Let's say you find a technique or an approach that works magic for you personally.
"It works for me," you say, "I can even find science to support it, so it must be true."
"So if I squeeze X, tilt Y, or take position Z, I'll get result A."
You create a technique to confirm your view, which is based in [a] fact.
Your principle doesn't lie, but it also doesn't tell the whole truth.
So before you go branding and trademarking...
After the [confirming] test, what is the system better able to do?
After all the technique repetition, and verification, what's the end result? [Besides self-confirmation]
In science, we call this confirmation bias.
In religion, we might call this fundamentalism.
I'm reminded by someone who grew up in rural America, "This sounds like [fundamentalist] Christianity. People would pray a certain way, then build churches around this way of praying, because it worked for them, and then this belief, that using this way of praying was best, would would become pivotal in the belief system securing this church's operations."
Start with Belief B
Go straight for techniques X, Y, & Z [the ones you know will work]
Get confirmation A
[support with that fact]
Repeat until System [or Church] is built by many people using circular thinking and biased results.
Don't build a System or a Church out of your techniques.
This is not creativity. It's bad science.
Extra Credit: if you encounter this methodology in action, ask these people for the techniques and methods that did not work, the times when a hypothesis was disproved. Are there such available examples?