It may be a habit formed from other things in my life.
That may be true too - when I design software, for instance, the design must be perfect - the code following the design must also be perfect. There is not much room for error at work.
There is only despair to be found in messing up a large design 
I get to relax a little around here though.
I know a woman who is plagued with that traumatic fear of judgement - always desperately seeking a place to be free of it - even though it is now almost entirely within her own mind - so she cannot get free easily. It causes her to have serious problems in her life - attention and learning problems - social problems - rationality problems - frustration problems - temper problems - depression problems - you name it.
Problems associated with repression~control~and reactive attitude; is often minimized on a wave like -partially differentiated set , devolved into a lowered level of memory retension, thereby forgetting the eastern like ‘colonial’ set fight for renewal ( remembrance) of archaic fights to death for existential reasons of survival.
The identifiable aspects of eastern philosophical attitude has been corrupted by western, essentially Germanic idealistic focus.
Here, quantum echinomics is overshadowed by the economy of the ID
Again, just saying and not a retributional link to any sufficiently reasonable. correspondence.
obsrvr524
The only literal emphasis to this is the example of Australia’s struggle to navigate between the egaletarianism to be. of the United States and the dragon pieced position China finds It’s self to be.
But maybe this crosses over sufficiently to be placed elsewhere in another forum.
But this division. does definitely cross over into the realm of the distinction in macro-political social psychological determinancy.
Thanks for listening.
.
I decided to remove my post.
I would prefer not to muddy the waters. Now, gentlemen, I hope you don’t mind, I will shift to look on for some more time.
.
In this next bit James explains the difference in behaviorism and his affectance ontology approach. He sees comparing behaviorism to AO as being like comparing a chuck wagon to a train (chuck wagons did nothing to improve the paths before trying to carry their loads). The difference being that his focus was not on teaching the words but rather on clearing the path to learning - and using the words as mere practical paraphernalia. He reprogrammed her mind to have a type of clear conductor/path between her vision - her memory - and her consciousness. With a cleared path - the memory became stable and strong.
His intention - and apparent success - was to increase her intelligence - not to merely feed her knowledge. And apparently the effect was at least long term if not permanent. As a result the practice of behavior modification methods - rewarding or punishing - become irrelevant and “moot”.
And he expresses that modern education practices are more like the chuck wagon version of transporting knowledge into the memories of children. I can see why he would think that.
But he never did - damn - damn - DAMN! 
But moving on -
I can guess how the rest of the sessions went and in researching I found the following post -
I assume he was talking about Emma and apparently the whole program was very successful. Can anyone reading this do what Emma could do - I can’t.
So the entire process seems to have been -
Calm the room - minimize the “ambient affectance”.
Show her a minimum sample - encourage a memory particle to form.
Immediately test to see if memory took place - test to see if the memory “particle” formed.
[list] [*] If it did not - repeat the process
If it did - compliment her - give the process of memorizing and being tested a “positive charge” - something to hope for again
[/:m]
[] Add a little more data to be remembered[/:m]
[] Randomly test each part of the picture she has seen (testing as a picture - not as words)
If pass - compliment and move on
[/:m]
[] Provide a little distracting affectance to give the particle a chance to be adversely affected[/:m]
[] Retest to ensure the particle is stable
If stable - increase the particle size (2 words) -
[/:m][] Test the addition - a little at a time
[/:m][] Disallow and circumvent any guessing
[/:m][] Randomly mix testing both original and addition again to ensure it is All stable
[/:m][] Provide positive charge along the way (never negative)
[/:m][] Thoroughly test each portion of the word list picture (I assume repeat on fail)
[/:m][] Mention the “final test”
[/:m][] Have her read from memory each letter from the bottom to the top of the page (again I assume repeat on fail).
[/:m][] Take whatever time is necessary to not outrun her processes
[/:m][] End the session with an extra positive charge.[/*:m][/list:u]
That seems kind of long but if you take out some of the details and just look at the essence you get -
Basically that reduces to merely -
[list][list]* Start very small
[] Don’t continue until certain
[] Add a little at a time - testing for perfect recall of the entire picture - as a picture
So the big (very big) question is -Why aren’t teachers doing this? Even parents could do this. So -Why are parents taught how to do this?
And my guess would be that what is driving society right now is political advocacy - and that requires a lot of dumb people - They don’t want children to be more intelligent - they want them to be virtue signal sensitive and advocacy obedient.
Not that anyone is reading any of this - but I have an update correction concerning my analysis in this topic -
When trying to visualize an analogy between atomic structure and PHT positive and negative particles I thought of using “attons” as being analogous to electron and proton (or positron) particles. And an atton would be a small minuscule portion of attitude (positive or negative). But there is a flaw in that effort. James could have corrected me on that.
The small attitudes associated with thoughts or perceptions cannot be regarded as particles. They are actually very analogous to James’ “minuscule portions of affectance = Afflates” - not particulate. Small positive or negative portions of affectance collect more of the same polarity - but positive and negative particles avoid similar polarity. James explains why.
Polarized affectance gathers its own type until the gathering (“traffic jam”) is so dense that it forms a stubborn and stable particle at which time it is both spreading and gathering its charge at the same rate - “anentropic” - stable.
So those minuscule attitudes would actually gather around a thought - increasing their own leaning until so dense and strong that the thought actually spread as much attitude to its surroundings as it gathered - forming a relatively immutable attitude concerning the thought - much like anti-Trumpers who hate Trump so much that they get triggered into rants about anything even mildly associated with him and refuse any positive thought entirely. It is the thought or idea that is the charged particle - not attitude associated with it.
And so I thought about what might constitute an attitude particle - void of an associated thought. And that seems to be the idea of a gathering of hatred or love when there isn’t anything in particular associated with it - someone is just angry - they don’t know or care why - and at everything (or in love).
So an attitude particle would be much much larger than I was thinking. It would be like stored up anger collected over a great many smaller frustrations or annoyances until the slightest touch triggered an outburst and a willingness to betray every normal civil ethic (such as “Trump Derangement Syndrome”).
And this would be different than a trauma because a trauma - although also a charged particle - is suddenly formed (not a slow gathering) and always associated with a traumatic event and the thoughts associated with it - the event is at the center of the trauma - an attitude particle would have no single thought at its center - just a buildup of too much negative or positive over a period of time.
So my “Attons” should actually be analogous with James’ Afflates - and rarely form particles of pure attitude - it takes a very dense gathering of a great deal of smaller attitudes for the attitude itself to be self-sustaining - independent of any particular thought.
And then an attitude-atom analogy would have to involve and entire topic rather than merely a thought. There could be positive and negative loose feelings swirling around each other if the topic was broad enough - such as politics - love it and hate it in general terms - emotional dissonance.
Now all you 4 million followers can update you detailed notes. 
I think I finally realized what this thread is really all about - none of that equation stuff I was trying.
I now think this thread was about virtue signaling, terrorism, activism, media manipulation and hypnotism. - but for who to read? 
pfft. Psychology. All your words are used to try to get decent people to commit suicide. You’re virtue signaling by using that term.
When you go to cosmic court Obsrvr…
Shut the fuck up. It’s in your best interest.
“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.”
He was a fence sitter who couldn’t make up his mind.
“Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.”
When you don’t commit to anything you commit to everything and get pulled into pieces—you crack.
“All the kings horses and all the kings men.”
With the next line this is hyperbole similar to “Wild horses couldn’t drag me away,” with the same meaning as “It would take an army if an army was enough” … or “If I had a brain I would be dangerous.“
“Couldn’t put Humpty together again.“
It’s like trying to put a broken plate back together as if it is brand new. Entropy is easier than anti-entropy.
But with God all things are possible because he is not subject to entropy, but subsumes it.
What hatched when Humpty fell? That’s what I want to know.
… why the Idea let him crack.
Observe:
Imagine kintsugi meets fabergé:
It’s just so simple. When you call someone a virtue signaler, you’re virtue signaling.
How dumb are people?
Are you confessing to being dumb? What does that word mean anymore?
No further questions, your honor.
I’ve never done this gen z shit like calling people in incels or virtue signalers.
People are getting more bullying and stupid every generation.
But aren’t we perpetuating it when we do it back… can’t we… show ‘em how it’s s’posed to be done?
You know. Rainbow rule it?
There’s more bullying in this generation than any on earth. I’ll just throw it back at them sometimes.
Mag saw me as the enemy, so I just told her that her only value was her breasts because of sexual stratification because she doesn’t have to think.
From my perspective, none of you are sentient. I’m in a stupid role playing game. I remember past lives in AI universes. I learned how to survive it.
Let’s pretend everything is real and have coffee.
Then let’s psych each other out and be like “This coffee, even though we’re only pretending it’s real, it sure does seem actually real and like there will be actual consequences to our choices in this fake reality that we’re pretending is real. Let’s do something crazy to find out. Like imagine we actuality exist right now. How f***ing insane would THAT be?”
I’m sorry; I’m having a moment where I push the wrong buttons. I am not fixing that.
Let’s take a little break of contemplation ….
Think about this song when you move through life…
I hope that you are contemplating taking me for a walk.
Oh. If you & MagsJ have an understanding that you don’t actually mean that her only value is her breasts—and her pushback is fake fighting — then it is still upbuilding. Even if everyone around you thinks you’re legitimately fighting. I mean - it is not the worst thing in the world to think people are fighting, unless there are people actually dying as a result. Like staging a Platonic dialogue where somebody has to play the idiot.
Or everyone except for the one person who can solve the riddle, who also in another way has to play an idiot. Kind of like Columbo.
Which is why it is hard sometimes, if there is not a good, agreed-upon understanding in advance, to fake fight with someone without even discussing it first. It can be very confusing.
Look, it’s nobody’s business if it’s fake-fighting, but at least know for yourself whether you guys are actually legitimately fake-fighting or if somebody needs to basically punch you in the face for talking to her like that. You have to be willing to accept the consequences when you act like an ass in public.