10-06-2020, 09:47 AM
(10-06-2020, 08:02 AM)fab10 Wrote: I have seen plenty people make boatloads of money without learning anything and I am only half joking.
The real issues with your recommendation imo are two:
1. The more you add, the more you split the focus, Shannon explained that several times.
2. Some people have learned plenty and they need something else to break through financially. One could argue that different people can profit from different additional modules- one could need a healthier body to make money, but that doesn’t mean an MHS should be added to UMS. Or, real life example, some of us do not succeed financially because of emotional trauma, and that requires EPRHA.
My two cents are that UMS should be UMS, all the power focused to that script, and if one need a push in some other field, they can run another sub before UMS.
Can you give examples?
Most times when you think people just got rich overnight or have a quick success, their way of learning, failing, progressing and pushing through until success is just hidden. Of course there is also luck in the play.
I would agree to leave MLS out of some of the stages, but not all of them. When you say "some of us do not succeed financially because of emotional trauma, and that requires EPRHA", I agree and that is the reason why it is part of UMS. Do you mean by that to leave it out in the future because it takes the focus away?
I am pretty sure Shannon would find a self optimizing script that says something like if you need learning that module is activated and if your subconscious is sure it just needs to apply the learnt stuff that module is deactivated.
Your sentence "UMS should be UMS" is not saying anything. Of course it should be it, what else should it be. But then again the question is what exactly is UMS, how is the monetary success measured in and do we want to have as much income streams as possible or not.