The main thing that has really impacted my productivity and happiness is following a set routine for an hour whenever I get up. So I do the following :
1. Brush
2. Meditate - 15 minutes
3. Write - I usually write "3 things that I am grateful for" and "3 things to focus on that particular day"
4. Exercise - 15 minute run
I do this whenever I get up. So it's not like I get up at 6 in the morning everyday. I just get up 6 hours after sleeping. The advice was given one one of Tim Ferris' podcast and has done wonders for me. I would highly recommend trying it out.
Start small. If 15 minutes of anything is too much start with 5 minutes. That's what I did.
What is good?
1) Why is it good?
2) Why did it happen?
Some of them are a result of direct or indirect action. I studied more. Some are a result of external events. The sunset was fantastic because God decided we needed a great sunset.
This has done wonders for my kids (now mostly grown) in relating their action to positive outcomes. We don't practice this much anymore but should get back to it.
My wife and I exercise for 45 to 60 minutes 5 days a week, most weeks. We rise at 4:30 AM and are done and home by 6:30. We go to bed really early.
We are 62 (myself) and 57 and the exercise is helping us a lot with health, vitality and positive outlook. Somedays it is hard to get up and go. It is always a good thing when we are done and we are grateful we went to the gym.
Interestingly enough, this is the same routine I've had recommended in AA (minus the exercise, it's an old program).
Wake up, immediate meditation/prayer and a gratitude list.
Only things missing is contemplating what you need to do today to be a better person at the beginning of the day and reflecting on what you did well and could've done better when you go to sleep.
An excerpt from the portion referred to as "On Awakening":
"When we retire at night, we constructively review our day. Were we resentful, selfish, dishonest or afraid? Do we owe an apology? Have we kept something to ourselves which should be discussed with another person at once? Were we kind and loving toward all? What could we have done better? Were we thinking of ourselves most of the time? Or were we thinking of what we could do for others, of what we could pack into the stream of life? But we must be careful not to drift into worry, remorse or morbid reflection, for that would diminish our usefulness to others. After making our review we ask God's forgiveness and inquire what corrective measures should be taken."
It is for some people, and it isn't for others, which is why this kind of generic advice is amazing if it fits you exactly, and awful if it doesn't.
I can function on six hours, but not well. I also can't easily take 15 minutes to meditate in the morning, because I have a two month old baby I have to help care for in the mornings. This somewhat limits my ability to meditate and exercise.
I second that! I have tried sleeping for 8 hours and I just end up feeling sluggish all day. Less than 6 hours has the same effect. 6 hours just happens to hit the sweet spot.
I would suggest meditating anytime in the day. I dont believe that it specifically has to be in the morning. It could be a placebo but just sitting still for a bit does some to help.
I don't know how true this is, but it's something I've found true for myself... I've read (or heard) that your sleep cycle is 90 minutes down to deep sleep and back, so it's best to get up after some multiple of 90 minutes because that's when you'll have cycled back to the lightest sleep.
So typically I either get 6 hours or 7.5 hours of sleep a night, though if I ended up getting 3 or 4.5 one night I'll sometimes try to get 9 the next night. If I can't get at least 3 hours of sleep, I just stay up.
So it's possible the problem with 8 hours is that you're trying to wake up in the middle of a cycle and thus the sluggishness. Or maybe I'm just spreading pseudo-science.
> I've read (or heard) that your sleep cycle is 90 minutes down to deep sleep and back, so it's best to get up after some multiple of 90 minutes because that's when you'll have cycled back to the lightest sleep.
I have heard that too but never really got down to testing it out. In fact I have resigned to the fact that when it comes to sleep to each their own.
For eg I have experienced better quality of sleep after taking ZMA ( I weight train ). But I have heard anecdotes where people have said that its just a placebo.
I take Magnesium every day, it has helped my sleep tremendously. I am more relaxed and less stressed during the day, too. It's like I am 10 years younger.
Six hours feels like you can function, until you can't. I think i remember seeing that people who could reliably function with just six hours exist but are vanishingly rare.
It depends on the person. Need for sleep follows a normal distribution in terms of what you require.
Natural short sleepers who only need 4.5 hours exist. Most people who sleep that much are chronically sleep deprived but there are people who just genuinely don't need that much sleep.
I don't really understand how your baby makes it difficult to take 15 minutes to meditate, because I would imagine you were sleeping in increments longer than 15 minutes. So why is this? Is the baby waking up when you wake up?
It's more accurate to say that I wake up when the baby wakes up - I hear her start to stir because she's hungry/awake, and that rouses me.
But yeah, she also tends to wake up when one of us does in the morning, unless we're very quiet, since she's just about slept out at those times.
I tend to also let my wife sleep in and take care of the kid in the morning, since she takes care of her all day, and half of the night. It seems unfair to dump the kid on her in the morning, too, while I exercise and meditate.
> I would imagine you were sleeping in increments longer than 15 minutes
I would have wondered the same thing 3 years ago: Can it really be that hard to find 15 minutes to meditate when you have a young kid? It turns out that, yes, it can.
I've been getting up earlier so I have some time before my kid wakes up. He's adjusted to my earlier schedule now so all that's happened is I'm doing his breakfast at 6:30 instead of 7. Hard to keep quiet in a 2 bedroom house where the shower is right next to his room unfortunately.
Between three kids 2.5 yrs apart each, I think I went more than eight years never getting a reliable night sleep at home. Maybe once or twice a month did I manage to fall asleep and not get woken up for some reason.
This is off topic, but while we are on the subject: does anyone regret having children because of issues like lack of sleep, etc? Did that feeling change after the baby stage?
My first couple months having a son are a blur, and it's difficult to overstate just how disruptive having a young infant is to every aspect of your life. Imagine a fire alarm going off every 1-3 hours, 24/7, for a period of several months. It wakes you up every time, but since you share duty with your significant other, you only have to get up every second time to turn it off (which will require you to be semi-awake for at least half an hour, because mumble mumble fire alarm analogy breaking down).
Waking up 15 minutes early to meditate (let alone do the exercise, etc) is perhaps possible, but since you're so far below a baseline of sleep quality and duration, you're far better off with the extra 15 minutes.
A newborn eats every 2-3 hours -- doesn't have a stomach large enough to eat less frequently than this and is used to getting its nutrition continuously.
That's measured from start-to-start of sequential feedings, not end-to-start. Baby might be slow to eat, especially if breastfeeding -- baby is learning how and gaining strength to suck, mother's milk is coming it but may not be quite there yet -- so feeding could easily be 45 mins. If mother is really having trouble with milk she may use a pump afterward to try to get her milk to come in better, and baby may be supplemented via bottle, another 15 mins if you can overlap these things. We're down to an hour left to hit that two hour window, in which to get baby back asleep, maybe have to burp baby, maybe change diaper, maybe wash bottles.
It's very possible to have 0 minutes of downtime between feedings for multiple feedings in a row and it is relentless. I fell asleep standing up multiple times, not only did I not have time to meditate, I can't imagine I could have done it without falling asleep.
I hear some newborns are easier, so maybe you actually get 1-2 hours at a time, but that still must be brutal. Having a low total amount of sleep is one thing but never getting longer stints adds a whole other dimension to the problem.
That's all newborn stuff of course, it should get easier by two months. But that's what the parent of a two month old may be emerging from and is a starting point you might wish to consider if you seek to understand what some parents go through.
At that point (with the baby etc), you want to use ALL the time you get the chance to sleep.
You are not gonna waste 15 minutes meditating, nor do you have the courage to...
It's like asking why one can't go surfing/running/whatever after a 14 hour work shift. Yeah, you still have 10 hours left in the day, but you hardly have the power at that point...
I would also recommend sleeping for the sleep deprived (I don't even meditate), but I just wanted a clarification on the idea that GGP couldn't find 15 minutes in a day to do something.
I could, and there are many 15 minute intervals in my day where I don't have to do something - but not so many that I don't treasure them. Meditation isn't the same as relaxation when you start off, as I understand it - it takes some concentration and effort, and my reserves of both are usually running pretty empty all day.
Like others have said, I'd rather have an extra 15 minutes of sleep, or an extra 15 minutes in the shower, or 15 minutes to just sit and eat breakfast.
To be fair, meditating would probably really help with the stress of having a newborn. I just can't imagine doing it right after she wakes up and is hungry and possibly covered in whatever came out of her at night. The idea of a stable, repeatable routine largely goes out the window when you've got a young kid, because they can and will interrupt it.
You ignored his central point (that a morning routine helps set his focus for the day), and latched on to perhaps the least important piece of information in his post (the specific amount of sleep that works for him).
If you really feel the need to disagree, you might suggest better activities or make a compelling case that focus is considered harmful.
AFAIK, it's more about the amount of complete REM cycles. The sleep gets more and more "shallow" in a continuous session. Six-hour night sleep session and a nap at noon may be more efficient than an eight-hour night sleep.
5 months. I started with meditating and running for 5 minutes each and increased it every two weeks or more whenever I felt like it. As mentioned doing 15 minutes of each now.
Got my dad to do the same. I actually made him start with just 1 minute of each. He is upto 10 minutes after a month. Plus has started weight training. He is 60.
I guess the main takeaway is do the smallest possible interval you can ( have no excuses to not do) and don't beat yourself about it. Build it up gradually
2. Meditate - 15 minutes
3. Write - I usually write "3 things that I am grateful for" and "3 things to focus on that particular day"
Muslims pray when they wake up, pray in a meditative mood, and when praying, think about the things they're grateful for, and what they hope Allah will let them achieve.
I find what you do and what they do sound similar to some degree.
You should, I went through it and found it really useful. The main ideas in the program is to start extremely small then celebrate and consciously practice doing that habit for a few days. The tiny part is literal, he suggests taking the smallest possible unit and making sure it's less than 30 seconds. For instance if the habit was brushing your teeth you would just need to consciously practice brushing one tooth. And then the celebration is equally tiny, such as just saying "awesome" when you consciously do something.
It sounds kind of corny, but it's effective. The idea is to get your brain to automatically associate a new habit with a really tiny action that will instantly give you a reward. So if you wanted to create a habit of brushing your teeth after getting up, you'll do it without much though even thought you only consciously brushed one tooth when you were trying to create the habit.
This looks like an attempt to monetize an evangelical Christian concept.[1]
From the article: The ideal attitude is what she calls Abundant Thinking — a mindset that gives you the creative agency and grit to reach your vision — and, on a daily basis, to design your own life. When Verresen first meets most of her clients, they’re in reactive mode. It’s like they’re in a movie, acting in their job and life without knowing the script or having perspective. Her goal is to put them in the director’s chair, with more choices, perspectives and possibilities to rewrite and upgrade the script as they go.
From an evangelical site: One way of viewing abundant life is to see when people have been changed by the power of Christ; they live different lives, which affects all aspects of their experience. In missiololgy, we call that "redemption and lift." This isn’t just true individually, but can also be on a cultural level. So, spiritual change, accompanied by better decisions, does often lead to better circumstances financially. (Sometimes it get's you arrested and martyred, so don't miss the point here.)"
Lest anyone dive into religious polarization around this, it's worth pointing out that such psychological doctrines have a long history, back through Norman Vincent Peale and Napoleon Hill to the New Thought movement of the late 19th-early 20th century [1] and a whole kaleidoscope of religious splinter groups. Many of these were Christian, but mostly marginally so; a famous example is [2]. Then there's the New Age wing to this (think The Secret) that goes back to the Theosophists and alchemical traditions. Then again there were more philosophical versions, like the Transcendentalists. You can find this type of thing in Emerson. The history and literature is rich. More recently it is beginning (as one would expect) to take scientific and quasi-scientific forms, including attempts to test it experimentally. Not clear yet what will come of those.
I'm happy to see the intellectual history of this subject discussed in a cautious way.
The New Age contrast between scarcity and abundance is compelling when applied to the question of adapting to changed circumstances. (Take for example the link posted in the last day or two about people raised in poverty finding it difficult to regulate their food intake.) The New Age arguments boil down to a simple diagnosis that we have been conditioned, by scarcity, into habits that are no longer appropriate.
There was a Wired article about 7 years ago which discussed this contrast from another angle. In that article, like the original link under discussion here, the Scarcity mindset is caricatured as mean and rigid. The Abundance mindset is healthy and open to alternatives. It's not at all about "manifesting" abundance out of nowhere, as per The Secret. I think Stephen Covey might be a major source for the Wired version of the polarity.
From the Wired article
"When scarce resources become abundant, smart people treat them differently, exploiting them rather than conserving them. It feels wrong, but done right it can change the world.
The problem is that abundant resources, like computing power, are too often treated as scarce."
The evangelical Christian concept of "abundant life" is already an attempt to monetize the religious imperative of tithing. It's the "prosperity gospel": give us money and God will make you rich. I say this as an evangelical Christian myself.
I really object to calling all evangelical Christians supporters of the so-called prosperity gospel. Whilst there are a lot of adherents, many, many evangelical Christians consider it to be an aberration and an utter misreading of scripture.
The religious version in fact seems more restrained in its promises, with the "arrested" bit at the end. (Not unexpectedly BTW; IMO comparing any such pitch to a religion is usually a compliment to the pitch, as religions of today evolved over many centuries and so are better debugged than many an age-of-reason attempt at scientific-sounding wisdom. And personally I'm deeply not religious, but still.)
I did read that rats run faster towards a reward than they run from a punishment etc., so yeah, scarcity vs abundance, sure, but if someone is paid to coach me when I have a deadline to meet, I'll show them some abundance.
The religious version in fact seems more restrained in its promises
I picked one of the more conservative sites promoting "abundance". There are much worse. See "Prosperity Theology" in Wikipedia. That, however, seems to have declined since the 2008 recession.
It's also soufism and buddhism. Most religions has those embedded in their core, but people tend to practice anything but the most important bit of theirs.
Practially, this is what meditation leads to. This is what therary leads to. This is what "being in the zone" really means.
Bottom line, this is a state that is good for us, and that we avoid most of the day, despite being adviced as a practice by almost all the important doctrines for a long time.
Called Paths to Power, it emphasizes the importance of neutrality: The world is not fair or unfair. It simply is. The more you can suspend judgment, the more you can learn and grow your power.
Not to be cynical about this approach, but having studied some of these concepts from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective, the idea of utilizing the perspective of Beginner's Mind to "grow your power" is a gross misappropriation and misunderstanding of the entire framework. In fact, within the traditions that originally conceived of these approaches, attachment to power, fame, and/or wealth is seen as the root cause of suffering and mental disenfranchisement and the very conceptualization that is to be let go [0].
Perhaps I need to look into this course a bit more to understand their approach but it seems that this is right in line with what many Buddhist scholars have worried - i.e., that these ancient traditions will be misunderstood and reformed in a way that may have wholly unhealthy effects on those who practice it.
Attachments to fame, money, and power inherently limit your power. This is why you always see cult leader types who use "real" spiritual tactics eventually fall into an ego-trap.
If you are truly "on the path", you will eventually be challenged to drop your ego. It matters not how you got onto the path, but how you respond to each challenge.
The very beautiful potential consequence of this kind of teaching is that it will get more and more people onto the path regardless. And once you are on the path you will recognize the suffering inherent in the pursuit of wealth, fame, and power.
Same tool and intent, different problem level. Both Buddhism and Abundance Philosophy have the purpose of lowering contraction and pain, but while Buddhism does that on a general level, related to life/society, AP solely focuses on being creative and not missing opportunities.
On the other hand, there are parallels between the two: "noticing" and "neutrality" are mindfulness - open non judgemental attention. "Priming" is concentration meditation. "Self-compassion", "generosity" and "gratitude" are metta. They took Buddhist ideas and reused them in a corporate setting.
This is precisely why many Buddhist scholars have worried about the integration of Buddhist thought into Western culture: the divorce of these concepts from their underlying meaning can render them ineffective, or worse, harmful.
Without an understanding of the foundational concepts of impermanence, nonself, and nirvana (the three jewels), activities like meditation lose much of their transformative power and much of their effects on creativity and mindfulness. This is important as these effects appear to mirror the very aptitudes that "Abundance Philosophy" is attempting to target.
Judging by the chart under the Self Mastery section, it seems the author defines it as growing your physical, emotional, and mental energy.
Such a result could be argued to be in correlation with the Buddhist proposition of letting go of attachment and desire.
By letting go of preconceived notions, concepts, opinions, or the desire to have power (dominance) over others, we then have all of that energy available to us for creative means which would have otherwise been wasted in anxiety, or saṃsāra.
Using your power, whatever it may be, to help others is one thing. Deliberately, actively, perhaps even desperately seeking more power to help more people is another. The first is a form of compassion. The other is a form of pride. Why do these others need your help? Have they asked for it? Are you seeking that power to help or because you like power? Lots of questions that muddy the water there.
There are certain things, like enlightenment, which naturally slip out of your grasp the moment you try to deliberately reach out for them.
Eh, I think there's a bit more to that dichotomous statement than you think. In the context of the end result, the motivation doesn't necessarily matter, just so long as the end result is good and is also done without Feel Good approaches. Mind you, I'm not talking about the end goal, just the results. I spend a lot of time trying to help others and it's definitely an almost equal mixture of pride and compassion, so what you're saying sounds pretty redonk.
>The ideal attitude is what she calls Abundant Thinking
When I see a marketable name for such things, I immediately know it's some BS mix-match of hogwash to sell to people in need.
And sure enough: "sought-after executive coach Katia Verresen, who counsels leaders at Facebook, Stanford, Airbnb, Twitter, and a number of prominent startups".
These concepts also work really well for dating and relationships. If you approach girls with a scarcity mindset, you tend to be a lot more needy, insecure and generally feel like a victim.
If you approach girls with an abundance mentality, you're much less needy, more confident and you don't really care about the outcome. You're just there to learn about her, and if she's not interested, well, there's plenty of other girls that will be.
Or maybe if she isn't interested, she just isn't interested? If she was the last woman on earth and she wasn't interested in you would that make it somehow alright to keep approaching her?
I mean really, I get what you are saying here, but it comes dangerous close to a guy viewing women as a "resource" and saying that he behaves better when he views that resource as unlimited.
I think you are projecting onto the comment a bit.
If the usage of the word "scarcity" was what caught your eye (as an association with women being "resources"), it was simply pulled from the article, which labels the two contrasting types of thinking as "scarcity" and "abundance".
I think the real trick the top-level comment was trying to talk about is that you shouldn't think of women as a resource at all. It just kind of got framed as a resource thing because of the context you mentioned.
What's with all this "objectification" philosophical nonsense? Shouldn't the only thing that matter be how people treat each other? Why are the likes of you not directing their ire at HR departments (where humans of both genders are treated as "resources")?
So she sells coaching to already successful and wealthy people that amounts to those banners they used to have around my elementary school that said "Attitude is a little thing that goes a long way"?
>>"Priming is engaging in any activity that boosts your emotional and mental energy ... [like] photos that make you happy."
That's Asian cats from Instagram for me!
I'm usually a bit skeptical of bullet point advice like this as reading it always seem like self-evident truism; I think people have to really experience it in order to understand its proper depth. But I'm glad that self-compassion is mentioned here because it's not preached very often and prob less intuitive. When I realised about it in one eureka moment (I know!) almost immediately I could have more respect for myself and found it much easier to forgive personal flaws and mistakes. So if you ever find yourself kicking and loathing over something, do a mental "There, there" patting on your head! You'll begin to see life in a much more whimsical, Woody Allen way :)
Well, one should be fair to other people, and if possible friendly, right? Turns out oneself is a person, too :)
> I have expressed my strong interest in the mass of the people; and this is founded, not on their usefulness to the community, so much as on what they are in themselves. Indeed every man, in every condition, is great. It is only our own diseased sight which makes him little. A man is great as a man, be he where or what he may. The grandeur of his nature turns to insignificance all outward distinctions.
-- William Ellery Channing
I think that can be extended to more than humans, maybe everything.
And hey, don't knock eureka moments, especially not your own! When I was 20 and late for work in the morning, I walked by a lawn with a bird on it who was looking for worms, and looked straight at me. I didn't think about it at all, but nodded and said good morning. Then I had to laugh at myself, then I thought about it, and I never quite saw animals the same way. Suddenly it seemed so obvious, of course they're persons. Not ones who speak my language or care about my salutations, but still. I feel similarly about plants, central nervous system or not. I mean, it's not like I could tell you what I mean with "person" to begin with, where the cutoff point is, but something changed and it felt and feels right.
But compassion for animals and plants is easy, compassion for humans is trickier... and compassion* for oneself, that's the trickiest part, and as you said, the most often overlooked. It's like we understand just fine that we shouldn't dehumanize others, shouldn't hold grudges, not disappoint people or break promises, and so on, but simply affording ourselves that same respect and basic goodwill often eludes us, which we then compensate with all sorts of things which are far from both compassion and real confidence.
* which is a great way to put it.. self-love just doesn't have the same ring of understanding, patience etc. to it; like "loving Justing Bieber" and "having compassion for Justin Bieber" are two completely unrelated things.
This guy's thesis is that in tough times, mental illness is associated with leadership effectiveness. His examples are Lincoln and WT sherman. (the stats argument here ends up being pretty weak).
Bottom line -- it's really hard to grade heuristics unless you have enough knowledge to restrict the situations which may occur in the future (and if you do, it's no longer a heuristic).
To me that video is not making the absolute claim that the clickbait title suggests (their words not yours of course). The actual video seems to suggest to the viewer to be wary of _only_ looking at the winning perspective and being subjected to survivorship bias. That is, there's nothing wrong with hearing advice from successful people, but make sure to get input from unsuccessful people as well to get a more complete picture.
True, I think in this case you could argue that the title is warranted as it is exceedingly common in our society to examine and emulate successful people whereas it is exceedingly uncommon to do the same for (or even be aware of the existence of) unsuccessful people
The power of positive thinking has to be one of the most undervalued capital. I would really like to see if there are any counter examples to this thinking that have worked for others.
I've been called negative before. For good reason :)
I tend to see the problems with things. The stuff that is good enough, why spend time thinking about? Seems boring to me - it's already done, lets move on.
I actually somewhat don't like being labeled as "negative person" since the actual result in my thinking is usually very positive outcomes. I improve things and make them better. How could I do that if I didn't identify what is wrong with something? The new webapp you wrote for me might be 95% awesome, but I'm going to probably be immediately drawn to the 5% that sucks just by the nature of who I am and that's what I'll be focusing my energy on to improve.
This worked well for me in my personal life for some time. Identify bad habits, get rid of them. However it can be a grind and I think folks that think the way I do are much more prone to depression and negative feedback loops that result in isolation (largely out of perhaps a frustrated idealist point of view). That's when it get's dangerous.
As in all things in life I think it's about balance. As I get older, I absolutely see and believe in the power of positive thinking. I just think some people can take that a bit (or a lot) too far and use it as an excuse to delude themselves.
sure, but ascribing some sort of otherwordly virtue to people by virtue of their material success is. inverted Calvinism perhaps. Regardless, still taps into the weird part of the US psyche that has a Protestant work ethic that believes that everything is possible for everyone if they just work hard enough filtered through a sort of divine blessing (only this case it is dressed up in a New Age "tapping into the power of positive thinking schtick") -- in any case, it has the same outcome of blaming individuals for the structural circumstances they find themselves living in -- in one case, it is that you obviously weren't one of the chosen, in the mainstream meritocratic case, it's a more easy to digest "you just didn't work hard enough", in this case it is dressed back up with psuedo-religious trappingsabout how the universe wants you to succeed and you get back the energy you put out.
I guess you could call me a Calvinist, but I find Calvin's treatment of Severetus (burning him at the stake) appalling. I just think that he got a lot of what I believe about Scripture correct - the whole TULIP summarization of his theology I largely agree with.
I just don't think that properity was ever part of his beliefs - if anything Calvin has been accused of being a gruel eating killjoy...
so basically you believe God chose some people to go to hell, some people to go to heaven, there's nothing you can do to change that, and there's nothing you can do to lose that, without the part that the Elect are showered in riches here on earth.
chris_wot -- the HN algorithms keep from from responding to your post again, but I hope you don't think I was being sarcastic (I wasn't, I was just stating the bare minimum of how I understood your views). I don't believe in a Christian god (though I did for a long while) nor do I believe in heaven or hell (though I'm still probably less rational and more mystical than 95% of HN - but thanks for the nuanced response. I do admit that it is completely logical to take the view that we all have free will yet God exists outside time and space so knows everything that will happen so therefore of course predestination and free will are not at odds with each other. I'd urge you to reflect on how an all-loving being could condemn anyone to torture for all eternity based on the decisions they made in one tiny lifetime, but that's neither here nor there. We're getting far afield of the main topic here, but I hope you would admit that prosperity HAS been a tenant of mainstream Calvinism in so far as god showering his elect on earth with blessings, etc.
Not at all - I knew exactly what you were saying and I didn't think it was sarcastic. I also wasn't offended, you basically summed up a lot of Calvanism (and rather starkly but accurately summed up my view on it!), and there was no real sugar coating of it. I respect that.
To be honest, when I read about the Prosperity Gospel, it's so far away from the New Testament gospels I have read a few times now that I just frankly don't understand it at all. I mean, in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus is reported to have said "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
I've definitely grappled with the concept of hell and damnation. It's not the appropriate forum to really discuss this in too much detail, suffice it to say that I think a perfect, loving God who is rejected and wronged by a creation made in His own image (with all that entails) because that creation needed to be given the freedom to accept or reject it's creator must give that creation a response.
I'm sad you have been voted down, because although it's more nuanced than that, election and free will is indeed a big part of Calvinism.
(You'll have to pardon my style, as I try to use He and Him when I speak of God, instead of he and him)
My own take on is that the things you raise are indeed a big part of Calvinism, and really wrapped up in the notion of predestination. A lot of people have problems with it, I understand why. They object to the fact that the elect are known by God before hand and He writes the names of those who will be with Him through Eternity into the Book Of Life and the rest He casts into eternal damnation.
But I've also been considering that God exists outside of space and time. In Psalm 90 it reads that "For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." And in 2 Peter 3:8 he says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
So I've been wondering: if God sees the future perfectly, then He knows who loves him and who rejects Him. He knows who will ask for forgiveness for the terrible way we have lived, which He cannot stand.
I believe that God loves us, and gives us free will. He gave Adam and Eve the freedom to disobey and eat from the tree of good and evil, and they chose to commit evil. He wanted them to love Him as their creator, but they didn't. That love couldn't be given to an automaton, it could only be given to those who chose to give it freely.
So what I wonder is if in fact God doesn't intervene directly but looks at the free choices given in someone's life. I wonder if He chooses to offer his love and gives opportunities for all men and women to accept Him. But He knows who will accept His offer as He does exist out of linear space and time!
This wouldn't preclude God from carrying out His plan. He can still work though events, in fact He puts people into places and situations that satisfy His plans. Perhaps that plan is so perfect that He takes the rejection of mankind, the evil that we do and uses it for His good purposes. And that also means that He also stops evil acts, and takes down dictators like Sadaam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and others.
So then it makes logical sense that there is no conflict between predestination and free will! In other words, free will is still given, and offered, and humans gain agency, dignity and freedom - in other words, we are truly made in His image! But as God knows all our days, and all our actions because of His immense and powerful ability to manipulate time to His own ends, then that is how we are predestined to accept or reject Jesus, and through this action, God.
Of course, if you don't believe in the Christian God, then this is all nonsense, but I thought that as you treated my comment with honesty and at least respected my replies enough to respond I'd give a fuller response and try to explain my own perspective on the matter.
That table layout is really bad on a large screen, at some point there's a nice max for a font and I really don't need giant fonts or text as images. That image is gigantic [1]. And that header hiding animation is so annoying. Why do you do this. :(
Unfortunately, this appears to be the trend. With mobile/tablet driving ad revenue growth, desktop visitors appear to be on their way to being an ignored/forgotten segment.
Fortunately, a quick hop into dev tools fixes the problem. For the primary paragraph content, switching from the current 22px down to 16px makes this read so much easier.
I think the most important thing about this kind of advice is not to generalize it. For some people it works and for some people it doesn't work. There is no self-help advice that works for everybody.
Also: The advice given is not complete. The people who have success with this do the things the article describes, but they also do some important things the article doesn't describe.
Hand-wavy garbage. In my mind, there are only three things that matter when it comes to business success: Company reputation, ability to deliver and who you know. Everything else is either not important or fits under one of those tenets.
Start small. If 15 minutes of anything is too much start with 5 minutes. That's what I did.