"The Genius Formula(TM)"

[JackClap]

Hello everone,

 

Jim Diamond aka Mega Genius, has isolated and formulated a simple 3 step process that can be used to increase one's intelligence without limitation. I just think you guys may like to investigate his website. Other than having listened to the complete series of lectures currently available and communicated with Jim on an array of subjects via his question option, I have no other affiliation to the website per se. I'm simply mentioning this because you deserve to know, as it works, and because it is therefore one of the most importand discoveries ever found for humanity.

 

Here is a link: www.megagenius.com

 

If you have any questions about him or the site etc, contact his customer service team, who are usually prompt to respond. Naturally you can ask me as well.

 

Thank you.

[TheRobin]

how does he define "intelligence"? And how does he measure whether it's increasing or not?

[LuckyNumber23]

Debating with a Spambot seems to be futile 

[JackClap]

Hi Robin

 

Due to his lectures being copyright material, I'll need to ask customer service if I can share that definition with you. In the meantime, I recommend reading a free intelligence briefing or two on his website. Alternatively you could request that info from them yourself. The definition is surprisingly basic. Once I heard it, I became a bit bemused it hadn't been considered or used before (as to the best of my knowledge it hasn't), because it is so elementary and so accurate.

 

Jim has said this "The reason that The Genius Formula™ works so well is that it isolates all the essential components of intelligent thought for the first time and excludes all non essential factors.” 

 

Jim has said "The fundamental secret to thinking like a genius is in not thinking like a fool, which is the essential difference between a moron and a genius."

 

The essence of the formula boils down to perception, which is senior to and governs intelligence.

 

Essentially the rewards one reaps is proportional to the extent the formula is applied, and applied accurately (i.e. without alteration).

 

The questions you posed would be much easier to answer if I can be granted permission to qoute Jim himself. Sorry if this doesn't satsify you right now.

 

I once was discussing the term Mega Genius online with another fellow. I was attempting to explain that the term isn't because he has some ego to feed, (which is a mistake to assume) but to draw on an important and noteworthy distinction between intellects at the high to highest ranges. I was allowed to use the following definitions of a Mega Genius:

 

"A person of extremely superior intelligence whose natural analytic process of reasoning is the perfect application of "The Genius Formula™".

 

"One who innately reasons by perfect application of "The Genius Formula™" and who's level of intelligence is so distinctly seperate from, and superior to, that which denotes a genius as to not be accurately measurable by the most advanced procedures of intelligence testing."

 

I hope this helped somewhat. Thanks for paying interest.

[TheRobin]

I didn't know you need permission to quote someone. But yeah, maybe explain it to me once you can. Stepping around the issue and dropping hints isn't really helping me (or anyone I'd assume) in actually understanding what this is all about.

 

So far all we got is a nice advertising without substance. Not saying there might not be substance in there, but you haven't provided any so far, so I don't really feel inclined to spend more time on that, if I can't even be told what "that" is. 

 

Thanks for taking the time though and I'm happy to hear a more to the point explanation at some point, if you want/can provide it

[JackClap]

I didn't know you need permission to quote someone. But yeah, maybe explain it to me once you can. Stepping around the issue and dropping hints isn't really helping me (or anyone I'd assume) in actually understanding what this is all about. So far all we got is a nice advertising without substance. Not saying there might not be substance in there, but you haven't provided any so far, so I don't really feel inclined to spend more time on that, if I can't even be told what "that" is.  Thanks for taking the time though and I'm happy to hear a more to the point explanation at some point, if you want/can provide it

I agree with you Robin. I'll try my best to answer your questions more thoroughly and directly in the future. Just bear with me whilst I await news from the customer service.

[ribuck]

In my experience, whenever people will only share ideas on very narrow terms (instead of being happy to promulgate the ideas widely and wlldly) nothing good comes from it.

[Wesley]

In my experience, whenever people will only share ideas on very narrow terms (instead of being happy to promulgate the ideas widely and wlldly) nothing good comes from it.

I would agree. It stinks of avoiding analysis and criticism. Either post the science/studies or at least the theory, and then provide a product that fits the claim. Without openness people cannot decide for themselves except to be goaded by empty information.

 

Also, if the copyright is used to prevent people from telling others some basic ideas, then that would be some major use of the state to bully people to not reveal information through the idea of IP. That in itself would be enough of a reason for me to not support it, if it could be shown to work.

 

Not that he has a patent on the product or whatever. You gotta do what you gotta do to get by in a statist society sometimes, but using IP to bully anyone who reveals information with threats of lawsuits in order to prevent exposure and criticism is rather repulsive to me and it sounds like that is what Jack is trying to cover himself from by asking them for permission before releasing a simple definition.

[JackClap]

Hi,

 

I've asked customer service. I've not heard back yet. I tend to see each of the above points. I think there may of been issues with this in the past (maybe). Anyway as soon as I hear back I'll be (hopfully) in a far better position to explain the formula or why there is reluctance or hesitation (on their behalf) with me qouting Jim. Honestly I'm not fully aware of the reasons why, so I'm trying to get some clarification on it etc. If I have to ask a few further questions to the customer service team I will but that shouldn't cause much delay as I mostly recieve emails from them during the daytime (& on the go with my mobile).

 

Also I've decided to offer to purchase the first series of the lectures for ...a volunteer. Just one. Preferably for someone who is at least open minded to the possibility and is interested in testing the workability of the formula. I figure many people dislike taking charity money, if you choose to look at it like that, so of course the person would need to not feel like he owe's anything more than a thanks-if even. Call it a gift.

 

PS I hope this isn't against guidelines (ignore if is).

[ribuck]

Your posts are empty spam, JackClap.

 

Post something of substance please, or stop wasting our time.

[JackClap]

I'm going to just drop this. All I'll say is I suggest going to the website and if your not satisifed, contact customer service. My understanding is they offer full refund for any disatisfaction. The lectures are not free for the same reason that motion pictures (for example) are copyrighted and not free: They are valuable artistic creations that were costly to produce, which are protected from theft and malicious alteration by intellectual property rights, which are worldwide laws that enable the copyright owner to control and self-determinedly use his own creative works. I clearly should of left a link and let it go at that. Apologies.

[TheRobin]

JackClap, I get that the creation of something for view shouldn't be free or copied against the owners will (though I don't see it being justified to use force against that in principle), BUT idea/principles are a different thing. If someone has an idea, saying other people can't talk about it is not the same as even the government form of copyright. So again, I don't see by what law or principle you'd go, if you say, that you can't simply state what it's all about.

 

Also, I can almost garantuee you, no one will bother to spend time getting the lectures and stuff, because that's just such a common marketing/sales-trick these days (i.e. saying a lot of positive tuff about something, without ever saying what it actually is, so by the time people see what it's all about, they're so primed to receive it positively that they usually overrate the product compared to how they would've reacted if it was presented like anythign else is. Basically you get people to commit emotionaly before hand so they're more hooked afterwards, which ironically is quite the opposite of acting intelligently, so given taht the prodcut advertised here is about intelligence, taht's quite a funny irony and puts the thing in question even more )

[Wesley]

JackClap, I get that the creation of something for view shouldn't be free or copied against the owners will (though I don't see it being justified to use force against that in principle), BUT idea/principles are a different thing. If someone has an idea, saying other people can't talk about it is not the same as even the government form of copyright. So again, I don't see by what law or principle you'd go, if you say, that you can't simply state what it's all about.

 

Also, I can almost garantuee you, no one will bother to spend time getting the lectures and stuff, because that's just such a common marketing/sales-trick these days (i.e. saying a lot of positive tuff about something, without ever saying what it actually is, so by the time people see what it's all about, they're so primed to receive it positively that they usually overrate the product compared to how they would've reacted if it was presented like anythign else is. Basically you get people to commit emotionaly before hand so they're more hooked afterwards, which ironically is quite the opposite of acting intelligently, so given taht the prodcut advertised here is about intelligence, taht's quite a funny irony and puts the thing in question even more )

Well you can't market a "genius formula" to people who are already intelligent! That would be silly and redundant!

[Mister Mister]

haha yes, this marketing is obviously an appeal to insecurity, I think you picked the wrong forum, it won't work on most people here. as I understand, science has a hard time defining intelligence, creativity, genius, etc.  I think human consciousness is still the final frontier.

[JackClap]

I can't pretend to disagree Robin. Although, in truth, I bought the first series myself to find out if his discovery and claim was accurate. I wasn't predisposed I think into accepting anything that he said as factual or true. I was curious and intrigued yes but not gulible or inclined-I had no vested interest (for one thing I knew I could recoup my money upon request). I didn't immediately purchase a lecture series. I read some of his briefings and other sections of the website, quite often I concurred with various conclusions he had reached, eg most people accept what is most convienent and disregard the truth. Seeing such self evident truths naturally prompted my own curiosity. I was impressed enough by his insight. I can think for myself and do so. Naturally if Jim he was as intelligent as the website was evidently indicating he was, the lectures would surely back that up, right!? After reviewing the site to what I estimated was a sufficient extent, I concluded it was worth buying the first series, on the premise that there may be some substance and workability to it. After all, such a remarkable discovery deserved attention I thought, and I believed only someone with a sufficient degree of intelligence would be able to isolate and formulate such a discovery. If someone else could have they probably would of. Certainly it is a bold claim worthy of investigation (imo). The way I saw it, and still do, is that the higher up the intelligence scale the more likely one is to encounter one who operates with a high level of ethics, responsibility, courage, is honest, truthful etc. I also contacted his customer service team who were very helpful. Whether or not you choose to consider it a waste of your time and other's is not my business, they are just your considerations. It's unfortunate that I didn't merely suggest the site and leave it there. Btw, the definition Jim uses to define technology is as follows and is in my opinion an extremely accurate definition: The practical application of knowledge resulting in a particular capability. (In other words it is the way to attain an ability). I like that. Basically it is an extremely effective and workable way to get the job done. "The Genius Formula™" is the technology for skyrocketing intelligence. Three simple techniques that work as well as they are applied-no more and no less. 

[FriendlyHacker]

I'm a Genius, are you a Genius too?



I've acquired my super powers by sniffing too much glue as a kid.

[ribuck]

"The Genius Formula™"

 

Another negative indicator is gratuitous "TM" signs, to try to make an idea appear more valuable.

[JackClap]

Another negative response. But I found it more amusing than anything else ribuck. You seem to already have made up your mind about the value of the formula. No offence intended, but you clearly don't know enough about it to properly evaluate it's worth. I'm pretty confident you would change your mind if you listened to the first series, not that I care to press the issue. Any further questions I suggest you direct to the customer service team (link can be found to contact them at the top right corner of the www.megagenius.com homepage).

 

A trademark is a good way to distinguish between products and services one provides and those offered from his/her competitors and is useful in protecting one's intellectual property. From my viewpoint, upon considering the sheer superlative quality of the reasoning behind the formula and lectures, I find it imperative that others don't deceptively pretend to of discovered the formula or of having falsely orginated something belonging to another, be it for financial gain or whatever. The three steps work as well as they are applied but it is also important that no aspect of the formula becomes altered, for that deviation will result in a less effective, less workable technology, at least to some degree.

[ribuck]

The real genius formula:

 

1. Be curious

2. Be observant

3. Be rational

4. Be virtuous

5. Become happy

 

You can have the last word if you like, JackClap, then I'm out of this thread.

[JackClap]

Well, I agree that one should observe, think for oneself etc. I should point out however, that the genius formula is more simple and much more advanced. I have nothing more to add other than reiterating that if anyone is interested or curious they should rationally investigate the matter themselves & the website is a good place to start.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Well, I agree that one should observe, think for oneself etc. I should point out however, that the genius formula is more simple and much more advanced. I have nothing more to add other than reiterating that if anyone is interested or curious they should rationally investigate the matter themselves & the website is a good place to start.

 

Haven't you got the message, yet. People are tired of camoflauged advertising. If you cannot present what the "Formula" is, then stop trying to get people to buy into some mystery. You are now TROLLING!

[JackClap]

Man chill out. I'm not interested in bantering on about it anymore anyway. I already admitted I should of provided a link and left it at that.  

 

You can investigate if you wish-or not, entirely your call. Ok?     

 

Ps. those smiles just amuse me)