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

[DarthXedonias]

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.

Its interesting because after getting rid of this certain tactic, which from the results so far seem to be the major thing that was in the way of execution, I noticed on other thing after I just accepted it all. I noticed that I stopped analyzing everything. I don't think people realize how big of a change this is for me in that regard. Analyzation was one of my best and developed traits I had to a degree. I literally for years of my life since beginning of high-school would just analyze lots of things, etc. Sometimes to death really. It was like a big foundation of my life and now I find i don't like really overanalyzing stuff or analyzing too much in general. Its like I just think about a plan or issue, think of the pros/cons, and either make a decision or if its not quite time to make a decision I wait and don't really think on it as much anymore. I just move on to what I need to do next. Before the analyzation of things would get out of control and I would become obsessive about certain things. I realized afterwards that a lot of this analysis was fear based. Basically "am I making the right decision? Am I still going down the right path? maybe I need to double check that data?". This was so bad earlier in my life that it would sort of freeze me from making decisions, especially if I had to make a decision right then and without the ability to push off the decision until I had more data. 

I did realize that there are going to be times when you don't have time to collect the data or there is barely any and your going to have to just make a decision. Just make the decision with the best knowledge you have then own up to the consequences. I do think its quite the relief now that I'm not overanalyzing things now and can just live my life as it were.