HOY-Because I HAD to try it...

[rono]

Keep in mind that what you think of as being "you" is your so-called "conscious" mind, and it is basically a small sliver of your whole consciousness.  There are many different parts, layers and levels of awareness within you, and some of them will have different points of view, desires and levels of understanding from that sliver of consciousness, which is generally among the least conscious of all of them, from what I can tell.  So it's entirely possible for "you" you deeply want something, and maybe one or more parts of your subconscious, while other parts may deeply want exactly the reverse.  And those parts may simply be too deep for your conscious self to detect in a way that it understands.

This is a very interesting theory and possibly correct as far as I can tell. I have some questions about it I'll include in my update I'm also posting today.

Cheers,
RonO

I wouldn't exactly call it a theory, after doing this since 1992, but take it as you will.

Touché

I'm accustomed to calling anything that I cannot access or test the data a 'theory' it doesn't demean it, it just allows it to be superseded when new info emerges as it almost always does in scientific investigation.

RonO

"Theory" is a word frequently abused by those outside the scientific establishment.  In formal hard science circles, a thing is a theory until it becomes a law, as far as I recall, which can take decades or even a century or more.  In that sense, certainly it is indeed a theory.  But most people don't use the word in that sense, they use it as a way of throwing shade on something, or casting it as doubtful.  In the former usage, I have no problem with it being called a theory.  The latter rather bothers me.  Good to see it is being used in the former sense, not the latter.

I doubt there will ever be 100% certainty concerning the subconscious awareness, but this I have shared with you has indeed been built upon and survived decades of experimentation, testing and every challenge I could find to throw at it.  It's not a certainty, but it is a very well supported and very strong and stable conclusion.

I'm glad you have the classical understanding of 'theory' as I do. I don't use it to disparage the operating paradigms, just to remind myself that there is always the possibility I might be wrong in some way. Mostly right but for the wrong reasons, etc. I was taught that the 'truth value' of a theory is not as important as its usefulness in interpreting data from the real world.

The unconscious/subconscious deserves more attention than it gets in the scientific community. After discussing my results from the first weeks of experimenting with HOY with my functional medicine/hormone doctor yesterday she was very excited about my 'experiment'. Made me wonder if you'd consider doing a double-blind gold-standard test at some point if you get consistent results? Seems you may have something to add to the existing body of scientific knowledge here. But perhaps you'd have to divulge your IP in order to do that? At any rate I think it merits some more attention.

RonO