Thread: DILD is the Bubble Sort of Lucid Dreaming

(Apologies if this is in the wrong place)

So I'm browsing the lucid dreaming forums, and every once in a while I see a newbie asking about how to lucid dream. And then people tell them about what lucid dreaming is, about how you're aware that you're dreaming, and so on. The next thing these kind teachers always do is start describing reality checks. The OP asks more questions, and before you know it, it's a full-blown DILD tutorial.

Now I can understand why newbies would gravitate towards DILD, and why experienced dreamers would naturally tend to explain DILD before any other technique. It is the easiest to understand, and the technique also helps reinforce the basic concepts underlying lucid dreaming.

BUT, is DILD really a technique that most dreamers use on a regular basis? There may be a poll about this floating around somewhere, but I bet that if you took a poll asking what the most-used technique (or set of techniques) was, the answer would be WILD, not DILD. I'm not even sure that DILD would come second in such a poll.

Indeed, DILD is a horrible technique, in my opinion. I've said this so many times over the years, but it's true: DILD sucks. It's a huge personal commitment to actually pull off, it rarely works, it's unreliable, and it results in lucid dreams that are prone to losing lucidity. The only potentially redeeming quality of DILD is that you don't have to go through SP. But I think anyone who's ever in a lucid dream will end up in SP accidentally anyway. If not on the way in, certainly on the way out.

In fact, if you think about it, DILD inspires a very passive attitude on the part of the dreamer: "I might have a lucid dream tonight I remember to RC in my dreams". Do we want people who are new to lucid dreaming to think that's there so much chance involved? I mean, Compare this to WILD: "I'm going to WILD tomorrow morning at 6:30am, period". No room for random chance. Either you succeed, or you did something wrong. And if you did do something wrong, you're driven to do better next time. With DILD, if it doesn't work, who the hell knows why! It might be you, it might not!

So why aren't we teaching lucid dreaming from the WILD perspective?

In many ways, this DILD/WILD situation is similar to how students of computer science are taught to sort numbers using Bubble Sort before any other sort. And this is despite the fact that Bubble Sort is literally the worst sorting algorithm known to man. But, it illustrates concepts better than something like Quicksort, so it's taught. And then these students are surprised when they discover that there's sorts that don't take polynomial time! And they wonder why their brilliant professors taught them useless Bubble Sort.

/end rant

I'm going to try to add a poll to this.

I strongly disagree with your post.

DILD is a basic technique that doesn't need to involve countless RCs and constantly questioning if you're dreaming. It's a "couple times a day" technique.

Through DILD, I've achieved 99% of my lucid dreams. It can take just as much effort to DILD as WILD, plus WILD involves sleep paralysis which many people don't want to go through. Never once have I ended up in sleep paralysis after waking from a lucid dream. If your claim is true, then people who WILD would also end up in sleep paralysis after waking.

And DILD isn't just about doing reality checks and hoping they'll appear in a dream. There's an entire mindset involved which can produce some amazing lucid dreams, you just have to know what to do and how to stabilize the dream. And, if you're aware enough (through good DILD practices), you will be able to remain lucid for quite a while.

The problem is, and I believe this is where you're coming from, the DILD tutorials around DV mostly talk about how you just have to RC often and it'll appear in a dream - relying more on chance than anything else. But people always do this, and nothing happens. The tutorials should focus more on awareness, because one has to be aware enough to suddenly become conscious in the dream, then do a RC to confirm. Then it may become a more "reliable" technique in your book.

Originally Posted by Puffin

I strongly disagree with your post.

DILD is a basic technique that doesn't need to involve countless RCs and constantly questioning if you're dreaming. It's a "couple times a day" technique.

Spoiler for entire post:

Through DILD, I've achieved 99% of my lucid dreams. It can take just as much effort to DILD as WILD, plus WILD involves sleep paralysis which many people don't want to go through. Never once have I ended up in sleep paralysis after waking from a lucid dream. If your claim is true, then people who WILD would also end up in sleep paralysis after waking.

And DILD isn't just about doing reality checks and hoping they'll appear in a dream. There's an entire mindset involved which can produce some amazing lucid dreams, you just have to know what to do and how to stabilize the dream. And, if you're aware enough (through good DILD practices), you will be able to remain lucid for quite a while.

The problem is, and I believe this is where you're coming from, the DILD tutorials around DV mostly talk about how you just have to RC often and it'll appear in a dream - relying more on chance than anything else. But people always do this, and nothing happens. The tutorials should focus more on awareness, because one has to be aware enough to suddenly become conscious in the dream, then do a RC to confirm. Then it may become a more "reliable" technique in your book.

This. this.

About DILD being the lamest technique, in OP's opnion, I deeply disagree. I belive it's the best technique for a newbie and even advanced lucid dreamers.
I belive someone said, I think it was Walms, that he relies only in DILD, having like 5 lucids each night. And the lenght of the dream was very long, too.

Originally Posted by Brunor2

This. this.

I belive someone said, I think it was Walms, that he relies only in DILD, having like 5 lucids each night.

Wow, five lucids a night?

I might add that some medications and other medicines can hinder one's ability to WILD - I started taking antidepressants about a year ago, and it severely affected my ability to enter sleep paralysis, because that's another thing antidepressants can be prescribed for. So, I focused more on DILD which has basically saved me from living without another LD.

Originally Posted by Puffin

I strongly disagree with your post.

Good.

Originally Posted by Puffin

DILD is a basic technique that doesn't need to involve countless RCs and constantly questioning if you're dreaming. It's a "couple times a day" technique.

No it's not. Let's not tell fibs. To be able to DILD, you need to be pretty much constantly questioning reality. And even ignoring the time it would take to set that up, is that a mental state anyone would really want to be in?

Originally Posted by Puffin

Through DILD, I've achieved 99% of my lucid dreams.

Then you're either counting partially lucid dreams as lucid dreams, or you haven't had very many. If we count partially lucids, then whoop di do I've had thousands.

Originally Posted by Puffin

It can take just as much effort to DILD as WILD, plus WILD involves sleep paralysis which many people don't want to go through. Never once have I ended up in sleep paralysis after waking from a lucid dream. If your claim is true, then people who WILD would also end up in sleep paralysis after waking.

DILD takes much more effort and thought. And yes, WILD lucids often put the person back into SP afterwards. But the argument for DILD was, "no need for SP". And the reality is, you're gonna get SP whenever you mess around with your sleep, be it WILD or DILD.

Originally Posted by Puffin

And DILD isn't just about doing reality checks and hoping they'll appear in a dream. There's an entire mindset involved which can produce some amazing lucid dreams, you just have to know what to do and how to stabilize the dream. And, if you're aware enough (through good DILD practices), you will be able to remain lucid for quite a while.

The mindset of thinking reality isn't real? Trust me, that gets old real quick.

But to your other point about duration -- if a DILD were to last longer than a WILD, it's only because you've slipped on the lucidity scale. There's always a tradeoff between lucidity and duration, so less lucid dreams tend to last longer. So if we're counting dreams where you're not really lucid, then sure they last super long. Great. We can all just eat bananas and call it a day, and say we're having tons of lucid dreams.

Originally Posted by Puffin

The problem is, and I believe this is where you're coming from, the DILD tutorials around DV mostly talk about how you just have to RC often and it'll appear in a dream - relying more on chance than anything else. But people always do this, and nothing happens. The tutorials should focus more on awareness, because one has to be aware enough to suddenly become conscious in the dream, then do a RC to confirm. Then it may become a more "reliable" technique in your book.

Until you can explain, in a concrete way, exactly what "awareness" is, and how to scientifically increase it, it will remain a mumbo-jumbo ex-post-facto justification for the lucky folks who have had successful DILDs and don't want to admit it was LUCK.

^This.

If I may add to how Walms gets five lucids a night, he posted that he focuses on how Earth's gravity pulls him down for up to the entire day. Basically constant awareness.

Originally Posted by mikeac

^This.

If I may add to how Walms gets five lucids a night, he posted that he focuses on how Earth's gravity pulls him down for up to the entire day. Basically constant awareness.

That's a very good idea!

Yes. I did read that thread too and about his reality check, being aware of his own weight.

Now, saying that DILD is useless, it's a real shame. You should look more at the forums. DILD can be unreliable in the start, but if you master it, can be easier than WILD.

I'm not going to refute your entire post because it's not worth it. You've simply been misinformed. A scientific definition of awareness isn't required, because - simply, the DILD technique has worked for me and many others. That's all there is to it. If you'd like to dissect every detail of the technique, be my guest.

Originally Posted by Puffin

I'm not going to refute your entire post because it's not worth it. You've simply been misinformed. A scientific definition of awareness isn't required, because - simply, the DILD technique has worked for me and many others. That's all there is to it. If you'd like to dissect every detail of the technique, be my guest.

I'll help.

DILD is this simple. Question reality periodically, but not all the time. Just whenever you think you're dreaming, or if you have not been aware of your surroundings do a reality check. Keep a dream journal. It's that simple, there's no mental state of awareness that you need to constantly be in to perform a DILD. A partial lucid dream is still a lucid dream, and and if even if you are only partially lucid, you still accomplished a simple DILD. When you do a WILD you don't always enter sleep paralysis, once I was just kicked into a dream, just like that. DILD doesn't ever create sleep paralysis. Basically you're saying all lucid dreams will cause sleep paralysis, which is not true. You are only in sleep paralysis when you're body is physically asleep, you don't feel it when you are dreaming. WILD never even placed me in SP after the dream ended, only before. The mindset of DILDing is not that you think reality isn't real, it is the mindset of questioning reality, knowing when you're dreaming, and being able to control it. Dream length has absolutely NOTHING to do with how many lucid dreams you have achieved, dream length is however long your REM cycle is.

Lucid dreaming is a science. But you don't need science to explain how to lucid dream.

Oh yeah, "LUCK", it isn't real. Just saying.
I'm not the best person when it comes to making a point in arguments.

Originally Posted by Puffin

It's not so much of a habit as really questioning if you're dreaming. Dream signs don't do anything unless you are aware enough to recognize them; if they did work well, people would become lucid every time they flew in a dream, and every time they ended up in strange places.

...How do you really know that you're awake right now?

Is it because your keyboard and mouse feel real, and everything seems normal?

But think - things feel extremely real in a dream too - unless we question it. There's no difference until you really stop and think.

So, are you dreaming?

It's pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

What I find interesting is the apparent assumption that WILD isn't taught much around here, when it is.

Outside of that, I would say that you (OP) are completely disregarding the evidence that; while WILD seems to be the most reliable method for some people, DILD seems to work so much better, for others. I have racked my brain, trying to become more adept at WILD, but it's just not for me. I am a natural DILDer, and much of my "intended" LD's come from auto-suggestion and the WBTB method. Even without taking all of that into consideration, your assessment is obviously a bit biased. You break down DILD to the level of chance that exists within it (although this 'chance' is greatly affected by how much attention one puts into becoming lucid, throughout their daily lives), but you ignore the levels of chance that affect WILD.

I could just as easily point out the level of chance it takes to not fall asleep, while attempting to WILD, which every single person must face, when trying to slip into that state. It is also the main reason I - and many other people - suck at WILDs. DILD does not "take much more effort and thought." In fact, I have had much more success with consciously setting my intention to have a DILD, than with consciously attempting to phase into a WILD; which often leaves me tired and frustrated. The success/failure ratio hasn't even been close. I don't even see how you could make such an assessment, unless you, yourself, are just horrible at DILDs, and figure it must be the same for everyone, across the globe.

There is a degree of chance involved with every technique. And while I can see why you might have a preference of one method over another, to talk about any one method as if it is useless - or entirely based on chance - is false. If you think it's not, then I would have to charge you with providing enough evidence for such an idea to be accepted. I would think that one method being superior is subjective, at best, but personally, I just see an opinion that hasn't really been substantiated enough to take seriously (especially since, after being here for so long, I've seen that I often have more LDs than some of the most accomplished WILDers on the site - by way of DILD). While I have seen some major successes that people have had with WILD, I haven't seen nearly the amount that would lend any credence to your theory, so I would think it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Look, I use WILD attempts and DILD at the same time.
Sure, when I first showed up DILD was easier for me to work with and WILD was a strange concept to me. But it didn't make me long to figure out the different techniques and to choose what I wanted to do. WILDing isn't easy for me. I don't have a natural ability for it, so I haven't ever been able to do it. DILD is my backup and it's been more effective than WILD.

I haven't given up on WILD but DILD is a good technique too.

The only time I've ever gone from a waking state to a 'dreamstate' or a different reality was when I had what I feel was an OBE, because the technique I used was different and instead of entering a dream I remember pulling myself up, out of my bed and walking to my door. I felt very floaty and when I looked back at my bed I saw my body. It didn't feel at all like my LDs have felt. So basically, I've never been able to WILD using any of the WILD tutorials here. I keep trying, but DILD has helped me out a lot more.

So DILD is as good as a technique, in my eyes, as WILD.

I don't see why you would call DILD useless. It's still an attempt and it still requires some preparation. WILDing can be equally random. I.e "I'm going to attempt to WILD tonight."

Until you're good at it, WILDing is harder than DILD by far.

I use my own technique and I have some parts in it that is based on some DILD techniques if you really want an explanation then click on the link in my signature. I think everyone has there own technique in some way and reading tuts is just another way to think of different ways to add to your technique.

When I first joined the forum I tried DILD because it was the most simplest and it did work for me. I managed to have a ld just about every week. After that, I came up with my own technique that combines almost every main induction technique together and it has worked for me and I can get lucid just about Every day.

I think DILD is a great way to induce lucidity

Bubble Sort is a fair analogy. It's so academic; only computer science students care about sorting algorithms. In real software development, sorting is almost always a tiny part of a much larger piece of software. The efficiency of the sorting algorithm has a negligible impact on the overall software quality.

In the same way, the choice of induction technique isn't the most critical factor of success in lucid dreaming. Try a few and use whatever works with your schedule and skills. What matters more is your commitment and attitude. Experimentation and a holistic approach will find the best results.

I also very reliably DILD. I can pretty much do it at will.

And just FYI, if you plan to be a professional programmer, then don't knock bubble sort. There are select cases where you are supposed to use it because it outperforms everything else (small mostly sorted lists if you're wondering)

DILD is like an umbrella for many techniques, more like a general approach.

Most of my LD's have been DILDs.

Originally Posted by cmind

(Apologies if this is in the wrong place)

Indeed, DILD is a horrible technique, in my opinion. I've said this so many times over the years, but it's true: DILD sucks. It's a huge personal commitment to actually pull off (As is WILD if you want it daily), it rarely works (Nah, I get lucid daily through DILD), it's unreliable (See last one), and it results in lucid dreams that are prone to losing lucidity (Of course not, you are just not good enough at it, for me WILD <<<<<<<< DILD in clairity and lenght). T

In fact, if you think about it, DILD inspires a very passive attitude on the part of the dreamer: "I might have a lucid dream tonight I remember to RC in my dreams". Do we want people who are new to lucid dreaming to think that's there so much chance involved? I mean, Compare this to WILD: "I'm going to WILD tomorrow morning at 6:30am, period". No room for random chance. Either you succeed, or you did something wrong. And if you did do something wrong, you're driven to do better next time. With DILD, if it doesn't work, who the hell knows why! It might be you, it might not! (This is just so wrong, DILD isn't mere chance, it is how you are applying it that makes it work or not, just like with WILD, and for WILD you can lose lucidity while entering the dream, so there is your "chance" WILD is no holy grail, it is just the same as DILD)

So why aren't we teaching lucid dreaming from the WILD perspective? (Because it depends on what people like better, of course)

Ok, my answers are in bold. And on second thought, people already said this... ah well <.<

DILD is the begining technique and the easiest to start out with. Lots of the time it is much easier to WILD after getting a DILD. Not everyone can do WILD, I'm not very good at it but I think I am getting better. There is no reason any lucid dreamer that uses any technique be it WILD, MILD or any other one should not also use DILD. If you fail at WILD then you might realize you are dreaming anyway.If you can snag a few free lucids then why not?!

Oh and BTW your argument that you are likly to lose lucidity has nothing to do with what technique you use. I never lose lucidity wether it is a DILD, MILD or WILD.

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

DILD is the begining technique and the easiest to start out with. Lots of the time it is much easier to WILD after getting a DILD. Not everyone can do WILD, I'm not very good at it but I think I am getting better. There is no reason any lucid dreamer that uses any technique be it WILD, MILD or any other one should not also use DILD. If you fail at WILD then you might realize you are dreaming anyway.If you can snag a few free lucids then why not?!

I should have worded the poll better. I meant what's the MAINSTAY technique. We all get lots of accidental DILDs, of course. But how many people focus all their efforts on DILD, when they have the necessary skill to just do a WILD? Not many. This poll isn't asking what I intended at all.

Originally Posted by MadMonkey

Oh and BTW your argument that you are likly to lose lucidity has nothing to do with what technique you use. I never lose lucidity wether it is a DILD, MILD or WILD.

You're wrong about that. It's a well-known fact that DILDs are more prone to loss of lucidity because you're starting non-lucid to begin with (by definition).

Originally Posted by cmind

But how many people focus all their efforts on DILD, when they have the necessary skill to just do a WILD? Not many.

With all due respect, I don't think you're paying attention (which may be your problem with DILDs, in the first place? hahaha. I kid. ).

I focus my attention on DILD, because it is what gets me the most results. As a kid, I was practically able to DILD at will. Since then, I have - many, many (and I'll say this again, for the people in the back), MANY times - attempted to get better at WILDs. And I will continue to do so, at my leisure. But what has been the painfully consistent outcome is that (probably due to other waking world factors) it's just not the easiest way for me to become lucid.

Maybe when you've been around here long enough, you will see that DILD is the "mainstay" (most common) method for inducing lucid dreams. That is not to say that one method is "superior" to another, which is the picture you are trying to paint. If nothing else, DILD seems to be the easiest. Going further, though: WILDS - when accompanied by the WBTB method - are much easier than just WILDing at the onset of a full night's sleep. Used this way, people tend to have more success with WILDs, because it comes with the added boost of being nearer to (or falling right upon) a REM cycle.

Outside of that, though, you are still providing a conclusion (WILD > DILD) without a single shred of evidence toward that conclusion. Would you like to provide some more rationale for us?

(BTW, if you are using the word "mainstay" to define something that is "taught by default" around here, then you are completely misguided. There is no 'default' way of lucid dreaming that is taught here. Maybe the reason you get that impression is because DILD is taught more readily than WILDs. This, too, should tell you that it's simply the most common technique.)

That was a post for me cmind <.<

Anyway, I didn't say likely, I said that people do lose lucidity while transitioning (The frequency doesn't matters), some don't even notice the change and end up doing a WILD in a dream, which is more to add in the chance part.

Also, Why would I pursue WILD when it has such poor quality and lenght compared to my DILDs?

Originally Posted by Walms

Also, Why would I pursue WILD when it has such poor quality and lenght compared to my DILDs?

If you haven't practiced WILD, then I don't care.

If I'm talking to an expert, then I'm assuming that the expert has had ample opportunity to practice all techniques. So given that they're proficient in each one, which is the best? WILD, of course.

Originally Posted by cmind

If you haven't practiced WILD, then I don't care.

If I'm talking to an expert, then I'm assuming that the expert has had ample opportunity to practice all techniques. So given that they're proficient in each one, which is the best? WILD, of course.

If walms isn't an expert than I don't know who is. Why are you so determined to believe that WILD is the master race of lucid dreaming techniques or something. They all have their pros and cons and different people prefer different techniques.

Originally Posted by cmind

If you haven't practiced WILD, then I don't care.

If I'm talking to an expert, then I'm assuming that the expert has had ample opportunity to practice all techniques. So given that they're proficient in each one, which is the best? WILD, of course.

lol you figure I have never tried to WILD? Thats funny. If I have not at least 20 or so WILDs, why would I compare it to my DILD? That would be quite silly.
Also, I know a few people who are good at LD (I don't like the word expert, sorry) that would say DILD is better FOR THEM, while I know some others who would say WILD is better FOR THEM. And also, in DV WILD used to be taught waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than DILD two years ago, in fact, a lot of people complained about the newbies only trying to WILD and not DILD, so yeah <.<

Ummmm yeah. I disagree with the sweeping generalization that WILD is better than DILD. For one thing, most newbs find DILD much easier to start with than WILD. In fact when I was teaching classes here at DVA, my DILD students had a lot more success than my WILD students.

Anyway, I've been practicing both techniques for years, and I find DILD much easier than WILD. I don't even have to try to DILD. I actually have to put a little effort into WILD. If you don't believe me, just read my sig...