I have several younger fellows review my columns (that is not a diary).

The selection criteria of younger fellows who are a member of reviewer are the two followings.

- to be able to criticize my columns from the view of both the world and I cannot assume before,

- to be able to express my implicit ideas as their language level,

Though Some people might say "It is a piece of cake for me", I think that few people have the capabilities of the above two matters.

-----

(1)Needless to say, they can read my columns even if they are too long.

They cannot start anything if they have the capabilities.

(2)They should explain their ideas logically based on their logical thought.

The qualitative explanation is not enough, and it is necessary to be accompanied by the quantitative grounds based on data they have.

My columns are based on "numbers".(This is natural if they are researchers)

It is necessary "to know" the normal social common sense.

My columns are not the articles for some researchers but just columns for ordinal people.

(4)Regardless of (3) mentioned above, it is necessary "not to believe" normal social common sense.

From a viewpoint based on "common sense", it is impossible to criticize the contents of my columns.

(5)It is necessary "to make up" their own review to the degree that they can explain to a third party by themselves logically.

It is not enough of simple thin review criticism like "self-conscience stage of puberty".

The thought should be logically completed in their brain, and be made up to be able to explain it to a third party.

(6)It is necessary for a review of (5) mentioned above to be interesting enough.

Even if the story is logical, it doesn't mean that they can build up an interesting story. We cannot sell the story that is not interesting.

And, these extremely rare younger fellows who kept in this from (1) to (6), are the worst.

(To be continued)