Procedure

Let's just keep it simple here. When I don't give a fuck about certain things, the results are neither good or bad, but they're in between. That process usually results in two steps. Apparently I interrupted my own process, sadly, and turned it into a four step process. (This is not about love or hate or how some people are really stupid.)

This is simply a theory I've devised based on experience.

What I Did:

Step One: Not Giving a Fuck About Certain Things
The process of not giving a fuck about most daily things, inducing more pleasant results in some areas where you DON'T give a fuck and more time to focus on others. This process is usually the one that lasts the longest, seeing as it is a life basis. Some may call me wrong, but, hey, I can make my own decision.

Step Two: Really Good Thing
In the event of a really good thing, a slight revelation happens that maybe there's a change in the wind, or maybe there's some new luck to come around, and whatever happens may not be so bad.

Step Three: Really Shitty Thing
The really shitty thing is an instant counteraction to the really good thing, and usually comes within an hour or a day, not giving the really good thing enough time to be savored or even exist. Side effects will come, but it is enough to cause a demise of previously said good event.

Step Four: Returning to Step One
Returning to step one usually is a result of further venting or handling the situation by itself. Based on the rate of which this happens, time to recover could start off at a few days, and eventually get down to a few hours.

What I Should've Done:

Where the hell did I go wrong? I allowed step two to occur. The original should've been this:

Step One: Same as above

Step Two: Neutrality
Sadly I failed to heed my own advice at this part. Based off of my theory and the way it works, if I let Neutrality occur, the step two listed above, as well as three and four, wouldn't even occur. It would be: step one, neutrality, repeat. In neutrality, I wouldn't care about something either way, being neither pessimistic or optimistic. I'd be stuck in the middle, just passing it off. But for some God-awful reason, I allowed that switch to take place. Why I did that eludes me.

What is my point here? If I had done what I should've done, I would allow no room for disappointment nor elation. But since I took the opposite route, what happened? I did allow room for elation, therefore, allowing room for disappointment. As I've learned, they cancel each other out. If you set the bar high and get low results, you're going to be disappointed. If you set the bar low and get high results, you're happy. But if you don't set the damn bar at all, there is no effect.