Over at Mises.org (a site I have written a lot for, by the way), Ryan McMaken has made a good case that we are not facing another major housing bubble, even though in many ways, it feels like it did in 2007-2008 during the last run up.
​
"On the most superficial level, the current boom might remind some of the pre-2008 bubble. Housing prices are climbing fast, and in many areas, there are bidding wars for houses that are quite ordinary. 

"This time, though, things are different. This time, there isn't nearly as much housing being built was during the last bubble. There may be a bubble in prices this time, but there does not appear to be a bubble in construction. 

"A look at housing starts in recent years shows that in raw numbers, starts are still not even close to getting back to where they were during the last boom:"

He then produces this chart,

And further McMaken notes, "As both the Wall Street Journal and USA Today noticed last month, the amount of new housing construction taking place right now, as a proportion of existing households, is at historic lows."

Yes, housing will likely go down in price if we enter a general recession. But, with there still existing a national housing shortage, if real estate goes down, it will be following the economy not leading it. In all likelihood, prices will continue to rise for the time being.

So Judge Anthony Kennedy decided to retire at the ripe old age of 81 and good Lord have liberals lost their mind. This tweet is probably my favorite:

OK, but he's some nobody. But still, Kennedy was often seen as the swing vote on 5-4 decisions. So let's check in on the blue checkmarks of Twitter, shall we:

Well, he is 81 years old and Neil Gorsuch seems like a pretty reasonable fellow. But oh well. 

The articles are just as over the top by the way. This, obviously, is my favorite:

And much, much more.

Of course, the big issue the Left is worried about is abortion with gay marriage coming in a rather distant second. Abortion isn't one of my big issues, but I generally think it should be legal until the child is viable (around five months). In that respect, I like the British model. That being said, I dislike abortion pretty much all the time and while I know sometimes it's necessary (rape, health risks, etc.), I think it's best to usually try an avoid it.

But that being said, overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal. It would simply return the issue to the states. Furthermore, Roe v. Wade (like gay marriage I should add) legalized abortion in a completely anti-democratic fashion. Aren't liberals always telling us what "democracy looks like?" I guess not.

Indeed, overturning Roe v. Wade would actually put abortion up to the vote. And no, men are just about as likely as women to support or oppose abortion (and men don't exactly get to choose whether to pay child support if they don't want to bring a kid into the world). 

Furthermore, Roe v. Wade is an absolutely ridiculous ruling. The grounds for this ruling by the lower court was the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, which states the following,

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yeah um, no.

The Supreme Court ruled based on the 14th Amendment, but it doesn't really matter. There's nothing in the Constitution that even remotely relates to abortion. And thus, it should obviously be left to the states. Although I don't hear many liberals, or conservatives for that matter, say that.

That being said, liberal angst is definitely increasing. Apparently the 85-year old Ruth Bader Ginsberg has some on Left a bit nervous:

The following is a Graduate paper I wrote on the Basadur Creative Problem Solving Assessment and related it to Gallup's Strength Finder test. It's always important to understand how you think and what your preferred method of problem-solving is. Too often, we try to force ourselves into styles we don't excel at, which significantly reduces our productivity.

The Basadur Creativity Assessment is a creative problem solving inventory designed to interpret a person’s preferred method of problem solving. It is broken down into four components:

1. Experiencing: Gaining knowledge by Experiencing (Direct personal involvement)
2. Ideation: Using knowledge for Ideation (the generation of options without judgement)
3. Thinking: Gaining knowledge by Thinking (Detached abstract theorizing)
4. Evaluation: Using knowledge for Evaluation (The application of judgement of options)

An individual’s preferred method of problem solving is determined by scoring four words related to problem solving from 1-4 based on which trait best describes you (with 4 being the highest and 1 being the lowest). The test consisted of 18 such word sets, while we evaluated the results of 12 of those questions. Upon completion, we added up the total in each column to evaluate which type of problem solving technique best describes us. My results were as follows, with the average score listed in parenthesis:
​

1. Experiencing: 27 (2.25)
2. Ideation: 21 (1.75)
3. Thinking: 44 (3.67)
4. Evaluation: 28 (2.33)

As can be seen, my personal inventory leans very heavily toward the third category; Thinking. Of the 12 sets of four words, I selected a 4 for the Thinking category on nine of them and only one of them was less than 3. The Thinking word that I gave the lowest score to was “waiting,” which definitely can fit with someone who like to think. But in my case, I believe the low value I gave that word was primarily due to the fact that I do not like to “wait” to “think.”

Other words in the Thinking category I gave the highest ranking to included “Pondering,” “Responsible,” “Theoretical,” “Describing,” “Contemplating” and of course, “Thinking.”

For the other three categories, they were weighted pretty evenly with my average score ranging from 1.75 to 2.33. When charting this onto the circle graph Basadur provided (attached), it created a very elongated oval with one number stretching out much further than the others. From this, I would conclude that I lean heavily toward the Thinking approach to problem solving while relying on the other three techniques relatively evenly to buttress that approach.

This result fits in well with what I know about myself and have learned from other personality tests. For example, my results for the detailed Gallup Strengths Finder test are in harmony with my Basadur test. The Gallup Strengths Finder test gives a 30-minute series of “this or that” questions related to an individual’s preferences and compiles those results by listing 34 common attributes from strongest to weakest. My top five strengths were listed as follows:

1. Input
2. Competition
3. Intellection
4. Achiever
5. Context

Input, Intellection and Context all comport to a Thinking style of problem solving. Gallup defines the Input strength as follows,

“People who are especially talented in the Input theme have a craving to know more. Often they like to collect and archive all kinds of information.” 

Thinking requires something to think about, so it makes perfect sense that I would crave knowledge and information with which to aid my decision-making process. On the other hand, my lowest scores were for the following:

1. Communication
2. Empathy
3. Includer
4. Woo
5. Adaptability

All of these strengths (or in my case, weaknesses) are generally more collaborative and impulsive. In other words, they are not related to Thinking in a direct way.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Thinking

As with any other problem solving method, Thinking has its own strengths and weaknesses that someone who prefers this technique must be aware of in order to fully utilize its benefits while diminishing its downsides.

The greatest advantage to a Thinking method of problem solving is that it is thorough, careful and not impulsive. These are important advantages, as a paper by psychologist Nour-Mohammad Bakhshani, states that “impulsivity is characterized by unplanned risky behaviors, and making up one’s mind quickly.”
And furthermore that,

“From a behavioral perspective, impulsivity includes a wide variety of actions that, are immature, dangerous, inappropriate to the situation and done without consideration, which usually bring about negative consequences” 

Indeed, in the famous Stanford Marshmallow Experiment, it was found that kids who were able to delay gratification did far better in life. The experiment asked kids to sit in a room with a marshmallow for 15 minutes and not eat it. Those who held out would get two. Most failed, but some were able to delay gratification and wait for the second marshmallow. When the researchers followed up with these kids many years later, those who had held out for the second marshmallow had significantly better life outcomes. This was taken as evidence that the ability to defer gratification is a critical skill in life outcomes.

While using the Thinking method of problem solving probably only tangentially relates to the ability to defer gratification, it does show an enthusiasm for gathering information, thinking it through and making decisions gradually rather than impulsively. Impulsive decisions are often poorly thought out, miss key details, are overly risky and lead to poor outcomes.

That being said, there is also an inherent risk in such a problem solving process. The risk is what is often colloquially referred to as “paralysis by analysis.” The future is unknown and no course of action can ever be guaranteed of success. Furthermore, there will always be more contingencies that could be thought of or improvements to any plan that could be (or could have been) implemented up front.

At some point, a decision needs to be made and the process needs to be executed. Thinking about a problem too much can create an endless maze of possibilities that are difficult to rectify. It can also create a sense of paranoia that “I’m missing something” which can accentuate that fear and result in procrastination.

It should also be noted that simply thinking about a problem more is in itself a course of action. And it very well might not be the best course of action. Thinking about a problem too long could cause unnecessary delays that could wind up being costly or even ruining a project when a “good enough” solution would have sufficed.

Fortunately for myself, I have a fairly evenly distributed Basadur score on the other three problem solving approaches that I can use to buttress my Thinking style. However, it is critical for me to keep at the top of my mind that my preferred style of problem solving can lead to over-thinking, procrastination and unnecessary delays if I am not careful.

Utilizing timeframes and deadlines would likely diminish these negative effects. In addition, partnering with more action-oriented individuals on team projects would be helpful. Such collaborations would be beneficial as the action-oriented individual would push me ahead while I would hold back any overzealous or impulsive decisions from being implemented without having been thought through and researched appropriately.

Previous Grad Papers: 3D Printers

​With the recent spate of horrific “Incel” (Involuntary Celibates) terrorist attacks, some discussion has been pointed at the “distribution” of sex so to speak. Ross Douthat got lambasted for an article cheekily called the “The Redistribution of Sex” and Jordan Peterson got taken out to the woodshed for using the term “enforced monogamy.”
 
The idea behind both Douthat’s and Peterson’s point, of course, was not to “doll out women” as many of their critics would claim. (Of course, this would also require “dolling out men,” though many of Peterson’s critics are silent on this matter.) Indeed, Peterson used the wrong term, the correct one is “socially imposed monogamy.” The idea being that when monogamy breaks down (as it is in the West, with close to 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce and 40 percent of children being born out-of-wedlock), that a state of de facto polygamy emerges. Polygamous societies have repeatedly been shown to be more violent and why wouldn’t they be? In such societies, many men are locked out of finding a mate and the “winner-takes all” stakes leads to hyper competition and thus, violence.
 
The argument as to why a society becomes de facto polygamous when monogamy breaks down is partly because men, particularly elite men, want to “spread their seed” will do so if permitted. But it’s also partly because many women will focus most of their attention on the top males. It’s well known that men’s sexuality is rather shallow, but it’s also true, at least to a degree, that women “want the best.” Indeed, an OKCupid study found that women rated 80 percent of men as being “below average” in terms of attractiveness and another study found that adding a zero on the end of a man’s income increases his attractiveness by 2 points on a 1 to 10 scale. Another found that “better-educated women still prefer higher-earning husbands.”
 
I don’t feel the need to cite any studies regarding men’s general willingness to have sex with multiple women as I don’t think I’ll get much pushback there.

And while both these men’s arguments have been misconstrued (although, in fairness to Peterson’s critics, he stated his position horribly), they miss the even bigger problem in my judgement. Sex has become a societal obsession.

Everywhere you look, sex is being thrown in your face. In movies, TV, the media, through random clickbait articles, etc. Porn is piling up on the Internet while porn romance novels are falling off the shelves of the local book stores Amazon. In this media-created world of make-believe, impossibly beautiful, skin-clad women are having sex with impossibly handsome, farcically charming billionaires over and over and over again. Everything is about sex and everyone is having sex all the time.
 
As far back as 2001, studies were showing the amount of sexual content on TV was increasing, with “68 percent of television shows during the 1999-2000 season [containing] sexual content.” It’s only gotten worse since then as we all know that “sex sells.” And the Internet has certainly exacerbated this. Indeed, social media seems to be linked to increased sexual risk behaviors.
 
Then add in the Fear of Missing Out problem with social media. Scroll through your feed on Facebook and you’ll see friends getting married, going on exotic vacations, starting a new relationship, getting that great new job, etc. You only see the highlights though, which wildly distorts the average. You’re almost certainly not actually missing out, you’re Facebook feed is just gaslighting you.
 
The Incel “community” of angry, misogynistic men who hate “Chads and Stacy’s” for having what they believe they can never have is basically irredeemable and deserves nothing more than contempt and mockery. But regarding literal incels who don’t describe themselves as such, I would say empathy is called for.
 
It sucks to be rejected and feel unloved, unwanted and uncared for. And rarely do these guys get anything but additional scorn from their peers while having their masculinity called “toxic” by some of their teachers. If there is a male equivalent of “slut shaming,” it would definitely be “virgin shaming.” Men get shamed for not having enough sex while women get shamed for having too much. Which makes some evolutionary since “males display and females choose,” at least most the time. If men are bad at displaying, well, they’re losers. If women take virtually any suitor that comes their way, well, they’re losers.
 
But just because it makes “sense” doesn’t mean this mindset isn’t extremely pernicious.
 
And the sense of worthlessness that literal incels (not the online group) feel is compounded even more by the sex that’s dripping from every pore of American society. There is this weird sense that “everyone is getting laid all the time, except for me.” Thereby, “I’m the odd one out. I’m worthless and the world has rejected me.” Often this leads to depression and self-hate. It possibly underlies the male suicide epidemic that gets far too little attention. But if these feelings fester, especially when mixed with a noxious online “community,” it can lead to an externalization of that self-hatred.
 
“The world hates me, so I hate the world.”
 
“Women have rejected me, so I hate women.”
 
“Chads get all the girls, so I hate chads.”

And on and on it goes which can only lead to a life a hateful, self-inflicted misery at best and homicidal terrorism at worst.
 
And it’s all based on a demonstrably false premise.
 
In the real world―not the glitzy world of Hollywood dripping with beautiful women and handsome men having sex with each other like rabbits―the amount of sex in society is going down… a lot! According to a study that analyzes the General Social Survey, in 1995, the average American had sex about 65 times a year. In 2014, that was down to 53.
 
And high schoolers most certainly aren’t just getting it on. A study by Dr. Cora Breuner found that “only 42 percent of girls and 44 percent of boys aged 15 to 19 reported having sex at least once.” Another study by the Guttmacher Institute, found that the median age people lose their virginity is “17.8 years for women and 18.1 for men.”
 
The number of sex partners people have is also wildly exaggerated. The National Health Statistics Report notes that the median number of lifetime partners for those between the age of 15 and 44 was “for women is 3.2 and 5.1 for men.” Finally, another study has shown that “hookup culture” is basically a myth.
 
Sure, sex is fun and intimacy is important, but they are not the only things in life. Lots of things are fun; rollercoasters, getting drinks with friends, going on a vacation, playing basketball, playing music, whatever.
 
And while it sucks to feel unwanted, it’s not a permanent state of being. To all the incels (who don’t describe themselves as such) out there, give yourself a break! There is no avalanche of sex out there that you’re missing out on and even if there was, sex just isn’t that important, despite what the media wants you to believe.
 
There are plenty of people out there that feel alone and unloved and virtually everyone does at some point in their lives. You’re not alone in this feeling and it gets better with time. After all, the changes people go through during puberty make it the worst time to deal with such rejection, but puberty ends.
 
Focus instead on improving yourself. Focus on your grades, improving your skills and finding enjoyable hobbies. And try making friends, especially with those of your own gender where you don’t have to worry and sort of sexual tension nor exclusiveness. People can only have one boyfriend or girlfriend, but they can have many, many friends. Don’t waste your life being angry at what you don’t have. And for the love of God, get off the Internet and have some actual fun!
 
Focus on yourself and what you can control. With time, your confidence will grow and maybe then you’ll be ready for a relationship. Or maybe not. What does it matter? Sex is just not that important!

So as one might expect, the whole "crying migrant child" who was brutally torn away from her mother by the evil Trump regime that resulted in this Time Magazine cover...

...wasn't exactly all it was made up to be. From The Daily Mail,

"The father of the Honduran girl who became the face of the family separation crisis has revealed that he still has not been in touch with his wife or daughter but was happy to learn they are safe.
​
"Denis, who works as a captain at a port on the coast of Puerto Cortes, explained that things back home were fine but not great, and that his wife was seeking political asylum.

"He said that Sandra set out on the 1,800-mile journey with the baby girl on June 3, at 6am, and he has not heard from her since.
​
"'I never got the chance to say goodbye to my daughter and now all I can do is wait', he said, adding that he hopes they are either granted political asylum or are sent back home."

Not exactly Mother-of-the-Year material there. And then check out this correction from the aforementioned Time Magazine,

"Correction: The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she taken from the scene. The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together."

Kinda makes me feel like posting this:

And while the policy to separate children at the border is a bad one, it's not exactly obvious what to do about differently. Furthermore, it's not like these facilities are "concentration camps" and "literally Hitler" or whatever. From the National Review,

"When a migrant is prosecuted for illegal entry, he or she is taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals. In no circumstance anywhere in the U.S. do the marshals care for the children of people they take into custody. The child is taken into the custody of HHS, who cares for them at temporary shelters.

"The criminal proceedings are exceptionally short, assuming there is no aggravating factor such as a prior illegal entity or another crime. The migrants generally plead guilty, and they are then sentenced to time served, typically all in the same day, although practices vary along the border. After this, they are returned to the custody of ICE.
​
"If the adult then wants to go home, in keeping with the expedited order of removal that is issued as a matter of course, it’s relatively simple. The adult should be reunited quickly with his or her child, and the family returned home as a unit. In this scenario, there’s only a very brief separation.

"Where it becomes much more of an issue is if the adult files an asylum claim. In that scenario, the adults are almost certainly going to be detained longer than the government is allowed to hold their children."

It's when the migrant seeks asylum that things get messy. It can take a while and if you let the person go (i.e. "catch and release), you'll rarely ever see that person again. 

And while not ideal, it's not like these facilities are decrepit cesspools. The pictures of the facilities appear to be at least adequate. Furthermore, remember all those horrible photos of "caged migrants" floating about the Internet by liberal journalists? Well, those were from 2014 and 2015 when Obama was president.

Honestly, can we please tone down this perpetual outrage machine? 

So if you haven't heard, science is in a bit of a crisis right now. There's a growing replication crisis as previously accepted truths are falling apart one by one. This is particularly true in psychology as well as medicine (although that might have more to do with financial conflicts of interest). 

For example, apparently the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, where those playing the guards brutally mistreated those playing the prisoners, was something close to academic fraud. Not only has it failed to be replicated, but Philip Zimbardo, the man who ran the original study, actually coached the "guards" to be cruel. According to Ben Blum's expose,

"Once the simulation got underway, Jaffe explicitly corrected guards who weren’t acting tough enough, fostering exactly the pathological behavior that Zimbardo would later claim had arisen organically."

James Heathers has a great thread on the list of either debunked concepts that had previously been accepted as true, or concepts that have been thrown into question:

The list includes:

- Social Priming
- "The Robber's Cave"
- The Stanford Marshmallow Test
- Ego Depletion
- Power Posing
- The aforementioned Stanford Prison Experiment (Stanford has really been getting rocked lately)
- The Facial Feedback Hypothesis
- Newborns can imitate
- Pretty much everything about the hormone Oxytocin
- The Blocking Effect
- Stereotype Thread
- Universal Facial Emotion
- And obviously, precognition

Some of the problem has to do with it being much harder to publish a paper that shows no result than one that shows a positive result. Who wants to read proof that some hypothesis isn't true? Or who cares if something turns out to not be a problem. A lot of these studies go unpublished and thereby distort the literature on the subject. Especially since the media will jump on the studies that show a big result or a big problem.

This is called "the file drawer problem." Perhaps if I get rich enough, I'll try to start an academic journal solely dedicated to papers in any field that showed no result or that a hypothesis was false. What academic would do a bunch of work on a subject and then turn down the opportunity to at least get published somewhere? That way, at least there will be a record of dissent when someone tries to publish something with an outlandish result.

That being said, I must note that I find this all to be a little tragic. I really like the idea behind the Stanford Marshmallow Test (that deferral of gratification is key to success) and ego depletion (that we literally run out of willpower if we use it too much). The former is still true (it just has more to do with the environment one grows up in or perhaps genetics, not a learned habit) and the latter may be true, but not to the degree once thought. But I really liked those concepts. It's sad to see them go, or at least be greatly diminished.

The following is a Graduate paper I wrote on 3D printing on a very interesting subject I have repurposed for this site. The project was to evaluate and critique a segment of the show How it was Made. I chose 3D printers, which could revolutionize the world we live in.

How 3D Printers Are Made

The 3D printers highlighted on the show works as follows:

1. The operator loads a plastic filament into the printer.
2. The 3D printer melts the filament into a thick paste.
3. The printer then layers the paste on a glass base according to a preloaded digital file.
4. After about an hour, a three dimensional figurine will have been “printed.”

One of the most interesting things about the manufacturer How it is Made chose to highlight is how most of the parts used to build the 3D printer (over 40) were actually printed by the 3D printer itself. The process works as follows:

1. The 3D Printer prints out an extruder body.
2. A technician drills a hole in the extruder body and bolts a gear (also printed by the 3D printer) into the extruder body.
3. The technician screws the motor to the extruder body and installs a second smaller gear on the drive shaft.
4. Then a “hot end” (which contains a heater for melting the plastic filament) is installed.
5. The technician then attaches the hot end to the extruder body which completes the tool head. The tool head is what layers the plastic filament to create whatever figurine is being printed.
6. Another technicians feeds glass through rubber rollers which apply adhesive-backed polyester (which protects it from scratches) to be used as the printer bed.
7. A printer frame is assembled (again out of 3D printed parts) and two rods are attached to run across the frame.
8. The technician clips the tool head to the rod and then loops a rubber belt around a motor which is attached to the side of the frame. Then the technician links the belt to the tool head. This allows the tool head to move from side to side on the carriage.
9. Next, the printer bed is attached at the base of the frame.
10. Then the 3D printer is plugged into a power source.
11. Finally, a plastic filament reel is pushed through a channel into the tool head and is snapped around the feed point.

The printer is then ready to operate. For a two toned printer, two filament reels are installed into a double extruder head.

Analysis and Critique

The episode did a great job of showing how a 3D printer is put together as well as what kind of figurines it can design. The step-by-step process it walked the viewer through was easy to follow and engaging, especially given almost all the parts in the 3D printer were printed by a 3D printer itself.

That being said, the program only devoted approximately six minutes to this segment and it brought to mind several significant questions that went unanswered.

The first major blind spot was the software side of the equation. A digital printer obviously requires a three-dimensional, rendered blueprint to guide the printer. None of the software requirements nor the program used were discussed other than in a passing reference.

However, the larger and more interesting questions that are left unanswered regard how this type of 3D printer ranks amongst other 3D printers and what the potential for 3D printing is.

It would be legitimate to respond that such questions are outside the scope of a show about how things are made, but they are, in my judgement, the most intriguing questions regarding 3D printers. And indeed, the potential for 3D printing is quite extraordinary. Even today, much more complicated objects are being created by 3D printing. Elizabeth Royte describes some of the items she saw that were printed at 3D Systems’ plant in Rock Hill, South Carolina,

“A fully functioning guitar made of nylon. A phalanx of mandibles studded with atrocious-looking teeth. The skeleton of a whale. A five-color, full-scale prototype of a high-heeled shoe. Toy robots. And what appears to be the face of a human fetus.” 

And it gets far crazier than that. As Tim Lewis notes in The Guardian, “Scientists are racing to make replacement human organs with 3D printers.” 

The possibilities for this technology appear to border on the edge of science fiction, such as the replicators that can instantly create various beverages and other items in Star Trek: The Next Generation. If 3D organ printing does become a reality, it could solve an enormous shortage of viable organs for transplant. According to The Washington Post, “organ shortage kills 30 Americans every day.” And that’s just in the United States, for the world at large, that number is much, much higher. And that’s just one of 3D printing’s many potential uses.

There is also a potential downside, though. After all, if 3D printing becomes so advanced and cheap that it can create virtually anything, how exactly will the normal person be able to sell his or her labor?
This concern is commonly referred to as the “Luddite fallacy” named after the 19th century British labor movement that destroyed factory machines because they believed such technology cost them their jobs. EconomicsHelp.com describes the “Luddite fallacy” as follows,

“The Luddite fallacy is the simple observation that new technology does not lead to higher overall unemployment in the economy. New technology doesn’t destroy jobs – it only changes the composition of jobs in the economy.” 

Unfortunately, the fallacy is only a fallacy until it isn’t. The problem is that at some point, machines could possibly no longer aid humans by allowing us to become more productive, but instead become so advanced that humans become entirely irrelevant. If humans can’t add value to the production process (or sales process for that matter), what exactly should people do? How would such an economy even operate?

Policy makers and leaders of industry must seriously consider the potential consequences of such technology before, and not after, any major disruptions take place. The show would have benefited greatly from focusing solely on 3D printing and discussing its history, current application, future potential and the major political, economic and ethical concerns it raises.

I've just written one of my more important articles for BiggerPockets on the topic of productivity. A topic that I know many people are very interested in. In it, I discuss the top 10 tips for becoming more productive, which include:

1. Weekly Goals
2. Systems
3. Getting Things Done (David Allen's system)
4. Wake up Early
5. Delegation
6. Lean Just Outside Your Comfort Zone
7. Honesty
8. Speed Reading
9. Weekly Time Audit
10. Hold Yourself Accountable

Along with two bonus techniques:

11. Cut Out the Clutter (embrace minimalism)
12. Single-Task

I think it's one of my most important articles, so if becoming more productive is something you're interested in, please check it out!

Insert *eye roll* emoji.

So a while back I posted my interview with BiggerPockets and now I'd like to share my father's interview where he talks about real estate niches and why it's so important to focus on one. The niche he started in and built his company around was student housing, which is also discussed in detail. Enjoy!

And, of course, you can check out my weekly(ish) column at BiggerPockets here.