Chapter 1 Test 2: Fill & Download for Free

Wonderful question!Throughout my entire career as a serial entrepreneur and writer, I have been fascinated with a question that correlates directly with becoming part of the 1%:Is there some unique way of thinking that gives self-made billionaire entrepreneurs an edge?I’ve read more billionaire entrepreneur biographies than I can count, researched what they have in common, and met and interviewed several.Without a doubt, luck plays a central role. But luck alone doesn’t explain the repeated success of entrepreneurs who create billion dollar company after billion dollar company or who have enduring multibillion dollar companies: entrepreneurs like Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk.By researching these entrepreneurs, I’ve found unique ways of thinking that aren’t commonly known among most entrepreneurs (even successful ones).The process of uncovering these principles has fundamentally changed how I think about business. Some have served as a reminder that it’s consistently doing simple things that matter most.Photo Credit: Steve Jennings/Getty Images For TechCrunch (Elizabeth Holmes), Michelle Andonian (Elon Musk), Joi Ito (Reid Hoffman), AP Photo-Nati Harnik (Charlie Munger), Steve Jurvetson (Jeff Bezos), World Economic Forum/Moritz Hager (Ray Dalio), Marcin Mycielski (Larry Page), Matthew Yohe (Steve Jobs), Stuart Isett/Fortune Most Powerful Women (Warren Buffett)For each entrepreneur I studied, I’ve uncovered a:Billionaire entrepreneur strategy. The overarching principle that has served as a foundation for the billionaire’s success. I focused on one specific, non-obvious strategy.Billionaire entrepreneur hack. How successful entrepreneurs are applying the strategies to grow their business.1. Charlie Munger (billionaire investor): Analyze what can go wrong instead of what can go right.Photo Credit: AP Photo-Nati HarnikBillionaire Entrepreneur Strategy:Until I read billionaire Charlie Munger’s Poor Charlie’s Almanack, I thought the key to success was creating a vision, setting goals, and working hard toward them every day.If I failed, I thought it was because I did one of these steps wrong.Charlie Munger, Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman and long-time Warren Buffett business partner, shows another equally important path to success; thinking through what can go wrong.Things constantly go wrong no matter how smart and hardworking you are.Realizing this, Munger continuously and methodically considers every way a plan could go wrong and plots out how to avoid each obstacle. He says:“Invert, always invert: Turn a situation or problem upside down. Look at it backward. What happens if all our plans go wrong? Where don’t we want to go, and how do you get there? Instead of looking for success, make a list of how to fail instead — through sloth, envy, resentment, self-pity, entitlement, all the mental habits of self-defeat. Avoid these qualities and you will succeed. Tell me where I’m going to die so I don’t go there.”Munger’s approach helps him avoid roadblocks and be more prepared when he inevitably runs into one. Furthermore, combining goal setting and obstacle avoidance is backed up by a growing body of over 100+ academic studies on the topic. When people only ‘fantasize’ about the future, they actually end up taking less action than they would if they also thought about what could go wrong and made plans to avoid it.Bottom line: Being both pessimistic and optimistic is better than just being optimistic. One of the best ways to win is not to lose.Billionaire Entrepreneur Hack:To apply this principle, test your plan with this three-step pre-mortem process developed by Meathead Movers CEO and cofounder, Aaron Steed:List the ways the project could failAssign a probability to each possibilityPrioritize actions that can be taken to avoid failureSteed created the process after noticing that certain projects at his 350-person company were getting poor results.Rather than adding new procedures to help those projects succeed, he developed the pre-mortem process to remove the barriers that were causing them to fail.One of the obstacles that Munger proactively avoids is psychological biases. As an additional resource, we compiled a 27 page report that summarizes the 22 psychological biases that Munger has identified throughout his 70-year career.2. Warren Buffett (billionaire investor): Use checklists to avoid stupid mistakes.Photo Credit: Stuart Isett/Fortune Most Powerful WomenBillionaire Entrepreneur Strategy:Generally speaking, there are two types of mistakes: those that are stupid and those that are ignorant.Ignorant mistakes happen when you don’t know better. Stupid mistakes happen when you do know better.Stupid mistakes are the hardest to stomach because they’re the easiest to solve. Yet people, especially smart people, make them over and over.Warren Buffett and his 40-year business partner, Charlie Munger, don’t attribute their success to raw intelligence or brilliant ideas. Instead, they attribute a large part of it to consistently avoiding stupid mistakes by religiously following basic tenets and ideas they know will work.Talking about his and Buffett’s strategy in his book, Munger states:“We try more to profit from always remembering the obvious than from grasping the esoteric.”To counteract the often negative influence emotions can have in investment decisions, Buffett and Munger use several checklists, including ones for investing, problem solving, and psychological biases.They claim that using these checklists have been crucial to their miraculous 21.6 percent return on investment for four decades, which is double the market average.More recently, checklists have been receiving well-deserved attention as a result of theChecklist Manifesto, written by Harvard Medical School professor of surgery, Atul Gawande.In a fascinating study by the World Health Organization, 8 hospitals who adopted a 19-point checklist saw deaths from surgery nearly cut in half!Billionaire Entrepreneur Hack:Blake Goodwine has used a decision-making checklist to build his Lionize Media Group into a network of niche media sites with tens of millions of monthly visitors.His problem-solving checklist, shown below, lays out the path to a successful business strategy, and counteracts any internal biases that impede him from reaching his desired destination:Brainstorm. Dream up as many possible solutions as you can. This helps you avoid availability bias, which often results in us choosing the first solution that comes to mind rather than the best solution.Test. Test as many potential solutions as you can afford to. This avoids the confirmation bias of rationalizing the one solution you chose.Evaluate. Have a minimum success criteria for each experiment. This allows you to avoid doubling down on bad ideas that aren’t working in an effort to recoup sunk costs.Learn. Dive deeply into the data and learn from EVERY experiment, not just the one that worked best. Avoid taking mistakes personally and feeling shame over something that did not work.Goodwine says:“Even if this checklist helps you make big decisions just slightly better, it will change the entire trajectory of your life and business. It has for me.”As an additional resource, we compiled some of the best expert advice on how to create actionable checklists into a step-by-step guide.3. Ray Dalio (billionaire investor): Learn how to think independently so you can be smarter than everyone else.Photo Credit: World Economic Forum/Moritz HagerBillionaire Entrepreneur Strategy:“You can’t make money agreeing with the consensus view,” asserts Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, the largest hedge fund in the world ($169+ billion under management).Doing what everyone else does is going to bring you average results. That’s the definition of average.To Dalio, the key to having enduring, extraordinary performance is to do what others won’t or can’t AND to be right.This is easier said than done. For example, 86% of professional investors do not beat the market. The numbers are sobering for entrepreneurship too: 30.9–37.6% of new businesses fail in the first three years.In a recent op-ed, Dalio explains why it’s so hard:“Whenever you’re betting against the consensus there’s a significant probability you’re going to be wrong, so you have to be humble.”The good news is that with enough practice, you can put the odds in your favor.Billionaire Entrepreneur Hack:Thinking independently is more than one simple hack. Broadly speaking, it requires:Courage to stand up against the herd when you’re right and everyone else is wrongAccess to or understanding of information that other people don’t haveUnique ways of analyzing that informationHere are ways to hone each of those abilities:Ability #1: Stand Up Against The HerdWe are wired to want to fit in socially. So, standing up against the herd is extremely hard.Fortunately, courage is a skill that can be practiced.Emerson Spartz, founder and CEO of Spartz Inc., a digital media company that owns a network of sites like Dose and OMG Facts (45+M monthly visitors), practices daily what he calls comfort zone challenges. Spartz says:“These are little things I do that cause me to feel uncomfortable and socially awkward, but have no real negative impact.”These challenges train him to be comfortable with being uncomfortable, so he has courage when he really needs it.His favorite challenge is the coffee cup challenge, which is simply asking for a 10 percent discount when you buy coffee.Ability #2: Develop An Information AdvantageOne of the easiest ways to beat the herd is to have an information advantage. Here are four ways to get that advantage:Build deep relationships with people who have accomplished the goals you want to accomplish. By building relationships based on mutual trust and respect, where others want you to succeed, people share information they never would publicly. For more on this strategy, read Reid Hoffman’s strategy (see #7).Learn from other fields and bring the insights into your own. Most people focus on learning about their own field, even though other fields have proven insights that are applicable. Being an expert-generalist (a term coined by Orit Gadiesh, the chairwoman of multibillion dollar consulting company,Bain & Company) and going wide into adjacent fields will quickly give you a unique perspective.Build a lab, not an experiment. Entrepreneurs who can conduct more experiments will discover more new data and therefore have a big advantage. These entrepreneurs look at their business as a lab where they constantly run experiments. Many entrepreneurs fail here because they look at their business as one big experiment to test just one idea.Be good at pulling out the wisdom of others. Many successful people are not able to articulate how they do what they do. They just do it. Asking the right questions can help bring to the surface this tacit knowledge. One way that famous technology investor, Peter Thiel, uncovers this knowledge is by asking the founders he backs what they strongly believe that no one else does.Ability #3: Develop An Analytical AdvantageThis is where many of the billionaire strategies mentioned in this article can be applied:Charlie Munger (see #1)Elon Musk (see #8)As an additional resource, we summarized Ray Dalio’s seminal ebook, Principles, and interviews he has done over the years into a step-by-step guide on how to develop your own independent opinions.4. Jeff Bezos (Amazon founder): Invest in what will NOT change instead of only what will changePhoto Credit: Steve JurvetsonBillionaire Entrepreneur Strategy:Judging by the media coverage of entrepreneurs, it’s easy to think that the #1 key to success is hopping on the biggest trends.Jeff Bezos shows that big trends are only part of the story. It’s also about doing the exact opposite and focusing on what does not change.Since its founding in 1994, Amazon has focused, like a laser, on the simple idea that people will always want to buy products as cheaply, easily and as quickly as possible. Therefore, Amazon can safely make huge technology investments in these areas and know they will pay off in the future.Bezos explained why this approach makes sense at the 2012 Amazon Web Services conference:“It’s impossible to imagine a future 10 years from now where a customer comes up and says, ‘Jeff I love Amazon; I just wish the prices were a little higher,’ or ‘I love Amazon; I just wish you’d deliver a little more slowly.’”The strategy seems to be working. Amazon just became the most valuable retailer in the world this year, and its growth is speeding up, while the growth of its main competitor, Walmart, is slowing down.Bottom line: Become the best in one core area by continually investing in it over time, rather than jumping from trend to trend and starting over each time.Billionaire Entrepreneur Hack:To apply this principle to your business, identify a core customer need that will likely stay the same (even as technology and culture evolve) to which your company is uniquely positioned to cater.Then build your company around it.This is what Ohio-based entrepreneur Jason Duff did.Realizing that nostalgia doesn’t get the attention it deserves, Duff built his whole real estate business around it. Nostalgia is the universal inclination to remember the past sentimentally in order to derive meaning from our lives.Duff applied this insight in his company by focusing on restoring historic downtown buildings rather than tearing them down and building modern structures.He used the following formula to create hundreds of jobs in his community and build several multimillion dollar businesses.Purchase overlooked historic properties at a large discountInvest heavily in repurposing and restoring themTell the story of what they meant (and could mean again) to the community through social media.In doing so, he has increased the value of the property, by tapping into the warm feelings held by the townspeople who remember coming to the building in their youth. His Facebook posts providing details on renovation projects regularly attract hundreds of likes.5. Elizabeth Holmes (31-year-old billionaire): Be laser focused on a single problem with no backup plan for your career.Photo Credit: Steve Jennings/Getty Images For TechCrunchBillionaire Entrepreneur Strategy:Elizabeth Holmes, the 31 year old founder of Theranos (valued at $9 billion) doesn’t believe in backup plans. Speaking to a group of students at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Holmes shared her philosophy:“I think that the minute that you have a backup plan, you’ve admitted that you’re not going to succeed.”Conventional thinking says you should diversify when it comes to your career, business, and strategies within your business. The rationale is that if one option fails, you’ll still have something to fall back on.The problem with this approach is that it takes precious time and resources away from your best option. As a result, you decrease the odds that either one will work.Holmes’s approach is to spend extra time determining what to focus on and then put all of her energy into that one thing. The same philosophy is used by Warren Buffett who only makes 2–3 investments per year.Another benefit of going all in on one career path is that you are building up your skills, network, and reputation in that field, so even if things don’t go as you had planned, you can still use your ‘career capital’ to pursue your next big idea.Finally, Katy Milkman, a professor at Wharton, has performed research that shows that backup plans come with another unexpected downside. She explains the downside in an episode of the Hidden Brain podcast:“Because you know that all your eggs aren’t in this one basket, you may feel more confident and comfortable relaxing and letting up and not pushing as hard toward your primary goal since you know things will be OK, you can always go with your back up plan.”Billionaire Entrepreneur Hack:By not having a backup plan, you can put all your energy into your primary plan.But, in order for this to work, you need to have put in the extra effort to make sure you’ve prioritized correctly.The “one thing” philosophy is a powerful approach that ensures you stay on track.The heart of this approach is taking extra time to prioritize, so you always have clear view of the one most important thing you can do for the day, for the week, for the month, and for the year to push your vision forward.This approach:Forces you to get a deeper understanding of what’s really importantIncreases the odds of completing that one thingRyan Simonetti, co-founder of Convene, which has 150+ employees, applies the “one thing” philosophy by waking up every morning and asking himself,“What is the one thing I need to do today to help my company accomplish its singular vision such that by doing it everything else would be easier or unnecessary?”In an Entrepreneur.com article, Simonetti shares,“When you compound this process over days, months and years, the impact is truly astounding. It is the 80/20 rule on steroids.”Professor Edward D. Hess has spent much of his career studying the outliers (both private and public companies) that achieved above average shareholder returns. What he shares in his book, Smart Growth, is that focus on a singular vision is one of the key themes of successful companies.6. Steve Jobs (Apple co-founder): Use storytelling to make your vision more compelling; not mission-speak.Photo Credit: Matthew YoheBillionaire Entrepreneur Strategy:Having a powerful vision is essential for all entrepreneurs, but if you are going to excel, your stakeholders need to buy into your vision.That’s where most people fail.For many, the vision ends up becoming a few lines of mission-speak on their corporate website.Yet, there are other leaders like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk who seem to have the superpower to distort reality.After listening to them, it feels like their vision of the world is inevitable and http://critical.It is easy to attribute this ability to charisma, but there is a case to be made that Jobs was just really good at storytelling, which is a learnable skill.According to academic studies on storytelling, great stories transport others into a whole other world and, in doing so, alter their beliefs, cause a loss of access to real-world facts, evoke emotions, and significantly reduce their ability to detect inaccuracies.Throughout history, visionary storytellers have changed the course of societies and industries:Billionaire Entrepreneur Hacks:1. Turn Your Vision Into A Detailed Story And Picture1–800-GOT-JUNK? founder and CEO Brian Scudamore captures his company’s vision through a document called the Painted Picture.In vivid detail, the document explains what Scudamore expects the company to be like in 3 to 5 years. This description includes both quantitative details (like the number of people the company will employ and how many locations it will have) and qualitative ones (like how employees will describe the culture to their families).The Painted Picture was paramount in 1–800-GOT-JUNK? growing its revenues to more than $100 million, Scudamore says. He recommends the following steps "retreat, visualize, and ask" to create your own:Retreat: First, grab a notebook and find a quiet space where you don’t have any distractions from your daily life.Visualize: Transplant yourself five years into the future. See yourself looking around at your life and your business. Imagine that you’re really in that place where the future HAS already happened. For example, if you have a five-year old child, imagine your child is now ten. Then, imagine yourself five years older.Ask: Once you’ve transported yourself to that place, ask yourself some questions that will help you “crystal ball” the future. Here are some key questions to ask yourself:- What is your top-line revenue?- How many people are on your team?- How would your people describe the culture of your company when talking to a family member?- What is the press saying about your business? Be as specific as possible: what would your local paper say about your company? What would your favorite magazine say?- What do your people love about your vision and where the company is headed?- How would a customer describe their experience with you? What would they say to their best friend?- What accomplishment are you most proud of? What accomplishment are your people most proud of?- What do you do better than anyone else on the planet?- Describe your office environment in detail.- Describe your service area. Who are your customers and how do they feel?As an additional resource, read Brian Scudamore’s article on the science-backed reasons that creating a vision is so powerful.2. Share Your Vision Often And EverywhereCameron Herold, author of Double Double, CEO coach and globally renowned speaker has helped tens of thousands of high growth entrepreneurs and leaders from 6 continents create a Vivid Vision for their organizations.One of the biggest mistakes that Herold sees leaders make is keeping their vision to themselves rather than sharing it with others.He recommends sharing your Vivid Vision as widely and as often as you can. This means sharing it with your team, family and friends, investors, media, customers, potential employees, and partners. He explains why:“When you’re a startup just getting traction, you can’t offer the salary and benefits that a world-class employee would normally get at a large company. You haven’t accomplished a lot that you can talk to the media about. So, what you’re always selling is the sizzle; not the steak. The sizzle is your vision!”A few ways and reasons that Herold recommends sharing your vision with different stakeholders include:Media Exposure. Herold recommends turning every conversation with the media into a conversation about the vision:“What makes a company like Uber get covered is not the fact that it’s a taxi service; it’s the story that Uber is completely changing the transportation industry. If companies like Uber only talked about what they did now, they’d be boring and they’d only get a fraction of the media coverage.”Employee Filtering. Herold says that the Vivid Vision should act like a magnet; it should attract those who are committed and repel those who aren’t. He shares one example of what one of his CEO clients told his employees after sharing the vivid vision with them for the first time, “15% of you hated what you heard. That’s alright. Now’s an ok time for you to leave. 5% of you loved it. Let’s build it. This is what we’re working toward.”Customer Relationships. Herold advises his clients to send out the vivid vision quarterly to their customers, “90% clients may not care, but even if just a few do, you’ll be able to take your relationship to a whole new level.”Employee Alignment. Herold says that sharing the vision internally leads to more clarity, less in-fighting, and less bureaucracy, because there isn’t confusion about what everyone is working toward. It’s crystal clear and not questionable. Herold recommends that every quarter, employees reread the vivid vision as a team and do a few things: (1) Highlight each sentence with green, yellow, and red depending on how it’s doing so everyone can visually see how the vision is coming alive. (2) Share how they individually can make each sentence of the vivid vision come true. (3) Circle sentences that really excite them and read those sentences out loud.Executive / Board Alignment. In a Forbes interview, Herold recommends having one executive read all or part of the vivid vision at the beginning of your meetings meetings with executive and board members.As an additional resource, go here to download Cameron’s free book chapter on how to create a Vivid Vision.7. Reid Hoffman (LinkedIn founder): Build deep, long-term relationships that give you insider knowledge.Photo Credit: Joi ItoBillionaire Entrepreneur Strategy:If you reverse engineer the relationships of many successful entrepreneurs, as I have, you will realize that many people work with the same people over and over in their careers.In the technology world, this phenomenon has been cataloged extensively (see the mafias of Oracle, Netscape, Fairchild, PayPal, andMyspace). Each of these companies have spawned new multi-billion dollar enterprises as a result of former employees starting new companies together, advising each other, investing in each other, and much more.These long-term, collaborative networks are often referred to as mafias. Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and part of the PayPal mafia, has put these types of relationships at the centre of his career and makes a case that others should too. In the information age, one of the best ways to get information is not from just being better at searching Google, it’s from learning how to build a network and get the information you need through that network, Hoffman says.In a fascinating interview on This Week In Startups, Hoffman goes so far as to say that the biggest mistake in his career was deciding that in order to be a product manager he needed to learn product management skills. In retrospect, he would have focused on placing himself in the right network by working at one of the fastest growing, futuristic companies at that time: Netscape.Hoffman refers to the information that only exists in people’s heads as the ‘dark net.’ This includes information that is not searchable online, in any book, or in any classroom and never will be.Getting access to this ‘dark net’ information from people who have accomplished what you want to accomplish is extremely valuable and will help you think independently. The ‘dark net’ includes people’s lessons learned and hacks, topics that are too sensitive to talk about because they make someone look bad, and tacit knowledge (knowledge that people have but aren’t able to articulate).Hoffman explains the power of the ‘dark net’:“Ten extremely informed individuals who are happy to share what they know with you when you engage them can tell you a lot more than a thousand people you only know in the most superficial way.”Billionaire Entrepreneur Hack:Deep long-term relationships don’t happen by chance. Just as divorce rates are high, so too are partnerships that go sour.Two keys on building long-term relationships that I’ve learned from researching and writing on the art and science of building deep and authentic relationships for Forbes include:Key #1: Be extremely picky about whom you spend a lot of time around.Our time is limited. Every minute you spend with one person is a minute you’re NOT spending with someone else. Below are characteristics other relationship builders and I use for filtering our professional network:1. Professional network. Qualities that I look for:They value relationships over pure achievement and are willing and able to invest in the relationshipThey are giversThey are open to being vulnerable and to sharing their true experiencesI genuinely enjoy spending time with themThey are constantly growing and learningThey share similar values2. Close business relationships. Rohit Anabheri, founder of the firm Circa Ventures($10M+ revenue), has built multiple multimillion dollar companies before he turned 30. He has built each business through business partnerships by using the following rules:Have a mutual, enduring commitment to the relationship so you can get through tough timesComplement each other in multiple ways; strengths and weaknesses, visionary and execution, and styleHave clear, mutually-agreed-upon rolesKey #2: Invest the time.No matter how successful you are, building deep relationships still takes a lot of time. So, it’s critical to turn relationship building into a habit.8. Elon Musk (SpaceX and Tesla co-founder): Use decision trees to make better decisions.Photo Credit: Michelle AndonianBillionaire Entrepreneur Strategy:Many thought that Elon Musk was crazy when he plowed all of his PayPal earnings into SpaceX and Tesla. However, there was a proven logic behind Musk’s decisions. Musk, like Warren Buffett, uses decision trees to make big decisions.Decision trees are particularly useful for avoiding stupid risks and big bets that aren’t likely to succeed.Making unlikely big bets:In an interview with tech entrepreneur Kevin Rose, Musk admits that he thought the most likely outcome for both SpaceX and Tesla was failure. However, they were both so important to the future of humanity and had so much potential that he felt the risk was worth it.Probabilistically, it makes sense. Here’s why.Financially, if Musk thought that SpaceX could be a $100 billion company and that the chance of success was 30 percent, the expected return statistically using a decision tree is $30 billion. Not bad!Musk could have easily focused on a company with a $1 billion potential and a 80 percent chance of success. But, in this case, the expected return would only be $800 million.Avoiding “Russian roulette” risks:If there is even a tiny chance that doing something could destroy you, it’s a very bad idea.In a talk, Warren Buffett compares these types of situations to Russian roulette:“If you hand me a gun with a million chambers in it, and there’s a bullet in one chamber, and you said, ‘Put it up to your temple. How much do you want to be paid to pull it once?’ I’m not going to pull it. You can name any sum you want, but it doesn’t do anything for me.”Smart people fall for this mistake all the time. In the same talk, Buffett shares the story of the collapse of the multibillion-dollar hedge fund Long-Term Capital.The leadership team included the smartest people in the industry along with Nobel laureates. Yet they played Russian roulette. For every dollar of their money they invested, they borrowed $25. This made them extremely susceptible to a downturn in the market, even a small one. This happened in 1998 and the firm went under in just a few months.Buffett’s point was that all of the company leaders were already extremely wealthy and had spent decades building reputations. So, the incremental benefit of growing richer was small compared with the risk of losing everything, which they ultimately did.Billionaire Entrepreneur Hack:Utilizing a decision tree does not require a PhD. All that’s needed is a basic understanding of probability. Here’s a step-by-step process you can follow to use the principles in your decision making:Understand the different outcomes that could happen (both positive and negative)Calculate the expected return or loss of each outcome:Attach a probability to each outcomeUnderstanding the magnitude of the return or lossMultiple the probability by the magnitude (probability of winning * value of win) — (probability of losing * cost of the loss)Add up and subtract all of the expected returns and lossesTo get started you don’t need to know the exact probabilities. Just following the process will give you unique insights you wouldn’t have had otherwise (i.e., the power of unlikely big bets and the risk of Russian roulette decisions).For a step-by-step guide on how to create decision trees, visit this page. It is an online companion to an economics textbook.—Special thanks to Rachel Zohn, Sheena Lindahl, Emily Shapiro, Austin Epperson, and Ian Chew who volunteered their time to edit this article and do research.Also thank you to Jessica Newfield, Antonia Donato, Amber Tucker, andEduardo Litonjua for reviewing the article and providing insightful feedback.Disclosure: Some of the contributors featured in this article are members of Seminal, a selective council that distills research-backed, actionable insights from world-class entrepreneurs and leaders.

Quantum computation depends entirely on three critical “features” of the quantum world: quantum state superposition; constructive and destructive interference of this state superposition; entanglement. The qubit is a mathematical representation of quantum state superposition and I shall demonstrate that it has no physical manifestation (representation). My demonstration is composed of a logical scientific argument augmented by recent empirical data which takes the following form:What is Quantum Superposition?What is Quantum State Superposition?Atomic StructureQuantum StatesWhat is the mechanism?What is a Qubit?Constructive and Destructive InterferenceThe Double Slit ExperimentThe Correspondence PrincipleAlternative ExplanationsEmpirical DataExtraordinary ClaimsDouble-Standard FallacyThe history and theory informing this argument is largely drawn from Ken Ford’s Classical and Modern Physics, Volume 3 [KF].In 1900, Max Planck collected data on how energy is distributed among distinct frequencies of electromagnetic radiation confined to a hollow cavity and found that he could account for the data by postulating that energy is exchanged between the radiation and matter in the cavity walls in discrete units:[math]E = h\nu[/math], where [math]E[/math] is the quantum unit of energy, [math]\nu[/math] is wave frequency, and [math]h[/math] is the constant of proportion experimentally determined by Planck.In 1905, Albert Einstein used this relation to explain several phenomena such as the ionization of atoms, fluorescence, and the photoelectric effect. But the main motivation for the development of Quantum Theory was the desire to understand atomic structure, a subject for which there was considerable data but very little theory.The data demonstrated that matter often emits electromagnetic radiation in discrete wavelengths, called line spectra due to spectroscopy, the systematic study of the radiation emitted. Prior to Niels Bohr’s work in 1913, several regularities in the data were recognized and two “laws” generating spectral series were known:The Balmer Series: [math]\nu/c = 1/\lambda = \Re_H(1/{2^2} [/math][math]-[/math][math] 1/{m^2})[/math], [math]m[/math] an integer greater than [math]2[/math][math][/math]; and, its generalization,The Paschen Series: [math]1/\lambda = \Re_H(1/{n^2} [/math][math]-[/math][math] 1/{m^2})[/math], [math]m[/math] and [math]n[/math] integers with [math]m > n[/math].[math]\Re_H = 1.096776 \times 10^7 m^{- [/math][math]1[/math][math]}[/math] is an exceedingly accurate constant called the Rydberg constant and Bohr’s use of his Correspondence Principle, the idea that Quantum Mechanics must have a “classical limit,” i. e. agree with the continuous description of Classical Mechanics, to “explain” the Rydberg constant in terms of electron mass, electron charge, Planck’s constant, and the speed of light resulted in the rapid acceptance of his model (remember this, it’s important later). Bohr used Planck’s relation, [math]E = h\nu[/math], to develop a model of atomic structure which could account for the Balmer series and the Paschen series and which predicted the soon to be discovered Lyman series. The basic idea was, these spectral series describe transitions orbiting electrons make between allowed energy levels, called stationary states. Multiplying both sides of the Paschen series by Planck’s constant yields:[math]h\nu = hc\Re_H(1/{n^2} [/math][math]-[/math][math] 1/{m^2})[/math],which Bohr assumed to be the value of the energy difference between states (orbits). When transitioning between states, the electron emits a photon and these photons produce the line spectra. These stationary states are approximated by Bohr orbitals with radius, [math]r = a_0n^2[/math], where [math]a_0 = (4π\epsilon_0\hbar^2)/(me^2)[/math] is the Bohr radius (assuming circular orbitals for simplicity). These integers, [math]n[/math], are called the principle quantum number and they correspond to the energy values of the stationary states or orbits, [math]E_n = hc\Re_H/n^2[/math]. With this simplification, Bohr also realized a key relation, peripheral at the time, for angular momentum, [math]L = n\hbar[/math].These energy levels, [math]E_n[/math], from immediately above, with a simple change of sign, become binding energies, the energy levels at which the electron is “bound” to the atomic nucleus; [math]n = [/math][math]1[/math][math][/math] is the ground state, [math]n = [/math][math]2[/math][math][/math] the first excited state, [math]n = 3[/math] the second excited state and so on. While Bohr’s model was certainly a significant step forward in this regard, it failed to explain “why” these energy levels obtained; this is where quantum superposition comes in, sort of.From Classical Mechanics we have the energy-momentum relation for a massless particle (a photon say), [math]E = \rho c[/math], and the wavelength-frequency relationship of electromagnetic radiation, [math]\lambda\nu = c[/math]; together with Planck’s quantum of energy relation, [math]E = h\nu[/math], this yields a momentum-wavelength relation for massless particles (a photon say), [math]\lambda = h/\rho[/math]. In 1924, Louis de Broglie postulated that any particle, massless or otherwise, with momentum [math]\rho[/math] has associated with it a “pilot wave” with wavelength defined by this relationship; in 1925, de Broglie’s postulate was confirmed experimentally, although quite by accident, by Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer with a scattering experiment.Brief Aside: It just now occurred to me, while writing this, that this is a straight-forward and simple mathematical derivation of Bohr’s model! In transitioning between stationary states the electron emit photons, hence, [math]\Delta E = \rho c [/math], from immediately above. But then [math]\rho = h/\lambda[/math], hence, [math]\Delta E = hc(1/\lambda)[/math]. From the Paschen series we have, [math]1/\lambda = \Re_H(1/{n^2} [/math][math]-[/math][math] 1/{m^2})[/math], hence, [math]\Delta E = hc\Re_H(1/{n^2} [/math][math]-[/math][math] 1/{m^2})[/math], Bohr’s energy difference between states! I like this derivation much, much better than the textbook treatment, which follows Bohr’s actual historical trajectory. I think Bohr was maybe lacking a bit in creative intelligence, compared to, say, Einstein or de Broglie. Anyway . . .With his postulate, de Broglie could explain stationary states as those Bohr orbitals whose radius enables the “pilot wave” to constructively reinforce itself and this is the primary manifestation of quantum superposition. Assuming, for simplicity, circular orbits, the condition for constructive reinforcement is, [math]n\lambda = [/math][math]2[/math][math] \pi r[/math]. If the circumference is not an integer multiple of the wavelength, then when the wave closes back upon itself it is out of phase with itself and becomes exceedingly so as the number of revolutions increase. Being out of phase with itself (a cosine curve is simply a sine curve shifted 90 degrees in phase) the wave destructively interferes with itself to the point of annihilation. When the constructive reinforcement condition is met, the wave self-maintains as a standing wave. The following provided further support for de Broglie’s postulate. Since [math]\rho = mv[/math] and [math]\lambda = h/\rho[/math], [math]2[/math][math] \pi r = nh/mv[/math]. Algebraic manipulation transforms this to [math]2[/math][math] \pi mvr = nh[/math] and, since[math] L = mvr[/math] we have, [math]L = n\hbar[/math], Bohr’s relation for angular momentum.The key point here is: waves superpose; matter particles do not! When the wave length is precisely defined, as in the case of atomic orbital shells, there is, in effect, no superposition. Why? Because truly superposed waves are composed of many waves, each with a distinct wavelength and this results, through constructive and destructive interference, in a wave with no precisely defined wavelength. In the case of orbital shells, the same wave is simply closing on itself and constructively reinforcing itself, hence, there is no “superposition” of waves of differing wavelengths, hence, differing momenta. Pictorially:No superpostion:Superposed:This is the source of the Uncertainty Principle, [math]\Delta x \Delta \rho \geq \hbar/2[/math], where [math]\Delta x[/math] is the uncertainty of position (the rms deviation of the position vector from its mean value) and [math]\Delta \rho[/math] is the uncertainty of momentum. When you superpose enough waves of distinct wavelengths, you “localize” the wave and confine the particle; [math]\Delta \rho[/math] increases because you have many momenta superposed (remember the [math]\lambda = h/\rho[/math] relation), and [math]\Delta x[/math] decreases because you have “localized” the wave. On the atomic scale, [math]\Delta x \Delta \rho \approx \hbar[/math]. The qubit folks insist, due entirely to mathematical considerations, that the electron is “smeared out” over the entire volume of the orbital shell, and this is an example of quantum state superposition. But there is a huge and illogical leap from uncertainty of position to superposition of positions and this leap is neither well-motivated, logically, nor empirically supported; in fact, it has recently been empirically refuted! Essentially, what the qubit people have done, due entirely to continuous mathematics, is revert the quantum back to the continuous! More on this later.What is Quantum State Superposition?Above I discussed the principle quantum number [math]n[/math] which designates the energy levels the orbiting electron is confined to. This number also determines the acceptable wavelengths, hence, it constrains position and momentum, two state variables, and is, thus, a quantum state indicator. Eventually it was found that three other such numbers were needed to describe the state of an electron “bound” to an atomic nucleus: [math]l \in [0, [/math][math]1[/math][math], …, n [/math][math]-[/math][math] [/math][math]1[/math][math]][/math] to designate the orbital-angular-momentum; [math]m_l \in [-l, -l + [/math][math]1[/math][math], …, l][/math] to designate the orbital-orientation; [math]m_s = \pm 1/2[/math] to designate the spin-orientation. These are the quantum states which describe and explain atomic structure. This is what Pauli’s Exclusion Principle refers to: no two electrons “bound” to the same atomic nucleus can have the same four quantum numbers. It is these quantum states which are assumed, by the qubit folks, to be in superposition - an indefinite mishmash of states, until wavefunction collapse or system decoherence. But just as with position above, there is no mechanism for it!What is a Qubit?This is a toy example pretty much copied verbatim from [KF]. This situation does not physically exist, but it isolates the conceptual structure of the qubit rather nicely.Suppose we have a single particle in a box, bouncing back and forth between parallel impenetrable and perfectly elastic walls with a distance, [math]d[/math], between them. The momentum at both walls must be zero and this constrains the momentum, hence, the “pilot wave” is not superposed, i.e. it is a perfect sine wave. If a sine wave is to be zero at both walls, an integral number of half wavelengths must be contained within the walls, [math]n\lambda/2 = d[/math], and this is equivalent to the condition for reinforcement, [math]nλ = 2d[/math].Since [math]λ = h/p[/math], [math]p = hn/2d[/math] describes the allowed magnitudes of momentum - determined by the variables [math]n[/math] (quantum number) and [math]d[/math] (distance between walls). This means that momentum is precisely defined, hence, the wave function, as a function of position only, is (since wavelength is only precisely defined for a perfect sine or cosine wave):[math]\psi = A sin (2πx/λ)[/math], where [math]A[/math] is a constant and [math]x[/math] position.Visually we have, provided [math]A = [/math][math]1[/math][math][/math], which it need not ([math]n[/math] greater than [math]2[/math][math][/math] simply increases the number of wavelengths):This satisfies the two boundary conditions, those being that particle momentum is zero at the two walls. Let [math]x = 0[/math] be one wall and [math]x = d[/math] the other, then:[math]\psi(0) = A sin 0 = 0[/math]; and,[math] [/math][math]\psi(d) = A sin 2πd/d = A sin 2π = 0[/math], since, by our quantization condition, [math]2λ = 2d[/math] or [math]λ = d[/math] (we could use any quantum number [math]n[/math] but [math]n = [/math][math]2[/math][math][/math] is the simpliest analog to the qubit) .Okay, now, here’s where the stink starts to arise!?!The associated probability distribution for this is:[math]P \sim A^2 sin^2 (2πx/d)[/math].Visually we have (if [math]A = [/math][math]1[/math][math][/math], which it need not):Insert [math]x = d/2[/math] and we have:[math]P \sim A^2 sin^2 π = 0[/math].So the probability of finding the particle at the midway point between the two walls is zero, but yet experimentally it (the particle) is consistently found on one side or the other. From this, and this alone, the baffling and illogical conclusion is drawn that the particle MUST exist on both sides at once until some mysterious and elusive cause, called “measurement” (this is not defined), localizes it to one side or the other. Not only that, it must be “smeared out” over the volume composed of the two sides. The [math]sin^2[/math] image above, normalized so that the area under the curve is equal to one, is simply a graphical image of the so-called Bloch sphere; this is the qubit for this simple example.Okay now, here’s the key point. The qubit supposedly exists in this “smeared out” state until it is “measured” at which point it “collapses” or “decoheres” to a definite state. Prior to this decoherence/collapse no information about the system the qubit is referring to is available! I made this bold because it’s very, very important for what follows.Constructive and Destructive Interference“Einstein suggested that the wave aspect of light resulted from the average behavior of a large number of photons. Although this is correct, we now know that even a single photon has wave properties. Its wave aspect is demonstrated experimentally by illuminating a double slit with a light source so weak that only one photon at a time reaches the slits.”Ken Ford, [KF], Chapter 23, page 1128.This same experiment, with comparable results, has been conducted with beams of electrons (and even molecules) and this is the most often cited “evidence” for quantum state superposition, the idea that matter (electrons, atoms, and molecules) exists as an actual wave, “smeared out” over a volume of space, until the wave “collapses” or “decoheres” (read the SciAm article). The idea here is that, even when the classical intensity (number of particles per unit volume) of the beam is lowered to the point that only one electron/molecule at a time reaches the slits, over a long enough duration we still “see” the oscillatory behavior in electron/molecule detection assumed to be the result of constructive and destructive interference. Okay, but let’s talk about Bohr’s Correspondence Principle.Bohr used this principle to incredible effect; it was precisely this which led to his representation of the Rydberg constant in terms of four fundamental constants. From [KF], Chapter 23, page 1147:“Classically, an electron far from the nucleus radiates continuously at a frequency equal to its own frequency of revolution about the nucleus. It spirals inward, radiating at ever-higher frequencies. Quantum-mechanically, the electron moves in one stationary state, then jumps to a lower state, then to a still lower state, and so on, cascading toward the nucleus while emitting a series of photons that contribute to discrete spectral lines. According to the correspondence principle, these two seemingly very different descriptions of the atom should merge into one when the stationary states are close together in energy and when the successively emitted photons are close together in frequency. The granularity of the quantum description then gives way to the continuity of the classical description.”Clearly a well-motivated principle, but how ironic! The double-slit experiment is a classical experiment in which, under the qubit interpretation, the granularity of the classical description gives way to the continuity of the quantum description! Of course this is quite convenient in that it, together with entanglement, enables massive parallel processing with little of no energy cost; the big question though is, does it actually exist outside the Platonic realm, the realm of human imagination!?!Under William Tiller’s interpretation, photons and electrons (and molecules) remain photons and electrons (and molecules) in the classical sense, there is no quantum state superposition. It is instead the frequency or wave pattern associated with the geometric double slit itself which guides the particles, photons, electrons, or molecules, in a probabilistic fashion, to their detection site. These associated frequency patterns, ascertained via Fourier transformation, very closely resemble the oscillatory patterns realized in the actual experiment and there is no conceptual transition from classical granularity to quantum continuity necessary! Pictorially:For a discussion of this, see Tiller’s paper, Tools for Understanding Both the Coarse and the Fine Levels of Physical Reality on Our Spiritual Journey Home, pages 12 thru 20.Empirical DataWhat does the empirical data say? It supports the Tiller interpretation at the cost of the qubit interpretation, these being mutually exclusive.There exist Pre-stimulus experiments, which date back to the 1970s, which demonstrate that the human heart and brain become “aware” of an emotionally stimulating event 4.5 to 18 seconds prior to that event happening. Two separate meta-analyses with regards to these experiments have been published in main-stream peer-reviewed journals: Frontiers in Psychology in 2012 and SSRN (a high-end neurosci journal) in 2018. Now you tell me, if a quantum system is in a superposition of STATES prior to some mysterious and undefined “collapse” or “decoherence” phenomenon, a phenomenon which takes an INDEFINITE event and makes it DEFINITE, then how does the human heart and brain have meaningful information about that event up to 18 seconds prior!?! Here’s a few of the Pre-stimulus experiments together with the two meta-analyses:Intuition Part 1;Intuition Part 2;Meta-analysis;Response to critique;Roulette Paradigm;Meta-analysis Update.And here is an additional experiment which utilizes an actual Quantum Random Event Generator, as opposed to the Psuedorandom Number Generator used in Parts 1 and 2 above and the True Random Number Generator used in the Roulette Paradigm above:Prediction of truly random future events using analysis of prestimulus electroencephalographic data,which was published in the American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings Journal, Quantum Retrocausation III.Let me just quote a bit from that paper:“Experimental work on physiological retrocausality appears to be obtaining positive results (1). To better understand the nature of physiological retrocausality, we are conducting an experiment on electrocortical evoked potentials using EEG. If the human brain responds to truly random stimuli which occur in the future of a measurement, it could be considered evidence of a retrocausal effect. Because the stimuli are selected using a quantum process, according to standard quantum mechanics no information about the upcoming stimulus should exist prior to the time of wavefunction collapse.Previous experiments have detected pre-stimulus effects via EEG potential measurements preceding random stimuli (2, 3). To expand on this work we are conducting an experiment measuring electrocortical evoked potentials in the general population using non-selected subjects. Subjects are recruited online with the conditions that they be over 18 years of age and free of neurological disorders. They are told this experiment’s purpose is to measure the brain’s reaction to light and sound stimuli in order to help create a predictive system. As of this paper, 8 subjects out of a planned 50 have been tested. This experiment is designed to establish a baseline measurement in preparation for further experiments measuring pre-stimulus evoked potentials prior to truly random stimuli in both selected populations such as meditators (3) and which use neurofeedback (4). Furthermore, real-time analysis of EEG data may allow quantum events to be predicted in advance, which would affect interpretations of quantum mechanics and our notions of causality.[F]or all regions analyzed, it appeared that mean potential for light stimuli increased over baseline while potential for sound stimuli decrease against baseline beginning at approximately t = -2 seconds relative to stimulus onset with the exception of central region sound epochs. However, statistical strength of the measurements is weak as only 8 subjects out of 50 planned have been tested. It remains to be seen whether the general pattern will hold up after the full data set is collected.” (emphasis mine)Okay, they say statistical strength is weak here but this work was meant to be preliminary, the first eight samples of an intended fifty samples; take into consideration all of the above Pre-stimulus experiments and it’s not so weak. As I pointed out in a few comments on Wes Hansen’s answer to How were the scientists at the Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering able to create and control qubits at room temperature? All current quantum computers spend a lot to cool qubits down to near 0K, there is a definite double-standard fallacy at work here!In Wes Hansen's answer to Is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" a logical fallacy? It fits the definition of special pleading., I use Philosophical logic - sentential logic, together with examples from the history of physics, to demonstrate that this is not a fallacious statement. But I then use further examples to demonstrate that it is often deployed in conformity with the double standard fallacy. This is exactly what is happening here!In, Scientific Qigong Exploration: The Wonders and Mysteries of Qi, Lu Zuyin, a nuclear physicist from China (by the way, this book is almost entirely composed of experiments), laments the fact that the very existence of these phenomena is unjustly denied by the scientific community largely due to small sample size; this is, of course, the impetus for meta-analyses. He points out, however, that Fermi Lab publicly announced the existence of the W boson with ONE sample and the existence of the Z boson with THREE samples, while CERN publicly announced the existence of the Higgs with FIVE samples. This is a total of NINE samples on THREE separate phenomena. The analysis I link to above includes EIGHT prliminary samples on ONE phenomena and is backed up by well more than 1500 samples from 48 different experiments using a variety of protocol, collected by a variety of researchers operating in a variety of places on this planet. Now you tell me!?! And the history of physics is full of such examples; it only took 29 samples to convince the community that the muon’s neutrino is distinct from the electron’s!Is quantum state superposition an extraordinary claim? You better believe it is! And there does not exist one single “bit” of unambiguous empirical data to support it. And I have strong reason to believe the other 48 samples using the quantum-random event generator have been conducted with positive results. Recently, those of us following the Tiller Institute’s newsletter, received the following:“For the last 6 months The Tiller Foundation has been in conversation about the continuation of Tillerian Physics with a number of U.S.A. Universities, and have narrowed our focus to one institution. While we are still in conversation, we are excited about the opportunity to create a Psychoenergetic Science course of study based on Dr Tiller’s 50+ years of rigorous research, with a possibility of an endowment to support not only a chair of Psychoenergetic Science but also to provide funding for up-and-coming Psychoenergetic Science researchers.”For a better understanding of the empirical support for the Tiller interpretation and of how it converges with the theoretical work of David Hestenes, see (best read in order):Wes Hansen's answer to Does your interpretation of Quantum Mechanics color your opinion of the theory behind Quantum Computing?Wes Hansen's answer to In the quantum realm, what exactly is the description of "spin"?Wes Hansen's answer to Do magnetic monopoles exist?

The best movie according to critics is Moonlight. It is then followed by La La Land and Manchester by the Sea for second and third.Topping out the top 6 are Hell or High Water, Arrival, and Toni Erdmann. The remaining top 10 are O.J.: Made in America, The Handmaiden, Jackie, Elle.[update: late September 2017]I completed watching the top 25 in September. So few of these movies received any distribution or notability. I felt that the top two movies by critics (Moonlight and La La Land) were good, but very Hollywood-y and not really to my taste — high quality, but not my favorites. My top movies are of 2017 are:Excellent (9/10)#1 Arrival (critics: #4)#2 I Am Not Your Negro (critics #25)#3 Manchester by the Sea (critics #3)Great (8/10)#4 Hell or High Water (critics #4)#5 Hunt For the Wilderpeople (critics #36)#6 Captain Fantastic (critics #40)#7 Moana (critics #48)I’ve really enjoyed watching the top 25 and encourage people to do it if they enjoy cinema.The full list of year’s movies are:1. Moonlight Effective #1.1 (IMDB)A young man deals with his dysfunctional home life and comes of age in Miami during the "War on Drugs" era. The story of his struggle to find himself is told across three defining chapters in his life as he experiences the ecstasy, pain, and beauty of falling in love while grappling with his own sexuality.My opinion: This movie has great supporting roles which were really the highlight of the movie. I found that the three different eras had such different feelings, issues, and vibes that it more felt like three short films rather than one coherent movie. You do get a three dimensional picture of the main character, but I personally didn’t find him that compelling — aloof and distant would be the words I would use to describe him. My rating 6/10.2. La La Land Effective #1.8 (IMDB)A jazz pianist falls for an aspiring actress in Los Angeles.My opinion: Except for the Academy, apparently, I’m the only person that didn’t adore this movie. I found it alright. I love the cinematography, particularly the use of color. I don’t get much out of the dancing and find that it takes away from my enjoyment of films (this is personal preference). I didn’t particularly like the characters and the story was pretty derivative. So this is expertly made, but not made for me. 5/10.3. Manchester by the Sea Effective #2.1 (IMDB)An uncle is forced to take care of his teenage nephew after the boy's father dies.My opinion: This movie is heart rending. The acting is spectacular. I have two main issues. The first is that Lee’s character doesn’t really take an arc. This makes the film see like its treading water. This is realisitic, but ultimately makes it seem unfulfilling at some level. It could have been a shot at the end showing some appreciation, or some level of catharsis. The second thing I didn’t love was the cinematography, which felt a bit cheap. Some of the shots were done with bad conditions. There was a lack of clarity in some of the shots and a general feeling that the film looked digital. Small quibbles, but it left me with a final score of 9/10.4. Arrival Effective: #4.4 (IMDB)Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when gigantic spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extraterrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.My opinion: This is one of the best science fiction movies of all time. It has unique takes on the characters involved with an alien encounter. The use of time is something that I haven’t seen in a movie before. 9/105. Hell or High Water Effective #5.4 (IMDB)Toby is a divorced father who's trying to make a better life for his son. His brother Tanner is an ex-convict with a short temper and a loose trigger finger. Together, they plan a series of heists against the bank that's about to foreclose on their family ranch. Standing in their way is Marcus, a Texas Ranger who's only weeks away from retirement. As the siblings plot their final robbery, they must also prepare for a showdown with a crafty lawman who's not ready to ride off into the sunset.My opinion: This is an effective movie a combination of heist, mystery, and western. This is one of the movies which is just simply well-made — beautifully shot, well-acted, well-writen. The only thing that could be better is that the film isn’t the most original. 8/106. Toni Erdmann Effective: #5.7 (IMDB)A practical joking father tries to reconnect with his hard working daughter by creating an outrageous alter ego and posing as her CEO's life coach.My opinion: I went into this movie with pretty low expectations. The sheer running time of 165 minutes is pretty off putting. It’s called a German comedy and I don’t know if I’d call it that. I actually found the movie to be a completely endearing story of a father and daughter who had grown apart. There is an honesty and reality to the film that was really refreshing. Additionally being set in one of my favorite cities I’ve visited (Bucharest) was nice. 7/10.7. The Handmaiden Effective #8.1 (IMDB)With help from an orphaned pickpocket (Kim Tae-ri), a Korean con man (Ha Jung-woo) devises an elaborate plot to seduce and bilk a Japanese woman (Kim Min-hee) out of her inheritance.My opinion: This is a brilliantly designed script with three different viewpoints on the same movie. The problem with the movie is that many scenes seem needlessly exploitative towards the women. They feel voyeristic with a male gaze on the moment. I also felt that the vengance scene seemed to come out of nowhere and was rushed. For this reason it’s a 7/10 rather than higher.8. O.J.: Made in America Effective #8.4 (IMDB)It is the defining cultural tale of modern America - a saga of race, celebrity, media, violence, and the criminal justice system. And two decades after its unforgettable climax, it continues to fascinate, polarize, and develop new chapters.Note: this is a 6-part TV miniseries that showed for two screenings to qualify it for movie awards. Lots of critics had it on their lists. I would have probably excluded it since it is primarily miniseries. On the other hand the 2003 Italian movie/minisreires Best of Youth would be in the similar category and it is one of my favorite films.My opinion: This is really a misclassified miniseries classified as a movie. It’s impossible to watch it in one sitting — almost 8 or 10 hours of intense and intellectual documentary film. This is made incredibly well. I’m fairly well-versed in the OJ-era, but I wasn’t well informed of the wider civil right era in LA and this documentary pulls it all into one incredible panoramic with amazing depth of field. I’m not going to rate it it as a movie and instead reserve it for Jay Wacker's answer to What are the best TV shows of 2016?9. Paterson Effective #8.7 (IMDB)Paterson (Adam Driver) is a hardworking bus driver in Paterson, N.J., who follows the same routine every day. He observes the city and listens to fragments of conversations while picking up and dropping off his passengers. Paterson also writes heartfelt poems in a notebook, walks his dog and drinks one beer in a bar after his shift is over. Waiting for him at home is Laura (Golshifteh Farahani), his beloved wife who champions his gift for writing.My opinion: this is a Jim Jarmusch film, so be expecting a minimalistic, idiosyncratic film that explores characters and emotions indirectly rather than direct exposition. So think Ghost Dog or Broken Flowers. This film doesn’t have the epic sound track of the other two, the sound and music editing is very deliberate and evocative, just not one that you’ll be buying the soundtrack for. The acting is great, getting a very good performance from Adam Driver and the supporting roles are awesome. Overall, it isn’t the strongest Jim Jarmusch film, enjoyable, but more difficult than most. I’d like to see it again, I started to see the poetry of the scenes and how it was playing off the explicit poetry, but I’m not sure if I fully “got it”. 6/10.10. Jackie Effective #9.2 (IMDB)After her husband's assassination, Jackie Kennedy's (Natalie Portman) world is completely shattered. Traumatized and reeling with grief, over the course of the next week she must confront the unimaginable: consoling their two young children, vacating the home she painstakingly restored, and planning her husband's funeral. Jackie quickly realizes that the next seven days will determine how history will define her husband's legacy - and how she herself will be remembered.My opinion: This was a very ambitious movie trying to paint a three dimensional woman working through grief. However, after watching the film, I feel like I know less about her than beforehand. How Jackie is played makes her come off as not a completely likable person. For instance, the games she’s playing with the reporter don’t have enough context. Honestly, I’m not sure that the assassination and the funeral of JFK is what I wanted to know most about Jackie Kennedy. It feels bordering on voyeurism to watch someone go through the grief. Her early life and even her later life is more interesting to me (and perhaps only me). I love Natalie Portman and her performance is complicated and subtle. But overall, it aimed for a very high bar and didn’t clear it. 6/10.11. Elle Effective #11.8 (IMDB)The successful CEO (Isabelle Huppert) of a video game company tries to learn the identity of the man who raped her.My opinion: I’m surprised by the universal acclaim for this movie. It is evocative and well-acted. However, the material and arc of the movie is dark and who Michèle is remains elusive to me. Maybe this is a cultural difference between France and the US, but if this was an American film, I would have said that it is written and experienced from the point of view of a man with fantasies about rape. I find it baffling that Michèle starts a relationship with the masked man who raped her. Maybe it’s lost in translation, but this and many more things about the construction of the story seem deeply wrong. 4/10 for being provocative.12. American Honey Effective #12.3 (IMDB)Star (Sasha Lane), an adolescent girl from a troubled home, runs away with a traveling sales crew that drives across the American Midwest selling subscriptions door-to-door. Finding her feet in this gang of teenagers, one of whom is Jake (Shia LaBeouf), she soon gets into the group's lifestyle of hard-partying nights, law-bending days and young love.My opinion: I’m not sure why this rated so highly. It is a kinda a coming of age movie/road trip. Except I didn’t see any development of the lead characters. Overall it feels episodic. The lead, Sasha Lane is magnetic, but the script does give her any place to go. I thought Riley Keough was really underused with a one dimensional mean-den-mother. It’s also about 50–60 minutes too long, but is beautifully shot with an alright soundtrack. 3/10.13. The Lobster Effective #13.2 (IMDB)In a dystopian society, single people must find a mate within 45 days or be transformed into an animal of their choice.My opinion: This is a brilliant absurdist premise and has really unique supporting characters that steal the show. The problem is that these supporting characters outshine the underplayed main character, played by Colin Farrell. 5/1014. 20th Century Women Effective #13.9 (IMDB)In 1979 Santa Barbara, Calif., Dorothea Fields is a determined single mother in her mid-50s who is raising her adolescent son, Jamie, at a moment brimming with cultural change and rebellion. Dorothea enlists the help of two younger women -- Abbie, a free-spirited punk artist living as a boarder in the Fields' home and Julie, a savvy and provocative teenage neighbor -- to help with Jamie's upbringing.My opinion: This movie has a reasonable premise and set of characters. However, the editing of the film is really distracting and overall the script is trying too hard to be too deep. The narration at some points breaks the fourth wall and is pretty distracting. I generally find narration distracting — basically it’s a failure where you have to tell rather than show. 4/10.15. Silence Effective #15.3 (IMDB)Two 17th-century Portuguese missionaries, Father Sebastian Rodrigues (Andrew Garfield) and Father Francisco Garupe (Adam Driver), embark on a perilous journey to Japan to find their missing mentor (Liam Neeson). While there, the two men minister to the Christian villagers who worship in secret. If caught by feudal lords or ruling samurai, they must renounce their faith or face a prolonged and agonizing death.My opinion: A lot of people hated this Martin Scorsese film, it’s very much in the vogue of Bringing Out the Dead. It is dark, psychological, perhaps more linear in its story telling than Bringing Out the Dead. It isn’t neat or clean. It’s setting is very interesting — I love historical Japanese movies a la Kurosawa. While this isn’t a Kurosawa film by any stretch, the period setting is very enjoyable and feels fairly authentic (though I haven’t independently studied this period). 6/10.16. The Witch Effective #19.3 (IMDB)In 1630 New England, panic and despair envelops a farmer (Ralph Ineson), his wife (Kate Dickie) and four of their children when youngest son Samuel suddenly vanishes. The family blames Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy), the oldest daughter who was watching the boy at the time of his disappearance. With suspicion and paranoia mounting, twin siblings Mercy (Ellie Grainger) and Jonas (Lucas Dawson) suspect Thomasin of witchcraft, testing the clan's faith, loyalty and love to one another.My opinion: This had rave reviews, however, I found it dour and overly serious. It’s dark and atmospheric, but the absence of a character to really identify with hurts the film. I felt that there were some leaps that were pretty hard to follow. 4/1017. Cameraperson Effective #20.3 (IMDB)Cinematographer Kirsten Johnson exposes her many years behind the camera through a memoir made up of decades of footage shot all over the world.My opinion: This movie is fairly interesting, it has outtakes/excerpts from 15+ films that Kirsten Johnson has been a cinematographer/DP on. They’re interwoven together to tell different stories over the course of this documentary. I wish that there was a bit more structure to the film, I felt I got to know her style and maybe her a little bit. But what I walked away with was some combination of the narratives of the original documentaries and some from the editing of this film and additional footage. I think she didn’t want to Werner Herzog all over the film, but that made it less clear what she was trying to say. 6/10.18. Sing Street Effective #21.7 (IMDB)In 1985, a Dublin teenager (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo) forms a rock 'n' roll band to win the heart of an aspiring model (Lucy Boynton).My opinion: This is John Carney’s third film about indie music in Ireland (the other two are Once and Begin Again). This one is set in 1980s Dublin in high school. The film is very John Hughes in Ireland. The best parts of the film are the desperate times in Ireland and terrible state of some schools. Overall, this movie didn’t feel fresh. 5/1019. Green Room Effective #22.1 (IMDB)Members (Anton Yelchin, Alia Shawkat) of a punk-rock band and a tough young woman (Imogen Poots) battle murderous white supremacists at a remote Oregon roadhouse.My opinion: This is a fun horror movie without any supernatural elements. It is tense and creepy. It has some of the genre-requisite gore. Patrick Stewart is great as a villain. 6/1020. Loving Effective #22.6 (IMDB)Interracial couple Richard and Mildred Loving fell in love and were married in 1958. They grew up in Central Point, a small town in Virginia that was more integrated than surrounding areas in the American South. Yet it was the state of Virginia, where they were making their home and starting a family, that first jailed and then banished them. Richard and Mildred relocated with their children to the inner city of Washington, D.C., but the family ultimately tries to find a way back to Virginia.My opinion: This film tells the back story of an important legal case in US history that decided that anti-interracial marriage laws were unconstitutional. That this decision took place in 1967 is shocking. However, this movie seems hamstrung by trying to be too true-to-life to the people involved. Richard Loving is a shell of a character — a stiff upper-lip, man-of-few words. There was no emotion in his character. The movie doesn’t tie the story into the larger issues of the day. A few times, there are some scenes of paranoia which add drama, but they occur really late. The Loving’s didn’t even seem that invested in the case (in the movie). Ruth Negga was great and Nick Kroll who plays one of the attorneys is a scene stealer. 5/10.21. Everybody Wants Some!! Effective #23.2 (IMDB)In 1980 Texas, a college freshman (Blake Jenner) meets his new baseball teammates (Will Brittain, Ryan Guzman), an unruly group of disco-dancing, skirt-chasing partyers.My opinion: This is a Richard Linklater film in the his more classic Slacker or Dazed and Confused style rather than the more dour Before, During, After Sunrise and/or Sunset series that I’ve grown a bit tired of. However, it still doesn’t feel as fresh as the films from 20–25 years ago. Also the early 1980s, while feeling very accurately recreated, the acting doesnt’ feel completely authentic. 6/1022. Zootopia Effective #26.5 (IMDB)From the largest elephant to the smallest shrew, the city of Zootopia is a mammal metropolis where various animals live and thrive. When Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) becomes the first rabbit to join the police force, she quickly learns how tough it is to enforce the law. Determined to prove herself, Judy jumps at the opportunity to solve a mysterious case. Unfortunately, that means working with Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman), a wily fox who makes her job even harder.My opinion: This was an enjoyable Disney film. It’s reasonably effective as it goes. I’ve watched now 10+ times with my daughter. A lot of the development of Judy (the rabbit) was lost and she comes off as merely plucky. This makes a big difference when she screws up the news conference and that whole scene just comes off as flat. 5/1023. I Am Not Your Negro Effective #28.3 (IMDB)In 1979, James Baldwin wrote a letter to his literary agent describing his next project, "Remember This House." The book was to be a revolutionary, personal account of the lives and assassinations of three of his close friends: Medgar Evers, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. At the time of Baldwin's death in 1987, he left behind only 30 completed pages of this manuscript. Filmmaker Raoul Peck envisions the book James Baldwin never finished.My opinion: After watching this documentary, I am ashamed that I was not familiar with James Baldwin. This documentary is challenging to watch because it forces everyone living in America to examine ourselves and our history. It’s even more amazing because this documentary is primarily composed of Samuel L Jackson reading an unfinished manuscript of James Baldwin and archive footage of James Baldwin. James Baldwin speaking 50 years ago asks questions of us that are as uncomfortable today as they were then. 9/10.24. Love & Friendship Effective #28.6 (IMDB)In the 18th century, the seductive and manipulative Lady Susan (Kate Beckinsale) uses devious tactics to win the heart of the eligible Reginald De Courcy (Xavier Samuel).My opinion: I am simply not a huge fan of British nobility 18th/19th century period pieces. I wasn’t a huge fan of Downton Abbey (which was mostly 20th century). Movies about social maneuverings of the elite just don’t connect with me particularly well. I’m also not particularly familiar with Jane Austen. So this particular movie was simply not made for me. A lot of the dialog and wit flew right over my head, if I watched it a second or third time, I’d probably catch a lot more. It is beautifully shot and well-acted. The witticisms I did catch were really funny. For me this is a 6/10, but for someone else, this could be significantly more rewarding.25. Deadpool Effective #29.3 (IMDB)Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) is a former Special Forces operative who now works as a mercenary. His world comes crashing down when evil scientist Ajax (Ed Skrein) tortures, disfigures and transforms him into Deadpool. The rogue experiment leaves Deadpool with accelerated healing powers and a twisted sense of humor. With help from mutant allies Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand), Deadpool uses his new skills to hunt down the man who nearly destroyed his life.My opinion: In terms of blockbuster this was pretty good, one of the best of the year, though I personally preferred Rogue One over Deadpool. I find Deadpool just a bit crass. The side-kick mutant were didn’t really work and were kinda add-ons. 6/10My complete list of films from 2016 that I’ve seen and made some lists or at least made some money:The Excellent (9/10)Arrival (#1)Manchester by the Sea (#2)I Am Not Your Negro (#3)The Great (8/10)Hell or High Water (#4)Captain Fantastic (#5)Hunt For the Wilderpeople (#6)Moana (#7)The Very Good (7/10)The Handmaiden (#8)Kubo and the Two Strings (#9)Eye in the Sky (#9)Hidden Figures (#9)Hacksaw RidgeToni ErdmannThe Good (6/10)Paterson10 Cloverfield LaneAnthropoidLionMoonlightAmanda KnoxGreen RoomEverybody Want Some!!DeadpoolJackieLove and FriendshipCamerapersonThe Average (5/10)ZootopiaFantastic Beasts and Where to Find ThemRogue OneCaptain America: Civil WarLa La LandThe LobsterSing StreetLovingThe Mediocre (4/10)Secret Life of PetsThe WitchWeinerThe FitsTrain to BusanDoctor StrangeMiss Sloane20th Century WomenElleThe Problematic (3/10)Suicide SquadThe Nice GuysStar Trek BeyondAmerican HoneyThe Bad (2/10)Hail CaesarJason BourneX-Men: ApocalypseBatman v. SupermanGhostbustersSingMiss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar ChildrenThe Girl on the TrainStorksNow You See Me 2The Terrible (1/10)Independence Day: ResurgenceThe AccountantJack Reacher: Never Go HomeAssassin’s CreedInfernoGods of EgyptZoolander 2Description of methodology:For the past few years, I’ve been compiling the critic’s top 10 lists since the box office top 10s aren’t really representative of the best movies of the year. In fact they are so divergent that there is almost no overlap. Metacritic does a great compilation and this year has 223 lists and I use it to create my list. Unless you’ve seen the movies, you can’t have much of an opinion of them and that takes a lot of time.So by compiling I can leverage the critics. In this compilation, I’m looking for consensus amongst critics rather than than simple counts of first place votes, so critics that suggest out-of-left-field movies at the top of their lists are down weighted. This gives a small amount of reshuffling down the middle of the list. Without this weighting, a single critic’s #1 spot can cause a movie to appear in the top 25. In this year’s list the most notable change is that Toni Erdmann dropped from #4 to #6.In addition to the rank, I give an effective rank, which is more of a sliding scale that allow movies to be nearly tied. You can also see big drops between adjacent rankings indicating that the critics thought that there was a gap in the quality of the films.