Spoiler: You are the Product.
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.
ShiMo_Protocol•1mo ago
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.
metalman•1mo ago
ShiMo_Protocol•1mo ago
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.