Category Archives: Remap Self

Thought Is An Inaccurate Description

Reviewing my work on dispelling Upsets, it is remarkable how my stories of reality were the source of my stress. Mismatches between thought and I was observing was always the source of an Upset. I was inspired by a concept presented by Michael Graziano in his excellent book Consciousness and the Social Brain. Using his wording, thoughts are useful, but not accurate, descriptions of reality. What is the implication of this?

Thought Is An Inaccurate Description

Our thoughts help us steer our way through reality, but they are never totally accurate. That means every thought is ultimately wrong. Letting that sink in, what thoughts do you trust and what thought are ignored? The key to the whole concept is the word useful.

I was once told a story by a friend about the backup camera on his car. He was looking at the screen when his car lurched.  He could not understand it because he could not see anything on the screen. He got out and there was a car at an angle behind him. The owner of that car was standing  there and said, “You hit my car.” My friend said, “I couldn’t have, the camera did not show a car.” When the owner pointed out the dent in the car and my friends bumper lodged in the dent, my friend had to accept reality. In retelling the story, he said that for him the camera view was more “real” than the lurch he felt as he bumped the other car. In this case, the camera’s description of reality had not been useful.

Thought Is An Inaccurate Description

So too with thought. A thought is like the camera, an approximation of what is out there, a tool with which to steer by. And sometimes reality is the lurch and bump we feel and we hit something we did not approximate correctly. And every time, we feel that the bump cannot be right. This is the foundation of suffering.


To open the opportunity to reduce suffering I want to continue to train myself to live in the perspective that all thought is an inaccurate description of reality. Hearing this once makes sense, and moments later I can be immersed in a thought as if it accurately describes what is about the happen, or even what is happening now. What would the experience of life be like to grasp this on an ongoing basis. How would it feel to intuitively grasp this as every thought arises?

To do this I have to train myself as a thought comes up to go through a cycle of examining that thought. At first, I will step through it manually, and with repetitions speed up the process until this examination is instantaneous. When a thought comes up I want to step through these questions:

  • Is this thought an accurate representation of reality?
  • What reaction does the thought create?
  • Reverse the thought to show that its opposite is true.
  • Understand the opportunity in the situation regardless of the thought.

This structure combines work I have done previously. To ensure proper attribution, the reversal technique is one I learned from the methods of Byron Katie. If you want to practice reversals in depth I recommend her approach. The glass half full approach that I have married to the reversals I tested in an earlier experiment.

I pulled these four elements into a micro survey that I put on my iPhone. My training plan is straightforward. I will do at least 10 of these surveys a day until I have done 1000 of them. Like painted steps on a dance floor,  I will follow these steps repeatedly until I can do them quickly and instinctively as thought arises.

Thought Is An Inaccurate Description

Announcing last week that I was stepping back from quantification experiments, I now have the time to do a long term training approach and see how my subjective experience changes. It may take up to four months, it likely will take much longer. I’ll report what I find along the way and share tools and techniques as you may have an interest in them.

Sign up for the QuantXLaFont Newsletter
Get our lifestyle tips and studies delivered to your inbox.
Thank you! We don't spam :)

Are To Do Lists Really Useful?

I was grinding through my daily “To Do” list, moving and consolidating the various seemingly urgent items, when I wondered if such a practice was really effective. I was spending a lot of time tracking what needed to be done on these lists. I was using online tools, notebooks, and scraps of paper. But I had never examined the practice itself and was wondering. Are To Do lists really useful?


These lists played a significant role in my day. I would start with a list early in the morning and use it until evening.  It seems we all have a complex relationship with our To Do lists. Psychologists study why we use them, and why we don’t follow them. In the tradition of Quantified Self, I decided to study my own relationship with my To Do lists.

My Question

Was my practice of making and following a To Do list really useful?

What I Did

Over the course of 21 days I logged my To Do’s as they arose. I captured my frame of mind as I first thought of the item and my feeling after I had explored it. I also logged what would happen if I did not complete the item, and what I thought was the underlying goal behind the item. I call these underlying goals Source Code Stories. I was looking for Source Code Stories that were driving the impulse to do something. For example, if the To Do was to get a report to my colleague, the Source Code Story could be that I wanted to be seen as responsive.

How I Did It

I used a Google Form and my iPhone to create a mini-survey. The format was similar to my Upset log that I have described here before. When I felt the urge to do something and log it on a To Do list, the first entry on the Form was my state of mind on a scale of 1 to 5. The next entry was the item. The third was what would happen if I did not complete the item. The fourth entry captured what I thought I was trying to achieve, which was the indicator of the Source Code Story. The fifth and final entry again rated my state of mind from 1 to 5. Using this simple survey I was able to capture 105 To Do impulses over the course of 21 days.

What I Learned

My habit of creating To Do lists was not really useful. The majority of impulses to get something done came from a stressed state and the impact of not following these impulses on my situation was negligible. My To Do lists were capturing non-essential impulses that were not driving big outcomes.  What was least useful is the existence of the list kept dragging my attention back to these small matters, robbing me of attention of being available for more creative, larger outcomes.

Looking at my state of mind when To Do’s arise, I found that 79.1% of the time I was in a negative mental state. That meant I was worried or in a state where my mind was racing. Only 20.9% of the time was I in a positive state considering creative things to do. Here is an image of my state during To Do’s:

Are To Do Lists Really Useful

Looking at what would happen if I did not take action on the To Do’s, I found that nearly all of the recorded To Do’s had no immediate impact on the situation if I did not do them. Over half, if not done, would have no impact at all. For a portion eventually I would be reminded to do the item by another person or I could do it later. Here is the breakdown of results if I did not pursue the To Do’s:

Are To Do Lists Really Useful

Only 3 of the 105 logged impulses would result in something creative and interesting that I was initiating coming to a halt. That meant that the creation of the To Do list was not driving big, creative outcomes at all. It was rooting action back in the long list of stress based low level tactical activity.

Looking at my state of mind, when I felt I had an obligation to another person my average start mood was 2.35. When the To Do was a mechanical item like getting a car washed, the average start mood was 2.9. There was a statistically significant difference in state of mind between those To Do’s that were obligations to a person versus getting something mechanical done.

This tied into my Source Code Stories. Looking at the most prominent of these stories, I found that having people appreciate my effort and seeing me as knowledgeable were the most numerous. Other stories like being organized or balancing my checkbook lagged far behind.

Looking at my Source Code Stories and counting the number of To Do’s by type, I saw that despite that fact that connecting with people had a disproportionate importance for me, 63% of my To Do lists were tactical, mechanical items. Are to do lists really useful? I’ve found they aren’t for me.

Chipping at the Bedrock of Self

In my last post, I talked about changing a Source Code Story, which is a story that lies beneath a series of Upsets. As our idea of being a separate identity is just an illusion, I wanted to keep working down my list of Source Code Stories in a continued experiment of chipping at the bedrock of self.

chipping at the bedrock of self

My idea is that these Source Code Stories are the drivers of how we perceive the world and how we express our “selves” to others. Our “self” is a bundle of sometimes disjointed stories, and if I can change one or many of them I can recreate myself.

My Question

Could I identify and reduce the frequency and intensity of a Source Code Story?

What I Did

Using the same mini-survey protocol I used in the first experiment, I captured the Source Code Story beneath a series of Upsets and rank ordered them to find which was the most frequent. Again, I did multiple repetitions of the exploratory protocol on that story. And throughout I was doing the mini-surveys and monitoring to see if the frequency and intensity of that Source Code Story had changed.

How I Did It

Using the same Google Forms mini-survey that I had devised in the first experiment I captured a list of Source Code Stories that lay beneath various Upsets. As a review, these surveys ask five questions. The first question is my state of mind on a scale of 1 to 5. The second was a brief description of the Upset.  The third was a brief Glass Half Full opportunity within the situation. For example, if I was Upset about waiting in line, an opporunity might be I had a chance to read an interesting book. The fourth was a text entry of what I thought I was trying to protect when I was Upset. This was the Source Code Story. The fifth and final entry again rated my state of mind from 1 to 5.

The protocol for altering the Source Code Story included a different mini-survey. This broke the story down into what sensations were present, what the story that arose from the sensations and the triggering cause of the story. As I have mentioned I learned this sequence from a Guide at Liberation Unleashed. I did this exploratory protocol 25 times over the course of a week.

What I Learned

I reduced the frequency and intensity of another Source Code Story. From the list of Source Cost Stories I had gathered in the first study I determined that the next most frequent Source Code Story was my desire to work on big, important things. This took the form of me having little or no patience with tasks I had deemed were not contributing to some large and significant issue.

From the week prior to doing the protocol an Upset related to this Source Code Story occurred eleven times. This was an average of 1.8 times a day. I was spending a lot of energy feeling that I was wasting my time on tasks that were not significant. During the week, I repeated the exploratory protocol the frequency dropped to .5 per day, and after four days Upsets from this Souce Code Story stopped completely.

As I had measured my state of mind on a scale from 1 to 5 at each Upset, I had a chance to examine how the protocol changed the intensity of the Upsets. Not only did the frequency decrease, the negative state of mind decreased. With 1 being negative and 5 being positive, my average state of mind when these Upsets occurred went from 1.8 to 2.25.

Using a free Google Form and an iPhone I have moved two Source Code Stories from active to far less present in my awareness. As part of reviewing my data I checked on the frequency of the first Source Code Story I worked with, my dislike of having my decisions challenged. In the week-long period after having reduced its presence, an Upset with that Source Code Story only occurred on one occasion. Once that Source Codes Story was gone, it seems to have stayed gone.

Subjectively the amount of time my mind has been spinning due to a Source Code Story has reduced. There have been a lot of moments of relaxation. I imagine that in moments of downtime prior to this I would kick into one of these stories. I am going to conduct the protocol on the remaining list of Source Code Stories to determine what happens when they are all removed.

How to Measure and Change Self

The word “Self” in Quantified Self demanded some investigation. According to both spiritual and scientific findings, there is no self, but rather a bundle of varied reactions that we interpret and weave into a cohesive story of self. I wanted to see how to measure and change whatever self was for me. 

Here is my personality profile on, a site that takes publicly facing information and creates a personality profile based on what a person has put online.

How to Measure and Change Self

As you can see from the underlined section, the service picked up my tendency to not like when people don’t accept my decisions or try to make them on my behalf. This one expression of “self” would be an interesting reference point as the study progressed. 

I had previously developed a method for identifying and improving my state of mind when I felt an Upset come on. I had successfully shown progress using a Glass Half Full and Reversal protocols. These techniques dealt with the irritant in the moment. What I wanted was to use this approach to dig down into the embedded stories that seem to drive my reactions, what I am calling “Source Code Stories”. 

My Question

Could I measure and change a “Source Code Story” that was driving Upset reactions?

What I Did

Using an expanded mini-survey protocol, I captured the Source Code Story beneath a series of Upsets to see which story occurred the largest number of times. Once I determined which story was the strongest, I did multiple repetitions of an exploratory protocol on that story. Once I had completed these exploratory workouts, I conducted another set of mini-surveys to see if the frequency and experience of that Source Code Story had changed.

How I Did It

Using Google Form I first captured a list of Source Code Stories that lay beneath various Upsets. Here is how that worked: When I felt an Upset, the first entry on the Form was my state of mind on a scale of 1 to 5. The second and third entries were the cause of the Upset and the Glass Half Full opportunity within the situation. The fourth entry captured what I thought I was trying to protect when I was Upset. This was the Source Code Story. The fifth and final entry again rated my state of mind from 1 to 5. This is a screen shot of the first three entries in the protocol survey:

Survey Picture

Using this protocol I captured 36 Source Code Stories of what I thought lay beneath the feeling of irritation or worry.  The list has a variety of wordings, so I did hygiene on the list to group like for like Source Code Stories came up with 5 major themes. I rank ordered these themes by frequency of Source Code Stories within. 

Once I had isolated the most frequently occurring Source Code Story, I created an inquiry to pick apart this one story several times a day for a week. I conducted this examination 15 times. It consisted of writing in a Google Form the sensations, verbal story the triggering moment that I experienced when that Source Code Story was behind the Upset. This protocol was inspired by a process I had learned working with the folks at Liberation Unleashed

Once I had done the examinations, I repeated the original protocol to map an additional 33 Upsets and their Source Code Stories. At the completion of this I could compare the story themes from before and after the examination period. 

What I Learned

I was able to isolate a Source Code Story that drove a number of Upsets and change its expression in my day to day experience. Of interest to me was that my most frequently occurring Source Code Story was having my decisions challenged which was consistent with the assessment shown above. Here were my takeaways:

  1. The most frequent story, having my decisions challenged, was the driver of upsets 57% of the time in the first period.
  2. After 15 examinations of this story, some as remembered incidents and some in real time, there was no consistent trigger of the reaction. Sometimes it was an email, sometimes a discussion and other times I reacted with no provocation. The insight is that the reaction has no consistent external trigger and therefore I was the source of the reaction.
  3. In the second period, after the examinations, this topic came up only 24% of the time and the wording went from confrontational to more generally positive. My wording went from “they challenged my decision” to “I want this decision to contribute positively.” In this shift, I was now open to feedback which I no longer saw as a challenge.

When mapping my “self”, the assumption was that I would have a large number of Source Code Stories that would be overwhelming in number and complexity. This turned out to not be true. During the first period, I had five Source Code Story themes drive all of my Upsets, the second period seven. It turned out that the negative aspect of “self” is a narrative of five to seven consistent mismatches between reality and what I thought reality should be. And I can alter them one at a time.

In my subjective experience the Source Code Story was less powerful when it did come up after I had worked on it. Both numerically and experientially I had sanded down a rough corner of my “self.” The key to this, as in any training, is repetition. I was examining the story repeatedly to have these changes occur.

The next steps are to continue altering these underlying stories which will alter the pillars of the imagined self. Over time, we’ll see if the read will change as well.