Transcendental Sith Lord's UMSv2 Journal/ Few weeks of E5

[Shannon]

@Shannon Glad I could help. I did want to ask you as well do you know if subconscious boredom can be affected by clearing? I cause I did realize during UMS that I do get subconscious boredom quickly but I wonder if after this major shift any of that can change. Or is that aspect just part of someone's personality and it can't really be affected? Also I did realize something that was touched upon when you and Catman have discussed things (sorry for bringing you into this Catman but this does have to do with something regarding a conversation between you two). I believe at one time you said their was a type of skepticism which isn't "real" skepticism. I forgot what you called it.

I believe when it came to the 2nd week when i had to deal with the whole "belief" thing I realized I had a similar problem. It was like part of me only wanted to execute if it saw "evidence" that it works. I then realized at that time this was total nonsense finally. The only way to see if it works would be to execute and that entails fully committing to the instructions and fully "believing" them. So I ended up just saying "screw it" and just fully given into it. The worst that could happen is that I was wrong. Also this is part of actual science. If you want to know if something works or a theory is correct you actually have to run experiments. There is no way around that. Simply saying "I won't execute until there is evidence" while refusing to do the experiments, which require you to fully execute the sub and believe it, which in part will get you the evidence you need is totally dumb and seems to be a stalling tactic.
[snip]

Boredom is the result of the beliefs you hold, the point of view you hold and the choices you make.  It is therefore quite possible that changing yourself your boredom responses can also change. 

The two types of skepticism are natural and antagonistic.  "Natural skepticism" is simply not accepting something until and unless you have reasonable evidence to support it's validity.  There is no hidden agenda, nor is there any preference as to what to believe; you are simply trying to determine what is true, and accepting what you have enough evidence to validate only when you have sufficiently validated it.

"Antagonistic skepticism" is really just a fear based manipulation and sabotage tactic.  The person fears the truth of X or the results of achieving X, and therefore tries to prevent it from affecting themselves by attacking and sabotaging it.  This is really commonly used by people who claim to be using science to back up their argument, but they frequently use lots of subtle psychological manipulations and what is effectively misinformation and sleight of hand to cause the thing they're afraid of to be perceived by others as being false, bad, foolish to accept as true, ridiculous, childish, whatever negative thing they can use to prevent it from being validated, used, effective, or provable.

One way this can be exploited is by taking the (seemingly reasonable) position that "I'll believe it when I have 'real' proof.", which is the sleight of hand.  It causes people to presume that the "skeptic" is being reasonable, and accept their position as valid and reasonable.  Then they find ways to deny, refute, ignore, refuse to accept, and so on, any and all valid evidence that would and does actually prove what they're "being skeptical of".  (Moving the goalposts to negate, ignore and or disregard the validity of evidence against them is common in this.) In the process, they again use psychological sleight of hand to mislead and confuse the onlookers (and in some cases, themselves) into believing their point of view and refusal to accept what is actually valid evidence, is reasonable, thus causing the onlooker (or themselves) to conclude incorrectly that the valid evidence is not valid.

The result is a self fulfilling prophecy.  I will only believe X when I have 'real' proof.  I refuse to accept any actual proof of the validity of X, so X is not accepted because I have no 'real' proof of it's validity.  In the case of subliminals, it is a condition of refusing to execute because "there is no 'real' proof", when the act of execution is required to achieve the proof.  The refusal to execute seems reasonable because "there is no proof", and the slight of hand is in the refusal to accept valid evidence, or allow valid evidence to be accomplished through execution.  It is a self fulfilling prophecy that allows the "skeptic" to get nowhere and convince themselves that they are perfectly justified in doing so.  And you're right, there is no way around the fact that in this case, execution is required to observe the evidence that the "skeptic" in this case is demanding in order to execute.  So the process fails and the "skeptic" claims that the subliminal doesn't work, when in reality they chose to sabotage the execution that would have made it work.