Ternyata Plus Minus di Matematika Itu Bermakna Dalam

Pernah nggak Anda berpikir…
1. Mengapa PLUS di kali PLUS hasilnya PLUS?
2. Mengapa MINUS di kali PLUS atau sebaliknya
PLUS di kali MINUS hasilnya MINUS?
3. Mengapa MINUS di kali MINUS hasilnya PLUS?

Hikmahnya adalah:
(+) PLUS = BENAR
(-) MINUS = SALAH

1. Mengatakan BENAR terhadap sesuatu hal yang BENAR adalah suatu tindakan yang BENAR.
Rumus matematikanya :
+ x + = +

2. Mengatakan BENAR terhadap sesuatu yang SALAH, atau sebaliknya mengatakan SALAH terhadap sesuatu yang BENAR adalah suatu tindakan yang SALAH.
Rumus matematikanya :
+ x – = –
– x + = –

3. Mengatakan SALAH terhadap sesuatu yang SALAH adalah suatu tindakan yang BENAR.
Rumus matematikanya :
– x – = +

Pelajaran matematika ternyata sarat makna, yang bisa kita ambil sebagai pelajaran hidup.

Kompleksitas Dan Kecerdasan (Sebuah Perenungan)

Dalam buku In Search of Excellence (Tom Peters & R.H. Waterman), ada secuil cerita menarik yang mereka dengar dari Gordon Siu. Siu menceritakan tentang eksperimen di mana beberapa ekor lebah dan beberapa ekor lalat ditempatkan di dalam sebuah botol. Botol tersebut lalu diletakkan horisontal (memanjang) dengan bagian pantatnya yang tertutup dihadapkan ke jendela yang terkena sinar matahari, sementara bagian leher botol yang terbuka membelakangi jendela.

Lebah-lebah, yang terkenal sebagai salah satu serangga tercerdas, mati-matian berusaha keluar dari botol dengan terbang menuju ke arah cahaya (jendela). Karena cerdas, mereka berusaha mencari jalur terdekat untuk pulang ke rumah. Karena itu, mereka bertekad terbang menuju ke arah jendela apa pun resikonya. Namun karena arah tersebut tertutup bagian belakang botol, usaha mereka berakhir tragis. Para lebah akan mencoba terus sampai mati kecapaian.

Sementara lalat, yang terkenal sebagai serangga bodoh dengan otak secuil, terbang kesana kemari tanpa tujuan yang jelas. Walau demikian, perlahan-lahan tapi pasti, satu per satu dari mereka berhasil menemukan jalan keluar melalui leher botol.

Apa artinya hasil eksperimen tersebut buat kita?

Kecerdasan dan ketekunan belaka ternyata bukanlah modal utama buat sukses, terutama bila kondisi berubah drastis. Tujuan kita boleh tetap, tetapi kita terkadang harus mengambil jalan memutar bila ingin sampai di tujuan. Lebah yang cerdas memang akan mencapai tujuan lebih cepat dibanding lalat bila tidak ada halangan, tetapi bila ada halangan menanti atau lingkungan berubah (terperangkap di dalam botol yang diletakkan membelakangi jendela), sikap keras kepala mereka akan berbuah bencana. Justru upaya coba-coba yang dilakukan lalat adalah strategi yang lebih tepat.

Kecerdasan dan keahlian sering juga membutakan kita dengan membuat kita melihat masalah melalui kaca mata kuda. Bila kita memegang palu, semua kelihatan seperti paku. Kita hanya bisa melihat satu arah saja tanpa mempertimbangkan kemungkinan lain, sementara untuk menghadapi perubahan, fleksibilitas lebih dibutuhkan.

Hal yang sama juga berlaku untuk penentuan strategi perusahaan dan rencana masa depan pribadi. Dalam konteks dunia yang berubah cepat ini, apakah strategi yang Anda jalankan mengikuti cara lebah yang keras kepala, atau lalat yang mencoba berbagai alternatif lain ketika menemui kegagalan?

Infographic: Critical Thinking

Kahneman on the storm of doubts surrounding social priming research

Daniel Kahneman issued an open letter to researchers doing social priming research, which has become the subject of skepticism after some studies were found to be fabricated and others were not able to be independently replicated. His letter offers advice to scholars about how to address the situation: Find out the truth through extensive replication and announce it.

The text of the letter is below:

From: Daniel Kahneman
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: A proposal to deal with questions about priming effects
Dear colleagues,
I write this letter to a collection of people who were described to me (mostly by John Bargh) as students of social priming. There were names on the list that I could not match to an email. Please pass it on to anyone else you think might be relevant.
As all of you know, of course, questions have been raised about the robustness of priming results. The storm of doubts is fed by several sources, including the recent exposure of fraudulent researchers, general concerns with replicability that affect many disciplines, multiple reported failures to replicate salient results in the priming literature, and the growing belief in the existence of a pervasive file drawer problem that undermines two methodological pillars of your field: the preference for conceptual over literal replication and the use of meta-analysis. Objective observers will point out that the problem could well be more severe in your field than in other branches of experimental psychology, because every priming study involves the invention of a new experimental situation.
For all these reasons, right or wrong, your field is now the poster child for doubts about the integrity of psychological research. Your problem is not with the few people who have actively challenged the validity of some priming results. It is with the much larger population of colleagues who in the past accepted your surprising results as facts when they were published. These people have now attached a question mark to the field, and it is your responsibility to remove it.
I am not a member of your community, and all I have personally at stake is that I recently wrote a book that emphasizes priming research as a new approach to the study of associative memory – the core of what dual-system theorists call System 1. Count me as a general believer. I also believe in a point that John Bargh made in his response to Cleeremans, that priming effects are subtle and that their design requires high-level skills. I am skeptical about replications by investigators new to priming research, who may not be attuned to the subtlety of the conditions under which priming effects are observed, or to the ease with which these effects can be undermined.
My reason for writing this letter is that I see a train wreck looming. I expect the first victims to be young people on the job market. Being associated with a controversial and suspicious field will put them at a severe disadvantage in the competition for positions. Because of the high visibility of the issue, you may already expect the coming crop of graduates to encounter problems. Another reason for writing is that I am old enough to remember two fields that went into a prolonged eclipse after similar outsider attacks on the replicability of findings: subliminal perception and dissonance reduction.
I believe that you should collectively do something about this mess. To deal effectively with the doubts you should acknowledge their existence and confront them straight on, because a posture of defiant denial is self-defeating. Specifically, I believe that you should have an association, with a board that might include prominent social psychologists from other field. The first mission of the board would be to organize an effort to examine the replicability of priming results, following a protocol that avoids the questions that have been raised and guarantees credibility among colleagues outside the field.
The following is just an example of such a protocol:
* Assemble a group of five labs, where the leading investigators have an established reputation (tenure should perhaps be a requirement). Substantial labs with several students are the most desirable participants.
* Each lab selects a recent demonstration of a priming effect, which they consider robust and most likely to replicate.
* The board makes a public commitment to these five specific effects
* Set up a daisy chain of labs A-B-C-D-E-A, where each lab will replicate the study selected by its neighbor: B replicates A, C replicates B etc.
* Have the replicating lab send someone to see how subjects are run (hence the emphasis on recency – the experiments should be in the active repertoire of the original lab, so that additional subjects can be run with confidence that the same procedure is followed).
* Have the replicated lab send someone to vet the procedure of the replicating lab as it starts its work
* Run enough subjects to guarantee power (probably more than in the original study)
* Use technology (e.g. video) to ensure that every detail of the method is documented and can be copied by others.
* Pre-commit to publish the results, letting the chips fall where they may, and make all data available for analysis by others.
This is something you could do quickly, and relatively cheaply. The main costs are 10 trips, and funds to cover these costs would be easy to get (I have checked). You would have to be careful in selecting laboratories and results to maximize credibility, and every step of the procedure should be open and documented. The unusually high openness to scrutiny may be annoying and even offensive, but it is a small price to pay for the big prize of restored credibility.
Success (say, replication of four of the five positive priming results) would immediately rehabilitate the field. Importantly, success would also provide an effective challenge to the adequacy of outsiders’ replications. A publicly announced and open effort would be credible among colleagues at large, because it would show that you are sufficiently confident in your results to take a risk.
More ambiguous results would be painful, of course, but they would still protect the reputations of scholars who sincerely believe in their work – even if they are sometimes wrong.
The protocol I outlined is just an example of something you might do. The main point of my letter is that you should do something, and that you must do it collectively. No single individual will be able to overcome the doubts, but if you act as a group and avoid defensiveness you will be credible.

In response to Ed Yong’s article in Nature in which Kahneman’s letter is published, Norbert Schwarz, has written a response, saying “There is no empirical evidence that work in this area is more or less replicable than work in other areas.”

REFERENCE

Nobel laureate challenges psychologists to clean up their act

15 Styles of Distorted Thinking

---

• Filtering: You take the negative details and magnify them while filtering out all positive aspects of a situation.
• Polarized Thinking: Things are black or white, good or bad. You have to be perfect or you're a failure. There is no middle ground.
• Overgeneralization: You come to a general conclusion based on a single incident or piece of evidence. If something bad happens once you expect it to happen over and over again.
• Mind Reading:  Without their saying so, you know what people are feeling and why they act the way they do. In particular, you are able to divine how people are feeling toward you.
• Castastrophizing: You expect disaster. you notice or hear about a problem and start "what if's". What if tragedy strikes? What if it happens to you?"
• Personalization: Thinking that everything people do or say is some kind of reaction to you. You also compare yourself to others, trying to determine who's smarter, better looking, etc.
• Control Fallacies: If you feel externally controlled, you see yourself as helpless, a victim of fate. The fallacy of internal control has you responsible for the pain and happiness of everyone around you.
• Fallacy of Fairness: You feel resentful because you think you know what's fair but other people won't agree with you.
• Blaming: You hold other people responsible for your pain, or take the other tack and blame yourself for every problem or reversal.
• Should: You have a list of ironclad rules about how you and other people should act. People who break the rules anger you and you feel guilty if you violate the rules.
• Emotional Reasoning: You believe that what you feel must be true-automatically. If you feel stupid and boring, then you must be stupid and boring.
• Fallacy of Change: You expect that other people will change to suit you if you just pressure or cajole them enough. You need to change people because your hope for happiness seem to depend entirely on them.
• Global Labeling: You generalize one or two qualities into a negative global judgment.
• Being Right: You are continually on trial to prove that your opinions and actions are correct. Being wrong is unthinkable and you will go to any length to demonstrate your rightness.
• Heaven's Reward Fallacy: You expect all your sacrifice and self-denial to pay off, as if there were someone keeping score. You feel better when the reward doesn't come

Source: http://www.surrenderworks.com

Complete Solutions: Classic Exercises On Lateral Thinking

1. There is a man who lives on the top floor of a very tall building. Everyday he gets the elevator down to the ground floor to leave the building to go to work. Upon returning from work though, he can only travel half way up in the lift and has to walk the rest of the way unless it's raining! Why?

This is probably the best known and most celebrated of all lateral thinking puzzles. It is a true classic. Although there are many possible solutions which fit the initial conditions, only the canonical answer is truly satisfying.

2. A man and his son are in a car accident. The father dies on the scene, but the child is rushed to the hospital. When he arrives the surgeon says, "I can't operate on this boy, he is my son!" How can this be?

3. A man is wearing black. Black shoes, socks, trousers, coat, gloves and ski mask. He is walking down a back street with all the street lamps off. A black car is coming towards him with its light off but somehow manages to stop in time. How did the driver see the man?

4. One day Kerry celebrated her birthday. Two days later her older twin brother, Terry, celebrated his birthday. How?

5.. Why is it better to have round manhole covers than square ones? This is logical rather than lateral, but it is a good puzzle that can be solved by lateral thinking techniques. It is supposedly used by a very well-known software company as an interview question for prospective employees.


6. A man went to a party and drank some of the punch. He then left early. Everyone else at the party who drank the punch subsequently died of poisoning. Why did the man not die?

7. A man died and went to Heaven. There were thousands of other people there. They were all naked and all looked as they did at the age of 21. He looked around to see if there was anyone he recognized. He saw a couple and he knew immediately that they were Adam and Eve. How did he know?

8. A woman had two sons who were born on the same hour of the same day of the same year. But they were not twins. How could this be so?

9. A man walks into a bar and asks the barman for a glass of water. The barman pulls out a gun and points it at the man. The man says 'Thank you' and walks out. This puzzle claims to be the best of the genre. It is simple in its statement, absolutely baffling and yet with a completely satisfying solution. Most people struggle very hard to solve this one yet they like the answer when they hear it or have the satisfaction of figuring it out.

10. A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms. The first is full of raging fires, the second is full of assassins with loaded guns, and the third is full of lions that haven't eaten in 3 years. Which room is safest for him?

11. A woman shoots her husband. Then she holds him under water for over 5 minutes. Finally, she hangs him. But 5 minutes later they both go out together and enjoy a wonderful dinner together. How can this be?

12. There are two plastic jugs filled with water. How could you put all of this water into a barrel, without using the jugs or any dividers, and still tell which water came from which jug?

13. What is black when you buy it, red when you use it, and gray when you throw it away?

14. Can you name three consecutive days without using the words Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday? (or day names in any other language)

15. This is an unusual paragraph. I'm curious how quickly you can find out what is so unusual about it. It looks so plain you would think nothing was wrong with it. In fact, nothing is wrong with it! It is unusual though. Study it, and think about it, but you still may not find anything odd. But if you work at it a bit, you might find out.



Solutions

1. The man is very, very short and can only reach halfway up the elevator buttons. However, if it is raining then he will have his umbrella with him and can press the higher buttons with it.

2. The surgeon was his mother.

3. It was day time.

4. At the time she went into labor, the mother of the twins was traveling by ship. The older twin, Terry, was born first early on March 1st. The ship then crossed a time zone and Kerry, the younger twin, was born on February the 28th. Therefore, the younger twin celebrates her birthday two days before her older brother.

5. A square manhole cover can be turned and dropped down the diagonal of the manhole. A round manhole cannot be dropped down the manhole. So for safety and practicality, all manhole covers should be round.

6. The poison in the punch came from the ice cubes. When the man drank the punch, the ice was fully frozen. Gradually it melted, poisoning the punch.

7. He recognized Adam and Eve as the only people without navels. Because they were not born of women, they had never had umbilical cords and therefore they never had navels. This one seems perfectly logical but it can sometimes spark fierce theological arguments. (Just what a HUMOR list needs!!) ;

8. They were two of a set of triplets (or quadruplets, etc.). This puzzle stumps many people. They try outlandish solutions involving test-tube babies or surrogate mothers. Why does the brain search for complex solutions when there is a much simpler one available?

9.. The man had hiccups. The barman recognized this from his speech and drew the gun in order to give him a shock. It worked and cured the hiccups--so the man no longer needed the water. The is a simple puzzle to state but a difficult one to solve. It is a perfect example of a seemingly irrational and incongruous situation having a simple and complete explanation. Amazingly this classic puzzle seems to work in different cultures and languages.

10. The third. Lions that haven't eaten in three years are dead.

11. The woman was a photographer. She shot a picture of her husband, developed it, and hung it up to dry.

12. Freeze them first. Take them out of the jugs and put the ice in the barrel. You will be able to tell which water came from which jug.

13. The answer is Charcoal.

14.. Sure you can: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow!

15. The letter "e," which is the most common letter in the English language, does not appear once in the long paragraph...

Alternate Solutions

4. Because one of them did not necessarily celebrate their birthday on the day they were born, but celebrated later or earlier. Much simpler than having Mom giving birth while crossing the International Date Line and tossing in a Leap Year and the like. Needlessly complicated.

6. Because he was the one who put the poison in the punch. Of course he wouldn't drink any *after* he poisoned it. Who goes to the effort of making poison ice cubes, except Bond villains and those bad guys in the "Encyclopedia Brown" mystery stories we read in elementary school?

8. Because they were adopted. It's a coincidence they were born on the same exact day. OK, so Occam's Razor could be applied equally to both solutions...

Why Our Brains Do Not Intuitively Grasp Probabilities

Have you ever gone to the phone to call a friend only to have your friend ring you first? What are the odds of that? Not high, to be sure, but the sum of all probabilities equals one. Given enough opportunities, outlier anomalies—even seeming miracles—will occasionally happen.

Let us define a miracle as an event with million-to-one odds of occurring (intuitively, that seems rare enough to earn the moniker). Let us also assign a number of one bit per second to the data that flow into our senses as we go about our day and assume that we are awake for 12 hours a day. We get 43,200 bits of data a day, or 1.296 million a month. Even assuming that 99.999 percent of these bits are totally meaningless (and so we filter them out or forget them entirely), that still leaves 1.3 “miracles” a month, or 15.5 miracles a year.

Thanks to our confirmation bias, in which we look for and find confirmatory evidence for what we already believe and ignore or discount contradictory evidence, we will remember only those few astonishing coincidences and forget the vast sea of meaningless data.

We can employ a similar back-of-the-envelope calculation to explain death premonition dreams. The average person has about five dreams a night, or 1,825 dreams a year. If we remember only a tenth of our dreams, then we recall 182.5 dreams a year. There are 300 million Americans, who thus produce 54.7 billion remembered dreams a year. Sociologists tell us that each of us knows about 150 people fairly well, thus producing a social-network grid of 45 billion personal relationship connections. With an annual death rate of 2.4 million Americans, it is inevitable that some of those 54.7 billion remembered dreams will be about some of these 2.4 million deaths among the 300 million Americans and their 45 billion relationship connections. In fact, it would be a miracle if some death premonition dreams did not happen to come true!

These examples show the power of probabilistic thinking to override our intuitive sense of numbers, or what I call “folk numeracy,” in parallel with my previous columns on “folk science” (August 2006) and “folk medicine” (August 2008) and with my book on “folk economics” (The Mind of the Market). Folk numeracy is our natural tendency to misperceive and miscalculate probabilities, to think anecdotally instead of statistically, and to focus on and remember short-term trends and small-number runs. We notice a short stretch of cool days and ignore the long-term global-warming trend. We note with consternation the recent downturn in the housing and stock markets, forgetting the half-century upward-pointing trend line. Sawtooth data trend lines, in fact, are exemplary of folk numeracy: our senses are geared to focus on each tooth’s up or down angle, whereas the overall direction of the blade is nearly invisible to us.

The reason that our folk intuitions so often get it wrong is that we evolved in what evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins calls “Middle World”—a land midway between short and long, small and large, slow and fast, young and old. Out of personal preference, I call it “Middle Land.” In the Middle Land of space, our senses evolved for perceiving objects of middling size—between, say, grains of sand and mountain ranges. We are not equipped to perceive atoms and germs, on one end of the scale, or galaxies and expanding universes, on the other end. In the Middle Land of speed, we can detect objects moving at a walking or running pace, but the glacially slow movement of continents (and glaciers) and the mind-bogglingly fast speed of light are imperceptible. Our Middle Land timescales range from the psychological “now” of three seconds in duration (according to Harvard University psychologist Stephen Pinker ) to the few decades of a human lifetime, far too short to witness evolution, continental drift or long-term environmental changes. Our Middle Land folk numeracy leads us to pay attention to and remember short-term trends, meaningful coincidences and personal anecdotes.

Source: www.scientificamerican.com

Does Using Technology Always Make You More Efficient

Whether and to what extent we should simplify our lives and get "back to basics" is a debate that has been going on since the invention of writing. As the rate of technological progress increase at an accelerating pace, a counter trend is emerging where technological development is not inherently synonymous with progress. Proponents of Appropriate Technology (AT) argue that progress can only be achieved with technology that is designed with special consideration to what it is intended for.

Anything you can do, a machine could theoretically do faster, better, more efficiently but is this really true? The GPS software on my cell phone, for example, can navigate me from one place to another much faster and more efficiently than a human navigator could except that the GPS stops working if I blunder into an area into which the network's signal won't reach. My calendar, which is on the Internet, can be reached from any computer or from my cell phone, and updated from both places. It will send me automated reminders to do things at a certain time but sometimes the reminders themselves will slow me down, or a reminder will come into my phone when I'm trying to talk to someone or when I'm trying to use that GPS locator -- oops, just missed that turn -- thanks, GCal.




I'm not against technology. In fact, I love it or I wouldn't be keeping my calendar on the Internet and giving my contact information to Google. However, simpler is usually better, and there are times when the simplest technology works the best. Well, consider pen and paper. I think that not only is the pen mightier than the sword, it's mightier than Google Tasks, Remember the Milk, or Toodledo. If the aim is to remember what to do, then the simple act of physically writing them down does the job: It helps you to remember. This phenomenon is supported by research and here's how:

1. Most of our knowledge about the world comes from three places: our eyes, our ears, and our hands. Educators are finding that writing and drawing, activities you do with a pen or pencil and paper, help the brain to understand concepts, especially concepts that have to do with language. A functional MRI study on the neural substrates for writing confirms this. Because we are set up to learn in large part through what our hands do, thus hands-on forms of learning tend to be more effective. So writing things down helps us to remember more than making a virtual online to do list would because we get our hands more involved.


2. Hands are so helpful when it comes to learning and remembering that some teachers say using sign language (spoken with the hands) in the classroom can help students to concentrate and focus. So writing is not the only way to engage the hands in order to facilitate learning and concentration.


3. The brain remains plastic even as we age. Even though adults are not in school all the time, we can still hope to learn and develop while we work even as we get older. Neurologists say that even after the 40s, an adult brain can continue to rewire itself, make new connections, and learn new things. So brain research related to children's literacy (reading and writing) applies to adults, not just to kids.


4. Being productive is all about concentrating, focusing, learning, remembering things, and above all, staying sharp. I want my work habits to support me in staying sharp, not to cause me to get lost in a mental fog in which I try to convince myself that I don't have to remember anything because Google will remember it for me. According to neuroscientists, adults can even become more intelligent as they age, if they take the opportunity to continue learning.

That's why, I write down my to do list on a sheet of paper instead of typing it away and depending on technology to do the job for me. I also don't rely on digital recorders to keep track of ideas in meetings, I use the old-fashioned method; taking notes with a pen and paper. Moreover, I find that I remember most of what I hear when I write it down. Ironically, I end up not having to refer to my notes. I save the notes, though and becomes useful when sometimes my colleagues like to borrow them.


So, how do you use technology appropriately?

Read more: Does Using Technology Always Make You More Efficient? | The Thinking Blog ~ Knowledge Grows When Shared http://www.thethinkingblog.com/2010/09/does-using-technology-always-make-you.html#ixzz1NFh3Ih1U

10 Amazing Lesson From Albert Einstein

1. Follow Your Curiosity

“I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.”


What piques your curiosity? I am curious as to what causes one person to succeed while another person fails; this is why I’ve spent years studying success. What are you most curious about? The pursuit of your curiosity is the secret to your success.

2. Perseverance is Priceless

“It's not that I'm so smart; it's just that I stay with problems longer.”


Through perseverance the turtle reached the ark. Are you willing to persevere until you get to your intended destination? They say the entire value of the postage stamp consist in its ability to stick to something until it gets there. Be like the postage stamp; finish the race that you’ve started!

3. Focus on the Present

“Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.”


My father always says you cannot ride two horses at the same time. I like to say, you can do anything, but not everything. Learn to be present where you are; give your all to whatever you’re currently doing.

Focused energy is power, and it’s the difference between success and failure.

4. The Imagination is Powerful

“Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions. Imagination is more important than knowledge.”


Are you using your imagination daily? Einstein said the imagination is more important than knowledge! Your imagination pre-plays your future. Einstein went on to say, “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination.” Are you exercising your “imagination muscles” daily, don’t let something as powerful as your imagination lie dormant.

5. Make Mistakes

“A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new.”


Never be afraid of making a mistake. A mistake is not a failure. Mistakes can make you better, smarter and faster, if you utilize them properly. Discover the power of making mistakes. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, if you want to succeed, triple the amount of mistakes that you make.

6. Live in the Moment

“I never think of the future - it comes soon enough.”


The only way to properly address your future is to be as present as possible “in the present.”

You cannot “presently” change yesterday or tomorrow, so it’s of supreme importance that you dedicate all of your efforts to “right now.” It’s the only time that matters, it’s the only time there is.

7. Create Value

“Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value."


Don’t waste your time trying to be successful, spend your time creating value. If you’re valuable, then you will attract success.

Discover the talents and gifts that you possess, learn how to offer those talents and gifts in a way that most benefits others.

Labor to be valuable and success will chase you down.

8. Don’t Expect Different Results

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”


You can’t keep doing the same thing everyday and expect different results. In other words, you can’t keep doing the same workout routine and expect to look differently. In order for your life to change, you must change, to the degree that you change your actions and your thinking is to the degree that your life will change.

9. Knowledge Comes From Experience

“Information is not knowledge. The only source of knowledge is experience.”


Knowledge comes from experience. You can discuss a task, but discussion will only give you a philosophical understanding of it; you must experience the task first hand to “know it.” What’s the lesson? Get experience! Don’t spend your time hiding behind speculative information, go out there and do it, and you will have gained priceless knowledge.

10. Learn the Rules and Then Play Better

“You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.”


To put it all in simple terms, there are two things that you must do. The first thing you must do is to learn the rules of the game that you’re playing. It doesn’t sound exciting, but it’s vital. Secondly, you must commit to play the game better than anyone else. If you can do these two things, success will be yours!

Source : http://www.dumblittleman.com/