Lately, I’ve written a lot about change.
I’ve talked about how it’s inevitable – and if it’s inevitable, it’s up to you to choose how it will happen. Whether or not you’ll change is a settled question.
What I haven’t mentioned is what change is.
That’s a silly thing to bring up, right? Isn’t it obvious? It’s transformation, it’s evolution, it’s decay and it’s growth.
It’s when a thing isn’t the same from moment to moment.
What could be simpler?
I can’t argue with any of that. It’s right… and yet it’s also too simple.
When someone comes to me, hungry for change, I don’t just roll up my sleeves and get to work. There’s a lot I need to learn first about the person, where they are and what they need.
One of the things I need to figure out is what kind of transformation you want.
Someone who wants to quit smoking needs something different from someone who doesn’t know how to advance their career.
And they’re different from an expert in their field who wants to push their abilities to their limits.
You can think about there being three kinds of change. That’s still oversimplifying, but at least it’s a lot less simplistic.
I cover the three types of change in The Triple Crossroads – how to spot them, how they differ and what you need to do with each.
There are plenty of simple, practical exercises waiting for you right here:
Take a problem you’re facing in life.
Any problem from any domain.
I reckon you’ve already heard what you need to do to solve it. Heck, it’s probably something simple like put yourself out there, take more chances and work harder on it.
So many folks struggle to exercise. The answer couldn’t be simpler: exercise.
So many folks struggle to quit smoking. That’s even simpler, since not doing something is easier than doing something.
Making money, finding love, conquering the world – it all comes down to doing basic, obvious things, with determination and discipline.
So… why don’t we?
Why don’t we do all the things we know we should?
A key obstacle?
If you could eliminate your own internal resistance to good ideas, you’d become unstoppable. Every piece of wise advice you hear would only make you stronger.
Enter The Triple Crossroads.
Part of it includes nine hypnotic tools that absolutely shred resistance. Use these and you’ll stop flinching away from what you know you need to do.
Each is simple to use on your own.
And each has a troubleshooting section, covering the common things folks need to know to really use them.
These tools aren’t the end of your journey, either. In fact, they’re just the beginning.
Here’s where to find them:
I’ve seen a few movies recently where Hollywood has tried to fight the good fight.
And utterly missed the mark.
I love fiction and I especially love fiction that has a solid theme. A story should be about more than a bunch of stuff happening. It should transcend the plot and characters to touch on something universally human.
If you want your story to have ‘a message’, then you need to know two things:
What the problem is.
What the solution is.
In a few recent movies, Hollywood has known exactly what the problem is: ~toooxic masculiiiiinity~. I can just imagine those noble movie execs shaking their fists at how people misuse power and don’t respect each other.
Hence Birds of Prey and Gunpowder Milkshake and probably dozens of other movies on this theme.
These movies aren’t subtle. They’re going right at the problem. They divide the characters on gender lines, with women being the heroes and men being the villains.
The men are villains because they’re just so dang toxic. They enjoy violence, they’re reactive, they lack impulse control and they use their power to terrify, crush and kill people.
In these movies, the female heroes defeat these wicked men by… uh… being violent and reactive… and lacking impulse control… and using power to terrify, crush and… kill people…
Damn, that’s awkward.
Hollywood has a strong stance on toxic masculinity:
It’s great when women do it.
This doesn’t have to be hard. Here’s how you tell a story with this theme:
The villain is bad. They do bad things.
The hero is… wait for it… the opposite. Rather than being better at doing bad things, they do good things.
While the villain enjoys violence, the hero (of any gender) is capable of violence but knows it has its limits. The hero knows that relying on violence is a weakness that will get you killed.
While the villain is reactive, tearing out the throats of anyone who slights them, the hero is stoic and above such petty concerns.
Whenever the villain gives into their darker impulses, we see the hero being calm, methodical and rational.
As the villain goes around instilling fear and hatred, the hero lifts people up, inspiring faith and loyalty.
Such a hero demonstrates virtuous masculinity – which is the best way to beat the weaker versions of masculinity.
“LOL William, way to read way too much into things. Gunpowder Milkshake doesn’t have a message! It’s just a story of two groups of psychopaths shooting each other!”
Pretty weird coincidence for those two groups to split on gender lines then.
Also, the bad guy is a man who says he’s a feminist, then says he loves his son more than daughters. It wasn’t even subtle.
Besides, if that’s true, then the movie has no heroes. Or anti-heroes. Or villains. Just a swarm of emotionally weak lunatics hacking at each other. That would make it awful by design, rather than being mediocre by accident.
But hey, at least the visuals were excellent.
Lest you accuse me of hating any movie with a whiff of feminism, I loved the way Black Widow handled it. That was a cleaner metaphor for a terrible issue women face. I mean, the bad guy abducted young women and forced them to work for him. I’ll let you draw your own parallels to real-world situations.
The bad guy was a nasty piece of work.
Natasha didn’t beat him by being better at the nastiness. Rather than beat everyone to a pulp, she refrained from violence when that was the right choice. She was proactive, she put the mission above her feelings and she cultivated loyalty in her team.
She demonstrated how virtuous masculinity is powerful enough to defeat weak tyrants who rely on fear and authority.
Now, that’s the message you want your story to have.
Anyway, I could talk for hours about virtuous and toxic femininity and masculinity.
And maybe I will, later.
The point is you can do better by being better.
You can use your light to drive out the darkness.
Let your light shine brighter here:
Yesterday, I spent a thousand words on a different take on the lockdowns.
While everyone debates the effectiveness of the covid countermeasures, I questioned the lack of variety.
If it’s a crisis, then we should see hundreds of countermeasures. Every week, you’d hear about some promising new drug or a new way to stop it spreading.
Just like how, every week, you hear about a new way to cope with the lockdowns. Businesses have creative ways to keep earning money. Social groups adapt so they can still keep hanging out.
We’re seeing that with the lockdowns, but not what causes them.
I put this out there to bring something into your conscious attention.
You all heard our leaders say, “lockdowns and vaccines are the only way through this!”
Some of you noticed there was something weird about that. Something off. It’s more than just noticing how this ‘solution’ puts all the burden on you and all the profits in pharma companies.
Some of you noticed that something was missing from this plan.
Right from the start, the plan was “lockdowns!” then “lockdowns and vaccines!”
It reeks of a false trichotomy. Either you’re a psychopath who wants millions to die… or you want the lockdowns to last forever… or you support the vaccine plan.
When framed like that, who’d be insane enough to question that strategy?
Well, we need to question it now. The evidence coming in is that vaccines won’t cut it, even if everyone gets them. That means we need another alternative.
I bring this up because many of you heard this false trichotomy of a plan and had your doubts. There was some niggling unease in the back of your mind. There was something wrong about the way politicians said “this virus is new but we know with full certainty that mass vaccination is the only answer!!”
Then you probably ignored that instinct. After all, some niggling feeling of yours isn’t better than science, is it?
Hmm. Except science never said the vaccines were the best way forward. There was certainly not a lick of evidence to say it was the only way forward.
Your instinct was right, in the end.
You ignored it and it was right.
Here’s the thing about your instincts: the more you trust them, the better they become. If you keep ignoring them, then they’ll stop whispering to you. If you learn to hear what they say, though, you can find yourself coming up with strange ideas, creative solutions and keen observations ‘out of nowhere’.
You have brilliant instincts. The quality of your life depends on how easily you recognise them.
Like many things, it’s a skill you can learn.
And hypnosis can accelerate that.
But I’m not here to teach you to listen to your instincts. Maybe one day, but not right now.
Instead, it’s much faster and easier to tap into your instincts regarding a specific question.
So if you have a big decision to make and you’d like to see what your instincts say…
… sign up for Threshold Coaching & Crossroads Training below:
How many ways are people trying to solve climate change?
There are plenty of technology swaps people are making. Like, say, replacing coal power plants with solar farms.
Some tech goes towards reducing the bad stuff, like experimental gut bacteria for cows that stops so much gas falling out of them.
Other tech reverses the bad stuff, like carbon capture.
Then there are policy solutions – things like emissions caps, carbon taxes, industry standards, tax breaks for green tech.
There are things individuals can do, like eating less meat, using less power and planting trees.
I could go on. In fact, that might be a fun project for someone: list all of the ways we, as a species, are scheming to stabilise the environment. The sheer quantity and variety of projects would have to be impressive, right?
Let’s take another example:
Because I’m studying the early days of World War 2 – around Dunkirk and the Phoney War – let’s think about all the ways the British prepared for a Nazi invasion.
They sponsored guerrilla attacks in France, studied German codes, developed radar, welcomed Poles and scrutinised Hitler’s psyche. They considered any and every method to defeat their enemy, whether militarily, psychologically, economically or logistically.
If they could starve, demoralise, deplete, redirect, harass, distract, irritate, confuse, confound or trap the enemy, they would. It would have been foolish – criminally negligent – if they only focused on killing their soldiers. War is a crisis you can fight on many fronts.
Again, there was a huge variety of approaches here. People turned their lights off at night to make it harder for German bombers – that’s one approach.
Churchill built secret oil pipes to the southern beaches of the UK. If the enemy tried to invade, they’d land right in the middle of a firestorm.
I can imagine an early draft of Churchill’s famous speech. “Actually, we won’t fight them on the beaches. We’ll just set the bloody things on fire.”
This is how societies face crises. Problems can sneak by unresolved, but a crisis invites people to think outside the box and attack the problem from every angle.
So I guess covid isn’t a crisis then.
Because I think about the so-called solutions to it and I’m not impressed.
If I were to list out vaccines, lockdowns, masks and contact tracing, my question naturally is… okay, what else? If this is a mild inconvenience, sure, we might not do much more than that. But this is a crisis, so they say.
So why aren’t they treating it like one?
I’m glad vaccines are on the list. They’re a key part of modern medicine and, in this case, they seem to help.
But I’m horrified that vaccines are the primary – really, only – solution that they use that has any long-term chance of succeeding.
Where are the non-vaccine-based pharmaceutical interventions? I heard about ivermectin months before Joe Rogan mentioned it, where a panel of doctors were discussing how it was promising but the authorities didn’t want to know about it. They refused to even research it. Ivermectin can’t be the only drug that ever showed promise. Covid and the countermeasures will cost billions, maybe even trillions, by the time this runs its course, so surely it’s justified to pursue all leads.
Most leads won’t pan out. So what? Vaccines aren’t the silver bullet and we pursued that lead anyway.
What about non-pharmaceutical-based solutions? There’s a boatload of research that shows what keeps people healthy and boosts their immune system. You know, stuff like fresh air, exercise, good sleep, sunlight and socialising. Where are the policies that support those?
And no, I don’t count enforcing lockdowns while advising people exercise as a good solution here.
Where are the other things I haven’t thought of, since I’m not a society? I couldn’t have fought the Battle of Britain on my lonesome, after all.
Want to know the funny thing?
People and businesses have responded to the lockdowns like how I’m describing here. People have been extremely creative in doing stuff virtually, hygienically or at the required distance. Society has responded to the crisis of lockdowns better than it has the crisis of covid.
Reflect on that a few times until it sinks in. If it hasn’t clicked for you that lockdowns are a crisis separate from the virus they supposedly fight, meditate on it.
There’s a conspiracy theory that says Big Pharma are restricting non-vaccine-based countermeasures, because this maximises their profits. Calling it a conspiracy theory immediately invalidates it if you think in terms of branding. After all, crazy people believe stupid conspiracies and you’re not crazy, so this must be wrong.
There’s no way rich and powerful people would mislead the public to become richer and more powerful.
Even though they have in the past.
But still, there’s another explanation.
Medicine is weird.
Medicine doesn’t like creative solutions. They tend to lead to snake oil and hidden side effects and irradiated babies and expensive lawsuits.
An engineer looking to fight climate change can tinker in their garage… or a sophisticated R&D lab.
A doctor looking for a new treatment can’t ‘tinker’. They have to run everything by 17 ethics boards who might get in trouble for saying ‘yes’ but will never get in trouble for saying ‘no’. Then they have to figure out what works in biology – the messiest, noisiest experimental context in the known universe.
Sloppy physicists can measure things to six decimal places in an afternoon. Biology takes decades of double-blind studies where the noise can and will swallow any signal.
So, yeah, the medical system can hardly get creative when it comes to fighting covid. They’re constrained by both policy and reality.
By design or coincidence, that puts Big Pharma in a situation where they’re offering the only answer in town.
It’s like if the British handed their soldiers guns with no ammo and torpedos but no ships.
Then spent ages arguing how guns and torpedos are proven to be effective in winning wars.
Then wondered why it’s not working.
All while the soldiers and citizens have nowhere else to turn.
Eh, I dunno. Conspiracy or not, these solutions are utterly inadequate, worth questioning and not worth sacrificing your freedoms for.
Questioning policy is never unscientific. If a policy hurts your livelihood or reduces your freedoms, then you absolutely should look deeper.
Maybe that policy really is the best way forward, but you wouldn’t take a politician’s word for that, would you?
As I get to this point in the article, I realise I have no answer here. This is a lot of words to say that maybe there’s a vast conspiracy or maybe we’re too constrained to solve this problem – either way, there’s not much you can do about it.
Except treating this as a good-vs-evil, logic-vs-insanity issue. Even if CEOs are milking this crisis for money, that doesn’t mean the everyday folks pushing for vaccination are evil.
Same with the ‘resistant’ folks – they, too, are acting on righteous and rational reasons.
So let me give you an answer that’ll help:
Rather than using this as another excuse to feel angry, smug, outraged or indignant… do better.
Show wisdom and compassion.
Consider why people believe what they believe, while you assume they have virtue and intelligence.
Unite, rather than divide.
Live better, protect you and yours, and demand more from your leaders.
Enjoy a Neural Reset or three.
This whole ‘not being able to travel’ thing?
It’s getting to me too.
I like to travel a lot for recreation, for training – you know, all the usual reasons. Not being able to do that is hard.
So I’m not saying this is the perfect solution, because it’s not.
However, it’s not nothing. In fact, it’s damn awesome. You can, in some ways, still travel for fun, for education and a few other reasons.
All you need is your mind.
I’ve been rereading some scifi lately. I’m working my way through the Void Trilogy, by Peter F Hamilton. One of the many subplots follows a boy in a pocket universe, where reality responds directly to human thought. As such, everyone has psychic powers – telepathy and telekinesis, among others.
This boy has a lot of natural psychic talent.
As he grows up, his power grows too and he learns how to wield it better. He learns powerful techniques from old veterans, scheming nobles and, eventually, the city itself.
By the time he’s middle aged, he’s basically a secret god who has to figure out how to use his powers for good.
Why do I bring this up?
Because last night, I went there. I went to his city, walked its streets and tried out some fun psychic powers.
(Aside: if you’ve read the Void Trilogy too… yeah, yeah, I know. The irony of me doing this isn’t lost on me.)
Anyway, I know what you’re thinking:
So what, right? Isn’t that just daydreaming?
Yes, it is just daydreaming… unless you combine it with the techniques of the Neural Reset. Then it becomes something else.
Something almost real.
I’m not claiming any magic here. This isn’t astral projection or anything like that. I didn’t leave my bed and neither did my consciousness, as far as I know.
This was all in my imagination.
But your imagination plus a Neural Rest can do amazing things.
It can be like travelling somewhere else and spending hours there, while only a few minutes pass in the real world.
When I discovered, refined and borrowed the techniques that go into the Neural Reset, I didn’t consider this as an application. That’s true of most of the ways I use it now. It has a way of surprising me.
Want it to surprise you too?
Sign up for a session:
It’s so easy to strawman any movement where emotions run hot.
Criticising a movement by mocking its dumbest advocates is lazy and pointless. There are some extremely delusional advocates of freedom, democracy and life in the world, which tells you nothing about the value of those things.
Instead of mocking teens on Twitter, go for the smarter members of a movement.
Or ones who sit down with consultants and script their every word.
Apply this lens to wokedom and AOC’s recent comments, and you see an interesting reversal of what’s PC.
A few years ago: “Using ‘guys’ as a gender-neutral term is offensive because it erases women!”
Now: “The term ‘women’ is offensive! We should call them ‘menstruating people’!”
Yeah, that’s not just offensive, that’s creepy and hypocritical.
If I wanted to write a male character who was being socially awkward to the point of insanity, I’d have him call women ‘menstruators’. It’s the sort of language that would have gotten you fired and beaten up once upon a time.
It’s the sort of language a transphobe would use, to insist that trans women aren’t ‘really’ women.
Now, apparently it’s the sort of language that gets you the woke votes.
Defenders of woke say it’s all about inclusion and respect for everyone. Therefore, if you resist any aspect of that, you must be a monster.
I agree in that lofty goal. I’m a big fan of letting people live life on their terms. People should feel comfortable in their skins – apart from the moral argument, there are huge practical benefits when everyone can be who they really are.
The more unique and true you are to your real self, the more I celebrate you.
But at some point you have to ask… is this specific use of language actually inclusive?
The term ‘menstruating person’ excludes so, so many biological women. It excludes post-menopausal women, pregnant women, pre-pubescent women, women on some medications and women with certain fertility issues…
… while reducing all other women to a bloody tampon.
Wow, so much respect. What a win for feminism.
“But William, AOC was talking in the context of an abortion law. She used the term to refer to biological women, and their specific rights and needs. ”
Yeah, and the term is right there. If she referred to ‘biological women’, it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s a small linguistic and conceptual leap from ‘women’ to ‘biological women’ – all without invoking any references to blood and hygiene.
I’m a hypnotist, so I know how powerful language is. If someone tells me they feel serene and I say, “oh, so you’re feeling at peace?” then I’ve messed up. In hypnotic language, synonyms aren’t synonyms because every word was chosen with an unconscious intention.
That’s why it bugs me when I see people changing the language to be more inclusive, but actually excluding people instead.
Anyway, I don’t expect to change any minds about this.
Or anyone’s language patterns.
And that’s sort of the point. It’s a weak move to demand respect without giving it, to demand inclusion while excluding others, and to demand others to change their behaviour to accommodate you.
A move of character involves scaling up your resilience and influence.
No one changed the world by throwing a tantrum. Gandhi and MLK led righteous causes but, if they’d lost their cool and whinged “stop oppressing meeeeee”, no one would have listened to them.
Change comes from character and emotional strength.
It starts with you and radiates out.
Your next move?
Ground yourself with something that’s like meditation only even more effective: the Neural Reset. It works, even if you can’t meditate. All you need to do is show up and listen to my voice.
Sign up here:
If you take the weeks of pauses from between the messages, covid advice looks like this:
We need to lockdown for three weeks to flatten the curve.
Okay, actually, we need to lockdown until we develop vaccines.
Okay, we’ve developed vaccines, but we can’t end the lockdowns until enough people get them. And you should get them! They’ve been tested – they’re perfectly safe and highly effective.
Okay, they’re not perfectly safe, but they’re safe enough.
Okay, they’re not that effective against the current strains, let alone new ones, but you should still get them.
You have concerns?
Right, I didn’t realise you were a science-hating anti-vaxxer nut job. Maybe if you weren’t such a degenerate, brainwashed moron, you’d believe whatever politicians say the science is now.
This is a disaster, start to finish. If this is an important issue, then it’s vital to communicate well.
That means not constantly contradicting yourself.
It also means responding appropriately to critics.
It’s fair enough for people to have questions, concerns and doubts. Back when the narrative was that the vaccines were perfectly safe, I questioned that. What, in medicine, is entirely safe? A new drug with a new mechanism is not going to be safer than aspirin.
I can’t argue with science, but I sure as manure can argue with marketing and policy.
“But William, you’re being unfair. Of course the narrative changed! That’s the strength of science – it adapts as new information comes in.”
Yes, science’s superpower is humility. While others search for Truth in tradition or how intensely people feel something, science tests everything. It demands evidence for every claim. Hypotheses can’t just fit the data – they have to make bold predictions better than other hypotheses.
No belief is beyond scrutiny – although not all beliefs are equally uncertain.
Sir Fred Hoyle was a brilliant physicist, who greatly contributed to our knowledge of stars and matter. He also refused to believe in the Big Bang – not based on evidence but based on his personal beliefs. He didn’t like that it left room in physics for a creator deity – that the Big Bang stank too much like the Book of Genesis.
That was an arrogant stance to take. If he happened to be correct, it would have been by luck.
If he had approached the question with a humble mind, he would have considered the evidence and been less wrong about the whole thing.
I’ll say it again: humility is science’s superpower.
Where in these covid messages and policies has there been a scrap of humility? At every turn, it’s been, “early studies seems to weakly suggest X, although it’s all still an open question, so… X is the Truth! Full speed ahead!”
You can’t tell people they’re idiots for not believing you, then claim to be humble in your beliefs later. That’s not how logic works, let alone science.
Genuine science-based policy would look something like this:
“Based on what we know right now, vaccines might be a bet. They will almost certainly have costs that we don’t know about. The cost of inaction, though, is clearer to us. We’re questioning this advice every day, comparing it to every alternative we can think of. In the meantime, this is the plan.”
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a message like that. Scientists advance their careers through humility, but it’s poison in politics.
We’ll keep hearing the dance of “we know this is true because SCIENCE… oh, wait, that was wrong, but THIS is definitely true because SCIENCE!” for a long time yet.
This should be obvious to anyone with a lick of training or common sense. Everything that I’ve spoken about here is remedial science. If this shocks or offends you, then you don’t science at all.
Yet go onto any science-based forum or community. You’ll find a minority of folks pointing this out as they get drowned out by meme-making, anti-humble losers who love – genuinely love – science’s brand…
… but nothing else about science.
After all, real science is hard. Real science plasters the universe with shrug emoticons – some of them big and in neon, some of them small and faded.
Forget that – it’s much more gratifying to pretend you like science and laugh at people who buy crystals.
Anyway, why do I keep talking about this?
Because back in my Twitter days, I’d see this all the time. Folks would say something like, “boy, I wish hypnosis were real, that seems like it could really help with my issues.”
There are probably hundreds of scientific journals dedicated solely to exploring what hypnosis can do. Hypnosis is Settled Science – there’s no question that it’s real and it’s powerful.
But it doesn’t seem like science. It seems more like New Age nonsense, if you go by impressions and not… you know, evidence or the scientific method.
Science is 100% on hypnosis’ side, but science’s brand is square against it.
As a hypnotist, that means science is my ally and science’s brand is my enemy.
If politicians and the media want to lean the latter, then I’ll call them out on it. Same with businesses, marketers and random people on the street.
Science’s brand, divorced from science, should be a poisoned chalice. Anyone foolish enough to drink from it should suffer embarrassment. Believing something that seems scientific but has weak science to back it should be shameful and humiliating.
I genuinely wish that I found thinking stupid thoughts to be physically painful in the moment. Anyone who thought like that would become smarter over time. No information could ‘corrupt’ or ‘brainwash’ them – it would only add to their wisdom.
If everyone felt pain on thinking a stupid thought, we’d have a paradise on Earth by 2022.
I can’t make that happen. The next best thing is to shame anyone who embraces science’s brand while pretending they’ve embraced science.
Anyway, I mentioned hypnosis a while back.
Get some here:
“Hey, maybe social media is extremely awful for young people?”
People love a historical analogy. If they don’t say “OK Boomer” to this, they might say that this happens every generation. With me, people were certain that video games were rotting my generation’s brains and morality. With generations before, it was rebellious music and dancing and whatnot.
All those things turned out to be fine.
Therefore, so is social media!
And therein lies the danger of arguing by analogy. Unless your analogy is correct, you’re only misleading yourself.
Anyway, I’m sure you’ve heard about the Wall Street Journal story by now. You know, the one where they found the obvious: Instagram is bad for you and the Facebook bigwigs knew about it. And lied about it.
This isn’t surprising.
This is the tip of the iceberg.
So it turns out the historical analogy we should have been using is this:
“Oh, come on, smoking is fine. I mean, can you prove it’s bad for you? I’m pretty sure we would have noticed problems by now if it wasn’t good for you.”
If history didn’t repeat itself, there’d be no benefit to studying it.
One day, I might release a social media deprogramming product.
It’s an addiction like any other. Maybe worse, since social media is baked into our jobs, society and relationships.
In the meantime, let’s circle back to smoking.
If you smoke and you don’t want to, then you’re at least a generation behind the trendy addictions. If someone checks their phone three times a minute, that’s ‘normal’ – just as smoking a pack a day used to be normal.
Give it a few decades and things will change – until then, you’re the weirdo for smoking.
To be less embarrassingly behind the times, though, you should quit with my Freedom From Smoking program.
It’s fast, effective, more affordable than smoking and fully guaranteed.
It’s also a lot more fun than sucking down nicotine gum all day.
Here’s how you sign up:
An unfortunate intersection of character traits:
I’m naturally a night owl. I go to bed early enough and wake up the same way, but my natural inclination is to stay up late. When I get the chance to indulge in this, my best writing happens between 10pm and 2am.
I love to read, especially before bed.
Combine those two and I get a common dilemma:
I know I need a good night’s sleep. At the same time, I enjoy reading. It helps expand my mind and it lets me relax at the end of the day.
The late hours, when everything is quiet and you have no obligations, are perfect for enjoying a hobby. Whether you’re into video games, reading or knitting, the dark and calm night is often the best time to do these.
So, what do you do?
Sleep is essential.
So is taking some time for self-care.
How do you choose between them?
I’m a big believer in breaking false dichotomies. If you want A and you also want B, then have both. If you think you can’t, then you’re just not thinking creatively enough.
(That’s one of the reasons I’m so against these insane lockdowns. I’ll take freedom and safety, thank you very much.)
If you have to choose between that grounding, calming feeling your hobbies give you…
And the deep rest and relaxation of sleep…
… then choose both – choose the Neural Reset.
Now, it doesn’t replace sleep, nor does it do away with the need to pass time the way you want. It does help, though, because it helps you sleep deeper, feel more alert, enjoy the moment and become more present.
It supplements these things, while easing your urges for self-destructive vices.
That’s because it’s like meditation only deeper, even if you suck at meditation.
See what I mean when you sign up for a session or three here: