Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
What do you think of Power University's survey results?
See, for example, these numbers:
Further feedback from the people I hired was that these numbers look too high to be realistic which made them skeptical of the site and its course.
Also, since there was no information provided surrounding how TPM got those (high) numbers, it made them increasingly doubtful.
Once again, only if you have a few seconds to spare, I'd be happy to get your vote on this.
I noticed that even when I was the one voting, it's not a good way to show effectiveness of something.
And it feels like a manipulation of data, because the percents seem very exact, like "612%", it seems like some measurement, which would imply it was somehow empiracally tested, but everyone knows such thing as attractiveness and social status cannot be quantified in such a way.
For such high numbers with such exactness there needs to be hard data that would show that it indeed is accurate, like some graph or something, but this whole number came from subjective feeling of people that were part of this course, and such data should not be based on feelings.
And for a random person, they can easily just come to a conclusion that the data is simply made up, which is not even neutral value but negative value for the product.
So this whole section, in best case scenario is neutral, for those that won't pay it much mind, and negative for those that will be more critical.
Thank you for sharing, DGX37!
What you say corresponds with what I've heard a few people say already.
I don't want to sway the votes, but I mostly agree with you.
Hello Ali,
I agree: personally I would either put the data of being real accurate or a 7x-10x, maybe also with an interval.
Instead of writing our alumni, etc. I would put a sentence or 2 from a testimony for each box.
Pictograms are a good idea (first one is very good as status is difficult to put in picture) but I would invest in having higher quality small pictogram. Maybe not higher definition but more work put into it. For instance a heart for the second one. For the last one the knight on horse is good, maybe could be better (maybe!). I would keep the first one, improve the other 2 or at least second one. That is simpler.
Example: Status: 6-7x increase.
“Wow! After joining PU, people respect me more, like me more, invite me more. Joe Schmuck”.
As an alumnus, I’m happy to write 1 to 3 short sentences as testimony based on my real experience with my nickname (you guys might prefer real names but up to you).
My 2 cents.
Correction: Joe Winner. (Even made up names matter)
Thank you Ali, DGX37, John and anyone who voted.
It's great feedback.
Thank you Ali, DGX37, John and anyone who voted.
It's great feedback.
Another idea: the issue is that it’s not an accurate metrics. How does one measure leadership or status? No objective metrics so far to my knowledge.
So I think it might be important to say that it’s subjective measure or perceived measure. Something like that. It all depends. What I mean is that the high numbers must be explained somehow. For instance how many alumni were asked. You see where I’m going. To explain better the numbers. It makes it more objective (the critical thinking on the numbers) and therefore more believable.
It’s like my comment on TPM channel about dominance and warmth. Since the numbers are so high there is a lot of room to be critical from them without taking any value from them. And actually increase their value.
My perspective.
Absolutely.
The bottom-line number of most studies and surveys is a case of what I heard some psychologists define as "quantifauxcation".
Or a number/quantification that gives the appearance of accuracy, but it's more misleading than anything.
But it's not on that section to fix people's bias of fixating on bottom-line numbers, or of jumping to conclusions.
The original survey was number-based, and if you average it out, those numbers reflect that average.
It wasn't correct earlier to say "you gain X" because what was measured was a personal self-assessment of improvements.
But now that -thanks to you and the comments and votes here- it says "students say" with a link to the drill-drown, it's a lot more accurate.
Edit:
Now that I re-read, to be even more accurate, the description should be updated as well.
From "alumni become", to alumni feel X.
Still, I don't think it's a huge jump.
I trust PU alumni not to be stupid :). And if they think they're more X, chances are they are. Plus, how you feel (= confidence) also reflects in real-world improvements.
