Along the way I had a pretty major epiphany that we turned into a new Simpleology course. This video explains ...

In addition to the personal growth I experienced, I discovered a number of other (equally exciting) things along the way ...

1. I Created a False-Constraint: "One Location"

At first I believed that all of Construct Zero needed to exist in one single location.

Yes, the reasons for moving away from "virtual" operations are still quite valid. Namely, despite the giddy adoption of overseas outsourcing these days, business is far more efficient when run locally. The constraints of running a business across multiple locations and time zones are very real. (see point 2 below)

However, the missions of ConstructZero.ORG and ConstructZero.COM are really distinctly separate. In fact, keeping the two separate is a good idea for many reasons.

So, my search for the "perfect city" is over.

(Sorry, Houston ... It didn't work out.)

2. Grouping by Function

The biggest problem one finds working across time-zones is the approval process.

Consider this scenario:

Step 1. Team member A submits work at 8PM your time

Step 2. You review it the next morning during your normal work hours

Step 3. You reply with some edits

Step 4. They re-submit their work at 8PM your time

Step 5. You review it the next morning during your work hours ...

Step 6. And so on ...

Three simple revisions then burn up three days of time.

More complex projects are stretched out to infinity.

So, what I am considering now is ensuring that any work in our organization is governed by a local approval process.

ConstructZero.ORG will be mostly autonomous, as will .COM

Any teams we create overseas we'll likely begin grouping similarly: by function and by approval.

These seem like minor distinctions. They're not. That is ... If you want to get anything done. (You guessed it: we do.)

3. The Holy Triumvirate of Locales (SF Bay Area - Austin - NYC)

When I realized that I could (and should) spread things out across multiple locations, the problem became far less complex.

ConstructZero.ORG - being non-profit in nature - can now be run anywhere. The tax consequences no longer matter.

So, where then does one find the scientists and engineers we'll need to realize the vision of DC3D?

Open challenge to anyone ... Disprove this statement: the San Francisco Bay Area has a higher concentration of scientists and engineers than any other place on the planet.

Why work to convince them to come to us, when we can just show up on their doorstep?

What about ConstructZero.COM?

For a business, Austin is a hard place to beat. It's hip, it's metropolitan, and it's experiencing a tech-renaissance. No, it ain't Silicon Valley - and likely won't ever be - but it's getting there. And it has the benefit of the low-tax pro-business sensibilities of Texas.

All it needs is better access via air and it would be perfect. (Hey, rail-tech might make this constraint obsolete in a decade or so anyway ...)

Finally, we'll be setting up a satellite office in New York City for marketing and PR operations.

But let me just say this ... after driving across the States one thing is clear: anyone who thinks "America is over" has another thing coming. The entrepreneurial drive, and thirst for freedom, of the people here is as inspiring as ever. Yes, many of us feel let down by our government. Yes, some people are demoralized by the media's "you are in a recession" brainwashing. But the people here want prosperity and peace. They are working their tails off to get it. And they will.

4. What's Next?

I'm currently hunkered down in San Francisco so we can find the perfect location for .ORG

Meanwhile our new executive team is amazing me daily with their speed and brilliance.

The final locations may change, and our plans may require some tuning, but the vision is still quite clear and moving ahead rapidly.

So, is it in the bag?

Not hardly.

Make no mistake - this is going to require the talents of thousands of people, require possibly billions of dollars, and require everyone on my team to step up their game to a whole new level (including me).

And that's what we're going to do - having a helluva lot of fun along the way :-)

(reference: Construct Zero)

Up to this point we've been running the organizations almost entirely virtually. We have staff all over the world. That works suprisingly wonderfully, but it has its disadvantages - and we can't very well conduct scientific research on the scale we're planning via the Internet.

Moving forward, we need to select a location for the corpororate HQ that will be very close to the research center.

Criteria:

- large (50 to 100 acres), developable, flat land plots easily attainable within 20 miles of the city, preferably connected by a direct highway

- a truly metropolitan city with a rich culture of arts and entertainment

- at least two universities

- a major air hub (so people don't have to take connecting flights)

- temperate climate (we'll accept a bit of heat - we won't accept freezing cold)

- responsible citizenry and government (we don't want to live in a city where people don't care enough to keep it clean and beautiful)

- in the USA (we're more likely to get the diversity of talents we need here)

- favorable tax regime

- housing and land must be relatively inexpensive

- a government that is pro-business and unlikely to hinder our activities with undue scrutiny or regulation

Yes, yes, some will say I'm looking for a Utopia that won't be found this side of Galt's Gulch, but why not ask for everything you want?

Now, here's what's really surprising ...

We loaded all of these criteria into a matrix and you know what we found?

Houston.

Houston?

Well, it surprisingly seems to fit these criteria. Who would have guessed? It's the 4th largest city in the USA and seems to be what we're looking for.

The problem is, I've never been there.

So, I'm putting the question to you.

Can you suggest another city?

Or, if you've been to Houston, what do you think?

(Other cities we've considered of particular interest: San Diego - ruled out because of the tax system in California and the cost of land, Las Vegas - lowered in consideration because of freezing winters, Austin - ruled out because it's not an airline hub.)

That's what I'm trying to find out. Here is a new experiment I just conducted and my "observations from the front" thus far.

(This is a follow up to my earlier experiment outlined in Twitter: the Psychotherapeutic Tool.)

First, a little background ...

It's relatively easy to increase the C-Rate of an information-virus with any of the following methods:

• spreading bad news or sniping at people
• creating false epidemics or catastrophe
• causing undue worry or fear

But is this a good idea? Well, if your only measure of a "good idea" is "does it work" then you bet. If, however, you want to take a bit of responsibility for the impact your words have on people, then maybe not ...

Side note: many marketers not only deliberately weave those elements into their marketing to increase its effectiveness, but advise others to do so as well. How about we stop that?

It's not hard to understand why negativity tends to have a higher C-Rate (rate of viral transmission) than positivity: if something threatens you, it's of more immediate importance than something that "could be useful."

Which story are you going to read first?

• Tornado warning.
• How to make your kids smarter.

And which one are you more likely to pass on to your friends? Of course the tornado warning because you want your friends to be safe.

"So, all you have to do is give your message the importance of a tornado warning and you're golden!"

OK, but is this the world we want to live in? Where everyone is running around in a constant state of stress and fear?

It would seem that we're all participating in the fear fest. Marketers, politicians, and reporters create false fear to hypnotize us into a receptive and docile state. The recipients of these messages accept them without filter and willingly pass them on.

What if we stopped participating in that process?

What if instead we decided to stop spreading messages that ...

• tear people down
• rant
• complain
• hate
• gossip
• spread rumors

.... and instead spread messages that focused on the things we want?

Why not, instead of complaining about the people who are behaving in a way we don't like, notice and praise the people we admire?

Now, I'm not saying "ignore evil and it will go away." Sometimes that works, but not always. There is a time and place for shining a light on darkness as well. But instead of freaking out and dwelling on it, let's simply present the facts and move on. Then begin giving our attention and support to people who are actively engaged in making the world better.

So, this brings us to my latest experiment ...

Can we trigger this positive temperament in the minds of others?

The "I love you" experiment was great, but this time I wanted to go a little further. Instead of just triggering a sense of euphoria and happiness (which is useful in its own right) I wanted to get people consciously thinking about peace.

It started out with a rather overt attempt that was re-Tweeted 20 times:

Let's see how many people on twitter we can get 2 think about peace at the same time. Go! pls RT (pass it on)

Since I'm using ping.fm to simultaneously broadcast my tweets to my Facebook account, I got a bit of feedback about it on my fan site.

Thom Quinn an entrepreneur who just read The Irresistible Offer handed some of my own advice back to me ...

Try again on Monday, not Follow Friday. I'd re-craft the 140 characters as well to make it an irresistible offer to promote peace on twitter. Perhaps we should start "Twitter Peace Day" and try to generate support so a million people talk about peace on a single day.

I then tried this approach which was re-Tweeted around 30 times ...

Today is tweeting for peace day. Pass it on.

And then this approach which as of today has spread in various forms 200+ times and is still going ...

@reply this to 3 people - it's tweet for peace day - I love you - pass it on #tweet4peaceday

Why was the last approach 10 times more successful? Several things, but here are a few to notice ...

First, asking people to send it as an "@ reply" made it more likely to catch people's attention. The chances of a single tweet being seen at all are quite low. This is especially true for those who are following many people. If you send your tweet as an "@ reply" it will almost certainly be seen by them as they check their replies. (Of course we're more interested in a reply directed to us than in a random tweet in the tweet-stream.)

Next, the #tweet4peaceday hash tag gave it an air of officiality. Is there a "tweet for peace day?" There wasn't before Thom and I made it up. (Heavy truth to ponder: everything "official" and important was once "made up" by someone like you.)

Finally, the trend was championed by two avid Tweeters: Realestatetips8 and Iconic88. (Nice work, guys.)

How far will this one go? No one can know ... What kind of impact will it have? Equally impossible to predict.

While the future of this experiment is uncertain, I like the idea of enrolling people in the task of actively altering people's consciousness for the better. Maybe someone reading this blog will spread the campaign further. Maybe they'll start thinking about the impact of their words on others - on Twitter and in person.

Maybe that someone is you.

Related links:

Twitter as a Marketing Tool

The Rise of the Author

Follow Me on Twitter

Follow Me on Facebook

Presently we have the opportunity for two immediate positions:

Director of Marketing
You'll oversee the entire marketing program for all of our different companies. The scope of this role would increase dramatically over time.

Product Launch Coordinator
You'll coordinate all of our product launches. Over time you'd be in charge of multiple product launches across many vertical markets.

Location: anywhere.

Your compensation: during your first month or two you will only be compensated by the training and experience you'd earn. I ask $5,000 an hour for consultations - you'd be working closely with me every day for the first two months. After that a generous compensation package (to include profit sharing) would be negotiated.

You'll be reporting directly to our CEO and COO, but would be trained personally by me during the first two months.

If you're serious about working with a company that is changing the world, have the skills we need, and are committed to a long term contract, please contact Teresa immediately at: teresa AT markjoyner DOT name.

http://www.ConstructZero.ORG

"Mark Joyner, Inc." is no more and has been replaced by Construct Zero (of which I am remaining on as Chairman and CEO).

If you are a fan of the original Construct Zero document that started it all, you'll see immediately how this will begin to actualize the ideas presented there.

This is a new type of organization.

It is a philanthropic research center (www.ConstructZero.ORG), the funds for which will be provided by a sister commercial technology incubator (www.ConstructZero.COM), supported by a global social network (www.ConstructZero.NET).

We are now hiring in the following areas:

Executives
Managers
Marketing an Advertising Professionals (All Disciplines)
Scientists (All Disciplines)
Engineers (All Types)
Inventors

The people in our organization are upbeat, and energetic professionals. If that's you, send your resume and video cover letter to anne@markjoyner.name

Even if you don't work at our research center or technology incubator directly you can still get involved by joining our social network and sharing ideas.

In the process, I'd like to make you famous.

Do you think you're an Internet wiz?

Well bucko, let's put you to the test and find out ...

Step 1: Shoot a 2 to 3 Minute Video

Answer this question in the video:

"If you could give people one piece of advice to boost sales on their website, what would it be?"

Keep the location of the video secret.

Step 2: DM or @Reply Me the Link to Your Video Via Twitter

I'm on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/markjoyner

Step 3: Get Famous - Maybe

The best answers will be getting some serious exposure as we build up to this historic launch.

A service like this does not yet exist - and it will have huge ripple effects throughout the Internet. It's a game changer.

ADDENDUM: To watch the launch of this new company unfold please visit: http://www.codenameGG.com

My perception of it when I was younger was based on very limited information, I came to discover. If you live in the U.S., it's quite likely yours is as well.

Rather than get into that here I'll let you do your own research if you are so inclined. (There are many good documentaries on the topic - of course most with a particular slant in one direction or another. A great resource is Robert Fisk who has lived in the region as a correspondent for decades and seen it all from both sides - and criticized both sides.)

I won't make any comments on causes or "faults" here, either. That kind of discussion only forces us to regress when we should be moving forward.

And here's the disclaimer we all somehow feel we must make when commenting on such matters: I actually do have dear friends on both sides of this conflict. My only agenda here is to ensure there is peace and security for everyone. I love people. All people. No group is more deserving of human rights than another.

To all my lovely Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and Iranian friends: please read the last three sentences again.

So, down to business ...

How to End the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

1. The UN should demand an immediate end to violence (pundits: don't tell me "the other side won't agree" - keep reading).

2. We immediately send an international peace-keeping force into Gaza and the West Bank, ending any occupation by the Israeli military. (What about the Israeli settlers in the West Bank? What about who gets what land? We'll get there.)

3. The peace keeping force will be there to provide security for everyone.

4. We ask both sides to agree to an immediate armistice for a period of 6 months - no matter what. Give diplomacy a chance. Bombs launched by either side? Don't retaliate. Give it 6 months. Let the peacekeepers retaliate against the individual culprits.

Armistices can work. Anyone who says they can't need only look at the Korean Peninsula. Yes, they are still technically at war, but at least the South has been given a chance to develop into an economic powerhouse.

4. Once the peace-keeping force is on the ground, we immediately hold a multi-national hearing to establish a permanent two state solution. This may take several years, but the deal points can then be hashed out while civilians are given a chance to thrive in relative peace.

We can establish a Palestinian state almost immediately without knowing what will happen with each piece of land. An interim government will then eventually be replaced by an elected one. The elected government must be given immediate recognition by the UN and Israel. And in return it must recognize Israel.

5. Once the Palestinians have statehood, we keep peacekeepers there for a minimum period of 5 years to ensure they have a chance to develop economically.

During that period, initiatives of Unifying Social Dynamics between Israeli and Palestinian people and businesses must be carried out with great haste.

There are already plans for such initiatives in place.

...

Now, let's fend off some of the arguments against this plan:

"So and so won't agree" ...

We don't know that. Let the international community establish peace and let's see what happens.

Even if there are international peacekeepers there will still be (terrorist attacks, aggression, oppression, etc ...)

First of all, let's stop using terms about violence that paint a frame around the violence. If someone kills someone else, let's call it that. If we put another name on it, it makes the act something that it's not. Killing is killing.

If we call it killing, people will begin to question if its necessary. Shouldn't we? (all of us)

Now, I'm sure I'll get cries in response to this statement of "moral equivalence" and the like. So be it.

It doesn't really matter. The labels only make one act of killing morally justifiable and another not. We need a 3rd party to step in and stop the killing. Both sides have done their fair share. Call it what you will.

The label sends us backwards when we should be moving forward. The other side does not agree with the labels used by the other. So what? Let's just stop the killing. All of it.

Only a well-balanced peace-keeping force can bring an end to the suffering of civilians.

There will still be violence. Let the peacekeepers keep establishing peace (by force when necessary) until the futility of any attack from either side is clear. Let the earnestness of the world's desire for peace be felt by everyone. The sense of hopelessness that is causing the violence can be replaced by a sense of security - which is what we all need to express our full humanity.

What about the extremists on both sides?

Let the international peace-keeping force respond if they become violent.

It's ______'s fault. How dare you not recognize that.

Recognizing fault is not important. Establishing peace is.

Saying otherwise only reveals an "agenda other than peace."

This plan is flawed - what about _______.

No plan is perfect.

This is all nothing new! It won't work!

In my experience, those who have studied this conflict deeply tend to agree with the general sentiments I've expressed above - even many of those who have deep ties with one side or the other.

This sentiment may have been expressed before in different forms. It simply hasn't been tried (pundits: please don't remind me about Oslo, etc - we have never put international peacekeepers in place in Gaza and the West Bank - ever).

Let's band together as people and influence our governments to support it.

If we give up, what are we saying about ourselves?

Are we saying that if we close our eyes it will go away?

Are we saying it's not our problem?

Is that what we actually believe?

...

In closing I'd like to say that I know I will anger some people with this article. I don't mind.

I invite anyone who feels angered by these words to explore why they feel that way. (If that's not you - please read the following in the 3rd person.) Is the anger motivated by a true desire for peace or by hatred toward a group of people? Do you feel you are "more chosen" than another human being who is not in your group? If so, just be aware this disqualifies you from being a humanitarian. It makes you a sectarian ... a nationalist ... a zealot ...

The good news is, we all have these feelings from time to time. We cling to our group identities when we're feeling threatened. Sometimes this results in violence.

We can all change.

When reading responses to this plan: try to examine the responses with this lens: is the response making a contribution to forward progress toward peace or pushing us backwards? Is it focused on faults or solution? This tool will help you to spot the propagandists. (Some of them are quite good, I must admit. But their days may be numbered.)

Ultimately, I recognize that this proposed course of action is only a band-aid where deep healing is required. As I've outlined before and will do so more extensively in the future, we need to address the root causes of conflict: primarily human suffering. (Extremist views are not the problem - they are only one of the many carrier waves for suffering.)

I'll be revealing more of the plan very soon and invite the willing to join with me. Watch this space for details.

ADDENDUM: 6 January 2009 Folks, we're starting to build momentum. The community is taking action and a site with a petition is being created. I'll add to the above plan the following: along with the peacekeepers a contingent of reports and bloggers should be allowed in as well. Who, with nothing to hide, could find fault with that? If it's "the other side's fault" then let the peacekeepers and bloggers in and you will be vindicated.

ADDENDUM 2: 9 January 2009 One of the members of the community, Igor Mujdrica, has turned this proposal into a petition. How far can we take this? (It's not perfect, but it's a start.)

But there are more ways to improve the human mind than by upgrading its raw processing power.

Not to discount the importance of doing so. The Neurogizers do that (in some crazy effective ways), and there are hidden benefits to using them regularly (improved mood, increased self-esteem, increased creativity, improved focus, and so on ...), but this is not the "be all end all" of the human mind.

No matter how much you improve the processing power of your "human computer" there is still the matter of the "data set" with which it views the world.

Put another way, the data on your "human hard drive" determines to a large extent how you interpret "new data."

Or simpler still: depending on your experience of life up to this point, how you react to new experiences can differ radically.

For example, a man having been rejected by a woman may perceive that moment as humorous or devastating.

A woman may perceive the apparent sexual advances of a man as threatening or flattering.

A speaker may perceive laughter as his audience laughing with him - or at him.

Why?

A Tweet from Scott Reinhart in a conversation with Dr. Mani Sivasubramanian summed it up elegantly:

"Correct. Same stimuli + different perceptual instruments + unique neural map = different data"

By "neural map" Scott is referring to our best understanding of neuroscience to date: neural networking.

The human mind can be viewed as a complex network of data and connections between those data. (Warning: colossal understatement follows.) In relation to your well-being, the data matters and the connections matter.

So, what does this have to do with Twitter?

As we're plugged in to the Twit-stream of data not only are we reacting to it differently based on our past experience - it is also shaping our future experience as well. (To what degree? I'll let the discussion ensue. Meanwhile ...)

Because of this, I tend to un-follow people who are constantly complaining, attacking other people, or giving me input that is otherwise unsupportive of a healthy neural map.

What is a "healthy neural map?"

Again - another matter for intense discussion, but I think most might agree with the following.

"Healthy Neural Map" = one that makes me experience the greatest possible joy while simultaneously protecting my survival and the survival of others.

Yes, that's perhaps a hammer where a laser is required, but for our purposes it works just fine.

So, what if there were a way to influence the Twit-stream in such a way that it supports a healthy neural map?

Thinking along those lines I tried an experiment yesterday that had some pretty amazing results.

It may seem absurd to you at first, but hear me out. It's worth it.

It started with the following tweet:

"If everyone Twittered "I love you" to everyone else would we bring about world peace. OK, everyone start with me :p"

Immediately I started to get a whole stream of "I love you!"s flying back at me in my "@replies."

So what?

Well, the effect it had on my state of mind was profound. It felt amazing.

But then it got even more interesting ...

I morphed the experiment a bit and started asking people to pass on the "I love you"s to 5 people.

What ensued was 45 minutes of pure hilarity and joy. As I replied back to people with "I love you too!" and encouraged them to keep it going, I started to feel a bit, well, drunk.

I finally had to stop as it was time to take my team out for our annual Christmas dinner.

I ended it with this tweet:

Takin' staff to dinner. I am entrusting the I Love You RT Train to you. Sacred trust. Keep it going!

If you search through yesterday's tweets you can see that this started an impressive chain reaction.

Last I checked there is still fighting today in Gaza, Sri Lanka, and Iraq so it didn't quite cause world peace, but interesting nonetheless, no?

The last thing I noticed was perhaps the most interesting.

As I tweet'd back and forth with "I love you" and "I love you too" (in all it's comic absurdity) I noticed that the tweets I saw coming across the twit-stream seemed to have a radically changed character.

Gone were the gripes and grievances we often see fly across our screens on Twitter.

What was happening?

Was my Reticular Activation System simply tuning them out?

Or, maybe, just maybe ... all the "I love you"s flying around my neck of the Twitterverse made people more conscious of what they were Tweeting.

Who knows.

What I do know is that my personal experience of it, and I hope the experience of those who participated, was largely positive. It gave me a great experience - dare I say even a cheap "high."

And having extra "I love you"s floating around in your neural-map can't hurt your self-image. (Indeed, our belief that we are loved may be one of the essential foundations of mental health.)

Will it cause world-peace? Well, who knows the far-reaching implications of our actions?

it certainly couldn't hurt it if enough of us do it.

Why not see what happens?

How to Reproduce the Twitter "I Love You" Experiment.

1. If you're not already on Twitter, sign up (it takes just a few seconds).

2. "Tweet" this to 5 people:

I love you! Pass it on to 5 people. If you get an "I love you" write back "I love you, too!"

Make sure you send it directly and individually to 5 people. You do that by starting out your Tweet with an @ sign followed by the username of the person. For example:

@markjoyner I love you! Pass it on to 5 people. If you get an "I love you" write back "I love you, too!"

3. See what happens.

Have fun with it. Some people will Tweet back silly stuff. Just go with it. If the reply you get is ambiguous, choose to interpret it positively.

4. Report back your experience in the "comments" section below.

But there are more ways to improve the human mind than by upgrading its raw processing power.

Not to discount the importance of doing so. The Neurogizers do that (in some crazy effective ways), and there are hidden benefits to using them regularly (improved mood, increased self-esteem, increased creativity, improved focus, and so on ...), but this is not the "be all end all" of the human mind.

No matter how much you improve the processing power of your "human computer" there is still the matter of the "data set" with which it views the world.

Put another way, the data on your "human hard drive" determines to a large extent how you interpret "new data."

Or simpler still: depending on your experience of life up to this point, how you react to new experiences can differ radically.

For example, a man having been rejected by a woman may perceive that moment as humorous or devastating.

A woman may perceive the apparent sexual advances of a man as threatening or flattering.

A speaker may perceive laughter as his audience laughing with him - or at him.

Why?

A Tweet from Scott Reinhart in a conversation with Dr. Mani Sivasubramanian summed it up elegantly:

"Correct. Same stimuli + different perceptual instruments + unique neural map = different data"

By "neural map" Scott is referring to our best understanding of neuroscience to date: neural networking.

The human mind can be viewed as a complex network of data and connections between those data. (Warning: colossal understatement follows.) In relation to your well-being, the data matters and the connections matter.

So, what does this have to do with Twitter?

As we're plugged in to the Twit-stream of data not only are we reacting to it differently based on our past experience - it is also shaping our future experience as well. (To what degree? I'll let the discussion ensue. Meanwhile ...)

Because of this, I tend to un-follow people who are constantly complaining, attacking other people, or giving me input that is otherwise unsupportive of a healthy neural map.

What is a "healthy neural map?"

Again - another matter for intense discussion, but I think most might agree with the following.

"Healthy Neural Map" = one that makes me experience the greatest possible joy while simultaneously protecting my survival and the survival of others.

Yes, that's perhaps a hammer where a laser is required, but for our purposes it works just fine.

So, what if there were a way to influence the Twit-stream in such a way that it supports a healthy neural map?

Thinking along those lines I tried an experiment yesterday that had some pretty amazing results.

It may seem absurd to you at first, but hear me out. It's worth it.

It started with the following tweet:

"If everyone Twittered "I love you" to everyone else would we bring about world peace. OK, everyone start with me :p"

Immediately I started to get a whole stream of "I love you!"s flying back at me in my "@replies."

So what?

Well, the effect it had on my state of mind was profound. It felt amazing.

But then it got even more interesting ...

I morphed the experiment a bit and started asking people to pass on the "I love you"s to 5 people.

What ensued was 45 minutes of pure hilarity and joy. As I replied back to people with "I love you too!" and encouraged them to keep it going, I started to feel a bit, well, drunk.

I finally had to stop as it was time to take my team out for our annual Christmas dinner.

I ended it with this tweet:

Takin' staff to dinner. I am entrusting the I Love You RT Train to you. Sacred trust. Keep it going!

If you search through yesterday's tweets you can see that this started an impressive chain reaction.

Last I checked there is still fighting today in Gaza, Sri Lanka, and Iraq so it didn't quite cause world peace, but interesting nonetheless, no?

The last thing I noticed was perhaps the most interesting.

As I tweet'd back and forth with "I love you" and "I love you too" (in all it's comic absurdity) I noticed that the tweets I saw coming across the twit-stream seemed to have a radically changed character.

Gone were the gripes and grievances we often see fly across our screens on Twitter.

What was happening?

Was my Reticular Activation System simply tuning them out?

Or, maybe, just maybe ... all the "I love you"s flying around my neck of the Twitterverse made people more conscious of what they were Tweeting.

Who knows.

What I do know is that my personal experience of it, and I hope the experience of those who participated, was largely positive. It gave me a great experience - dare I say even a cheap "high."

And having extra "I love you"s floating around in your neural-map can't hurt your self-image. (Indeed, our belief that we are loved may be one of the essential foundations of mental health.)

Will it cause world-peace? Well, who knows the far-reaching implications of our actions?

it certainly couldn't hurt it if enough of us do it.

Why not see what happens?

How to Reproduce the Twitter "I Love You" Experiment.

1. If you're not already on Twitter, sign up (it takes just a few seconds).

2. "Tweet" this to 5 people:

I love you! Pass it on to 5 people. If you get an "I love you" write back "I love you, too!"

Make sure you send it directly and individually to 5 people. You do that by starting out your Tweet with an @ sign followed by the username of the person. For example:

@markjoyner I love you! Pass it on to 5 people. If you get an "I love you" write back "I love you, too!"

3. See what happens.

Have fun with it. Some people will Tweet back silly stuff. Just go with it. If the reply you get is ambiguous, choose to interpret it positively.

4. Report back your experience in the "comments" section below.

Neurogizers
Brain Games That Make You Smarter by the Minute

I'll let you guys go check it out. One would hope the page speaks for itself.

But there's a back story ...

This is something I've wanted to create since I was a teenager. My company started developing it two years ago (originally as a sub-set of one of our other companies, but then finally as a stand-alone enterprise) and we're finally live.

(To everyone who has sweated over this - thank you. Any words I say simply can not do justice to how grateful I am. I'm fortunate to be surrounded by some absolutely amazing people in my life.)

This marks a departure for me in many ways. It's a new direction on many levels.

What does that mean?

Well, as always I will keep people guessing - to keep my supporters amused and my detractors pissed off. (Just as it should be. ;-)

But with that said, this is just the start of something much much larger - and very different from anything I've ever done.

Over the next few months we'll be revealing more pieces of the puzzle.

Meanwhile, please give me your thoughts on Neurogizers: what games and features would you like to see?

It's been two years (two freakin' years) in development.

I've wanted to do it for 20 years.

If all goes as planned, next Monday (the 15th), I'll be able to show it to you.

No launch. No affiliates. None of that stuff.

Here are some questions you may have:

What is it?

You'll have to wait till we go live to find out.

Is it related to (insert name of anything I've done before here)?

No.

Will I like it?

Maybe you will. Maybe you won't. For me, and people like me, it will be the "bee's knees."

Is there anything else like it?

Yep, there are many similar products on the market, but this has some unique twists - and nothing else will be even remotely as effective. It's what's known as a "category killer."

Will it take a lot of my time?

Only a single minute a shot. (You can do it more if you want. That will only make you _er faster.)

What will it do for me?

Perhaps one of the most important things a thing can do for you.

Come back here (and sign up for my newsletter) or follow me on Twitter to be alerted when it's live.

No one seems to dispute this much.

But what if those connections were stimulated not only through philanthropic enterprise, but also through business? (This idea was first put forth - along with clear instructions - in my new book, Integration Marketing - which you can get in PDF format now for free before it hits the shelves next year.)

I propose that we drop a "Peace Bomb" on the world by deliberately and aggressively working to create more of these connections now.

Not only will your participation in this exercise boost the profitability and stability of your business (that benefit of Integration Marketing is well-proven), but it may increase the survivability of our species.

Of course, this is already happening despite the best efforts of many interest groups to slow down the rate of global cooperation. How can we speed up the process?

What we need to figure out is:

a. How to effectively spread the idea

b. How to stimulate and track these connections more effectively

What we've started at the Integration Marketing community is a start, but we need to do more. I invite suggestions, comments, and questions ... (use the comment link below)

The test was dramatic, but inconclusive: it was not performed in a controlled environment, nor did it analyze the emissions of the car.

I asked to set up a 2nd experiment in an accredited lab and the folks at Biosfuel agreed.  Unfortunately, up until this point the promised test has never materialized.

Without analyzing the emissions, it's impossible to know what is actually happening with this fuel.  For example, some have rightfully suggested that it may just be burning the waste oil mixed into the fuel and not hydrogen as Biosfuel claims.  Indeed, something has to be happening with the waste oil. 

Analyzing the emissions would tell the full story.  And of course you'd have to do that in a controlled environment independent of the inventors to gather any scientifically-useful evidence.

So, I'm going to have to lay this one to rest ... 

The folks at Biosfuel showed me other alternative energy technologies that seemed promising, but without testing them there's no way I can report any of that to you responsibly.  (Nothing personal against the folks there.  They have all been friendly to me every step of the way.  But I can't allow that to cloud my reporting of the facts to you, and there you have it.)

Conclusion:  Inconclusive.  I wish them the best and cordially invite a rebuttal from them in the comments below.

Moving on ...

So, what about the toy hydrogen fuel cell car I showed you?

Well, despite what some of the supremely ignorant flamers on YouTube would have you believe, hydrogen fuel cells are still quite promising.

In fact, there are now "Hydrogen Highway" projects in Canada, Denmark (together with Norway and Sweden), Japan, and the United States (in California and Florida).

And the suggestion I made about creating a network of solar panels to power the fueling stations is becoming a reality as well.

Further, it's not just for cars.  Many of these Hydrogen Highway projects are showcasing consumer electronics that use micro-fuel-cells and various industrial applications as well.

It appears the biggest bottleneck is getting the cost of hydrogen production down.  Setting up a solar grid that is constantly producing and storing the hydrogen sure seems like a solution that would work.

Conclusion:  there are still a few issues to be worked out, but they don't seem in any way insurmountable.   Like it or not - believe it or not - hydrogen fuel is coming.

No matter how you slice it, our dependence on the industrial-era technology of fossil fuel seems to be one of the primary causes of planetary havoc right now ...

1.  Whether or not you agree with Al Gore's global warming arguments, we can all agree on this:  air pollution sucks.  I don't know of anyone that is "pro-smog" (it would be sort of like saying you're "pro-cancer") and fossil fuels are one of the primary causes.

2.  In the United States we are highly dependent on fuel imported from other countries.  Not only does this weaken our economy, but it negatively affects our national security as well.  Think about it like this:  the military runs on fossil fuels.  If forces outside of the U.S. control this resource (remember what I said about Technology Binds), we can be controlled.

3.  If those who believe we have already passed the Peak Oil mark are correct, you aren't going to see a reduction in gas prices any time soon (our presence, or lack thereof, in Iraq won't make much difference if the real issue is one of production capacity).

4.  Our National Debt is at $9.5 trillion.  About 25% of that debt is owed to foreign creditors, and that percentage is growing.  One of the reasons this is happening is the war in Iraq.  No matter how you feel about the war, the fact is that we can't afford it.  So, we're allowing the central banks of foreign countries (primarily China) to purchase treasury bonds in order to fund the war.  Is that somehow tied in to our dependence on fossil fuels?  Well, it depends on whether or not you believe oil was one of the motivators for going to war.  Can we really know?

What baffles me is that none of the U.S. presidential candidates are addressing this issue in their campaigns.  At least, I haven't heard anything about it ...

(I'd like to personally thank the mainstream media for ensuring that I'm far more familiar with Obama's pastor than I am with his energy policies.)

We need to pick up the pace, folks.  Our governments are moving on this, but not nearly fast enough.

What are you going to do about it?

My theory is that by letting people download it for free it will in fact positively impact sales.

I've seen other people do this, but given that they did it while the book was in pre-launch or mid-launch it's really impossible to know what kind of impact it had.

Sales for The Irresistible Offer, on the other hand, have been relatively steady and predictable so if we see a boost as a result of this it will be a good indicator that the tactic works.

If the sales suddenly come to a screeching halt, that would be evidence to the contrary.   (And may not make my publisher happy, but hey, they are great people and innovative thinkers.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have allowed me to do something so edgy.)

It's not a perfectly scientific test, of course, but it will be very strong data given the current status of the book.

This is significant for many reasons.  Most importantly because the print publishing world (of all forms: books, CDs, DVDs, etc.) is getting increasingly anxious about the impact of digital publishing and digital piracy on their businesses.

I think digital publishing not only opens up new revenue streams for them, but also positively impacts the sales of print media.

The same may, in fact, hold true of piracy.

Take DVDs as an example.

Yes, there will be many people who will avoid purchasing something if they can download it for free.  But what about all of the conversations they start with people after having viewed it?  Conversations that wouldn't have otherwise taken place.

If you read my recent book The Rise of the Author you'll find that this assertion may appear to fly in the face of what I said there, but only superficially so.  (more about this later)

Meanwhile, I invite you to take part in this experiment by downloading The Irresistible Offer for free ...

Please digg this and pass it around.  We need to gather as much data as possible for meaningful results.  I'll be sharing what we find with you here.

When I first wrote that book I intended it as a guidebook for hacking into the "loopholes" in the human brain so you could sell products and make millions of dollars.

These days I'm more interested in:

A.  Yes, teaching people how to use these techniques to make money, but only with the proper context and guidance (the above ebook version includes that - the print version didn't).

B.  How these ideas methods are being used to talk large populations into things that are not good for them.

So, I thought I'd show you guys how to start your own conspiracy - legally.  (OK, I'm not a lawyer, so check with yours first.)

Step 1.  Form a Front Group

The "National Smoker's Alliance" was a "grassroots" movement to oppose anti-smoking laws.

These good citizens felt their rights were being trampled on with bans on smoking in public buildings.

Or so their propaganda said.

They were actually a "front group" for the tobacco industry funded and created by Phillip Morris.

Sounds like a "conspiracy theory" - and it is - minus the "theory" bit.  (Google it.)

Step 2.  Incorporate in a Place That Hides Your Identity

Nevada, for example.

It's the only state in the union that does not share information with the IRS.

Further, Nevada protects the names of the Board of Directors and Officers of companies incorporate in Nevada.

Step 3.  Cover Your Financial Tracks

If you're "big tobacco" and you don't want people to know you're secretly funding a group that supports your cause, large cash donations to that group showing up on your books won't help your cause.

Filter those funds through other front groups, charities, causes, offshore accounts, etc.

...

Pretty easy, right?

Sure is, and that's why there are thousands of front groups in full operation these days ...

They represent agendas ranging from the political to the religious.  (Google "Narcanon" and "Center for Union Facts" for some interesting case studies, if you are so inclined.)

The idea here is to take advantage of the psychology of "Conformity."  If you can create the appearance of a group of people who share your cause, it will be much easier to sway others.

Hey, here's a thought for them: how about putting just half the energy you put into propaganda into doing something helpful for people?

I theorize that will actually get you a higher cash return on the energy you invest.

Am I right?