The Power University Survey measures the outcomes Power University delivers for its alumni.

Below we describe the survey design and data-cleaning procedures, present the results in full, and provide an evidence-focused analysis of what the numbers mean and what they do not mean.

Methodology

The Power University Results Survey is a short instrument consisting of 10 items designed to capture alumni self-reported improvement on nine competencies that Power University targets (confidence, social skills, status, respect, leadership, business/career outcomes, attractiveness for dating, relationship outcomes, and people-reading skills).

Respondents rated their perceived improvement using the labeled ordinal response categories shown in each chart (for example: “A bit”, “2x”, “5x”, “10x”, “>10x”). For analysis we coded those ordinal responses on an increasing numeric scale so we could compute means and confidence intervals; see the Aggregate Data Analysis section for the exact figures and confidence intervals.

Why we used self-ratings

Self-ratings were chosen for two practical reasons.

First, they allow rapid collection across alumni cohorts and provide a direct measure of perceived change, which is important for an initial evaluation and for planning a longer-term, objective follow-up study.

Second, personality and skill self-assessments are supported by research as often informative when respondents are asked about change in their own capabilities (see discussion and link below). We cite this literature and provide raw exports so other researchers can inspect the data themselves.

Who was invited and when

We invited alumni through three separate channels so each invited population could be analyzed separately. Separating channels reduces mixing of different engagement profiles and improves interpretability:

• Community members — invitation published on the forum here.
  Raw data export here.
• Power University email subscribers — survey emailed to alumni who signed up at least one month before the email date (email dated 21 June 2023) and to alumni tagged in our system since July 2021. The email content is archived here.
  Raw data export here.
• Power University completers — a separate invitation is sent to students who mark every lesson complete via the “congratulations” email. Because that cohort is newly-invited and still small, we will publish those results in a future update once there are enough responses. The current article focuses on the forum and email cohorts.

Why we kept cohorts separate

Each invitation channel reaches alumni with different engagement patterns.

Forum users are typically more engaged, more likely to have completed more of the material, and more likely to provide thoughtful responses.
Raw data export here.

Email recipients include a broader spectrum from highly engaged to partial or skimmed readers.
Email copy here | Raw data export here.

Keeping cohorts separated avoids conflating these groups and allows us to report both the forum (high-engagement) picture and the aggregate picture.

Question variants

To adapt to each cohort, we replaced one quantitative relationship item with a qualitative motivation item in the email survey.
Specifically, the forum survey retained a question about intimate relationships, while the email survey asked an open-ended question (“what made you join Power University”) to collect richer motivational data from the more varied email cohort. This is noted where relevant in the results below.

Data cleaning and exclusions

We made two exclusions to preserve data quality. All responses were anonymous and the raw exports are available for verification via the links above.

1) Pattern response — likely non-engaged answer

One respondent selected the same (first) option on every item.

That uniform pattern is a well-known indicator of non-differentiated responding (e.g., satisficing, accidental submission).
Because we could not link responses to individual identifiers (the survey was anonymous), and because the pattern would bias results upward or downward depending on the label chosen, we excluded this response from the aggregate analysis.

2) Insufficient program exposure

One respondent reported they had stopped studying Power University due to family issues and explicitly asked to be re-invited later, once further along. That respondent nevertheless submitted responses; because their engagement was incomplete and they had indicated the answers would not reflect meaningful exposure, we excluded that case. (See the screenshot below — respondent paraphrase.)

Respondent (paraphrased): Be aware I stopped the lesson for family issues and now getting back into it. Maybe resend this when I’m further along in the course

After these two exclusions, the aggregate sample used for statistical summaries reported below is N = 20 (this N is shown explicitly in the Aggregate Data Analysis table).

Aggregate Data Analysis

Below are the aggregate means with 95% confidence intervals (N = 20).
These intervals were computed to provide a range estimate for the mean response on our coded numeric scale and reflect sampling uncertainty given the sample size. The survey and statistical computations have been cross-checked by a certified data analyst; raw numerical exports are available in the links above for independent verification.

Interpretation: The means and confidence intervals show consistently high perceived gains across competencies. The satisfaction score (mean = 9.45) is particularly high, reinforcing the distributional findings reported above. Because the sample is modest in size (N=20), the confidence intervals are wider than they would be for a much larger survey; nonetheless the central tendency and consistent upward reporting across items indicate a strong signal that alumni perceive meaningful benefit from the program.

RESULTS

What follows are the survey items, raw distribution tables (as presented in the forum charts), and a short interpretation of each result. We include both the distribution charts (forum cohort) and aggregated numeric measures (where available).

1. Self-Confidence

Question: How much more confident in yourself are you after Power University?

Forum cohort chart above. In the aggregated sample: 95% of respondents report some improvement in confidence, 85% at least doubled their confidence, and over half report a 10x or greater increase. This is a substantial effect in perceived self-confidence.

2. Social Skills

Question: How much have your social skills improved after Power University?

All community members reported improvements in social skills. In aggregate, 85% at least doubled their social skills, and more than half reported a 10x or larger improvement.

3. Gaining Status

Question: How much more effective would you be today at gaining status in a group?

Every community member reported improvement. 89.5% at least doubled their ability to gain status and more than half reported a 10x or greater improvement.

4. Gaining Respect

Question: How much better would you be today at getting respected by others?

All community respondents reported at least a 2x increase in their ability to earn respect, and more than half reported a 10x or greater increase.

5. Leadership Skills

Question: How much better of a leader would you be today?

Leadership skills rose substantially: nearly 90% at least doubled their leadership capability, and over 60% reported a 10x or greater improvement.

6. Business & Career

Question: How much has Power University impacted your chances of getting a promotion or doing better in work/business?

Nearly 90% of respondents expect improved outcomes in work or business. Close to 80% expect at least a 2x improvement; over half expect at least a 10x improvement and 42% expect >10x improvements.

7. Attractiveness (For Dating)

Question: If you’re single, how has Power University made you potentially more attractive?

About 90% reported increased attractiveness, 80% at least 2x, more than half at least 5x, and over one-third at 10x.

8. Relationships

Question: If you’re in a relationship, how much has Power University helped to gain more respect, attraction, and a generally better relationship?*

Among forum community members who answered this item, close to 80% at least doubled their partner’s attraction and respect, and more than half reported a 5x or greater improvement. Note: this item was asked only to forum respondents who are in (or can imagine being in) a relationship; see note below.

*this question was only for the forum users, and only for those who are or can think of themselves in a relationship. We corrected an initial survey wording issue after the first response; the early answer “not at all” appears to reflect that initial error but was left in the record for transparency.

9. Reading People

Question: How much have your people-reading skills increased?

All respondents reported at least a 2x increase in competence for reading people; 65% reported a 10x or greater increase. This item was intentionally framed as competence-related rather than outcome-related, because skill acquisition usually precedes downstream life outcomes (e.g., changed relationships), which can take more time to show measurable changes.

Note: competence measures like “people-reading” correlate with long-term outcomes, but outcome measures (e.g., relationship quality) may lag behind skill changes. We deliberately measured competence to avoid premature underestimation of program impact.

Power University Satisfaction

Participants rated overall satisfaction on a 0–10 scale. The distribution is shown below and the arithmetic mean is 9.4 out of 10. Every respondent rated the program 8/10 or higher; the most common rating was 10/10.

The arithmetic mean is 9.4 out of 10.

Lucio’s personal comments (author)

I expected good results — we build Power University around proven skills and frameworks — but I was still surprised by how often respondents selected “more than 10x.” That option became the modal category across many items.

On average, respondents rated improvements in status slightly lower than improvements in confidence, social skills, and respect.
My read is that people tend to intuitively downplay status gains because status feels harder or more abstract; in practice, status often follows reliably from improved confidence, social competence, and the consistent application of the techniques we teach.

Similarly, improving intimate relationships requires not only competence but time and context; competence often improves first, and relationship-level outcomes follow. This is why we emphasize competence measures in early evaluations.

Because Power University emphasizes actionable learning, respondents may also judge the program in light of the effort they invested (it’s study, not purely entertainment). That may explain why absolute satisfaction occasionally feels slightly lower than some of the dramatic competence improvements reported.

I plan to keep improving the program experience (more video, rewards, UI enhancements) while preserving the outcome-oriented focus that drives real change.

Qualitative Feedback (Email Replies)

We invited email recipients to reply with open feedback. Replies were overwhelmingly positive and are reproduced (screenshots) below exactly as submitted to preserve authenticity and context.

Respondent: I have not finished going through the entirety of PU but I have already benefited tremendously (…) I have improved very significantly in coming across as more powerful.
(…)
I think it’s the best material in terms of self development I have come acrosss so far

Respondent: I have found Power University to be the single best investment I have ever made in myself

Potential Issues & Bias

No survey is free of bias.
Below we list possible limitations, and we describe the steps we took (or plan to take) to mitigate them. Being transparent about these issues increases the trustworthiness of the findings.

• Self-selection bias — alumni with strong positive experiences are more likely to respond. We addressed this by reporting separate cohort data (forum vs email) and by making the raw data exports available for external inspection.
• Social desirability and demand characteristics — respondents may want to appear successful or to give expected answers. We maintained anonymity to reduce this bias and explicitly invited candid and critical replies via email.
• Good-subject role (“making Lucio happy”) — people who feel close to the program or to me personally might try to help by giving positive answers. Again, anonymity and the inclusion of email cohorts with mixed engagement ,au lower the net risk of this bias dominating the results.
• Small sample size — the aggregate analysis uses N = 20 after exclusions. Small samples increase uncertainty (wider confidence intervals). We therefore treat this survey as an initial, encouraging snapshot, not a final evaluation.
• Measurement type — self-reported competence is a subjective measure. It is valuable for perceived change but should be complemented with behavioral, third-party, or longitudinal outcome measures in future studies.

Some biases may partially offset others.
For example, disgruntled alumni may also respond to voice criticism, which reduces pure positivity bias. Still, the safest interpretation is cautious: results show a strong self-reported benefit signal that warrants further, more controlled follow-ups.

Future developments

We are committed to continuous improvement and plan several follow-ups to strengthen evidence:

• Longitudinal tracking — whenever feasible, invite the same alumni to repeat the survey to measure sustained changes and downstream life outcomes.
• Objective outcome measures — where feasible, incorporate behavioral or third-party indicators (e.g., promotion records, peer ratings) while preserving privacy.
• Larger-scale sampling — increase the sample size across cohorts to narrow confidence intervals and allow segment analysis (age, baseline skill level, completion rate).
• Survey refinement — improve question wording and add validated psychometric items for future surveys. We will also integrate the data analyst’s recommendations.

Note: The survey and this article have been cross-checked by a certified data analyst. We will publish future improvements and follow-up results as they become available.

Power University developments following the survey

At the time of writing (July 2023), this is our first structured alumni survey.
The course was at version 8.2 when this survey was fielded, and respondents may reflect experience with earlier versions as well. We will use these results to prioritize product improvements that help alumni get faster and clearer outcomes — while preserving the program’s core emphasis on durable skill acquisition.

Planned improvements include more high-value video demonstrations, a reward structure to increase completion rates, and UI updates to make the learning path clearer and easier to follow.

Conclusions

In summary: across the measured competencies, Power University alumni report large perceived gains, and the program receives very high satisfaction ratings.
These results are consistent across cohorts, subject to the limitations described above. The evidence justifies continued investment in the course and motivates the next steps: larger samples, longitudinal follow-ups, and complementing self-report with objective outcomes.

We have made the raw numeric exports available for transparency and encourage independent inspection and replication. The survey processing and the reported statistics were cross-checked by a certified data analyst prior to publication.