Thank you Sam, My approach has been to stick to language that ‘makes sense’ as much as possible so that when you think about it later, or ‘voices’ provoke we at least have a ‘platform’ that is stable. I found it hugely beneficial to separate: – Stimulus (And to note which characteristics I was reacting to)… from – My cognitive ‘reaction’ – the immediate processing of the stimuli (the available info)… from – How we GIVE meaning to the stimuli as they unfold, which by nature includes where/when I experience it and MY response to it. That way we can see that ANYONE who: – Overhears two people talking about their activity will infer that — They are nearby (near enough to be heard) — They have line of sight (to observe activity) — And in the physical location they are in, they will hypothesize how this interaction is coming about — And since the topic in conversation is me, my activity, I will ask why and why me… and find the best answer we can. … in my case the stimuli mimicked my upstairs neighbors, convincingly. i.e. our cognitive response is entirely as expected and the answer is ‘believable’ even if the ‘people nearby’ are behaving outside a social norm, as people sometimes do. It is as the stimuli progress that ‘apparent’ confusion sets in. When those same stimuli mimic ‘learning’ how to follow me onto the street, start talking TO me (vs about) and comment on my movements in an anticipatory fashion (he’s going to the supermarket…)… my interpretation of what “is happening” = the ‘mimicked’ scene I am actually experiencing as ‘real’ or as ‘real’ as everyday stimuli = a group talking to me about where I am headed… My cognitive response has to account for that and unless I have a ‘better’ = more ‘probable’ way of making sense of it… I will “speculate” until I find a ‘plausible’ answer, which is simply better than none at all. Note the shift from probability as my standard to plausibility – a simple facet of the ‘availability’ of evidence… and now we are edging into ‘belief’ territory rather than probability. The actual probability has not changed… but who cares… I am the one experiencing it, it is ‘possible’ theoretically that it could be some clandestine group (fill in CIA. Mossad, Freemasons… any one that you have some picture of)… so we ask why / why me… what would make the ‘victimization’ of me by ‘the CIA’ ‘plausible’ … and all ‘voices’ have to do is make a barely plausible suggestion – “You shared a post about Ed Snowden!! It’s the CIA!” and voila, there is an ACTION I took that is evidence that the CIA (who are monitoring ALL phones, incl the one I posted from, per Snowden, of course) and the dots have connected on… “It’s a conspiracy” and everyone you know who shared Snowden after you shared it with them is in the poo.. too. And it’s all my fault! Those dots connect and we experience it as real before we get a chance to step back and say …wait a minute… to discover we can’t DIS-prove it, or prove that it is NOT the CIA .. and then later.. voice fella says “I am God, greggieboy” and I have CHOSEN you to be my second coming. Will you rewrite the bible?”. In this case my reaction was to dismiss it (I’m pretty sure I am not the second coming (it’s improbable), though it is pretty easy to convince oneself one could be (plausibility), lol) .. but in the ‘wait a minute’ stage when you zoom out for big picture ‘sanity check’… you can’t ask yourself “Why would the CIA…??” … because asking why would ‘God’… shows.. I have a history and a back story… in human history. I have a build up, a purpose, a job to get done and there is a plan for it… foretold in which… God voice says “You ARE the second coming greggieboy… because I will MAKE You the second coming”.. and now DIS-proving everything voices claim becomes a bit more difficult. And clearly ‘God’ as ‘revealed’ (i.e. his own version of himself which is unpleasant to say the least) is not a figment of my imagination or my personal history or brain dysfunction – I have to account for ‘him’ and his story (stories more accurately), somehow. There is baggage to deal with! … and this ‘narrative’ still ‘makes sense’ as in is coherent or follows from earlier experiences in a way that each phase makes sense of the previous as the story unfolds, without necessarily making sense as ‘true’ or to anyone else. As long as the dots are connecting ‘plausibly’ in my BRAIN, I am experiencing it. We are social mammals working together ‘socially’ to create a ‘greater’ good, as in greater than we could achieve as an individual. We are ANTICIPATING those around us to find partners in action to create something ‘better’. To do so the brain is projecting – asking ‘is this ‘plausible’ before we work to create the conditions in which we can make it ‘probable’.. In the mind, plausible is a good starting point… in the world, persuading others, we need to show ‘probability’ ‘if’ specified action. In the ‘other’ worlds ‘voices’ drag us into, plausibility is a good enough standard for things to ‘make sense’, a simple precursor to ‘making a reality’. When we understand our narratives as a function of an evolved mind programmed to anticipate and speculate in order to create… they are much easier to make sense of. Lol, that was practice and I got a bit carried away – I am writing up a next step to this ‘Where we locate voices” article, which talks to about how our cognitive responses and narratives are pretty logical, when you understand: – the characteristics of the stimuli that – shape our cognitive response defining the ‘characters’ (from where they are located) in our – narrative of what we experience, as the stimuli progress over time. Everything flows from the stimuli and the where / when of them. And Sam… thank you for your comment “I think your take on it, is one of the ‘healthiest’ that I have read. It brought a calm to me” – that is a great compliment that is very much appreciated.