https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34583602/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21808081/

The studies are about "self-improvement efforts," whether it's related to health or talent/skill improvement, and both studies discuss other efficacy.

The relationship to mental health is that I believe that someone with a mental health condition who is trying to improve is going to want to feel like he/she has a "strong mind." I.e., a mentally ill person presented with evidence that he/she is mentally strong might very well be more likely to improve his/her condition.

That is one reason why harassing or otherwise attacking mentally ill people is such a heinous crime...it can convince mentally ill people that they may be "mentally weak" and impair recovery efforts.

I am confident that bad guys, including Congressional leaders and CIA types, are well aware of these studies. Even setting out on an effort to damage the self-efficacy of a mentally ill person can damage his/her health, and the CIA knows exactly what it is doing, in one sense. Do our political leaders want to hurt mentally ill people with a fervent and inappropriate passion that would shock most people who are not in the know?

If Ayanna Pressley was lying about it being over in November ("a deal is a deal"), I assert that she will have proved that she is also very reprehensible and unfit to be President of the US, ever. I was open to her being President one day and I hope I still will be. I hope she was telling the truth, for the interests of liberals in particular.

On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-4, DV wrote:
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34583602/
>
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21808081/
>
> The studies are about "self-improvement efforts," whether it's related to health or talent/skill improvement, and both studies discuss other efficacy.
>
> The relationship to mental health is that I believe that someone with a mental health condition who is trying to improve is going to want to feel like he/she has a "strong mind." I.e., a mentally ill person presented with evidence that he/she is mentally strong might very well be more likely to improve his/her condition.
>
> That is one reason why harassing or otherwise attacking mentally ill people is such a heinous crime...it can convince mentally ill people that they may be "mentally weak" and impair recovery efforts.
>
> I am confident that bad guys, including Congressional leaders and CIA types, are well aware of these studies. Even setting out on an effort to damage the self-efficacy of a mentally ill person can damage his/her health, and the CIA knows exactly what it is doing, in one sense. Do our political leaders want to hurt mentally ill people with a fervent and inappropriate passion that would shock most people who are not in the know?
>
> If Ayanna Pressley was lying about it being over in November ("a deal is a deal"), I assert that she will have proved that she is also very reprehensible and unfit to be President of the US, ever. I was open to her being President one day and I hope I still will be. I hope she was telling the truth, for the interests of liberals in particular.

By the way, if Ms. Pressley is lying about it being over in November as some sort of "protest," then the obvious question is: Why not protest and challenge the system by sending me an email, rather than giving the appearance of starting to gaslight me, a human rights abuse victim, again?

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 9:12:31 AM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-4, DV wrote:
> > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34583602/
> >
> > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21808081/
> >
> > The studies are about "self-improvement efforts," whether it's related to health or talent/skill improvement, and both studies discuss other efficacy.
> >
> > The relationship to mental health is that I believe that someone with a mental health condition who is trying to improve is going to want to feel like he/she has a "strong mind." I.e., a mentally ill person presented with evidence that he/she is mentally strong might very well be more likely to improve his/her condition.
> >
> > That is one reason why harassing or otherwise attacking mentally ill people is such a heinous crime...it can convince mentally ill people that they may be "mentally weak" and impair recovery efforts.
> >
> > I am confident that bad guys, including Congressional leaders and CIA types, are well aware of these studies. Even setting out on an effort to damage the self-efficacy of a mentally ill person can damage his/her health, and the CIA knows exactly what it is doing, in one sense. Do our political leaders want to hurt mentally ill people with a fervent and inappropriate passion that would shock most people who are not in the know?
> >
> > If Ayanna Pressley was lying about it being over in November ("a deal is a deal"), I assert that she will have proved that she is also very reprehensible and unfit to be President of the US, ever. I was open to her being President one day and I hope I still will be. I hope she was telling the truth, for the interests of liberals in particular.
> By the way, if Ms. Pressley is lying about it being over in November as some sort of "protest," then the obvious question is: Why not protest and challenge the system by sending me an email, rather than giving the appearance of starting to gaslight me, a human rights abuse victim, again?

Another thing: If Ms. Pressley and other Democrats are indeed still willing to be very foolish and lie to me and/or others, I must ask: When you step out in public and communicate how you communicate, do you make it clear what circumstances might drive you to lie to someone or to whom you are actively willing to lie to? If not, how is anyone who might consider supporting you in politics to know if you would lie to them, too?

I believe that current Republicans don't care as much about being trusted to tell the truth. Nevertheless, it is a very important issue for all political leaders: If you hold a "secret meeting" with "trusted allies" in some sense, and share, "Yes, I lie to Person XYZ and (s)he isn't sure that I'm doing it...but I would definitely never lie to you, my trusted allied group members," then these group members are either very gullible, or wondering, "What if the leader who spoke to us is saying this to us about Person XYZ, and also saying something quite similar to group ABC about us?"

I assert that without a track record of total honesty, or at least a clear delineation of "to whom I would lie to--who are these people and/or what are the circumstances that would drive me to lie to an American citizen?", no leader can really be trusted by anyone.

It is of course very easy to say, "I would never lie to you" dishonestly. Building a track record of never lying is a much more laborious and worthwhile task.

I'm not sure if Ms. Pressley is lying yet. I'll know by Dec 1, though. (I won't accept indications that "I just wasn't being spoken to because I don't count as a US citizen and I don't need 'leader email privileges' or whatever.")

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 11:04:06 AM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 9:12:31 AM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-4, DV wrote:
> > > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34583602/
> > >
> > > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21808081/
> > >
> > > The studies are about "self-improvement efforts," whether it's related to health or talent/skill improvement, and both studies discuss other efficacy.
> > >
> > > The relationship to mental health is that I believe that someone with a mental health condition who is trying to improve is going to want to feel like he/she has a "strong mind." I.e., a mentally ill person presented with evidence that he/she is mentally strong might very well be more likely to improve his/her condition.
> > >
> > > That is one reason why harassing or otherwise attacking mentally ill people is such a heinous crime...it can convince mentally ill people that they may be "mentally weak" and impair recovery efforts.
> > >
> > > I am confident that bad guys, including Congressional leaders and CIA types, are well aware of these studies. Even setting out on an effort to damage the self-efficacy of a mentally ill person can damage his/her health, and the CIA knows exactly what it is doing, in one sense. Do our political leaders want to hurt mentally ill people with a fervent and inappropriate passion that would shock most people who are not in the know?
> > >
> > > If Ayanna Pressley was lying about it being over in November ("a deal is a deal"), I assert that she will have proved that she is also very reprehensible and unfit to be President of the US, ever. I was open to her being President one day and I hope I still will be. I hope she was telling the truth, for the interests of liberals in particular.
> > By the way, if Ms. Pressley is lying about it being over in November as some sort of "protest," then the obvious question is: Why not protest and challenge the system by sending me an email, rather than giving the appearance of starting to gaslight me, a human rights abuse victim, again?
> Another thing: If Ms. Pressley and other Democrats are indeed still willing to be very foolish and lie to me and/or others, I must ask: When you step out in public and communicate how you communicate, do you make it clear what circumstances might drive you to lie to someone or to whom you are actively willing to lie to? If not, how is anyone who might consider supporting you in politics to know if you would lie to them, too?
>
> I believe that current Republicans don't care as much about being trusted to tell the truth. Nevertheless, it is a very important issue for all political leaders: If you hold a "secret meeting" with "trusted allies" in some sense, and share, "Yes, I lie to Person XYZ and (s)he isn't sure that I'm doing it...but I would definitely never lie to you, my trusted allied group members," then these group members are either very gullible, or wondering, "What if the leader who spoke to us is saying this to us about Person XYZ, and also saying something quite similar to group ABC about us?"
>
> I assert that without a track record of total honesty, or at least a clear delineation of "to whom I would lie to--who are these people and/or what are the circumstances that would drive me to lie to an American citizen?", no leader can really be trusted by anyone.
>
> It is of course very easy to say, "I would never lie to you" dishonestly. Building a track record of never lying is a much more laborious and worthwhile task.
>
> I'm not sure if Ms. Pressley is lying yet. I'll know by Dec 1, though. (I won't accept indications that "I just wasn't being spoken to because I don't count as a US citizen and I don't need 'leader email privileges' or whatever.")

In case you are wondering about me: I try to never lie. I have lied in the past. When I have to lie, it means I'm in some sort of danger or unprepared. I try to never do it; it is just as easy to refuse to answer a question and withhold information rather than stating something false. Tricky contradictory falsehoods and absurdities and deceitful traps are cool in art and game-type activities and competitions; at the same time, dishonesty is poison to your brand if you're doing it non-consensually when you could just withhold information instead. "Dishonesty attacks" are stupid and counter-productive; they make your own allies despise and mistrust you, since no one can know who is "one of your real friends." It isn't pleasant (usually) to spend a lot of time having to guess and deduce "who my real friends are" in politics...I'm pretty sure most politically serious people would prefer to opt for someone who has a well-known brand that doesn't require endless analysis and "paranoia" and jumping through hoops to figure out "what the candidate really means" by everything he/she says. The politically serious want to be led by people who are clear enough and have a track record of predictability and 100% integrity, even to adversaries, unless there's some amazingly good reason to lie. Lying might be exciting or something, but I assert that it rarely has any strategic value at all in a serious real-world conflict.

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 11:04:06 AM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 9:12:31 AM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-4, DV wrote:
> > > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34583602/
> > >
> > > https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21808081/
> > >
> > > The studies are about "self-improvement efforts," whether it's related to health or talent/skill improvement, and both studies discuss other efficacy.
> > >
> > > The relationship to mental health is that I believe that someone with a mental health condition who is trying to improve is going to want to feel like he/she has a "strong mind." I.e., a mentally ill person presented with evidence that he/she is mentally strong might very well be more likely to improve his/her condition.
> > >
> > > That is one reason why harassing or otherwise attacking mentally ill people is such a heinous crime...it can convince mentally ill people that they may be "mentally weak" and impair recovery efforts.
> > >
> > > I am confident that bad guys, including Congressional leaders and CIA types, are well aware of these studies. Even setting out on an effort to damage the self-efficacy of a mentally ill person can damage his/her health, and the CIA knows exactly what it is doing, in one sense. Do our political leaders want to hurt mentally ill people with a fervent and inappropriate passion that would shock most people who are not in the know?
> > >
> > > If Ayanna Pressley was lying about it being over in November ("a deal is a deal"), I assert that she will have proved that she is also very reprehensible and unfit to be President of the US, ever. I was open to her being President one day and I hope I still will be. I hope she was telling the truth, for the interests of liberals in particular.
> > By the way, if Ms. Pressley is lying about it being over in November as some sort of "protest," then the obvious question is: Why not protest and challenge the system by sending me an email, rather than giving the appearance of starting to gaslight me, a human rights abuse victim, again?
> Another thing: If Ms. Pressley and other Democrats are indeed still willing to be very foolish and lie to me and/or others, I must ask: When you step out in public and communicate how you communicate, do you make it clear what circumstances might drive you to lie to someone or to whom you are actively willing to lie to? If not, how is anyone who might consider supporting you in politics to know if you would lie to them, too?
>
> I believe that current Republicans don't care as much about being trusted to tell the truth. Nevertheless, it is a very important issue for all political leaders: If you hold a "secret meeting" with "trusted allies" in some sense, and share, "Yes, I lie to Person XYZ and (s)he isn't sure that I'm doing it...but I would definitely never lie to you, my trusted allied group members," then these group members are either very gullible, or wondering, "What if the leader who spoke to us is saying this to us about Person XYZ, and also saying something quite similar to group ABC about us?"
>
> I assert that without a track record of total honesty, or at least a clear delineation of "to whom I would lie to--who are these people and/or what are the circumstances that would drive me to lie to an American citizen?", no leader can really be trusted by anyone.
>
> It is of course very easy to say, "I would never lie to you" dishonestly. Building a track record of never lying is a much more laborious and worthwhile task.
>
> I'm not sure if Ms. Pressley is lying yet. I'll know by Dec 1, though. (I won't accept indications that "I just wasn't being spoken to because I don't count as a US citizen and I don't need 'leader email privileges' or whatever.")

Here is another comment regarding the situation of "if November is not the real date and I am being lied to again":

Perhaps it is all supposed to have been addressed by a "brilliant Democratic framing effort." I.e., the Democrats would say, "We have explained this to our 'real allies' in the perfect way, and they have said they accept what we're doing and we're sure they're sincere."

Perhaps, but like me, you must consider: People can talk to large numbers of people about you, like they can about me, behind your back. They can say things about you (and me) in subtle ways that you might never hear, even if you have a vague idea of what is being said. Many of these things will be subjected to an "is it true?" check. You may be presenting your arguments to people and assuming that any effort to damage you will damage your political adversaries more, but you might not hear what others are saying about you or how your conduct is being framed.

There is simply no excuse for the following, which is true if it's not over in November: If there were another mass disease epidemic next week and millions of people were dying, and the only way to stop it was to liberate me and buy my math/science ideas, you would still opt to kill the millions of people in danger rather than end your obsessive slavery operation against me; you are so intransigent and obsessed that you literally wouldn't stop enslaving me if the entire government would collapse if you didn't stop. Instead, you would just keep playing "Super Dishonesty Games," like you always do.

I believe that argument has already been presented quietly to voters everywhere, behind your back and in a sort of whisper.

That is why I really hope that you aren't so obsessed with me and the thought of continuing to own me that you were lying when you said that it is over in November.