I’m on a mission to make it easier for non-academics to use time-based productivity articles from journals. I think there’s a wealth of information to be gained with just a little bit of skill at approaching these articles in the right way.
By far, my most popular answer on Quora is actually meant for those with a deeper than average interest in psychology.
As you may imagine, in this answer I don’t share any of my original research. What I do is put together the findings drawn from other people’s articles, mostly drawn from journals.
Take a read – I was shocked that it became so popular because I don’t normally look at the questions outside my band of interests.
And then, when you are done, remember to Upvote the answer if you want to help others find it also.
As you may know, Quora is a question and answer website where people ask specific questions and receive answers from the general public, some of whom are experts.
Since January 2016, I have been answering a number of questions in depth on different topics related to the work we do at 2Time Labs. Here is a sampling of the answers provided.
I bet you’ve heard the saying that “What gets scheduled gets done.” At the same time you may have wondered: “What does that mean for me?” or “What should I do differently?”
If you’re like most people who ask these questions, your mind immediately envisions a new you: one who schedules every task successfully, never arrives late, never over-promises and never forgets a single obligation to yourself or to others. It would be a rebooted, productive version of your current self… at peace knowing that all the stuff you intend to do, but aren’t doing at the moment, is safely tucked away until later.
More likely than not, this Promised Land continues to evade you despite all your efforts. Somewhere along the way, something unwanted happened and you gave up, consoling yourself that it cannot be done, anyway.
– Maybe you took a look around you. No-one you knew was trying to schedule all their tasks. Plus, the most productive ones weren’t making an attempt, so why should you? It’s so much easier to copy what they are doing… no need to go overboard.
– Maybe you read the words of a blogger or author who advised against this approach altogether. Shamed into thinking you were doing something stupid, you dropped the idea.
– Or maybe, just maybe, you actually tried to schedule all your tasks using a paper or digital calendar. Sure, it worked for a while. But then, after a stressful day with lots of unwanted surprises, you became overwhelmed and just quit. It was just too depressing to see a carefully crafted plan go up in smoke, sometimes within minutes. Plus, who has the bandwidth to re-adjust their entire schedule every time the inevitable disruption occurs?
The overall effect? Disappointment. Jaded, perhaps you even became someone who told everyone that “Total Task Scheduling” does not work.
But in the back of your mind you never lost sight of the original vision. Even now, when you add a task to your calendar, you know that it’s different from leaving it to be buried in your To-Do List. “If it works for one task,” you still ask yourself, “why couldn’t I get it to work for all of them?” It seems as if it should work, and it shouldn’t be hard.
Looking for Help
Unfortunately, there has been little assistance in answering this question.
Now and then, you run into someone who claims to be “scheduling everything.” Authors like Cal Newport and Kevin Kruse make it clear that you are not alone in having a vision of a new you. Others do it, they say, citing their personal experience, case studies and research of successful people.
But rather than inspiring you to try again, this new exposure only brings back your disappointment, even as it reminds you of that original vision you once had. As they exhort readers to become Total Task Schedulers, you struggle to see where you went wrong.
Finding Best Practices and Practitioners
To get some answers, perhaps you turned to Google, like I did. “Somewhere,” I thought, “there must be others who are trying.” After a year of searching, I gave up and started Schedule U. As they say, if you can’t find the right group to join, start your own!
But, I’m fortunate. In the past couple of years I have become a daily user of SkedPal, one of the few auto-schedulers designed to help people achieve the goal of Total Task Scheduling. Being an adviser to the founder of the software, I have shared its features while testing early versions of its desktop and mobile apps. Plus, I contribute to a tiny community providing Beta-version feedback.
It’s led me back to a thought I had when writing Perfect Time-Based Productivity in 2014. Becoming a Total Task Scheduler isn’t easy, even with the use of an auto-scheduler. Both manual and app-driven approaches require the user to combine technology and personal practices, a feat left to the individual to discover.
So I launched Schedule U, a place of learning for people to find success stories and explain them in plain language. Fortunately, there are quite a few of people sharing how they do it which I have pulled together into a free training called A Course in Scheduling.
If you ever had a vision of the peace of mind which can come from a calendar of all your tasks, join us there.
Thanks to my proofreaders — Glen Buchwald, Melanie Wilson, Jeneil Stephen, Robin Blanc, Catherine Munson.
With that question in mind, I’d like to give you a heads up about a new initiative here at 2Time Labs.
It’s called Schedule U – a School for Scheduling Everything.
I don’t want to say too much just yet, but if you are interested in where this might be going, we do have a single page setup for early notification at www.scheduleu.org
Q: What is an auto-scheduler?
A: It’s a kind of advanced calendar which has the power to schedule itself.
Slowly but surely, these AI-powered calendar apps are making their way into the lives of early adopters. They are looking for a way to boost the number of tasks they can manage effectively.
Taking over the grunt work of managing a calendar full of tasks, these apps do more than blindly shuffle around tasks and appointments. Instead, they act as intelligent agents, responding to the actions users take each day. This interplay, they report, is quite game-like: it can be immersive, challenging and fun at the same time. In this article, I describe the ways people play with their auto-schedulers and the impact this will have on the future of personal productivity.
Although the idea has been around for decades, recent advances in cloud computing and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have made auto-scheduling a practical reality. I started using one about 18 months ago and cannot imagine ever going back: it’s become a part of my new, daily routine.
In the first two articles in this series (here and here) on the gamification of task management, I described a number of games which users of task management apps are trying to play. I outlined six levels of technique/app usage which users climb up, as shown in the diagram below.
They don’t make this journey for idle reasons. Those who climb quickly are the ones who are trying to manage increasing numbers of time demands. In other words, in an effort to eke out greater personal capacity, they travel from Levels 1 to 6.
Furthermore, as I pointed out at the start of this series, this is more than a grim endeavor. They are hoping to achieve a game-like, engaging experience as they make their journey. Unfortunately, they haven’t found much luck. Few designers at any level have paid serious attention to the user experience or made any efforts to seriously transform it. At most, they make cosmetic differences.
As a result, while every functioning adult on the planet manages their tasks at one of these six levels, only a few million use electronic task apps. Do the math: out of three billion people with access to the internet, the biggest task management app only accounts for 10–20 million regular users.
That represents a huge gap. Plus an opportunity.
At Level 6, where the technology is new, the idea of auto-scheduling isn’t widespread. The most recent feature at this level is one offered by Todoist Smart Scheduling. It’s their first foray into Level 6 features, but they aren’t the first.
SkedPal, the developers of which I have done work for, is the most mature product and the one I currently use. Timeful, which was acquired by Google, Sheldonize, TimeTo and Focuster round out the collection of known players in the niche.
A comparison of apps at this level versus those found at Levels 3 and 4 show a big difference. They function as static databases, repositories of tasks. If the user adds in due dates or start-dates for tasks, the program reports which ones are overdue at any point in time, but that’s all.
Level 6 applications promise an experience that’s quite different. They are responsive — like the difference between using a monitor that offers touchscreen capabilities versus one that doesn’t.
In these programs, when you make a change to your tasks or calendar, they reply with a fresh new schedule. Multiple changes can be introduced one at a time, or grouped altogether. Sometimes the results it produces are surprising.
SkedPal users I interact with are regularly delighted (or shocked) by the calendar the program creates, the task which it suggests you work on next. Without the tool, you simply would not have remembered.
This makes sense. These programs are meant to do much more than your mind can do, in just a split-second. Now, there’s no danger in creating as many tasks as you like. As you enter hundreds of new ones or change a whole bunch at a time, the program responds the same way: with a fresh,optimized schedule.
This interactive give-and-take makes the UX game-like. You change your inputs and receive a different reaction each time. With continued use, as I show below, you become more productive in response to its unique feedback.
It’s obviously not a tool everyone would appreciate or use. Many have no need for its power. But there are hard-working people who find these capabilities useful, according to my research and experience.
Who Level 6 Users Are
Most users who migrate to these apps generally do so after making an effort to master Levels 4 and 5.
At Level 4, they used a Complex To-do list program that helped them store and view their tasks in different ways. At Level 5, they have substituted these apps with a digital calendar, which they use to juggle their tasks manually.
As I mentioned in the two prior articles, these two techniques have their limitations. While they are perfect for users who have fewer time demands, they both fail to meet the needs of users who manage a large number of tasks. Once they pass a particular threshold, Level 4 and 5 approaches get in the way.
A few get unstuck by using Level 6 auto-schedulers. To understand why they make the switch, let’s analyze their behavior using the same approach used in my prior two articles in the series: The Job to Be Done framework, and the mechanics of gamification.
The Job Level 6 Users Are Trying to Get Done
If you are a Level 6 user, you hire the technologies and techniques offered by auto-schedulers to accomplish three specific purposes.
Reason #1 — You are looking for a way to manipulate a large number of tasks, and want the app’s robotic features to save you time. With it, you should be able to create a schedule and refresh it in seconds rather than hours. You are no longer a victim of an unplanned interruption or the passage of several days.
Reason #2 — You hope to expand the feeling of being on top of things. Perhaps it has been lost for some time and now you want it to be restored. Or maybe it’s become fleeting and you want it to be continuous.
Reason #3 — You expect to experience an increased sense of mastery, a growth in your capacity. You want to be able to do more and therefore achieve new goals. You hire Level 6 apps in order to become a measurably more productive person who never allows tasks to fall through the cracks.
These are sound reasons. Each of them indicates the kind of expectation a Level 4 or 5 user would have if they were up-leveling, having decided to hire a Level 6 app.
However, my 18-month experience points to a far greater possibility. Beyond the three reasons, there are other reasons to hire an auto-scheduler.
New users of auto-schedulers quickly learn that the app needs to be run almost every workday, preferably early in the morning. The logic is simple: the schedule for yesterday is now stale. Anything that was left incomplete must be rescheduled by the app.
Also, things change from day to day, as you complete tasks and generate new ones as a result. Some become obsolete. The project you thought was important is deprecated, forcing you to change gears.
Auto-schedulers can do more than respond to these changes — one day they will capture unique data and build a database which reflects your behavior. When this happens, it will provide you with two further reasons to deepen your use of an auto-scheduler.
Further Reason #1 —Most people become “Total Task Schedulers” when they adopt Level 5 behaviors: they begin to manage the majority of their tasks in their calendar. Now, at Level 6 they can use the app’s data to improve this skill. While it’s possible to gather your own data at Level 5, a good auto-scheduler should provide you some unique insights into your performance in this area. For the first time, you can examine historical data, looking for strengths and weaknesses.
For example, if you are failing to visit the app every workday, the system’s data should reflect your inability to develop this habit, and perhaps suggest the creation of a mitigation plan.
Further Reason #2 — Not only can you focus on improving your skills, you can also use the data to improve the quality of your schedules. Each day when you reschedule your calendar, a good auto-scheduler should indicate the likely success of your schedule. For example, a calendar that is too tightly packed should throw up a red flag.
These two reasons don’t represent trivial attempts. Instead, they present an opportunity for app designers to educate and engage users, converting them from “users of an app” into “players of a game” whose expectations change over time.
In today’s world, that’s a given in well-designed video-games. Once a player moves past the entry level, they provide abundant opportunities to make measured improvements. Most of these new levels can’t be perceived at the start: they only become revealed with higher accomplishment.
The only difference here is that the game being played is “real.” In other words, it comes from a real-life situation, rather than the heavy fiction/fantasy used to construct a game like Angry Birds. Although the initial context is different, the fact is that all games are based on a common pool of mechanics as I mentioned in the prior articles. Fictional or non-fictional: they can both be made to be engaging.
While SkedPal does not have these levels built in, my experience has evolved, just as it would in a video-game. Here are some of the games I have found myself playing, even though the app doesn’t recognize them.
The Games Level 6 Users Try to Play
As I mentioned, all well-designed video-games consist of distinct levels which require higher levels of skill. Here are three “phases” I have discovered which can be used to craft these levels.
- Games at the Learning / Onboarding Phase
As I mentioned, new users spend the bulk of their time, in the beginning, trying to understand how an auto-scheduler works. For example, SkedPal makes a clear distinction between fixed and flexible tasks, keeping the former unchanged, while optimizing the placement of the latter. This distinction is new to most users.
Also, the user is asked to provide a set of weekly time maps. These user-defined graphs map out preferred zones such as “early weekday mornings between 6am and 9am” or “book reading times between 6pm and 8pm on weekends.”
For most users, these two distinctions are brand new. They must learn how SkedPal uses these and other components to produce an optimized schedule. An expert designer like the creator of the Octalysis framework for game design instructs: “During the onboarding phase, you train the users to become familiar with the rules of the game, the options, the mechanics, and the win-states.”
One of the first games to master in this phase is one I alluded to before: a “Daily Practice Game.” It’s simply the habit of entering the app on a daily basis in order to optimize one’s calendar. Mastering this practice is a small but essential win-state, similar to the one achieved by players of Farmville. They learn early in the game that there is a penalty for ignoring for several days: it results in the death of their crops.
Another game users could play is related to one of the first things they want to know when they log in — “Which tasks have become stale?” As I mentioned before, they need to take action to bring everything current. This daily action could be part of a “Task Recovery Game” which takes a certain amount of time and activity which could, in the future, be measured.
Occasionally, these changes are not sufficient and the player must also adjust a part of their task infrastructure, such as a time map. This could be part of a Framework Adjustment Game” in which the customizable components of the app are used to refine one’s schedule.
These three games are all built on the recurrent actions needed to keep an auto-scheduler running smoothly. As of today, I don’t know of any app which overtly promotes these games, but as I mentioned before, the potential exists to weave them into the onboarding experience.
My limited research shows that in the absence of explicit support, each of these games is played quite poorly at first. Over time, things improve as users teach themselves the required underlying behaviors. However, if they were offered as part of games at an introductory level, there might be more who make it to the next phase.
Some do make the transition and after a while, the behaviors become habits. When that happens they up-level to the next phase.
2. Games at the Features Phase
In the next phase, the user learns to exploit the program’s more sophisticated features. For example, version 2.0 of SkedPal indicates when there is a problem with your newly updated schedule.
It offers a Hot List which reflects the number of tasks which cannot be scheduled due to logical problems. For example, if you scheduled a task with a hard due-date for yesterday but didn’t complete it, the task would not be rescheduled. Instead, it would show up on the Hot List as an issue to be addressed.
A player could adopt a “Hot List Game” in which the user tries to minimize the total number of errors produced. SkedPal also indicates when a task is scheduled too tightly by adding a highlight to it in the form of a small icon. Avoiding these highlights could be part of a “Too-Tight Game.”
Another game is related to a feature I mentioned before: the way SkedPal distinguishes between your fixed and flexible tasks. The program synchronizes your fixed calendar in Outlook/Google with your internal calendar of flexible tasks. Unknown to some, it also allows the creation of additional fixed calendars.
I happen to use two fixed calendars. One acts as an appointment calendar with other people. The other is set up for personal appointments (with myself) and also to insert buffer times. Appointments with myself are solo tasks which occur at fixed times, such as workouts at the gym. Buffer time-slots are used to make sure I don’t over-schedule myself: each day, I have 1–2 hours of unscheduled time.
They are both used to ensure I maintain a balanced calendar which isn’t unrealistic. It’s a “Calendar Balance Game.”
Games at this phase and the one below it represent an important start, but I think they only scratch the surface. As I play them, I have generated lots of questions related to my usage.
3. Questions at the Self-Knowledge Phase
While games at this phase don’t actually exist, I continually ask myself questions which indicate that they are likely to be played in the future. Here are some of the questions I have about the schedule I produce each day:
– Is my current schedule too tight and therefore unrealistic? What is a lead metric of its quality?
– Are there items which are being postponed several times? Which ones are they?
– Are my time estimates unbiased?
– How often does a suggested next task actually get done? Why? Why not?
– What is the likelihood of a scheduled meeting actually taking place as scheduled?
There are also questions I have related to my skills as a “Total Task Scheduler.” I’d like to know:
– What is my track record for following my schedule and doing what I planned to do?
– What practices should I change to improve my skills?
– Are my high priority tasks being completed before those of lower priority?
– How often do I abandon my schedule to do something entirely different?
– Are there trends in my scheduling I need to be aware of?
– How many tasks in my system are actually dead and should be deleted?
I see each of these questions as the seeds of future games. They require their own metrics which could be collected by auto-schedulers. Put together here in their raw form they represent a start. I’m interested to hear from you in the Comments, especially if you have other questions that we should be asking at this phase.
What Designers Can Do
In the world of video-game design, there is an important role defined as a “Level Designer.” This person’s job is to create the missions, locales and stages of each level in a particular game. They possess a distinct skillset which is critical: they keep players engaged long after the Onboarding Stage, turning a player’s curiosity into a near-obsession.
Their skills could be applied to the phases I have shared above, to carve out levels of self-knowledge which I believe players of task management crave. As you may imagine, this job requires equal doses of psychology and computer science.
Unfortunately, I only know one or two developers who are thinking along these lines. Most are so close to their product and its functionality that it’s hard to step away to ask and answer these broader questions. They take time, plus no small measure of introspection.
But this is to be expected, according to Clay Christensen and other innovation experts. There’s an in-depth interplay between users and apps that must be studied over time. Answers and insights, they warn, don’t come from surveys or focus groups.
Instead, designers and developers must stand far out in the future, ahead of their users. Way out. It’s the only way to divine their needs, the jobs they are trying to get done and the games they want to be engaged by.
It’s a worthwhile effort.
Why should the most engaging software available to use be limited to trivial pursuits such as shooting angry birds or taking pictures of virtual characters?
Why can’t we put more effort into developing apps which help us learn skills which are important? Why can’t users become immersed in activities that help them get better, even as they complete important tasks? Wouldn’t we all be better human beings if we helped each other bring the fun of game-play to the stuff we really care about?
If there’s an epic quest someplace for task management app designers, and even game developers, perhaps it lies in answers to these questions.
This is the final article in this three-part series, published on Medium and on my website — http://2time-sys.com. If you are a developer/designer and would like to be notified when future articles and series become available, visit this page to sign up for updates — http://www.2time-sys.com/application-designers/.
If you aren’t a developer, you can also receive an immediate update by registering to download my article — “8 Edgy Ideas from Time Management 2.0” — at http://www.2time-sys.com/special-report-8/.
I hope you have found this series to be useful. Please leave me a comment on Twitter — http://twitter.com/fwade or on Medium’s Comments. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Thanks to my editors for their invaluable input: Marcia Oxley, Suzy Wilkoff, Jo-Ann Richards, and Tammy Emam.
Two years ago I embarked on a journey to answer: “Can time be managed?” and “Is time management truly possible?” Up until then, I had only complained. After all, claims that the phrase “time management is a misnomer” could be heard everywhere. While I habitually echoed the cliché, which sounds plausible when repeated, I felt uneasy… I couldn’t find a shred of proof.
Now, I do have findings to share based on studies of fields as diverse as anthropology and physics.
Discovery 1 — Time can be managed, but only in marginal ways
Chasing down a meme like “time cannot be managed” is tough work. Someone who is trying to justify the statement should do more than sling around clichés. He/she must track down every single definition of the word “time” in order to make sure it cannot be “managed.” It also means testing different meanings of the word “manage” to ensure that all reasonable descriptions are accounted for.
On my journey, I learned that “time” can be thought of in two ways. Either it’s taken to be “physically real” or it’s seen as a “psychological object.”
In the former interpretation, human beings have apparently made a mistake based on our studies of young children and un-contacted tribes. We have confused “Clock and Calendar Time (CCT)” with “event sequences.” CCT, which was invented around the end of the first millennium, is a skill which must be taught, usually to children. The same applies to tribes who simply don’t use the concept.
How do they survive?
They use “event sequences” made up of chains of “before-and-after” descriptions. They acknowledge the permanence of these sequences and describe the past in terms of its relationship to key events, such as the birth of a child.
“Event sequences” cannot be managed in any way. They just are.
However, CCT is constantly being “managed” if we accept a weak definition of the verb “manage”. Instead of equating it with interpretations linked to “control” or “dominate”, we can take it to mean “manipulate, influence, shape, engineer, steer.” When we adapt this particular meaning we discover that there are ways to “manage CCT.”
For example, in the modern world, we have accepted the need to add leap seconds. In the Ethiopian, Chinese, Baha’i, and Islamic calendars a leap year is added to prevent synchronization problems at different intervals.
So, there are ways for societies to “manage” “time”. Unfortunately, an individual can only do so if he/she has the power to set up his/her own calendar, perhaps by living on a desert island. In the rest of the world, we are constrained in our management of CCT by each other.
When we flip over to the alternate definition of time as a “psychological object” we see that a similar limitation applies.
If time is nothing more than a creation of the mind (according to physicists like Albert Einstein) we should expect it to be manageable. After all, products of your imagination should be quite malleable.
In fact, there is historical evidence that it used to be. The invention of time zones went through several stages where cities like Detroit saw dramatic clock changes as the definition matured.
Today, however, there is no such freedom. Theoretically, problems like the Millennial Bug or Y2K Problem should have been fixable by simply setting back our clocks by, say, 99 years. While it would have worked in centuries past, in 1999 it was an unworkable idea which would have led to far greater problems. This particular psychological object has become so rooted in human affairs that we cannot escape its grasp. Only our friends in un-contacted tribes are exempt.
In the future, we may come up with ways to manage time as a psychological object — it’s entirely possible. But once again, it’s a severely limited possibility.
While there are ways to resolve the misnomer by finding ways to “manage” “time” they are extremely minor, living only on the margins. They have little impact on our daily lives.
Discovery 2 — We still want “time management”
However, these truths don’t stop us from trying to improve our time-based productivity. After all, the phrase “time management” was invented in order to express an improvement we, as humans, have been trying to effect ever since the dawn of our existence.
It’s a response to real errors we see taking place every day: late arrivals, forgotten tasks, email overload, multi-tasking, stress, overweight, etc. These are examples of real, human problems which don’t have easy solutions. In lieu of concrete descriptors, we refer to the default problem as one of “time management.” And we want a fix.
In response, history shows that we have assembled a variety of schools of thought. Each of them gives a different meaning to the phrase that far surpasses the literal meaning of “time” or “management.” Now, the phrase “time management” can be taken to mean just about anything, including:
– A set of processes to follow.
– A specific end-result to be achieved.
– The secret of a person’s success.
– The reason for almost any identified failure.
This short list shows that we have granted the phrase a life of its own which has evolved over time. According to criteria set by researchers Geoff Bingham and Kurt Danziger, “time management” also qualifies as a psychological object.
As such, we need to be careful when using the phrase, because they indicate that people engage in what linguists call “language-games.” Over time, a number of different ones have evolved, even as they all sharing a common moniker.
If you observe conversations on the internet you can find well-meaning people belonging to different “language-games” trying to sort out common time management problems. The results are sometimes tragic, at other times comical. Unfortunately, when we can’t see the language-games at play these miscues are inevitable.
Take for example the time scarcity created by Type A individuals. To some, this is a problem to be eradicated.
For Type A’s, it’s a natural outgrowth of their ambitions. They have accepted that being alive means having more commitments than time will allow, forcing them to develop lifelong skills at setting priorities. Just imagine a coaching session between a professional organizer who believes scarcity is bad and a Type A client. Without a shared language-game, they end up in trouble.
Therefore, it’s critical that we account for existing language-games whenever the phrase “time management” is uttered. It’s the only way to appreciate the underlying context(s) being discussed.
Discovery 3 — There are much better ways to solve real problems than “time management”
Here’s a linguistic jujitsu trick we need to learn.
When someone mentions the phrase “time management” we need to determine not only which language-game they are playing, but also which specific problem they are trying to solve.
The fact is, most discussions in this realm surround intractable but practical symptoms of issues a person is trying to fix. The challenge is that, with a limited vocabulary, they only know to utter “time management.”
The recommended martial arts technique is simple. Set aside the issue of “time management”, while helping the other person to apply the best solution to the problem at hand. This calls for top-quality diagnostic skills.
Of course, the best way to empower others is not to diagnose their issues for them, but to teach them how to do so themselves. Once they become skillful, terms like “time management” fall away and more precise terms enter the picture. They accelerate their progress toward the answers they are looking for.
This inquiry into the existence of time management has helped me understand the confusion that slows people’s progress towards their goals. People must be able to get past the tangled question of time management’s existence/ definition in a single, short step. It’s a bypass that’s often necessary if practical solutions to real problems are to be found and implemented.
Click here to download “Can Time Be Managed? An inquiry into the foundations of time-based productivity”. Follow me on Twitter — @fwade
In my work here at 2Time Labs, some of the questions I have dismissed with short answers are core to the work we do: Can Time Be Managed? Does Time Management Exist? Is the Phrase “Time Management” a Misnomer?
These are more than esoteric issues.
Each year, thousands of research pages are issued on this topic. Remarkably, few bother to define the term and only one or two dare question the very existence of the phenomenon of time management.
Up until now, no-one has labored through the literature to answer it.
This special, free report may be a one-of-a-kind – the first attempt to tackle the question from multiple angles, using the lens of a variety of disciplines. Philosophy, psychology, physics, linguistics, business management… they have all been explored in this journey.
Join me as I explore all corners of knowledge pertaining to this topic to arrive at answers all may not agree with, but does reflect the view of an unlikely band of theorists whose views have never been assembled beside each other.
Download your complimentary copy below.