Review of non-Method methods

This post covers patterns of several non-Method methods to give context to the Method.
The reason you want to improve your life is that you’re feeling less reward than your potential. Unless you’re highly emotional aware, in which case you would see your way forward clearly, all you know then is that at least one element of an emotional cycle is out of sync but not which. The non-Method methods of the past few posts only work on one part of your emotional cycles. In general, if your way forward isn’t clear, you’ll be lucky if working on only one element works.
Working on only your environment can cost resources and lead to delay or giving up. Working on only your behavior is grueling and risks reinforcing the beliefs and behavior you want to change. Working on only beliefs can take time and hold you back from doing things that could help. Working on only thinking positively can lead you to suppress helpful emotions.
I don’t mean to say using any of the non-Method methods will never work. Sometimes you get lucky. Sometimes you start working on one element and it leads you to improve another too, even if you didn’t plan it that way. Sometimes problems work themselves out without any effort at all.
So I don’t recommend never using the non-Method methods. Sometimes experimenting with different methods teaches you something new about yourself. But know their limitations. And remember that no non-Method method is inherently rewarding, so you learn less and have less fun.
The Method works on all your elements at once. When all the elements of an emotional cycle are in sync, you feel reward, so the Method is guaranteed to bring you reward.
Any time a non-Method method would work, the Method will work at least as well.
Equally important, you’ll feel reward from the start because you begin by putting all the elements of the emotional cycle you’re working on in sync.
You’ve probably learned in life something like “it’s not the destination, it’s the journey.” The Method makes the journey rewarding.

Leave a Reply