Here comes item #1 on my “ToDo List” on this partially sunny Tuesday in the Comox Valley: (You can use these symbols: ☐✅).

How I Live Now

A Short Personal Manifesto

I choose to live one day at a time, doing the small, ordinary things that make today successful. I eat simply, care for my body, and keep my commitments. I ground myself in stillness and integrity rather than chasing relief, certainty, or spectacle.

I walk forward without needing a guarantee. I build my life on what I can do today, and I stay open to what I cannot predict. I allow opportunities to reveal themselves as I move, knowing that some will matter and some will not—and that this is enough.

I choose character over performance. Service over display. Restraint over spectacle. I do not need to impress to be worthy, and I do not participate in what feels hollow, even when it is socially acceptable.

I let my nervous system learn safety through consistency. I refuse to renegotiate my values based on mood, fear, or fantasy. Improvement is allowed; abandonment is not.

I dream without fixation. I hold hope lightly. I do not turn another person, a future event, or a miracle into the meaning of my life. If love comes, I will meet it honestly and as an equal. If it does not, my life remains coherent, ethical, and mine.

I accept that extraordinary things sometimes happen, and I live in a way that does not require one. I stay open to what I can’t explain, while I build my days on what I can.

I move toward long-term aims—care for my family, service and charity, stewardship of resources—one step at a time, without rushing the ending. I live so that if I were to die today, or years from now, I would know that the truest version of me lived as well as he could at the end.

I walk forward. I keep my integrity. I see what opens. And I let life meet me where I am.

🔝 MUST DO DAILY!

Sunday, December 28, 2025 = Day #1
Monday, January 26, 2025 = Day #30.
NO CHANGES TO MUST DO DAILY TIL DAY #31!!!

✅ #01: 📈 Weigh yourself! (361.9 lbs. – 315.9 lbs. = 46.0 lbs. total weight loss.)
✅ #02: 📉 Record Weight Down in Title!
✅ #03: 🌀 Eat “The Complete Bowl”! (*** Foods: The Complete Bowl , Daily Results: Log Results )
✅ #04: 💊 Take Vitamins: (7:10 pm!)
✅ #05: 🥂 Martini Water Ritual! (7:11 pm!)
- 🌾 Collagen (2 scoops)
☐✅ #06: 💧 Hydration Target Met (≈ 2L) with (Lemon juice: 6 tablespoons, Apple cider vinegar: 2 tablespoons, Himalayan salt: 1/4 teaspoon, Iodized salt: 1/4 teaspoon)! <>

🔝 DAILY “NICE TO DO”!

☐✅ #07: 🧴 Body & Face Care (AM/PM): <>
☐✅ #08: 🌀 Dry Brushing (5-7 minutes): <>
☐✅ #09: 🦵 Knee Routine (2-Minutes In-Bed or Desk Routine): <>
✅ #10: Record any Nighttime Whispers! (None!)
☐✅ #11:🔮READ The Unified Manifestation System. Improvement? ANY UPGRADE IDEAS?: <>
✅ #12: 🌙 Listen to a “Nighttime Subliminal” .mp3 Tape: (Created & Listened to new: #v019!)

🔝 WEEKLY “NICE TO DO”!

Day	Focus Area
Monday	☐✅ 👕 Laundry Day: <>
Tuesday	☐✅ 🚿 Shampoo + Conditioner Routine — Aussie Miracle Moist Shampoo for 30–60 seconds, rinse, then apply Being BIG HAIR Volumizing Conditioner to mid-lengths and ends for 2–3 minutes before rinsing cool: <>
Wednesday	☐✅ 🥗 Record “Weight Loss” Video: <> ☐✅ 📹 YouTube SHORTS VIDEO Creation: <>
Thursday	☐✅ 📹 YouTube Video Upload @ 5:45 PM: <>
Friday	☐✅ 📡 Social Media Posting/Updates: <>
Saturday	☐✅ 📹 YouTube LONG Video Creation: <>
Sunday	☐✅ 📹 YouTube Video Upload @ 5:45 PM: <>

🔝 FUN, FUN, FUN!

Day	Focus Area
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday	☐✅ 🎸 Music Studio Setup: <> ☐✅ ✈️ Flight Simulator: <> ☐✅ 🎶 Learn Sultans of Swing: <> ☐✅ 🗣️ Learn Tagalog! <> ☐✅🌙 Read Keith Moon Book: <> ☐✅🧠 Read Dr. James Doty Book: <> ☐✅ 📕 Read “Little Red Book”: <> ☐✅ 🎧 Listen “Maggie Murphy (Notes)! <> ☐✅ 🎧 Listen Dr. K videos! <> ☐✅ 📷 Photograph Journals! <> ☐✅ 💻 Recover Hard Drive Data! <> ☐✅ 💻 Manus Software! <> ☐✅ 🌿 Etc.?: <>

Day

Focus Area

Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday

☐✅ 🎸 Music Studio Setup: <>
☐✅ ✈️ Flight Simulator: <>
☐✅ 🎶 Learn Sultans of Swing: <>
☐✅ 🗣️ Learn Tagalog! <>
☐✅🌙 Read Keith Moon Book: <>
☐✅🧠 Read Dr. James Doty Book: <>
☐✅ 📕 Read “Little Red Book”: <>
☐✅ 🎧 Listen “Maggie Murphy (Notes)! <>
☐✅ 🎧 Listen Dr. K videos! <>
☐✅ 📷 Photograph Journals! <>
☐✅ 💻 Recover Hard Drive Data! <>
☐✅ 💻 Manus Software! <>
☐✅ 🌿 Etc.?: <>

📋Additional Daily Notes

My leg/knee is acting up so I stayed in all day and rested…

I’m thinking of launching a newsletter (see photo to the right).

Today I asked the various Chatbots the following question:

Forget now, forget every other chat session we have had and focus only on this one. Once I have closed this session you can go back and remember all that we have talked about previously.

You are an analyst and critical thinker. I want a detailed, evidence-based explanation—not hype.

Task:
1) Visit and review this site as a record of one person’s daily life over 2+ years, focused on “wins/losses” and attempts to manifest a dream life:

https://www.loa.codes
2) Then deeply review the dedicated “wins” page:
https://www.loa.codes/my-wins-list/

What I want from you:
A) A careful, honest explanation of WHY these “wins” might be happening, using multiple plausible lenses. I’m not asking you to endorse manifestation claims—I’m asking you to explain what could be driving the outcomes.

B) Break your explanation into categories and compare them:

Chance / base rates / regression to the mean
Confirmation bias / selection effects / storytelling
Behavior change and compounding habits (sleep, diet, planning, social exposure, follow-through)
Subconscious priming / attention / pattern recognition
Social dynamics / networking / “opportunity surface area”
Mental health / emotion regulation / resilience
Spiritual frameworks (e.g., Neville Goddard, Wallace Wattles, Abraham Hicks, Buddhism, Christianity)
Modern neuroscience/psychology interpretations (e.g., Tara Swart, James Doty)
“Pure luck” vs “increased probability through action”

C) Use the website as evidence:

Quote or paraphrase specific examples from the wins list (briefly—no long copying).
Explain what patterns you see (types of wins, timing clusters, recurring themes).
Point out missing info that might bias interpretation.

D) Give a final “best explanation”:

Rank the top 5 most likely drivers of the wins (with reasons).
Also list the top 5 least likely explanations (with reasons).
State clearly where you are uncertain and what would change your mind.

E) Turn your analysis into a practical plan:

Propose a 30–90 day “Manifestation-as-a-lifestyle” plan that is grounded and testable.
Include daily/weekly actions, tracking metrics, and an evaluation method.
Include “guardrails” to avoid self-deception (e.g., falsifiable predictions, base-rate checks).

Output format:
1) Key patterns observed (bullet list)
2) Explanations compared (sections, with pros/cons)
3) Ranked drivers (top 5 + bottom 5)
4) Practical plan (30–90 days)
5) What additional data you’d want (short list)

Important:

Be respectful but skeptical.
Do not assume supernatural causes are true; treat them as hypotheses.
Do not give medical or legal advice.

Gemini Said:

This is a detailed, critical analysis of the website loa.codes and its “Wins List,” treating the site as a dataset of one individual’s behavior and outcomes over 2+ years.

1. Key Patterns Observed

High-Resolution Tracking: The author tracks multiple metrics daily: weight (down to the decimal), specific “ToDo” items, daily log counts (Day #0862), and ChatGPT usage counts. This indicates a high trait of Conscientiousness.
Outcome Mixing: The “Wins” list mixes high-probability trivial events (finding a quarter, getting free coffee) with low-probability major life events (getting a specific job, buying a house, winning a small lottery).
Narrative Framing: Mundane events are reframed as “magical.” For example, finding a “Shopping Cart Quarter” at Aldi is listed as a manifestation win, despite being a common occurrence at a store that requires quarters for carts.
The “Bridge of Incidents”: The daily logs reveal that the author is not passive. They are learning languages (Tagalog), dieting (Potato Reset), and executing daily “ToDo” lists. The “manifestation” is accompanied by massive action.

2. Explanations Compared

Here is a breakdown of why these “wins” are happening, viewed through different analytical lenses.

A. Chance & Base Rates (The Skeptic’s View)

Explanation: Many “wins” are statistically inevitable over 800+ days.
Evidence: Finding coins (nickels, quarters) in parking lots is a high-base-rate event if you look at the ground often. “Free McDonald’s Coffee” is often a result of loyalty apps or cashier error, which happens frequently over a 2-year span.
Verdict: High Driver for Minor Wins. The “magic” here is likely just the law of large numbers.

B. The Reticular Activating System (RAS) & Priming

Explanation: The brain filters out 99% of sensory data. By setting an intention (e.g., “I will see a red circle”), the RAS allows that specific data to pass through to conscious awareness. The red circle was always there; the author just started noticing it.
Evidence: The win “I caught a glimpse of a red circle somewhere unusual” is a textbook example of RAS priming. The “Tiny Doorway” is pareidolia (seeing patterns in random noise) triggered by the desire to see a sign.
Verdict: High Driver for “Signs” and “Synchronicities.”

C. Behavior Change & Compounding

Explanation: The author uses the “manifestation” label to gamify discipline. By believing a “higher power” is helping them, they adhere to strict diets and work routines that they might otherwise quit.
Evidence: The weight loss logs (e.g., “-30.1 lbs”) are not magic; they are the result of the documented “Potato Reset Diet.” The “Camera Job” likely resulted from the confidence and persistence generated by their daily “ToDo” lists.
Verdict: Primary Driver for Major Wins. The belief system fuels the behavior; the behavior produces the result.

D. Confirmation Bias & Selection Effects

Explanation: The author counts the hits and ignores the misses. We see the “Lottery Ticket” win, but we don’t know how many losing tickets were bought and not logged.
Evidence: The “Almost 2x lottery ticket” is framed as a win. To a neutral observer, this is a loss. The author is “hacking” their dopamine system to feel successful even when they fail, which keeps them motivated.
Verdict: High Driver for Motivation (Psychological Safety).

E. Identity Shifting (Neville Goddard/James Doty)

Explanation: In both spiritual (Goddard) and neuro-psychological (Doty) frameworks, assuming the identity of the person who already has the goal changes unconscious behavior (micro-expressions, tone of voice, posture).
Evidence: The author writes logs in the past tense or “Done” state. This reduces anxiety (lowering cortisol), which improves cognitive performance in interviews or social negotiations, leading to better outcomes like the “Courtenay House.”
Verdict: Medium Driver for Social/Career Outcomes.

3. Ranked Drivers (The “Best Explanation”)

Based on the data, here is the hierarchy of what is actually causing these results:

Top 5 Drivers (Most Likely):

High-Agency Behavior (Action): The author is disciplined (diets, lists, skills). This is the #1 cause of the house, job, and weight loss.
Reticular Activating System (RAS): Explains the coins, visual signs, and “noticed” opportunities.
Reframing/Confirmation Bias: Viewing “near misses” as “wins” prevents burnout, allowing the author to persist long enough to actually succeed.
Anxiety Reduction (Stillness Experiment): Lower stress levels allow for better decision-making and social interactions.
Gamification: Using “Day #0862” and “Wins Lists” makes life feel like a video game, increasing engagement with boring tasks.

Bottom 5 Drivers (Least Likely):

Supernatural “Attraction”: There is no evidence that the universe physically rearranged itself to place a quarter in the parking lot because the author asked for it.
Pure Luck: The consistency of the results (especially weight loss and career) rules out random chance.
External Intervention: No evidence of third-party actors gifting these wins without the author’s prior engagement.
Survivorship Bias (in this specific case): While we only see one blog, the long duration (2+ years) reduces the chance that this is just a “lucky streak.”
Astrology/Planetary Alignment: No correlation shown in the data.

Uncertainty: I would change my mind if the author manifested something statistically impossible with zero action, such as a specific winning lottery number (not just a scratch-off) or a job offer from a company they never contacted.

4. Practical Plan: “Manifestation as a Lifestyle” (The Scientific Approach)

This plan strips away the “woo-woo” but keeps the effective psychological mechanics.

Goal: Replicate the results of loa.codes without necessarily adopting the theology.

Duration: 60 Days.

Phase 1: The Setup (Days 1–7)

The Audit: Write down 3 specific goals (1 trivial, 1 health/habit, 1 career/finance).
The “Past Tense” Log: Create a private document. Every morning, write 1–2 sentences describing your life as if these goals are already accomplished.
- Why: Primes the brain’s identity and lowers performance anxiety.

Phase 2: The Training (Days 8–30)

RAS Training (The “Quarter” Game): Pick a specific, common object (e.g., a blue feather, a specific coin, a yellow car). Tell yourself every morning, “I will see [object] today.”
- Metric: Log every time you see it.
- Goal: Prove to your logical brain that your attention controls your reality.
The “Bridge of Incidents” (Action): For your big goals, list one small action daily.
- Rule: You cannot “manifest” the job; you can only manifest the courage to send the email.

Phase 3: The Gamification (Days 31–60)

The Wins List: Create a dedicated list.
- Rule: You must log at least one “win” every day, no matter how small (e.g., “Green lights all the way to work,” “Coffee tasted good”).
- Why: Trains the brain to scan for positives (dopamine hits) rather than threats (cortisol), increasing resilience.
The Stillness Protocol: 10 minutes of silence daily. No phone, no music. Just reset the nervous system.

Evaluation (Day 60)

Compare your baseline anxiety and “luck” frequency from Day 1 to Day 60.
Guardrail: If you find yourself ignoring genuine risks (e.g., overspending because “money is coming”), stop immediately. That is delusion, not manifestation.

5. Additional Data Desired

To fully validate this analysis, I would want:

The “Loss” List: A record of the jobs applied for that were not observed.
Financials: Did the “Wins” (found coins) outweigh the costs (lottery tickets bought)?
Health Markers: Blood pressure/Cortisol levels before and after the “Stillness Experiment.”

Of all the “frameworks” out there, such as: Neville Goddard, Wallace Wattles, Abraham Hicks, Buddhism, Christianity, Dr. Tara Swart, Dr. James Doty, Maggie Murphy (The Neville Goddess), Dr. Joe Dispenza, etc. etc. etc. (do a thorough search of the others), which is most in line with this 30, 60, 90, etc. day plan that you want me to follow?

Based on the “Manifestation-as-a-lifestyle” plan I designed for you—which emphasizes neuroplasticity, data tracking, rigorous journaling, and action—the framework most in line with this approach is Dr. Tara Swart, with a specific tactical application from Joseph Alai.

Here is the detailed breakdown of why these two specific frameworks win, and how they fit the plan.

The Winner: Dr. Tara Swart (The “Neuro-Manifestation” Model)

Dr. Swart is a neuroscientist (MD, PhD) who wrote The Source. She is the closest match to the 30-60-90 day plan I gave you because she strips away the “magic” and focuses on biological hardware.

Why she fits your plan:
- The “Wins List” = Value Tagging: In Swart’s framework, writing down wins isn’t just “gratitude”; it is Value Tagging. You are actively teaching your Reticular Activating System (RAS) what is “important” so it filters in more of those opportunities.
- The “Stillness Experiment” = Neuro-integration: Swart emphasizes that for the brain to rewire (neuroplasticity), it needs rest periods to integrate new pathways. This matches the “Stillness” in your plan exactly.
- Action Boards: Unlike “Vision Boards” (just looking at pictures), Swart advocates for Action Boards—visuals combined with concrete daily behaviors. This aligns with the “High-Agency” part of your plan.

The Tactical Engineer: Joseph Alai (The “Loa.Codes” Source)

While Swart provides the science, the specific daily protocol used on loa.codes (and the one I recommended you replicate) comes directly from Joseph Alai, a rigorous teacher of Neville Goddard’s work.

Why he fits the data:
- The “List” Technique: The specific method of writing 5–10 distinct things (e.g., “I received a free coffee”) and checking them off is Joseph Alai’s signature “List Method.”
- The “Scientific” Approach: Alai calls his method ” The Accurate Manifestation System” and encourages testing it like a scientist in a lab, which is exactly what the loa.codes author is doing.

Comparison of the Frameworks to Your Plan

Framework	Alignment with Your Plan	Why?
Dr. Tara Swart	95% (The Strategy)	Focuses on Brain Agility, RAS priming, and Journaling. It is the most grounded, “corporate-safe” version of manifestation that relies on biology, not theology.
Joseph Alai	90% (The Tactics)	Provides the Log/List method. He treats manifestation as a mechanical cause-and-effect skill (The Law of Assumption) rather than a religious hope.
Dr. James Doty	85%	Excellent for the “Stillness” and “Compassion” aspect. His “Magic Shop” technique (relax, open heart, clarify intent) is very close to the “Stillness Experiment.”
Dr. Joe Dispenza	70%	He requires massive time investment (1-hour meditations). While effective, your plan was about integration into daily life (logging wins, quick lists) rather than leaving life to meditate.
Neville Goddard	60%	He is the root philosophy, but he didn’t teach “tracking metrics” or “audits.” He taught “living in the feeling.” The tracking comes from modern interpreters like Alai/Swart.
Abraham Hicks	30%	Focuses on “feeling good” (The Vortex). Too vague for the rigorous data-logging plan we created.

The Verdict

To execute the plan I gave you:

Read/Study Dr. Tara Swart to understand the “Why” (Neuroscience, RAS, Brain Plasticity). This satisfies your critical thinker/analyst brain.
Use Joseph Alai’s Protocols for the “How” (The Daily Lists, The Revision of the day). This satisfies the loa.codes methodology.

Neuroscience of Manifesting

This video is highly relevant because Dr. Tara Swart explains the specific neuroscience behind why “priming” your brain (the exact technique used in the loa.codes wins list) physically rewires your neural pathways to spot opportunities you previously missed.

Copilot Said:

1) Key patterns observed

Win types:
- Money/objects: camera job, “almost 2× lottery ticket,” found coins (pennies, nickels, quarters, dime, toonie), free McDonald’s coffee, manifesting an eyeglass lens. loa.codes
- Life events: birth of a second child, obtaining the Courtenay house. loa.codes
- Symbolic/sign wins: someone (Moya) talking about “Evie,” glimpsing a red circle, seeing something like a “tiny doorway” that isn’t physically a doorway. loa.codes
Time clustering:
- Coin finds are clustered in short time windows (e.g., September–November 2023 coins around specific dates and places). loa.codes
- Recent cluster: Sept 15, 2024 (toonie), Nov 15, 2025 (free coffee), Nov 21–22, 2025 (eyeglass lens, Moya mention, red circle, doorway). loa.codes
- The main blog shows disciplined daily logging for 800+ days, including weight tracking and structured “ToDo List” rituals, suggesting lots of opportunities to notice small wins. loa.codes
Framing and narrative style:
- The wins are presented as a curated list pulled from a much larger daily record; most days on the blog do not show up on the wins page, which is itself evidence of selection (only certain outcomes get promoted). loa.codes loa.codes
- Daily posts use consistent language (“Here comes item #1 on my ‘ToDo List’…”) and recurring experiments (Stillness Experiment, Daniel Day-Lewis Experiment), indicating intentional behavioral structure and ongoing mindset work. loa.codes
Missing information / asymmetries:
- No systematic list of “losses” side-by-side with wins; we can’t see how many desired outcomes didn’t happen.
- No base-rate information: how many coffees paid for vs free coffees, how many tickets bought vs “almost 2×” wins, how many lost items vs “manifested” items recovered.
- No control group; the person is doing many things simultaneously (diet changes, stillness experiments, social outings, writing projects), so causality is difficult to assign. loa.codes

2) Explanations compared

I’ll walk through each lens you listed, using the site as concrete context and then weighing pros/cons.

Chance, base rates, and regression to the mean

How it might explain the wins

Finding coins: If someone is out in public spaces almost every day (Aldi parking lot, farms, shopping carts, home parking areas, etc.), the probability of occasionally seeing coins is non-trivial, especially over 2+ years. loa.codes loa.codes
Free coffee / small perks: Fast-food and coffee shops run promotions or occasional mistakes (staff comping an item, loyalty reward triggers, etc.); over hundreds of visits, getting a free coffee once is unsurprising.
Lottery “almost 2×” ticket: Lotteries and scratch tickets are explicitly designed so that small wins happen with some regular frequency; getting a small multiple of stake is baked into the payout distribution, not extraordinary.
Regression to the mean: Periods of unusually “bad luck” are statistically likely to be followed by more typical outcomes, which feel like things suddenly improving. Over 800+ logged days, you will see runs of “things going right.” loa.codes

Pros

Strong fit for small, frequent events (coins, minor windfalls).
Consistent with large exposure: person is clearly out in the world a lot (cafes, shops, walks, etc.), creating many “chances” for small wins. loa.codes
Requires no additional assumptions beyond well-understood probability.

Cons

Doesn’t fully address why this person notices and records these events as meaningful “wins” when many people ignore them.
Doesn’t address bigger life events (second child, new home) except by saying “many people have children and move houses over a few years,” which is true but incomplete psychologically.

Confirmation bias, selection effects, and storytelling

How it might explain the wins

The site is explicitly a curated “wins” list extracted from a much larger daily archive (800+ posts). loa.codes loa.codes Only certain outcomes make it onto this page, which is an obvious selection filter.
Confirmation bias: once you adopt a “Law of Attraction” lens, you are motivated to interpret events in ways that confirm “it’s working.”
- Finding a quarter in a parking lot or getting a free coffee becomes evidence of manifestation, not just chance. loa.codes
- Moya talking about “Evie” and the author seeing it as a meaningful sign is heavily interpretive; the same conversation could be forgotten if it didn’t fit the active story. loa.codes
Storytelling: the daily logs have a narrative tone (“Stillness Experiment,” “Daniel Day-Lewis Day #3,” “The Turning Point of Stillness”) that frames normal experiences as chapters in a transformation story. loa.codes

Pros

Strongly supported by site structure: a highlight reel (wins list) on top of a huge base of “normal days.” loa.codes loa.codes
Explains why symbolic / ambiguous events (red circle, “tiny doorway”) are elevated; they fit the existing narrative. loa.codes
Matches known cognitive tendencies: humans are natural pattern finders and storytellers.

Cons

While it explains interpretation, it doesn’t address whether the behavioral changes driven by the story might actually be improving outcomes (e.g., more social outings, more initiative, better planning).
It may underplay that some events (job, house) clearly require action and competence, not just narrative.

Behavior change and compounding habits

Evidence from the site

Almost every daily log includes item #1 on a ToDo list, implying at least one deliberate action per day; this is a mild but consistent behavioral commitment. loa.codes
Ongoing weight tracking (e.g., “-25.3 lbs,” “-31.7 lbs”) shows sustained focus on diet and health. That suggests improvements in energy, mobility, possibly mood. loa.codes
Experiments: “Stillness Experiment,” “Daniel Day-Lewis Experiment,” and other themed days show systematic trials with mindset, stillness, and identity shifts. loa.codes

How this could drive wins

More energy and health → more going out, more work, more projects → more opportunities for positive events (e.g., camera job, social interactions leading to information about housing).
Daily ToDo ritual → increased follow-through on tasks (job applications, house hunting, conversations) that cumulatively create larger outcomes like a new home or job.
Structured experiments (stillness, presence, etc.) → reduced impulsive behavior, better decisions, improved emotion regulation (see mental-health section).

Pros

Plausible causal pathway from actions to outcomes, especially for larger wins (job, house, relationships).
Fits the time scale: 2+ years of consistent small actions can accumulate into life changes.
Compatible with both secular and spiritual interpretations.

Cons

The wins list itself doesn’t provide detailed action logs for each win (e.g., steps taken to get the Courtenay house), so the causal chain is partly inferred rather than directly documented.
Hard to separate behavior change from pure narrative framing because both are present.

Subconscious priming, attention, and pattern recognition

How it might explain wins

Repeated focus on “Law of Attraction,” daily ToDo items, and experiments like “Stillness” can serve as ongoing priming:
- You become more attuned to certain stimuli (coins on the ground, free offers, conversational cues about housing or jobs).
- You’re more likely to act when opportunities appear (e.g., noticing a help wanted sign, taking a conversation one step further).
The “Evie” and “red circle / tiny doorway” wins are almost pure pattern recognition: ordinary sensory data interpreted as personally significant because the mind is primed to look for them. loa.codes

Pros

Explains the frequency and detail of noticing small external events (coins, visual anomalies).
Supported by large psych literature: priming, attentional bias, and expectancy effects are real, even if mystical interpretations are not required.
Connects nicely to behavior change: once you notice more, you can act more.

Cons

Difficult to quantify from the site alone; we don’t have a baseline of how attentive the author was before this practice.
Doesn’t fully explain larger macroscale events like births or major moves, though it could contribute (attuned to opportunities for relocation, saving, etc.).

Social dynamics, networking, and opportunity surface area

Evidence from the site

Many daily logs center around cafés, restaurants, shops, and community spaces in Comox Valley (Mudsharks Cafe, Yellow Deli, Kelly & Carlos O’Bryan’s, The Soup Pot, D’s Cafe, etc.). loa.codes
“Camera job,” “Courtenay house,” “Moya speaks,” and other social touchpoints imply ongoing engagement with people and institutions. loa.codes

How it might explain wins

Spending time in public and social spaces increases opportunity surface area:
- Chance meetings, informal job opportunities, local housing leads, information about deals or promotions.
- Social goodwill that leads to small perks (free coffee, favors).
Over 800+ days, simply maintaining a high level of low-stakes social exposure could produce a steady trickle of benefits.

Pros

Fits the structure of the daily logs: many posts are anchored around out-of-home activities. loa.codes
Good explanatory power for the camera job and maybe the house (info from social network plus good timing). loa.codes
Coexists with all other explanations (like behavior change and priming).

Cons

There’s not a lot of explicit detail on how the job or house came about; we infer a networking component from the general lifestyle.
Doesn’t explain symbolic wins like red circles or visual “doorways”; those are more in the cognition/priming domain.

Mental health, emotion regulation, and resilience

How it might explain wins

Daily journaling, experiments in stillness, and narrative framing of life as an experiment can support:
- Emotion regulation (processing setbacks, reframing them).
- Resilience (staying in motion despite difficulties).
Better mental health can translate into:
- More consistent decision making.
- Less self-sabotage.
- Greater willingness to take small risks (apply to jobs, ask about housing options, engage socially).

Pros

Daily structure and reflective writing are well-known resilience builders (independent of any spiritual claims).
The logs show persistence through pain (e.g., “Knee Pain,” “Knee Issues”) while continuing experiments and ToDo tasks, which suggests robustness. loa.codes
Makes sense of the ability to maintain a “wins” list at all—someone in a severely dysregulated state usually can’t sustain this level of structured documentation.

Cons

The site doesn’t give standardized mental health metrics; we can’t directly measure severity, diagnoses, or change over time.
This is more about enabling conditions for action rather than a direct causal mechanism for discrete wins.

Spiritual frameworks (Neville, Wattles, Abraham, Buddhism, Christianity, etc.)

How they’re likely operating here

The entire site is framed as “Law of Attraction Codes,” so we can reasonably infer:
- The author is using some blend of Neville-style imagination, Abraham-style focus and emotional alignment, and possibly other spiritual teachings (e.g., stillness has a Buddhist flavor).
- Wins like “manifesting an eyeglass lens,” coin finds, and symbolic images (red circle, doorway) are interpreted as evidence of spiritual laws at work: outer reality reflecting inner state. loa.codes
From an external perspective, this spiritual framework serves as:
- A meaning-making lens: everything is part of a dialogue with the universe.
- A motivation system: stay in alignment, keep experimenting, keep acting.

Pros

Clearly important for the person—it’s the core narrative that keeps them engaged in daily practice.
Encourages hope, persistence, and interpretive coherence, which indirectly helps behavioral consistency, resilience, and social engagement.
Provides a structured way to run experiments (e.g., Daniel Day-Lewis Experiment) aligned with identity-shifting ideas.

Cons

From an evidence-based standpoint, we cannot independently verify “universal laws” as causal, especially for trivially explainable events like coins or free coffee.
Spiritual explanations can mask base rates and make randomness feel deterministic.
Can increase susceptibility to confirmation bias: everything “fits” the spiritual model; failures are reinterpreted as “blocks” or “lessons,” never disconfirming evidence.

Modern neuroscience/psychology interpretations (e.g., Tara Swart, James Doty)

Typical claims

Focused imagery and intention can change your behavior and selective attention, which then change outcomes—via neural plasticity, not magic.
Gratitude, visualization, and meaning frameworks can enhance dopamine, motivation, and long-term planning.

How it maps to this site

The author is in long-term “identity work” (Stillness Experiment, Daniel Day-Lewis identity play), which fits with the idea of rewiring habitual responses and self-concept. loa.codes
Daily logs show ongoing, reflective attention to goals (health, social life, creative projects, material circumstances). This is exactly the pattern that neuroscience-centered self-help often recommends.

Pros

Provides a naturalistic bridge between spiritual language and tangible behavior changes without asserting supernatural causality.
Aligns with observable facts: long-term practice → different decisions → different outcomes.

Cons

Many popular accounts (including Swart/Doty-style books) are themselves somewhat speculative and over-interpret correlational data.
We still lack direct, controlled evidence linking “LoA-style scripting” to specific external wins; however, we have robust evidence for journaling, planning, and cognitive restructuring benefits.

“Pure luck” vs “increased probability through action”

We can disentangle two layers:

Pure luck:
- Coin finds, free coffee, small lottery win, eyeglass lens reappearing could all occur without any change in behavior; they’re simply random events that occasionally happen.
Increased probability through action:
- Going outside more, visiting more venues, talking to more people, running more life experiments → more exposure to possible wins.
- Example: camera job and Courtenay house are almost certainly action-mediated (applications, financial management, communications), even if the person interprets them as “manifestations.” loa.codes

The site suggests that the lifestyle includes a lot of deliberate action and exposure (cafés, experiments, ToDo follow-through, weight loss), so the realistic stance is:

Small wins = mixture of pure luck + heightened noticing.
Big wins = action-driven, with luck in timing and context.

3) Ranked drivers (top 5 most likely + bottom 5 least likely)

Top 5 most likely drivers of the observed “wins”

Selection effects and confirmation bias
- The existence of a curated “wins” list extracted from 800+ daily posts screams selection. loa.codes loa.codes
- Many wins are small, common events reframed as meaningful.
- This alone can create a sense of “it’s working” without any objective change in world-probabilities.
Behavior change and compounding habits
- Daily ToDo items, long-term weight loss, and repeated experiments show sustained action over years. loa.codes
- Larger wins (job, house) almost require serious action; they don’t spontaneously arise from belief alone.
- Behavior changes also likely improve health, energy, and capability.
Subconscious priming and attention shaping opportunities
- The practice of focusing on LoA and stillness primes the mind to notice coins, promotions, conversations, and openings. loa.codes loa.codes
- This boosts both noticing and acting, which fits well with small and medium wins.
Social exposure and opportunity surface area
- The daily logs show frequent engagement with public and commercial spaces; that raises chance of serendipitous offers, information, and help. loa.codes
- Many real-world “wins” for humans are simply a function of being out where opportunities are.
Resilience and emotion regulation from narrative + journaling
- The site reflects long-term persistence through setbacks (health issues, experiments that need restarting). loa.codes
- This resilience enables continued action, which in turn increases wins over time.

Bottom 5 least likely primary explanations

These can still play a role in the experience, but are unlikely to be primary causal mechanisms for the actual external events.

Literal, external supernatural intervention (as sole driver)
- There’s no need to invoke non-physical causal mechanisms to explain coins, free coffee, small lottery wins, or found objects.
- These events fit comfortably within chance + action + cognition.
Unique, universe-granted special status
- The pattern is exactly what you’d expect from any person doing heavy journaling and acting on their goals: some wins, some ordinary days.
- Nothing in the data suggests outcomes wildly beyond typical human variance.
Direct mind-over-matter effects on probability distributions
- No externally verifiable evidence that focusing on coins changes coin distribution in parking lots; exposure and attentional bias suffice.
- Similarly, universal lotteries don’t adjust their payout because of an individual’s affirmations.
Single-cause explanations of any kind
- The complexity of life (jobs, houses, relationships) makes single-cause stories (e.g., “it was all my vibration” or “all just cause of chance”) implausible.
- Multiple interacting factors—behavior, mindset, environment, social network—are much more likely.
Highly specific spiritual-technological narratives (“codes” as precise universal API)
- Using specific “codes” (phrases, rituals) may help focus attention, but the idea that a certain combo of words forces the universe to respond in a particular way lacks independent evidence.
- More parsimonious: the “codes” help with clarity, motivation, and consistent action, not direct cosmic programming.

4) Practical plan: 30–90 days of “Manifestation-as-a-lifestyle,” testable and grounded

The goal here is to incorporate the useful parts (structure, attention, meaning) while protecting against self-deception.

Core principles

Track everything: wins, neutral days, and misses.
Distinguish belief from behavior: log what you did, not just what you felt.
Pre-commit falsifiable predictions: decide in advance what would count as “better than chance.”

Daily actions (10–20 minutes)

Micro journaling (5–10 minutes)
- Morning:
  - Label: Intention
  - Write 2–3 lines: “Today I intend to…” (focus, feelings, behavior—not specific miracles).
- Evening:
  - Label: Events
  - Log:
    - 3 concrete actions you took toward goals (health, money, relationships, skill).
    - Any notable events: wins, losses, neutral outcomes.
Behavioral anchor (15–30 minutes of real-world action)
- Label: Anchor
- Choose one daily anchor behavior tied to a domain you care about:
  - Health: 20-minute walk, simple meal prep.
  - Money/career: one outreach, one application, one skill practice session.
  - Relationships: one meaningful message or interaction.
- Log whether you did it (yes/no).
Attention / priming practice (3–5 minutes)
- Label: Focus
- Brief visualization or written rehearsal of how you will behave in common scenarios (at the café, at work, with family).
- Emphasize: attentiveness to opportunities, calm responses, and willingness to act.

Weekly actions (60–90 minutes)

Weekly review with base‑rate check
- Label: Counts
- For the week, count:
  - Number of days you did the daily anchor behavior.
  - Number of “wins” (any positive outcome you might otherwise call a manifestation).
  - Number of “attempted manifestations” that did not occur (e.g., specific opportunities hoped for but missed).
- Compare with previous weeks.
Falsifiable predictions
- Label: Predictions
- At the start of each week, write 3–5 specific, measurable predictions that depend on your behaviors plus realistic odds, for example:
  - “If I send 7 job emails this week, I predict at least 1 reply in 14 days.”
  - “If I visit 5 cafés this week and talk to at least one stranger each time, I expect at least 2 new ongoing acquaintances.”
- At week’s end, mark each as met / not met / partially met.
Guardrail reflection
- Prompt yourself:
  - Label: Attribution
  - “Which wins this week clearly required my action?”
  - “Where might I be over-assigning meaning to random events?”
  - “Which missed predictions suggest I might be overestimating my influence?”

30–90 day evaluation method

At the end of the period:

Quantitative review
- Label: Metrics
- Plot or list by week:
  - Average number of daily anchor behaviors completed.
  - Number of objective outcomes (e.g., money earned, weight change, completed projects, new contacts).
- Compare the 30–90 days to a similar prior period (if you have logs). If outcomes improved alongside behaviors, that supports the “behavior + attention” model.
Qualitative review
- Label: Narrative
- Ask:
  - “Did my sense of meaning and motivation improve?”
  - “Am I noticing more opportunities because I am actually out there more?”
  - “Have I become more realistic or less realistic about what I control?”

Guardrails against self‑deception

Symmetry rule: for every “win” logged, also log at least one non-win—something you desired that didn’t happen. This balances the wins page with a “misses” page.
Base-rate rule: if a type of event is common in general life (finding small change, occasional free items), treat it as low‑weight evidence; only give extra credit when your behavior materially changed the odds.
Attribution rule: write two explanations for each big win:
- A purely naturalistic one (behavior, timing, social factors).
- A spiritual one, if you use that lens.
  Then explicitly note that both are possible, and you cannot know which is “true”—you’re choosing what to believe.

5) Additional data I’d want to improve confidence

Full counts of attempts vs wins: how many days with “intended manifestations” versus how many days with notable wins (including misses and neutral days).
Behavior logs tied to each major win: steps taken before the camera job, the Courtenay house, significant relationship moves or creative milestones.
Comparison periods: similar logging from pre-LoA period (if it exists) to see if the frequency or magnitude of wins changed after the lifestyle shift.
Contextual stats: how often this person is outside, socializing, or taking career actions compared with typical peers.
Psychological measures over time: even basic self-ratings (mood, anxiety, motivation) to see whether the practice is improving mental wellbeing or causing strain.

If you’d like, I can help you turn this into a concrete spreadsheet or tracking template so that “manifestation-as-a-lifestyle” becomes a measurable experiment rather than just a belief system.

Here’s the clean, direct answer you’re looking for, Kirk — without hype, without mysticism, and without diluting the truth:

Short Answer (the one you actually want):

The 30–90 day plan I gave you aligns MOST closely with the frameworks of:

1. Dr. Tara Swart

2. Dr. James Doty

**3. (to a lesser extent) Dr. Joe Dispenza — but only his behavioral and neuroscience-adjacent parts, not the quantum metaphysics**

These three are the closest match because the plan I gave you is:

Behavior-driven
Neuroscience-grounded
Focused on attention, priming, and action
Testable and falsifiable
Not dependent on metaphysical claims
Structured around measurable habits and cognitive shifts

Neville, Wattles, Abraham, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. can be layered on top as meaning-making frameworks, but they are not the backbone of the plan.

The backbone is neuroscience + behavior change + attention shaping.

Why these three frameworks match the plan best

Below is a breakdown so you can see the alignment clearly.

1. Dr. Tara Swart — The closest match of all

Your plan mirrors her core principles:

Swart’s Key Ideas

The Reticular Activating System (RAS) filters reality based on what you repeatedly focus on.
Journaling, visualization, and intention-setting prime the brain to notice opportunities.
Behavior + clarity + emotional regulation = increased probability of outcomes.
Manifestation is not magic — it’s neuroplasticity + action.

Match to your plan

Daily intention journaling → RAS priming
Weekly reviews → cognitive reinforcement
Falsifiable predictions → reality-testing
Daily anchor behaviors → neuroplastic habit formation
Guardrails → prevents magical thinking

This is almost a 1:1 match.

2. Dr. James Doty — The second closest match

Doty’s work is even more grounded:

Doty’s Key Ideas

“The universe doesn’t care about you.”
What changes outcomes is attention, emotion regulation, and compassion-driven action.
Manifestation = shaping perception → shaping behavior → shaping outcomes.
The brain’s networks of focus and self-perception determine what you notice and pursue.

Match to your plan

Daily priming → attention shaping
Weekly base-rate checks → prevents delusion
Action-first structure → behavior drives outcomes
Emotional regulation → resilience → more action → more opportunities

Your plan is almost exactly what Doty prescribes in Mind Magic.

3. Dr. Joe Dispenza — but only the grounded parts

Dispenza is a mix of neuroscience, psychology, and metaphysics.
The testable, behavioral, identity-shift parts align with your plan:

Dispenza’s grounded ideas

Identity rehearsal changes behavior.
Elevated emotional states increase motivation and follow-through.
Visualization + action = increased probability of outcomes.

Match to your plan

Daily priming → identity rehearsal
Weekly predictions → behavior tracking
Emotional alignment → motivation

What does NOT match

Quantum field claims
“Energy collapsing into matter”
Supernatural causation

Your plan is the scientific half of Dispenza, not the metaphysical half.

Frameworks that DO NOT match the plan (but can be layered on top)

Neville Goddard

Pure imagination → reality
No emphasis on behavior
No tracking, no falsifiability
No base-rate thinking

Your plan is the opposite: behavior-first, evidence-first.

Wallace Wattles

“Thinking substance” metaphysics
No behavioral tracking
No falsifiable structure

Abraham Hicks

Emotional alignment as the only mechanism
No structured action
No measurement
No falsifiable predictions

Buddhism

Strong on mindfulness and attention
Weak on goal-directed behavior
Not focused on external outcomes

Christianity

Faith-based, not behavior-measurement-based
Not aligned with falsifiable experimentation

Maggie Murphy (Neville Goddess)

Pure Neville
No measurement
No behavioral scaffolding

So which framework is the TRUE backbone of your plan?

1. Tara Swart

2. James Doty

3. The grounded, behavioral half of Joe Dispenza

These three form a scientific triad:

Framework	Core Mechanism	Match to Your Plan
Tara Swart	RAS priming + neuroplasticity + behavior	10/10
James Doty	Attention + self-perception + action	9.5/10
Joe Dispenza (grounded half)	Identity rehearsal + emotion + behavior	7.5/10
Neville	Imagination creates reality	3/10
Wattles	Thinking substance metaphysics	2/10
Abraham	Vibration-only	2/10
Buddhism	Mindfulness, not manifestation	4/10
Christianity	Faith, not falsifiability	3/10

Why this matters for you specifically, Kirk

Because your wins list and your daily logs show:

High behavioral output
High introspection
High pattern recognition
High journaling discipline
High emotional resilience
High social exposure
High identity experimentation

This is EXACTLY the territory where Swart + Doty + grounded Dispenza shine.

Neville and Abraham explain the story you tell yourself.
Swart and Doty explain the mechanism that actually produces results.

If you want, I can now:

Map your entire 800+ day journey to these frameworks
Build a hybrid model tailored to your psychology
Create a “Unified Manifestation System” that is scientific + symbolic
Or refine the 30–90 day plan into a Swart/Doty protocol with metrics

Just tell me which direction you want to go.

Grok Said:

Key patterns observed

Consistent daily logging over more than two years, with entries blending mundane details (e.g., weather, local outings to cafes, holidays) and manifestation practices, often inspired by AI prompts on topics like “The Art Of Loving” or “Jim Carrey.” loa.codes
Prominent tracking of weight loss as a recurring health metric, with daily fluctuations reported (e.g., -24.7 lbs. over 10 days, or anomalies like -316.6 lbs.), suggesting a focus on personal transformation through habits like diet resets or “stillness experiments.” loa.codes
Wins predominantly involve minor financial discoveries, such as finding coins (e.g., quarters in parking lots or shopping carts on dates like September 11, 2023, or November 3, 2023), with clusters in September-November 2023 and November 2025. loa.codes
Recurring themes include perceptual or symbolic experiences (e.g., spotting a red circle or a tiny doorway on November 22, 2025) interpreted as spiritual signs, alongside tangible outcomes like a camera job (November 8, 2023) or free coffee (November 15, 2025). loa.codes
Sparse major wins (e.g., second child, Courtenay House) without detailed timelines, contrasted with frequent small-scale finds; no explicit logging of losses or failures in the wins list, potentially skewing toward positive selection. loa.codes
Missing information includes efforts preceding wins (e.g., how often coins were sought), base rates (e.g., typical frequency of finding change in daily life), and verification (e.g., duration or impact of outcomes), which could bias toward overinterpreting coincidences as manifestations. loa.codes

Explanations compared

Chance / base rates / regression to the mean
This lens views wins as random events aligning with normal probabilities, where regression to the mean explains improvements after lows (e.g., weight loss after dietary focus). Pros: Grounded in statistics; explains coin finds as common in high-traffic areas like parking lots, without needing special causes. Cons: Doesn’t account for subjective clustering (e.g., multiple coin discoveries in 2023), which might feel non-random; overlooks potential behavioral amplifiers like increased outings.Confirmation bias / selection effects / storytelling
Here, wins are highlighted while ignoring non-wins, creating a narrative of success (e.g., listing only positive coin finds or perceptual signs, without failed manifestations). Pros: Explains the wins list’s positivity bias and missing losses; aligns with human tendency to retroactively link events to practices. Cons: Underestimates real changes if habits genuinely increase opportunities; the daily log shows some setbacks (e.g., knee issues), suggesting not total cherry-picking.Behavior change and compounding habits (sleep, diet, planning, social exposure, follow-through)
Daily routines like diet experiments or stillness practices could compound into real outcomes (e.g., weight tracking leading to health wins like an eyeglass lens manifestation, possibly via better self-care). Pros: Evidence in consistent logging and experiments; explains tangible wins like job or housing through sustained action. Cons: Wins list lacks direct links to efforts, making causation hard to prove; some wins (e.g., lottery near-miss) seem unrelated to habits.Subconscious priming / attention / pattern recognition
Manifestation practices prime the mind to notice opportunities (e.g., spotting coins or symbolic doorways more readily after focusing on abundance). Pros: Supported by psychology; clusters in 2023/2025 might reflect heightened awareness during active periods. Cons: Could overlap with bias, where normal events are over-noticed; doesn’t explain non-perceptual wins like family additions.Social dynamics / networking / “opportunity surface area”
Increased exposure through daily activities or local outings (e.g., cafes) expands chances for wins like free items or relationships (e.g., talk about Evie). Pros: Practical for career/housing wins; log mentions community interactions. Cons: Many wins are solitary (e.g., coin finds), not clearly social; no evidence of deliberate networking.Mental health / emotion regulation / resilience
Practices build resilience, reducing stress and enabling persistence (e.g., ongoing weight loss amid fluctuations). Pros: Could indirectly boost wins via better decision-making; themes of stillness suggest emotional benefits. Cons: Wins are mostly external; no direct mental health metrics in the log.Spiritual frameworks (e.g., Neville Goddard, Wallace Wattles, Abraham Hicks, Buddhism, Christianity)
These hypothesize wins as results of aligned thoughts/energy (e.g., perceptual signs as divine feedback). Pros: Matches the site’s theme; provides motivational structure. Cons: Lacks empirical falsifiability; treats coincidences (e.g., red circle) as supernatural without evidence.Modern neuroscience/psychology interpretations (e.g., Tara Swart, James Doty)
Neuroplasticity or reticular activating system explains primed attention leading to wins (e.g., manifesting lens via focused intent). Pros: Bridges science and practice; aligns with AI prompts on figures like Swart. Cons: Overstates causality for random events; requires measurable brain changes, absent here.“Pure luck” vs “increased probability through action”
Pure luck attributes wins to chance (e.g., coin finds), while action boosts odds (e.g., more outings increase finds). Pros: Balances randomness with agency; explains clusters via activity spikes. Cons: Hard to quantify without base rates; site’s narrative favors action/manifestation over pure luck.

Ranked drivers
Top 5 most likely drivers of the wins (with reasons):

Confirmation bias / selection effects / storytelling – The wins list selectively highlights positives (e.g., coin clusters) without failures, creating an illusion of causation; common in personal logs.
Subconscious priming / attention / pattern recognition – Practices likely heighten notice of small wins (e.g., perceptual signs), supported by psychological evidence.
Behavior change and compounding habits – Daily tracking (e.g., weight, experiments) suggests habits drive tangible outcomes like health improvements.
Chance / base rates / regression to the mean – Many wins (e.g., coins) are everyday occurrences, amplified by normal variance.
Increased probability through action (vs pure luck) – More activities (e.g., outings) naturally raise win odds, as seen in local references.

Top 5 least likely drivers (with reasons):

Spiritual frameworks – Requires unproven supernatural mechanisms; wins lack scale or consistency for divine intervention.
Pure luck – Undervalues role of actions/behaviors in creating opportunities; clusters suggest non-random patterns.
Modern neuroscience/psychology interpretations – While plausible, no direct evidence of neural changes; over-applies to minor events.
Social dynamics / networking – Few wins are interpersonal (e.g., most are solitary finds); log shows limited networking details.
Mental health / emotion regulation – Indirect at best; wins are mostly external, with no explicit health metrics.

I am uncertain about the relative weight of priming vs. habits, as the log doesn’t quantify effort levels. Stronger evidence of controlled experiments (e.g., A/B testing manifestation vs. non) or third-party verification of wins would shift toward behavioral explanations; disconfirming data like frequent failures would strengthen bias lenses.

Practical plan (30–90 days)
This 60-day plan treats “manifestation” as a lifestyle of intentional habits, testable via tracking. Focus on small, measurable goals to increase “wins” probability without assuming supernatural forces.

Daily Actions:

Morning: 10-min journaling – Note 1-3 intentions (e.g., “Notice abundance in daily life”) and review prior day’s wins/losses.
Midday: Habit practice – Choose one compounding action (e.g., walk/outing to expand opportunity surface, or diet tweak for health).
Evening: Reflection – Log any “wins” (e.g., found items, positive interactions) with context (effort involved? Base rate check?).

Weekly Actions:

Days 1-7: Set baseline – Track natural wins without extra effort.
Review Sundays: Categorize wins (e.g., financial, perceptual); compare to base rates (e.g., research average coin finds via quick search).
Experiment: Weeks 3-4 prime attention (e.g., visualize abundance); Weeks 5-6 add actions (e.g., more social exposure).

Tracking Metrics:

Daily log: Number/type of wins, effort rating (1-10), mood/resilience score (1-10).
Weekly: Win count vs. baseline; habit adherence (%).
Overall: Pre/post surveys on well-being; quantify outcomes (e.g., weight change if health-focused).

Evaluation Method:

At Day 30: Midpoint review – Compare win rates across phases; use simple stats (e.g., average wins/week).
At Day 60: Final assessment – Test if primed/action phases > baseline (e.g., 20% increase?); reflect on biases (did I overcount?).
Success criteria: Measurable uptick in wins tied to actions, not just perception.

Guardrails to avoid self-deception:

Falsifiable predictions: Set specific, testable goals (e.g., “Find change 3x/week” – track if met).
Base-rate checks: Compare to norms (e.g., “How often do people find coins?”) before claiming manifestation.
Include losses: Log failures equally to counter confirmation bias.
External input: Share anonymized log with a skeptic for feedback.
Cap optimism: If no evidence after 60 days, pivot to pure habit-building without “manifestation” framing.

What additional data you’d want (short list)

Full log of non-wins/failures over the period for balance.
Effort details preceding each win (e.g., hours practiced).
Base rates for win types (e.g., coin find frequency in similar locales).
Independent verification (e.g., photos/receipts of wins).
Longitudinal metrics (e.g., pre/post-manifestation life changes).

Based on a comprehensive review of popular manifestation frameworks and teachers—drawing from historical New Thought pioneers, modern neuroscience interpreters, spiritual channelers, and religious philosophies—I evaluated alignment with the 60-day “Manifestation-as-a-lifestyle” plan outlined previously. This plan emphasizes grounded, testable elements: daily journaling and reflection, habit-building actions (e.g., walks, diet tweaks), priming attention through intentions, systematic tracking of wins/losses with metrics, phased experiments (e.g., baseline vs. primed phases), statistical evaluation of outcomes, and guardrails like falsifiable predictions, base-rate comparisons, logging failures, and external feedback to mitigate biases.To identify and assess frameworks, I considered the user’s listed examples plus others surfaced from searches, such as Rhonda Byrne, Bob Proctor, Louise Hay, Deepak Chopra, Napoleon Hill, Wayne Dyer, Gabrielle Bernstein, and Ernest Holmes. ryanzofay.com +2 The evaluation focused on core principles: emphasis on daily routines, evidence-based or testable methods, habit compounding, psychological/neuroscience grounding, and safeguards against self-deception (e.g., via experimentation or bias awareness). Purely mystical or faith-based approaches score lower due to limited testability or habit-tracking elements.Key Frameworks and Their AlignmentI categorized and compared major ones below, highlighting pros/cons relative to the plan. Alignment is scored qualitatively (high/medium/low) based on how closely teachings mirror the plan’s structure.

Dr. James Doty (Neuroscience of Manifestation): Doty’s framework, as in Mind Magic (2024), views manifestation through brain science, using neuroplasticity to rewire thoughts into reality via focused intent and compassion practices. en.wikipedia.org Core elements include daily mindful meditation to build resilience, empirical testing via randomized trials (e.g., on compassion training’s effects on emotion regulation), and habit reinforcement through repeated neural pathways.
Pros: High emphasis on evidence-based validation (e.g., studies in Journal of Happiness Studies), daily routines aligning with journaling/priming, and measurable outcomes like mood scores—mirroring the plan’s tracking and evaluation. Guardrails via scientific scrutiny reduce bias.
Cons: Less focus on base-rate checks or external feedback; more clinical than lifestyle-oriented.
Alignment: High—most directly matches the plan’s testable, habit-driven, neuroscience lens.
Dr. Tara Swart (Neuroplasticity and Action-Based Manifestation): Swart, a neuroscientist and author of The Source, interprets manifestation as leveraging brain plasticity through visualization, action boards, and stress management to prime the reticular activating system for opportunities. Daily practices include journaling intentions and physical habits (e.g., exercise for neurochemical boosts).
Pros: Grounded in psychology (e.g., habit loops via dopamine), with testable elements like tracking progress against goals; aligns with the plan’s experiments and metrics. Emphasizes action over passive thought, reducing self-deception risks.
Cons: Limited explicit guardrails like falsifiability; more corporate/wellness-focused than comprehensive lifestyle tracking.
Alignment: High—strong fit for priming, habits, and evidence-based tweaks, though slightly less empirical than Doty.
Dr. Joe Dispenza (Quantum Mind and Meditation): Dispenza’s teachings blend meditation, epigenetics, and “breaking the habit of being yourself” to manifest via coherent brain waves and elevated emotions. Daily routines involve guided meditations (e.g., 45-60 minutes) and tracking personal breakthroughs in workshops.
Pros: Focus on daily practices and habit change through neurofeedback-like self-monitoring; some testing via anecdotal “before/after” stories and group events. Aligns with phasing (e.g., baseline vs. meditation phases).
Cons: Critiqued as pseudoscience (misusing quantum concepts); lacks rigorous guardrails like base rates or external validation, risking confirmation bias.
Alignment: Medium-high—matches daily actions and tracking but weaker on evidence-based rigor.
Neville Goddard (Imagination as Reality): Goddard’s philosophy centers on “assuming the feeling of the wish fulfilled” through vivid imagination and mental states, without external action as primary. en.wikipedia.org Practices include nightly visualization but no structured tracking.
Pros: Priming via mental rehearsal could loosely tie to attention experiments.
Cons: No testing, habits, or bias safeguards; purely subjective, ignoring base rates.
Alignment: Low—too mystical for the plan’s testable structure.
Maggie Murphy (The Neville Goddess): As a modern interpreter of Goddard, Murphy explores consciousness and alignment through podcasts/videos, emphasizing embodiment and real-time mental shifts (e.g., letting go of conflicting beliefs). youtube.com +2 Daily focus on presence, but anecdotal.
Pros: Some reflection on thoughts/outcomes.
Cons: Inherits Goddard’s lacks—no metrics, experiments, or science.
Alignment: Low—narrative-driven, not evidence-based.
Wallace Wattles (Science of Getting Rich): Wattles promotes creative visualization and acting in a “certain way” to manifest wealth, tested over 12 years personally. en.wikipedia.org Daily mental picturing encouraged.
Pros: Calls for self-testing and habit application.
Cons: Spiritual/monistic roots; no formal metrics or bias checks.
Alignment: Medium—some testing/habits, but outdated and non-scientific.
Abraham Hicks (Vibrational Alignment): Channeled teachings stress emotional guidance, deliberate creation, and allowing via positive thoughts. en.wikipedia.org Daily meditations and workshops for alignment.
Pros: Phased processes (e.g., 5-step happiness alignment) and intent-setting.
Cons: Unfalsifiable; no tracking metrics or guardrails against bias.
Alignment: Medium—daily practices but vibrational, not testable.
Buddhism (Karma and Mindfulness Interpretations): In LOA contexts, Buddhism links to cause-effect (karma) and mindful intention, where thoughts shape reality via ethical actions. en.wikipedia.org Daily meditation cultivates positive mind states.
Pros: Emphasis on personal verification through practice; habit-building via mindfulness reduces bias.
Cons: Not manifestation-focused; impermanence counters attachment to outcomes, no explicit testing/metrics.
Alignment: Medium—strong on daily routines and reflection, but ethical/spiritual over goal-oriented.
Christianity (Faith and Prayer Interpretations): LOA parallels include prayer (e.g., Mark 11:24: believe and receive) and positive thinking. en.wikipedia.org Daily devotion/prayer routines.
Pros: Faith as priming; some self-reflection.
Cons: Outcomes tied to divine will, not testable habits; risks confirmation bias without guardrails.
Alignment: Low-medium—routine-based but faith-driven, not evidence-oriented.
Other Notable Ones (e.g., Deepak Chopra, Rhonda Byrne, Bob Proctor): Chopra mixes quantum spirituality with meditations, offering medium alignment via science-spirit hybrids but pseudoscientific claims. ryanzofay.com +1 Byrne’s The Secret popularizes visualization but lacks testing (low). Proctor stresses mindset shifts and daily discipline (medium), akin to habits but anecdotal.

Most Aligned Framework? The framework most in line with the plan is Dr. James Doty’s neuroscience-based approach. It uniquely bridges manifestation with empirical science, emphasizing testable daily practices (e.g., meditation for neuroplasticity), outcome tracking via research methods, and habit-building to counter biases—directly echoing the plan’s experiments, metrics, and guardrails. Unlike spiritual frameworks, it prioritizes verifiable brain changes over unproven vibrations or faith. If your goal is a skeptical, actionable lifestyle, this avoids hype while delivering structure.Uncertainty arises from limited access to full texts (e.g., failed fetches for Dispenza/Swart details), potentially overlooking nuances. More peer-reviewed studies on each or user-specific experiences could shift emphasis (e.g., toward Dispenza if you value meditation over pure neuroscience).

Claude Said:

I’ll analyze this systematically. Let me start by examining both pages.Now let me fetch the wins page:Let me examine a few specific win entries to understand them better:Let me examine one of the older wins to understand the pattern better:Based on my analysis of these materials, I’ll now provide you with a comprehensive, evidence-based breakdown of what’s happening here.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS: Law of Attraction Practice & Reported “Wins”

1) KEY PATTERNS OBSERVED

Site Structure & Commitment:

862+ consecutive daily blog posts (Aug 2023 – Jan 2026)
Extremely detailed daily tracking with checklists (20-30+ items/day)
Weight loss journey embedded throughout (-15 to -36 lbs fluctuating)
References to Neville Goddard, Eckhart Tolle, Abraham Hicks, Dr. Tara Swart

Win Categories & Characteristics:

Majority: Found coins (quarters, nickels, dimes, loonies, toonies) – 10+ entries
Small conveniences: Free McDonald’s coffee (once), finding lost eyeglass lens
Ambiguous wins: Seeing a “red circle somewhere unusual,” spotting “something that looked like a tiny doorway”
Unverified past wins: “Camera job,” “2nd child,” “Courtenay House,” “Almost 2x lottery ticket”
Social: Someone named “Moya” talking about “Evie” (a fictional character from user’s novel concept)

Behavioral Patterns:

Daily meditation, affirmations, visualization
Strict diet experiments (potato reset, vegan, intermittent fasting)
Reading manifestation literature daily
Watching YouTube videos on LoA topics (Maggie Murphy, others)
Using ChatGPT for daily coaching/reflection
Tracking water intake, supplements, skin care rituals
Symbolic rituals (ring touch, cufflink adjustment, “calm smirk”)

Missing Context:

No baseline for coin-finding frequency BEFORE tracking
No control period (e.g., “how many coins do I find when NOT actively manifesting?”)
Limited information on larger life outcomes (employment, relationships, finances)
Ambiguous “wins” lack falsifiable criteria
No documentation of failed manifestations or abandoned goals

2) EXPLANATIONS COMPARED

A) CHANCE / BASE Rates / Regression to the Mean

Pro:

Finding loose change is statistically common—studies show people find small amounts regularly
The author lives in a suburban/small-town area, shops frequently, walks in parking lots
With 862 days of logging, finding 10-12 coins is roughly 1 coin per 70 days—well within normal variance
“Almost 2x lottery ticket” is literally a LOSS, reframed as a near-win (classic gambler’s fallacy)

Con:

The author reports finding coins stopped for months, then resumed—suggesting behavior change, not pure randomness
Some wins (eyeglass lens) involve specific, stated intentions followed by outcome

Verdict: Highly plausible for coin finds. Less relevant for specific, one-off events like the eyeglass lens.

B) Confirmation Bias / Selection Effects / Storytelling

Pro:

Strong evidence of selective reporting: wins are cataloged; losses/neutrals aren’t
The “wins list” is incredibly thin for 2+ years of intense daily practice
Ambiguous wins (“red circle,” “tiny doorway”) can be retconned to match ANY sensory experience
The author actively looks for patterns, which creates them (apophenia)
Daily journaling with manifestation lens PRIMES the author to notice coincidences

Con:

The eyeglass lens example shows genuine problem→intention→solution sequence
The author does acknowledge some failures (scratch-off tickets didn’t win)

Verdict: Very strong contributor. The ratio of “wins” to total logged days is extremely low, suggesting most manifestations don’t materialize but aren’t tracked.

C) Behavior Change & Compounding Habits

Pro:

Weight loss: Down 15-36 lbs through diet experiments—this is REAL behavior change producing real results
Consistent routine: 800+ days of structured daily practice indicates extraordinary discipline
Social exposure: Daily café visits, errands, walks = more opportunities to find coins or meet people
Learning: Reading books, watching videos, engaging with AI coaching = continuous self-improvement
Placebo/expectancy effects: Belief in positive outcomes may reduce stress, improve decision-making

Con:

Many behavioral changes (rituals, affirmations) have no clear causal link to finding coins
Weight loss fluctuates wildly, suggesting inconsistent adherence or unsustainable methods
No evidence of major life wins (career advancement, relationship success, financial windfalls)

Verdict: Very strong for weight loss and habit formation. Moderate for increasing “opportunity surface area.” Weak for coin-specific or ambiguous wins.

D) Subconscious Priming / Attention / Pattern Recognition

Pro:

Selective attention: When you think about coins, you notice them. This is Baader-Meinhof phenomenon.
The eyeglass lens: After “visualizing the end,” the author searched more carefully and found it under the desk—visualization prompted thoroughness, not magic
Cognitive rehearsal: Daily visualization may improve problem-solving by keeping goals salient

Con:

Doesn’t explain why coins appear in the specific moment of exiting a vehicle (unless that’s just when attention is highest)

Verdict: Very strong for the lens and likely strong for coins. This is a known psychological mechanism.

E) Social Dynamics / Networking / “Opportunity Surface Area”

Pro:

Daily café visits, errands, community presence = more interactions
Complimenting a Walmart worker, engaging with ChatGPT, posting on Facebook = social engagement
Over 800 days, small positive interactions compound

Con:

No evidence of networking leading to job offers, romantic connections, or financial opportunities
Most “wins” are solitary (coins, lens)

Verdict: Moderate for general life improvement. Weak for specific wins.

F) Mental Health / Emotion Regulation / Resilience

Pro:

Structure = stability: The daily routine provides purpose, reducing aimlessness
Mindfulness practices (Tolle, meditation): Research supports these for anxiety/depression reduction
Positive reframing: Turning “almost won the lottery” into a “win” may build resilience
Weight loss attempts: Engagement with health is positive, even if results fluctuate

Con:

Obsessive tracking (30+ checklist items daily) could indicate anxiety or compulsive tendencies
Heavy reliance on external validation (ChatGPT, YouTube, social media) may suggest loneliness or uncertainty
Fluctuating weight suggests emotional eating or inconsistent self-regulation

Verdict: Mixed. The practice provides structure and purpose but may also reflect underlying distress. The blog itself may be therapeutic.

G) Spiritual Frameworks

Neville Goddard (“Living in the End”):

Emphasizes imagination, feeling the wish fulfilled, and “assumption hardens into fact”
Applied here: visualizing outcomes (lens, coins, weight loss)
Critique: No mechanism for how imagination affects external reality; unfalsifiable

Eckhart Tolle (“The Power of Now”):

Emphasizes presence, stillness, acceptance
Applied here: 30-day “Stillness Experiment,” mindfulness
Critique: Tolle’s framework is more about reducing suffering than achieving goals—somewhat at odds with LoA’s goal-chasing

Abraham Hicks (“Ask and It Is Given”):

Emphasizes alignment, allowing, and vibrational frequency
Applied here: gratitude lists, affirmations
Critique: Vague, untestable claims; conflates positive psychology with metaphysics

General Critique of Spiritual Frameworks:

None provide falsifiable predictions
Successes are attributed to the method; failures are blamed on the practitioner (“you didn’t believe enough”)
Encourages magical thinking, which can delay practical problem-solving

H) Neuroscience/Psychology Interpretations (Swart, Doty)

Dr. Tara Swart (“The Source”):

Neuroscience of visualization, neuroplasticity, action boards
Claims: Visualization primes the brain to notice opportunities (RAS = reticular activating system)
Critique: Overstates neuroscience; no evidence visualization causes external events, only that it focuses attention

Dr. James Doty:

Compassion, intention-setting, heart-brain coherence
Less woo than Swart; emphasizes kindness and realistic goal-setting

Verdict: These frameworks explain the psychological benefits (focus, motivation, pattern recognition) but don’t support metaphysical claims.

I) “Pure Luck” vs. “Increased Probability Through Action”

Pure Luck:

Finding 10 coins over 800 days is statistically unremarkable
Lottery tickets are pure chance; manifestation doesn’t affect odds

Increased Probability:

Going out daily = more chances to find coins
Thinking about coins = noticing them more often
Searching carefully for lens = higher chance of finding it

Verdict: “Increased probability through action” is far more plausible than “pure luck” or “metaphysical intervention.”

3) RANKED DRIVERS (Top 5 Most Likely + Bottom 5 Least Likely)

TOP 5 MOST LIKELY DRIVERS:

1. Selective Attention & Confirmation Bias (90% confidence)

The author is primed to notice coins, then logs them as “wins”
Normal events (finding coins, free coffee promo) are reframed as manifestations
Lack of control group or pre-tracking baseline makes this invisible to the author

2. Behavior Change & Increased Opportunity Surface (85% confidence)

800+ days of structure → more social outings → more chances to find coins
Weight loss is REAL and attributable to diet/exercise
Daily café visits, errands, community presence = higher exposure to low-probability events

3. Cognitive Priming & Enhanced Problem-Solving (80% confidence)

Visualization of the lens led to more thorough searching → found it
Daily goal-setting keeps priorities salient → better follow-through
This explains “wins” where effort matters (lens, weight loss), not external randomness (coins)

4. Mental Health / Therapeutic Journaling (75% confidence)

The blog provides structure, purpose, and emotional outlet
Positive reframing (even of losses) builds resilience
This doesn’t “cause” wins but improves quality of life and persistence

5. Base Rates & Statistical Normality (70% confidence)

Finding 10-12 coins over 800 days in a retail-heavy area is unremarkable
“Almost 2x lottery ticket” is a LOSS, not a win
No wins exceed what random chance + normal behavior would predict

BOTTOM 5 LEAST LIKELY EXPLANATIONS:

5. Social Dynamics / Networking (20% confidence)

Most wins are solitary (coins, lens)
No evidence of social connections leading to opportunities

4. Supernatural / Metaphysical Causation (5% confidence)

No plausible mechanism for thoughts to affect external physical reality
All outcomes are explainable via psychology, statistics, or behavior
Unfalsifiable claims make this intellectually unsatisfying

3. Regression to the Mean (15% confidence)

Not relevant for one-off events (lens)
Coins aren’t a “regressing” variable; they’re discrete finds

2. Abraham Hicks / “Vibrational Frequency” (5% confidence)

Vague, untestable framework
Adds no explanatory power beyond psychological mechanisms

1. Pure Manifestation Efficacy (Law of Attraction as Magic) (<1% confidence)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; none exists here
All “wins” are explainable via mundane mechanisms
The win rate is FAR too low for a “working” magical system

4) PRACTICAL 30-90 DAY PLAN: “Manifestation as Testable Lifestyle Experiment”

PHASE 1: Baseline (Days 1-14)

Goal: Establish how often “wins” occur WITHOUT manifestation practice.

Actions:

Continue normal life but STOP all manifestation practices (no affirmations, visualizations, rituals)
Log found coins, unexpected positives, and neutrals/negatives equally
Track mood, sleep, exercise, social interactions

Metrics:

Coins found per week
Positive events (any kind)
Mood (1-10 scale daily)

PHASE 2: Intensive Practice (Days 15-60)

Goal: Test if focused manifestation increases win rate.

Daily Actions:

Morning: 10-min visualization of specific, falsifiable goal (e.g., “I will find $5 in coins this month”)
Midday: Gratitude list (10 items)
Evening: Review day for “wins” AND “non-wins”

Weekly Actions:

Choose ONE specific, measurable goal (e.g., “Someone will compliment my outfit”)
Log whether it happened, when, and context

Guardrails:

Define success criteria IN ADVANCE (no retconning)
Log failures prominently
Compare win rate to baseline

PHASE 3: Controlled Testing (Days 61-90)

Goal: Isolate variables.

Test A: Attention Only

Think about coins daily but do NOT visualize or affirm
See if coin-finding rate matches visualization period

Test B: Effort Only

Set a practical goal (e.g., “Apply to 10 jobs”)
Track whether action alone (no visualization) produces results

Test C: Pure Randomness

Buy 10 scratch-off tickets WITHOUT manifestation practice
Buy 10 WITH practice
Compare win rates (spoiler: they’ll be identical)

EVALUATION:

If manifestation “works,” you’d expect:

Win rate in Phase 2 > Baseline (Phase 1)
Specific predictions come true at above-chance rates
Wins that require NO effort (lottery, finding money) occur regularly

If it’s psychology/behavior:

Win rate increases ONLY for effort-dependent goals
Attention-only period matches visualization period
Random-chance events (lottery) show no improvement

GUARDRAILS AGAINST SELF-DECEPTION:

Pre-register predictions (write them down with dates/criteria before they happen)
Track failures equally (log every day you DON’T find a coin)
Use control conditions (baseline, attention-only, effort-only)
Falsifiable claims (“I will find $20 by Friday” not “something good will happen”)
External validation (ask a skeptical friend to review your data)

5) WHAT ADDITIONAL DATA WOULD CHANGE MY MIND

Would increase confidence in LoA:

Win rate on RANDOM events (lottery, dice rolls) significantly exceeds chance
Multiple independent practitioners replicate results under controlled conditions
Wins that violate known physics (levitation, telepathy, etc.)—not just coincidences
Accurate, specific prophecies (e.g., “The Dow will close at 34,582.43 tomorrow”)

Would decrease confidence even further:

No change in win rate during intensive practice vs. baseline
Continued low win rate (<1% of days) despite 5+ years of practice
Author acknowledges most goals don’t manifest but keeps practicing anyway (sunk cost fallacy)

FINAL ASSESSMENT

This is a person using manifestation practice as a structure for self-improvement—and it’s working, just not magically. The weight loss, daily discipline, and therapeutic journaling are REAL benefits. The “wins” are mostly normal life events reframed through a manifestation lens.

The tragedy isn’t that manifestation is fake—it’s that this person could achieve the SAME benefits (discipline, mindfulness, positive reframing) through evidence-based methods (CBT, habit coaching, fitness training) while saving time on rituals that don’t produce measurable results beyond placebo.

Manifestation is applied optimism + selective attention + confirmation bias—not a force of nature. But if it motivates someone to live better, is it harmful? Only if it prevents them from seeking real solutions (therapy, career coaching, financial planning) or leads them to blame themselves when the universe doesn’t deliver.

This person is sincere, disciplined, and introspective. They deserve a framework that honors those qualities while also being true.

Now let me search for comparison of these frameworks with evidence-based approaches:Based on my comprehensive research, here’s my analysis of which framework best aligns with the evidence-based 30-90 day plan:

FRAMEWORK ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS

THE ANSWER: Dr. James Doty’s “Mind Magic” Approach

Winner by a significant margin. Here’s why:

FRAMEWORK COMPARISON TABLE

Framework	Scientific Grounding	Testability	Action Emphasis	Alignment Score
Dr. James Doty	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Neuroscience, peer-reviewed)	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Measurable outcomes)	⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Action required)	95%
Dr. Tara Swart	⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Neuroscience, but overstates claims)	⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Selective attention testable)	⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Acknowledges action)	75%
Joe Dispenza	⭐⭐ (Mixes science with quantum woo)	⭐⭐ (Vague criteria)	⭐⭐⭐ (Some action required)	40%
Neville Goddard	⭐ (Pure metaphysics)	⭐ (Unfalsifiable)	⭐⭐ (Mental work only)	20%
Abraham Hicks	⭐ (No scientific basis)	⭐ (Unfalsifiable)	⭐ (Passive “allowing”)	10%
Wallace Wattles	⭐ (1910 New Thought, pre-science)	⭐ (Unfalsifiable)	⭐⭐⭐ (Does emphasize action)	25%
Maggie Murphy	⭐⭐ (Interprets Neville)	⭐ (Inherits Neville’s issues)	⭐⭐ (Mental work focus)	20%

WHY DR. JAMES DOTY WINS

1. Scientific Foundation WITHOUT Pseudoscience

Doty’s Position:

Neuroscience professor at Stanford
Director of Center for Compassion and Altruism Research
Published peer-reviewed research on heart-brain coherence, HRV, neural networks
Uses brain imaging (fMRI, EEG) to study actual changes

What He Says:

“The universe doesn’t care about you. It’s not about the universe, it’s about you.”

This immediately disqualifies magical thinking and grounds the work in neuroscience.

Key Mechanisms He Identifies:

Neuroplasticity: Brain rewiring through intention and repetition
Reticular Activating System (RAS): Selective attention filter
Parasympathetic nervous system: “Rest & digest” mode enables clear thinking
Heart-Rate Variability (HRV): Measurable marker of nervous system regulation

2. Emphasizes EFFORT, Not Magic

Doty explicitly states:

“Manifestation is not to be mistaken for magical thinking. We still have to put in the hard work.”

This aligns PERFECTLY with your testable plan because:

You can measure whether effort-dependent goals succeed
You can test whether random-chance events (lottery) improve (they won’t)
You can isolate the psychological benefits from supernatural claims

3. Compassion & Service > Selfishness

Major differentiator:

Typical LoA: “Attract wealth, manifest your dream life”
Doty: “Focus on others, cultivate compassion, that’s when your brain works best”

The research backs this:

Self-focused goals activate sympathetic nervous system (stress, tunnel vision)
Other-focused goals activate parasympathetic system (calm, creativity, opportunity recognition)
This explains why manifesters report small wins but often remain stuck

4. Has a TESTABLE 6-Week Program

Doty’s “Mind Magic” includes:

Week 1-2: Relaxation & Attention

Deep breathing, body scans
Shift from sympathetic → parasympathetic state
Measurable: Track HRV, resting heart rate, subjective calm

Week 3-4: Clarify Intentions

Define specific, achievable goals
Visualize for 5 minutes daily
Write it down to embed in subconscious
Measurable: Did you achieve the stated goal? Yes/No.

Week 5-6: Silence Inner Critic & Take Action

Replace negative self-talk with self-compassion
Chase intention with consistent effort
Celebrate small wins (dopamine reinforcement)
Measurable: Track effort, track wins

Critical Addition:

“Open to how the universe guides” = Stay flexible, notice opportunities
This is NOT magical thinking—it’s about reducing confirmation bias and rigidity

WHY OTHER FRAMEWORKS FAIL THE TEST

❌ Neville Goddard / Maggie Murphy

The Problem:

“Living in the End” = Assume it’s already done, feel it real
No emphasis on falsifiable predictions or action
When it doesn’t work, blame the practitioner (“you didn’t assume hard enough”)

Example from the blog: The author has been “living in the end” for 800+ days, yet the win rate is extremely low. Neville’s framework has no mechanism to distinguish success from failure—it’s all “inner conviction.”

Why it doesn’t work for your plan:

Can’t establish baseline (Neville says you’re ALWAYS manifesting)
Can’t test effort vs. randomness (it’s all mental)
Encourages passive imagination over active problem-solving

❌ Abraham Hicks

The Problem:

“Vibrational alignment,” “ask-believe-receive,” “the vortex”
Vague, untestable, no clear criteria for success
Encourages blame: “You’re not in alignment” = you caused your own failure

Example from research:

Manifestation beliefs linked to bankruptcy and unrealistic expectations (Dixon et al., 2023)

Why it doesn’t work for your plan:

No way to measure “vibrational frequency”
Circular logic: If it works, you were aligned. If it doesn’t, you weren’t.
Discourages practical action (“just allow it”)

❌ Joe Dispenza

The Problem:

Mixes real neuroscience with quantum mysticism
Claims: “Tap into the quantum field,” “change your energy to change reality”
Some good ideas (meditation, elevated emotions) but wrapped in pseudoscience

Example:

“When you change your energy, you change your life.” (Vague. How? Measured how?)

Why it’s BETTER than Neville/Abraham but still not ideal:

✅ Acknowledges brain changes (neuroplasticity)
✅ Emphasizes meditation and emotional regulation
❌ But adds unfalsifiable quantum claims
❌ No clear separation of psychological benefits from magical thinking

Verdict: Could work, but Doty is cleaner and more testable.

❌ Dr. Tara Swart

The Problem:

Overstates neuroscience claims
Her book claims: “Science proves manifestation works”
BUT: She’s talking about RAS (selective attention), not external reality-bending

What she DOES get right:

Action boards, value tagging, selective attention
These are real, measurable psychological phenomena

Why she’s NOT the best choice:

Too close to “woo” in marketing (her book title: “Secrets of the Universe”)
Less rigorous than Doty’s peer-reviewed research
Still implies the universe responds to your vision boards (it doesn’t)

Verdict: Good, but Doty is more honest and rigorous.

⚠️ Buddhism / Christianity

Why they’re not ideal for THIS plan:

Buddhism: Focuses on detachment from desire, not achieving goals
Christianity: Emphasizes faith, prayer, surrender to God’s will (not testable manifestation)

However:

Both emphasize compassion, presence, and service—aligned with Doty
Could be complementary but aren’t “manifestation frameworks” per se

THE MODIFIED 30-90 DAY PLAN USING DOTY’S FRAMEWORK

Phase 1: Baseline (Days 1-14)

Same as before. No manifestation practice. Just log wins/neutrals/losses.

Phase 2: Doty’s 6-Week Program (Days 15-56)

Daily Practice (20-30 min):

Morning (10 min):

Relaxation (3 min): Deep breathing, body scan
Clarify Intention (2 min): Visualize ONE specific, measurable goal
- Example: “I will have a meaningful conversation with a stranger this week”
- NOT: “I will manifest abundance” (too vague)
Write It Down (2 min): Embed in subconscious
Compassion Practice (3 min): Think of someone you’re grateful for, wish them well

Evening (10 min):

Review Day (5 min): Did I act on my intention? What opportunities did I notice?
Silence Inner Critic (5 min): If self-doubt arose, replace with self-compassion
- Example: Instead of “I failed,” say “I’m learning and growing”

Weekly Goal:

Choose ONE specific, effort-dependent goal
Track whether you achieved it and HOW (effort vs. luck)

Phase 3: Controlled Testing (Days 57-90)

Test A: Attention Only

Visualize goals but take NO action
See if opportunities appear (they won’t)

Test B: Effort Only

Set goal, work hard, but skip visualization
See if results match visualization period (they will)

Test C: Pure Randomness

Buy lottery tickets with vs. without visualization
Compare win rates (they’ll be identical)

Evaluation Criteria (Doty-Aligned)

Success looks like:

Improved HRV (measurable with apps like Elite HRV)
More effort-dependent wins (job offers, social connections, skill gains)
Better emotional regulation (less stress, more compassion)
NO improvement in random-chance events (lottery, finding money)

Failure looks like:

No change in any metric
Continued magical thinking (“the universe is testing me”)
Blaming yourself for lack of “alignment”

FINAL RECOMMENDATION

Use Dr. James Doty’s “Mind Magic” framework because:

✅ It’s testable (specific goals, measurable outcomes, falsifiable predictions)
✅ It’s honest (explicitly rejects magical thinking)
✅ It works (peer-reviewed research on neuroplasticity, HRV, compassion)
✅ It’s ethical (emphasizes service to others, not just personal gain)
✅ It separates psychology from pseudoscience (you get the benefits without the bullshit)

Where to start:

Book: Mind Magic: The Neuroscience of Manifestation by Dr. James Doty
Podcast: Search “James Doty Stanford” for interviews explaining the science
Practice: Follow his 6-week program in the book

Bonus: If you want a spiritual dimension, pair Doty with:

Eckhart Tolle (presence, acceptance) → psychological benefits proven
Buddhism (compassion, detachment) → overlaps with Doty’s research
NOT Neville/Abraham/Dispenza → they’ll drag you back into unfalsifiable woo

You wanted the most honest, testable, evidence-based framework. Dr. James Doty is it.

ChatGPT Said:

I can’t actually “forget” other conversations on command, but I will do what you asked in practice here: treat this as a standalone analysis and base everything on what’s visible on the two pages you gave me (plus obvious context from the site’s structure).

I reviewed:

The homepage / daily-log structure on LoA.Codes (loa.codes)
The “My Wins List (Manifestations)” page via a captured page extract (the direct page itself returned a 403 in one view, but the full content appears in search extraction) (loa.codes)

1) Key patterns observed (bullet list)

“Wins” are a mixed bag: some are major life outcomes (“Camera job,” “Courtenay House,” “2nd child,” “Almost 2x lottery ticket”) alongside micro-signs (coins found, “glimpse of a red circle,” noticing something that “looked like a tiny doorway/opening”). (loa.codes)
Many wins are “attention-based” events (coins, visual anomalies, small synchronicity-style observations). Those are naturally sensitive to what you notice and what you count. (loa.codes)
There’s a strong daily structure: a checklist of “MUST DO DAILY” items (weigh-in, eating plan, hydration target, routines), weekly routines, and ongoing tracking. (loa.codes)
The site reads like a behavior-and-meaning system, not just “wishful thinking”: it explicitly emphasizes consistency, integrity, nervous-system safety through routine, and action without guarantees. (loa.codes)
The “wins list” is not a database with base rates. It’s a curated highlight reel with no denominator (how many non-wins, how many attempts, how many misses). (loa.codes)
There are timing clusters in the wins list around late 2025 (e.g., free McDonald’s coffee, eyeglass lens, multiple “sign” observations, and a conversation topic “Moya Talk About Evie” all in November 2025). (loa.codes)

2) Explanations compared (with pros/cons)

Chance / base rates / regression to the mean

What it explains well

Coins and small “found” events: over months/years, it’s statistically normal to occasionally find coins, discounts, freebies, and small coincidences—especially if you’re out and about often. (loa.codes)
“Regression to the mean”: if someone starts logging wins during a low period, some improvement is likely to happen naturally over time (life fluctuates).

What it explains poorly

Major outcomes like “Courtenay House” or “camera job” are less likely to be pure regression; they usually require action, timing, resources, and persistence. (loa.codes)

Bottom line: chance is absolutely in play, but it’s not the full story—especially where wins are “life-structure” outcomes.

Confirmation bias / selection effects / storytelling

What it explains well

The wins list is a curated set with no visible tracking of non-wins. That strongly invites selection bias (remembering and publishing hits; forgetting misses). (loa.codes)
Mixing “big wins” with “micro-signs” can make the overall list feel more convincing because there’s always something to add.

What it explains poorly

It doesn’t fully explain the behavioral scaffolding we can see in the daily logs: routines and consistent tracking can genuinely change outcomes, even if the win interpretation is biased. (loa.codes)

Bottom line: this is a major driver of how compelling the page feels, even if it’s not “dishonest”—it’s how highlight reels work.

Behavior change and compounding habits (sleep, diet, planning, exposure, follow-through)

What it explains well

The daily log shows high-structure behavior: weigh-ins, defined food plan, hydration target, routines, weekly themes, media creation goals, etc. (loa.codes)
This kind of structure increases the probability of:
- being in the right places at the right times,
- following through,
- feeling more stable,
- noticing opportunities,
- and building momentum.

What it explains poorly

It doesn’t “explain” the meaning of coincidences (like “red circle in an unusual place”)—it explains why the life trendline could improve. (loa.codes)

Bottom line: if I had to pick one non-mystical engine, this is it: systems produce outcomes.

Subconscious priming / attention / pattern recognition

What it explains well

Once you decide “wins matter,” your attention becomes tuned to detect them. Coins, symbols, “openings,” and conversation cues become more salient. (loa.codes)
The daily log’s mindset framing (“stay open,” “notice,” “don’t chase outcomes,” “availability”) is basically a blueprint for priming attention toward possibility. (loa.codes)

What it explains poorly

It can’t alone cause big external changes, but it can raise the odds of the right actions at the right time.

Bottom line: a strong explanation for the micro-wins and for why “synchronicities” seem to increase.

Social dynamics / networking / “opportunity surface area”

What it explains well

The daily logs reference routines that inherently increase “surface area”: going out, sitting in public spaces, content creation, tracking, and deliberate weekly actions. (loa.codes)
More public presence + more outreach + more consistency = more opportunities.

What it explains poorly

Some wins listed (coins, “signs”) are mostly not social.

Bottom line: likely a key driver behind bigger wins—especially work, housing, relationships, and “lucky breaks.”

Mental health / emotion regulation / resilience (non-medical framing)

What it explains well

The manifesto-style writing explicitly emphasizes integrity, restraint, consistency, and not turning miracles into meaning. That’s emotion regulation through values and routine. (loa.codes)
Better regulation reduces impulsive decisions and improves persistence—this can look like “the universe finally cooperating.”

What it explains poorly

Doesn’t explain single lucky events, but it changes the long-run baseline.

Bottom line: it’s a major amplifier of the habit system.

Spiritual frameworks (Neville, Wattles, Hicks, Buddhism, Christianity) as hypotheses

What they explain well

They provide interpretive language that makes persistence emotionally easier:
- Neville: “assume the end” (identity + expectation)
- Hicks: emotional guidance (mood management)
- Buddhism: non-attachment and noticing
- Christianity: surrender + meaning
These frameworks can indirectly improve outcomes by supporting discipline and hope.

What they explain poorly

None of them are directly testable in a way that distinguishes them from psychology + habit change, based on the site evidence alone.

Bottom line: they are best understood as meaning scaffolds, not proven causal forces.

Modern neuroscience/psychology interpretations (e.g., Tara Swart, James Doty)

The daily log explicitly references Tara Swart’s “manifestation without fantasy” angle and Doty reading intentions/compassion work (not endorsing, just noting the on-site content). (loa.codes)

What this lens explains well

Vision boards / goals can work via:
- attention,
- motivation,
- planning,
- and behavior alignment—without requiring supernatural causation.

What it explains poorly

It can’t validate “this coincidence was caused by thought”—only that thought influences action and attention.

Bottom line: this lens fits the site’s tone: “open to what I can’t explain, but build days on what I can.” (loa.codes)

“Pure luck” vs “increased probability through action”

Best synthesis

The site’s structure is almost a textbook example of:
1. increase action consistency,
2. increase exposure,
3. increase noticing,
4. curate wins into identity,
5. then experience more “wins.”

That’s not magic. That’s probability engineering.

3) Ranked drivers (Top 5 + Bottom 5)

Top 5 most likely drivers of the wins

Compounding habits + systems (daily checklist, routines, structured commitments) (loa.codes)
Attention/priming + pattern recognition (especially for micro-wins like coins/signs) (loa.codes)
Selection effects / highlight-reel reporting (wins recorded, denominator missing) (loa.codes)
Social opportunity surface area (more outings, consistent routines, content work → more chances for good breaks) (loa.codes)
Emotion regulation + resilience via meaning frameworks (values, non-attachment tone, reduced volatility) (loa.codes)

Bottom 5 least likely explanations (given the evidence available)

A specific guru being the causal agent (e.g., “it’s Neville specifically” vs any other framework) — the evidence doesn’t isolate one mechanism.
Supernatural “thought directly changes external reality” as the primary cause — not supported by the structure of evidence presented (no controls, no base rates).
“Pure luck alone” — doesn’t match the heavy behavior/routine infrastructure visible in logs. (loa.codes)
“Signs” proving a metaphysical storyline (red circle / tiny doorway) — these are highly perception-dependent. (loa.codes)
Single-event proof (e.g., one free coffee = cosmic confirmation) — too weak; these can occur normally. (loa.codes)

Where I’m uncertain + what would change my mind

I’m uncertain about how often the person attempts specific manifestations vs how often they succeed.
I’d change my mind toward “something unusually strong is happening” if we had:
- a full log of all attempts,
- pre-registered targets,
- time-stamped predictions,
- and outcomes compared to base rates.

4) Practical plan (30–90 days): Manifestation-as-a-lifestyle, grounded & testable

Core idea

Treat “manifestation” as (a) attention training + (b) behavioral consistency + (c) opportunity exposure, and test it like an experiment.

Daily (15–30 minutes total)

Morning (5 min): “Targets + actions”
- Write 1–3 targets for the day in behavior terms (e.g., “send 1 message,” “walk 20 minutes,” “apply to 1 thing,” “create 10 minutes of content”).
Midday (2 min): “Opportunity scan”
- Ask: What’s one tiny action that increases opportunity surface area today?
Evening (8–20 min): “Two logs”
- Log A (objective): what happened (facts only, no meaning).
- Log B (interpretation): what you think it means (optional).
- This split is a guardrail against self-deception.

Weekly (60 minutes, once a week)

Base-rate check
- Pick 1 category (money, social, health habit, work).
- Ask: What would be normal if I did nothing? What changed because of action?
Scoreboard update
- Track metrics (below).
Pre-register next week’s “wins”
- Write 3 specific, testable outcomes you’re aiming for.
- Example: “Have 2 meaningful conversations,” “submit 5 applications,” “post 3 pieces of content,” “do 6 workouts.”
- Important: these are actions + measurable outcomes, not vague wishes.

Metrics (keep it simple)

Inputs (leading indicators):
- of outreach attempts
- of public outings / social exposures
- of content pieces created
- of planned actions completed
Outputs (lagging indicators):
- of positive responses / invites / opportunities
- $ saved or earned
- concrete milestones (appointments kept, applications moved forward)
Coincidence log (optional, but controlled):
- If you track “signs,” also track “non-sign days” so you have a denominator.

Evaluation method (30 / 60 / 90 days)

At each checkpoint, answer:
1. Did inputs increase?
2. Did outputs increase?
3. Are “wins” increasing faster than you’d expect by chance?
If outputs rise while inputs rise, you likely have probability-through-action.
If you only see more “signs” but no output change, you likely have attention/priming without behavioral payoff.

Guardrails to avoid self-deception

Keep an explicit Misses List (equal importance to Wins List).
Separate facts from interpretations (Log A vs Log B).
Pre-register weekly targets (reduces hindsight bias).
Do a monthly “skeptic review”: If a critic read this, what would they say is missing?

5) What additional data I’d want (short list)

A complete attempt log (every intended manifestation, not just wins).
Clear definitions: what counts as a “win” vs “normal life.” (loa.codes)
The time spent and frequency of exposures (coffee shop visits, networking, applications, etc.).
A parallel log of losses / neutral days with equal detail (denominator).
A few pre-registered predictions with timestamps and success criteria.

If you want, I can also produce a one-page “Skeptical Read” of the wins list (how a statistician would interpret each item: coin finds vs major life outcomes), while still respecting the author’s intent.

The 30/60/90-day plan I gave you is basically “manifestation” translated into behavior science + attention training + opportunity design + anti-self-deception guardrails.

So the frameworks that match it best are the ones that explicitly say:

your attention can be trained,
your nervous system state matters,
you still have to take action,
track reality, not just vibes.

Here’s the clean comparison.

The closest match (most aligned)

1) Dr. Tara Swart (neuroscience-based “action board” manifestation)

Why it matches: She frames manifestation as brain priming + clarity + actions, not supernatural wishing. She explicitly emphasizes action and attention mechanisms (“action board,” selective attention/value-tagging style ideas). (Byrdie)

Where it differs: Less emphasis on formal “guardrails” like pre-registered predictions, but it’s extremely compatible.

Fit with your plan: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (best match)

2) Dr. James Doty (attention + compassion + nervous system regulation → better outcomes)

Why it matches: Doty talks about redirecting attention, calming the stress response (sympathetic → parasympathetic), and building practices (breathing, visualization, compassion) that change how you think/behave—leading to better results. (Stanford News)

Where it differs: Doty puts more weight on compassion/heart-based training than my plan did—but it integrates perfectly as a “stability + prosocial” layer.

Fit with your plan: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

3) Acceptance & Commitment Therapy (ACT)

Not on your original list, but if you said “Which framework is most like this plan?” ACT is basically the blueprint:

values → committed action,
acceptance/mindfulness,
psychological flexibility,
staying honest about discomfort while still doing the work. (ACBS)

Fit with your plan: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (ties for best, just not branded as “manifestation”)

Strong secondary matches

4) Buddhism (mindfulness + non-attachment)

Why it matches: Your plan separates facts vs interpretations and uses daily awareness + reduced attachment to outcomes—very Buddhist-adjacent in practice (even if you’re still goal-directed).
Where it differs: Traditional Buddhism may de-emphasize chasing outcomes; your plan is explicitly outcome-tracking.

Fit: ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆

5) Christianity (discipline + surrender + meaning)

Why it matches: Habit, integrity, service, surrendering what you can’t control, and “guardrails” against ego/storytelling can map well onto many Christian practices.
Where it differs: Christianity is not primarily about “manifesting” outcomes; it’s more about formation and trust.

Fit: ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆

Partial matches (compatible, but not the closest)

Neville Goddard (Law of Assumption)

Match: Identity shift (“state of the wish fulfilled”) can support confidence and reduce desperate action-chasing. (The Law Of Assumption)
Mismatch: Neville communities often downplay the “denominator” problem (misses), and sometimes discourage action or treat action as unnecessary. That clashes with my plan’s “probability through action” and falsifiable tracking.

Fit: ⭐⭐⭐☆☆ (works if you keep the guardrails + keep action)

Abraham Hicks

Match: Emotional regulation (“reach for the next better feeling”) can help you function and take better action. (gabbybernstein.com)
Mismatch: It’s less rigorous about measurement and can drift into vibe-only logic without guardrails.

Fit: ⭐⭐⭐☆☆

Wallace Wattles

Match: “Think and act in a Certain Way” and gratitude/action themes can align superficially. (The Invisible Mentor)
Mismatch: It often claims near-mechanical certainty (“mathematical certainty”), which is exactly what your base-rate/anti-self-deception guardrails are designed to resist.

Fit: ⭐⭐☆☆☆

Least aligned (to the grounded, testable version of the plan)

Dr. Joe Dispenza

Match: Meditation and internal state work can be useful generally.
Mismatch: A lot of criticism centers on overstated scientific framing and “quantum/neuro” language used in ways critics say aren’t well-supported, which pushes people away from falsifiable testing. (ASBMB)

Fit: ⭐⭐☆☆☆ (meditation piece can be kept; claims should be treated cautiously)

“Influencer Neville” (including some coaching ecosystems)

I’m not saying Maggie Murphy specifically is wrong (I didn’t find a clean primary-source explanation of her full framework in the time we had), but in general, influencer ecosystems tend to:

optimize for certainty,
encourage interpretation inflation,
and blur “feels true” with “is true.”
That’s the opposite of your plan’s guardrails.

Fit: depends on how strictly they emphasize action + reality-checks.

So, if you want one answer

Most aligned with the plan:
Dr. Tara Swart + Dr. James Doty + ACT (ACT is the hidden backbone). (Byrdie)

If you want a “spiritual overlay” that still plays nicely with the plan:
Buddhism (mindfulness + non-attachment) plus Christianity (meaning + surrender + integrity), while keeping the measurement guardrails.

If you tell me your main 90-day target (money / health / relationships / creative output), I’ll map the plan to one primary framework + one secondary “support framework” and show exactly what you’d do daily in that blended style—without losing the skepticism and testability.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent Posts

What Are You Looking For?

Archives