Reader Sample
Read a Sample
10 real pages from the development edition, including continuous opening material.
Inside This Edition
Sixteen-chapter book, reflowable EPUB, designed reader PDF, paperback edition and evidence guide.
What It Is For
Replace borrowed certainty and magical thinking with an evidence-based way to imagine boldly, act honestly, learn from consequences and revise without surrendering ambition.
Intended for: Founders, new and adjacent operators, thoughtful professionals and readers tired of both magical thinking and analysis paralysis.
The method
Three Decisions It Helps You Make
- 01
What real situation or decision will you use this for?
- 02
What evidence, assumptions and limits must be visible before you act?
- 03
What result or review point will tell you to continue, adapt, pause or stop?
Choose the edition
Price and Package
What this edition does not promise
- A working aid, not a guarantee of a commercial, career or personal outcome.
- It does not replace legal, regulatory, clinical, financial or employer-specific advice.
- Human release review and fulfilment testing remain required.
Source Corpus Acknowledged
Named research, standards and official guidance inform selected distinctions and design choices. They do not endorse or independently validate this Stratogenic product.
41 named sources and transfer limits
- Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. — Provides an intellectual ancestor for notice, inquiry, observation and revision. Limit: A philosophical and educational account, not evidence that the book's seven-part loop improves outcomes.
- Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is There Such a Thing as Evidence-Based Management? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269. — Prevents evidence from being reduced to published research or a single metric. Limit: A programme-setting article; it does not validate this book or settle which evidence should govern a particular decision.
- Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, especially Books I, II, III and VI. — Frames questions about what an activity serves and what proportionate action requires. Limit: Ancient ethical argument is not behavioural-effectiveness evidence and does not determine a modern reader's values.
- Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493-503. — Supports bounded if-then planning after the action and obstacle are specified. Limit: An if-then plan cannot make an unsafe, unwanted, structurally blocked or poorly chosen goal appropriate.
- Oettingen, G. (2012). Future Thought and Behaviour Change. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 1-63. — Reconstructs visualisation as a prompt to inspect obstacles and action rather than causal manifestation. Limit: Effects depend on expectations and context; the work does not show that visualisation plus planning guarantees achievement.
- Wang, G., Wang, Y. and Gai, X. (2021). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Mental Contrasting with Implementation Intentions on Goal Attainment. — Provides a synthesis and a caution against presenting one planning mechanism as universally strong. Limit: Effects are modest and heterogeneous, with publication-bias and study-quality concerns discussed by the authors.
- Steel, P. (2007). The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review of Quintessential Self-Regulatory Failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94. — Supports diagnostic humility and rejects the lazy-person explanation. Limit: Group-level associations do not identify the cause of delay for a particular person or establish a clinical account.
- Peirce, C. S. (1877). The Fixation of Belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1-15. — Frames certainty as a psychological settlement that may not be warranted by evidence. Limit: A philosophical classification, not an experimental taxonomy of every way people form beliefs.
- Mellers, B. et al. (2014). Psychological Strategies for Winning a Geopolitical Forecasting Tournament. Psychological Science, 25(5), 1106-1115. — Supports making confidence predictions explicit and revisable. Limit: Geopolitical forecasting performance does not transfer automatically to personal, moral or commercial decisions.
- Kunda, Z. (1990). The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. — Explains why sincere narratives may protect identity and preference. Limit: Motivation does not make every conclusion false and the review does not diagnose an individual's reasoning.
- Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. — Supports deliberately looking for disconfirming evidence and alternative accounts. Limit: The label is descriptive, broad and easy to weaponise against other people; it does not make the observer unbiased.
- Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. SAGE. — Distinguishes useful shared meaning from a complete or neutral record of events. Limit: A theoretical treatment with many later interpretations; plausibility is not evidence of factual accuracy.
- Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. — Replaces global confidence language with task and context specificity. Limit: Self-efficacy is not self-esteem, worth or proof of competence, and later applications vary considerably.
- Bol, L. et al. (2012). Calibration Research: Where Do We Go From Here? Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 229. — Supports fixing a prediction before observing a result and comparing the two. Limit: Much calibration research uses educational tasks; open-ended founder and life decisions have less definite outcomes.
- Newman, A. et al. (2019). Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: A Systematic Review of the Literature on its Theoretical Foundations, Measurement, Antecedents, and Outcomes, and an Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 403-419. — Keeps founder confidence attached to tasks and self-regulation rather than mythic personality. Limit: Associations do not prove that raising confidence alone improves a venture; constructs and measures vary.
- Breines, J. G. and Chen, S. (2012). Self-Compassion Increases Self-Improvement Motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1133-1143. — Challenges the belief that self-punishment is necessary for accountability. Limit: Short experiments do not establish durable personal change or replace mental-health support.
- Campos, F. et al. (2017). Teaching Personal Initiative Beats Traditional Training in Boosting Small Business in West Africa. Science, 357(6357), 1287-1290. — Provides a serious example of self-starting, future-oriented and persistent behaviour meeting a real environment. Limit: Its training intensity, population and economic results cannot be transferred to a self-guided book or a different context.
- Brockhuis, M. et al. (2025). A Meta-Analytic Review and Conceptual Model of Goal Adjustment in Response to Striving Difficulties. — Makes continue, reshape, pause, stop and re-engage available routes. Limit: The review reports low-to-moderate evidence quality and high heterogeneity; it cannot choose a reader's goal.
- Harkin, B. et al. (2016). Does Monitoring Goal Progress Promote Goal Attainment? A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198-229. — Supports recording a small number of signals and using them to change a decision. Limit: Effects vary, and monitoring can distort work when a measure is a poor proxy for the desired condition.
- Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review. — Supports distinguishing outcomes, drivers, learning and operational evidence. Limit: An influential framework, not proof that a particular scorecard or this book improves decision quality.
- Kurzban, R. et al. (2013). An Opportunity Cost Model of Subjective Effort and Task Performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(6), 661-679. — Frames attention as allocation and displacement rather than a morally expandable resource. Limit: A debated theoretical model; it does not compute the correct priority or explain every experience of fatigue.
- Leroy, S. (2009). Why Is It So Hard to Do My Work? The Challenge of Attention Residue When Switching Between Work Tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168-181. — Supports deliberate closing and re-entry records when work must switch. Limit: The studies do not show that all switching is harmful, avoidable or the main source of poor work.
- Monsell, S. (2003). Task Switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134-140. — Supports reducing avoidable fragmentation and making necessary transitions explicit. Limit: Evidence often uses simple cognitive tasks and cannot justify a universal ban on varied or responsive work.
- Sheldon, K. M. and Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal Striving, Need Satisfaction, and Longitudinal Well-Being: The Self-Concordance Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482-497. — Adds a meaning test before intensifying attention. Limit: Personal fit does not override obligations, other people, material constraints or moral consequence.
- Webster, F. E. Jr. and Wind, Y. (1972). A General Model for Understanding Organizational Buying Behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 12-19. — Rejects the fiction that one positive contact constitutes a customer decision. Limit: A foundational model from a particular era, not a complete map of every modern buying process.
- Anderson, J. C., Jain, D. C. and Chintagunta, P. K. (1992). Customer Value Assessment in Business Markets: A State-of-Practice Study. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 1(1), 3-29. — Supports baselines, customer-recognised outcomes and evidence conditions. Limit: Historical state-of-practice evidence does not establish one universal method or validate the Strategic Outcome package.
- Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. — Supports making uncertainty and dissent discussable during decisions and recovery. Limit: Psychological safety does not mean comfort, agreement, lack of accountability or proof of team performance.
- Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and Implied Contracts in Organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121-139. — Explains how one promise becomes several expectations during handover. Limit: The construct does not show that every expectation is reasonable, shared or contractually enforceable.
- Shostack, G. L. (1984). Designing Services That Deliver. Harvard Business Review. — Supports carrying dependencies, failure points and first-value evidence with a promise. Limit: A service-design framework is not evidence that a specific blueprint or handover will succeed.
- Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W. and Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer Evaluations of Service Complaint Experiences: Implications for Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60-76. — Separates apology and manner from process and substantive correction. Limit: Findings do not specify the right remedy for every failure or guarantee restored trust.
- Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N. and Wagner, J. (1999). A Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service Encounters Involving Failure and Recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356-372. — Supports proportionate recovery rather than a standard apology-and-credit routine. Limit: Experimental service encounters cannot determine legal, ethical or operational remedies in a particular escalation.
- International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 10002:2018 Quality management - Customer satisfaction - Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations. — Provides a responsible operating boundary for escalation and complaint processes. Limit: A guidance standard is not outcome evidence, legal advice or certification of the package or reader.
- Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38. — Prevents renewal or duration being mistaken for partnership. Limit: A model tested in particular channel relationships does not define every partnership or prove causal effects in a given account.
- Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17. — Supports future-value and mutual-contribution questions in partnership decisions. Limit: A conceptual logic, not a measurement method or proof that co-creation language produces customer value.
- Workman, J. P. Jr., Homburg, C. and Jensen, O. (2003). Intraorganizational Determinants of Key Account Management Effectiveness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 3-21. — Makes partnership an organisational investment rather than an account-manager adjective. Limit: Associations and a particular research model do not dictate the right account structure or prove partnership status.
- Lazer, D. M. J. et al. (2018). The Science of Fake News. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. — Frames the information environment as a system of incentives and distribution. Limit: A short interdisciplinary synthesis from 2018 cannot represent every later platform, content form or intervention result.
- Pennycook, G. et al. (2021). Shifting Attention to Accuracy Can Reduce Misinformation Online. Nature, 592, 590-595. — Supports creating a pause between fluency or social reward and transmission. Limit: Effects vary by design and context; an accuracy prompt does not solve motivated belief, platform incentives or all misinformation.
- Brady, W. J. et al. (2021). How Social Learning Amplifies Moral Outrage Expression in Online Social Networks. Science Advances, 7(33), eabe5641. — Shows how platform rewards can shape expression without requiring a conspiracy or a wholly false belief. Limit: The studies do not establish that all outrage is performative, unjustified or caused by platforms.
- Horton, D. and Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215-229. — Explains why familiar delivery can be mistaken for personal knowledge or warranted trust. Limit: A foundational account from broadcast media does not by itself explain contemporary creator-audience relationships or individual vulnerability.
- Tabassi, E. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST AI 100-1. — Supports treating generated fluency as an output requiring contextual evaluation and human responsibility. Limit: A voluntary organisational framework, currently under revision, not a guarantee that compliant use is accurate, safe or appropriate.
- Argyris, C. (1977). Double Loop Learning in Organizations. Harvard Business Review. — Supports revising the goal, rule or interpretation when repeated action does not resolve the problem. Limit: An influential framework, not proof that naming a double loop produces organisational learning or removes power constraints.
Corpus review: 2026-07-19. Provider documentation is operational guidance, not independent validation or endorsement.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is The Evidence-Based Life?
The Evidence-Based Life is flagship book designed to help founders, new and adjacent operators, thoughtful professionals and readers tired of both magical thinking and analysis paralysis. replace borrowed certainty and magical thinking with an evidence-based way to imagine boldly, act honestly, learn from consequences and revise without surrendering ambition.
What do I receive with The Evidence-Based Life?
Sixteen-chapter book, reflowable EPUB, designed reader PDF, paperback edition and evidence guide.
Can I buy or download The Evidence-Based Life now?
No. This is a forthcoming preview. Checkout and delivery stay disabled until named human approval and fulfilment checks are recorded.
