Why not just call it Personal Development? There is a lot one can learn.
The skillsets you describe are widely known, an much material has been written on them. You just need to filter out the good.
Reading recommendation: Richard Wiseman 0:59.
Does Personal Development work? To a degree that people who haven’t taken it up find astonishing? Does it do this repeatedly in a diverse group of people?
No. That is the point. I am aware that there’s lots of information out there, but it doesn’t seem to work consistently. I want an effective deliver mechanism, so I’m trying to copy something similar that seems to work.
You make a mistake in putting to much meaning in a label. PD and PUA are great for a few people, decent for many and flat out not effective many many more. But that is not a problem with the concepts. Both are containers for ideas that are sometimes contradictory, sometimes BS, and sometimes amazing tid bits. Maybe make up your own term before you go with ‘PU without chicks’. The label is not really that important, if you know what content you want!
One starting point mentioned a few times was Dale Carnegies: how to make friends and influence people. Some of the more sciency books have also been mentioned. I am really curious with what you come up with, but please let us work on content, and not on labels or comparisons to other clusters.
To bad that ‘personal development for smart people’ is already taken.
Actually, I don’t think it’s just arguing about labels (although I agree that that’s pointless, and I also agree with everything else you wrote).
I want to steal the PUA model, so I don’t think I can avoid mentioning it here. I could be wrong though, and either way it might be better to coin a new name eventually. If the discussion turns out to be all about labels I might just suck it up and take all mention of PUA out.
What /is/ the PUA model you refer too? I am not sure if you use that term for the magic ingredient that PUAs seem to have to get successes or if you have a complete model of some method that only PUAs devised and no-one else has copied yet.
In either cases I have some bad news.
But now I sound all critiqy in my comments, instead I should just lean back and check back in a while what develops. I like the general idea. Everything with practical application sounds and a chance to improve ones live sounds good to me.
Why not just call it Personal Development? There is a lot one can learn. The skillsets you describe are widely known, an much material has been written on them. You just need to filter out the good. Reading recommendation: Richard Wiseman 0:59.
Does Personal Development work? To a degree that people who haven’t taken it up find astonishing? Does it do this repeatedly in a diverse group of people?
No. That is the point. I am aware that there’s lots of information out there, but it doesn’t seem to work consistently. I want an effective deliver mechanism, so I’m trying to copy something similar that seems to work.
PS − 59 Seconds looks neat, thanks!
You make a mistake in putting to much meaning in a label. PD and PUA are great for a few people, decent for many and flat out not effective many many more. But that is not a problem with the concepts. Both are containers for ideas that are sometimes contradictory, sometimes BS, and sometimes amazing tid bits. Maybe make up your own term before you go with ‘PU without chicks’. The label is not really that important, if you know what content you want! One starting point mentioned a few times was Dale Carnegies: how to make friends and influence people. Some of the more sciency books have also been mentioned. I am really curious with what you come up with, but please let us work on content, and not on labels or comparisons to other clusters.
To bad that ‘personal development for smart people’ is already taken.
Actually, I don’t think it’s just arguing about labels (although I agree that that’s pointless, and I also agree with everything else you wrote).
I want to steal the PUA model, so I don’t think I can avoid mentioning it here. I could be wrong though, and either way it might be better to coin a new name eventually. If the discussion turns out to be all about labels I might just suck it up and take all mention of PUA out.
What /is/ the PUA model you refer too? I am not sure if you use that term for the magic ingredient that PUAs seem to have to get successes or if you have a complete model of some method that only PUAs devised and no-one else has copied yet.
In either cases I have some bad news.
But now I sound all critiqy in my comments, instead I should just lean back and check back in a while what develops. I like the general idea. Everything with practical application sounds and a chance to improve ones live sounds good to me.
The distinctive thing about the PUA approach is the amount of experimentation.
obligatory yay experimentation reply :)
Yup.