EsotericPhilosopher

Something I've been playing around with for quite some time. The mechanisms conventional science use are not something I've trialed (or had access to), and whilst they're interesting and may be applicable in certain clinical settings, probably aren't going to be responsible for some neuroplastic revolution. But it's refreshing to listen to the concepts of neuroplasticity being explored (Brian Greene is also a very entertaining host). I've long since contended the end result of optimal neuroplastic intervention could be, optimal human behavioural impulse control - a behavioural and societal revolution. Kind of explored the beginnings of this mechanism: Exploring and clarifying this is still in progress for me personally (i.e. no academic paper compiled on it yet).

Yesterday morning it was the end of 2019 and I was chilling. This morning I woke up and we're into the second quarter of 2023. I am no longer chilling. I can't attribute this to covid or lockdowns or anything else, but the last three and half years has gone by positively frighteningly quickly. I just turned 37, positively a grown ass dude, no longer youthful and entirely carefree (which I kind of felt like up until I hit this most recent age). Frightening. It feels like the last 3+ years I've spent sat about doing very little, where as prior, I would make every day count, getting qualifications, travelling, etc etc. Is it just me?

Very good questions. Many health issues stem from an incapacity re people and situational management. In fact, the word "depression" is a function of succumbing to "oppression" - i.e. inability to adequately manage people and situations. Psychotic disorders are profound/extreme emotional dysregulation, again an inability to adequately process emotion and behaviourally apply oneself to manage/resolve personal/situational difficulties. So what's the point? The point from my point of view was quite simply - performance enhancement. ........ Emotion is mediated through neural impulses (as is everything we feel), therefore if we optimize our emotional process, by default we could stand to optimize our neural function. Musculoskeletal performance is a downstream function of neural performance/integrity (as are the majority of physiological processes, hormones being another), therefore in optimizing emotional performance, we optimize physical/athletic performance. ....... In relation to this topic - bridging the gender gap, as I outlined, doing so constitutes the reliable induction of male to female orgasm. This to, is also mediated in neural performance - ability to stimulate someone else nerve endings - again determined through emotional proficiency. That's what the intent is in relation to what's being explored - the means is determined, it's simply consolidating the explanation behind the means - that's the phase of the process I'm at.

Just for clarity, a written paper is a concise summation of hundreds to thousands of pages of documentation. Said documentation is the "deductive" phase, and this is what I've done over the last 13 years, all the materials/methods as outlined above, social experimentation in a variety of fields, post-experimentation appraisal/documentation. You really want me to link that crap? I haven't written an actual paper yet, i.e. intro, materials/methods, results, etc., as - I'm still fine tuning the specifics (that is to say, the specifics of how to characterize, describe and define the nature of what has been done). You see that diagram I linked above? I was in the process of initiating discussion as to how that was deduced when y'all started calling for "peer review". I'm not at that phase yet, as the ultimate paper hasn't been written. And I don't see the point in writing it until every last detail has been examined, scrutinized, 2nd guessed, clarified, and the optimal possible means to express/define those details as concise and comprehensively as possible has been determined. Because that is what a paper must consist of, otherwise it may just be interpreted as rambling jargon. But the "work", is done. The hard part, the part where concepts have been elucidated. ........ And that's the part I'd like to focus on here.

The nature of the research is simply, so esoteric, that I have to ease into it. Explain how and why this research (or research of this nature) was undertaken. And there is abundant research, of that you may be most certain. Meticulously documented. Consider this like the "introductory" section to the paper. I had a conversation with a so called "expert" in this area. Their expertise amounted to, a half hearted lack of faith in the plausible outcome of such endeavours, and a shallow (generous description) understanding of its potential and mechanics. i.e. there's so little meaningful material in existence in this specific area. Therefore it must be introduced here, its specifics explored and scrutinized for merit, the paradigm construction initiates.

You would be punctilious in assuming that state of apprehension. Translation: prepare yourself for the obscenities to follow. We'll get into the specifics eventually but simply said research began initially in the area of sports performance. Not to sound like "that guy", but I was (and sadly at my ripe age, still am) an aspiring pro-athlete (one of my former opponents just won the title again last night actually). This began by understanding that "self instruction" influenced actions. i.e. thoughts -> actions. This initially began in sports/athletics, so I would use certain words to influence athletic performance, "regulate" it, optimize outcome/efficiency, etc. Whilst this affects physical performance, it didn't directly affect the physiology underlying said performance. .......... Later I began experimenting with this same "self instruction" on a social level, to influence social behaviour and how others would respond to me (in a range of settings, several of which have been mentioned). Remarkably, I would get responses almost exactly consistent with the nature of self-instruction being implemented. From here it was simply a process of working through self instruction (cue application) progressions, to render the desired outcome - which was/is, spontaneous excitation induction in women, in much the same way as they can historically generate in men. In the case of social cue application (in contrast to physical/athletic) where the premise is thoughts->actions ,the intermediary step is "emotions. i.e. thoughts->emotions->actions. Therefore, the thoughts (after a long period of experimentation and determination), I discovered, had to be of highly specific emotional relevance to generate a sustained and effective outcome.

This is more so a case of seeking peer review, as the nature of the research conducted was novel. Or ground breaking? But I see no advantage to scrutinizing characterizations. ......... Evening out gender sexual leverages = reliable induction of sexual climax from men to women (historically this has been one way only, the vast majority of the time) = determined by emotional induction (which determines their nervous system response). Therefore it's thought implementation to affect emotion/behaviour. ......... From that point of view I had considered putting this in the biological morphology subforum but, said I'd start here. ** Seems like a fair sub to transfer this to: We'll start here and see if anyone can make sense of this. Then get into the how and why.

I'm unsure what "incel propaganda" is. Yes I have a consolidated scientific argument based in the "thoughts-emotions-actions" psychological framework. I guess the core premise revolves around the reliable induction of male to female orgasms. There seems to be some differing opinions on this but in essence, to stick with the hypothesis of male heterosexual prostitutes, the entire point would be the reliable induction of sexual climax. With a certain behavioural/emotional approach, I contend this is possible - bearing in mind that the "orgasm" is a nervous system response, and nervous system sensitization and responsiveness is a function of emotion, what they feel or what we make them feel. It's that approach that I wish to explore and scrutinze on a scientific forum.

In a nutshell, women can basically get sex more or less when they wish. There's other considerations but it's common knowledge that men ask, women choose. Hypothesize there's a means to introduce balance into that situation however. i.e. a situation where men can essentially exude sex appeal to the point that spontaneous sexual attraction that historically happens only for women, now happens for men. So it's possible that by example, men could start practicing as heterosexual prostitutes. That's pretty out there but this is somewhat philosophical, but with a strong scientific component which I will elaborate on. Any initial thoughts on the above however?