What Exists
Research Foundations

The Ask

Subhead: What this deserves—and what we acknowledge we lack.

What This Deserves

If the argument is even approximately correct, then steamHouse—or something like it—represents the highest-leverage investment possible for human flourishing.

  • Not one intervention among many. The meta-intervention that makes all other interventions more effective.

  • Not an educational program. The operating system for human development.

  • Not a nice idea. A civilizational necessity.

This deserves:

The best people:

  • Not just educators but cognitive scientists, philosophers, systems thinkers, storytellers

  • Not just practitioners but researchers who can validate and refine

  • Not just implementers but developers who can extend and adapt

  • Not just advocates but critics who can strengthen through challenge

Serious resources:

  • Not nonprofit scraps but strategic investment

  • Not pilot programs but scaled implementation

  • Not isolated experiments but networked learning

Sustained commitment:

  • Not flavor-of-the-month enthusiasm but multi-decade development

  • Not quick wins but compound growth

  • Not grants but endowments

The Evidence Question

We acknowledge the honest challenge: steamHouse has design validity but not yet outcome validity.

What we have:

  • Research foundation (grounded in established science)

  • Theoretical coherence (integrated framework)

  • Face validity (it makes sense to those who engage)

  • Practitioner testimony (mentors report it works)

  • Pilot implementation (real families, real results—anecdotally)

What we lack:

  • Controlled studies (RCT-level evidence)

  • Longitudinal tracking (does it persist?)

  • Comparative data (better than alternatives?)

  • Scale evidence (does it replicate?)

Our commitment:

  • Honest evaluation as we scale

  • Theory of change made explicit and testable

  • Metrics for what success looks like

  • Willingness to revise based on evidence

  • Transparency about what we know and don't know

The Paradox

  • Rigorous evaluation requires resources

  • Resources require demonstrated efficacy

  • Demonstrating efficacy requires evaluation

  • Starting requires faith beyond current evidence

We are asking for reasoned faith—not blind faith, but confidence based on the strength of the design argument and the magnitude of the stakes.

Specific Asks

For Funders:

  • Seed funding for 2026 implementation priorities

  • Multi-year commitment to allow compound development

  • Patient capital that understands the timeline

For Researchers:

  • Collaboration on evaluation design

  • Integration with existing research programs

  • Critical review of our synthesis

For Program Partners:

  • Pilot the Universal Team Framework with existing programs

  • Test Bootstrap Guides in real contexts

  • Provide feedback for iteration

For Critics:

  • Tell us what's wrong with the argument

  • Identify gaps in the synthesis

  • Strengthen through challenge