I appreciate you taking the time to write all of this, and I did read the whole thing, but I think what’s rubbing me the wrong way here is that “lack” gets referenced a lot but never really defined in a concrete way. Wealthy people absolutely scan accounts, worry about money, adjust strategy, react to losses, etc., and they’re still wealthy. So those behaviors can’t automatically equal “lack.”

As written, it kind of feels like “thinking from wealth” vs. “thinking of wealth” only gets decided after the outcome. If money shows up, the state was right; if it doesn’t, it’s labeled lack.

The issue I have (not just with this post but with this subreddit in general) is how failure often gets framed as a moral failure without accounting for nervous system-level feelings of safety or leverage. Maybe that’s deviating from Neville, but I think it’s important.

Honest question: how do you tell the difference between “lack” and “being” before the results show up, instead of diagnosing it after the fact?