Universal Secret, This one is a no BS way of doing things Options

[maximus242]

Okay, since The Secret has been gaining rapid popularity (I knew about The Secret Movie about 2-3 years ago) and after just recieving a phone call from a friend who wanted to know what I think about The Secret. I have decided to post an alternative, non-newage way of getting what you want in life.

Are you ready for the secret?

Work for it!

Sounds simple doesnt it? Let me elaborate. Im not saying people who fall for get rich quick schemes are lazy, I mean why work for money when their is an easier way right? Well thats a fairly sound logical conclusion, unfortunatly its not that easy.

Their was a study done on the people who are at the top of their profession, various sports, business, doctors, ect. The study found that those who were at the top of any given profession all had one common trait.. They had been doing it for approximatly 10,000 hours. Tiger Woods has practiced for over 10,000 hours, the best surgeons in the world have over 10,000 hours experience. Gary Halbert, the best copywriter in the world, has done it for approximatly 10,000 hours.

Actually the results were so consisten they called it the ten year rule (on average the ten thousand hours are spread over ten years - though some are as short as 3 years) So, if you want to be really good at anything, the universal secret is...

Practice for 10,000 hours!

Well, not just practice, this is actually alot of neuroscience we are talking about here. You need to have a clear, specific and MEASURABLE goal in order to improve. So just swinging clubs isnt enough, you need to think "I want to increase the distance the ball travels by 2 meters today". This is due to the error function in the learning process, unless the brain can tell if its done something wrong, no learning takes place.

So if you want to be good at making money, whether in business or investing, practice, practice, practice!

Thats how people ACTUALLY make money, its not simply, start a business and everything goes wonderful - more like go bankrupt seven times and then create a successful business.

Its like anything really, do you hit a hole in one the first time you play golf? Not usually and the same thing applies to anything. Sure sometimes people luck out, but the majority of people achieve what they want by working for it - failing - trying again - failing and again and again until finally... Success!

Now I said money because I hate seeing people fall for scam after scam, but this can be applied to anything. Do you want to become a scientist? Well you dont just become one overnight, it takes practice. Do you want to become good at giving speeches? Then practice.

Before Martin Luther King gave his famous I have a dream speech, he practiced that speech over and over again for weeks on end.

There was one famous chess match in which the Grand Master was to go up against some unknown nobody, After months of the media saying how this guy had no chance, the Grand Master was beaten fairly quickly. When asked what he did, this nobody said he praticed his match against the Grand Master for 3 months straight in his head.

No chess boards at all, he just kept practicing going against the Grand Master in his head until finally... the real match came and it was a success. Its important to note that he practiced going against the grand master, not against some random person.

Napoleon was said to have practiced day and night giving orders and planning out wars when he was a kid.

Think its impossible to practice something like sailing because you dont have a boat? Do it in your head. Studies have shown we learn just as fast in our heads as we do in reality.

Now go forth! With the REAL Secret and get what you really want in life.

[maximus242]

Chip, I noticed you have a new signature..

[Chip]

It is a reflection on my general experience with online forums and not meant to be a total condemnation of such. I have seen claims stalwartly defended in forums as to the complete non-toxicity of DDT, that oil reserves are replenished in real time, that Terri Shiavo’s case was one of euthanasia, that an alpha, beta and gamma radioactive substance becomes safe after one half-life (this last from a guy who proclaimed that he worked with missiles for the defense industry) in online forums. All of these individuals seemed to cater to the idea that truth was a matter of opinion. I find that idea is the fundamental justification for propaganda, heinous attempts to silence criticism (watched the Valerie Plame testimonial on CSPAN this morning) and in that reasoning, the justification for the efficacy of “kill the messenger� strategies that includes war and exploitation. Furthermore it seems to be most prevalent amongst those who claim great importance to philosophical discussions that I find too often to be arguing for argument and prestige sake alone than to be informative. I don’t think that online forums are totally useless but I do find them to be one of the least trustworthy venues and any suggestions found there need to be only looked at as leads to research in more peer reviewed channels. Online forums are not peer reviewed, in fact, they are often quite the opposite where a person can claim authority in a field when in fact they would have nil or very little attention in peer reviewed discussions. So-called peer reviewed channels are not without their weaknesses. Often they are called such when in fact they demonstrate ardent exposition and defense of vested interests. Science research reports are not necessarily peer reviewed sources of information too often also as I believe is evident in the falsification of data in MIT’s tests of cold fusion to cover up their having actually found collaborating evidence of Fleischman and Pons claims in 1989.

I sincerely doubt that you will heed my warning and others will continue to laud your pronouncements, sir, but maybe others will see my signature and it will help them to begin to realize that they should take any data from an online forum with great skepticism and ultimately seek to learn and make contributions to our collective understanding of truth in other ways.

[maximus242]

It is a reflection on my general experience with online forums and not meant to be a total condemnation of such. I have seen claims stalwartly defended in forums as to the complete non-toxicity of DDT, that oil reserves are replenished in real time, that Terri Shiavo’s case was one of euthanasia, that an alpha, beta and gamma radioactive substance becomes safe after one half-life (this last from a guy who proclaimed that he worked with missiles for the defense industry) in online forums. All of these individuals seemed to cater to the idea that truth was a matter of opinion. I find that idea is the fundamental justification for propaganda, heinous attempts to silence criticism (watched the Valerie Plame testimonial on CSPAN this morning) and in that reasoning, the justification for the efficacy of “kill the messenger” strategies that includes war and exploitation. Furthermore it seems to be most prevalent amongst those who claim great importance to philosophical discussions that I find too often to be arguing for argument and prestige sake alone than to be informative. I don’t think that online forums are totally useless but I do find them to be one of the least trustworthy venues and any suggestions found there need to be only looked at as leads to research in more peer reviewed channels. Online forums are not peer reviewed, in fact, they are often quite the opposite where a person can claim authority in a field when in fact they would have nil or very little attention in peer reviewed discussions. So-called peer reviewed channels are not without their weaknesses. Often they are called such when in fact they demonstrate ardent exposition and defense of vested interests. Science research reports are not necessarily peer reviewed sources of information too often also as I believe is evident in the falsification of data in MIT’s tests of cold fusion to cover up their having actually found collaborating evidence of Fleischman and Pons claims in 1989.

I sincerely doubt that you will heed my warning and others will continue to laud your pronouncements, sir, but maybe others will see my signature and it will help them to begin to realize that they should take any data from an online forum with great skepticism and ultimately seek to learn and make contributions to our collective understanding of truth in other ways.

You should take any information from anyone with great skeptisim, maybe your the only one who doesnt? What about that video on cold fusion, you watched the video and now you believe MIT falsified records because a video on a online website told you so. You dont have any proof personally nor have you tested these experiments personally to confirm that what they show in the video is true. Your guilty of the exact thing you accused online forums of.

Your preaching yet your not following your own teachings. That my friend is what we call a hypocrisy

[Chip]

maximus, you make many claims there with no presentation of evidence. You are not entirely correct, mostly wrong. But I don't think being correct or logical is of much importance to you. More important to you is making a claim of hypocrisy aganst someone who does not hold the same opinion as yourself. That appears to be the case.

I think it is rather foolish of me to attempt a serious discussion with people who probably find that seriousness is a measure of culpability. I come to that supposition based on the idea that those who believe that truth is a matter of opinion at least partly base that idea on the alienated and existential view that nothing really matters anyways.

The acceptance of epistemic relativism is very widespread and it will take away all of our freedoms eventually unless another way is found and applied before it is too late, IMHO.