I'm interested to know if you have you been having consistent results using it? I tested it last night, and just woke up several minutes ago in fact, feeling refreshed and ready to go. I've been having trouble waking up even with an alarm, and I usually wake up feeling not so good. With this, I woke up at the very instant of my alarm, choosing the 3rd option. Then again, it could be because I was too excited to try out something new, although I was initially skeptical about it.
Yes, and he also said that people lose three businesses before they succeed. But people are afraid to fail even once because traditional education teaches students that it's bad, terrible, wrong, etc. to fail.
Rich Dad Poor Dad was not meant to be a Biblical be-all end-all; in one of his talks, he mentioned that the original manuscript is supposed to be a manual for the game he invented, "Cashflow 101," which was trashed by the first testers for being a long and complicated game, but anyway.
The author nailed down the first point, about financial literacy being critical, and people turning out poor because of the lack of it. If this were not true, most if not all summa cum laude graduates would own, instead of just work for, a company; they succeeded in traditional education, but know nothing about finance.
The two others are completely off. RDPD was never meant to be an instruction booklet on how to become rich, much less how to get rich in real estate. He also misunderstood the concept of "paying yourself first" to mean "don't pay your taxes," which is simply false. He made it sound like Kiyosaki is some selfish person who is demanding the rest of the world to be the same; but if you read the rest of the book, he actually points out that rich people are very unselfish, because they give what other people want: jobs, products, services, etc., as opposed to those who just want to be paid more despite being mediocre. He also said that if you want to be rich, you have to give other people what they want.
Kiyosaki's example about being "inspired" by the screaming of creditors and the government is nothing more than that: a personal example. He didn't say everyone should follow that example. In fact, he said a couple of paragraphs later: "If you do not like financial pressure, then find a formula that works for you." And he said a few paragraphs prior: "If you cannot get control of yourself, do not try to get rich. You might first want to join the Marine Corps or some religious order so you can get control of yourself." He's clear about the dangers of falling to the temptation of spending on consumer debt and using investment to cover it up.
Also, that little bit about child labor is odd. It's not like Rich Dad was trying to make millions from his son and his friend. It was more of a lesson to show how employees live their lives; personal experience tends to be a more powerful teacher, after all.
Saying that, I admit that some of the stories in some of his other books were simply repeated from this one. It must be kind of him to assume that the readers of his other books haven't read the others, but it can get annoying reading the same story.
I was hoping to find some sort of statistics showing how students are not better off after learning through KA, but I didn't find it. It would have been very helpful in minimizing the bias the article has against KA, because at least it would show a concrete evidence of the claims presented in the article.
KA applied Jane McGonigal's concept in her Ted Talk on game theory, where players are encouraged to continue with a quest through awards and points. This is lacking in traditional education, where only those on top get awards, and those on the bottom do not, perpetuating the problem throughout the lives of the students.
Also, there was no solution, except something around the line that this is not a panacea (nothing is) and that we should reconsider how we think of KA. An alternative or a better idea would have best ended the article that so criticizes how KA is so wrong.
Seeing how a lot of people on Facebook use fake names, I don't how the information Facebook provides for potential data buyers can be deemed as trustworthy enough to be used to lower credit ratings, or as basis for hiring. Granted, if a person has a history of bad-mouthing previous employers (which is the person's responsibility in the first place), it can be used against the person. But that can happen if an employer connects with the potential employee and checks the ever-helpful Timeline, without Facebook having to sell the data.