant experience than when one has comparatively little to no relevant experience; related, true confidence is strengthened within a person and more unshakeable when they have experiences that reinforce the belief of having the abilities to make XYZ thing happen;
  
• I have some sexual experience, but the overwhelming majority of it was when I was younger and employed, and with the exception of my first girlfriend unfortunately always involved flashing cash or some other symbol of financial status (I got myself a pretty nice Bulova watch in 2009) near introduction to better ameliorate these women to the idea that I was "acceptable" as a potential partner; I acknowledge and accept that at the time I was not secure in my own abilities or even self-worth and had way unhealthier beliefs back then;
  
• DMSI promoting congruence, even if it's only in matters related to sexual attractiveness, is useful regardless of how much sexual experience the listener may or may not have;
  
• Women will still shit-test regardless of how emotionally healthy they claim to be and may or may not actually be; a man can be 100% congruent inside and outside but women will still project their own insecurities and programming and not only shit-test claiming suspicion of the man truly being aligned, but also more often than not act like their supposed BS detectors are infallible regardless of how the man handles these tests; while I understand that women shit-testing has legitimate biological roots and all that stuff, "modern" women especially in the US don't commonly have this knowledge and understanding and instead use their societal programming to make excuses and such;
  
• The statistical likelihood of attracting a woman I am attracted to who has sincerely put in effort towards her own self-improvement and is therefore more likely to be secure enough to not shit-test is small enough that I unfortunately can't bank on any assumptions of not getting shit-tested.
  

Re congruence specifically - I know that one of the most commonly promoted beliefs to have to be "more positive" is to have a mindset of abundance. The conflict between simply thinking one has abundance vs actually having abundance seems to be the most common source of incongruence, and if there's promotion of having a mindset of sexual abundance in DMSI programming I would suggest starting there and figuring out how to reconcile that difference of "thinking without having" vs "actually having." I would wager that the conflict of "thinking without having" vs "actually having," even not in a context of abundance, is going to be the source of almost every incongruence a person may have.

Re shit-testing specifically - if there's anything I think DMSI should have explicitly about shit-testing it's improving the listener's ability to identify more accurately what is a shit-test vs other forms of affected-side resistance, token or otherwise, especially with regards to sex and sexual attraction. While I can understand that influencing how the listener responds to shit-tests may be outside of DMSI's scope even simply due to how complex understanding and responding appropriately to shit-testing is to begin with, I would be disappointed if you didn't at least try to explore some way DMSI could at least educate the listener on some default path "X is almost certainly a shit-test, if you don't have enough useful knowledge to respond better then do Y in response."

Re AM6 vs DMSI for shit-testing - given how foundational AM6 is meant to be, it would certainly be reasonable to think that it would be better overall for understanding and responding to shit-tests. Me not knowing the script, however, I'm personally not sure how much Shannon had actually thought about shit-testing, sexual or otherwise, when making it, so I'm not sure how much it would actually address it. For sex-related shit-testing, I would be 100% on board for DMSI having something useful to promote about identifying accurately and responding well to shit-tests, especially in ways that increase the listener's sexual attractiveness as a result.