Feeds:
Posts
Comments

What is entitlement?

Just as the “P.C.” lobby use the word “bigot” to shut down topics about which they would rather not have any proper discussion or debate taking place, there is another piece of namecalling I have increasingly noticed being used, but this time to shut down ambition. That is the word “entitled”.

The student who wants to improve himself and get a better job; the entry level employee who wishes to move up the company; the artist, musician or writer who wants their work to get noticed; or the self-taught individual who just wants to find their place in the world – these people are not “entitled” simply because they point out (sometimes admittedly a little too stridently) the flaws in the system and, often, the ridiculous hurdles that are placed in their way.

But if you think these people are being “entitled”, wow, you are totally looking in the wrong place and need place the barrier way higher with regard to whom you consider entitled. Or else you really do cling to the view that people should know their station in life.

“Entitled” is the bank boss who claims a large bonus for himself, despite the bank being bailed out by the taxpayer.

“Entitled” is the failed politician who thinks he will automatically get a seat in the Lords or, who knows, perhaps even a plum position as an EU commissioner.

“Entitled” is the cynical “health tourist” or “benefits tourist” who spins a yarn about why they have to come to our country, while knowing exactly what they are doing and how to play the system. Next thing, they, their spouse, 8 kids and extended family are living in houses you could never afford, 100% gratis and 100% at your expense, courtesy of your taxes.

“Entitled” is the controlling and abusive partner who thinks it is his God-given right to micro-manage every aspect of his spouse’s life and respond with abuse and even tighter control whenever she tries to do anything for herself, make any independent decision or even just visit friends and family. He thinks everything should be about his needs.

“Entitled” are the heads of corporations who expect employees, who are just trying to survive, to work for a pittance on long, unsocial or unpredictable hours, yet demand a “passion” for the job. The real truth: “Why do you want to work here?” “Because I haven’t yet invented self-paying bills.” Well, maybe typing letters, answering phones or serving lunches is genuinely what floats some people’s boat, but that’s not the reality for most working people. Nevertheless, that doesn’t stop some spoilt HR manager writing something daft in a job specification like, “I’m looking for a person who WANTS rather than NEEDS this job…” The very fact that he thinks everyone has a choice about whether or not to take any job available reveals a truly spoilt attitude.

Obviously, there are differing levels of entitlement, this isn’t an exhaustive list, and I haven’t graded the above examples from bad to worst or put them in any specific order.

But picking on people who just want to get ahead and who express their disappointment at the obstructions that have been placed in their way isn’t fair. And for those who say life’s not fair, suck it up – that is just part of the same attitude of shutting down objections to this broken world.

Here is the article I saw recently.

What I find most interesting about this story is the change in parental attitudes it reflects.

When I was 8 years old, back in the 1970s, if someone our generation had come up with some big idea, I can imagine the response it would have generated from the adults around us: “Those people are far too busy and important to be bothered with letters from every 8 year old child! If you want to do something helpful, you can do the dishes.”

Or perhaps, subconsciously anticipating such a response, it would not have even occurred to any of us to suggest writing a letter. I truly believe that if I had voiced such a proposal, I would have been roundly ignored, or told what an imagination I had. At best, I think I would have received a smile and a pat on the head.

Kids can be veritable founds of creative ideas, and some of them are rather good. However, it is one thing to come up with an idea, but to actually think of writing a letter, to find out to whom it should be addressed and the postal address to which to send it (a task admittedly made much easier these days by the Internet) is usually beyond the patience and attention span of a small child, unless they are receiving help from an adult. The fact that this story was then supplied to the Press seems to suggest that the boy was receiving adult help in publicising the letter and the researchers’ response.

In my day (doesn’t that phrase make me sound old? LOL) children didn’t write letters to someone they didn’t know, unless it was “fan mail”, and then it would be a simple letter of appreciation, and the most you were taught to expect in return was a signed photograph. Even a keen young astronomer like I was would have been met with stern disapproval if I had bothered the local university with every new idea I had about space. Favourite pop stars, authors and TV presenters were fair game, but you didn’t bother authority figures whom your parents told you were “busy and important” and that your ideas were probably silly anyway. How attitudes change.

Update 29 Dec 2014

Michael has now published an updated and expanded article, which explores this theme further. Highly recommended.


Despite the author of this article describing it as “archaeological” when I asked him about it a few months ago, I have continued to find it a valuable resource to quote from and link to when making particular points about IQ and success. Today I was disappointed to find that the page had finally disappeared when I was trying to link to it elsewhere, and I have had to use the web archive to locate the article. I have saved a copy on my computer for my own reference, but I feel that this article is just too good a resource to have it simply disappear from the Internet. I have therefore reposted it here to save it for posterity.

The web archive link I found is here.

The Information Age Knowledge Class

by Michael Ferguson

IQ correlates well with the likelihood of entering and remaining in an intellectually elite profession with the probability increasing to a 133 IQ.  However, beyond that level, the probability begins to decrease.  By 140 IQ it has fallen by 1/3. By 150 IQ it has fallen by 97%!  This means that over a quarter million English speakers are being excluded from participating in those professions that could most use their intelligence.  Their exclusion appears to be directly related to inappropriate educational and productive environments.  Furthermore, we conclude that this is an Industrial Age phenomenon.  Consequently, as the global Information Age civilization emerges, we assert that a profoundly affluent and polymathic Knowledge Class, comprised primarily of the previously excluded high IQ population will will concurrently emerge.  Polymathica, through its Polymathica Institute’s Fellowship, intends to play a critical, facilitating role in that process.

A Necessary Digression into Success and IQ

When the use of IQ tests first became widespread, many groups within the intellectual elites allowed themselves to be tested.  The results were less spectacular than one might have expected and today these groups do not generally agree to testing.  Medical students had a mean IQ of 125.5 and a standard deviation of 6.5. (The Journal of Medical Education,1965, 40, 1130-1143)  The science faculty of Cambridge University had a mean IQ of 126.5 and a standard deviation of 6.3. (Nature, 1967, 213, 442)  Top executives had an average IQ of 124 and a standard deviation of 7.9. (Personnel Psychology, 1956, 9, 207-209)  More recent evidence suggests somewhat lower means for the various elites.  Robert Hauser found mean IQs for professors of 115 and for physicians of 121.  However, we believe that this is primarily a difference in the definitions of the groups selected, rather than a deterioration in IQs among intellectual elites.  We present it to demonstrate that while large groups of elites are no longer inclined to subject themselves to IQ tests, the mean IQs of these groups has certainly not gone up.  From this we draw the general conclusion that intellectual elites have a mean IQ of approximately 126 and a standard deviation of 6.7.

The first attempt to assign IQs to exceptional people was Catherine Cox’s 1926 review of 301 eminent people.  These estimates were most closely akin to a 16 point ratio IQ and must be restated for the purposes of modern comparisions. For example, Newton, rather than having an IQ of 190, on a modern 15 point deviation scale would be rated at 164.  In 1952, Anne Roe actually gave IQ tests to 62 of the most eminent American scientists  who were active at the time.  She found that the average IQ of the group was 152.  There are several methodological problems with this study, however. First, it was normed based upon the results from a group of PhD candidates in Education.  Since this group probably had a mean IQ of about 117 and a standard deviation around 12 (Science, 1961, Vol 133, Jan-Jun, 679-688), the group was inappropriate for norming the target group.  Secondly, while it is unclear whether the reported IQs were on a 15 or 16 point scale, necessarily, the distribution would be more similar to a ratio IQ than a modern deviation IQ.  Therefore, an IQ of around 144 to 146 would be more comparable to a modern test result.  A rather clever inferential analysis concludes that the mean IQ of Nobel Laureates is similar to the Roe group or about 144.

This all ‘hangs together’ statistically.  In other words, an IQ of 145 is at the 99.8%’ile of the elites from which these eminent members are selected.  This implies that IQ is an important component of success in entering and remaining in these elite professions and that the most eminent among them have higher IQs to a statistically significant degree. However, imbedded in these statistics is a surprise.  By dividing the distribution of the elites (126 SD 6.7) by the distribution of the general population (IQ 100 and SD 15) we can statistically infer the relative probability that a person of any given IQ will enter and remain in an intellectually elite profession.  Not suprisingly, the probability increases with higher IQ.  It does so up to an IQ of 133.  It then begins to fall, slowly at first but precipitously at higher IQ levels.  By an IQ of 140 it has fallen by 1/3.  By an IQ of 150 it has fallen by 97%!

There are an estimated 250,000 English speaking people with IQs over 150.  They are being nearly entirely excluded from intellectually elite professions.  There are undoubtedly many reasons for this peculiar inference.  Certainly one is the wholey inappropriate educational environments within which these people find themselves.  This is clearly chronicled in a comparative case study by Miraca U.M. Gross.  Additionally, the work of Keith Simonton on pursuasiveness, leadership success and IQ is also relevant.

When IQ was originally developed by Alfred Binet, it was a quotient of Mental Age over Chronological Age.  This is referred to as a ratio IQ and, in a sense, is an absolute scale.  In other words, if a child is precisely 8 years old and, when given the IQ test, scores identically to the average 12 year old, the child’s ratio IQ is 12/8 X 100 = 150.  When children are assessed this way, however, the result is a significant overabundance of very high IQ children.  Some, such as Marilyn vos Savant, have results that fall outside of the range of what is probable.  In adults a related problem occurs.  If a test is created and the results are tabulated for 1,000 norming individuals selected at random, a standard deviation of raw score can be calculated.  If we apply that standard deviation to a significantly larger population, say one million, we find that too many people are scoring too high based upon the statistics of the middle.  They both say the same thing,smart people appear to be too smart, not just to succeed in contemporary Industrial Age settings, but also in some absolute sense.

Psychologist Leta Hollingworth, made the observation that, “… generally speaking, a leadership pattern will not form–or it will break up–when a discrepancy of more than about 30 points of IQ comes to exist between leader and led” Children Above 180 IQ Stanford Binet: Origin and Development (1942 p. 287)  It is critical, however, to note that the Stanford Binet IQ test of that time rendered a 16 point ratio score.  This means that the IQ of 180 corresponds to a modern 15 point deviation IQ of 159.  When she indicates that there exists a critical difference of 30 points from her base IQ of 180, she is referring to a 150 16 point ratio IQ, which corresponds to a 140 modern score.  Consequently the critical difference, at this level, in modern terms is only 159-140 = 19 points.  If we take the modern IQ of the average imember of an ntellectual elite profession of 126, it translates to a 16 point ratio IQ of 130.  If we add 30 points to that we get 160, which translates back to a 15 point deviation IQ of 147.  This is an astonishing result.  What it means is that a person with an IQ of more than 147 literally cannot take a leadership position among today’s intellectual elites.  They will either detach from the leadership role or be expunged.

We also see from Simonton, that the most persuasive people within a population that has an average IQ of 126 will be 126+18=144.  Dennisen, interpreting Simonton, suggests that comprehension of this group will approach zero when the individual within the elite has an IQ of 156 or above.  In total what this suggests is that people of eminence within Industrial Age organizational structures, even in intellectually elite groups with mean IQs of 126, will generally have IQ’s between 144 to 147 and that there is a computed absolute limit at 156.

Most elites have mechanisms by which young members progress from the bottom up.  This is most clearly evidenced in the large, hierarchical enterprise structures of the Industrial Age.  The recent graduate will enter the organization at the professional level, proceed to first level management, next to middle management and, finally, to senior management. Many of the very high IQ participants will distinguish themselves at the professional level.  However, it is often perceived that the person lacks the ‘people skills’ to succeed in management positions.  This is how the organization interprets the overly high IQ.

While recognizing that some people do have difficulty with the interpersonal demands of management, most often in the high IQ group, this simply means that their IQ is above Simonton’s optimum 18 point differential and, often, above the Hollingworth 30 point maximum.  Even if the high IQ individual is given first level management responsibility, the result is likely to be less than satisfactory.  Often this leads to a process of demotion back to senior professional and almost universally results in a stalling of the career progression.  In other words, if one wants to find the smartest people in a company, one should look to well tenured senior professionals and first line managers.

According to Hauser, most professional groups have mean IQs centering around 108.  This suggests, per Simonton, that the optimum IQ for a first level manager is 126.  Translating to ratio IQs, applying Hollingworth’s 30 pont differential and translating back to deviatin IQ, we discover that the range of successful first line managers has a upper limit of 132. This corresponds closely to the maximum probability of entrance into an elite profession.  Since middle managers are selected from the population of successful first level manager’s, their IQs, from a practical standpoint, cannot exceed the 132 limit of the human resource pool from which they are selected.  The evidence, per the citation above, is that the IQ of top executives, at 124 does not exceed the average of first level managers.  Because the original population restricts the progression of intelligence with higher management levels, other selection criteria must be used.  This, in turn, leads to a generally poor correlation between IQ and career success.  In other words, it is a function of the organizational processes not of IQ, itself.

The Emerging Knowledge Class

We now understand that, over a broad range of educational and productive environments, the relationship between leader and follower and ranges of mutual understanding restrict the opportunities of exceptionally intelligent people.  These educational and productive environments, however, are Industrial Age institutions.  The Information Age is ushering in a completely different set of institutions.  Several aspects of the Information Age strongly suggest that the inverse correlation between measures of professional success and IQs above 133 will soon be ending.

First among these new environmental factors is the creation of significant, new social universes.  In our article, Polymathic Pundits, we conclude that Polymathica will be a global community of refinement and erudtion with characteristic IQs between 120 and 144.  Over time, its members will create enterprises that will provide the products and services for Polymathica.  This constitutes a radical new environment within which individuals in the problematical IQ range above 140 will have new opportunities for success.  Within Polymathica, the optimum leadership IQ (ratio vs deviation IQ differences are significant) is 144.  In hierarchical Polymathica organizations, the range of success for first level managers will be bounded on the top by the IQ of 152 which then becomes the functional limit for organizational leadership.  Howver, this means that over 93% of the people with IQs over 140 who currently have difficulty succeeding in traditional productive environments will have optimumal intelligence for success within Polymathica organizations.

However, the Information Age will be much more entrepreneurial and traditional career progressions will be far less normative.  Entrepreneurial organizations form from the top down.  In other words, very high IQ people, such as Bill Gates and Sergei Brin, form new organizations and then seek followers.  The very high IQ person starts at the top.  A visionary with an IQ of 160 will attract followers with IQs above 140 and a mean of approximately 149.  This process is creating new, hyper-intellectual and, potentially, polymathic productive work environments.  In our articles, we discuss new, Information Age polymathic knowledge professions that with characteristic IQs of its incumbents that are above 150.

As was the case with the Industrial Age, the Information Age will have organizations that are comprised of intellectual elites.  However, rather than averaging IQs of 126, the average IQ, as we see from above, is likely to be around 150. This suggests that the persons of eminence within these elites, rather than average IQs in the 144 to 146 range, will likely average 160 and be bounded on the top by 167.  Consequently, the usual institutions of enterprise in Polymathica will accommodate all but the .000397% of the population with deviation IQs of 168 or above.  This is a population of approximately 2,500 English speakers.  We expect that nearly all of them, over time, will find their way to Polymathica. They can and should be intentionally provided with exceptional educational and productive environments.

Conclusion

The preceding article is an extremely important aspect of Polymathica.  Simply put, its leadership will not be created from individuals already occupying positions of leadership within society.  Rather, Polymathica will allow  individualswho are currently experiencing difficulty in succeeding in Industrial Age educational and productive environments a new set of environments within which they likely will be more success prone.  Another important consideration is that high IQ does, in fact, correlate with superior solutions and decisions over its entire range.  The problem, as we have seen, is not with the quality of the decisions but rather with the ability of the organization to understand and appreciate their superior quality.  In other words, as the Polymathica organizations within which the high IQ and polymathic knowledge professions function begin to become established, they will simply outcompete the traditional organizations.  From the organizational triumph will come the triumph of the Polymath and the emergence of a polymathic Knowledge Class.

I came across this recently published article on memory and thought I would share it here.

In neuroscience, it has typically been the neurons put under the spotlight, while the glia cells, or “supporting” cells of the brain, have received relatively little attention from research.

More recently, however, more interest has been taken in the role of the glia cells, of which astrocytes are one type.

I had seen a presentation at an EEG workshop about three years ago, where the professors briefly discussed some unpublished research on the relationship between gamma oscillations and working memory. It would certainly be interesting to see if any extensive neurofeedback research is done specifically into this phenomenon.

Recently I attended a talk on managing stress and overwhelm in life, and I decided to share a few simple suggestions here.

1. Take things in segments.

Once upon a time I stumbled upon a technique for handling confusion. The author illustrated the point with the following demonstration. Take a few handfuls of little bits of paper. (Tear up an old newspaper that you were going to put in the recycling anyhow to save wasting trees.) Throw them up in the air and watch them all flutter to the ground. It probably looked like a confusing array of floating pieces of paper, didn’t it?

Then the author suggested the following. Pick up all the pieces of paper and repeat the exercise. But this time, as they start to fall, you eyeball one of them and follow its trajectory. As you follow the path of that single scrap of paper with your eye, you find you are able to follow it relatively easily while ignoring for now the rest of the fluttering pieces of paper.

Let’s turn our attention to how to apply that principle in the real world.

Have you ever had the feeling of just “not knowing where to start”? (For what it’s worth, I think that is a major reason why people procrastinate.) There is just too much to do, or too much to study, and the sheer volume of information or tasks is highly daunting.

The key thing is to start somewhere. Even if you are unsure right now what is the most urgent and important, and don’t really feel sure how to prioritise, let’s pick one thing and take positive action now. As the series of tasks starts to unfold, you may find you have a clearer picture of what needs to take priority.

2. Take significance down – less emotional investment.

It is too easy to invest too much energy in things that do not deserve that much emotional investment from you.

Panicking about deadlines, getting in a flap about the amount of things to be done, or getting unnecessarily upset or angry about the situations around you only sap your energy and distract you from the tasks at hand. They do not help you or the task, and reduce your productivity.

You may need to take a step back and ask yourself, “Is this worth getting so emotional about?”

An exercise that I always find helpful in such circumstances is to imagine for an instant that I am looking at the entire Earth from a distance. In the grand scheme of things, where does that thing that made me so angry really rate? It helps to put things in perspective.

3. Managing empathy.

I think one of the flaws (if you can call it that) of the gifted, or of HSP’s (highly sensitive persons) is that of caring TOO much.

It is very easy to hear of injustices in the world and get all riled up on other people’s behalf.

Social concern is one thing, but it can reach a tipping point where it is not healthy.

Sometimes it may do us all some good to take a break from the news media. Watch a nature documentary instead of the news one day. Or forgo your daily newspaper and buy yourself a small treat instead. No one is asking you to bury your head in the sand regarding what is happening in the world, but to acknowledge the fact that sometimes a bit of personal “information hygiene” is healthy.

4. Be aware of the technology trap.

What did we all do back in the days before mobile phones?

It can be very tempting to be constantly checking for texts, checking your emails, checking social media, or looking for news feed updates.

But think about this – how much of the information you checked on in the last 24 hours was actually important to you, and how much time did you spend randomly browsing instead of engaging in a productive task?

Not only do many people waste too much time with their head buried in their phone, but it crosses a line in their interpersonal relationships too. I have even heard reports of people attending a job interview, and the interviewer spent the entire time checking for messages instead of paying attention!

I rely on a certain amount of technology because I am building a business, and there is a minimal expectation that a trader or company will join the 21st century. I also find the Internet an invaluable resource in terms of online textbooks and courses and other study materials.

However, there are days when I just want to go out for a change of scenery and all I take with me are my house keys, my travelcard and enough cash for a snack or drink. It’s actually liberating to go “off the radar” for a few hours.

5. Find time for practices that promote mental and emotional balance and regeneration.

Even with a busy schedule, it is important to get some regeneration time. I’ve been doing biofeedback recently for relaxation.

Some suggestions are:

  • Exercise
  • Engage in a hobby
  • Take a walk
  • Listen to some music
  • Go somewhere different
  • Catch up with an old friend
  • Spend some time with the family
  • Find a green space to enjoy
  • Learn something new
  • Take a really long soak in the tub
  • Meditate or pray
  • Do something else that makes you happy

Whatever it is, just find something that recharges the batteries whenever you need to, and take time to do it!

Feel free to share your own stress-busting and productivity tips.

Cult expert Steven Hassan describes four general types of cults: religious, political, psychotherapy-educational, and commercial. (There is obviously some degree of overlap between the categories.)

My searches for techniques in mind development have brought me into contact with a number of organizations and movements that, if they are not an outright destructive cult, they certainly have some cult-like characteristics.

Most books, websites and documentaries that I have seen on cults tend to define the organization as a cult in terms of the actions of the leader or management of such groups, how the group is organized, and how it manages its followers. It is also very worthwhile looking at the characteristics of the followers.

In fact, it has been the behaviour of the followers that, more than once, has alerted me to the cult-like nature of the group.

The following are some general observations I have made over the years while studying the self-development techniques of various organizations.

1. The group is very precious about “their” material, even when similar information and techniques can readily be found elsewhere.

One international quasi-religious organization in particular is highly litigious, and it uses copyright and trade mark law not merely to protect its own material in a reasonable manner, but to attempt to prevent use of the techniques contained therein by anyone else. While a work can be copyrighted and a brand or company name can be trade marked, no single person or group can hold a monopoly over an idea. Yet that is precisely what the group leadership or the main guru wants, even when “their” material is a reworking or repackaging of already publicly available information.

I have also seen similar tactics used by a number of other groups.

2. Policing the Internet or elsewhere for open discussions. The guru or group officials dislike any discussion of their materials, techniques or business model anywhere on the Internet.

One self-development guru I knew about used Google Alerts to flag up any discussion of him or his organization. This person went to unusual lengths (threats and coercion) to keep the Internet free of any dissent.

Recently, European legislation was passed making it possible to request that material that is embarrassing to the individual is not included in Google searches. Upon Googling for this person’s name, the following notice appeared: “Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.” I find it entirely believable that this person would have jumped at the chance to make such a request as soon as the law was passed.

Another self-styled guru, a former stage entertainer, does not tolerate any open discussion, product review or short fair usage quotes being posted up anywhere, and makes liberal use of DMCA take down notices.

If members of the public are interested enough in someone’s work to write reviews or opinions about it, then surely the intelligent thing to do would be to handle them a little better. I feel this person has a lot to learn about maintaining friendly relations with the public and not creating antagonism.

Many of these gurus and groups do not need to police the Internet themselves, because they have armies of doting hangers-on with too much time on their hands and too much to say, who are eager to do it for them.

3. Criticizing the competition.

While it is a known cultish technique to criticize the competition and encourage adherents to ditch what they previously learned from other groups, of particular interest to me are organizations where it is the followers themselves who take this to a whole new level.

Case in point on the memory training scene. Even respected names in the field come under heavy fire on forums, while Guru X is presented as the one purveyor of truth on the scene. Very little actual investigation and comparison of all the available techniques is done by many of the most vocal followers. The guru doesn’t have to make unreasonable criticisms of his competitors because these folks will happily do it for him.

As my grandmother used to say, there are none so blind as those who see.

4. Highlighting flaws and weaknesses in the system, or that the same information is available elsewhere, or that a better system is available, is not tolerated.

Anyone who asks too many searching questions, expresses concerns, or whose view of how the group conducts its business is less than flattering, is automatically characterized as a hater or critic. Genuine concerns are never addressed head on, and criticism is never met with counter-arguments and evidence, only volleys of immature ad-homs.

5. When someone finds out something the group’s leadership would prefer they hadn’t, or he thinks they might be about to, the person is rapidly excommunicated.

In some cases, criticism or persecution of the former member follows. Particularly where the guru feels threatened by the former member, or has some other axe to grind.

6. The program or technique is often very aggressively promoted by the group.

What do I mean by “aggressively promoted”? Every Google search, every YouTube search, every forum or social networking site post generates sponsored ads for the organization.

The leader of one particular brain training business, in a bizarre twist, even has what at first blush looks like a critical exposé type of video of him and his company appear at the top of the list on YouTube. It is only once you actually get into the video you realize it is actually an advertisement for their techniques.

7. Too many skeletons in the closet.

I’m not saying every cult-like group has something to hide, but in my personal observations to date, rather too many do.

I have seen at least two leaders turn out to have a colourful past or criminal connections.

Dodgy business models, rip-offs, lack of adherence to own refund policy, and harrassment of unhappy customers who complain, seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

8. Using distractionary tactics to avoid the customer finding something better.

The last thing the guru or group leadership want is for the customer to find something more effective, simpler to use or understand, something that will give them more discernment or judgement in the future, or something based in more modern research.

 

None of the above should be construed to mean that I think all self-development leaders and groups are cults. Far from it.

Does any of this mean that I regret looking in strange places for techniques that work, or that I will stop looking? Absolutely not! I have learned a great deal, and found all sorts of things in the most surprising places that are not exactly reproduced elsewhere.

Bear in mind that just because some information is juicy, or a technique works well, does not automatically mean that the group or individual who lays claim to it is all good. Similarly, just because the group or individual is unpleasant does not mean that everything they put out is bad. It has long been my aim to create a distinction between the two.

I will continue searching for workable development techniques and writing about what I have explored – good, bad, or a mixture.

I do not expect that everyone will share my opinions about my findings, but the one thing I won’t do is compromise my integrity regarding how I express my own experiences and observations of them.

Received the following email this morning from Ruslan M. So this is supposed to be Pmemory 4.0?

(I see the laughably discredited datum about using 10% of the brain’s capacity is still being recycled on the website.)

Please somebody explain what is new. It looks identical to the 2.0 version of the course I took.

Fair use quote begins:

Hello [name],

Did you know that there is a way to boost your learning speed up to 60 times and never forget what you have learned?

I have spent the last few years developing a way that would make something like this possible and I am finally ready to share with
you what I have discovered.

The fun part is that I have tested it out on people already and now I have their video reports that you can also see.

Be ready to be blown away. 🙂

Here is the link:

http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=7qlE8&m=Jn5jI0oRJtwky5&b=m_Z027H4OslG.EZG2wX03w

Ruslan M
(new) pmemory.com

%d bloggers like this: