I created this framework (Shi-Mo) because traditional CBT didn't work well for my racing thoughts.
I realized that emotions act a lot like background daemons in an OS. So I combined Stanislavski's acting system (Method of Physical Action) with system architecture concepts (Root User, Throttling, Circuit Breaking).
It's essentially a "wetware patch" to help regain executive control during high-stress situations.
It's open source (MIT). I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether this engineering approach to psychology makes sense to you.
we are designed to survive in a complex reality where threats and rewards are imediate, and the vast majority of decisions
are governed by a pragmatism.
our current reality is one where there the feedback mechanisms are broken, or self imposed, which is what I think you are getting at, but allas there have and are countless methods and techniques bieng tried to trigger an awareness of which thing needs to float to the top of our priority list, and how to follow through and realise that.
The issue is that unlike our ancestors who faced common threats with the same resources, generation to generation, we are in an ever shifting threat/reward scape, that has been essentialy reduced to money, which is not "real", money is a construct and along with much else is arbitrary.
the bottom line then becomes, dont hang your dreams on anything you cant pay for.
Interesting perspective. Let me try to share my thoughts on this.
You’re right that money is a huge barrier, and much of what holds people back can indeed be simplified down to money. However, I’ve spent eight years struggling with Asperger’s, depression, anxiety, and emotional disorders. Doctors tried every method and medication they could to save me, but nothing worked. I ended up inventing this model as a way to claw my way through when no one else—not my elders, friends, or therapists—could save me.
Regarding your point about decisions being governed by pragmatism: I’d argue that many existing psychological treatments just aren't pragmatic enough. If you’ve been through it, you realize one thing—it’s incredibly hard for the person suffering to actually believe the treatment will work. To be blunt, most methods don't hit the core. For any method to be effective, the individual has to be able to believe in it to keep going. That’s exactly why I used acting techniques to construct an "Organic Reality" that I could actually believe in.
As for rewards and threats being simplified into money: I can see that for rewards, but I think it’s a bit too reductive for threats. In my experience, threats also include loneliness, social isolation, and professional networking. Money might not even make up half of the "punishment" side of the equation. (Of course, everything is related to money in the end, but having a stable self at least gets you one step closer to those financial rewards.)
As for your final point, "don’t hang your dreams on anything you can’t pay for"—I’m not entirely sure what you meant by that originally, but I’ve spent a fortune on psychiatry and counseling (not to mention the hidden costs of transit and time). So, I figure having a stable mind and body might just save us both some money.
I see your point, and in a sense, you're right. My model is rooted in the Stanislavski Method and the philosophy of Ghost in the Shell. I had to consume and internalize these 'cultural inputs' to synthesize this framework. So, on a deterministic level, I am indeed a 'product' of my environment and experiences.
However, on a functional level, the S-M Protocol (Stanislavski Model) is about how the Subject (the human) chooses to perceive its Products (emotions and reactive states). In this model, these products are treated as a 'Shell.'
From my internal, first-person perspective, the Shell is neither the Subject nor a mere Object. I understand that from a second or third-person perspective, my Shell might look like the entirety of who I am. But think of it like a profession—say, a lawyer. When people talk about 'the lawyer,' they think of the person, but being a lawyer is just a functional role within a social system; it doesn't define the totality of their being.
So, while emotions might be seen as the 'subject' from an outsider's lens, from the first-person view, they are a transitional state: neither the 'I' nor just a 'thing.' They are the Shell I navigate through. My protocol simply grants the Subject the administrative rights to manage that Shell.
Glad you liked it! I'm from Taiwan, and "Shi-Mo" (史模) is a colloquial Chinese shorthand. In English, it stands for the "Stanislavski Model." Konstantin Stanislavski was a grandmaster of acting systems whose theories laid the foundation for modern performance. I adapted his principles into this framework for emotion regulation.
Hi HN,
I created this framework (Shi-Mo) because traditional CBT didn't work well for my racing thoughts.
I realized that emotions act a lot like background daemons in an OS. So I combined Stanislavski's acting system (Method of Physical Action) with system architecture concepts (Root User, Throttling, Circuit Breaking).
It's essentially a "wetware patch" to help regain executive control during high-stress situations.
It's open source (MIT). I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether this engineering approach to psychology makes sense to you.
we are designed to survive in a complex reality where threats and rewards are imediate, and the vast majority of decisions are governed by a pragmatism. our current reality is one where there the feedback mechanisms are broken, or self imposed, which is what I think you are getting at, but allas there have and are countless methods and techniques bieng tried to trigger an awareness of which thing needs to float to the top of our priority list, and how to follow through and realise that. The issue is that unlike our ancestors who faced common threats with the same resources, generation to generation, we are in an ever shifting threat/reward scape, that has been essentialy reduced to money, which is not "real", money is a construct and along with much else is arbitrary. the bottom line then becomes, dont hang your dreams on anything you cant pay for.
Interesting perspective. Let me try to share my thoughts on this.
You’re right that money is a huge barrier, and much of what holds people back can indeed be simplified down to money. However, I’ve spent eight years struggling with Asperger’s, depression, anxiety, and emotional disorders. Doctors tried every method and medication they could to save me, but nothing worked. I ended up inventing this model as a way to claw my way through when no one else—not my elders, friends, or therapists—could save me.
Regarding your point about decisions being governed by pragmatism: I’d argue that many existing psychological treatments just aren't pragmatic enough. If you’ve been through it, you realize one thing—it’s incredibly hard for the person suffering to actually believe the treatment will work. To be blunt, most methods don't hit the core. For any method to be effective, the individual has to be able to believe in it to keep going. That’s exactly why I used acting techniques to construct an "Organic Reality" that I could actually believe in.
As for rewards and threats being simplified into money: I can see that for rewards, but I think it’s a bit too reductive for threats. In my experience, threats also include loneliness, social isolation, and professional networking. Money might not even make up half of the "punishment" side of the equation. (Of course, everything is related to money in the end, but having a stable self at least gets you one step closer to those financial rewards.)
As for your final point, "don’t hang your dreams on anything you can’t pay for"—I’m not entirely sure what you meant by that originally, but I’ve spent a fortune on psychiatry and counseling (not to mention the hidden costs of transit and time). So, I figure having a stable mind and body might just save us both some money.
> Since the Subject creates the Product, the Subject is superior.
Spoiler: You are the Product.
I see your point, and in a sense, you're right. My model is rooted in the Stanislavski Method and the philosophy of Ghost in the Shell. I had to consume and internalize these 'cultural inputs' to synthesize this framework. So, on a deterministic level, I am indeed a 'product' of my environment and experiences.
However, on a functional level, the S-M Protocol (Stanislavski Model) is about how the Subject (the human) chooses to perceive its Products (emotions and reactive states). In this model, these products are treated as a 'Shell.'
From my internal, first-person perspective, the Shell is neither the Subject nor a mere Object. I understand that from a second or third-person perspective, my Shell might look like the entirety of who I am. But think of it like a profession—say, a lawyer. When people talk about 'the lawyer,' they think of the person, but being a lawyer is just a functional role within a social system; it doesn't define the totality of their being.
So, while emotions might be seen as the 'subject' from an outsider's lens, from the first-person view, they are a transitional state: neither the 'I' nor just a 'thing.' They are the Shell I navigate through. My protocol simply grants the Subject the administrative rights to manage that Shell.
Interesting idea. What's the meaning of Shi-Mo?
Glad you liked it! I'm from Taiwan, and "Shi-Mo" (史模) is a colloquial Chinese shorthand. In English, it stands for the "Stanislavski Model." Konstantin Stanislavski was a grandmaster of acting systems whose theories laid the foundation for modern performance. I adapted his principles into this framework for emotion regulation.