I really liked what is said below and wanted to share it with you.

The following is the reply to a liberal kid who whines about his right-wing dad

“The world isn’t being destroyed by democrats or republicans, red or blue, liberal or conservative, religious or atheist — the world is being destroyed by one side believing the other side is destroying the world. The world is being hurt and damaged by one group of people believing they’re truly better people than the others who think differently. The world officially ends when we let our beliefs conquer love…

Love your dad because he’s your father, because he made you, because he thinks for himself, and most of all because he is a person. Have the strength to doubt and question what you believe as easily as you’re so quick to doubt his beliefs. Live with a truly open mind — the kind of open mind that even questions the idea of an open mind. Don’t feel the need to always pick a side. And if you do pick a side, pick the side of love…”

This was written by advice columnist Andrew W.K. in the Village Voice.

Does Equality Equal Freedom?

How Equality and Freedom Make a Bad Cocktail for most?

There is a topic that has been in my mind for years and just keeps egging me on.

It’s not an easy topic to write or even think about and perhaps in the few minutes I have today, I’ll expose more of the idea.

Since running into the inborn talents and limits that are naturally present, one realizes that we are not all equal, in anything.

I often hear people talk about us being equal under the law, having equal rights, but even that is a stretch because money always wins.  Thus, in our society the  more you have, the better off you are in relation to what most call equal rights.  Sure we can vote, but even then, if you don’t have someone to watch the children or pay your transport, or have a hard time getting off work like the poor, then of course, your equality under the law is not really equal.

But that’s not what I am referring to.

What I’m referring to is that we have this idea about equality and fairness, where sameness = fairness. This particular algorithm when running side by side to freedom causes some serious issues for those who are not as capable, not as well-heeled or with access to resources.

We defend this in our consciousness by saying, we don’t want to put limits on what people can do, be, have, become or contribute, given agreed cultural constraints (laws and mores), so we leave people alone to be free.

YET, my freedom, or go at it, is not the same as yours and hence, using the idea of equality and sameness = fairness, under the guise of freedom, causes most people to suffer much more than they would if they were not free.

Now, I understand Hayak’s remarks about keeping freedom available for those who would use that to make life better for all, and to me, that is a valid argument.  Yet, I wonder in the age of technology and information whether an either/or around equality and freedom is actually a good idea.

I realize we are wars and probably light years away from people accepting the idea that because we are different, sameness is NOT fairness at all.  In fact, the guise under which the 1-5% operate around this idea is probably harming many more people than need be.

But for me, how do we get people to accept less freedom as a given, when indirectly they have to accept it anyway, but without scaffolding or support, because they like you and me, are “free” to live their own life?

What I’m finding after living in the emerging markets toe to toe with people that are really and desperately poor is that poverty wins a lot more than it loses because of the way society punishes a person for lack of capability.  As society gets more complex, the punishment can often be very severe for generations, a lot of it is just plain luck, both good, and bad which drives our futures.

Of course @BS, we attribute good luck to our moxy and bad luck to other people’s stupidity, creating interesting causal loop reasoning around credit and blame.  Yet if you have ever watched the really poor for sometime, you realize that the reason they are poor is the algorithms they use are not going to produce anything but additional poverty, and those who by chance — either nature or nurture’s lottery — can move — do, and that actually aggravates the issues.

What if…

we were less free?

What if we decided that in large part people will not be able to navigate a meaningful life of freedom without a lot of scaffolding and support. What if freedom had to be earned, demonstrated, or approved, rather than as a right or entitlement?

Would there be MORE abuses now under the direct constraints of less freedom than there are with more freedom?

And here’s the kicker in all of this — the one that I can’t solve.

What is our feeling about people being equal and free?

Even though it’s obvious that those with capability and resources — nature and nurture’s lottery winners — are clearly outdistancing those with less equal capability and resources, do we still believe that equality and freedom should be the rule?

As I move forward in trying to understand, create, and maintain ideas about how to help people live better lives, the age old question seems to be, what are we entitled to in a good society?

Is it equality and freedom?

Or is it food to eat, medicine when we are sick, education for our children (which we may not be free to have?), basic shelter (not home ownership, omg, I think we see the issues with that by now), and some income with which to discretionarily spend?

Is this basic existence an entitlement in a good society?

If so, how do we manage that?

With equality and freedom as the lead horses?

While we are not yet capable in many forms of answering this question because we don’t have good moral alternatives yet, the longer we go in the direction we are going, the harder it will be to shift things in the future without disruption of our social rhythms.

In the meantime, we are preparing a project to test whether or not by scaffolding people who are poor and stuck in poverty without scaffolding… who are scaffolded as part of a demonstration project can lift themselves up with help and escape the gravitational field of destitution and despair.

I have mixed emotions about it, but to create a mini-society to demonstrate that scaffolding in the proper density and frequency works, I will ask each one of you to participate and encourage others to participate to allow this to occur.

Join us in helping create this demonstration project in the Philippines and give life to the ideas of scaffolding poverty in a win-win-win scenario.  Learn more at




Income Inequality – good, bad or other

Poverty @F-L-O-W

How taking a different perspective can make all the difference

Poverty, Upgraded a Bit, Continues Despite the War

Mr. Rector fails to take into consideration that the goalposts have been moved.

The above is a recent headline from the Wall Street Journal [read HERE].  It is a collection of responses from readers in regards to the original article.  It is well worth reading because it gives a good overview of people’s beliefs on poverty.

Mike shared this with his Inner Circle and tossed out this challenge:

“When you read this… it seems OK, but then you realize how deeply rooted this is @BS [Blank Slate].

The war on poverty is a set of symptoms that emerge @BS, but would disappear @F-L-O-W.

If anyone is ever interested on talking about this with me on tape, contact Gary and I’ll walk you through the real war and that is the war of values, which poverty emerges from.


The question:

“Why does the war on poverty as a set of symptoms which emerge @Blank Slate suddenly disappear @F-L-O-W?”

The New York Times posted an article titled “The Inequality Problem“.  The author must have read Mike’s book, @F-L-O-W: because he points out that we need to look at inequality differently.  It is a very good view point and well worth the read.

When you look at the world through a different lens you see things you never saw before and you gain insights into life and living that you may never have imagined.

Poverty Question answered | Audio


Another Perspective:

The following is an excert from  another Wall Street Journal article on the income inequality and is titled:

“How to Fight Income Inequality: Get Married”

“The U.S. is steadily separating into a two-caste system with marriage and education as the dividing line. In the high-income third of the population, children are raised by married parents with a college education; in the bottom-income third, children are raised by single parents with a high-school diploma or less.

One of the differences between the haves and the have-nots is that the haves tend to marry and give birth, in that order. The have-nots tend to have babies and remain unmarried. Marriage makes a difference. Heritage reports that among white married couples, the poverty rate in 2009 was just 3.2%; for white non-married families, the rate was 22%. Among black married couples, the poverty rate was only 7%, but the rate for non-married black families was 35.6%.”

To read the full article visit HERE

What are your thoughts on this two-caste system?  Does it really exist?  What solutions would you offer?  Are you aware that all previous world dominating societies crashed partly due to this inequality?  Isn’t it time we begin to look at the situation differently?


Poverty Question answered | Audio

Join our Inner Circle @F-L-O-W and receive daily insights into looking at living differently, both from our guide, Mike R. Jay and the other Inner Circle members.  To learn more, visit: HERE

© Generati

More Info



If you hear it enough, it must be true…

“Try this experiment.

Ring up your credit card company at the end of this month. Tell them that you and your spouse can’t seem to reach an agreement about how to allocate your monthly budget.

So in the meantime, you have been forced to shutdown your household… but you hope to be back on track in a few weeks.

Chances are, they won’t take you seriously. Yet for some reason, this has been dismissed as commonplace and benign in the Land of the Free.

Here’s a list of quotes we’ve heard from the telescreen talking heads over the last 24-hours:

“We’re still the richest most powerful nation in the world.” 

“It doesn’t matter, the bond market is going up.”

“The United States will never default.”

The hubris and arrogance here is amazing. And it just goes to show that if you just repeat something over and over again, people will believe it… no matter how absurd. [the bold is my addition]

This is the basic premise behind propaganda. Start with an idea. Inundate the population through constant repetition. And soon it becomes the unquestionable truth.” – taken from The Sovereign Man

“… if you just repeat something over and over again, people will believe it… no matter how absurd.

For many of us since we were little, we have heard that if we work hard, learn all we can and apply what we have learned that we will be successful which will bring us happiness.  In fact, I receive emails daily from marketers saying that they just made a gazillion dollars and if I just follow their proven success model, I will have a gazillion dollars as well.

Many of the top gurus on the guru circuit tell us to just believe in ourselves and anything is possible.  It was John Locke in the 1600’s who was first credited with this notion [although perhaps over the centuries his meaning took on a life of its own to become other than what he may have intended] when he stated that  the mind was a blank slate [BS].  In 1926 Edward Bernays wrote the book “Propaganda” which added to the notion that we can have [perhaps must have] whatever we desire if we just “do it”.

So, by hearing it over and over since birth that I can and do deserve to have anything and everything that I want, it must be true, right?

Then in 2012 Mike R. Jay released his newest book @F-L-O-W: Find, Design, Use TALENT to Emerge Happiness & Success in a Postmodern World which presented another lens at which to view one’s world and suggested that what Locke and Bernays believed was not necessarily true for everyone.

To look at some comparisons between @BS and @F-L-O-W, visit


A TPOV[Teachable Point Of View] on Happiness through the lens of Living at FLOW:

I think, without a doubt, this concept of happiness through an @F-L-O-W lens is MOST difficult and perplexing because of how I think of happiness as I see it through the @F-L-O-W lens of reality.

There are many definitions of happiness, and I would like to attempt to redefine it for the purpose of your consideration, without discounting the others.

In @F-L-O-W, happiness, or a felt and realized sense of satisfaction, along with the accompanying states of bliss, flow, and values-based alignment, or contentment, is key.

Now, the perplexing thing is that @F-L-O-W Happiness is not always going to represent or produce what most say is a “positive” psychology.  I am convinced from my own and the studied experiences of others, that true happiness emerges from the properties, which combine to produce it.  This may result in the state of “happiness” to have a negative connotation using a conventional frame of reference.

People will say, “How can you be happy if it produces a negative, alternate, or mismatched state?”

Possibly in the conventional meaning, we might not label this state as happiness.  But let me make the case for why happiness, or this being state of values alignment can be negative and still be deemed happy.

Happiness, to me, is a “sort” of contentment; it is an alignment…a felt sense of realized satisfaction.  It makes it OK to be depressed, to be melancholy, to be angry, to be doubtful, and to drift, or remain in states of negativity.

In fact, I will say this; I have seen some people MOST happy when they are being negative, confrontational, self-doubting, critical, or tough.  It can be a natural alignment for them to look for half-full glasses, and to work on what we would call the negative side of things rather than matching, or going along with others.  They are most content, most in alignment, when they are moving against, or away from the status quo, or the conventional thinking.

In physics and chemistry, we don’t label electrons BAD, because they have a negative charge?  Bad is a judgment, the negative charge is just what it is, a negative charge.  It’s in our labeling and judgment that we then call them good, or bad.

Therefore, @F-L-O-W adds dimensions to happiness, that to some would NOT fit the ideas they had about happiness, because positive and negative are really just two sides of the same thing, aren’t they?

When we view the negative, opposite the positive, or what we might call the mismatched dimensions of reality, we do not preclude happiness being a continuum that is labeled by some as good or bad.  We must allow ourselves to realize that an addict, living in squalor, might actually be happier than we think.

This kind of perspective FORCES us (in order to hold it as a possible reality), to think and feel differently about the “nature” of reality and the people in those realities which we would conventionally label as ‘sadness’ or unhappiness…when the very fact they are in those realities is due to natural values alignment.

Helpful Hint: Try to hold the idea that happiness may look a LOT different than you think it is.  Even when it might appear sad to you, it might be in perfect alignment for another, producing the tensions that emerge behavior in ways that confound your conventional thinking.

Action Step: The next time you see someone who appears sad, angry, or unhappy according to conventional means; think about what I’ve said.  Consider how that behavior you experience, with them, or in you, might be in alignment with what is taking place as natural, and an alignment with your deepest values.

Now, with that in mind, shift your behavior to them and see what happens, noting that the state they might be in might be producing happiness for them, than what it appears on the outside.

You may also want to have our Kindle book, TPOVs @F-L-O-W which exposes you to more insights into Living at FLOW.

Mass Murders and Fear

Below is part of a post by Robert Ringer His last sentence is what I want to talk about today which is:

“As Nietzsche put it, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.’  Random mass slayings aside, pain builds character and lays the groundwork for success.”

When we apply the 15 primes @F-L-O-W, we may realize that this is just another generalization that sounds great on the surface [perhaps because we have been told to believe it so] yet may not apply to everyone.  And does “pain build character” in everyone?

My point is that it may be best to reconsider generalizations and determine if they apply to you or not and if not then don’t punish your self because you aren’t like that.

Let me know what you think by your comments below.

Mass Murders and Fear

Posted on September 25, 2013 by Robert Ringer

“Thirteen people, including a three-year-old boy, shot in a South Side park in Chicago … thirteen more people killed just a few days earlier in the Washington Navy Yard … Newtown … Aurora … Tucson … Virginia Tech … everyone knows the locations by heart.

About the only thing everyone agrees on is that these mass slayings — whether you blame them on too many firearms or too few firearms — are going to continue, and probably get worse.  After all, there’s no other way for a mentally ill or angry person to get so famous so fast as to mow down a bunch of innocent people.  Welcome to the United States of Violence!

Every time these mass murders occur, it reminds me of two kinds of people:

First is the person whose philosophy is, “It’s amazing how many things won’t kill you.

Second is the person whose philosophy is, “It’s amazing how many things will kill you.”

So, who’s right? ”

You may read the rest of Ringer’s article at

Life at FLOW

The key @F-L-O-W

How do we ever come up with standards and practices for living at FLOW?

A very important point:

While we seek BS [Blank Slate] at our 1-5%, it works for us and is not BS, UNTIL we project that as a generalized solution.

That’s an important distinction to continue to make.

The key @F-L-O-W, IMHO, is to improve/enhance/enable (your choice of wording) happiness, and through happiness stop driving consumption.  Although with that being said, except for the 1-5% where consumption makes them happy.

What I spent a decade trying to unravel for myself is a lifestyle that could be part of the solution and less a part of the problem, at least for the idea of “limits to growth” which means until we allow technology to help us, to decelerate consumption/activity, and even in some cases, complexity for the masses, who do a really bad job of fractionalizing it and creating many more problems than they solve (emergenics).

So, for me…

Continuing to drive happiness rather than success is an appropriate substitute.

Something that I am starting to understand ties back into the “transmutation” of sexual desire.

I know this might seem an unlikely place, and an unlikely topic, but I want to try to relate something here, based on a little known or understood idea in Napoleon Hill’s book Think and Grow Rich.

Hill indicated that achievement is enhanced when the sexual desire is transmuted, but what I am beginning to notice is that the same idea around transmutation may drive us to achievement and success, so the puritanical approach to sex, especially for me, may actually be inciting a good deal of the achievement angst and drive for success because frankly… men are not getting enough sex… ugh.

I know for women at least as I see it from my dim male view, don’t walk around all day thinking much about it, as intimacy can be emerged from many different vectors, which are not sex.

But it could be, that my original idea to substitute happiness for success to decelerate consumption, may have something to do with this whole issue of sexual energy and its transmutation.

I have not had time to delve deeply into Propaganda by Bernays, only reading a few chapters but I can’t help but think that sense BS is so involved in deep substitution of sexual stereotypes with subtle images and shapes… that there is something here.

Traveling around the world, I have noticed a lot of differences in sexual practices and what seems to be a relationship to consumption and more and more I’m wondering if my switching happiness and success might have some relationship to this transmutation of doing nothing after sex… but in lieu of sex, activity increases — more than likely subconsciously to get at something that is not occurring sufficiently.

With a focus on rational man, we should discipline ourselves but all we do is probably regress these desires from conscious to subconscious making a perfect substrate for mindless consumption because we are never going to consume that which is the ultimate aim.

Just some ideas I have been wanting to broach, not sure if the list can handle this, or not, but that hasn’t stopped me before, or so it seems!

To receive more insights from Mike R. Jay, join his Inner Circle Membership

Anti-discrimination policies

People ask what are some of the differences between Living at FLOW and how people currently live/view their world.  From time to time we will give some examples of those differences.  Below is one such example.

A city council updated their anti-discrimination policies by adding the following:

“No person shall be appointed to a position if the city council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or disability,”.

A politician who helped pass the ordinance stated “It’s a common-sense ordinance that’s going to treat everyone equally… Nobody will be a second-class citizen, there will be basic fairness and common decency for everybody.”

Someone opposed to the ordinance stated: “The ordinance also says that if you have at any point demonstrated a bias — without defining what a bias is or who will determine whether or not one has been exercised — that you cannot get a city contract… Neither can any of your subcontractors [who have demonstrated a bias] sign on to the contract.”

What this law did was not provide “fairness” for everybody… it ensured that certain people will be made into a lower class of citizen.

This is what Living at FLOW is working to do – help people realize that we can not categorize everyone into the same box that only 1-5% of the people will fit into.  One way to ensure this is by being aware of the words we use.  In the above example the word “bias” can be used differently by different people depending on what they want the outcome to be, which was pointed out by the person opposed to the ordinance.

Another “trick phrase” is “treat everyone equally” which sounds great yet does not work @F-L-O-W.  Treating everyone equally can mean different things to different people and who is defining what “equal” is plus we are not all equal.  @F-L-O-W we are all different and perfect.

Visit and scroll down the page to near the bottom to read the differences between living at Blank Slate [@BS] and Living at FLOW [@F-L-O-W = Flawless Living Operating Worldview].


Assessments and MBTI

The following is from a post Mike put out to his Inner Circle:

These articles are pushed out every so often as each person who pushes them out has their own model to promote and invariably find it difficult to assess why they would come out opposite on an MBTI, which for me is often easy to explain @F-L-O-W… especially if one is moving through stages of want and need.  Often I find people answer the self-report during various stages of their own confusion about who they are and what they want.

The MBTI deserves a lot of criticism, but what a marvelous model to help us understand things that no other assessment can provide.

I like using a portfolio as each model has something to offer and something lost. And piecing together the puzzle of who we are is important part of the process @F-L-O-W.

Thanks for sharing the article, and POV, Pat and Russ!

I’ve written some about Pink’s Pop Psychology as has Reiss, and of course generalization @BS across any model has diminishing returns.

If anyone thinks having a call to discuss this article in light of the contentions brought forward by the author, I can explain a number of the issues including his opposite rating (especially for INTJ, by the way, one of the most “imaginative” types, hehe).

At this point, I’ve never really been able to discover who INTJs are anyway, as we have a number of this rarest type (Jung was INTJ) on this list, and they are “special”. <g>



The article can be found at


One more idea:

I have found in my almost 2 decades of using assessments, that people who criticize the assessments most, don’t understand them.

I have found in my experience, that ONLY a few people can actually identify the dominant function in their MBTI Type Dynamics, which goes to show that in a lot of cases, people who criticize something don’t really understand it fully enough to make the criticism.

This doesn’t mean the MBTI doesn’t have issues, especially as used by MOST (literal) practitioners.  For those of us who value the input provided by the MBTI, most of which can DIRECTLY predict the Big 5 results — and vice a versa — meaning that the MBTI is as valid as the Big 5 (one can predict the results of the other — something which the author failed to mention!), we find the MBTI useful.

If you search MBTI and Big 5, you will see a LOT of criticism for the MBTI, and it’s justified if people think the MBTI is used for prediction. It is not… anymore than most other assessments.

If used for self-knowledge, the MBTI can provide extremely valuable insights into the perspectives that we take and how we take them, as well as a myriad other ideas that come from the information.

I will say this, that the standard 100 question survey is not as valuable to us as the Step II, which has a lot more questions and a lot more specific information, which is very useable in helping us understand how our views of things are formed and manipulated for filters and bias — specifically.

I’m convinced we have more to gain than lose if we include the MBTI data in our self-knowledge journey.  So I’ll keep recommending it, as well as the free Big 5 that is available online!


NOTE: In our course called Living at FLOW, we give you access to 8 different assessments and when you take them and send the results to Mike, he will give you feedback on the meaning derived from those assessments.  This alone is worth many times more that what you will pay for the course.


Team @F-L-O-W


Motivational saying?


Before being introduced to Mike R. Jay and Living @F-L-O-W [Flawless Living Operating Worldview], I would have said, “Yes, if I am to succeed, I must always get up and keep trying.”

Yet is that my nature?  Sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on what it is that knocked me down.

Perhaps, sometimes, for some people, staying down will lead to greater happiness and therefore more success.  It all depends on how each of us define happiness and success for us.

If you would like to learn more about Living at FLOW,  you may want to listen to 5 recorded audios which introduce Living at FLOW as well as our TPOVs [Teachable Points Of View].  To access the FREE recordings visit