After about 8 months or so of blogging, MM has released the 1.0 version of the Grand Unified Theory of Winning. We’re going to record a final podcast on Sunday and then he and I will say goodbye for a few years of slash-and-burn IRL and further developments of the GUToW will be in my hands, for the time being. However, he will be keeping notes for turning all the raw information (and necessary improvements) into a proper book after he’s finished with college and then established in his career field about ten years from now.
Meantime, the most important job is for the editor (me) to tear it to shreds :-). Probably the most important thing I’ve learned from watching various WINNARZ succomb to the negative side of the winner effect (call it “dopamine blindness” for short) is the value of painful negative feedback. MM’s critics and admirers alike have criticized him for “trying to recreate 1955 America” because he doesn’t address the specific society-wide problems which have changed the game (and to some extent, even the definition of “success”). To MM’s great credit, he recognizes that riding the coattails of a quite privileged family legacy has insulated him from many of these problems. He often solicits my criticism on these because he knows I’ve lived a bit closer to the bone than most folks with comparable analytical abilities.
Now, many of the principles for getting what you want in life are general and unchanging, but the specific obstacles are not. But they often generalize over political identity classes (e.g. the IQ communications gap for the intelligent, lack of instinctive social reciprocity in Asperger’s, etc.), and we’d like to find the most common failure points of the theory. Something I mentioned to Patrick in the podcast we recorded this Saturday is that, for group strength purposes, the best possible use of Tex’s time would be to spot-check other people’s systems, blueprints, etc. for failure modes. Why? Because he’s got the IQ and life experience to see them and the disagreeableness to say so. Building anything takes a long time but it takes longer if you can’t spot errors of judgment early.
To that end, I’d like to open up the floor to the most negative things you can think of to say about the project as a whole, in the particulars, and especially in the assumed priors. I promise we will attempt to find a solution for each one in the podcast or at least add qualifying language to the GUToW (unless we ramble too much and run out of time). Anybody who can come up with an issue that stumps both of us will receive a kiss on the cheek from LizardKing gf.
Particularly interested on feedback for the high-level concepts in chapters 2 and 3.