New Octalysis Prime Theme Song

My most important project thus far

For those who have been following me, you’ll know that Octalysis Prime is my most important project thus far. I plan to share the entirety of my useful knowledge in this gamified platform.

Currently my 500 page book Actionable Gamification is only about 15% of the knowledge base. With 400 Videos and more every week on OP (About 5-10 min on average), I plan to eventually get as close to 100% as possible.

My end goal is to leave this for my two daughters Symphony and Harmony. If one day I get hit by a bus, I’ll know that everything I want to teach my children is already in this platform. So far we have hundreds of passionate members participating, learning, and upgrading their lives.

The Octalysis Prime Theme Song Launches

This week I’m most excited about the launch of our Octalysis Prime Theme Song by talented musician Melody Hwang. It turned out brilliantly and feels like a fully legitimate contemporary pop song with a game angle to it.

I first approached Melody via her Kickstarter project and asked her if she could create something similar to the One-Punch Man Theme Song. I gave her some suggested lyrics and then off she went – creating this masterpiece that is now my favorite song BY FAR.

Enjoy the song!

Policy Summary of Andrew Yang – USA Presidential Candidate 2020

Running America on Math and Logic?

As some may know I’ve been fascinated and slowly becoming in favor of Presidential Candidate (2020) Andrew Yang. At first I thought he was a populist (for getting votes) who is promoting Marxist socialism ($1000/mo Universal Basic Income). After reading his book I changed my mind and felt pretty good about him.

A few useful things to share to people who are unfamiliar:

1. His UBI replaces (unless opted out) all welfare programs.

It reduces incentives to be in weak positions (unemployed and pretending to find jobs or divorcing etc) and shrinks government (no more complicated and long-winded approval process and checking if a person still qualifies every month)

2. He says after that it’s going to be still $1.3 Trillion below budget. He plans to get it via VAT (value add sales tax) that would optimize for luxury and AI driven items.

Profitability from automation and GDP will rise dramatically, and we need to make sure machine profits don’t screw over the hard working humans. He says that with a 10% VAT (20% for most non-US western countries), if one gets $12K more per year, people would only be worse off if they spend more than $120K per year. But Amazon has to pay taxes on transactions instead of just “our accounting methods shows we don’t need to pay taxes.” Btw, he doesn’t try to vilify Amazon as having evil agendas, but he says people will suffer due to optimization.

3. The rest he believes in trickle up economy.

Most people will spend most of the $1000/mo (most Americans needs to as they have less than $500 savings) and help other local businesses and income, as opposed to big government just keeping it and spending on inefficient large items in military and others. In Econ 1 we learn about the multiplier effect, where if $1000 passes through 5 people, 5 people made $1000 each and the GDP increases by $5000 (not counting taxes) and the government will get more taxes back too on each step.

4. It may or may not be perfect calculations, but it’s not wishful dreaming and promising.

His policies page estimate costs for dozens of his policies and also how he expects them to be paid. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/ I especially like the one where all field cops should have cameras on constantly to really resolve police brutality issues as everyone has better information and context.

5. The automation crisis is happening now.

Just look at empty malls closing because of Amazon (robots in their warehouses), self-checkout at groceries, casinos replacing bartenders this year, and Tesla launching autonomous fleet next year.

6. UBI is different to socialism because..

In Traditional Socialism, it doesn’t matter how hard you work, everyone will have the same outcome. In Yang’s economy, if you consistently do the correct things and have a bit of luck, anyone can become a millionaire. UBI just makes sure that everyone has a few chips to participate in the game to begin with.

7. $1000/mo is not going to solve all problems.

It is just around the poverty line so if people could work they should want to (outside of outliers). But $1000/mo would make it easier for people to relocate for other opportunities, go back to school or be retrained, or decide to dedicate more time to raising their children. Also, rich people get $1000/mo too, because instead of the “F you rich people!!” narrative, it honors them by saying, “You will be paying significantly more taxes not from your wealth/income but on your luxurious enjoyment of American goods. But you will get your Freedom Dividend as a respected citizen of the United States, just like everyone else.”

8. Trump won President because Americans in Middle States were hearing the awful narrative about White Privilege

…about how white people get everything so easy and all America’s problems are coming from them; but yet they are struggling in the millions, losing their jobs to automation and failing to support their families. Strong man Trump shows up and says, “the media and democrats say YOU are the problem. You are what makes America bad. They don’t care about you. Well guess what, you are not the problem. You are a victim, and I will fight back those jobs from those foreigners!” When you are drowning, you grab on to whoever actually says will save you as opposed to those calling you the bad guy.

9. I’ve met many people saying that when they voted for Trump they were looking for someone like Andrew Yang

…someone who is concerned about their problems, not vilifying them, and ACTUALLY having a plan. These Middle State Americans don’t need a big white man to be President. They just need someone who cares about their problems to be President. Imagine how they feel when the media just calls them racists during this process of struggle and grasping for hope from anywhere.

10. I’ve always felt that the largest threat to America is how divided we are.

I got myself immersed in both left and right echo chambers and it was mind blowing how the two sides can’t even begin to communicate due to name calling as the first step. That’s why I think Andrew Yang’s campaign of “Not Left, not Right, but Forward” is very appealing to me personally.

11. Polls indicate that right now 3% of Americans would vote for Andrew Yang

…from being a complete no-namer last year. His is currently ranked 5th in the Democratic Party lineup. It’s still a long shot, but I think he has a chance.

(Disclaimer: even though at the beginning I was pretty turned off by Andrew Yang’s running for presidency, my knowledge in behavioral science tells me that I would be be more open to be won over due to our shared background as Taiwanese American Entrepreneurs. Also, Elon Musk claiming UBI being the necessary solution for the future also opened me up to the concept)

James Cashiola’s Rally Airdrop is the future of gamified commerce

Rally App Logo

Rally Airdop App by James Cashiola is a really cool concept that we’ve been excited about lately.

Since I am considered one of the OGs that have been in the “gamification industry” for 16 years, occasionally I see better examples of commerce gamification design and follow their progress more.

Rally Airdrop App (RallyApp.com and RallyAirDrop.com) is a gamification startup that exchanges various activities for compensation.H

Because of this, my company The Octalysis Group decided to help Rally Airdrop in refining their experience further with more White Hat Intrinsic Motivation in their game loops to achieve even greater engagement.

I very much look forward to see their continuous progress, journey, and success!

The government should pay entrepreneurs salaries to save the economy (Trickle Up Stimulus Optimization)

(Note: this is a blogpost I originally wrote in 2009 during the financial crisis. In 2019 I became a supporter of Andrew Yang, and remembered that my proposal ten years ago, while not as “complete,” was very similar. So I updated it a little bit and surfaced it back. Despite having a degree in Economics, I am NOT an expert on the economy but an expert on behavioral design and gamification)

A few weeks ago, I was exercising while listening to the Wall Street Journal This Morning about what the government is doing to save the economy. I have also been paying attention to how governments are giving grants to startups who can prove that they are very innovative.

Having wrote a blogpost on this topic earlier, I formulated what I think is a doable plan for the government to save the economy.

For validation, I took this plan to two of my friends, one who is an ex-VC and Boston Consulting Group Consultant, and the other a Stanford University Researcher. They haven’t been able to poke holes in this theory *yet*, so I thought I would share it on my blog and hopefully I will find out the flaws in my thinking or it will get discovered by policy makers to really execute it through.

Foundations of my theory: nodes and 3 coefficients

When the government throws money into the economy, it passes through many “nodes” (person or organization), and each node has three coefficients along with it: spend/save, innovation, and upside.

Continue reading The government should pay entrepreneurs salaries to save the economy (Trickle Up Stimulus Optimization)

Backup for the Double Slit Theory supporting the power of the Conscious Mind

Hey everyone!

If you are here, you have some doubts about my statement on how our consciences can affect reality, suggested by Quantum Physics. Here is the video to intro it if you are unfamiliar:

From my own research, many traditional physicists mocks the concept of consciousness affecting the world of physics. Even the popular Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson dismisses this concept and makes fun of it. However, many Quantum Physicist now believe in this concept of consciousness affecting the physical world based on the evidence from experiments.

Now, there are two type of doubters – lazy ones and diligent ones. Lazy is not a bad thing, but just means you doubt but you don’t want to spend a lot of time investigating. Diligent ones want to investigate a lot. I’ve made some argument sessions on both:

Lazy Doubters

Here I offer some higher level items, mostly in the form of social proof. This shows the credibility of people who believe in this consciousness concept. This is not “widely accepted” or “proven” in any way, but it is a legitimate theory that accomplishing scientists support.

“When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.
―Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize Winner and leading Physicist of the Twentieth Century

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
― Max Planck, Also Nobel Prize Winner

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Also Max Planck

Here is an article by BBC that supports this:

“It turns out that, just as Bohr confidently predicted, it makes no difference whether we delay the measurement or not. As long as we measure the photon’s path before its arrival at a detector is finally registered, we lose all interference. It is as if nature “knows” not just if we are looking, but if we are planning to look.”

“Beginning in the 1980s, the British physicist Roger Penrose suggested that the link might work in the other direction. Whether or not consciousness can affect quantum mechanics, he said, perhaps quantum mechanics is involved in consciousness.”

This is Roger Penrose’s Credentials:

“Penrose is known for his work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems”

Adrien Kent has this quote: “We could make some progress on understanding the problem of the evolution of consciousness if we supposed that consciousnesses alters (albeit perhaps very slightly and subtly) quantum probabilities.BBC adds, “In other words, the mind could genuinely affect the outcomes of measurements.”

Adrien Kent’s credentials are:
Professor of Quantum Physics, DAMTP, University of Cambridge
Distinguished Visiting Research Chair at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario
Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge
Director of Studies in Mathematics at Darwin College, Cambridge
Affiliate at the Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, Ontario
Visiting Scholar at Wolfson College, Oxford”

Diligent Doubters

For those who are more serious doubters, here is some backup science to investigate into.

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment

The best and most convincing is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. The video below is the second part of the video posted above (this here is the original), but is a video to make sure to watch.

The 3 min 6s mark is a good place to start. I didn’t fully understand the experiment from a bunch of other videos, but this one I finally understood it in roughly 5 minutes. This explains how the human mind is what determines the results, not the measuring device.

Tom Campbell Workshop

This is a LONG workshop by Thomas W. Campbell explaining the experiments. His conclusion: “There is no objective reality.”

You can probably start at the 44 min mark if you don’t want to watch the whole thing. Below is his bio:

“Campbell has had a long career as a scientist and physicist. He received a B.S. in Physics as well as an M.S. in Physics. His Ph.D. work specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics with a thesis in low-energy nuclear collisions.  Subsequently, he spent the better part of 30 years working within the U.S. missile defense community as a contractor to the Department of Defense.[4] Campbell most recently worked for NASA within the Ares I program (follow-on to the Shuttle) assessing and solving problems of risk and vulnerability to insure mission and crew survivability and success.”

Some people doubt his credibility, but I dug deeper into Thomas Campbell’s background as people said his background isn’t verifiable and he just made it up.

I finally found his credentials on the NASA website: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20090014192

In the PDF that is attached there, it does verify that, “THOMAS W. CAMPBELL is currently consulting in the field of Probabilistic Design Analysis for NASA. He has over 36 years of experience working with the Department of Defense in several fields, including systems engineering; technology development; physics based modeling and simulation; algorithm and software development; intelligence analysis; radars, antenna, and electronic environments analysis; system security engineering; technology transfer, reuse, and insertion; engineering management and program management; and system risk and vulnerability. He received a B.S. in Physics as well as an M.S. in Physics. His Ph.D. work specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics with a thesis in low-energy nuclear collisions.”

Since his work with NASA is assessing and solving problems of risk and vulnerability to insure the Ares shuttle mission and crew survivability and success, I think there needs to be a lot of precision in his work, as opposed to being an idealistic philosopher.

2. If you want to investigate the actual scientific paper, check out this LONG and dense reading:

http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html

Hope this is helpful!