Top products from r/entp

It's a good question - a lot of people just assume they can't ever be rich.

No you don't need to get a degree. You don't need to get a high-paying job. You don't need to be Elon Musk unless we're talking billionaire rich.

Making money is about delivering value at scale. Either deliver a little bit of value to a lot of people, or deliver a lot of value to a few people. Or do both to rake it in - but this is usually harder.

The most accessible way to deliver value at scale is by building a business.

You also need to figure out why you want to be rich and what kind of rich. Do you want to build a massive empire and make hundreds of millions or does making a couple of million a year and getting to travel whenever you want sound better?

The basic steps are pretty simple. You've got to start by reprogramming your brain a fair bit. Rich people - especially entrepreneurs, don't think about the world in the same way as most people do. More on how to do this later.

After that you'll want to start exploring the opportunities open to you at the moment. There are lots of business models you can replicate and do really well with - you don't need to start completely from scratch and build something the world has never seen before. You would not believe the ridiculously niched business models people make stupid money from. Example - I know a guy who built an online health and safety testing form for oil rig workers that was making $20,000 a month.

When you're starting out it's a good idea to keep things simple and use it as a way to build your skills. You don't want to be trying to build the next Facebook while trying to learn the basics of business. You're probably not as smart as Mark Zuckerberg.

The point is you have to keep learning and learning and learning. You know the business section of the book store you've probably never looked at? Pick the right books and you can pretty much learn anything.

You've been fed a lot of bullshit your whole life - so you need to read:

BOOKS FOR REPROGRAMMING YOUR HEAD

• The 4-Hour Work Week by Tim Ferriss
  It's pretty incredible how many successful people I've spoken to in the last few years have said something along the lines of "well it all started when I read the 4-Hour Work Week...". This is a great book that will give you a huge mindset adjustment and also a bunch of practical ideas and case studies of what you can do.
  
  
• The Millionaire Fastlane by MJ Demarco Yeah the book title sucks. But it's gold. MJ has quite a different approach to Tim Ferriss - so that's why I put it here. It's good to get multiple perspectives. The first hundred or so pages rip traditional thinking on wealth as well as guru advice to pieces - it's pretty funny.
  
  
• The Richest Man in Babylon by George S. Clason This is a quick and easy read but it's got some great core lessons.
  
  Those will give you a good start. Once you've picked something to work on, you'll want to start reading up on learning sales, mindset, strategy, mindset, business management, mindset and some more mindset. If you jump in you'll quickly find the hardest thing about business is usually dealing with yourself.
  
  Hit me up if you take action on this and I'll be happy to recommend where to go next :)
  
  

> Ok, so Mr. WittyOriginalName...you and Azdahak have a serious axe to grind apparently against Ayurveda. I noticed that nowhere in your post is there any mention of your actually having tried it for yourself though.

A great many things feel good. A great many things elicit a placebo or other response. This is why the scientific method is so helpful and has changed the course of history so very much in the last few centuries.

> First of all, you know nothing about Ayurveda from what I can tell. I have an Ayurvedic physician that I have been seeing for years now, and I've been using Ayurveda myself for far longer than that.

Cool! People rode horses for centuries to go hither and yon. Clearly horses and cars are just as good at getting people from here to there.

> Second of all, you say "science" is superior, and "we have the scientific method" and they didn't in the past. That's false. The scientific method is just empiricism in a nutshell.

No. And you may be a computer science researcher but computer science research doesn't employ the scientific method, with which you aren't familiar. To even present that you are a computer science researcher as though it imbues some air of authority regarding the scientific method is all the indication we need that you don't understand the latter. I may not be in research but I have bachelors in both comp sci and a field which does employ the scientific method... this also hardly makes me an expert but I know the difference between the two types of "science" well enough. The scientific method isn't just "measure stuff". It is precisely concerned with narrowing down EXACTLY what's causing an effect.

> But in reality, it is impossible to quantify the effect of food and herbs on the body.

Oh ok so how do you explain modern medicine then? How is it that we are now able to keep HIV positive people alive for decades for example? Are they rubbing oils on their feet? Eating herbs, with unknown concentrations of substances?

> There are thousands of different compounds in plants, and they interact in a synergistic fashion. That's why the effectiveness of vitamins when consumed in a whole food is almost always significantly higher than taking them in supplement form.

Point me to studies using large populations where this approach is more effective. Oh... that's awkward... Shouldn't there be an empirically quantifiable effect? Re vitamins in foods, why must it only be due to this synergy? Please point me to empirical data which clearly implicates this synergy in all cases, as opposed to simply activating metabolic processes activated by say fiber, or the act of eating itself. We do have some evidence that taking vitamins, and indeed many supplements with food slows down absorption and gets them around the body more. Perhaps you are aware that when you eat you increase bloodflow to the stomach, precisely to take those digested nutrients and spread them around the body.... among other things. Many drugs are more effective when taken with food.

This is exactly the problem with "empirical thinking" in the absence of controlled methods as employed in the execution of the scientific method: it's far too easy to make assumptions which seem to support ones world view. Especially when it is emotionally rewarding to support that worldview "Oh if I follow god/the universes will, I will live longer AND I get to believe that life is ultimately not meaningless?!?!!? Obviously the data points to that conclusion..." :-|

> The only way to observe what works and what doesn't is through generations of trial-and-error and observation, and that's all Ayurveda has done. It's accumulated wisdom.

Oh right that's why bloodletting persisted as a practice for so many centuries. That's why it was so hard to convince midwives to wash their hands before performing surgery. Accumulated wisdom.

> As I pointed out to Azdahak not too long ago, 80% of India uses Ayurveda in one way or another. The NIH spends about 1% of its budget on preventive medicine. Ayurveda is all about prevention. That's why it's called the science of longevity. Think about what you're saying here, because it's a very tall claim.

I mentioned in one of my posts ITT that western societies need to invest more in preventative medicine, and it is something I think most/all are working towards. The healthiest populations in the world rely primarily on western medicine AND preventative care.

People in the US, who isn't a top ranker, live about 12 years longer on average. How do we separate all the different factors? Is it parasitic diseases and the like from lack of sanitation which makes up the difference? Is it vaccines/antibiotics/anti-parasitics/chemotherapy/advanced surgical intervention/etc, which were created utilizing the principles of western medicine, as established and vetted via the scientific method? Is it a focus on preventative medicine (which we haven't even defined for the purposes of this conversation)? Should we wait generations to figure it out?

> You're essentially saying in characteristic skeptical ENTP fashion that for around 1500 years (that's how long Ayurveda has been codified, but it was probably being used for far longer than that simply as an oral tradition), every single generation was delusional and misguided in passing on what they knew to the next generation.

Not delusional. Ignorant. Ignorant as fuck. As I would have been were I not educated in the scientific method.

I was raised Jewish. In Judaism you aren't supposed to mix milk and meat. It turns out that using the same un coated dishes (wood/ceramic) for both breeds some serious super concentrations of life threatening bacteria. "God" told my people that mixing milk and meat was a bad idea. Now we know why and I can eat cheeseburgers afaic because that wisdom was trumped by actual understanding.

> I'm afraid that the burden of proof is on you to conclusively demonstrate that bioscience is more effective than Ayurveda in every respect.

No it really isn't. The cool thing about science is that things need to be "proven" to be accepted as true. It's not a contest of ideologies or traditions or national/cultural pride, or anything but "if you make a claim you have to prove it". As Ayurveda claims to heal people in various ways, every way that it claims to heal people needs to be proven. It also claims that bodies and medicine work along a theoretical framework which doesn't stand up to anything but the personal beliefs and claims of adherents and supporters. You are trying to make them equivalent but one system for understanding how shit works has proven to be far more effective. Western medicine grew out of that system. While there may be useful information and approaches in other systems, and while western medicine certainly doesn't have all the answers, the process for understanding the world (the sci method) is unarguably more effective.

> Do your homework. Do your research. It takes 8 years to become an Ayurvedic physician in India. It's very difficult to study the effectiveness of Ayurvedic therapies using RCTs. Science has only just begun to scratch the surface. Just because scam artists abound, especially here in America, does not mean you get to write off an entire body of knowledge as quackery.

It takes 8 years to learn all sorts of shit. What is an "RCT" by the way?

> Come back here when you know more.

Haha come back here when you can empirically prove that Ayurvedic therapies are more effective than science based approaches. Personally I'll go with whatever has the best evidence of efficacy. If you get cancer what are you going to go with?

> If you want to know what Ayurveda is really about, read this guy's book. He is one of the foremost western Sanskrit grammarians: https://www.amazon.com/Roots-Ayurveda-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140448241 And this is a good summary of the concept of physical constitutions to get you started: http://aysnyc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=202&Itemid=165

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_medicine

I'm reading a very interesting and pretty relevant to this book called The Underground Girls of Kabul. It's about a phenomenon in Afghanistan where if a family has no sons, they sometimes decide to dress a daughter up as a boy and pretend she is a boy (this is called "bacha posh"). This is because in the culture of the country women are effectively seen as having no value unless they are able to bear sons, and therefore there is a lot of pressure on the family to have sons to present to the world. It's a practice that is in a lot of ways tacitly accepted, even though it seems to go against the strict gender roles of the society.



Through the author's research she found that girls who dressed up as boys during their young childhood but changed back before puberty seemed to adapt to womanhood just fine. However, women who for whatever reason went through puberty while remaining a boy, and only "changed back" to being women at say, age 20, it seemed they could never fully adapt to being "natural women." They reported "feeling like a man" on the inside even when older. Of course Afghanistan is a culture with VERY strict separation of men's and women's roles, and women are even discouraged from, say, walking on the street alone, so it is a huge shift in behavior.



One of the women argues in the book that even sets of habits we think are set in stone, like gender, have all just come out of the habits we've formed and the environments we are raised in. This woman grew up learning to blend in as a boy, and then suddenly had to change that and learn to blend in as a woman. But she doesn't think she was actually predisposed to either behavior set, that it was all based on context. And there is a good amount of research to support that nurture can almost "create" nature, that habits that seem natural to us are actually just formed.



Anyways, this is why I agree with the above post--you shouldn't label yourself "the kind of person that does X" because being "that kind of person" is likely very strongly a result of your environment and culture. Even in terms of something as strong as gender, and definitely in terms of habits like your fitness level. We are all more fluid than we think... we shouldn't be afraid to try removing ourselves from all context whenever we can (this is why I like long-term travel!)

Maybe the doctor bag can be from Goodwill?

Ok for creativity:
maybe a blank canvas? what about an old typewriter so he can write letters to clients and his customers for his screen buisness, as well as his other stuff? I know it's kinda big and heavy, but maybe just maybe one on craigslist or something? This was pretty cool my SO got me funny cig eject button

For a night out I'm thinking why reinvent the wheel, if he likes to smoke get him a monthly supply of RAW joints cheaper than retail too,

For the day in , here's a organic face mask... and my Dear Lady friend, DO NOT GET THE FLESHLIGHT. YOU ARE HIS FLESH LIGHT!~ we value authentic stuff, authentic personalities and people who are real to themselves. No silicone will replace your beauty <3

> How did you come from

Simple. I'm interested in the structure of myth, the structure of what Jung called the unconscious archetypes, and why the brain creates them, perhaps as some consequence of the human realization that we are destined to die. The dread of non-existence.

Most "pagan" religions in practice were deliberately invented in the 1960s. So to me they're not very interesting in that regard. The Wicca I've knowns are interested in is what color candle one should use to cast a love spell, and pretending that the Christians killed off the so-called Mother Goddess Witch Cult in the Middle Ages, rather than realizing Margaret Murray was just dead wrong about her theories.

> Have you been involved in nepoaganism? Do you know the research that goes into the recontruction of each branch? The books they base their research on?

You can't reconstruct what never existed in the first place. Wicca, the most popular form of modern paganism, is a sham. As is anything with "druid" in the name.

There are very few sources of authentic non-Christian religious practices from medieval Europe, never mind earlier. Most of the Norse sagas are all filtered through Christian tradition. The Slav religion is mostly lost to history except for a handful of names. Everything that survives is corrupted by Christianity.

With other gods? Well you cannot worship Aztec gods unless you perform blood letting and human sacrifice. Huitzilopochtli demands it to make the sun move. If you're not doing that, you're not "authentic".

If you argue that the gods can "update" what they want and no longer require scarification, bloodletting or ripping out the heart of a willing sacrifice, then any historical "reconstruction" is pointless to begin with -- because the gods may want something new or have changed over the centuries. So why bother? It's also a very convenient excuse to get rid of the parts you don't like (human sacrifice, which incidentally the Norse also are known to have practiced) and stick in parts you do. Of course, Christians have been doing this same thing for centuries.

> I mean, had you been a profane I would've brushed it aside, but you studied these things, you have no excuse.

Lol, a "profane"? Sounds good. One of my favorite scholars in this regard.

> You studied the documents upon which Hellenists and Asatruars base their knowledge.
And somehow, somehow you managed to dismiss them altogether.

Somehow? More like exactly because. I can actually read ancient Greek, and I know enough Old English to pretend I can read Old Norse :D

I contend it's actually impossible for anyone in the West to believe in these gods in the way they were historically worshiped, simply because we no longer live in a world where the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane was distinct. We humans of the 21st century cannot ignore our knowledge of the universe.

That is why these are merely "toy" religions. People light candles and say "norse prayers" and ask to get a job promotion, an easier pregnancy, do well on an exam.

For people practicing these religions in the Iron Age and later, their worship was a matter of absolute survival against the supernatural. For them, human sacrifice and other such barbarities was a necessity.


> Mind if I ask you exactly what you studied in occultism and Greek religion? You sound like someone who hasn't studied it.

Well, just looking at that bookshelf I count about 40 scholarly books on what I deem "mythology". So take that as you will. Most of what i know about Greek religion is about Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, which are of course later developments of the Eleusian mysteries, etc., and intercalated with earlier Christianity.

> It's not like Occultism is one singular path. Hermeticism, LaVeyanism, the Greek mysteries....get particular. What did you study?

Anton LeVey was an atheist and Hedonist. He uses Satan as a symbol in one part to represent hedonism, and in a second part to annoy the fuck out of Christians.

Otherwise I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm interested in the history and the myth, not in digging a pit in my back yard to do the taurobolium. Anton LeVey's Necronomicon is gibberish. I should know, because I've seen the real thing.

Yup, works very well when you have to memorize something in a short period of time and long-term retention seems to work better than any other method I know of.

Personally, I just use places I know well (e.g. my house). Much easier than constructing an imaginary place.

If you're interested, Moonwalking with Einstein is an entertaining book about memory and memorization technique that deals a lot with memory palaces.

Here's the thing, though. Most famous writers don't have great discipline. Earlier this year I read a book called Daily Rituals: How Artists Work. Some of the writers in the book were organized, but some also went on methamphetamine-fueled writing streaks, and many simply waited for inspiration to strike.

In fact, what struck me most was the lack of a stereotypical routine. It varied from artist to artist. And each artist's routine reflected his or her personality. The ones who were naturally more rigid had more rigid routines. The ones who were naturally more free-spirited—probably Ne and Ni doms—structured their lives to give them lots and lots of free time so their ideas could simmer and they could write when inspiration struck.

>However, the only way a book can train Ti is if it somehow teaches you to reason differently.

u/lightfive addressed it already, but I have no idea how you reached this conclusion. Reading teaches you to think. Personally, my Te is nonexistent, but I can still make a living editing books. My Ne helps me see the big picture of the narrative, and my Ti helps me enforce the consistency of that narrative.

This book is absolutely fascinating. Despite a title and cover that markets it as such, it isn't only about sex. It discusses how and why human sexuality, social structures and societies have changed over time, and explores what our natural social and sexual tendencies are (or may be). To this end, it explores a wide variety of human societies over the course of our existence, and compares us to are nearest genetic relatives--chimps and bonobos.

If anyone's interested, I can post some of the most revelatory ideas proposed in it so far. I'm not finished reading it yet.

Yeah, I hear you. I also had my fair share of awful high school teachers.

As for Feynman, he is indeed a great inspiration. Lately I considered buying [his three volume lectures on physics] (http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-Set/dp/0201021153/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=) but I found it a little expensive. Fortunately it’s available online as well.

I'm glad you've discovered DaveSuperPowers and see the power of his system. You should also check out Dario Nardi's book which I think its the next step in the puzzle to make mbti more testable.

Uncertainty is a fact of life for everyone and makes life interesting and fun. If you knew exactly how everything would turn out, it would be boring.

I'm gonna suggest that it sounds like you're having problems with indecisiveness, which is an entirely different animal. I found this book to be very helpful:

https://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Indecisiveness-Stages-Effective-Decision/dp/0060153164/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=B0AH8H9FWGFYPJAB032S

Rules for a Knight by Ethan Hawke

Also The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress and it is excellent!

I learned it from these dudes.

Elon Musk's biography, https://www.amazon.fr/Elon-Musk-SpaceX-Fantastic-Future/dp/0062301233

Have a read, decide for yourself.

https://www.amazon.com/Neuroscience-Personality-Brain-Insights-People/dp/0979868475

Critical Thinking: Theory of Knowledge; IB Course Textbook.

I've only read this one book specifically on the subject of critical thinking. Also, it was for coursework so I would have to re-read some of it before I could vouch for this as a good read or not. But it is written with the explicit intent to help HS students learn about what reasoning is and how to do it. So, it should be accessible and since you had no others listed, perhaps it can be an interim placeholder.

Epistemic relativism and how to argue against it. Just ordered Boghossian's Fear of Knowledge.