I had a question regarding the listening schedule for multistage subs, in the past there were many different recommendations, people used each stage for 1-3 months, and it was also recommended that we listen to somewhere between 300-500 hours per stage. Now with the new Q subs, I am wondering if there are any guidelines with regards to the time spent on each stage, and do the amount of loops/hours matter on each stage and even in general, because with the new listening schedule, listening to 1-2 hours and taking breaks, makes it confusing as to how much time should be spent on each stage.
Very interesting question. I would also be interested in knowing whether Q changes the amount of time we have to listen to a sub. I used the 1 month per stage as a rule of thumb, but I’m not sure if that will change with Q.
I feel like sooner or later a question like this requires an external indication to establish a baseline.
Listening recommenations are based on an average, or an imagined average, of the amount of time that a person needs to create a change in her/his life.
So it’s a matter of observing how long it takes people (who are listening according to standard guidelines) to achieve certain goal-related milestones.
That’s how statistical averages (and recommendations based on those statistics) are established in everything from baseball to mental health.
Question is: what does one do when one is working in an area that does not have conclusive averages already defined?
One really good strategy would be to set up your own set of super-reasonable, systematic milestones. They should be arranged roughly in order of increasing progress or complexity or difficulty or whatever. Then strive to meet those milestones and measure how long it takes for you to meet say the first 3 or 4 of them. By that time, you’ll already start to have a sense of 1) whether movement is happening and 2) what the pace of that movement is.
Thing is, when we ask for these kinds of guidelines from Saint or someone else, we’re basically asking him to estimate what was described above. It’s going to be an educated guess. True, Saint and Fire are very experienced in this area, but there are still many unknown factors. Especially with programs that are still relatively new.
If we wanted products that were completely (or maximally) known and predictable, we’d have to sacrifice the newer, stronger experimental possibilities of these innovative rebuilds.
Anyway, those were more theoretical thoughts. The practical takeaway I think is to make sure that subliminal use is (in part, at least) tethered to some areas of your life in which objective results and changes can be assessed (i.e., an area in which you are trying to achieve something). That way you’ll be able to get a sense that something is changing and of how long you want to keep staying with a particular program.
(now to go and try to practice what I’m preaching)