Disclaimer: I’m being paid to write this review.

Earlier today I admitted not knowing exactly what beer goggles were but something potentially more mind-bending awaited in Flucidity.org which self-describes itself too many times:

“It is a meta-language (or, language of languages) for a lack of a better way to describe it.”
“Flucidity is a new way of thinking.”
“Flucidity is a completely ridiculous idea until you actually begin to use it.”
“You can think of Flucidity as a language.”
“Or, in plain English, we can create a map to what we want by creating a small representation of it, making our own set of rules for it, then letting it loose to interact with our world. Doing this will brings us much closer to what we actually want.”
“It itself is a simple representation of how everything works that we can actually make use of.”

Intrigued? After perusing the mostly text with a few image .org Flucidity website I was somewhat but I was also suspicious. Far from convinced. Dig deeper.

The Flucidity Theory is the work of self-described “high school dropout” A. Sorel:

Unable to focus at school, he subsequently dropped out of 8th grade. Eventually making it to high school he, again, dropped out before completing the first semester. During this time he sought solace in the early Internet and at the library. He also wrote a 100-page manuscript entitled, “The Nature of Existence”, at age 16, which he promptly burned upon completion. During this time he developed the predecessor to Flucidity Theory, calling it the “Chaos Engine.”

Flucidity licensing
Flucidity is licensed with an attractive Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License which is interesting considering a “coming soon” category is listed for Flucidity Economics. Does this mean later an ebook or something else will be sold showing how Flucidity can make the author money, but not anybody else? If Flucidity is intended to be completely open, then why not just make the theory open to commercial application?

Aye, there’s the rub.

Is Flucidity BS?
But I’m getting ahead of myself and probably most readers, let’s try and figure out what Flucidity is first and how it can/might be used. The verbose Flucidity website somewhat reminded me of a typical Steve Gillmor rant and pretty much everything that is and was the AttentionTrust.

What we need as human beings at the most basic level to understand something are real world examples and applications. Fortunately — or unfortunately depending on one’s opinon after reading it — Flucidity offers at least one:

George wants to meet a smart girl. So, he starts by creating a representation that signifies his intent. Any will do. In this case, he decides to get a pair of reading glasses for himself. The new reading glasses will serve as his representation. He adds 2 simple rules to this. 1) Whenever he sees a girl he likes, he will put his glasses on and, 2) just before he introduces himself to her he will take his glasses off. Adding this structure to his new representation will focus potential energy his way. Thus, his desired interactions will be much more likely to take place, according to Flucidity theory. The result of this process will be a new represenation which, for George, could be discovering her name or telephone number (both of which are representations themselves) which, if utilized properly, will lead to further and more complex interactions and representations.

I read this example multiple times and thought it would read much better as: George wants to meet a smart girl. He thinks by wearing glasses and taking them off just before introducing himself this will motivate some brainy babe to offer her phone number and address. Loser.

Is this an example of Flucidity or a dating scheme? I figured I’d ask my wife if this would have impressed her if I had tried some cheesy move like this on her.

She responded with great sarcasm: “Oh yeah, removing your glasses would have made a big difference.”

My wife went further offering her opinion on Flucidity which we’ll get to shortly, but first let’s try and analyze the four typers of the universe and how they relate to this theory. Don’t worry, I’ve just begun to make fun of dating magnet, George.

Flucidity four typers of the universe
On the Flucidity introduction page the “basic premise” of Flucidity is described that everything exists with one of the four typers of the universe, with my attempt to shorten the description following:

* Representation - your intent to do something (”George wants to meet a smart girl”)
* Potential Energy - your emotions that compel you to do something (why George wants to meet a smart goal: companionship)
* Measurement & Structure - specific rules and/or guidelines to follow to obtain your goal (what George needs to do specifically to get a date with a smart girl)
* Interaction & Association - the action required to carry out your intent (George taking his glasses off when he meets a smart girl and introducing himself)

The how it works page offers more examples of each of the four typers. Here are merely two that again, I’ve shortened and perhaps over-simplified (intentionally):

Representation
- wealth: read a magazine you think wealthy people read.
- a new car: take pictures of a car you want

Structure and measurement
- wealth: find one interesting article in to do more research on in the magazine you think wealthy people read
- a new car: take five pictures from the driver’s seat, take photos of the color car you want, print them out and carry around with you (Look Ma, here’s the car I want to buy if only I had Bill Gates money).

Potential Energy
- wealth: the bookstore or magazine shop to buy the magazine you think wealthy people read
- a new car: take pictures at a dealership (Just what every dealership wants, dreamy mobloggers)

Interaction and Association
- wealth: company you read about with a promising opportunity
- a new car: test driving the car (and then pissing off the salesman when the hard sell turns up that you don’t have the money to buy the car)

Ok, I’ve had enough and didn’t even get into advanced Flucidity. Wish I was joking about that one.

Let’s skip the Flucidity nonsense and get to the meat of how to create wealth and get the car of your dreams. If you want wealth, go to work, stop reading magazines that Bill Gates reads. Passion creates energy and that creates results. If you or I aren’t passionate about the work we’re doing we won’t create good results. And without good results we’ll eventually be shown the door. In the case of the self-employed that means less customers and less revenue. Less revenue means less profits and less profits eventually means it is time to go back working for the man.

You or I don’t need to practice some long-winded Creative Commons licensed theory in order to achieve what we want to achieve, we just need to find something we enjoy doing and work hard at it. Some over-analytical type will show up in the comments and tell me how stupid I am and that I don’t see the genius here. Have at it, I don’t. Uncle!

That’s right I think Flucidity is exactly what it is italicized in one of the quotes on the theory website: A completely ridiculous idea.

Here’s what my wife thinks:

What an unbelievable crock of crap. A waste of time, instead of trying to apply some idiotic logic to a situation just set a goal and work hard to obtain it. How is flucidity going to help a person say get a new car? The average person is going to find this absolutely laughable.

Another reason I love my wife. She’s real and practical and doesn’t try to be some genius with some not so clever scheme, plan or theory. The only redeeming thing about this site and theory is that it’s not coming from some egotistical professor trying to blind us with his brainpower.

Maybe I should register my own .org and Creative Commons license my own theory. The TDavidicity Theory would be very short on content as I really only have one great theory on getting ahead in life and business:

Work hard, work smart, play hard, play smart.

If you want wealth, a new car or to meet a smart girl like studly George, you don’t need Flucidity, you need a good work ethic and love for doing something, anything. Sorry A. Sorel, Flucidity gave me a headache, but it isn’t a complete failure. Anything Creative Commons Licensed, even a pile of dog excrement doesn’t deserve complete failure. I’m sure this theory — and any theory — will work for somebody in the world and achieve great things and if so, that’s always a good thing. Go tear up the ladies sans those horn-rimmed specs, George. Grade: D-

• WALL-E is more clever than a spork
• PC Magazine: 10 resolutions for 2004 focus on anti-spam/scams
• Terry’s Tablet Tale Too
• Class of 2008
• iBooks for each student instead of textbooks
• High school open house tech revelation