Here are instructions for setting up the defaults the way some people have found helpful:

1. Open yEd.
2. Create a new document.
3. Click the white background; a small yellow square should appear on the canvas.
4. Click the small yellow square so as to select it.
5. Click and drag one of the corners of the yellow square to resize it. Make it the default size you'd like your text boxes to be. You will be able to change this later.
6. Make sure the yellow square is still selected.
7. Look at the menu in the lower right. It is called "Properties View". It will show you information about the yellow square.
8. Click the small yellow square in the menu next to the words "Fill Color".
9. Select the color white for the Fill Color.
10. Lower in the menu, under "Label", there is an item called "Placement". Find it. Change Placement to "Internal" and "Center".
11. Right below Placement in the menu is "Size". Find it. Change Size to "Fit Node Width".
12. Right below Size is "Configuration". Find it. Change Configuration to "Cropping".
13. Right below Configuration is "Alignment". Find it. Ensure that Alignment is "Center".
14. In the upper toolbar, click "File" then "Preferences".
15. A menu will come up. Click the "Editor" tab.
16. You will see a list of checkboxes. "Edit Label on Create Node" will be unchecked. Check it.
17. Click Apply.
18. In the upper toolbar, click "Edit" then "Manage Palette".
19. A menu will come up. In the upper left there will be a button called "New Section". Click it.
20. Name the new section after yourself.
21. Verify that the new section has been created by locating it in the righthand list of "Displayed Palette Selections".
22. Close the Palette Manager menu.
23. Doubleclick your white textbox to edit its label.
24. Put in something suitably generic to indicate a default textbox. I use "[text]" (without the quotes).
25. Select your white textbox. Be sure that you have selected it, but are not now editing the label.
26. Right click the white textbox. A menu will appear.
27. On the menu, mouse over "Add to Palette", then select the palette you named after yourself.
28. On the righthand side of the screen, there will be a menu at the top called "Palette". Find it.
29. Scroll through the palettes in the Palette menu until you find the palette you named after yourself. Expand it.
30. You will see your white textbox in the palette you have named after yourself. Click it to select it.
31. Right click the white textbox in the palette. Select "Use as Default".
32. To check that you have done everything properly, click on the white background canvas. Did it create a white textbox like your original, and then automatically allow you to edit the label? If so, you're done.

Then... a. Click the white background to create a box. b. Click a box and drag to create an arrow. c. Click an already existing box to select it. Once selected, click and drag to move it. d. Doubleclick an already existing box to edit its label.

Enjoy!

For at least 2 years prior to January 2009, I procrastinated between 1-3 hours a day reading random internet news sites. After I created my first CT chart, I made the following prediction: "If I design a way to gain information about the world that does not involve reading internet news sites that also does not alter my way of achieving my other intrinsic goods, then I will stop spending time reading these internet news sites." The "does not alter my way of achieving my other intrinsic goods" was unpacked. It included: "does not alter my way of gaining social acceptance", "does not alter my relationships with my family members", etc. The specifics were unpacked there as well.

This was prediction was falsifiable - it would have failed if I had kept reading internet news sites. It was also bold - cogsci folk and good random human psychologists would have predicted no change in my internet news reading behavior. And it was also successful - after implementing the recommendation in January 2009, I stopped procrastinating as predicted. Now, of course there are multiple explanations for the success of the prediction, including "CT is true" and "you just used your willpower". Nevertheless, this is an example of a faisifiable, bold, successful prediction.

If I recall correctly, I was saying that I didn't know how to use CT to predict simple things of the form "Xs will always Y" or "Xs will Y at rate Z", where X and Y refer to simple observables like "human", "blush", etc. It would be great if I could do this, but unfortunately I can't.

Instead, what I can do is use the CT charting procedure to generate a CT chart for someone and then use CT to derive predictions from the chart. This yields predictions of the form "if a person with chart X does Y, Z will occur". These predictions frequently do not overlap with what existing cognitive science would have one expect.

The way I could have evidence in favor of CT would be if I had created CT charts using the CT procedure, used CT to derive predictions from the charts, and then tested the predictions. And I've done this.

Connection Theory is not the main thing that we do. It's one of seven main projects. I would estimate that about 15% of our current effort goes directly into CT right now. It's true that having a superior understanding of the human mind is an important part of our plan, and it's true that CT is the main theory we're currently looking at. So that is one reason people are focusing on it. But it's also one of the better-developed parts of our website right now. So that's probably another reason.

I can usually do any type of work. Sometimes it becomes harder for me to write detailed documents in the last couple hours of my day.

We've tried to fill in step 3 quite a bit. Check out the plan and also our backup plan. We're definitely open to suggestions for ways to improve, especially places where the connection between the steps is the most tenuous.

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Ayn Rand's ideas on psychology.

There are no Objectivist influences that I am aware of.

Short answer: Yes, CT is falsifiable. Here's how to see this. Take a look at the example CT chart. By following the procedures stated in the Theory and Practice document, you can produce and check a CT chart like the example chart. Once you've checked the chart, you can make predictions using CT and the CT chart. From the example chart, for instance, we can see that the person sometimes plays video games and tries to improve and sometimes plays video games while not trying to improve. From the chart and CT, we can predict: "If the person comes to believe that he stably has the ability to be cool, as he conceives of coolness, then he will stop playing video games while not trying to improve." We would measure belief here primarily by the person's belief reports. So we have a concrete procedure that yields specific predictions. In this case, if the person followed various recommendations designed to increase his ability to be cool, ended up reporting that he stably had the ability to be cool, but still reported playing video games while not trying to improve, CT would be falsified.

Longer answer: In practice, almost any specific theory can be rendered consistent with the data by adding epicycles, positing hidden entities, and so forth. Instead of falsifying most theories, then, what happens is this: You encounter some recalcitrant data. You add some epicycles to your theory. You encounter more recalcitrant data. You posit some hidden entities. Eventually, though, the global theory that includes your theory becomes less elegant than the global theory that rejects your theory. So, you switch to the global theory that rejects your theory and you discard your specific theory. In practice with CT, so far we haven't had to add many epicycles or posit many hidden entities. In particular, we haven't had the experience of having to frequently change what we think a person's intrinsic goods are. If we found that we kept having to revise our views about a person's intrinsic goods (especially if the old posited intrinsic goods were not instrumentally useful for achieving the new posited intrinsic goods), this would be a serious warning sign.

Speaking more generally, we're following particular procedures, as described in the CT Theory and Practice document. We expect to achieve particular results. If in a relatively short time frame we find that we can't, that will provide evidence against the claim "CT is useful for achieving result X". For example, I've been able to work for more than 13 hours a day, with only occasional days off, for more than two years. I attribute this to CT and I expect we'll be able to replicate this. If we end up not being able to, that'll be obvious to us and everyone else.

Thanks for raising the issue of falsifiability. I'm going to add it to our CT FAQ.

Oops, I forgot to answer your question about how central Connection Theory is to what we're doing.

The answer is that CT is one part of what some of us believe is our best current answer to the question of how the human mind works. I say "one part" because CT does not cover emotions. In all contexts pertaining to emotions, everyone uses something other than CT. I say "some of us" because not everyone in Leverage uses CT. And I say "best current answer" because all of us are happy to throw CT away if we come up with something better.

In terms of our projects, some people use CT and others don't. Some parts of some training programs are designed with CT in mind; other parts aren't. In some contexts, it is very hard to do anything at all without relying on some background psychological framework. In those contexts, some people rely on CT and others don't.

In terms of our overall plan, CT is potentially extremely useful. That said, CT itself is inessential. If it ends up breaking, we can find new psychological tools. And we actually have a backup plan in case we ultimately can't figure out much at all about how the mind works.