Thanks for your comment. As a fellow statistics (and science) freak, I appreciate them greatly. Let me try to clarify the difference between what this article does and what I think you are implying above.

This article represents the results of an exploratory assessment of leaders across the nation that our associates work with. This data is actually very good if one knows what it is for - beginning a conversation about these topics - and what it is not for - making scientific claims about “truth.” For example, I think your comments would be right on if we claimed that this data was from a representative sample of leaders from Fortune 500 companies or that these results were scientifically validated. For this very reason we were very careful not to make that claim in this article. Most science begins with ideas and/or dicussions - this exploratory venture falls into that category to me. If we wanted to make scientific claims, we would have to go a few steps futher with this.

To be clear: the purpose of the article was not to make a scientific claim. The purpose of the article was identified in the first paragraph:

“We found some very interesting results and wanted to share them in hopes of: (a) facilitating a robust conversation about Self-Mastery and (b) helping individuals conceptualize what Self-Mastery is, why it is so important, and how to move toward increasing it.”

Thanks for your thoughts, Jonathon!