they haven’t an outlet and release of the wide variety of desires and thoughts that are derived from worldly stimuli and temptations. Without that outlet and release, at opportune moments in time-they act on many (or some) of them.
The only way for you to counteract and repel the power and act of cheating, is to understand how our minds work (men are included in this).
Listen carefully, and I am going to give you your reward upfront.
I am so confident that by the time you are done reading Gem #’s 20 and 21, your relationship will blessed (not damned) near begin again…(without the interruption, perils, and annoyance of the “norm” and worry of cheating)-by reversing the psychology on cheating in a way that makes even the thought of doing so seem absolutely pointless.
RPC (REVERSE-PSYCHOLOGY CHEATING): HOW THE “FORMULA” CAME ABOUT
You have to understand the psychology that you will be reversing, before you can reverse it. I will reveal it all to you-what it is you will be “playing” on.
Here’s the deal:
As a student of psychology + philosophy, I cannot help but be attracted to “people studies” and experiments that require results demonstrated by full-proof and inarguable analyzing.
Some years ago on one of those Dateline NBC/ABC or CBS channels, I was watching a people study about “secrets” and our ability (or inability) to keep secrets-what happens to us psychologically when secrets are told to us.
In the study, they invited several people into a room where a lecture was being given and I believe that while the lecture was going on, the speaker used a white teddy bear (as a prop-for whatever reason), but little did the people know, they made sure the room was dark in color enough so that the white teddy bear that the speak picked up could be visible (although in the first lecture), the teddy bear had nothing to do with the lecture.
When they were all interviewed individually (along with an emotional-response test attached to them), they were asked to recite what (if anything) was unusual about the lecture-no one remembered anything “peculiar,” or that “stood out”…not even the white bear!
The same subjects (people) attended another lecture where (this time) the speaker specifically introduced the white bear and as a part of the lecture and then asked them all to forget that they saw the bear (then he proceeded to lecture).
When the subjects were interviewed this time, again-with an emotional response test, they were asked the same question (about what, if anything peculiar stood out or no) and this time, they all did not pass the emotional response portion of the test.
When the test was over, and the results were in-turns out (in that second testing), some of the subjects kept the secret (about not revealing having seen the white bear), but still… their emotional response test told on them: it registered a lie, while the others came on out and told the tester about having seen the white bear anyways (even with having being asked not to mention seeing the white bear).
Do you get the irony of the entire experiment (the first and the second lecture + the testing?)
This was it:
In the first lecture, when the speaker merely picked up the bear and put it down (without saying anything about the bear), all the subjects’ emotional response registered normal when
