Get superior results from superior methods



Get superior results from superior methods        
          
 
Are you skeptical ​about many popular practices?
​Are you willing to admit it when average results disappoint you?
Are you open to getting above average results (even if it requires using above average methods)?

If you answered yes to at least 2 of the above questions, then you might be a snob​. (If you refused to answer the questions just because you can, then you are definitely a snob!)

Realistically, this website is probably not for you (unless you are above average). The average person probably lacks the discernment and discipline to benefit from this website. Why would the average person decline to receive attractive benefits that are easy to obtain?

Because this website features results that are only available through exclusive methods, most people will not get those results (even if those results are very appealing to them). For some people, their familiar methods are coping mechanisms to attempt to stay within a familiar range of experience and emotions (to stay “muted”). They value the familiar over the attractive. In fact, attraction may be an experience that they habitually minimize or avoid.

So, exactly how common is it for people to have the courage to explore unfamiliar methods? That courage (also called curiosity) is universal in small children. However, because children lack social discernment, they are easily deceived. So, when the children eventually realize that they have been tricked, they naturally learn shame (shyness, social caution).

Before we explore some of the results available through this site, let’s briefly review the example of Santa Claus. If there is a consistent  message presented to children, will they be skeptical or naively receptive? What if each message triggers powerful emotions in them, like excitement about the gifts that they hope to receive if they are obedient to their parent’s preferences? Will those strong emotions about getting a particular Christmas present distract them from carefully assessing the logic of the stories of Santa Claus that they are being told?

Which gets more attention from those children? Do they independently assess the logical plausibility of the Santa Claus story or do they get interested in observing what behaviors their parents encourage or discourage? Don’t most children focus primarily on identifying what behaviors they think will attract their favorite toys, then present the “good” behaviors that their parents encourage and avoid or at least hide the “bad” behaviors that their parent’s discourage?

Which is more relevant (for producing results): taking the appropriate actions or comprehending the “big picture?” To get their desired present (as a reward)​, kids are smart to focus on how to modify their behavior to get what they desire. They do not really need to know the specific details of the actual identity of Santa Claus, right? They just learn to conform to the behaviors that the powerful reward, then they earn their reward.
In this website, you can review several results that may be attractive to you. Those results are only available to you through certain actions (actions which you would have to either perform yourself or hire someone else to take for you).
You could take the time to learn how the methods work. However, that is optional.

You do not need to understand how a computer works to use one. You do not even need to know how light bulbs create light to benefit from them. You just learn to flip the light switch and that is usually enough.

How many electricians does it take to change a light bulb? Zero… because you can do that yourself, right?


Again, understanding the methods is optional. However, to get superior results, you are required to use the superior methods.

 

​Average people may want to support a politician who will tell them that is okay to keep their familiar methods forever… because, if elected, the politician can just change some law and doing that will make an average method magically produce above average results.​ Many people hope that political reforms can reduce risk. However, many laws do nothing to reduce risk and instead simply transfer risk.

 

Where do the laws transfer the risk? Governments frequently transfer risk from certain corporations to the public.

To briefly review some examples of that, click HERE. { LINK NOT ACTIVE } To browse through the superior results available through this site, click HERE. { SCROLL DOWN }


A well-known example in the US is the FDIC. The FDIC is an insurance program that is designed to be paid for by taxpayers. Rather than banks being held solely responsible (by courts) for the financial obligations of the banks, the FDIC transfers some of that risk from banks to taxpayers.

A less-know example is the VICP. That US government program was started in the 1980s. The general public is the source of over $3 billion of awards that have been paid to over 4,000 people as compensation for injuries (including deaths) that the US government determined to have been caused by vaccines. That is an average of about $750,000 per approved claim.

Who lobbied most enthusiastically for the VICP program? Would you be surprised to find that pharmaceutical companies poured millions of dollars in to promoting the creation of that program (which has relieved them of immense financial risks)?

​​
​If you were a shareholder of a pharmaceutical company, wouldn’t you prefer that the government transfer financial risk ​from your company to the public? Or, if you ran a bakery, wouldn’t you prefer that the government transferred risk from your company to the public? Or, if your company built furniture, how would you feel about a massive transfer of liability from your company to the government?

The point is that some industries receive special favoritism from the government. In fact, governments are in the business of special favoritism. That is what they do.

In some cases, the special favoritism is completely unearned, such as in the case of the winner of a state lottery. They bought a lottery ticket just like thousands of other people, but they happened to get a wining ticket.

In other cases, the special favoritism is conditional on certain qualifications. Some governments offer special health care benefits to elected officials, military veterans, and public school teachers. However, while all of those health care benefits may be paid for by the public, they might not all be the same health care benefits. Which group is most likely to vote to give themselves a more lavish health care package: elected officials, military veterans, or teachers?

Elected officials tend to be more openly elitist than other groups. Other groups tend to be more concerned with public perceptions about them as a group.

Politicians tend not to care much about how people perceive them as a group. Most people have so much emotional arousal that they do not consider the politicians as a single group. Instead, the average person love their favorite political heroes and condemn whoever they perceive to be a threat to their favorite outcomes.

So, if an individual politician can polarize the masses, that creates two different forms of intense emotional arousal. Controversy is what attracts attention, with one group excited about the individual politician and another group also increasing the publicity of that politician by viciously condemning them. As long as the public is talking about the controversies and scandals programmed by the mass media, the individual politicians focus on polarizing public opinion about them as an individual.

The polarizing of public opinion is the key. The masses argue over individuals instead of recognizing the simplicity of the larger pattern.

So, politicians tend not to be idealistic perfectionists. They are just practical. They care about public opinion about them personally because they are public opinion specialists. They learn what behaviors to present to the public to attract certain rewards (to polarize public opinion), then they carefully conform to displaying only those behaviors that trigger the desired emotions in the public.

Why is it that governments run gambling operations like state lotteries? Is it because the government workers care so much about the financial results of all of the participants in the state lottery? Or, do governments run state lotteries because elected officials realize that publicizing huge jackpots creates a massive positive emotional association for the people who read those billboards and see those advertisements?

Obviously, most people do not win $10 million or $100 million from their lottery ticket, but many people LOVE the IDEA of winning the lottery jackpot. That IDEA creates massive attraction to lotteries. Public opinion about lotteries can be overwhelmingly favorable.

Imagine that casinos in a certain area earn $10 billion per year, resulting in tax income to various governments of several billion dollars (for use in various programs like education, health care benefits for politicians and so on). Then, imagine that government-operated lotteries earn about the same amount of profit and provide about the same portion of their earnings to the exact same government programs. Which of those two flows of money will help create positive emotions that improve public opinion about governments?

Politicians like programs that the public likes. In fact, politicians like to present programs to the public in ways that result in the public liking those programs. In other words, politicians are interested in creating positive public sentiment.

Imagine that some political parties form in order to appeal to “populism.” That is, they just want to create a set of programs that the public likes. Then, while the public focuses on the numbers that will win the state lottery (and perhaps a few current scandals), the primary business of politics goes on in the background. Huge amounts of money are involuntary redistributed from the public to select groups. Maybe a government pays a few billion dollars to a drug company (or creates a law that requires the public to directly pay that company), but if the government can get the public to experience hysterical support for that program, then the basic fact of the involuntary redistribution of wealth is not in question. Instead of the public questioning the basic program of involuntary redistribution, two opposing parties form and then argue hysterically over exactly which forms of involuntary redistribution are most justified (or least justified).

“National Socialists” of all political parties cooperate to give the public a sense that there is meaningful conflict between the opposing parties. What if the foundation of government is “corporate welfare” (special favoritism of specific industries that form governments and then lobby those governments for favors)? What if the “icing on the cake” is the bait of social welfare programs that attract the masses to vote in elections to “heroically” redistribute wealth to “the most deserving recipients?”

Again, individual politicians do not need to understand what results the system produces or how it does so. They may be sincere idealists (“useful idiots”).

One group of national socialists specialize in fanatical nationalism and “tolerate” moderate amounts of socialism (perhaps with a few theatrical protests for the mass media). The other group of national socialists specialize in fanatical socialism and “tolerate” moderate amounts of nationalism (probably with a few theatrical protests for the mass media).

The two groups of elected officials present to the public that the groups oppose each other in some meaningful way. However, those may be just a few hundred elected officials. Far away from the theatrics of opposition and controversy and emotion, the vast majority of government workers continue to perform their rituals of coercive redistribution and special favoritism. As time passes, different beneficiaries receive different special favors.

The public habitually celebrate the various political programs that they FEEL good about and complain about others as “unfortunate injustices.” Modeling their commentaries after the “babyface” politicians and the “heel” politicians, different groups in the public copy the different commentaries of their political heroes from their favorite political party.

What is the ultimate effect of such a “democratic debate?” Does it help to maintain high rates of compliance with programs involuntary taxation and involuntary confiscation (like seizing automobiles from people who are accused of carrying certain amounts of marijuana in their car)?

Can you recall the first question on this website? “Are you skeptical ​about many popular practices?”

If you have been a fanatical supporter of political reforms and activism, then you have probably been influenced by the programming of public schooling and mainstream media. How skeptical are you about the general quality of content in the mainstream media? Have you noticed that coverage of particular stories may be excessive in your opinion, while other stories either get ignored or reported in misleading ways?

How about public education? How skeptical are you about the general quality of those programming operations? Have you noticed that coverage of particular topics may be excessive in your opinion, while other topics either get ignored or presented in misleading ways?

In schools, children are trained to identify what the authorities will reward in tests, then memorize and repeat that content. That is basically the opposite of critical thinking and the scientific method. Children are programmed about science. They are not simply encouraged to actually invent their own hypotheses and then construct methods to attempt to invalidate their premise.

They are presented with a specific series of claims of scientific consensus. In fact, the idea of directly participating in scientific inquiry and debate is directly contrary to most programs of public schooling. Technicians (such as pharmacists and physicians) are trained to conduct pre-existing rituals. They are not encouraged to innovate or challenge consensus. They are spoon-fed rituals and then tested on the precision of their conformity. They are regimented and regulated for standardization.

So, standards of practice are created by bureaucrats (or the lobbyists who actually author the legislation), then technicians are trained in those practices, and then the practices are popularized by the mass media (so that there is favorable public opinion about the rituals that the technicians have been trained to blindly perform). How does the media program the public to relate to the trained technicians? The technicians are presented as having scientific credibility because they conform to standards of practices created by bureaucrats (or actually lobbyists).

The technicians are presented as the high priests of an infallible religion called “popular science.” Ironically, the bureaucracy that regulates the technicians has a long record of opposing science (and ridiculing those who promote critical thinking, skepticism, and scientific methods). The “crowning irony” may be that websites claiming to be “skeptics” may simply repeat popular indoctrination and then ridicule those who dare to question the “infallible authority” of government-approved “science.”

In schools and the media, how are students trained to relate to the practice of debating politics? Debating politics is not only presented as important and even heroic, but as “essential for good citizenship.” If you want to get special favors from Santa Claus, then you pay attention to what behaviors Santa encourages, right? Santa does NOT reward questioning “scientific” consensus, right? Santa does reward the idea of “expressing your political will by voting.”

But why does Santa encourage the behaviors that Santa encourages? For instance, if you want to transfer risk from your company to the public, which is the best way to invest your time and money: activism with the general public or lobbying the elected officials?

What if Santa encourages behavior in the general public that promote obedience and compliance with the interests of Santa? What if Santa wants a stable cash flow? Would Santa resort to running gambling operations? Would Santa justify the gambling operations with emotionally-loaded publicity about “what is good for children?” If Santa can get the public to associate “doing what is right for the children ” with “running a gambling operation,” then why not continue business as usual and add a new layer of icing on the cake: a state lottery to fund a further concentrating of government influence over children?

What if instead of worshiping whatever Santa Claus rewards us for worshiping, we respect the manipulations of Santa and either play along or not? Santa might encourage us to “get politically active to let Santa know which forms of involuntary redistribution you support the most.” Maybe we participate in voting rituals. Maybe we spend a few million dollars to lobby for the government to transfer risk from our company (or our industry) to the public. Maybe we do both. Maybe we do neither.

Eventually, we may reduce our interest in what behaviors Santa Claus is publicizing, rewarding, or punishing. We may be interested in obtaining certain results and avoiding others, but we may completely lose interest in “voting to express our political will about the best way to reform the local systems of involuntary redistribution.”

To briefly review some examples of the superior results produced by superior methods, click HERE. { LINK NOT ACTIVE }

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: