My methods with moods and science

Really feel good about locking certain things down, where for me has been life changing, and worth it to talk out how that works. One of the most profound hypotheses have had, was that authority relative to one entity is when some other entity has information needed. Which was just stunning for me, as realized for a LONG time had been seeking approval from some authority with my own ideas.

And relying on that word hypothesis, as decided to explain things a bit differently, like when I suggested over two years ago that entertainment was a way to safely control mood? Was a hypothesis.

With THAT could start looking at myself and others to determine if fit with it, or if needed to be adjusted or dismissed based on real world evidence.

Importantly considering whether or not people use entertainment to safely control mood, could lead to what I like to call predictive certainty, like how you have a good idea when you flip a light switch, whether it will come on or not. And if it doesn't, can probably figure out why.

So yeah, was working on a science of entertainment, and no, when I put ideas like that out, am not certain at THAT point, but am checking relying on a simple meta process:

Introduce a better idea, and expect people to choose better.

That thing is rather cool, as it has multiple meanings. Will pick one and note that with entertainment hypothesis, figured that people, including myself, could choose better with their entertainment! And yeah, have with mine, which was so epic. For the first time in my life, felt a great sense of control, when could pick better for my moods versus do the equivalent of channel surfing, which had learned before which was a LOT more hit or miss. Often? Mostly miss.

Now can often figure out my mood and go get the entertainment I want, like when mood is for a space epic. Yeah wanting to escape into the depths of deep space? Lots of emotions can fuel that mood. But also can realize not enough at quality I like, and wish for more. (More great space epics please, entertainment industry.)

Therefore, my secondary hypothesis was that pickier people would start pushing entertainment industry, and that earlier established processes might resist! Which would lead to collapse of revenue in those areas, EXCEPT for those who delivered. Quality entertainment would still work, of course. Give people what they want and why wouldn't they want to get it?

And with movies is just one area, but a highly visible one.

Which steps through my meta process, yet again, where this time have used a more traditional word, noting that ideas presented are often hypotheses and the presentation itself is part of the process, where then I can just check what happens, in the real world.

And better is better. I like using phrases that are tautologies. So yeah, is better IF the hypothesis is correct to know what you're doing in selecting entertainment, and as YOU choose better, and people around you choose better, you not only find greater sense of fulfillment from that entertainment, you pressure entertainment industry, to DO better.

Which I think is great. And that completes this discussion of my meta process, how what I do is a science, includes some of predictive certainty, but focuses more on the benefits of better.


James Harris