Strategy for Using Automations (Protocols)

Protocols can be used in at least three different ways.

The first way is to run ready-made protocols created by others — essentially following a pre-laid trajectory. This is the simplest and most straightforward way to enter the practice. Without much effort, you can, for example, read and launch two or three protocols each night before sleep and, over time, obtain quite observable and measurable changes in your state, reactions, and behavior.

The second way is to write your own protocols for processing specific topics and states. The principles of composing them become clear after becoming familiar with the free entry-level protocols. As a rule, there is no shortage of topics: it is enough to carefully look at what exactly interferes with your life, work, interactions with people, or forward movement. Practice quickly forms an intuitive understanding of how to formulate instructions and what to emphasize.

The third way is to use automatic tools to simplify work with your own material — that is, personal problems and states. The simplest example is an auto-processor that works with lists. Those familiar with BSFF or similar methods know how exhausting it can be to manually process a large number of pre-written aspects. In this case, part of the work — namely the processing — can be delegated to automation. A free tool is available on the website that allows you to do this directly.

In practice, these approaches can and should be combined. You can run ready-made protocols, simultaneously write your own tailored to specific material, and use automation where it simplifies the process. This combined approach usually turns out to be the most effective. In my own experience, there were periods when I actively combined all three approaches, and sometimes — especially at later stages — I worked entirely without automations, doing everything manually. This happened when there was little new material, and the extra effort of loading aspects into automation no longer seemed justified. In other cases, on the contrary, I wrote separate protocols for specific topics when the structure of the problem was generally clear, but breaking it down manually into individual elements was too tedious.

Understanding which approach is appropriate at any given moment comes only with experience. And, essentially, the only truly useful advice here is simply to work. There is little point in trying in advance to figure out “the correct way” to do each step. Most questions and doubts resolve themselves in the course of practice. If you have decided to engage in this work — start and do it. Those who work get results. Those who endlessly theorize about correct schemes usually remain where they are.

It is also worth addressing workload when working with automations. It is not recommended to overload yourself with processing. For most people, a pace of two to three protocols per day is relatively safe. I do not recommend launching more, as the risk of encountering pronounced swing states increases. It is important to understand that overload is not always felt immediately. After launching, there may be no unpleasant effects either the same day or the next. This creates a false impression that the volume of work can be increased without limit. As a result, after a few days, a sharp backlash may occur, which can be unsettling and often leads to stopping the practice altogether.

Therefore, in this system it is more reasonable to follow the principle: “fast is slow, but without stopping.” A moderate, steady pace places less strain on the psyche and ultimately leads to more stable and deeper results than attempts to force the process.