Home Welcome to Image-Streaming
Page 2 of 2, Appendix

Congruence of Interests: Effects Upon Accuracy of
Sensitive-Intuitive Answer-Finding Methods

Among all the tools available for gaining answers and insights from our deeper mind, ImageStreaming appears to be one of the very most sensitive.

It’s very sensitivity, making possible an apparently remarkably high level of accuracy in those insights and answers, appears also to make that very process susceptible to elements or processes which distort such accuracy. An analogy: this would be like the great Hubble Telescope, finely tuned in on a galaxy ten billion lightyears across space from us, being thrown off by a loose screw in the supporting framework.

Elsewhere we have addressed how to reduce or prevent other distorting elements(1,2). Here, especially in context of matters of commerce and finance and a competitive marketplace, it is appropriate to discuss one of the most important of these elements, the one pertaining to the congruence of interests.
- The part of our mind and brain which takes many more factors into account in its answers than can our plodding one-thing-at-a-time, linear, left-verbal-conscious part of our brain, ALSO takes more interests into account. The great part of our mind and brain takes into account our own long-term interests. It even appears to take into account the interests of others who would be affected by the outcome of the matter being decided.
Fortunately, there is a lot of room for our greater minds to work in, for most of life is a positive-sum game - your win is also a win for others and vice-versa. Make the right loans or investments, everyone wins and you prosper. The market is in a constant seethe of motion as it fulfills - under a somewhat-limited range of conditions, that is - its role as a directory, its pricing mechanisms constantly guiding people and resources toward better and better uses(3). A well-functioning, free marketplace is a mixture of win-win, lose-lose and win-lose situations but with the great preponderance being win-win.

  • The right question to ask your Beyond-Conscious: where to invest that will accomplish thereby the most good for those involved, for all those who will be affected by that investment.

  • The wrong question to ask your Beyond-Conscious: how to beat out the other guy.
It seems likely that this is why people don’t tend to win horse races or lotteries by sensitive intuitive methods, despite many attempts to do so.
  1. The win under those conditions means that others lose. There is part of our makeup which is not comfortable with helping cause others to lose. This affects the answers we get from our Beyond-Conscious, by ImageStream or by other such sensitive means.

  2. There is also that part of us which is trying to look out for our own longer-term interests, not only for what we want in the short run.(4)


Perhaps this is an internal reflection of the "mirror neurons" discovered by neurophysiologists this past dozen years, and which figure so largely in how, from infancy, we learn to become human beings. Or perhaps we are indeed all connected, and don’t ask for whom the bell tolls. Perhaps this is simply a factor of whatever it is that causes us to feel sympathy for another human being, even when that sympathy is being firmly squelched and put aside for reasons of convenience, or of what is thought to be the greater good of the greater number, or from commercial or financial necessity, or even of national interest and security.

Just as quieting tension, and/or just as finding a calm place to rest or to quietly putter in, sometimes helps you figure things out: an agreement among all the various interests which are part of your makeup and inner workings may help the accuracy and clarity of the signals which your ImageStream is relaying to your attention from your Beyond-Conscious mind.

The more in agreement, the more congruent the interest which your Beyond-Conscious mind is taking into account thus the clearer, more in focus, and more accurate will be your perceived answers.

How many reports have YOU heard of people who, so long as they were merely predicting the market by intuitive means but not actually investing by those predictions or advising others into those investments, getting readings with exceptionally high accuracy.....but immediately that they tried to invest either their own money or the capital of others according to such predictions, their accuracy dropped to a WORSE-than-chance level?

Science has probably not made any formal count of these instances, much less any systematic study.
Science has appeared to be afraid to study intuition and the effects of its use, despite science's own dependence upon intuition for most of its greatest discoveries. (5,6,7)

Thus, this congruence-of-interests model for the time being is only an untested hypothesis. There may nonetheless be some practical use for the hypothesis.

If it is the congruence of one's own short- and long-term interests with each other and with the interests of others, which will most support the fine-tuned accuracy of Beyond-Conscious answers and the value of actions based upon those answers: then investors and holders of capital may profitably ask themselves:

— not what immediately will bring THEM the most profits, but...

— which investments will make the `best positive difference, short- and long-term, to all who are affected by those investments (including, parenthetically of course, the short and long-term interests of the investor)? Stocks vs. IPOs, types of loans to which borrowers and businesses which bring not only the greatest benefits there, but other kinds of expenditure, even in the community, which will somehow parenthetically most benefit the enterprise or the investor making that expenditure. Where will that action make the greatest positive benefit?

A modest test of this congruence-of-interests model, running on a small scale a series of small-scale investment actions based on that model, in parallel with investment decisions made on more standard models now in use including charting(8), might be worth finding out the comparative value of such an approach.


(1) Charles Roman, Win Wenger's Image-Streaming: Reaching the Higher Powers of Your Mind. A Project Renaissance CoreBook, Lulu Publishing.

(2) Image-Streaming, and Image-Streaming CoreBook. Generally, the following measures have been found to improve the accuracy of imagery-derived answers by getting past our conscious expectations as to what the answer “ought to be.” Practice in objectively reporting and describing even and especially this subjective phenomena; describing or responding faster than you have time to think and edit what you are saying or doing until after you have it out in full view; using suddenness to force first impressions before you can reflexively change what comes into something more in line with what you expect. Also, by checking your answers by other means before acting on them - check your answers gotten by whatever means, for that matter, to the extent that the matter is important, before acting on them. In this material universe everything material and everything human is susceptible to error, tending toward entropy. No human process is infallible.

(3) — Within a fairly narrow range of circumstances, as it turns out. The original Adam Smith, “father of the free market,” himself pointed out that the “invisible guiding hand” breaks down as regards indivisibilities, external economies, external diseconomies, imperfect information, monopoly and oligopoly and its counterparts on the other side of supply-and-demand, etc. Further, even the most market-oriented societies have had, upon occasion, to intervene from government when conditions are so distorted, by war, depression, panic, shortage, etc., as to derange the directory function provided by the pricing movements of the marketplace, and when the costs of dislocations seriously exceeded any savings gotten by the economies of marketprice-based decision-making.

(4) Studies show that most lottery winners within a few years are worse off instead of better.

(5) Kekule, op.cit.

(6) Einstein as described above.

(7) Elias Howe as described above.

(8) Just because a mechanism may not yet be understood, does not mean that it is not present or at work. If a pattern keeps showing up in price movements, and nothing else has changed that would make things come out differently next time, why assume that they will come out differently next time?

You may freely copy and share this paper—in whole including the copyright
notice but not in part—to share with people whom you care about.
Home | CPS Techniques index | Welcome to Image-Streaming | 2 |
Contact:   Project Renaissance
PO Box 332, Gaithersburg, MD 20884-0332
301-948-1122 phone

©2009-2011 Project Renaissance