by Frederick Mann -- 10/1/07 (under construction; first version should be completed in about 2-3 months.)
(Note on word usage: Some political words, like "government," "state," "country," "nation," "law," etc., may not represent reality very well (they are often used to mislead) -- see Political Fakery? and the "Concept Formation" and "Does the government really exist?" videos. However, it would be difficult to communicate without using such words, so I'm using "government*," "state*," "country*," "nation*" and "law*." The "*" is the equivalent of crossing my fingers, to indicate that I may be using a "fake word.")
"Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power." -- Seneca
If you're not "philosphically inclined," you can skip this column. Though, you may want to study it in order to improve your thinking skills.
I've learned a great deal from some of the videos of Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, and I've included several of them in this Report. I expect that during the coming months I'll be adding many more. His material contains many valuable, original, and profound insights not available elsewhere, and I recommend that you study his audios and videos. You can find audios on his website and videos by doing Google video searches.
Before perusing Stefan's free-will ideas, I was aware that it was an issue I needed to look into more deeply. Stefan's ideas stimulated me to do that. I attempted to analyze and respond to all Stefan's important claims as thoroughly as I could. If Stefan cares to respond to my analysis, I'll gladly add his response to this column.
FDR: Free Will - Part 1
FDR: Free Will - Part 2
FDR: Free Will - Part 3
In the above videos, Stefan Molyneux makes an interesting case for "free will." If I understand correctly, he basically argues that humans have certain capacities that constitute "free will." One of the capacities we have is the scientific method -- see "The Scientific Method can be used to solve any problem" and The Scientific Method Today."
I emphasize that in this column I don't argue against "free will." I also don't argue for "determinism," "compatibilism," or any of the other "positions" I've come across. Most of my questions are about how Stefan attempts to make his case for "free will." A few questions are about some other issues he raised. I include some Important Research Findings.
If I understand correctly, Stefan's basic methodology to arrive at his definition of "free will" is to examine certain capacities, particularly those unique to humans. The first capacity is the ability to consider both short-term and long-term consequences, to do a cost-benefit analysis, and to then make choices relating to delaying short-term gratification (or making short-term sacrifices) that will lead to greater long-term gratification. This capacity is part of "free will," but not the most important part. Can this capacity also be described as a "program in the brain?"
According to Stefan, again if I understand correctly, the central aspect of "free will" is the capacity to compare a situation or intended action to a theory or a "set of standards" (e.g., a "moral code") in order to make better choices. This capacity includes the scientific method, which can be used to improve theories and standards. Can the functions of this capacity be described as "programs in the brain?" Can we describe the thinking involved with the exercise of this capacity as "computations performed by the programs in our brains?"
As an example, could we have a lower-level program for the "mechanics" of buying food, preparing it, and eating it? Could we also have a higher-level metaprogram consisting of rules and guidelines for what to eat, what not to eat, how to prepare various foods, when to eat, how often to eat, how much to eat, etc.? Could the metaprogram also perform "learning functions" like keeping up with new nutritional developments and using the consequences of eating as feedback to improve both itself as well as the lower-level eating program?
If we can have such higher-level metaprograms that perform "guiding or oversight functions" in respect of lower-level programs, can we then regard the scientific method as such a metaprogram we use to improve our knowledge as well as some of our lower-level programs? Some large computers have circuitry to monitor their own parts, and to predict that a certain part is at risk of breaking down and needs to be replaced, enabling operators to replace parts before they break down.
Do we have some sohphisticated programs in our brains (that we're not even aware of) to regulate all kinds of processes to keep our bodies functioning in good health for many years -- called the "autonomous nervous system?" Is it reasonable to describe part of the functioning of the autonomous nervous system as gathering information and utilizing it to make "choices" about where to send more or less of this or that hormone? Is it reasonable to assume that the "autonomous nervous system" could include a metaprogram with its "rules of conduct?"
Is it possible for the autonomous nervous system to have "its form of morality" without the necessity of "free will?"
I confess that most of the time I drive my car "on automatic" without consciously thinking about what I'm doing, or making any conscious decisions. Is it reasonable to think that I can do this because I have a "driving program" in my brain? Is it also reasonable to think that I have a "rules-of-the-road" metaprogram (my "driving morality") in my brain? Do these programs enable me to automatically make numerous choices without even having to think about them? Once these programs have been installed and proven to work, can they operate at a high level of effectiveness and efficiency without the necessity of "free will?"
There's a PBS documentary The Great Robot Race about a 135-mile road race in the Mojave desert. The competing vehicles had computers as "drivers" instead of humans. The robot vehicles also had sensing devices. Their computers had "sets of standards" ("driving theory"). They could compare their current situation to their "standards/driving theory" so as to make "choices" to stay on the road, slow down for bends, overtake other vehicles without colliding, etc. They had the ability to "learn" and improve their "standards/driving theory." Seeing that these robot vehicles could perform what Stefan regards as the central aspect of "free will," did they have "free will?" Or would Stefan explain the performance of the robot vehicles in terms of "the programmers' free will at work?"
Above, regarding my own driving, I refer to "once these programs have been installed." This raises the issue of whether a "volitional programmer" is always necessary. Was a "volitional programmer" necessary to install the programs that constitute my autonomic nervous sytem? If not, why would I need a "volitional programmer" to install my driving program? What if I have a "supermetaprogram" in my brain that can use my autonomic nervous system, as well as other people's working programs, as models to develop programs for my other activities?
Moving on to how Stefan claims "free will" is constituted. If I understand correctly, his first premise is that humans have some unique capacities (not shared by animals); his second premise is that, put together, these capacities constitute "free will"; and his conclusion is that because we have these capacities, therefore we have "free will." Could this be an example of the fallacy logicians call "begging the question" -- a fallacy occurring when the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises?
Typically, scientists apply the scientific method to formulate hypotheses or theories they think fit the facts best. They do tests to confirm or disprove their hypotheses or theories. Has Stefan done any tests of his "free-will" theory? Can other scientists replicate these tests? What test results could occur that might disprove the theory? What predictions can be made from the theory?
Is it possible that in scientific terms Stefan has formulated a self-serving definition, rather than a testable and falsifiable hypothesis or theory?
If I claim that I have programs in my brain that give me capacities animals don't have, and these capacites constitute "whatever...," therefore I have "whatever...," would I have fallen into the same begging the question and self-serving definition traps? Could it simply be a case of, "I have superior programs, therefore I can do things animals can't... period?"
Part of Stefan's argument is that "aggregates" can have "new properties" that their parts don't have. He lists these new properties as "comparing short-term to long-term satisfaction," "making choices," "comparing intended actions to a set of standards in order to take moral actions," "applying the scientific method," and "being responsible." How does he establish that (and how) these specific "new properties" were aqcuired by the "aggregates" involved? (Though, his theory may be able to survive without this step!)
Can Stefan's procedure be described as "lumping together certain special capacities" and then "putting on the collection the label of "free will"?" Does this procedure establish anything? Or is it an example of the fallacy logicians call the "bare assertion" -- a fallacy occurring when a premise is assumed to be true merely because the premise is stated as a conclusion without substantiation?
In Audio #31 - The Billion Dollar Proposition, Stefan provides examples to support his free-will theory. A hypothetic alchololic is offered a billion dollars to not drink for a day or two. He then makes the choice to abstain until he gets paid. What if some of us have metaprograms with "thresholds?" What if some of our programs dictate one kind of behavior below a certain "tipping point" and a different kind of behavior above the "tipping point?" (But... what if it's possible for an alcoholic who doesn't have free will, but does have "free won't," to stop drinking?)
Stefan also provides the example of his mother abusing him in private but not in public. What if some of us have metaprograms with "situational conditions?" What if some of our programs dictate one kind of behavior in a certain "situation" and a different kind of behavior in a different "situation?" Stefan's brother said that he thought their mother did the best she knew how. Maybe she did what she was programmed to do.
Is ascribing such behavior changes to "free will" without substantiation an example of the "bare assertion fallacy?"
Stefan argues that there are basically three positions to choose from: (1) Free will; (2) Determinism; (3) Compatibilism (the belief that free will and determinism are not contradictory). He argues that (2) and (3) are mistaken; therefore (1) must be correct. Surely, if you want to use this form of argument, don't you need to consider all possible positions in addition to (2) and (3) -- theoretically an infinite number? (If you peruse the literature on "free will," you'll find several positions in addition to (1), (2), and (3).) Then don't you need to prove all of them mistaken -- an impossible task (which would in any case still not establish that (1) is correct)? So is Stefan's argument that, "The alternatives are mistaken, therefore free will must be true," an example of the "fallacy of false alternatives" -- (a fallacy occurring when the number of alternatives is claimed to be fewer than the actual number)?
Stefan uses another form of argument. He poses two oppsite extremes. Then he claims that you must have one extreme, or the opposite extreme. Then he argues that one extreme is false, therefore the opposite extreme must be true. Could this be like arguing that water is either boiling or frozen? If it's not frozen, then it must be boiling. If it's not boiling, then it must be frozen. Is this an example of the "fallacy of the excluded middle?" (There are of course instances with only one of two extremes: A woman is either pregnant, or not. But, has Stefan established that any of the phenomena purportedly involved with "free will" have an "all-or-nothing" nature?)
Stefan may also want to check out the following:
Why didn't Stefan compile a more comprehensive "list of capacities that constitute his free will?" For Stefan's theory to be valid, would he have to specifically establish that each of the capacities can only be performed by someone with the faculty of free will? Can it be possible to establish this? Would it be necessary to exlude all the possible alternatives (theoretically an unlimited number)? If Stephan argues that "only someone with the faculty of free will" can perform ...whatever, has he stated an assumption that's impossible to validate? If so, has he fallen prey to the "Unwarranted Assumptions Fallacy" -- a fallacy occurring when either a premise or a conclusion is unsubstantiated or cannot be substantiated? List of additional capacities:
If Stefan argues that my writing this column constitutes a "demonstration of free will," would that simply be another example of the "bare assertion fallacy?" What if all this writing has been dictated by programs in my brain?
And, what if arguing about "free will" is really a case of arguing more about the concept in Stefan's brain than about something in reality? Is it worth subjecting the concept of "free will" to Stefan's principles of concept formation, particularly if "free will" is regarded as a "collection of capacities unique to humans?"
Freedomain Radio 6:
Concept Formation
Has Stefan fallen into the trap of arguing that because the "trees" (capacities unique to humans) exist, therefore the "forest" (free will) exists. Does the above video refute his free-will theory? If I understand Stefan correctly, "forest" can appear as a legitimate concept in my brain, while only the individual "trees" exist as things in reality. If I claim that "forest" exists in reality have I fallen prey to the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" (also called the "fallacy of reification or hypostatization")? Does Stefan regard "free will" as something that exists in reality? If so, has he also fallen prey to the same fallacy? Or does he regard "free will" as a concept that appears only in his brain?
(Is the fallacy of misplaced concreteness also "at work" if someone claims that "governments*," "countries*," "nations*," or "societies" exist as things in reality? -- See Stefan's video "Does the government really exist?")
In "Free Will - Part 3" Stefan says that language has meaning and it would be impossible to communicate if language were meaningless. Is it worth considering an alternative view? What if the meanings are not in the language, but in the brains of individual humans? If words have meanings, then where are the meanings? Are they in the pixels, the ink, the soundwaves, or somewhere else? What do the meanings look like? How do you perceive them? Consider the Zulu word "ixaxa." If it has a meaning, what is it? Where is the meaning? What does the meaning look like? If you knew the meaning, would the meaning be something in reality, or something in your brain?
Could some of us have similar or corresponding meanings in our brains for certain words? Could my ability to send and receive "familiar words" (those for which I have meanings in my brain) enable me to communcate with others for whom the words are also familiar (they have meanings similar to mine in their brains for the words)? For more details on this, see #TL50A: Semantic Rigidity, Flexibility, and Freedom and the Automatic Meaning Destroyer.
In "Free Will - Part 3" Stefan claims that "truth exists." Is this "truth" something in reality, or a concept in his brain? In Audio #31 - The Billion Dollar Proposition Stefan says that he believes in "universal absolutes," that "getting universal absolutes right" is vital because tens of millions of people have died because of "getting universal absolutes wrong." Are these "universal absolutes" things that exist in reality, or concepts in Stefan's brain?
When the scientific method is applied, can the result be anything better than coming up with a hypothesis or theory that fits the available facts, and that has not yet been refuted or replaced by a better hypothesis or theory? In science is knowledge regarded as "final" or "subject to improvement?" Can the scientific method be used to make new discoveries and improve information?
Is it possible that when Stefan claims that "truth exists" and that he believes in "universal absolutes," he has left the domain of science and entered the domain of faith?
What if the idea of "truth/dogma/universal absolutes" is very dangerous? In Audio #31 - The Billion Dollar Proposition Stefan says that "getting universal absolutes wrong" has caused tens of millions of people to die. As far as I know, applying the scientific method doesn't provide "final answers"; it provides hypotheses and theories that are subject to improvement. Can I justifiably lump together "truth, dogma, and universal absolutes" as "truth/dogma/universal absolutes" and then address this "combination?" If not, why not? Are there any significant differences between these components?
Is it possible for any "truth/dogma/universal absolutes" to be scientific? For details of a formulation of scientific method, see The Scientific Method Today." In his video Politics as addiction... Stefan essentially says that people "shouldn't mess with government*" because of all the millions who have died as a result. If messing with "universal absolutes" has resulted in millions dying (as Stefan essentially says in Audio #31 - The Billion Dollar Proposition), should Stefan also make a video called something like, "Should Universal Absolutes Be Avoided Like the Plague?"
You may want to check out a critical examination of the "Plato Truth Virus" (essentially, Dr. Michael Hewitt-Gleeson's term for "truth/dogma/universal absolutes"). Certain aspects of language are relevant to this issue.
When we use language, we use symbols to represent reality. We make one thing (word/concept) represent (or "stand for") something else (the referent). Is it possible for the word/concept to exactly reflect or represent its referent (the thing it "stands for")? Practitioners of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) have identified three general ways words/concepts differ from their referents: (1) "Deletion" (the word/concept can only be a partial representation of some attributes of the referent; some details are ignored); (2) "Distortion" (words/concepts as symbols cannot be identical to their referents); (3) "Generalization" (some words/concepts represent "classes of referents" -- the word/concept "table" can be used to represent any of the relevant objects regarded as "tables." So, can we ever escape completely from the "problem" of our symbols distorting reality? Can we do better than striving to improve our accuracy, while knowing that it's impossible to achieve total accuracy, particularly in the domains of philosophy, psychology, and economics? And, if there cannot be total accuracy, must there always be degrees of illusion?
In "Free Will - Part 3" Stefan raised the issue of the existence of "I/ego." If Stefan thinks an "I/ego" exists, how does "I/ego" differ from the so-called "soul" religious and spiritual people talk about? Is this supposed "I/ego" a thing in reality or a concept in Stefan's brain? What does this supposed "I/ego" look like?
The sentence, "It rains," is used by most people. But what is the "it" in the sentence? Does this "it" manufacture drops of water and release them as rain? What if the rain doesn't come from this "it," but from the clouds? Is this "it" just an artifact of language, because it's easier to say, "It rains," than, "The clouds rain?"
What if the supposed "I/ego" Stefan talks about is no more than an artifact of language that makes it easier to construct sentences? (Just try communicating without using "I," "me," and "my!") If Stefan thinks an "I/ego" exists, I would appreciate an explanation of just what this supposed "I/ego" is and how it can be observed and examined. Has anyone seen such an "I/ego," or is this supposed "I/ego" invisible (just like the so-called "soul")? In the absence of a solid ontological foundation for the use of "I/ego" (as opposed to using "I/ego" as a convenient linguistic artifact with no referent -- like the "it" in "it rains") is it reasonable to continue on the basis that the way people generally use "I/ego" involves illusion stemming from an artifact of language? (By the way, when I use the words "I," "me," and "my," I mostly use them as convenient linguistic artifacts to make it easier to construct sentences.)
Stefan seems to argue that all illusions should be eliminated. Does this mean that all the words and phrases in the English language that don't have a solid ontological foundation should be eliminated? If so, how many sentences will Stefan be able to utter that anyone else could understand? Wouldn't it be more effective and efficient to identify the specific most harmful illusions and eliminate those? Maybe starting with what seems to me Stefan's "truth/dogma/universal absolutes?"
And what if there can be "beneficial illusions?" There seems to be evidence that people who are "moderately overoptimistic" (not "excessively overoptimistic") tend to enjoy a higher level of psychological health and also tend to perform better than people with "completely realistic" expectations in certain situations. Could certain "distortions of reality" be beneficial in certain situations? For more on this, Google: "self-fulfilling prophecy," "pygmalion effect," "+illusion +"self-confidence" +performance," "illusion of control," "positive illusion," "realistic overoptimism," and "depressive realism." Also watch the "Subjective Social Reality" video.
And how much illusion may be involved in Stefan's "free-will theory?" Is there a fundamental difference between a religious person saying, "You can't have morality without God*," a statist person saying, "You can't have morality without the state*," and Stefan saying, "You can't have morality without free will?"
If Stefan claims that "free will" is the only "originator" of morality, does that require him to consider all the other possible "originators" (in additon to "God*," "state*," programs in our brains, etc., etc., etc. -- theoretically an infinite number) and then refute each of them? If he doesn't or can't do this, has he fallen prey to the "false alternatives fallacy?"
What if Stefan's formulation of "free will" is also just an artifact of his language? Does his "free will" have any physical referents? If his formulation is flawed by the "begging the question," the "self-serving definition," the "false alternatives," and the "bare assertion" fallacies, does it at a minimum require some rethinking? Can an assessment be made of the probability that any attempts to "define free will and prove it's existince" will yield any worthwhile results?
Important Research Findings
Is there a way to reliably measure or test the presence of free will? Has anyone developed a "free-will meter?" Benjamin Libet measured brain activity associated with initiating actions. He found that human consciousness becomes aware of an initiated action about half-a-second after the action started! Other researchers have confirmed the "half-second delay" -- Google: +libet +"half-second delay" -- read more about it in the book The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size by Tor Nørretranders. If we only become consciously aware of the actions we initiate half-a-second after the actions started, what are the implications for "free will?" (Libet formualted a "veto-theory of free will" now known as "Free Won't" -- Google: "free won't")
[Reproduced from Daniel M. Wegner's website. Emphases added. Findings based on empirical research. Some of the links below can be used to download PDF files with details of the research. ]
How do people come to understand their actions as their own? Common sense tells us we know when actions are ours because we have caused them; we are intrinsically informed of what we do by our conscious will. But it turns out people can be mistaken about their own authorship, either because they suffer from schizophrenia, dissociative disorder, or a psychogenic movement disorder -- or because they encounter situations that mislead them about the origins of action. In hypnosis, facilitated communication, and coactions such as ouija-board spelling, for example, people can become profoundly mistaken about the sources of their actions. People can come to believe that they have performed actions they did not do, or that they were not the source of actions that were in fact their own. Wegner and Wheatley (1999) proposed a theory of apparent mental causation that accounts for these anomalies by suggesting that people will feel they are the source of action when they think about that action in advance of its occurrence, and alternative sources of the action are not known. This theory calls into question the common sense view that conscious will is the cause of action.
How do people control their own minds? The simple strategy of directing attention can often be helpful, as people can stop thoughts, concentrate, improve their moods, relax, fall asleep, and otherwise control their mental states just by trying to direct their thoughts. These strategies of mental control can sometimes backfire, however, producing not only the failure of control but the very mental states we are trying to avoid. The theory of ironic processes of mental control (Wegner, 1994) holds that any intentional control of the mind introduces an operating process that directs conscious attention--focusing our minds on positive thoughts, for example, if we are hoping to improve our mood. This process is accompanied, however, by an ironic monitoring process that looks for the failure of our intention. Such monitoring can, when we are stressed or under mental load, actually promote the unwanted mental state--for example, making us sad when we want to be happy. Ironic processes were first discovered in the study of thought suppression, where unwanted thoughts can return merely because we try not to think about them. But ironic processes seem to underly a variety of unwanted mental states, from obsession and depression to anxiety and insomnia, and can produce unwanted actions in sports and performance settings as well.
See also The Seed of Our Undoing.
Other "Free-Will" Viewpoints:
"I thus disclaim openly on the threshold all pretension to prove to you that the freedom of the will is true. The most I hope is to induce some of you to follow my own example in assuming it true, and acting as if it were true... [emphasis added] Its truth ought not to be forced willy-nilly down our indifferent throats. It ought to be freely espoused by men who can equally well turn their backs upon it. In other words, our first act of freedom, if we are free, ought in all inward propriety to be to affirm that we are free. This should exclude, it seems to me, from the freewill side of the question all hope of a coercive demonstration... a demonstration which I, for one, am perfectly contented to go without." -- William James ("THE DILEMMA OF DETERMINISM")
In Bentham's Theory of Fictions (complied by C.K. Ogden), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) used the terms "faculty of volition" and "will." Friedrich Nietzsche used the terms "useful error" and "necessary illusion."
"What is here meant is, not that no such fictions ought to be employed, but that to the purpose and on the occasion of instruction, whenever they are employed, the necessity or the use of them should be made known." -- Jeremy Bentham
"We encounter at the very threshold of these fictions one of the most important concepts ever formed by man, the idea of freedom; human actions are regarded as free, and therefore "responsible" and contrasted with the "necessary" course of natural events. We need not here recapitulate the familiar antimonies found in this contradictory concept; it not only contradicts observation which shows that everything obeys unalterable laws, but it is also self-contradictory, for an absolutely free, chance act, resulting from nothing, is ethically just as valueless as an absolutely necessary one. In spite of all these contradictions, however, we not only make use of this concept in ordinary life in judging moral actions, but it is also the foundation of criminal law. Without this assumption punishment inflicted for any act would, from an ethical standpoint, be unthinkable, for it would simply be a precautionary measure for protecting others against crime. Our judgment of our fellow-men is likewise so completely bound up with this ideational construct that we can no longer do without it. In the course of their development, men have formed this important construct from immanent necessity, because only on this basis is a high degree of culture and morality possible. But this does not prevent our realizing that it is itself a logical monstrosity [emphasis added], a contradiction; in a word, only a fiction and not an hypothesis. For centuries liberty has been regarded not merely as an hypothesis but as unassailable dogma. It then fell to the rank of a disputed hypothesis, and to-day it is already often regarded as an indispensable fiction. A bitter struggle was necessary before we attained our present attitude, which for a long while was far from general. On this modern view there is nothing in the real world corresponding to the idea of liberty, though in practice it is an exceedingly necessary fiction." -- Hans Vaihinger (The Philosophy of 'As If' -- translated by C.K. Ogden)
It may be worth doing the Lift Your Finger! exercise a few times and thinking about the implications. Your finger moves because you decide to make it move. My suggestion to do the exercise did not lift your finger. You lifted your finger.
Now imagine that a government* agent sends you an "official letter" ordering you to lift your finger, or face dire consequences. Suppose you then lift your finger. Who or what made your finger go up? Was it the government* agent, or the letter, or did you lift your finger? Was it your decision that caused your finger to rise? I hope you can see that you did it!
Now imagine that a policeman or a criminal points a gun at you and says, "Lift your finger, or I'll shoot you dead!" Suppose you then lift your finger. Who or what made your finger go up? Was it the policeman or criminal, or the gun, or did you lift your finger? Was it your decision that caused your finger to rise? I hope you can see that you did it!
You and only you control the energy that animates your body and brain. You have the power to move your body. You can make decisions. You can make choices. You have control over your decisions, your choices, and your body movements.
What do these exercises and thought experiments tell you about your freedom?
Now imagine that someone much stronger than you grabs your finger and says, "I'm going to move your finger whether you like it or not!" He then uses physical force to move your finger. Because he's stronger than you, if you resist, he will overpower your resistance and move your finger. What does this tell you about your freedom? What kinds of things can interfere with your freedom? Who or what can prevent you from being free?
OK. Now imagine again that a policeman or a criminal points a gun at you and says, "Lift your finger, or I'll shoot you dead!" Suppose you then get angry. Who or what made you angry? Was it the policeman or criminal, or the gun, or the spoken threat, or did you make yourself angry? Did you decide to make yourself angry, or did it "just happen?" Was it your deliberate and conscious choice to get angry? Or did you "automatically" get angry? Did you make a "subconscious decision" to get angry, or was it just an "automatic reaction" like a robot? Did you make the choice to get angry? Could you have made a different choice?
What do your emotional reactions tell you about your freedom and your control?
The next issue is: "Who or what can control you and how?" Could you have mistaken assumptions about the "factors" that can control you. If you have control over your decisions, your choices, and your body movements, what external "factors" can control you, except directly applied physical force by someone stronger than you?
Can threats control you? If a policeman or criminal points a gun at you and makes a threat, who controls your next action? Obviously, in such a situation the range of practical options available to you may be reduced. Can you organize your life so as to minimize the risk of being subjected to violent threats?
Now make two lists: One of the things you think you can control and another of the things you think you can't control.
If you try to control what you can't, you may experience frustration and helplessness.
Epictetus was born a Roman slave around 55 A.D. He became a famous philosopher, and said:
"Happiness and freedom begin with a clear understanding of one principle: Some things are within our control, and some things are not. It is only after you have faced up to this fundamental rule and learned to distinguish between what you can and can't control that inner tranquility and outer effectiveness become possible... Trying to control or change what we can't only results in torment." (The Art of Living: The Classic Manual on Virtue, Happiness, and Effectiveness -- A New Interpretation by Sharon Lebell.)
For practical purposes, you can't control other people's minds and the decisions they make. The notion of "closing the sale" is a fundamental fallacy. It assumes that you can control the mind of your prospect. Now, it's true that you can use all kinds of manipulative techniques to influence your prospect and persuade him or her to buy. But the final decision is always his or hers.
Dr. Michael Hewitt-Gleeson has written an important book called NewSell, in which he says:
"It has been the sacred belief of the selling profession, ever since the subject was first written about, that the primary goal of the salesperson is... to close the sale! The Law of NewSell says: Don't Close the Sale! The NewSell challenge is:-- that in any field test, it will beat "oldsell" profit-results hands down, every time, in any market and with any product."
If you don't control prospects' minds how can you "close sales?" If you try to "close sales," you'll experience rejection -- and turmoil.
What you can control are all the steps you can take that may lead to a prospect deciding to buy.
The issue of "free will" comes to play here. You can think of a scale or continuum. At the top of the scale is "maximum free will"; at the bottom, "complete helplessness." If there's no free will, can you control anything and can you be responsible for anything? Can you act according to a moral code? -- See Philosophical Discussion of "Free Will."
2%ers can be seen as operating near the top of the "free will/helplessness scale." 98%ers tend to operate toward the bottom of the scale.
There are basically four factors that enable you "climb up the scale" toward "maximum free will":
Some philosphers -- advocates of "determinism" -- argue that "free will" is impossible, even that the very notion of "free will" is simply an. This would imply that humans deceive themselves when they think they make "choices."
"I did not direct my life. I didn't design it. I never made decisions. Things always came up and made them for me. That's what life is." -- B. F. Skinner
So what can you control? A very important important issue to address: What if "free will" is an illusion? If so, what can you still control?
Maybe you have "free won't!" (left column) -- the ability to stop yourself from doing certain things -- Google: "free won't". There's a "Special Technique of Stopping" that's most Powerful! Check out the Three Minute Power Pause."
"Three steps? It only takes three steps to solve problems, create wealth and feel happy? I didn't believe it either, until I tried it. Not only do the three steps work, but you can do them anywhere, anytime, for any situation -- and in about three minutes! On top of that, this method never fails. I'm blown away. This is worth billions of dollars." -- Dr. Joe Vitale, International bestselling author of The Attractor Factor, The Greatest Money Making Secret in History! and creator of the audio set, Outrageous Marketing (Nightingale-Conant)
You can make a list of things to do. You can definitely make a list, even if you don't have "free will" -- just abandon whatever "free will" you think you might have and follow my instructions!
The following has been adapted from "My All-Time 12 Best Ideas for Being Successful" by Shad Helmstetter, Ph.D.:
You can control the concepts in your brain. You can change and improve your mind.
You can control how you utilize time -- how you use every second of every day and night. Think about that...
To a greater extent than you may realize, you can control who you associate and interact with, and who you don't. (Of course, there are people with guns who will ultimately shoot you, if you don't engage in certain interactions and they "catch" you. Fortunately, in many parts of the world, they can be mostly avoided by the resourceful.)
Realize that some people may lie to you in order to increase their control over you -- see Hubbard's Fakery.
What you can and can't control has some important implications for anarchists, libertarians, objectivists, "Permanent Tourists," Neo-Tech owners, and other freedom lovers -- see Expand Your Freedom.
To a greater extent than you may realize, you can control how you earn money and how and on what you spend it. The greater your resourcefulness, the more practical options you create for yourself.
2%ers tend to be more resourceful than 98%ers. For a great example of a 2%er, see Core Power: Jack Johnson, Advanced 2%er.
To a greater extent than you may realize, you can control your emotions -- see #TL12: How to Achieve Emotional Control. Do you sometimes experience negative emotions (such as fear) that reduce your control, or even render you helpless as if paralyzed? If so, what can you do about it? (I suspect that many 98%ers find themselves in this predicament more often that they would admit.)
To a greater extent than you may realize, you can control your moods -- see Mood Levels and Mood Cure.
To a greater extent than you may realize, you can control your health.
To a greater extent than you may realize, you can control the meanings you assign to everything you experience. You can wake up to the reality that you create all these meanings -- see The Automatic Meaning Destroyer.
The "meanings" you create about events, people, and things in your environment can have a considerable effect on your degree of control. You may even be able to utilize some "beneficial illusions" -- Google: "self-fulfilling prophecy," "pygmalion effect," "+illusion +"self-confidence" +performance," "illusion of control," "positive illusion," "realistic overoptimism," and "depressive realism." Also watch the "Subjective Social Reality" video.
For some potentially useful articles on control, see #LRH00: Report Index.
You may be able to Learn and Apply the "80/20 Principle" to increase your control and accelerate your progress toward greater success.
A major factor that holds many people back is Procrastination -- see How to Beat Procrastination.
Advertising - What psychological tricks do they use?
"The point about the 80/20 Principle is this: do what works best especially in those parts of life that are themselves supremely important. There will always be a minority of methods, a minority of practitioners, a minority of reasons and approaches that produce overwhelmingly superior results. Identify these. Then multiply them." Richard Koch.
One of the most useful books I've had the privilege and good fortune to read is The 80/20 Principle: The Secret to Success by Achieving More With Less by Richard Koch.
The most fundamental realization behind the 80/20 Principle is that there are imbablances in the universe. The universe is inherently imbalanced. For example, in a particualr business 20% of the customers may account for 80% of the sales.
The ratio needn't be 80/20; it could be 2/98, representing 2% successful people vs. 98% unsuccessful people. The two numbers in the ratio also needn't add up to 100; it could be 1/1,000,000 (one in a million). How many people have there been who developed a Core-Power Mentality to the extent that Jack Johnson did, and who either overcame "capture-bonding" and "human domestication, or never suffered from them in the first place?
"The 80/20 Principle asserts that a minority of causes, inputs, or effort usually lead to a majority of the results, outputs, or rewards... The reason that the 80/20 Principle is so valuable is that it is counter-intuitive. We tend to expect that all causes will roughly the same significance. That all customers are equally valuable... That all problems have a large number of causes. That all opportunities are of rouhghly equal value, so we treat them all equally... But this "50/50 fallacy" is one of the most inaccurate and harmful, as well as the most deeply rooted, of out mental maps... Understanding the 80/20 Principle gives you great insight into what is really happening in the world around you... If we did realize the difference between the vital few and the trivial many in all aspects of our lives and if we did something about it, we could multiply anything that we valued... Up to a certain point, a new force... finds it difficult to make headway. A great deal of effort generates little by way of results. At this point many pioneers give up. But the new force persists and can cross a certain invisible line, a small amount of additional effort can reap huge returns. This invisible line is the tipping point." -- Richard Koch
So, I've identified Core-Helplessness Mentality (CHM) as the single, most important cause of failure -- and Core-Power Mentality (CPM) as the single, most important cause of success. I contend that many "self-improvement methods" are useless or worse because they don't address CHM. SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless by Steve Salerno helped lead toward recognizing CHM as a key issue. Dr. Arthur Janov's Primal Healing sealed the case for me.
You can utilize the 80/20 Principle to identify what in this article will be of most potential value to you. Then you can ignore the "trivial" and focus on the small portion that will provide you with the greatest benefits from your least effort.
There's a great deal of value in The 80/20 Principle on how to apply the 80/20 Principle to your personal life, how it can be applied in business, and the benefits it could bring to society.
"A journey of a thousand miles must begin with the first step." -- Lao Tzu
"The secret of getting ahead is getting started. The secret of getting started is breaking your complex overwhelming tasks into small manageable tasks, and then starting on the first one." -- Mark Twain
One way to raise your quit threshold is to break down your big tasks into small doable steps.
I started a company in May 1993 with a capital of $250. (That's right; it's not a misprint!) I gave my company a motto: "BuildingPersonal Power and Freedom through Business and Networking." We officially opened our doors for business in May, 1993, and by May, 1995, we had 10 full-time personnel and several part-timers, with thousands of satisfied customers in all 50 American States* and in 27 other countries*. We held four Conferences, attracting leading nationally and internationally-known speakers. We created numerous highly successful programs and techniques for helping people improve their lives and finances.
From the outset the company was designed so that only small steps were necessary to achieve huge success. We only had to take little steps like: complete the next report, write letters, make phone calls, send out information packages. This is the "Small-Step-Progression Principle."
We've never needed a big backer or investor to proceed. There were no big hurdles to overcome. We just needed to take a few little steps every day. The company was also designed so that each little step made the next step easier. As more and more people started supporting us, our momentum grew -- like a snowball running down an almost endless mountainside. The company was, in fact, self-perpetuating!
The Small-Step-Progression Principle is extraordinarily powerful. It enables you to start with little or nothing and build one or more "money machines" that will make you one or more fortunes within a few short years.
You may also want to apply the Small-Step-Progression Principle to your personal growth and development. Every day you could think of something to do to improve your competence in some area of your life.
I first got the idea of starting such a company in 1972. During the following 21 years I made many attempts to get something going. Most of my attempts failed. But I continued to work on personal growth and increasing my knowledge and competence in areas such as my ability to create and improve personal and business relationships, writing, and marketing. A big breakthrough occurred when I discovered "The Path of Least Resistance" -- another way to raise your quit threshold!
Attempting steps that are "too big" for you may result in your amygdala triggering a fear reaction ("freeze, fight, or flight"). The amydala is part of the limbic system, also called the mammalian brain. This typically includes a degree of shut-down of your neocortex or human thinking brain.
The book One Small Step Can Change Your Life: The Kaizen Way by Robert Maurer may be very useful for 98%ers to apply to overcome helplessness. Chapter 3: "Think Small Thoughts" includes "A Mind Sculpture How-To" (10 steps) for which I include the first two steps:
Mind sculpture involves "practicing" a task mentally before you perform it physically. According to Maurer: "Within minutes of "practicing" a task mentally, using all your senses, your brain's chemistry begins to change."
"Small actions are at the heart of kaizen. By taking steps so tiny that they seem trivial or even laughable, you'll sail calmly past obstacles that have defeated you before. Slowly -- but painlessly! -- you'll cultivate an appetite for continued success and lay down a permanent new route to change." -- Robert Maurer, Ph.D.
"I am so busy doing nothing... that the idea of doing anything -- which as you know, always leads to something -- cuts into the nothing and then forces me to have to drop everything." -- Jerry Seinfeld
Mike Hernacki's "ultimate secret" -- see MetaSuccess Principle, Quantum Leap, and Implications -- that "you need to be willing to do everything necessary for success, but you don't have to actually do it," effectively implies that you can step up to the plate, be willing to swing the bat, and then hit a home run without swinging your bat. This is absurd! You have to "Swing Your Bat!" There are many "gurus" who tell their followers to become successful through various forms of "magical thinking," "voodoo-type incantations," etc. You'll be much better off if you "Swing Your Bat!"
"My motto was always to keep swinging. Whether I was in a slump or feeling badly or having trouble off the field, the only thing to do was keep swinging." -- Hank Aaron
Some people don't succeed at making money on the Internet because they don't follow through.
Not following through may be a behavior pattern that habitually holds them back.
Imagine Babe Ruth stepping up to the plate. But he never lifts his bat... makes no attempt to swing the bat and hit the ball.
When the pitcher pitches the ball, Ruth just stands there motionless, watching the ball go by...
If that's how you "play ball," can you ever win?
Joining a moneymaking program, and then not following through with the Steps Necessary for Success, is like a baseball player stepping up to the plate but -- as if paralyzed -- never making any attempt to hit the ball.
Has this kind of "paralysis" effectively prevented you from making money on the 'Net?
You can earn big money with many programs, but you have to swing your bat!
Imagine someone complaining: "I joined the gym, but I didn't lose any weight and I didn't get fit!"
Answer: "Joining the gym by itself does nothing for you. To lose weight and get fit, you have to actually visit the gym regularly and workout on their exercise machines! (You have to "swing the bat!")
Now imagine someone complaining: "I've read the Success Steps, but they didn't make more successful!"
Answer: "Reading the Success Steps by themselves does nothing for you. To become more successful, you have to actually perform the actions suggested by each Success Step! (You have to "swing the bat!")"
During the same TV appearance mentioned above, Warren Buffett was also asked what he regarded as the biggest mistake he had made in his business career. He answered that there had been several instances where he had all the information he needed to take advantage of an investment opportunity, including understanding the businesses involved... but he didn't invest, or he invested a much smaller amount than he should have. He also pointed out that these missed opportunities don't show up in any accounting records. So, Mr. Buffet's biggest mistake has been that he sometimes "swung his bat half-heartedly, or didn't swing it at all!"
I've been using "Swing Your Bat!" as a metaphor for taking action. But specifically what actions should you take? Some suggestions:
Natural Helplessness
Our primitive ancestors had three basic "survival reflexes": fight, flight, and freeze. The "freeze reflex" can also be called "play dead" or "play possom." As with our ancestors, there could still be situations for us "moderns" where the best strategy is to lie down and pretend to be dead. But when it comes to making money online, it's not the best strategy to cause the money to roll in.
It seems to me, sometimes possibly after a few half-hearted attempts to "do something," the favorite strategy of typical 98%ers is the freeze reflex -- just lie down and pretend to be dead -- the epitome of helplessness!
It's quite possible that when the "task at hand" seems "too big," the amygdala of the typical 98%er "kicks in" (cutting out the neocortex) and induces the freeze reflex -- without the 98%er engaging in any conscious thought whatsoever. I have a sneaking suspicion that this happens far more often than 98%ers would admit.
"NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING beats PERSISTENCE." -- David Vallieres
This is a vital principle. It's absolutely necessary that you PERSIST until you succeed. 98%ers typically make half-baked, half-hearted, even pathetic attempts to move firward. Then, at the slightest difficulty, obstacle, or disappointment, they give up.
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan "press on" has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." -- Calvin Coolidge
Someone with a low "quit threshold" gives up easily. This may apply to 95% or more of people trying to make money online. Even before the going gets tough -- it may just take a slight bump in the road -- the "low-quit thresholders" give up and quit. They try to join a program; they don't get the activation email because their ISP or their own spam filter stopped the email; and they give up. They try to fund their e-gold account; they run into a small problem; and they quit.
If your quit threshold is too low, you can never get onto a path that makes success possible.
(However, if you persist with a path where success is impossible, your experiences could be similar those of "CHM" (right column).)
For years I've been trying to persuade people to "upgrade" themselves so they could become more successful. If you're not already highly successful, taking the Success Steps on this page will bring about a "major upgrade" in your life. But you have to take the steps. And, to take them, you may have to RAISE YOUR QUIT THRESHOLD!
There's an important related psychological phenomenon: "Buy how-to information as a substitute for taking action." Many people buy how-to information because they want to learn how to do something and/or improve themselves. Buying the information gives them "psychological solace" because they can now tell themselves: "Well, I did something." They may read a few pages, or not even start reading at all. They make no attempt to actually learn and implement the information -- low-quit threshold. This may be one reason why selling how-to information is such a hugely profitable business! Another reason is that most of it doesn't work for most people, so the demand is never satisfied! Please realize that just reading some of the information on this page without implementing it is a way to sell yourself short and to quit on yourself.
DOWNSIDE TO PERSISTENCEIf you're currently operating far below the success threshold -- which propbably applies to most 98%ers -- then it may require massive, determined action on your part, to shift to above the success threshold. You have to take whatever actions may be necessary to increase your personal power, acquire knowledge and skills, etc. to enable you to achieve "escape velocity from failure." Below this level you remain on a path where success is impossible. Rise above this level, and success becomes possible for you.
The idea of a "success threshold" can be descibed as analogous to the boiling point of water. Below the boiling point you have the "water state"; above the boiling point you have the "steam state." From the perspective of a steam engine, "water doesn't perform work"; "steam performs work." If you operate "below the boiling point" (or success threshold), you're not doing the useful work that brings success. You may be wasting your time.
However, there's an important qualification. While operating below the success threshold, you can learn from your experiences. You can particularly learn what doesn't work. You can use what you learn to move above the success threshold. See ("Fail Fast") Take Action, Produce Results (Successes or Failures), Learn from the Results, and Apply What You Learn to Take More Effective Action.
If you operate be low the success threshold -- and remain there -- you're on a "failure path" (losing). If you operate above the success threshold you're on a "success path" (winning).
An electron can suddenly shift from one orbit to another. The shift is called a "quantum leap." It may be useful to think of a "failure orbit" and a "success orbit," analogous to a "water state" and a "steam state."
Suppose that you're currently operating "below the success threshold" -- "below the boiling point" or in a "failure orbit" or on a "path where success is impossible." But you learn from your experiences; you take steps to acquire relevant knowledge and skills -- and you persist. There comes a point when you make a "quantum leap over the success threshold" -- you "shift from water that doesn't perform work to steam that performs work" -- you shift from a "failure orbit" or "path where success is impossible" to a "success orbit" or "path where success becomes possible."
Another analogy may help illustrate the success threshold: "escape velocity." Think of a rocket designed to propel a space module to the moon. To escape from earth's gravity, the rocket has to accelerate to a speed greater than escape velocity. If the rocket doesn't have the power to accelerate to a speed faster than escape velocity, it will fall back to earth without getting anywhere near the moon. Any "moon rocket" that has insufficient power to reach escape velocity can be said to be on path where success is impossible. Only when the rocket's power is increased so it can achieve escape velocity, does success become possible for it.
If you're currently operating far below the success threshold -- which propbably applies to most 98%ers -- then it may require massive, determined action on your part, to shift to above the success threshold. You have to take whatever actions may be necessary to increase your personal power, acquire knowledge and skills, etc. to enable you to achieve "escape velocity from failure." Below this level you remain on a path where success is impossible. Rise above this level, and success becomes possible for you.
To drive a car effectively and safely you need to master certain basics:
It's important to realize that when it comes to driving a car, there is "external pressure" to do it right. If you drive on the wrong side of the road or don't stop at red lights, you may crash, get hurt, or even killed. In other words, there may be severe consequences if you don't do it right.
When it comes to online moneymaking, there are also certain basics to be mastered:
Note that there's no "external pressure" to do it right when it comes to computer actions (related to online moneymaking). If you don't handle your email properly, you don't crash, get hurt, or die. You just earn less money, don't earn money, or you lose money. Because of the importance of the "mechanical skills," I've written #TL10E: THE POWER OF DOING THINGS RIGHT, from which I quote:
"After directing a correspondent to this report, he replied: "I've made some bad decisions in my life but I didn't survive over 30 years as a Pan Am captain by making dumb ones." I had offered to forward an email to solve a "$1,000 problem" to a certain program administrator. He sent me an email with attachments that practically all program administrators would delete without opening the email. I replied to him why his email was dumb and why it would be dumb for me to forward it. I never heard from him again. I suppose he would rather lose $1,000 than swallow his pride! (As a pilot, there's "external pressure" to do things right... or the plane crashes and you die! When writing an email there's no such pressure.)"
My father taught me to drive. He sat next to me, showed me how to do certain things, told me what to do and what not to do, corrected my mistakes, etc. Similarly, you learn to fly a plane with a flight instructor at your side. In the "job world" you have a boss or supervisor to tell you what to do and to "look over your shoulder." In all these cases, there's "external pressure" to do it right. Typically, in the "job world" you're provided with a "structure" consisting of a workplace, desk, time to start and stop, etc.
When it comes to online moneymaking, no such "structure" is provided and there's no "external pressure" to do things right. This makes it much more difficult to succeed at online moneymaking than in a "job."
"Denial of personal disadvantage" may also play a role. Some people overestimate their level of competence, sometimes dramatically so. For some people, to become successful, it may be vital that they get a competent coach or mentor to sit next to them at their computer and show them how to do things. (According to Robert Maurer, P.D. in One Small Step Can Change Your Life: The Kaizen Way: "...[O]ne of the most solid predictors of success in life is whether a person turns to another human for support in times of trouble or fear.")
Some people "dyslearn" from some of their negative experiences. They tend to get emotional, blame others or factors outside themselves, and form false conclusions. Over time, they tend to become less competent. They may descend into inaction. This keeps them stuck on a path where success is impossible. To succeed, you have to TAKE ACTION. Whether the results are successes or failures, you need to LEARN from them. Then you need to apply what you learn to TAKE MORE EFFECTIVE ACTION.
"What do you first when you learn to swim? You make mistakes, do you not? And what happens? You make other mistakes, and when you have made all the mistakes you possibly can without drowning -- and some of them many times over -- what do you find? That you can swim? Well -- life is just the same as learning to swim! Do not be afraid of making mistakes, for there is no other way of learning how to live!" -- Alfred Adler
Remember what John Reese said about "failing fast?" in Reboot Your Brain? Your next step is to get the book Fail As Fast As Possible - And Other Contrarian Business Success Secrets by David Vallieres, 90 Pages ($47 value); FREE Download!
Consider applying what you learn in tackling some challenge. You take marketing actions. You learn from the results (failures and successes). You apply what you learn to take more effective marketing actions. As you learn, you gain advantages. If you persist, the progressive accumulation (or accretion) of advantages will eventually produce your "quantum leap to marketing success."
Some gems from David's book:
In the "BONUS: Internet BrainStorm!" section of David's book you may want to find the words, "Success starts with internal dialogue. This is something that is very important to me because..." Also, "reverse goal setting" and, "break it down into doable steps" (see The Small-Step Progression Principle) and, "forced deadlines."
"Meta" refers to "beyond," "behind," or "at a higher level." The idea of a "metasuccess principle" is to come up with one overriding principle that overrides and encompasses all other success principle.
"The most successful people in the end are those whose success is the result of steady accretion. It is the one who carefully advances step by step, with his mind becoming wider and wider -- progressively able to grasp any theme or situation -- persevering in what he knows to be practical, and concentrating his thoughts upon it, who is bound to succeed in the greatest degree." -- Alexander Graham Bell
The MetaSuccess Principle is largely about ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES. You progressively INCREASE YOUR ADVANTAGES AND DECREASE YOUR DISADVANTAGES.
To be successful you need advantages. The elephant wins because of its size. Because of its height advantage, the giraffe can reach leaves no other animal can. So it wins. Lions win because of their camouflage, speed, power, and hunting in groups.
Generally an animal is at a disadvantage compared to a human with a gun. In a "competition," for an animal to win against a human with a gun, the animal would have to decrease or eliminate its disadvantage. A lion could do this by stalking the human and jumping on him before the human has time to aim and fire his gun. To be successful you need to reduce or eliminate disadvantages.
By increasing your advantages and reducing your disadvantages, you can reach a level of personal power that enables you to achieve "escape velocity from failure." Below this level you remain on a path where success is impossible. Rise above this level, and success becomes possible for you.
Similarly, John Reese tells the story of how "rebooting his brain" took him from being over $100,000 in debt to becoming an Internet millionaire. He also experienced a "quantum leap from a failure path to a success path."
Examine the career of anyone who has been spectacularly successful, and you'll find they applied aspects of the MetaSuccess Principle: Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Lance Armstrong, Michael Jordan. (Da Vinci was arrested on a sodomy charge at age 24. He had been born out of wedlock, received very little formal education, and was excluded by birthright from almost all professions. Newton suffered a mental breakdown in his thirties; it took him about four years to recover. After numerous failed attempts, Lincoln won one election. Edison had only three months of formal education and was fired from many jobs. Einstein didn't do very well in school and then worked as a clerk in a patent office. His first doctoral dissertation was rejected. Armstrong recovered from cancer. Jordan was cut from his high-school basketball team.) No matter how gifted they were naturally, in order to succeed as spectacularly as they did, they had t! o overcome disadvantages and create advantages for themselves. They increased their advantages and decreased their disadvantages.
If you subscribe to Mike Brescia's FREE Think Right Now! 6 Day Course, you can read how he failed repeatedly and was fired from many jobs. He also describes what he did to gain advantages and reduce his disadvantages, and how he became spectacularly successful. He certainly experienced a "Quantum Success Leap!"
It's possible that by "rebooting your brain" you'll also make a "quantum leap to success." But it's also possible that when John Reese first "rebooted his brain" he had some skills or advantages you don't have. It's also possible that you suffer from some disadvantages John Reese didn't suffer from when he first "rebooted his brain." So, you may have to do additional things to make your "quantum leap to success."
When John Reese made his "quantum leap to success," he may already have been using more of his mind/brain and at higher levels of consciousness than you currently do. Supercharging Your "Alpha Mind" may be a vital step for you.
There's a potential trap in believing that "one guru has all the answers." L. Ron Hubbard proclaimed: "Scientology is the only road to total freedom." Dr. Frank Wallace wrote: "Why Neo-Tech must succeed while all other systems must fail." Mike Hernacki wrote a book with the title The Ultimate Secret to Getting Absolutely Everything You Want. Typically, the 98-99% of people who make little or no money online, will remain on a failure path if they proceed on the basis that "one guru will provide them with all the answers." Also, successful people seldom know ALL the reasons for their own success. Any one "success system" or "success book" most likely contains only a small fraction of what you may need to "make your quantum leap to success." (If you read Hernacki's book carefully, you could reach the conclusion that his success came, not from his "ultimate secret," but because he discovered his passion to be a writer and then followed through with the necessary steps to become a successful writer. Hernacki's "ultimate secret," by the way, is that "you need to be willing to do everything necessary for success, but you don't have to actually do it." This is silly. Suppose you suffer from a severe victim mentality; you're "willing to do whatever it takes to acquire a champion mentality"; but you never do it. You'll remain stuck on a failure path. To succeed, you have to DO everything necessary for success.)
Another important reason why most "success systems" don't work for most people is that when they try to learn and apply them, they're using too little of their mind/brains at too low levels of consciousness to benefit enough to rise above the "success threshold." Supercharging Your "Alpha Mind" and taking some of the other Success Steps that expand your usage of your mind/brain and increase your awareness, may be the answer.
It may be vital that you take a series of many steps suggested by different "gurus" in order to make your "quantum leap to success." Ideally, you never want to stop increasing your advantages and reducing your disadvantage. You may want to make it a lifelong task. Nothing comes closer to guaranteeing your eventual success than embarking on a course of increasing your advantages and reducing your disadvantages... and staying on course.
What you now have available to you (and some of it will be found in the higher levels of Quantum Success Works) -- possibly for the first time in your life -- are the means to make your "quantum leap to success" and to continue becoming more successful for the rest of your life. You're also in a position to introduce others to this path to success. Most likely, they've never been able to find a path to success, no matter what books they've read, or what seminars, workshops, courses, etc. they've done. It means you can become more successful, you can get others to become more successful, and you can form "synergetic success relationships" with them.
As you become more successful, you can put together a group or network of associates who also become more successful. You can work together as "success teams" in whatever programs, projects, and/or businesses you like. This opens the door to spectacular success! Take the following steps as necessary to get there.
"Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently." -- Rosa Luxemburg
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -- Voltairine de Cleyre
"The important thing is to concentrate upon what you can do -- by yourself, upon your own initiative." -- Harry Browne
Freedomain Radio - An Introduction
Understanding What You Can and Can't Control is of vital importance to anarchists, libertarians, objectivists, "Permanent Tourists," Neo-Tech owners, and other freedom lovers. Many freedom activists are engaged in various peaceful initiatives to "educate the public about freedom," "change the political system," "get bad laws* repealed," "make a small state* more free," "downsize the federal government*," "vote for the libertarian candidate," "fully inform juries," "abolish the tax system," "protest government* atrocities such as Waco," "campaign for the right to bear arms," "campaign for the legalization of hemp and/or marijuana," "use the legal system to ensure/expand civil rights," "create freedom websites," "launch new free countries*," etc. Some freedom lovers more or less limit their involvement by providing financial contributions to organizations engaged in such initiatives.
Understanding what they can control may lead some individuals to consider other freedom-expansion activities, in addition to the above. An important consideration is that it may take a long time for the above initiatives to bear significant fruit. In the meantime, are there other things freedom activists can do to expand their personal freedom (despite living in parts of the world with oppressive political/police systems)?
Important question: What can you do to "overcome or beat the system?" Maybe some freedom lovers can get some pointers from the life of Jack Johnson.
Consider the "complete helplessness" to "maximum free will" scale. Can you "move up the scale" so more options become available to you? Is that what most of the information on this page is about?
Important question: What are the most important factors that could increase your personal freedom? You may want to compile a list. I suspect that many freedom lovers will put money near the top of their lists.
If you have abundant money, you don't have to be stuck in a job (typically "just over broke") where you often sell your time, knowledge, and skills for a fraction what they're worth. Typically, you also make the company owners and bosses rich, while you get little more than necessary to survive. See also The Strange "Job" Concept. With abundant money, you can travel and live more or less wherever you want. Money can buy you a great deal of freedom in many big and small ways.
I've written a great deal about what I call "practical freedom" -- see Live-Free Reports. If you're interested in expanding your personal freedom, I've provided you with at least some of the important parts of a roadmap. You could also Google "practical freedom."
An important issue to confront is the degree to which most anarchists, libertarians, objectivists, "Permanent Tourists," Neo-Tech owners, and other freedom lovers support the political systems they generally regard as ranging from unsatisfactory to evil and deadly. Unfortunately, "the systems" are typically organized so it's very difficult for individual freedom lovers to extricate themselves and withdraw their support. Some practical steps individuals can take are outlined in Economic Means To Freedom.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com