Free Sample Chapter of Personal Development for Smart People (Blog)

[codefreeze]

I thought the intro and first chapter were excellent. Of course Steve's story was already pretty familiar to me from listening to the podcasts and reading the blog, but the "truth" chapter was very good IMHO.

One thing that particularly resonated with me was the idea that levels of consciousness vary. That is REALLY important. It's very important to take that into account as Steve points out.

I have found that a problem in the past - my levels of consciousness/awareness have fluctuated wildly. There's a surprisingly marked difference between the highs and lows in my case. I've only recently managed to get things more consistently high.

One of the reasons I've been able to do this is I noticed from my own experience how critical the health/fitness aspect is. That came as a bit of a surprise to me. I noticed that my periods of really high levels of consciousness corresponded with peak levels of personal fitness and strict diet. For some reason it took me a while to get that connection.

Looking forward to reading the rest of the book - great stuff so far!

[MasterD]

Steve, looks exciting.

A small error in the book:

As you’ll learn in Chapter 5, power and truth work much better as allies; together they form the principle of authenticity

in the media conditioning chapter.

[Permafrost]

Amazing start! I can't wait to read the book.

[DeRocky]

Originally Posted by ArthurHung

The bit about sticking to the decisions that you've made when you are most conscious struck out to me as an all-powerful strategy. Definitely a one size fits all strategy to whatever serious problems one can have, and I immediately put it to good use with miraculous effects.

I can't find this strategy. I re-read the pdf and still didn't find it. Maybe it's a temporary blindness, can someone tell me what page this strategy is on?

Like a few others have commented, I didn't like the writing style of the book. It doesn't sound very "Steve" though it definitely seems to be his concepts.

Unlike many others, I didn't like the self-assessment either. Call me crazy, but I don't agree with the premise that life should be full of 9s & 10s. I think that could very easily become an obsession and that a good life (even a fantastic one) does not require bliss in every aspect of life.

On the positive side: I also found it to be content-rich, particularly in that there are a number of practical suggestions.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by MasterD

Steve, looks exciting.

A small error in the book:

As you’ll learn in Chapter 5, power and truth work much better as allies; together they form the principle of authenticity

in the media conditioning chapter.

authenticity goes in the intelligence part, authority is better " master of my fate, captain of my soul" its a word that a lot of people are put off by, maybe they dont like the responsibility.

[WilliWibald]

Hi DeRocky,

It's on page 13 (in the middle).

The paragraph starts with "A good way to build your awareness is to make your important decisions from the most reasonable thinking you can muster."

[Lena Carpenter]

Question for Steve: Do you disagree with Abraham's approach of focusing on what feels good rather than the truth? If not, how do you reconcile your principle of truth with Abraham's teaching of always reaching for better feeling thoughts?

[DeRocky]

Originally Posted by WilliWibald

Hi DeRocky,

It's on page 13 (in the middle).

The paragraph starts with "A good way to build your awareness is to make your important decisions from the most reasonable thinking you can muster."

Thank you!

[Parthon]

Originally Posted by supertom

authenticity goes in the intelligence part, authority is better " master of my fate, captain of my soul" its a word that a lot of people are put off by, maybe they dont like the responsibility.

Haha! That made me laugh!

I fully agree, I think much of the worlds ills are caused directly by people unwilling to take responsibility, because to them it's a burden full of blame, accusation and accountability, so they spend their time blaming and accusing everyone else. The catch though is that you can never give up responsibility, each person will reap the results of their actions, all they can give up is control.

Originally Posted by Lena Carpenter

Question for Steve: Do you disagree with Abraham's approach of focusing on what feels good rather than the truth? If not, how do you reconcile your principle of truth with Abraham's teaching of always reaching for better feeling thoughts?

Can I answer too? It depends on what is meant by "feeling" really, because drugs "feel" really good, but almost everyone here knows why they do, and why they are bad.

Those thoughts that resonate with your higher self would be the real "good feeling" thoughts that Abraham talks about. Those thoughts where your spirit shouts "Yes!" and showers you with inspiration and joy. I think Steve did the legwork and found the three main fundamentals of those thoughts: Truth, Love and Power. Each of those contribute to what Steve's labelled as Intelligence, which would be the ever increasing awareness and reaching for better thoughts that each human should strive for.

For me: Where Abraham says using your intuition to find better feeling thoughts, Steve has said to use your innate intelligence to do the same thing. Same concept, different words, different method, different direction, same result.

[Dan Morelle]

I believe Kindle has a proprietary format so you need to own the hardware to be able to read the download.

I am enjoying the innovative approach to launching your book Steve and look forward to reading the rest. Thanks as always.

[supertom]

Originally Posted by Lena Carpenter

Question for Steve: Do you disagree with Abraham's approach of focusing on what feels good rather than the truth? If not, how do you reconcile your principle of truth with Abraham's teaching of always reaching for better feeling thoughts?

thats when you know what your desire or goal is, you find better feelings thoughts towards your desire, you can only know what you want when you have clarity.

But also i think thats a question that steve hasnt answered, hes hasnt written many posts about emotions ans what they are and when to use them

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Growth is living the best life we possibly can? What does best mean in that statement? Steve seems to be saying intelligence as defined by the seven principles means "best" but why should we accept Steve's definition of intelligence?

I was in super-critical, acid-test mode while reading the first chapter, and I even took some notes (about various inconsistencies and whatnot; it's how I learn what to do and what not do to. I'm not saying it's "wrong," but there are things that I wouldn't do).

Anyway, I'm not going to post those notes, but I will say that based on the sample chapter (and we must take into account that a sample, by nature, is incomplete), Steve's book, like many books I've read, doesn't spell out why you should do this, or why you should do that, etc, before it starts telling you that you should do it.

This completely destroys my immersion when reading a book, since my mind starts asking, "why", wanting an answer before I assimilate what I just read.

Expect Steve to answer your questions later on in the book. After I've read a book, usually my earlier questions have been answered and I feel better. The issue with this is, by design, books are linear. Optionally linear, but linear none the less. Reading is also optimally linear.

Anyway, instead of badmouthing the people who do this, when I write a book, or something, I will figure out a way to not frustrate readers. My experiences as a gamer have taught me much about how to create an experience, and one of my secret tricks will be to actually get people to read anything I publish before it's actually released.

Yes, that's right, Bruce will write a book and test it, Sony Santa Monica, God of War-style.

Only 3 of you reading understood that, but oh well. You'll just have to buy my book when it comes out to experience it directly.

[Pequod]

Hi Steve,
I was wondering, how does your book compare to Marci Shimoff’s new book? You both have discovered 3 core principles that serve as guidelines in life, but they are very different. Your principles of Truth, Love and Power are very empowering and appeal to my intuition, but the principles of Shimoff are also powerful. What do you think of them?

N.B.. Shimoff’s goal is to be happy from inside-out, and her core principles are:
Law of Expansion (Growth makes you happy)
Law of Universal Support (Believing that the universe wants to support you makes you happy)
Law of Attraction (What you like, likes you)

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by DeRocky

I can't find this strategy. I re-read the pdf and still didn't find it. Maybe it's a temporary blindness, can someone tell me what page this strategy is on?

Page 13. Here's the quote from the sample chapter (no, I'm not editing it so it looks better):

A good way to build your awareness is to make your important decisions from the most
reasonable thinking you can muster. The best point to make new choices is when you feel alert,
clearheaded, and intelligent. That’s the time to consider making big transformations in your life
such as a career change, a relationship change, or moving to a new city. Learn to trust those
higher states of consciousness. Put the decisions in writing and fully commit yourself to them.
When you inevitably sink back down to lower states and lose sight of that higher perspective,
continue to act on those decisions even though you may no longer feel as committed to them.
Over time, your external circumstances will change in ways that reinforce those higher states.
Living consciously gets easier with practice.
One time when I was in a state of very high awareness, I made the decision to switch careers
from computer-game development to personal development. That was a stretch for me, especially
since my games business was doing well, and I still had several large projects on my plate.
However, I felt good about the decision, and I knew it was correct. But of course a few weeks
later, I was still bogged down working on the games business with no end in sight. As I slipped
into a lower level of awareness, I began to second-guess my determination to switch careers. I
had to remind myself that I’d made the choice from a high level of awareness; and it was a sound,
intelligent decision. This helped me let go of my resistance and trust the original choice I’d made.

Originally Posted by DeRocky

Like a few others have commented, I didn't like the writing style of the book. It doesn't sound very "Steve" though it definitely seems to be his concepts.

You can see the influence of the Hay House editing, but I don't think that's much of an issue.

I'm not fond of some of the writing decisions Steve made (I'm almost certain he made them himself). I'm not whining, though, just sharing my current and incomplete perspective, both in the "haven't read the whole book" sense and in the "I've only shared a portion of what I think about the book, so don't take this to be my overall opinion. <---- that, by the way, is an example of what you might call "complete" writing. People will make assumptions if you don't spell things out. You can't be perfect in this regard, but you can do pretty well. I expect I have much to learn about writing and much practice to do before I can write like this consistently.

Book writing is a new medium for Steve, so I'm going to give him some credit in this area. I care more about the value I absorb from the book than the writing, but I do agree--writing well is very important. Steve writes well, but it's not the kind of writing that makes you say, "phew, that was a powerful sentence!" (Although I've seen him write like that, so it's not beyond his capabilities. Note that writing like that is less about what you say, and more about how you say it; how well you wield the language of English.) My Maximiser talent theme causes me to be pretty picky in the area of writing and pretty much everything, ha (suffice to say, Maximiser makes me want to optimise everything. I just feel dissatisfied unless things are optimised. I'm told it makes me challenging to live with, heh ).

Originally Posted by DeRocky

Unlike many others, I didn't like the self-assessment either. Call me crazy, but I don't agree with the premise that life should be full of 9s & 10s. I think that could very easily become an obsession and that a good life (even a fantastic one) does not require bliss in every aspect of life.

The point isn't to have a life of 9s or 10s, but to be able to look at the guy in the glass and know he's your friend. In other words, the point is to feel good about your life, and be able to live with no regrets.

Steve said in the book that it's not your position, but the path that you're on. So even if your position on the path may be a 3 or 4, if you're on a 10 path, you can feel satisfied.

Do note that not everyone will want a 10 path. Another thing that Steve doesn't say is that "conscious growth isn't for everyone," and in that regard I must give David Sirlin, author of Playing to Win, points for being very clear and direct in that regard (i.e. where, in Playing to Win, he states that Playing to Win isn't for everyone. Sirlin's probably a better writer than Steve, or at least, he is compelled to put more work into making the writing just the way he wants it.) But you could say that yes, Steve did spell that out in the title (Personal Development for "Smart People"), but he doesn't really say--at least, not in the necessary detail--what his definition of a "smart person" is. I know what it is from reading his site, but thousands of other people won't know.

Maybe I should create a "how to understand Personal Development for Smart People: the site and the book" info product in time for Steve's book release. (I'm kidding. Although I will accept money in exchange for explanations regarding Steve's content. I'm yet to find someone who is as familiar with Steve's content as I am. I.e. They may exist, but I'm yet to see evidence. Just lots of confusion. Oh and that last part is partially true, but I’m mostly kidding because, you know, it's fun.)

[Angela]

Bruce, you could be like that person who wrote the lexicon for the Harry Potter books -- except Steve probably won't sue you.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Pequod

Hi Steve,
I was wondering, how does your book compare to Marci Shimoff’s new book? You both have discovered 3 core principles that serve as guidelines in life, but they are very different. Your principles of Truth, Love and Power are very empowering and appeal to my intuition, but the principles of Shimoff are also powerful. What do you think of them?

N.B.. Shimoff’s goal is to be happy from inside-out, and her core principles are:
Law of Expansion (Growth makes you happy)
Law of Universal Support (Believing that the universe wants to support you makes you happy)
Law of Attraction (What you like, likes you)

Steve's principles meet his criteria that he describes. That criteria is very good, and damnit, I want access to his earlier work where he was trying to find the principles. (And Steve, I will pay you money for that information. Feel free to publish it for free, though. )

My initial subconscious prediction of Simoff's principles seem to not satisfy Steve's criteria.

Ultimately, you'll find that there are indeed different models out there to use, and different lenses to look at reality through. You need to develop a model that includes every other model so that you can function effectively. For help with that, pay me money and I'll share with you how I'm able to do exactly what I describe. (I'm kidding. I'll probably just share it for free. You can still pay me money, though. )

[supertom]

it reads like a text book, but thats proberly cause all "truths" read like that, lols.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Angela

Bruce, you could be like that person who wrote the lexicon for the Harry Potter books

Part of me thinks it'd be super-neat to do that, but another part finds that type of "explaining", "bottling talent" writing to be pretty boring (i.e. I can understand Steve's stuff because of my excessive experience with it, my talents, and the specific strengths I've developed that let me process information very rigorously).

I prefer to teach people how to fish rather than give them fish. In other words, I prefer to show people how they can align with their potential rather than them being relient on my potential--my strengths, talents, etc--to help them navigate through life. I'm open to some "fish giving," but I'm not sure what form that should take (it needs to be in the form of a really 1337 system, but I'm not sure how to do it yet. I'd really like to do it well, and I know for certain that I can't do that myself--I'll need help from people with skills I don't have. We'll see.)

Just so this post isn't too far off topic, I'll mention that the majority of how I'm able to understand Steve's stuff comes from learning about Steve, the person, and also making personal development the primary focus of your life, not a side project you do in between everything else (i.e. "everything" falls under the category of personal development for me. It's a lens I really like being aligned with). How do you learn about Steve? "Spend a lot of time learning about him" is the boring, honest answer. I have an advantage because of my Individualisation talent theme, but apart from that, it's mostly just time spent. I may know lots about Steve, but you'll probably also find that I'm the only one who's spent 9999 hours (ok, exaggeration) doing that.

As always, though, the reason to learn about Steve is because Steve's 1337, and he can really help you in your own development. You also quite come to like Steve, too, so the emphasis is less on "using him for development" and more on "helping each other on this awesome path of growth." I figure if Steve and I are allies, it’s best I understand him.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Keith

One problem is that it's overwritten.

[...]

Steve's vocabulary is impressive, and sometimes that helps convey a particular point. But it's also being used in many cases where plain english would work better.

P.S. I notice these things because I have the same problem - I often have to revisit my sentences to deal with excessive verbiage.

As someone who is *constantly* told by people that they didn't understand me, or that I'm too technical, or anything like that, I feel I'm qualified to respond here. (I, too, find "plain English" works better, but man, "stepping up" to my preferred level of expression--which is my default level and is just normal to me--is always tempting. It's mostly about talent themes, and also commitment to growth. You'll find people committed to anything to be pretty easy to talk to, not hung up on how you're saying what you say, since their commitment accelerates their growth, kind of like polarisation does.)

I certainly agree that Steve's writing could be much more concise (Steve's going to find this amusing. Steve will understand why ), but I think he consciously makes a decision to write that way because it's a bit more conversational. His book is already kind of like a manual, heh, so the conversational style helps lighten it up a bit and make it less full on. "Dense" is a word I'd use to describe Steve's book. It, nor the writing, is certainly not "fluffy."

From what I've read, I feel his word choice was excellent--probably the best I've seen.

What wasn't so excellent was that Steve tends to do this thing--and he does it on his blog, too--where he uses common sayings ("headed for the poorhouse") and some archaic word choice ("unto") to explain something instead of just writing out what he means, thus creating more direct imagery. It's like when people say, "Bob's your uncle." Gah! That means *nothing* to me. Sure, I kind of understand it because it's been nastily socially conditioned into me, but it numbs my brain. I much prefer people to be direct, vigorous, and concise. They can be as detailed as they like, so long as they are those three things. (FYI, I'm super-detailed, which leads to my not being concise. Ok, I'm also lazy to a degree, but also focused on what's important, with both leading me to be wordier than I really need to be.)

As a general rule I try my best to avoid any and all sayings, since they require you to first understand something before you understand what they mean. Sayings and similar abominations of English (an exaggeration, but a fun one ) create another layer over language that must first be understood before you can interpret meaning. Not good. You want people to understand what you say directly, so that when you say something, instead of getting caught up on the words, the words act as a vehicle for meaning, and you instantly know (in the case of writing, conjure imagery about) what people are trying to express.

I think Steve could improve in this area. Keep the so called "technical" language (I've no idea why people call it technical; it's just proper use of vocabulary), but perhaps write a bit more directy (i.e. no sayings, or anything that adds an extra layer on top of something that you must first understand before you can understand what was trying to be expressed. Jargon is a good example of an unnecessary layer that is usually not helpful. Practicality aside, acronyms, too.) (Interestingly, this is a concept from games and game design and has roots in the concept of "don't break convention; use what people commonly understand.")

But again, I'm going to pull the "care more about the value than the writing." Nice writing that "just works" (i.e. a system is at it's best when you don't notice it working) is always a treat, though.

[Parthon]

I need to ask you Bruce, you say you know the most about Steve's work than anyone can, but to what end? Why?

I can understand doing so in order to use his work to the fullest, and even to on-teach it to others, but even so, wouldn't you prefer to add your own sense of flair and individuality. The value you could add on top would be great, like chocolate sauce on icecream.

As for taking on personal development full on, I see what you mean. PD is a great tool, but it needs to be applied to your life, not just parts of it. It doesn't have to be your focus, but it's the lens in which everything is viewed through. The principles or positive growth can be applied anywhere.

ps. I'm really looking forward to the book again, I got more value from a second read.

[Pequod]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

Steve's principles meet his criteria that he describes. That criteria is very good,

If I'm correct the only criterium Steve mentions is that he was looking for universal principles for the best life. But what is the best life isn't defined. So I guess Steve's criterium is just alignment with Truth, Love and Power. But that's not wholly satisfying to me because criterium and principle are a bit of a circle this way.

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

Ultimately, you'll find that there are indeed different models out there to use, and different lenses to look at reality through.

Yup, very true. Perhaps we should all use the patented ready-fire-aim approach

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

You need to develop a model that includes every other model so that you can function effectively. For help with that, pay me money and I'll share with you how I'm able to do exactly what I describe. (I'm kidding. I'll probably just share it for free. You can still pay me money, though. )

No wonder you ask money for the All-Encompassing-Model-With-All-The-Answers

But perhaps you could give us mortals a peek preview?

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Parthon

I need to ask you Bruce, you say you know the most about Steve's work than anyone can, but to what end? Why?

I may jokingly imply that I know lots about Steve's work, but I definitely didn't imply that I know more than anyone can know.

I did say that I have a certain advantage because of the specific talents I have and the strengths I've developed from those talents, but that, to me, is just a statement of fact, nothing self-congratulatory or terribly special.

Useful, sure, but yeah, there are other talents and strengths that other people have (and I don't) that are useful in other areas. My strengths and talents just serve me well in the conceptual realm, which, coupled with my time spent with Steve's work, have developed a degree of understanding that isn't common (this conclusion is based on my observations. Note that I update my conclusions--my mental model of reality--almost everyday, so don't take them too seriously, or at least, consider them in context).

It has been said that I tend to more doggedly oscilate in the realm where I am most effective, but that's just a result of the Maximiser talent them of my mental configuration (Maximiser, along with Individualisation, are my two most common themes of behaviour, thought, and feeling--the two things that influence my behavior the most and draw me to do the things I do).

Originally Posted by Parthon

I can understand doing so in order to use his work to the fullest, and even to on-teach it to others, but even so, wouldn't you prefer to add your own sense of flair and individuality. The value you could add on top would be great, like chocolate sauce on icecream.

I couldn't agree more--I feel a powerful draw to expressing my unique message, because, again, from my experience, I don't think they'll ever be a message quite the same as mine.

People may say that's mighty arrogant of me to say, but if people understood the uniqueness of everyone as I do (and it's not that others can't, it's just that they opt not to or are unaware), they'd realise that the same applies for them, too, and from that context, what I said makes sense.

My particular preferences and past experience tend to result in my being quite different to those who are already different, but that's not really something I tend to identify with--it just happened. Again, this is a conclusion I've made from having been around people and noted how completely different I am to everyone else.

I often poke fun at it or use it in some sort of humorous sense, but ultimately, my goal is to use this perspective of mine to create something that will ultimately out last me and have a massive positive effect on the world. It's unlikely that someone with my specific configuration of talent, strengths, and experience will be working within the fields that interest and inspire me, so I feel a strong sense of responsibility to make a contribution while I'm living.

When you understand how unique you truly are, you realise that you can offer something that nobody else can offer quite the same way you can. That creates a strong sense of responsibility to get that out there for the benefit of all and really capitalise on that uniqueness. For too long, too many people just see themselves as "normal," letting their potential--their uniqueness--be a slave to the various, often easily correctable inefficiencies of the existing systems. I'm here to help people recognise that uniqueness, because my talents allow me to see it so acutely.

When it comes to uniqueness, as Bear Grylls would say, we're stronger together.

When it comes to Steve's work, though, I put in the effort I do to understand it because I see how truly capable Steve is. I've put a lot of work into deciding what is important to focus on, and using that constantly-evolving model to guide me, I don't just see Steve as "another guy"--I see Steve as one of the most effective people on the planet. Right now, he is probably *the* most effective person on the planet, taking into account his holistic approach and his capacity for making an impact on the planet. At least, a more competent person is yet to enter my awareness. That doesn't mean I see him as some sort of guru--I just see that Steve is aligned with and utlising his potential effectively (a very rare thing), and the particular field he chooses to align with--personal development--causes him to have such a massive potential for good. What makes Steve so different is his holistic alignment and the potential that has to make significant positive changes in the field of consciousness (I like to think a little bit past "the world" when we're talking this scale).

Everyone has their role to play--not everyone is going to change the world--but at least, personally, I will acknowledge completely what I see when I look at Steve (you could say I'm choosing to align with truth). And because I see so much within him, I hold him to a much higher standard than others because someone with so much power (or potential for power and influence) has so much potential to influence the world, including myself, for good or ill. As such, as it relates to me (which ultimately relates to everyone else), it's important that his influence is put within the proper context. Interestingly, Steve manages to survive the acid test, remaining consistent. It's one of the reasons that I'm here, and not around someone else or another community: given what I currently perceive and understand, it just makes sense to do so. In essence, given that you will indeed die at one point, I'm trying to make the best use of my time possible, aligning with what will have the most impact for the energy expended.

Originally Posted by Parthon

ps. I'm really looking forward to the book again, I got more value from a second read.

Yeah, second passes through anything tend to net a more holistic view of things since you've cultivated an understanding of the individual "parts" of what you're reading and can get a better view of the parts as a whole.

This works for books, movies, articles, and also on the "meta" level, which is kind of hard to explain. Suffice to say that if you first read Steve's site in January then you spend 8 months on your personal development and also read Steve's book, you'll find that on your next pass through Steve's content, it will likely give you a "different view" that will give you different ideas and insights, and also different perspectives on concepts you already know, since you have a whole new perspective. It's all very synergistic.

This works for games, too, but you have to devote some attention to aspects of the game--such as design--that are actually educational and not just entertaining.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Pequod

If I'm correct the only criterium Steve mentions is that he was looking for universal principles for the best life. But what is the best life isn't defined. So I guess Steve's criterium is just alignment with Truth, Love and Power. But that's not wholly satisfying to me because criterium and principle are a bit of a circle this way.

To respond, first I'll talk about Steve's model of intelligence, then I'll quote where Steve talks about the criteria he used.

* * *

Steve alludes to an updated model of intelligence, which was something he originally talked about in his meaning of life article series. If I recall, the sample chapter says he'd cover it more in chapter 7 of his book.

I already have an idea of what it's going to look like, but don't ask me to explain it--at least, not yet. My understanding of it is an extrapolation of many very generalised concepts--my prediction of what to expect. At least in the area of understanding people, my predictions usually end up being pretty accurate, not because I know so much, but because I know what to look for and see pretty deeply (it's a perk of the Individualisation talent theme. Suffice to say my "system analysis" of the world has lots of information about other people in it, especially about how they function and how they see the world. It's fascinating to watch different talents at work. I've learned that I'm able to use individualisation to see certain talent themes working, that I wouldn't otherwise see, but can see because my base individualisation theme lets me cut through the chaos of what I'm seeing and make sense of it. In essence, that means I can conceptualise other people's talents to use for myself and share with other people. Knowledge is not quite as good as having the talent, but it sure helps.). As Marcus Buckingham would say, effectiveness isn't about knowing lots of things, but about focusing on the few things that, if you want good results, you must never forget (or in the case of learning, expend energy learning).

Either way, at least I can say that I expect Steve's updated definition of intelligence to be very similar to my definition of holistic alignment, but it'll be less generalised and more specific. (For those interested, I coined the term of "alignment" when Steve wrote more about his book, because the concept that term represents accurately represented my intuitive understanding of what you're really doing within the realm of personal development: aligning with certain qualities, which, when you take into account the concept of oneness, is ultimately about self alignment).

It might interest you to know that I actually tried to do what Steve did--find the fundamentals of personal development. As I became more aware (i.e. gained more experience, to use a concept Steve talks about in the sample chapter), I became frustrated with the fragmented approach to personal development. It didn't resonate with me and felt intuitively wrong. Knowing that the majority of the population were ok with fragmenting their life and their being, shutting out parts of themselves to live a certain way, I decided to not do this, even if I didn't know the alternative. I figured it'd be the only way to ever find the alternative--to walk in this new territory--and if I was wrong, I could always come back to the "normal" way of doing things having known I did my best to explore what felt more congruent, natural, and inclusive.

I use a principle centered approach to personal development and already use many fundamental concepts with many life areas to guide me (largely without any conscious awareness of them until recently), but I decided that in order to find the core essential concepts that run beneath everything, I'd need more experience--more generalisations and knowledge of patterns--to be able to produce any sort of meaningful results that wouldn't just become inaccurate (since that's what kept on happening--my conclusions became outdated too quickly, which wasn't ideal; these days, they become outdated less quickly, with many of them holding up consistently).

Now that Steve's done this (and because I've looked into Steve so much, I can also trust that he's done this--although, of course, I do still need to read his book), I can turn my focus elsewhere since I have no intent to try to come up with a new universal model. Steve and I have similar level of comprehensiveness, so my efforts are better directed elsewhere since there's just not enough return on investment. Even if I had some updates that I can add to Steve's model, I'd prefer to add them onto his existing model, assuming they fit within the same context he uses (and yes, there can be different contexts, and yes, these principles need to hold up within every one of them). This is an example of me "working together" with people, leveraging the time and uniqueness of other people. In this case, I had the right tools--the talents, strengths, and a certain type of experience which has caused me to view the world as I do--to do what Steve did, but he did it before me. But I choose to see him as an ally rather than someone I have to compete with--a fellow explorer.

So anyway, that's the story of Steve's model of intelligence as told by Bruce, as well as my adventures in the realm of finding the universal essential concepts.

Here's Steve's criteria that he used to find the universal concepts:

While studying personal development for many years, I learned that this field is very broad and
fragmented. [...]
Unfortunately, these experts often disagree with each other. Some people recommend a high-protein
diet; others recommend high carb. Some say you can achieve success through hard work and selfdiscipline;
others advise letting go and allowing God or the universe to handle the details. Some experts
encourage you to change; others say you should accept yourself as you are. [...]
I soon realized that an intelligent approach to personal development would have to resolve these
incongruencies somehow. Such an approach would have to make logical and intuitive sense, satisfying
both head and heart. It would have to appear logically correct in order to satisfy the left brain, and it
would have to feel intuitively correct in order to engage the right brain. [...]
I decided to tackle this problem head-on, doing something I’ve never seen done before. I set out to
find the common pattern behind all successful growth efforts, to identify a complete set of core principles
that would be universally applicable. To define what this set of principles would have to look like, I
outlined several criteria, all of which would have to be satisfied by the final solution. These criteria
include universality, completeness, irreducibility, congruency, and practicality

You can never know if Steve's concepts are sound unless you either (A) see what concepts he disgarded in his search, or (B) do what Steve did yourself, but I trust that Steve's concepts are sound--not blindly, though. I use my knowledge of Steve to assign a "yes, this is likley to be accurate" value to Steve's model, but in my testing, I've found it to be sound. Something to do with my Input talent theme and my Maximiser talent theme causes me to constantly test for consistencies, even if I tend to trust something (I think it might be a part of one of my strengths that I've developed--a tool I use for conceptual analysis), and so far truth, love, and power hold up.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Pequod

No wonder you ask money for the All-Encompassing-Model-With-All-The-Answers

But perhaps you could give us mortals a peek preview?

Heh, it's actually pretty simple. It passes Steve's "beautiful solution" test, in that when you look at it it's kind of, well, beautiful. It doesn't *have* all the answers, but it includes them. Figure that one out!

I will indeed define my model, somehow, but I'm not quite ready to share it yet. It needs more work, or rather, I need to learn to express it better and also ensure that it's compete, or at least, able to be updated without the existing components becoming redundant.

It is something that is different to Steve's truth, love, and power model. While that model serves as a compass for how to grow, my model, in it's current form, is all about alignment--with yourself, with what is, and ultimately, with everything. It's lightworker based, since I think that's the most intelligent way to live (I currently know of no better way, nor can I envision a better way), although alignment isn't the only component. Ultimately it's a way of leveraging everything that exists in the world, instead of excluding things and having aspects that you have to resist. Again, "alignment" is the best term I could use to describe it, since it's about aligning with everything. Think of it like the Google or Wikipedia of personal development, but represented from a high level, conceptual level, right down to something you can easily implement with the completeness that the Getting things Done system has (i.e. no holes), but with less emphasis on methods and more on principle centered approaches that acts as a compass; something that ultimately includes and leverages everything and helps you align with what is so you can utilise as much as your potential as possible.

The above paragraph isn't great, but that's what happens when I don't quite understand something. Somehow I'm able to understand things on an essential level before I can express them in our very primitive language (at least, compared to vibration or thought, which is very "conceptually dense" and able to communicate pages of text in very little).

Take a look at my post history if you'd like to learn more--that's a good place to start, since I literally Live this model. You could say that I'm a walking version of it--that it is me--which is true.

My task is to be able to express it. Soon you'll have a more in-depth, better quality expression of it. For now, my posts in the Pavlina forum and the essential concepts behind them represent my most complete expression of this model of mine. (My journal is useful, too, but I write in a way that only I can understand in my journal. It's still English, but much of what I write there relies on my brain--not so much for the storage, but rather for what happens to input when it goes through the various "peaks and valleys" of my mental configuration. )

And since I've mentioned "talent theme" a zillion times in this post, this post explains and references where I get that term from and what it relates to:
How can you be competitive and a lightworker at the same time?

[Pequod]

Bruce, thanks for your ample replies! It challenged me to really think this through.

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

It might interest you to know that I actually tried to do what Steve did--find the fundamentals of personal development.
(...)
I use a principle centered approach to personal development

I think that is the key: you and Steve adopted a principle-based approach, while other authors like Tony Robbins often adopt a emotion-based approach. From the perspective of subjective reality everything you can conceive is subjective, so you can use both as basis.

When you follow the subjective reality worldview to its ultimate consequences, you see that *everything* exists only in consciousness, even universal laws and logic itself. With that, life just boils down to making your choice about how you want experience life without there being a solid (external) foundation anywhere.

It reminds me of the jnani and bhakti roads of spirituality in hinduism: the jnani's main tool is thinking, while de bhakti's main tool is emotion (love and devotion). The both lead to the same place of course.

[Pequod]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

Heh, it's actually pretty simple. It passes Steve's "beautiful solution" test

There is also beauty in mathematics, don't you think? When I was working with mathematics a lot, I always loved it when I found a solution that 'felt right' because it was eloquent, succint or otherwise beautiful!

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

My task is to be able to express it. Soon you'll have something more in-depth, better quality expression of it.

That will be interesting

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

And since I've mentioned "talent theme" a zillion times in this post, this post explains and references where I get that term from and what it relates to:
How can you be competitive and a lightworker at the same time?

I've done the strenghtsfinder 1.0 in the book "Now Discover Your Strength" when I was contemplating a carreer-switch. It's one of the best books in that area! I always recommend it to friends who are in a rut in their working life.

[supertom]

one aspect of power hes missing is fexibility, imo

[Parthon]

Wow Bruce. That was amazing. First, thanks for the awesome answer, and second, thanks for the insights. What you say is powerful though, our human uniqueness and individuality combined with our ability to work together is very powerful. It's like we all have our own unique voice, and together we can sing an amazing harmony. Everyone is on earth to use their own unique strength, but together. There's really nothing stopping us. I already knew this, but I understand it at a much deeper level.

I did want to ask you about:

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

When you understand how unique you truly are, you realise that you can offer something that nobody else can offer quite the same way you can. That creates a strong sense of responsibility to get that out there for the benefit of all and really capitalise on that uniqueness. For too long, too many people just see themselves as "normal," letting their potential--their uniqueness--be a slave to the various, often easily correctable inefficiencies of the existing systems. I'm here to help people recognise that uniqueness, because my talents allow me to see it so acutely.

I'm sort of struggling to vind and use my voice. As I grow and improve there's the greater need to share and contribute, but I'm still stuck on the what and how of it all. I've tried many different things, but nothing that fully 100% calls out to me. Know whre I could get some excellent material on this?

As for Steve: I've been reading the site since the second week he made it. I even read his articles back on his games company website when they were first posted. Every time I read through the archives I get a new cut at the material, and discover a bit more. I'm up to 3 complete archive reads so far, probably too many, but it's a great way to spend downtime. Even after all this time though I wouldn't even start to say I understand Steve.

[PresNevins]

I'm another ebook aficionado, both because reading books on a computer display is easy for me, and because I prefer not to have to pay international shipping to Japan for a block of wood that I only wanted a picture of in the first place.

I really liked the PDF preview, but I find I like it for what may be an odd reason: there's a lot of information packed into a single two-page spread. I find that I can digest information much more easily if I can get a visual overview of lots of the text all in one glance (and then markup the daylights out of it). This level of detail feels very comfortable to me.

I'm sure the printed version is laid out in a much prettier manner, the way most people like to read their books, but it'll still be sad to see the word density drop.

As far as ebook formats go, unfortuately Hay House doesn't seem to support my favorite ebook format, eReader. At least none of the books I've bought from them have been made available that way. eReader format has the advantage that I can read it on my Mac or phone or wherever, and I can change the formatting to be comfortably dense the way I like it.

I could accept a pre-formatted PDF if it were non-DRM like the preview, but I can also certainly see how a publisher might be a little hesitant about releasing something like that into the wild. Won't stop it from appearing anyway ten seconds after the paper book's release, but Hay House has shown no proactive tendencies in that direction.

These kind of limitations are probably inherent when you're publishing a paper book, but I for one would happily pay again for a good ebook copy!

Pres

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by PresNevins

These kind of limitations are probably inherent when you're publishing a paper book, but I for one would happily pay again for a good ebook copy!

It really is in the best interest of publishers to recognise this, because I think the vast majority of people are willing to provide a fair exchange for something if only the format that it came in was reasonable and had decent options.

Unfortunately it's often a struggle to get exactly what you want, which really makes you disinterested in paying once again for content you already have--regardless of how good the content is.

I think publishers need to recognise that the cost really is for the medium--the distribution--not the message. Sure, part of the cost helps the person who shared the message, but if the medium is effective, and desirable, and user-friendly, people will readily pay for the message.

Ultimately it's about giving more value than what people pay for. Imagine if you could buy a book, then pay a reasonable price for versions of it in other, readily available, easy-to-use digital formats--or maybe even get a certain amount of formats (perhaps a selection of your choice) for free! People are still trying to figure out how to do this. They're simply not quite aware of the truly awesome potential of the internet.

Smart people: for those of you inspired by such things, there's massive opportunity for innovation in this area. It's not about changing or breaking down the current systems, but by leading with something innovative and not so much superior, but something that resonates with our capacity as humans and isn't caught up in inefficiency.