Much as in the case of preliminary ideas during waking hours that are moved to the back burner for incubation, the assumption is that TDI ideas presented during the hypnogogic state will move to the back burner and begin to “percolate”—often appearing in dreams produced during the subsequent night. I would suggest that these TDI ideas might hop on a peremptory ideational train or even precipitate the initiation of this train. Much as George Klein (1967) found that subliminal stimuli can influence one’s memory and imagination, so we might find that the ideas presented during the hypnogogic state influence the content of subsequent dreams.
Some preliminary studies conducted at M.I.T. suggest that TDI can provide a structured, intentional approach to dreaming (Youngren, et al., 2025; M.I.T., 2026). Perhaps, DSE does work and one can shape their dreams. Dreams cease to be random, uncontrollable events. They become one of several controllable psychological processes (such as cognitive-behavioral therapy) for gaining support and guidance when facing life challenges. This being the case, one can use dream self-efficacy and TDI to overcome a sense of helplessness (Seligman, 1992) and assume what Martin Seligman has identified as the critical sense of optimistic hopefulness (Seligman, 1991/2006; Seligman, 2012; Seligman, 2018).
I do wish to offer a cautionary note. While it is reassuring to believe that we can gain some control over our dreams, we must be aware that the self-reinforcing nature of the DSE model leaves little room for the correction that can be provided by an independent dream. Whereas a cognitive-behavioral perspective begins with the assumption that rational, thoughtful processes can “win-the-day,” the psychoanalytic/psychodynamic perspective begins with the assumption that these processes can easily be taken over by much less rational forces in our psyche. I can’t help but wonder if the initial pre-sleep intentions are always what the dreamer should be embracing. An independently generated dream might suggest otherwise, as it portrays a quite different set of outcomes and perhaps even a pathway to these outcomes.
Yet another concern that was recently voiced by Nik Eyal (2026) in the Boston Globe. Reflecting on Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy, Eyal noted that it is not enough to visualize effective action and outcomes, one must use this visualization to prepare diligently for the enactment. Simple visualization is nothing more than “wishful” thinking and may backfire if the visualization leads one to believe that the desired outcome is inevitable (as in the Greco-Roman fate-based dramas). With this belief comes a failure to prepare and resultant failure. As Eyal (2026, p. K5) notes:
“The real power of belief . . . operates through attention (shaping what you notice), anticipation (shaping how your mind and body prepare for what you expect is coming) and agency (shaping whether you keep going when things get hard).”
We are most likely to find self-efficacy with the actual experience of seeking to achieve something, “strengthened by small wins, and refined through feedback” (Eyal, 2026, p. K5). According to Eyal, belief is not so much a feeling that summons successful; it is more a feeling that motivates calibration, feedback and modification of what is occurring.
