Tag: psychology

Women’s role in wokeness

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

That’s the good side of the feminine factor in wokeness. The bad side is women can be and often are vicious. Female consensus not only draws on compassion and caring but also hatred, anger, selfishness and envy. What used to be called ‘Women’s Liberation’ exploded into a mass movement within a few days in the early 1970s, and what came out was anger against men in many forms. That battle has been raging ever since. Only recently have truly fair and rational women begun to speak up and become prominent. Another point is women, like all humans, are susceptible to mind-control. In their case, the mind-control draws on both the positive and negative sides of female emotionality. MKULTRA works on many levels; to destroy the West, women were turned against men. ABN

BONUS CLIP: Somewhat relevant in that the consensus described is every bit as as vicious as it is nice; and works through severe ostracism, which we also see in majority female (and beta-cuck) American institutions.

The five skandhas and modern science

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

A recent study on emotional response—Amygdala Responsivity to High-Level Social Information from Unseen Faces—indicates that the Buddha’s five skandha explanation of consciousness has it right.

From the study’s abstract:

The findings demonstrate that the amygdala can be influenced by even high-level facial information before that information is consciously perceived, suggesting that the amygdala’s processing of social cues in the absence of awareness may be more extensive than previously described.

Note that all important phrase “…before that information is consciously perceived.”

The five skandhas are form, sensation, perception, activity, consciousness. A form can arise in the mind or outside of the mind. This form gives rise to a sensation, which gives rise to perception, followed by activity (mental or physical), and lastly consciousness. In the Buddha’s explanation, the five skandhas occur one after the other, very rapidly. They are not a continuous stream but rather a series of discrete or discernible moments. A form arises or appears, then there is a sensation, then perception, then activity, then consciousness.

Advanced training in meditation and mindfulness is probably necessary for most people to be able to observe the five skandhas individually, as they are actually “firing,” but it can be done. A good deal of Buddhist practice is based on being able to do that.

Though all brain imaging studies must be taken as provisional since the technology is not completely reliable, they still are providing us with some very interesting information worth considering.

The amygdala study cited above seems to confirm that people form significant emotional reactions to faces without being conscious of their reactions at all. In Buddhist terms, their reactions are (or take place at) the second skandha—sensation.

The skandha of sensation is defined as a reaction to a form that is either positive, negative, or neutral. That is, in varying degrees, we are either attracted to, repulsed by, or neutral toward the form. In the amygdala study the form is the face that is flashed very briefly on a screen. The face appears so briefly, for just a few milliseconds, that it is not possible to actually “see” or be aware of having “seen” it.

I think it is fair to extrapolate from this study that we humans are forming sensations all the time without being aware of what we are doing. As the authors of the study say, the study “[suggests] that the amygdala’s processing of social cues in the absence of awareness may be more extensive than previously described.”

“…processing of social cues in the absence of awareness” is pretty good description of what the Buddha called delusion, especially if we realize that the delusions we “process” from forms arising outside of us are entwined with and not very different from delusions we process from forms arising within us.

The Buddha’s five skandha explanation, thus, provides a way to observe and analyze our minds to prevent our becoming deluded by the tug of sensations that happen in the “absence of awareness.”

Some time ago, I reposted an essay that touches on this subject from a different angle and a different study: we do not sample our world continuously but in discrete snapshots.

Here is a pretty good article on the study cited above: Friend Or Foe? Even When Faces Are Not Clearly Visible, Your Brain Unconsciously Makes Judgments.

What is FIML?

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML is an acronym that stands for Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics.

FIML is a form of analytical psychotherapy done between two people, neither of whom needs any formal training in psychotherapy. It is designed to optimize communication and psychological well-being.

FIML is a technique that uses real-time, real-world communication data to clear up mistaken psychological interpretations that may have been held for many years or that may have just arisen.

By clearing up many small mistaken interpretations between partners, FIML gradually clears up the psychological bases of those misinterpretations. In this way, FIML optimizes the communication and psychologies of both partners.

For a basic description of how to do FIML see: How to do FIML.

For more information about the theory and practice of FIML, please see other posts on this site, most of which are concerned with FIML in one way or another.

[Abundant FIML information can be found under the tags brain science, and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics accessible on the sidebar. ABN]

A way to visualize the value of FIML practice

click on image for larger

FIML practice is like the JWST telescope compared to normal interpersonal speech, which is like Hale telescope at best.

FIML is a technical advance in listening and speaking which allows for much greater clarity and resolution.

In Buddhist terms, FIML is partner-based mindfulness that provides immediate objective control on real-time meaning and mutual understanding. ABN

Competence versus performance

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

An important distinction is made in academic linguistics between competence and performance. This short entry in Wikipedia gives some idea of why—Competence versus performance.

FIML practice, unlike most academic linguistics, is centered on performance, not competence.

Through practice FIML partners will come to understand how their communicative performances affect them both. By extension, they will also learn how their performances in both speaking and listening affect other people.

FIML deals primarily with communication mistakes and their emotional impacts on both speakers and listeners.

FIML partners will quickly discover that they make many mistakes in speaking and listening and that when these mistakes are not corrected, many of them can have serious consequences affecting the well-being of both of them.

In a nutshell, FIML removes performance errors made between partners in real-time. By having a reliable method for removing misunderstandings as they occur, FIML partners will also find that they are able to pursue many more subjects with greater depth and intensity than they had been able to do before.

Many of the errors removed by FIML practice will more be of a “psychological” or emotional nature than a linguistic one. That said, it is important for partners to focus a good deal of their energy on specific linguistic mistakes because when both partners agree on exactly what was said, they will have excellent data that can be profitably analyzed.

Why generalities don’t work

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

You cannot achieve satisfying communication by using general ideas or general role models.

For example, many Buddhists use a general sense of “compassion” or a vague understanding of “Buddhist wisdom” to get along with other people. This strategy can work for light duties at a Buddhist temple or for projecting a basic sense of who you are to other people, but it won’t be deeply satisfying.

The problem is very simple to state but harder to fix. The problem is we misunderstand each other very often and in very significant ways and these misunderstandings cannot be simply smoothed over with generalities.

Humans are deeply affected by their interactions with other humans. All those little mistakes in speaking and listening lead to big misunderstandings in our relationships, often rather quickly.

I cannot think of another way to deal with this fundamental problem except through FIML practice or something very much like it. When we communicate with people we care about, we have to have ways to restate our meaning, take it back, query each other, probe relevant semiotics. If we don’t, we will misunderstand each other in serious ways.

 

Certitude/Coherence

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Humans all need to feel certain about at least some things. We also need to have basic mental and emotional coherence. FIML practice gives partners a very reliable level of mutual certainty and coherence.

Since FIML practice is a process—something you do with your partner—partners will be able to check and recheck their mutual understandings as often as they like. The interpersonal certitude and coherence that result from this process is amazing. It is amazing in and of itself but also because having reliable interpersonal coherence with your partner will have a deep influence on you. It will affect how you understand yourself and how you feel about yourself. It will also affect how you understand and feel about your place in the world, your place in society.

People who do not practice FIML ordinarily get certitude and coherence from outside of themselves — from TV, movies, newspapers, schools, churches, clubs, and so on. The external semiotics of cultures and subcultures created by other people give most individuals the certitude and coherence they need for psychological well-being. Insofar as external semiotics are not sufficient for the individual (and they rarely are), most people fill in whatever is missing with personal interpretations. In many other posts, we have discussed how these personal interpretations are usually fraught with mistaken impressions. They are usually neurotic, or constitute the kleshas (wrong views, toxic fixations, mistaken interpretations, etc.) described in Buddhist literature.

FIML practice allows partners to correct their neuroses by disconfirming them with their partner. If you disconfirm a neurosis, you effectively confirm that it is/was not true and can therefore be discarded.

FIML practice also helps partners free themselves from the need to find certitude and coherence outside of themselves. As you become more secure in your communication with your partner, both of you will begin to notice that you are becoming less dependent on external semiotics.

FIML emphasizes the certitude and coherence of truth between two caring people above certitude and coherence based on conformance to social norms. FIML helps partners co-form their own subculture rather than conform to a culture created by someone else.

Face-blindness (memory) test

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
This is an interactive version of the Exposure Based Face Memory Test.

Introduction: The human brain has a special module that is used to recognize faces. People with prosopagnosia, also known as “face blindness”, have difficulty remembering faces. Every time they see a face it looks to them like a face they have never seen before and such people have to use other information such as hair, voice, and body to recognize others. The Exposure Based Face Memory Test was developed as an open source measure of face memory and was designed with a procedure that is both closer to the demands on face memory experienced in every day life, and minimizes administration time.

Procedure: In this test you will be shown a long series of faces. For each face you must say if you have been shown that person before, or if this is a new face you have not been shown yet. It should take 2-5 minutes to complete. This test can only be taken once. It is spoiled if you have seen any of the faces before. So if want accurate results, make sure to take it seriously the first time.

Participation: You use of this assessment should be for educational or entertainment purposes only. This is not psychological advice of any kind. Additionally, your responses to this questionnaire will be anonymously saved and possibly used for research or otherwise distributed.

link to survey

This is a quick test which will give you some sense of whether you have or do not have face-blindness. I scored better than just 16.5% of people who have taken the test, which does not qualify as prosopagnosia, though I do have moderate-significant face-blindness. One aspect of this condition not yet studied, far as I know, is I sometimes see the faces of people I should recognize as distorted, sometimes rather weirdly so, sometimes just a bit weirdly; this happens just before I fully recognize them by voice or some other prompt. If you have face-blindness it is probably a good idea to tell people you meet about it. Some people react with surprise and confusion but many have heard of prosopagnosia and appreciate getting the information. Human faces form a semiotic ‘language’ which people with excellent face-recognition probably greatly enjoy. Easily recognizing/ remembering faces facilitates building social relationships. Not easily recognizing faces causes a delay in fully receiving into your mind the social presence of another person, thus making it more difficult to build social relationships. I have probably spent more time thinking about language and interpersonal communications than most people because I largely remember people initially or click with them through their speech idiosyncrasies more than by remembering their faces. ABN

You aren’t at the mercy of your emotions — your brain creates them

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Can you look at someone’s face and know what they’re feeling? Does everyone experience happiness, sadness and anxiety the same way? What are emotions anyway? For the past 25 years, psychology professor Lisa Feldman Barrett has mapped facial expressions, scanned brains and analyzed hundreds of physiology studies to understand what emotions really are. She shares the results of her exhaustive research — and explains how we may have more control over our emotions than we think.

_________

This talk is a very good background for FIML practice, which is based on acknowledging that interpersonal emotions and interpretations are fundamentally ambiguous and must be investigated often to achieve good communication. ABN

Deception (or truth elision) in communication

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

To communicate, we often must ignore the truth or falsity of a statement, our own or someone else’s.

I believe it is an instinct to do this; that it is part of our instinct to communicate at all. Communication requires cooperation, an agreement to be agreeable enough to get the message through.

We might call ignoring truth or falsity in communication “truth elision” or “psychological elision.” Elision means to omit something. Psychological elision would mean omitting or not mentioning psychological truths.

We do a lot of truth elision to save time. In professional or group settings it is hard to communicate any other way because there is not enough time to be perfectly truthful and most people will not care. They just want to socialize and/or get the job done, not search for truth.

Most communication is like that. Most messages are not even superficially analyzed. Semiotics glide through our minds without any thought to their deep origins or interpretations. Truth and falsity are frequently elided.

Like all instincts, our instinct to cooperate by ignoring the truth or falsity of many statements can be misused to consciously deceive.

Indeed, we frequently deceive even ourselves by accepting our own statements as true when analysis would show they are not. One way we succeed in doing this to ourselves is by simply avoiding the analysis—analysis elision.

This is where a simple instinct starts to go bad. A basic need to cooperate on the signs and symbols of communication gets twisted into tricking people, deceiving them, even deceiving ourselves.

The way to see this most clearly and to stop doing it with at least one other person is FIML practice. One of my main goals for this website is to show how and why communication goes bad and how and why it harms us. At the same time, I present a practical way to fix the problem described—FIML.

_________________

I think the above sheds light on false confessions and pretty much all self-abnegating lying on the spectrum trending down from a false confession with legal consequences.

Abusers work these ill-defined and difficult to grasp areas to dominate, entrap, and manipulate others. Narcissists and other “strong” or “clever” dark personality types use our fundamental willingness to cooperate against us.

Gas lighting greatly relies on people’s willingness to ignore truths and accept falsities about themselves. If there is more than one gas lighter at work, victims may even accept blame for things they know with certainty are not true.

As with so much in this world, immoral people put time and energy into fooling those who have not put time or energy into the dark arts.

Mass mind-control preys on our mass susceptibility to believe the story that first comes out; the story that is approved by the ‘authorities’ and mass media; the story that is embraced and recited by our friends and family. Mind-control relies on our need to conform and our fear of being ostracized and criticized for straying from the mass instinct to be the same as others.

Buddhists all know about wise compassion. We also need wise understanding of the world and wise cautiousness about the full scope of human motivations.

Our tendencies to go along with falsity can be seen in every part of life, from small corners of our own lives to the great expanses of entire societies.

Willingness to protect from violence, independent of strength, guides partner choice

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Abstract:

Ancestrally, physical violence from conspecifics was a recurrent adaptive problem. Did selection favor preferences for partners who are both strong (highly able) and willing to protect us from violence? Strength and willingness are interrelated, so dissociating their effects is necessary. Here we assessed both inferences and preferences. In 7 experiments (N = 4,508 U.S. adults recruited via MTurk), we systematically varied the willingness of a date or friend to physically protect you from an attack, compared to scenarios where you do not have this information. We also varied that person’s strength. Discovering that a person is willing to protect greatly increased their attractiveness as a romantic partner or friend, regardless of their strength. This held for both women and men raters, and when evaluating both opposite- and same-sex dates and friends. In fact, partners who were willing to protect were attractive even if they tried to do so but failed, and even if you were harmed because of their failure. Discovering that a partner is unwilling to protect decreased their attractiveness, and was a deal-breaker for women evaluating a male date. Unwillingness decreased attractiveness more when the rater was a woman, when the target was a man, and when the target was being evaluated as a date versus friend. Women placed some importance on a male date’s strength, but this was mostly due to inferences about his willingness to protect them. Surprisingly, we found only weak evidence that differences in strength, independent of willingness, increased the attractiveness of a partner.

link

Willingness to protect also signals good qualities in other spheres of thought and behavior. Physical bravery is a significant foundation for intellectual and spiritual bravery. My partner gets an A+ in these and related fields.

One reason Western civilization is suffering malaise and disunion is our ‘leaders’ have entirely failed to protect us, even acted against us. And that is a clear sign they are infiltrators and traitors, not real leaders.

Interpersonal emotions are fractal microcosms of our meso- and macro-sense of the well-being of our societies. ABN

Bullying in China

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

link

__________

This video is appearing today on social media as if it were new, but is actually from an incident in Henan in 2019. Read comments at the link above for a variety of reactions. Bullying is not uncommon in China, though as with everything in China, there are no reliable statistics. In Japan it is widely known that bullying is a serious problem. ABN

__________

Chinese translation:

  • 「打她！」（多次重複）
  • 「踹她！」
  • 「別錄了！」
  • 受害者哭喊：「不要！」 「啊！」（尖叫與求饒）

English Translation:

Victim’s cries: “No!” “Don’t!” “Ah!” (screams and pleas for mercy)

“Hit her!” (repeated several times)

“Kick her!”

“Stop recording!”

Bullying in China

Bullying in Chinese schools is a significant and complex issue, with research indicating a high prevalence. A 2016 nationwide survey of over 100,000 students across 29 counties found that 33.36% of students experienced bullying, with 4.7% reporting frequent incidents and 28.66% occasional ones. However, reported statistics vary widely; one study cited in a YouTube video claims 75% of children in China have experienced bullying, while another suggests only 11% report being bullied, highlighting inconsistencies in measurement and definition. This discrepancy underscores the difficulty in accurately assessing the scope of the problem.

The nature of bullying in China is often described as more indirect and subtle compared to physical bullying common in Western countries. Tactics frequently involve social exclusion, verbal abuse, and psychological torment, such as mocking a student’s appearance or using symbolic items (e.g., watermelon-themed objects) to humiliate them in a way that may not be immediately obvious to adults. Group dynamics play a central role, with bullying typically involving multiple students ganging up on a single victim, reflecting China’s collectivist culture where group identity can reduce individual accountability.

The causes of bullying are multifaceted. Research identifies factors such as family environment, including authoritarian parenting and corporal punishment, which may model aggressive behavior. The influence of Confucian values and social Darwinism—where success is tied to competition and survival of the fittest—can justify bullying against those perceived as weak, such as students with poor academic performance or social awkwardness. Additionally, the normalization of teacher-led humiliation and physical punishment in schools may contribute to students imitating such behavior.

Bullying in Japan

Bullying in Japan, known as “ijime,” remains a persistent and serious issue across all school levels, with recent data indicating a record high in incidents. In fiscal year 2024, the Japanese education ministry confirmed 769,022 cases of bullying, marking the fourth consecutive year of record-high numbers and an increase of approximately 36,400 from the previous year. The majority of cases occurred at elementary schools (610,612), followed by junior high schools (135,865), with smaller numbers at senior high schools (18,891) and special needs schools (3,654).

The problem is particularly severe in terms of its consequences, with serious cases such as suicide and truancy rising to a record 1,405, an increase of 99 from the previous year. This reflects a broader trend of escalating severity, with incidents often involving group dynamics where a student perceived as “different” is ostracized by peers, sometimes leading to the entire class participating in the bullying. This form of group bullying, or “shūdan ijime,” is deeply rooted in Japanese societal values that emphasize conformity and group harmony, where deviation from the norm is met with social punishment.

A theory of FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice  is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.

The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:

  • Greatly improve communication between participating partners
  • Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
  • Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
  • Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality

These results are achieved because:

  • FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
  • FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
  • FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
  • FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
  • This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed

FIML practice will also:

  • Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
  • Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)

FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.

Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.

The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.

FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.

Wolfram’s ‘computational irreducibility’ explains FIML perfectly

In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.

Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.

FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 42.22 in this video. Here is the full quote:

One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.

42.22 in this video

This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.

In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.

When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.

By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.

I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN

A fundamental cultural and religious characteristic of Jewish Supremacism

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

Hatred of the host inspires and justifies vicious parasitism and cruelty. Freud was a fraud, an ‘intellectual’ subversive. He was describing Jewish Supremacy when he said a people can be cohesive as long as they have someone to hate. ABN

Sigmund Freud argued that social cohesion is fundamentally dependent on the existence of an external enemy or outgroup, which allows internal group members to unite through shared hostility. He posited that love within a group is only possible because of hatred directed toward those outside the group, as this external aggression serves to bind the group together. In his work, Freud explained that society coheres through the identification of an outgroup, enabling group members to displace their own aggressiveness onto this external target, thereby deflecting destructive impulses that might otherwise turn inward. This mechanism allows for the construction of group identity and cohesion, as the shared antagonism toward an “other” reinforces internal solidarity. 

Sigmund Freud infamously said, “They don’t realize that we’re bringing them the plague,” upon arriving in New York Harbor in 1909 during his first and only visit to the United States. 

FIML as a ‘loose’ method of control for chaos in interpersonal communication systems

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Interpersonal communication systems can become chaotic when there are misunderstandings. And they can become wildly chaotic when the misunderstandings are serious and/or involve emotional responses.

Normally, in virtually all cultures, out-of-control interpersonal communications are settled by authoritarian decree, by reverting to pre-established roles, by fighting until one side tires, or by ending communication all together.

It is nothing short of tragic when this happens in close relationships during significant or profound communication acts.

FIML is designed to fix communication problems that occur during communications between two (or more) people who care about each other.

FIML is a “loose” method of control in that FIML largely does not have any content. It is a technique that allows partners to discover their own content and their own ways to fix their problems.

As with so many potentially chaotic systems, interpersonal misunderstandings can become wildly unstable for even very small reasons. A single misheard word or a single misinterpreted expression can lead to destructive chaos within the system, no matter how dedicated the communicants may be to each other.

Evidence that supports the use of a “loose” method of control like FIML can be found in this paper: Stalling chaos control accelerates convergence.

To paraphrase from the abstract of that paper and apply their conclusions to FIML, we can say that FIML works “…by stalling the control, thereby taking advantage of the stable directions of the uncontrolled chaotic” system.

By not having a set outcome in mind, by not allowing static interpersonal roles to control the outcome, FIML can succeed in fixing even very serious communication contretemps between caring partners. FIML accomplishes this by providing partners with a means of achieving a meta-view of their contretemps and from that point of view gently coaxing their analysis toward mutual agreement, mutual transformation for both parties based on a complete and completely shared understanding of the unique conditions that generated the problem.

In this, FIML takes “advantage of the stable directions of the uncontrolled chaotic” system. The stable direction is the complete and mutually agreed upon resolution of all aspects of their contretemps. It is a “return” to the stable state of caring that preceded the problem, but a “return” with a significant upgrade because the new stable state will now include the experience of repairing the chaotic state that just passed.

A FIML resolution can be very enjoyable because it upgrades the semiotic systems of both partners.

An article on the study linked above describes the “loose” control method as an “approach that cleverly exploits the natural behaviour of the system.” (See: Control is good, freedom is better)

FIML exploits the natural behavior of two people who seek mutual caring and mutual positive transformation by providing a method that allows them to intelligently deal with the chaos that is 100% bound to arise during some of their acts of communication. Rather than flee from communication due to the fear of chaos, FIML partners have a reliable method of controlling it and reestablishing harmony on a higher, better level.