Comments on: Mind Performance Hacks

By: Ron Hale-Evans

Ron Hale-Evans — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:40:52 +0000

Thanks, Matt!
So it wasn’t evidence you were looking for so much as explanation and a general theoretical framework. Fair enough.
As for the Mind Performance Hacks / miles-per-hour coincidence, it wasn’t deliberate, but it does amuse me, and I use it for (what else?) mnemonic purposes whenever I cite the book to someone.

By: mattw

mattw — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:43:55 +0000

Ron, thanks for adding this!
Something I meant to say is that I don’t doubt the techniques work–for one thing, they’ve been filtered and revised by many people over the years or they wouldn’t have made it into your book. I guess the kind of explanation I’m after (and this is just me here; I think this is too personal an opinion to be taken as anything like a review or critique) is not tests to see whether the effect is present, but the kind that finds limits, expresses the results in terms of other models, etc. But I felt this for only for a minority of the hacks, and for most of these it isn’t possible yet (as you mention).
I hope I didn’t say anything about parapsychology!
Lastly, thanks for linking to the sample hacks. I’ll add that to the post. And I still want to know whether the MPH abbreviation is deliberate

By: Ron Hale-Evans

Ron Hale-Evans — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 01:22:55 +0000

Thanks for the swell mention, Matt! It’s true: MPH is not as academically oriented as its predecessor MH, nor does it try to be. It focuses on providing practical techniques for improving mental performance, while MH is more oriented toward theoretical knowledge. That’s why we hoped the two books would work well together. Here’s a case to illustrate the difference. Scott Hagwood, the U.S. Grandmaster of Memory, was able to max out an electronic Simon game, memorising 31 long sequences of sound and colour by using the technique we describe in Hack #4. Is there good evidence it works? Yes, memory championships are pretty rigorous. Is the evidence scientifically established? Not really, but you don’t disqualify someone’s high-jump record in the Olympics because there was no control group, it wasn’t double-blind, and so on. You might say the athlete took MH-style knowledge about physiology and created MPH-style athletic training techniques. Further, there’s no parapsychology in Mind Performance Hacks; we’re not making “extraordinary claims” in the usual sense of that phrase, but describing enhancement of capacities people already have, such as mental math and making decisions. Also, some of the techniques in MPH are too new to have been tested; for example, when I developed the Hotel Dominic (Hacks #7 & 8), I commented on the wiki that I wished someone would test it experimentally. Someday… As for the emotional technique you mentioned (Hack #57?), it comes straight out of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, which is one of the only forms of “talk therapy” to be shown effective experimentally. But more of this on the wiki, where, yes, we will continue to document research on the hacks in the book. Thanks again. Ron H-E (P.S. to other readers: Hack #57 and others are available at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/mindperfhks/)