JonathanFields

I used to own a boutique, 5,000 square foot personal training facility a few years back. Sadly, this article is on the money. We hired strength coaches with degrees in exercise physiology or athletic training and were fanatical about form and outcomes. We wanted clients to re-up not because they'd become best friends with a trainer or been entertained, but because they were experiencing measurable changes in whatever metrics were relevant to them (which we tested on a regular basis). We were very much the exception to the rule in a world where places like Crossfit didn't even exist yet.

The commentary on big-box fitness clubs is also dead on. It's all about maximizing revenue / sq ft, not changing lives. That leads to a 40% industry attrition-rate, because the offerings and environment are so broken, off-putting and ineffective. What other industry survives when you need to regenerate 40% of your client base every year just to stay at zero-growth? Insanity.

Last stat, for more than 30 years, the fitness industry has been trying to attract what's perceived as the holy grail, sedentary adults. But, no matter how much marketing they throw at the market, 85% of US adults refuse to join or stay members of clubs, even though more than 90% say exercise is mission-critical to their ability to live the lives they want to live.

I sold my last facility 4 years ago, but just writing this is reminding me how ripe this space still is for mass-disruption. Crossfit is doing a great job, but there's still so more that can and should be done.

Awesome story. Been taking the same approach with my daughter. She's now 10 and is pretty fearless about wielding any tool or material needed to design whatever she's working on.

Reminds me of a story I once saw about Tinkering School for kids, where they let the kids conceive and builds project together. http://www.tinkeringschool.com/

Question also is, what happens when you put 10 good creators in a hyper-engaged creative environment with 10 great ones? Are good performers simply good because of their innate capabilities or can regular interaction with greatness help tease out capabilities that were previously buried?

Actually the post isn't about the effect of "lost" competition. It's about the difference between internally vs externally placed competition and how if you're driven largely by external competition, that will very likely eventually cap your creative potential.

That was the point of the post and the reason for the title.

I work from home and have a great setup. I'm also a moderate introvert, but I end up going to work at cafes and outdoor space because I also love to be around the intangible energy of other people, even if I'm not saying a word to any of them. Plus, I sense the ability to add novelty to my environment helps trigger a certain bump in creativity.

Two more thoughts here:

1 - This is almost entirely a fiction phenomenon, at least for now. While there are plenty of nonfiction books priced at 99 cents, the books on the Kindle Top 100 are consistently all-fiction. Even bigger name nonfiction authors who are traditionally or self-published, including NYT bestsellers, are finding it near impossible to hit or stay on that list.

2 - Many of those self-pubbed fiction writers on the kindle top 100 list are using the 99 cent price point for single books as points of entry or loss leaders (though they're actually still making money) into a funnel for a much bigger body of work. Amanda Hocking and J.A. Konrath experimented with rotating certain books into the 99 cent slot knowing that once a reader likes their style, fiction readers often attach to the author in a way nonfiction readers dont. That fuels them to want to read the authors other books...for $2.99 to $4.99. So one 99 cent book can lead to many more higher priced sales and readers for life.

Glad you guys picked up on this, I used "different," not "differently" in the headline as a nod to Jobs' original Think Different campaign. So, yup, it was intentional.

This was one of the first books I read as a copywriter, it's a tremendous reference and because it's based on human nature, it's timeless.

Cialdini's more recent collaboration - Yes! - is also interesting, rehashes the basic principals, but then adds in some more current research, scenarios and applications.

Another study out of the University of Oregon last year used MRI to show similar results, but in as little as 6 hours of training:

"The changes were strongest in connections involving the anterior cingulate, a brain area related to the ability to regulate emotions and behavior. The changes were observed only in those who practiced meditation and not in the control group. The changes in connectivity began after six hours of training and became clear by 11 hours of practice. The researchers said it is possible the changes resulted from a reorganization of white-matter tracts or by an increase of myelin that surrounds the connections."

http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2010/8/chines...

While the meditation protocol was not published (MBSR used in the main post has been well documented), I actually interviewed one of the lead investigators for the book I'm working on now and he shared that the U of O protocol was a hybrid that combined elements of mindfulness and some more basic physical relaxation techniques.