Construct Troubleshooting Q & A

Instructor: Rainsong
Date: April 20, 2019 (Saturday)

Seminar: Topic: Construct Q&A – Saturday, 20 April 2019 at 6:30pm/1830hr New York Time — text format in the PSC #lecture room (Discord) — Instructor: Rainsong– Search LECTURE71

Flux: I thought about it… and… I can’t think of anything.

Rainsong: HI, Flux

Flux: Maybe something to do with constructs?

Flux: Hey Rain. How goes it today?

Rainsong: Doing okay here, thanks. You?

Rainsong: I was also vaguely thinking in terms of constructs, mostly because someone mentioned making a construct earlier this afternoon

Flux: Pretty good.

Flux: Hey, that’s a thing then.

Rainsong: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. πŸ™‚

Rainsong: Welcome to another seminar here at the social club.

Rainsong: You know the drill… yada yada yada

Rainsong: Looks like we’ll be discussing constructs this evening.

Flux: Hallo!

Rainsong: If it’s just Flux and me in here, it may well be a discussion exactly…

Rainsong: Is anyone else active in here?

Rainsong: I think we’ll call that a “no”

Flux: I think so.

Rainsong: Any questions or concerns about constructs?

Flux: We could discuss additive or multiplicative effects or lack there of.

Chirotractor: Am watching but don’t feel like making words

Flux: Like, one construct does x. How well do two constucts do x?

Flux: In what cases does this work? All? When does it break down? In general terms of course.

Rainsong: Sure. Why not?

Flux: In my personal practice, I find that it works sometimes and other times, not so much.

Flux: Easy one, I made a construct that did a minor amount of PK. Two of said construct did not provide double the effect. Thoughts?

Rainsong: I’ve seen people try to make layered or combined constructs with mutually antagonistic effects and then wonder why the combination failed. Sometimes spectacularly. But you both are clever enough not to do that.

Rainsong: Or, at least, to not be puzzled if it blows up in your face when experimenting

Rainsong: Layered Shields are probably the first combination construct noobs are likely to try.

Rainsong: That, or something like a paintball gun and the ammunition for it

Rainsong: What sort of constructs do you have in mind for combining effects?

Flux: In this case, I’m talking about creating a greater effect by creating multiple constructs. Hmm, let me think of another example… got one.

Flux: Pain relief. I’ve created pain relief constructs that don’t really fully benefit form multiple instances.

Goatmistress: Well, if they’re both doing the same thing, wouldn’t that be a duplication of effort?

Flux: The construct was designed to absorb pain, so it would make sense that multiple instances would increase the bandwidth of pain that could be absorbed.

Flux: It could also be that only some of the pain is available to be “absorbed”.

Rainsong: Only if absorption was what it was literally doing, and not just the metaphor for the programming

Flux: Very true.

Flux: Obviously that’s the intent, but I can’t say that’s exactly what happens.

Flux: I have some other examples of weather related constructs that I made in my early days. There seemed to be a limit with those too.

Rainsong: The weather in some places is easier to affect that in some other places. Making it rain in Nova Scotia is trivial. Making it rain in Death Valley is rather less so

Rainsong: We’re psionicists. Sorcerers.

Rainsong: Not gods

Flux: Very true. In the specific instance I’m thinking about, it was essentially a cloud buster.

Rainsong: More oomph, in the form of more constructs ought to produce a more significant result

Rainsong: The obvious question, of course, is whether the later added constructs had any oomph left in them

Rainsong: Also, was someone else working at cross-purposes to your attempt

Rainsong: I’m told this can be a fun drinking game, for those so inclined. (Be careful not to over-indulge, if you go for such things)

Flux: Obviously I’m not expecting crazy stuff. It was me experimenting. I don’t know if someone was working against me.

Chirotractor: isn’t that lifted from hitchikers guide?

Rainsong: A drinking game based on cloud busting? Maybe? I don’t recall it being in the version I read.

Rainsong: But, it’s been quite a while since I read it

Flux: Also, can’t say if the other constructs had any oomph.

Rainsong: The odds are against someone else working on the same set of clouds at the same time, but it is possible

Chirotractor: well there’s a broad line between cloud bursting and telekinetically pouring each other drinks but… same principle

Rainsong: Ah, yes, I do recall that one. It’d get messy fast

Flux: If only I could pour drinks with pk…

Rainsong: I’d recommend practicing with inexpensive drinks, rather than top-shelf beverages. Expect to spill things

Rainsong: Of course, if your financial situation is such that high end single malt is all the same to you as tap water, then fill your boots…

Flux: Um. I haven’t moved passed a pinwheel.

Flux: I’ll be excited when I can roll a can.

Rainsong: Have you tried the “sloshing” oomph across the heel of your hand approach?

Rainsong: And striking a small point along one edge of the can, instead of trying to push the whole thing?

Flux: Not for the can. On pinwheels, yes.

Flux: Have tried the small point thing.

Rainsong: If you’re not opposed to the concept of “overkill”, try sending out a dense stream of oomph from your tummy region, about as thick as a baseball bat, and whapping the can with it

Rainsong: Inelegant, but sometimes handy

Flux: I will give it go. I’m willing to try most things.

Flux: So back to constructs, what is your opinion and experience on constructs that make constructs?

Rainsong: Such as semi-automatic paintball guns?

Flux: Sure. I’ve never done the paintball thing, but that would be an example.

Rainsong: As for truly automatic self-replicating constructs, um, I regard the old “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” story as a cautionary tale

Rainsong: But the semi-auto type can be very handy.

Flux: I’ve been told that constructs created by constructs are generally less effective.

Rainsong: You’re still making the constructs – it will affect your body the same way, other than the concentration — but automating the bulk of the procedure frees up your concentration for other activities.

Flux: My opinion is that it depends.

Rainsong: Similar concept to using a radionics box, in that regard

Flux: That makes sense to me.

Rainsong: I haven’t seen any practical difference in my own constructs in this regard (notable exception is the “stone tower shield” type, where your concentration seems to be the main component)

Rainsong: I’ve seen some other people’s constructs make pretty … weak … replications. But there’d been obvious problems in the construction process: insufficient oomph, buggy programming, half-a@#ed concentration

Flux: I’ve only seen issues with regard to constructs that I’ve had little luck in seeing a multiplicative effect.

Rainsong: Hit a wall in terms of effect, hm?

Flux: The majority of which are trying to accomplish some gross physical effect.

Flux: Pretty much.

Flux: I have no idea if the block is mental or something else.

Flux: I’ve made attempts to diagnosis, but so far, I’ve either been wrong, or I haven’t been able to do anything about it.

Rainsong: My guess – without casting aspersions on your skill – is that you’re diluting the effect by working it through a construct instead of doing it directly

Rainsong: Buggy code

Flux: Very possible. I’m only as skilled as the results I produce.

Rainsong: Some people work best with complicated procedures.

Rainsong: These people probably ought to try ceremonial magic

Rainsong: Some people work best with simple procedures but with some kind of physical interface

Flux: … I’m not that kind of person. I’m allergic to ceremonial stuff.

Rainsong: They are suited to radionics

Flux: Not literally of course, just in case that was a question.

Rainsong: (Folks in the middle kind of gravidtate toward Chaos magic and/or secular witchcraft)

Rainsong: And, of course, some of favour the direct approach…

Rainsong: It’s not unusual to use more than one.

Rainsong: In any case, for physical effects in psionics, constructs almost always seem to be constrained to what their makers can do directly

Flux: I’m a more than one approach kind of person.

Rainsong: (such is not always true of radionics. Why? No idea)

Flux: That’s been my experience with constructs.

Rainsong: So, it may be simply that you need more practice and/or a different approach to the physical effects, rather than there being anything actually wrong with your constructs

Flux: The most macro pk-like effects I’ve had are with a poltergeist, but I had no control there.

Rainsong: For example, perhaps you’d be better served by a semi-hypnotic/quasi-biofeedback approach to pain relief, intercepting the signals as they reach the spine, than your current absorption method?

Flux: I shall continue to endeavor to new approaches to achieve physical effects.

Flux: Possibly.

Rainsong: Weird thing about the quasi-biofeedback effects: it’s easier to work on someone else than oneself

Flux: Why do you think constructs are often constrained by the ability of the practitioner?

Flux: I’ve never tried a biofeedback approach. I should put in on my list.

Rainsong: Because they are being produced by the practitioner?

Rainsong: I really don’t know, because that answer doesn’t account for radionic effects

Flux: Hmm, maybe it’s a specific limitation of the construct approach?

Rainsong: Could be

Flux: Maybe they aren’t so external?

Rainsong: They often aren’t.

Rainsong: But also, sometimes there’s simply insufficient data.

Rainsong: If you’ve never done computer animation before (using it as an example, because it’s something I’m working on), and were doing it by trial and error, you’re probably not going to get a nice realistic horse canter on your first try.

Rainsong: Or your tenth…

Flux: I often find it hard to debug this stuff.

Rainsong: Likewise, if you’re trying to pour vodka from trial and error, and don’t quite have the right “code” for “lift and tilt” it may not work quite as planned

Flux: Find the right code seems to be an issue.

Rainsong: Yep.

Flux: Or producing enough oomph.

Rainsong: And for people who visualize well, visualising the desired end-result is often the most effective approach. Not always the most elegant or the most efficient, granted, but pretty effective.

Rainsong: It’s not as easy a skill as it sounds, however. So many people have to use other approaches

Rainsong: Sufficient oomph is also an issue, especially with large scale effects.

Rainsong: The more efficient you are, the less oomph is needed. πŸ˜€

Rainsong: Another issue that can cause difficulty is “state of mind.”

Rainsong: There’s more than one mental state that’s conducive to pk, and a few that seem to work well for perceptive abilities.

Rainsong: Often, they seem not to be the same states.

Flux: That matches with my experiences. The state of mind stuff.

Rainsong: For both, though, “hmm. I’m probably going to mess this up because someone is watching me” is counterproductive. Because you’ve added a line of code there telling it not to work

Flux: Could you not add a line that says, ignore the lines that would impede the working of this construct?

Rainsong: Continuing the computer analogy, there seems to be more than one “operating system” for humans attempting psionics, too, so sometimes even directily copying the code from someone else doesn’t result in being able to duplicate an effect

Flux: That’s been my experience too.

Rainsong: Sure, as long as you can arrange it so it doesn’t have any negative grammatical constructions.

Rainsong: Because negative grammatical constructions will be ignored. Just as they tend to be in hypnosis

Flux: I haven’t had the same issues with negative grammatical constructions that I seem to read about. It might be a factor, but I haven’t noticed it so far.

Rainsong: For your suggested line there, I’d simply adjust it to “Ignore any….” So it doesn’t spin itself out looking for a line that may not be there.

Rainsong: The subconscious can be weird that way. Very literal

Rainsong: In any case, that’d be worth a try

Flux: That makes sense. Like, what if there isn’t anything to find… and then it spins.

Flux: Creating constructs isn’t very time consuming, so I’ll give it a go on some of the constructs that I’ve had issues with.

Chirotractor: just a comment on micro pk I’m sure I’ve mentioned before

Flux: Go for it. I want to hear it.

Rainsong: Of course.

Chirotractor: but I imagine it can bite you in the butt since it tends to make things conform more to your expectations

Chirotractor: I noticed it in RNGs in games. I tend to have better luck if I think that’s what ‘should’ happen in a narrative sense

Chirotractor: For example in that new sekiro game there’s a death penalty that’s sometimes waived. I’ve been playing with a broken controller and nearly every death caused directly by my controller messing up has triggered the waiver.

Rainsong: Good point

Flux: Okay, so like, go with a feeling of this is the way it’s suppose to go–I can see that helping in a lot of instances.

Rainsong: If negative constructions work for you, run with it. I’d be remiss as an instructor if I didn’t point out something that’s a common problem that trips up a lot of people, however

Flux: I often mention it when teaching someone about constructs and such.

Flux: It seems to affect a lot of people.

Flux: But I think it’s also true that thinking you can’t do a thing doesn’t often translate to I can do a thing.

Chirotractor: Th PK-party effect

Rainsong: Not just in psionics: watch how much the “Math is hard” concept gets in the way of even basic Arithmatic; walk across a board on the ground, and then try the same thing again with the same board balanced between two windows twenty storeys up…

Rainsong: And, as Chiro mentioned, the PK-party effect is the counter-example

Flux: What’s the pk-party effect?

Rainsong: Getting a bunch of people together to bend forks or sprout seeds, and getting them all excited and yelling “Bend! Bend! Bend!” makes for some pretty impressive b=numbers of successes on people’s first try. And once one person gets a bend in their fork, lots of other people start getting bends.

Rainsong: It’s even been observed in the audiences of TV shows showing bending of forks (Mr. Uri Gellar), seemingly independent of whether the guy demonstrating it was doing it for real that time

Rainsong: Of course, your spouse might think you’ve gone off the deep end if you’re sitting there yelling “roll, roll, roll” at the pop can on the table.

Rainsong: On the other hand, a buddy of mine always got her best PK effects when cursing in Swedish at the object she was affecting

Rainsong: And no, she isn’t Swedish herself. Knows perhaps a hundred words in the language, and easily half of those are rude

Flux: Hah!

Rainsong: Sooo, it might be worth a few minutes with Google Translate πŸ˜‰

Flux: I mean, I can do that. It’s not a very difficult thing to do. Also, I’ll feel like a D&D wizard spouting word of power. πŸ˜‰

ceahhettan: Evening folks.

Rainsong: Hi, Ceah

ceahhettan: Reading up, one moment.

Flux: Hello.

Rainsong: Flux: And feeling like a D&D wizard spouting words of power is a fun bonus, right?

ceahhettan: I never did manage rain in Death Valley, lol.

Rainsong: Let me know if you need help figuring the pronunciation. I’m not fluent by any means, but I speak it a little

ceahhettan: (I did, I think, nudge some rain into other parts of the Mojave, but never that part.)

ceahhettan: (Nor was that a solitary effort, though.)

Rainsong: Most of the Mojave is drier, on average, than Nova Scotia, though, I think.

ceahhettan: Much drier.

Rainsong: I mean, sometimes it rains here when it’s sunny

Rainsong: We have no dry season

Flux: It is a nice bonus. And that’s for the offer. πŸ™‚

ceahhettan: Lol. of course, right now I’m so tired from work I’d be surprised if I could manage to hold a construct together more than a few minutes.

ceahhettan: Interestingly I have no problem making things permanent when I’m not tired.

Rainsong: Doing non-emergency psionic stuff when overtired is asking for trouble. Medical and otherwise

Rainsong: Why risk it?

ceahhettan: True.

ceahhettan: I mean usually because I’m bored.

ceahhettan: But I do lots of stupid things because I’m bored.




ceahhettan: I don’t think I’m going to be trying this experiment of running 7/10 again. I like 8/8.75 a LOT more.

Rainsong: Not sure what that means?

Rainsong: Hmm. Seems we’ve hit a pause in the conversation.

Rainsong: Any further questions or comments?

Flux: Sorry. Have to wear funny glasses right now, and I keep taking them off to rest.

Flux: But no, no further comments or questions. Thanks for the links btw.

Rainsong: Thanks for participating, everyone πŸ™‚

Flux: Thanks for doing another lecture.

Rainsong: πŸ™‚

Comments are closed.