Basically, it's a weekend, 2-full-day-session discourse custom-designed to benefit any group of people for whom thoughtful cooperation and communication are necessary to ensure the ultimate success of a specific venture. This would include businesses, nonprofit entities, levels of governments, military units, religious organizations, and so forth. 

The material that follows assumes that it's a business venture or commercial company that's being addressed.

You see, scuba divers can be taught; surfers can only be entertained. And I am a teacher, not someone whose mission in life is to amuse others, although I'm told I can be very funny at times. 

But please know that this site will do more for you in the long run than will most “cool” (in quotation marks because I haven't the foggiest notion what that word means except in the context of temperature) sites. 

In this regard, my philosophy is much like President Reagan's when he made the observation that if you feed someone by giving him or her a fish to eat, you'll have to give that someone a fish every day. But if you teach that someone how to fish, then he or she will be able to feed him or herself from then on without help from anyone. 

I can teach you how to (1) correctly analyze and digest information, (2) think clearly and innovatively using that information, and (3) effectively communicate the results of that thinking to others. If you learn these skills — and you can, believe me, if you want to — not only will you be able to feed yourself every day, but you'll be able to put on a banquet at the same time and feed others as well until they, too, learn how to “fish.” 

You have my word. 

Now to continue.

It would be extremely difficult to underestimate the need for such skills: 

Most people have never been taught how to think; they've only been told what to think. The difference is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug. 

The cost to an organization whose people don't know how to correctly analyze and digest information, think clearly and innovatively using that information, and effectively communicate the results of that thinking to others is incalculable. That it's an invisible cost doesn't make it any the less real.

No venture can be successful in the long run if its people haven't these skills. 
 
Not only is it important to know how to correctly analyze information — i.e., how to assign meaning to it — but it's equally important to be able to quickly recognize information that has no meaning. That way not a moment is wasted on data that have the appearance of solidity but in reality (as George Orwell put  it) are nothing more than pure wind.

For example, the following sentence appears in a book by psychoanalyst and literary theorist Jacques Lacan, a current "icon" of American soft-science college professors:
 

It is clear that, as far as meaning is concerned, this "takes hold of it" of the sub-sentence — pseudo-modal — reverberates from the object itself which it wraps, as verb, in its grammatical subject, and that is a false effect of meaning, a resonance of the imaginary induced by the topology, according to whether the effect of the subject makes a whirlwind of asphere or the subjective of this effect "reflects" itself from it.
While it's true that the foregoing quotation was constructed of legitimate and acceptable words for the most part, they were strung together is such a way as to be totally bereft of meaning. A computer choosing words at random could have done a better job of conveying meaning.

There's very little question in my mind that the writer intended to hoodwink and impress rather than inform, an affliction that appears to me to be as widespread as the flu in winter time.

The inability to recognize information that has no meaning is very expensive in terms of time lost. To both the individual and to the organization of which he or she is a member. Indeed, if all the time that people spend everyday trying to make sense of such gibberish were clumped together (an obvious impossibility but useful to contemplate) into a visible ball, the sphere thus created would make the planet Jupiter look like a BB by comparison.

As my old professor used to say: Information is as plentiful as the leaves on the trees; the trick is in knowing how to separate the meaningful from the meaningless.

New, innovative products or services. 
 

  Greater employee productivity. 
 

  Less wasted company time chasing up blind alleys. 
 

  Ability to recruit good people. 
 

  Better employee-employer relationships. 
 

  Lower costs and greater sales revenue leading to greater profits and increased market share. 
 

  Greater financing opportunities. 
 

  Increased ownership market value.

I'd like to tell you more about it. So let's pretend that you ask questions and I answer them. 

OK? Here we go.

Self-confident.

Optimistic and positive. 

Free of the accumulated garbage dumped on them in the past, which is negatively affecting their judgment in the present.

Focused on important things, while ignoring the unimportant ones.

Excited about the future and its challenges. 

Self-starters and self-reliant.

Efficient users of time.

Honest and truthful. 

Reliable and responsible. 

Difficult to intimidate or discourage.

Courteous, good-humored, and respectful of others.

Those are the benefits to your employees. The benefits to the company, of course, flow out of them (I've already covered them for you, but, because they're so important, I'm going to cover them again) — new innovative products and services, greater employee productivity, less wasted company time chasing up blind alleys, ability to recruit good people, better employee-employer relationships, lower costs and greater sales revenue leading to greater profits and increased market share, enhanced credit sources, and increased ownership market value. 

The most important things that people do in life — other than procreate — are (1) thinking and (2) communicating the results of that thinking. 

And to make sure that we’re on the same page, as that wonderful metaphor goes, here’s what I mean by “communicating” and by “thinking.” 

Communicating is the process during which thoughts are made known by one mind to another. It’s a relative process. So the result can range from virtually no communication to a high degree of communication. 

Thinking is the mental process centered in the mind/brain, conducted for the purpose of producing a rational end result. 

Furthermore, thinking can be cloudy or clear. And if clear, conventional or innovative. 

Parenthetically, there’s a lot that passes for thinking that is not. For example, parroting. Or feeling. 

To continue, people tend to be poor communicators and cloudy thinkers. Not because they were born that way. But because they were made that way. As Shakespeare might have put it: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are poor communicators and cloudy thinkers. 

The truth of the matter is that people are inherently or congenitally bright, given that each is born with that most awesome of mechanisms in his or her cranium — a mind/brain — which is like a clean slate when he or she first comes into the world. 

But then something goes wrong. People come along and start scribbling on it. Which would be OK, if they scribbled good stuff on it. But they don’t. Most of the scribbling is wrong, invalid, untrue, unreliable, or irrelevant. And negative to boot. You know, the “you can’t” or “you’ll never” nonsense. 

And given that all this scribbling is what people use as premises when they’re trying to think through something, they tend to wind up with conclusions that are wrong, invalid, untrue, unreliable, or irrelevant. And generally negative as well. 

And that's where I come in. 

I conduct the Mens Sana Foundation Socratic Discourse on Thinking and Communication. It comprises a full weekend, two full-day sessions, during which I guide the participants into becoming all that they can be — superior communicators; clear, innovative thinkers; outstanding information analysts; and the rest. 

Each participant is given at sign-up a copy of the Seminal Guidebook for the Mens Sana Foundation Socratic Discourse on Thinking and Communication — a 548-page book of ideas and principles containing within themselves the seeds of further development in the area of  information analysis; clear, innovative thinking; and superior communication, and a copy of You Must Not Let Them Con You! There's Too Much at Stake, my first book on the subject, and the forerunner to the Seminal Guidebook for the Mens Sana Foundation Socratic Discourse on Thinking and Communication (it was more or less the skeleton that was fleshed out by the Guidebook). 

These two volumes constitute the core material for the Discourse, and the basis upon which I question participants, challenge their nonresponsive or irrational answers, and poke holes in their faulty arguments. 

Michelangelo once said that the perfect David was already in the block of marble he was working on. All he had to do was chip away the part that didn’t belong. And that’s what I do in the Discourse — chip away the part of each participant that doesn’t belong. All that misleading, destructive, and negative scribbling. And that’s how I get them to realize how truly able they really are. 

The beauty of it all is that the more of their potential people realize, the more they can become. And the more they become, the greater their potential becomes. It’s a never ending process. Once I start them on the journey, they will continue of their own accord, becoming, becoming, becoming. Without end. Without limit. Better and better information analysts, thinkers, and communicators. 

Structurally, the first session (Saturday) is on the principles of information analysis, communication, and thinking in general. The second session (Sunday) focuses generally upon these subjects as they specifically apply to your company. 

To begin with, it’s not a seminar. It’s a Socratic discourse, instead. A method of learning that works, as it has for almost 2,500 years, now. Since the days of Socrates himself. In essence, it’s the pulling out of something from within rather than the stuffing in of something from without. The latter, in my judgment, exemplified by seminars, the usual class instruction, and by lectures, is a method of learning that rarely produces lasting results. 

There are a number of reasons why this is so. 

For one, the mind operates like a muscle. So exercising it makes it stronger. And not exercising it, which is what happens when it’s being stuffed from the outside, causes it to atrophy, so to speak. In such a state, the mind hardly ever learns anything that it’s able to retain for very long. 

For another, the something from without that’s being stuffed into the participant — student, if you like — is almost always in the form of information. Consequently, it may be invalid or irrelevant or flawed. It may be nothing more than someone’s opinion, which is worthless. It may be judgment or inference. Which is generally better than opinion. But not much. 

For a third, information tends to be impersonal. One-size-fits-all. Which means that it doesn’t fit anybody. But when something is pulled out of another, that something is most likely to be in the form of an idea. Or a principle. Or a conclusion resulting from thought based upon the thinker’s experience. Which makes it personal to him or her. Therefore, it’s the right size. It fits his or her unique set of experiences, unique personality, unique belief structure, and unique needs. 

Finally, information is forgettable. It may also prove to be obsolete and outdated in a relatively short period of time. But when an idea or principle or conclusion is pulled out of a student, it’s as though he or she gave birth to a child. Which means that he or she can no more forget the event or experience than a mother can forget her own offspring. And because the idea or principle or conclusion was pulled out from within, it’s not fixed but fluid. And so it will never be obsolete or out-moded. 

By the way, strictly for your whatever-it’s-worth department, the root of the word “education” is “educe,” which means “to bring out something potential or latent.” It does not mean to stuff something into someone while he or she sits there passively. 

The other reason why the Discourse is better than any seminar currently being offered are the unusual qualifications of its leader — me. As you will soon learn. 

People in a company have to cooperate to get specific tasks done because the knowledge and experience generally needed in a given situation usually cannot be found in any one person. How well people cooperate depends upon how well they communicate with one another. It also depends upon the quality of what it is that they communicate. 

These are important considerations. You see, there’s a lot at stake. People who don’t communicate don’t cooperate. Or, at best, they cooperate ineffectively. And specific tasks don’t get done. Or they get done poorly. When that happens, the cost can be substantial — loss of market share, credit channels, ownership market value, employee morale, the ability to recruit good people, and so forth. 

However, people who do communicate and whose quality of what it is that they communicate is at a high level do cooperate. And effectively, too. So specific tasks do get done. And they get done well. When that happens, everyone in the organization, and everyone connected with the organization, benefits. 

But perhaps an even more important reason for availing yourself of the Discourse is that the future health of the organization depends upon it. As Arnold Toynbee might have put it: 

Associations of people . . . come to birth and proceed to grow when their people successfully respond to successive challenges. They break down and go to pieces if and when a challenge confronts those selfsame people which they fail to meet. 

Also, as K. Shelly Porges, Bank of America Senior Vice President, once put it: 

To keep ahead in this dynamic environment in which the rules are constantly changing requires more than a change in structure, it requires a whole new way of thinking.

Have four college degrees: one doctorate, two master’s, and one bachelor’s. 

Was a Columbia University teaching assistant in statistics and later held professorial rank in the USC Graduate School of Business Administration. 

Had the highest tested-IQ of all the New York State graduating grade school pupils prior to entering high school. 

Wrote a book on language and thinking, one on thinking and communication, and one on NFL running backs. 

Had sixteen articles published in various publications, as well as an entire chapter from one of my books in Et Cetera, the International Society for General Semantics quarterly. 

Am a member of Mensa and of the International Society for General Semantics. 

Was co-founder of a California Bank. 

Ran my own architectural and city planning firm. 

Was the recipient of a coveted Ford Foundation Fellowship, a Harriman Scholarship, and many other awards, prizes, and honors — academic and professional. 

Was a radio talk show host and newsman. 

Wrote and broadcast a daily think-piece on radio.

I have known Dr. David Shapiro for over 40 years and have found him to be stimulating and challenging in the classroom, the research environment, and his day-to-day activities. He is a living example of using “clear thinking” to resolve life’s problems. I believe he is also a master of communication and an expert in teaching the art of sound thinking. I heartily recommend him and his organization. 
— Dr. John C. Burton 
Dean Emeritus, Columbia University Graduate School of Business

I consider . . . [your book] . . . my bible on clear thinking . . . reading your work stimulated me in entirely new directions . . . what a masterful mind you have! 

— Shann Nix, Talk Show Host 
        KGO Radio, San Francisco

Furthermore, the refund will be given with a smile and with an apology. A smile because you gave me an opportunity to serve you. And an apology because in your judgment I let you down. 

So you see, you have nothing to lose but a great deal to gain.