Start your new year learning 'The Secret'.

[dannno]

Read what book, Danno?

The Secret and another newer book about the Law of Attraction. He also did a lot of meditating. Last time I hadn't gotten laid in forever and did some serious meditation I got laid within a few weeks, though.

I bring it up not because I think it de-legitimizes the idea, but somebody may bring it up some day and you may have to defend against it.

A couple points Stephan Molyneux brought up was that focusing on this can stagger your ability to do the things required to get these things yourself. Elliot had girls all around him everywhere and they would never talk to him.. but he was deathly terrified of them and probably didn't initiate many conversations with girls, maybe ever. But I think a lot of it is about application, you can put some energy into meditating and then use your own energy throughout the day constructively to meet your goals.

 

[Deborah K]

The Secret and another newer book about the Law of Attraction. He also did a lot of meditating. Last time I hadn't gotten laid in forever and did some serious meditation I got laid within a few weeks, though.

I bring it up not because I think it de-legitimizes the idea, but somebody may bring it up some day and you may have to defend against it.

A couple points Stephan Molyneux brought up was that focusing on this can stagger your ability to do the things required to get these things yourself. Elliot had girls all around him everywhere and they would never talk to him.. but he was deathly terrified of them and probably didn't initiate many conversations with girls, maybe ever. But I think a lot of it is about application, you can put some energy into meditating and then use your own energy throughout the day constructively to meet your goals.

What I would like to know is what kind of psychotropic medications Elliot was on. Psychotropic drugs have already been proven to cause homicidal and suicidal tendencies. The news reports stated that he was under serious mental and emotional distress and was being treated for it. I don't think LofA can be considered a factor in a situation like this. Although it's possible he may have been 'attracting' all the wrong things into his life through his mental instability.

Stephan Molyneux, based on what you wrote, apparently lacks an understanding as to what LofA is and how it works. For example, I wrote this earlier in the thread:

WHEN YOU HAVE INSPIRED THOUGHT, YOU HAVE TO TRUST IT, AND YOU HAVE TO ACT ON IT.

The process requires our action as much as it requires our thinking.

 

[ProIndividual]

This thread is full of a lot of superstition and pattern-seeking psychology.

There is nothing wrong with positive thinking...but there is something wrong with being results oriented. Allow me to explain:

There is no such thing as "luck". It's just pattern-seeking human psychology, when witnessing Variance (a mathematical term, and a quantifiable thing). People always want "good luck", and have all kinds of superstitions surrounding it, but in reality they can't control it with superstitious, or New Age, methods. If you want "good luck" (favorable Variance), I'll give you a formula - and it won't require you to study Standard Deviation, Variance, or other mathematical concepts.

"Good Luck" = Opportunity + Preparation + Well-Timed Aggression

Opportunity is a function of Variance, and over large sample sizes (and I mean immensely large) it evens out. You cannot control Opportunity via positive thinking, prayer, seeking certain numerical nonsense patterns via your psychological tendencies and re-affirmations, etc. Opportunity is what it is, and nothing can be done about it.

Preparation is completely under your control. Well-Timed Aggression is completely under your control.

Let me give an example from the real world:

I play poker for a living. Over 1 million hands, things pretty much even out (the upswings and downswings will likely, and to a high degree of probability, even out for no matter who plays this number of hands). That doesn't mean everyone who plays 1 million hands of poker will end up with, without, the same amount of profit, loss, or broke even. It means that if two players of equal play style faced 1 million hands, they are likely to get the same number of straights, pairs, etc., and vs the same number of opposing hands, which means bad beats and big coolers in their favor, or against them, will equal out, and it will be fairly equal for both players.

That may sound complicated, but it isn't. In the short run, anyone can win at poker (as Variance, or "luck", determines more in the short run). In the long run, the results are heavily determined by Preparation and Well-Timed Aggression. If you, as an amateur, play 1 million hands, and I, as a pro, play 1 million hands, I will win more money than you (and you will likely lose money). "Luck" just isn't a determining factor in long runs. It only matters in the short run.

If our lives were infinite, then Variance would even out for us all. We'd all have our fair share of Opportunities. But we don't live forever. Some people get unfavorable Variance ("bad luck"), like childhood cancer, or auto accidents not of their own fault, or attacked by a criminal, etc. This can be determinate to outcome in the "game of life", but only because life is a small sample size, relatively. This makes Preparation and Well-Timed Aggression even more important...because even though Opportunity is more determinate than in larger sample sizes, IF you get an Opportunity you absolutely MUST be prepared and act on it with good timing and aggression...otherwise you may not see another Opportunity.

If you want "good luck" in life, you can pray, think positive, etc. all you like...it may make you FEEL better. You may even convince yourself it works, as pattern-seeking human psychology makes us see patterns we are looking for (consciously or subconsciously). We tend to remember that which re-affirms our already established believes, and forget things that go against those beliefs. It's the same way our brain looks at clouds and says "you see that X in the clouds?"..."That's a total X in the clouds!". Someone else may see nothing, the same thing, or something different...but in the end, it's just a fucking cloud. You see what you want to see...patterns of familiarity. Mythologies, religions, New Ageism, etc. are all built on this type of psychological phenomenon.

Real life "good luck" is only to a degree under your control (because life is a small sample size). The parts you can control are preparation and well-timed aggression. The good thing is, during the Roman Empire life expectancy on average was early 20s...so we today have much more control over our "luck" than people of the past (as we live longer- extending the sample size). The bad thing is, someone born with more opportunities than you will likely succeed with less preparation and less well-timed aggression....but if you motivate yourself enough to prepare more than them, and practice timing of your aggressive moves in life (and I don't mean aggression in the NAP sense - I mean in terms go-getter attitude, and being less risk-averse) more than them, then in the end you can end up just as successful (or more so) than them.

You can think positive all you like, or as little as you like...it's not that which makes you a success or failure. It's preparation and well-timed aggression, and the uncontrollable opportunity. Control what you can, quit worrying about what you can't control (and don't pretend you can control it). Superstition gives you comfort, but does nothing to increase "good luck".

And being results oriented is bad. In the short run, you can do all the right things in terms of preparation and well-timed aggression, but still get bad results due to Variance. You wouldn't want to change your tactics, as they aren't the reason you failed. In probability, you need to think process, not results. If something is +EV (positive expected value) over the long term, don't get results oriented when you run really bad, or really good. Gain satisfaction from doing things right, regardless of how they work out. In poker I can play a hand perfect for moths and keep losing, and I can play the exact same way and win big for a while. What matters is if my moves are +EV...will my moves make the most possible profit if I did them 1 million times. That's how I determine whether the move is right or not, not by results in the short term. I don't get too high when I win, and I don't get too low when I lose...I take satisfaction from playing the hand correctly, not from the result of correct play. In the long run, I'll win if my moves are correct (and I have been for years).

Never look at short term results (that may, or may not, feel short) as important. It may cause you to become risk-averse, and therefore make your well-timed aggression into badly-timed passivity.

 

[dannno]

What I would like to know is what kind of psychotropic medications Elliot was on. Psychotropic drugs have already been proven to cause homicidal and suicidal tendencies. The news reports stated that he was under serious mental and emotional distress and was being treated for it. I don't think LofA can be considered a factor in a situation like this. Although it's possible he may have been 'attracting' all the wrong things into his life through his mental instability.

Stephan Molyneux, based on what you wrote, apparently lacks an understanding as to what LofA is and how it works. For example, I wrote this earlier in the thread:

WHEN YOU HAVE INSPIRED THOUGHT, YOU HAVE TO TRUST IT, AND YOU HAVE TO ACT ON IT.

The process requires our action as much as it requires our thinking.

Ya if the book goes into that topic a lot then I don't think he really executed it properly, but part of it was he just didn't know how to.

And I agree about SSRIs, they won't release his medical history but he was being treated by several psychiatrists. They claim he was not taking medication for his illness, but he was being treated as early as age 8 I believe and even more heavily at 13. They HAD to have given him drugs somewhere along the way, he had to have taken SSRIs. I read all 114 pages of his manifesto and while he spends dozens of pages on the first few years of his life he doesn't detail his damn history of taking prescriptions!!

What we do know is that he probably had a prescription for vicodin and xanax because he planned assist his gunshot to the head suicide with them (in case it failed). He had broken his leg which explains the vicodin and possibly the xanax, but more likely the xanax was for his anxiety. But he was also severely depressed. They wanted to put him on some medication fairly recently and he looked it up and refused it. I'd bet he was taking SSRIs in his teens and they messed him up even more and he knew it and so he got off of them.. but the damage had mostly been done.

 

[Deborah K]

This thread is full of a lot of superstition and pattern-seeking psychology.

There is nothing wrong with positive thinking...but there is something wrong with being results oriented. Allow me to explain:

There is no such thing as "luck". It's just pattern-seeking human psychology, when witnessing Variance (a mathematical term, and a quantifiable thing). People always want "good luck", and have all kinds of superstitions surrounding it, but in reality they can't control it with superstitious, or New Age, methods. If you want "good luck" (favorable Variance), I'll give you a formula - and it won't require you to study Standard Deviation, Variance, or other mathematical concepts.

"Good Luck" = Opportunity + Preparation + Well-Timed Aggression

Opportunity is a function of Variance, and over large sample sizes (and I mean immensely large) it evens out. You cannot control Opportunity via positive thinking, prayer, seeking certain numerical nonsense patterns via your psychological tendencies and re-affirmations, etc. Opportunity is what it is, and nothing can be done about it.

Preparation is completely under your control. Well-Timed Aggression is completely under your control.

Let me give an example from the real world:

I play poker for a living. Over 1 million hands, things pretty much even out (the upswings and downswings will likely, and to a high degree of probability, even out for no matter who plays this number of hands). That doesn't mean everyone who plays 1 million hands of poker will end up with, without, the same amount of profit, loss, or broke even. It means that if two players of equal play style faced 1 million hands, they are likely to get the same number of straights, pairs, etc., and vs the same number of opposing hands, which means bad beats and big coolers in their favor, or against them, will equal out, and it will be fairly equal for both players.

That may sound complicated, but it isn't. In the short run, anyone can win at poker (as Variance, or "luck", determines more in the short run). In the long run, the results are heavily determined by Preparation and Well-Timed Aggression. If you, as an amateur, play 1 million hands, and I, as a pro, play 1 million hands, I will win more money than you (and you will likely lose money). "Luck" just isn't a determining factor in long runs. It only matters in the short run.

If our lives were infinite, then Variance would even out for us all. We'd all have our fair share of Opportunities. But we don't live forever. Some people get unfavorable Variance ("bad luck"), like childhood cancer, or auto accidents not of their own fault, or attacked by a criminal, etc. This can be determinate to outcome in the "game of life", but only because life is a small sample size, relatively. This makes Preparation and Well-Timed Aggression even more important...because even though Opportunity is more determinate than in larger sample sizes, IF you get an Opportunity you absolutely MUST be prepared and act on it with good timing and aggression...otherwise you may not see another Opportunity.

If you want "good luck" in life, you can pray, think positive, etc. all you like...it may make you FEEL better. You may even convince yourself it works, as pattern-seeking human psychology makes us see patterns we are looking for (consciously or subconsciously). We tend to remember that which re-affirms our already established believes, and forget things that go against those beliefs. It's the same way our brain looks at clouds and says "you see that X in the clouds?"..."That's a total X in the clouds!". Someone else may see nothing, the same thing, or something different...but in the end, it's just a fucking cloud. You see what you want to see...patterns of familiarity. Mythologies, religions, New Ageism, etc. are all built on this type of psychological phenomenon.

Real life "good luck" is only to a degree under your control (because life is a small sample size). The parts you can control are preparation and well-timed aggression. The good thing is, during the Roman Empire life expectancy on average was early 20s...so we today have much more control over our "luck" then people of the past (as we live longer- extending the sample size). The bad thing is, someone born with more opportunities than you will likely succeed with less preparation and less well-timed aggression....but if you motivate yourself enough to prepare more than them, and practice timing of your aggressive moves in life (and I don't mean aggression in the NAP sense - I mean in terms go-getter attitude, and being less risk-averse) more than them, then in the end you can end up just as successful (or more so) than them.

You can think positive all you like, or as little as you like...it's not that which makes you a success or failure. It's preparation and well-timed aggression, and the uncontrollable opportunity. Control what you can, quit worrying about what you can't control (and don't pretend you can control it). Superstition gives you comfort, but does nothing to increase "good luck".

And being results oriented is bad. In the short run, you can do all the right things in terms of preparation and well-times aggression, but still get bad results due to Variance. You wouldn't want to change your tactics, as they aren't the reason you failed. In probability, you need to think process, not results. If something is +EV (positive expected value) over the long term, don't get results oriented when you run really bad, or really good. Gain satisfaction from doing things right, regardless of how they work out. In poker I can play a hand perfect for moths and keep losing, and I can play the exact same way and win big for a while. What matters is if my moves are +EV...will my moves make the most possible profit if I did them 1 million times. That's how I determine whether the move is right or not, not by results in the short term. I don't get too high when I win, and I don't get too low when I lose...I take satisfaction from playing the hand correctly, not from the result of correct play. In the long run, I'll win if my moves are correct (and I have been for years).

Never look at short term results (that may or not feel short) as important. It was cause you to become risk-averse, and therefore make your well-timed aggression badly-timed passivity.

Are you implying that you think the Law of Attraction is about luck?

 

[ProIndividual]

I'm suggesting positive thinking doesn't change physical reality. I'm suggesting it doesn't change your level of preparation or make your acts any less risk-averse, or any more well-timed. I'm suggesting all the positive thinking in the world doesn't affect success, IF one refuses to prepare, or practice less risk-averse thinking, and the timing of it, then they will not succeed more (or at least will not owe any of that upswing in success to themselves - as Variance will have been responsible, not them personally).

The law of attraction isn't any kind of real law...it's New Ageism (which stole it from past superstition). It gets into this whole superstitious and non-scientific use of the word energy, and mixes it with the actual scientific use of the word. It is a creative form of self-help, pseudoscience, and religion.

Although there are some cases where positive or negative attitudes can produce corresponding results (principally the placebo and nocebo effects), there is no scientific basis to the law of attraction.[7]

I wouldn't call the placebo and nocebo effects "success" in a theory.

Skeptical Inquirer magazine criticized the lack of falsifiability and testability of these claims.[6] Critics have asserted that the evidence provided is usually anecdotal and that, because of the self-selecting nature of the positive reports, as well as the subjective nature of any results, these reports are susceptible to confirmation bias and selection bias.[18] Physicist Ali Alousi, for instance, criticized it as unmeasurable and questioned the likelihood that thoughts can affect anything outside the head.[1]

The Law of Attraction has been popularized in recent years by books and films such as The Secret. This film and the subsequent book[19] use interviews with New Thought authors and speakers to explain the principles of the proposed metaphysical law that one can attract anything that one thinks about consistently. Writing for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Mary Carmichael and Ben Radford wrote that "neither the film nor the book has any basis in scientific reality", and that its premise contains "an ugly flipside: if you have an accident or disease, it's the universe that is trying to teach you something". [6]

Others have questioned the references to modern scientific theory, and have maintained, for example, that the law of attraction misrepresents the electrical activity of brainwaves.[20] Victor Stenger and Leon Lederman are critical of attempts to use quantum mysticism to bridge any unexplained or seemingly implausible effects, believing these to be traits of modern pseudoscience.[21][22][23]

Now, if you want something similar, but that is scientific, try nootropics (various foods, medications, herbs, etc. known to increase memory, speed recall, vigilance, etc.), or transcranial direct current stimulation. Both can increase mathematical abilities in the short run, increase linguistic ability, attention, problem solving, memory, physical ability (like balance and timing), etc. You can buy either over-the-counter (the gadgets to do your own brain stimulation are safe, run on magnetics usually, and are cheap).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_direct-current_stimulation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic

I swear by certain nootropics and certain stimulation methods to certain parts of the brain, along with regular exercise (which I try to get). They have all become apart of my routine, and I have profited handsomely from them. Poker is a very competitive environment, and it's hard to play for a living given the improved state of play since 2006's "poker boom". What gives me an edge is not just nootropics and DIY brain stimulation, but it certainly is a remarkable aspect of my edge. And it's all scientific, not superstitious and pseudoscience.

Chances are, you already use some nootripics anyways (functional food, like iodized salt, Vitamin D milk, B Vitamins, caffeine, and nicotine - which has positive effects on the brain, especially memory...and shows promise in Alzheimer's patients). I suggest using them responsibly, of course, as they have side effects, and some can be addictive. But the best ones aren't used by most people every day, and you need to research the subject to figure out which ones are right for you, and in what combination.

Anyways, if this "law of attraction" is a matter of faith for you, then facts won't matter (like with any religion). If it is a matter of wanting best results, look to the facts. The fact is, anything not falsifiable is nonsense. You must always have a possibility of an observation (or argument) that proves the thing being tested to be false. If one cannot conceive of such a scenario, the thing is not falsifiable...and so it is untestable even theoretically, and therefore is not a logical thing.

The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience. This is often epitomized in Wolfgang Pauli famously saying, of an argument that fails to be scientific because it cannot be falsified by experiment, "it is not only not right, it is not even wrong!"

So, "the law of attraction" is not only not right...it's not even wrong. It's just there. It's like the idea a flying pink unicorn hiding behind Saturn...you can't prove it exists, I can't prove it doesn't exist, and even if it did exist, it would have no bearing on anything anyways (positive thought won't yield any better results if one doesn't prepare or well-time aggression, or if opportunities in the short run are not favorable).

 

[Deborah K]

I'm guessing you're a 'glass half empty' kinda guy.

 

[Deborah K]

The law of attraction isn't any kind of real law...it's New Ageism (which stole it from past superstition). It gets into this whole superstitious and non-scientific use of the word energy, and mixes it with the actual scientific use of the word. It is a creative form of self-help, pseudoscience, and religion.

There are quantum physicists who would disagree with you on this matter.

 

[ProIndividual]

I'm guessing you're a 'glass half empty' kinda guy.

You'd guess wrong. But I'm not delusional either...I'm a realist. Reality isn't easily ignored, and those who try usually get broken upon it. You can't prove the "law of attraction" exists at all (it's not falsifiable), and can't show it to be any kind of scientific law therefore. Instead of admitting that, or even addressing it, you just use what you must have thought to be a humorous ad hominem attack. It was not humorous (imo), not logical, and not a defense of your pseudoscience "law".

There are quantum physicists who would disagree with you on this matter.

Anyone who buys into pseudoscience ceases, logically, to be a scientist. It's not just a job to be a scientist...it's a way of living and thinking. It's like saying someone is straight, who sleeps with the same sex. The moment they sleep wit the same sex willingly, for enjoyment, they cease to be straight and become bi or gay, logically (as straight is defined partly as being someone who is only attracted to the opposite sex).

A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method.[1]

No systematic activity (usually the scientific method, although it can be logic in other settings) to acquire knowledge, no scientist. Promoting a pseudoscientific theory that can't be falsified is anti-scientific. The "scientist" who does so ceases to be a scientist the moment they do it, regardless of their degrees or job. They may resume their scientist label when they go back to systematic activity in the pursuit of knowledge. They may be a scientist in physics, but not one in their religious beliefs, sexual lives, etc. ONLY where they use systematic activity in the pursuit of knowledge are they to be considered a scientist. Any other time, they are a pseudoscientist or straight up junk scientist.


The fact you retorted nothing I said, and responded with a one sentence ad hominem (the "glass half empty" comment, which is not a logical response) and the illogical claim that a scientist (a physicist of any kind) can simultaneously be a scientist AND be a proponent of a pseudoscience like your "law" of attraction, tells me this is an article of faith for you, and like any religion is impervious to facts or logic.

You need to understand the difference between pseudoscience, junk science, and actual science, and you need to understand the difference between fact and faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

I won't continue with this discussion therefore, because I'm not into masochism. No one can help you but yourself (and no, that is not an affirmation of your "law").

 

[Deborah K]

You'd guess wrong. But I'm not delusional either...I'm a realist. Reality isn't easily ignored, and those who try usually get broken upon it. You can't prove the "law of attraction" exists at all (it's not falsifiable), and can't show it to be any kind of scientific law therefore. Instead of admitting that, or even addressing it, you just use what you must have thought to be a humorous ad hominem attack. It was not humorous (imo), not logical, and not a defense of your pseudoscience "law".



Anyone who buys into pseudoscience ceases, logically, to be a scientist. It's not just a job to be a scientist...it's a way of living and thinking. It's like saying someone is straight, who sleeps with the same sex. The moment they sleep wit the same sex willingly, for enjoyment, they cease to be straight and become bi or gay, logically (as straight is defined partly as being someone who is only attracted to the opposite sex).



No systematic activity (usually the scientific method, although it can be logic in other settings) to acquire knowledge, no scientist. Promoting a pseudoscientific theory that can't be falsified is anti-scientific. The "scientist" who does so ceases to be a scientist the moment they do it, regardless of their degrees or job. They may resume their scientist label when they go back to systematic activity in the pursuit of knowledge. They may be a scientist in physics, but not one in their religious beliefs, sexual lives, etc. ONLY where they use systematic activity in the pursuit of knowledge are they to be considered a scientist. Any other time, they are a pseudoscientist or straight up junk science.


The fact you retorted nothing I said, and responded with a one sentence ad hominem (the "glass half empty" comment, which is not a logical response) and the illogical claim that a scientist (a physicist of any kind) can simultaneously be a scientist AND be a proponent of a pseudoscience like your "law" of attraction, tells me this is an article of faith for you, and like any religion is impervious to facts or logic.

You need to understand the difference between pseudoscience, junk science, and actual science, and you need to understand the difference between fact and faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

I won't continue with this discussion therefore, because I'm not into masochism. No one can help you but yourself (and no, that is not an affirmation of your "law").

My quips to your lengthy, self important posts have more to do with the fact that I've already stated my position in this thread, and have no desire to reiterate why this technique is valuable. And I don't really care enough about your rejection of the concept to try and convince you otherwise - I'm not dumb enough to think I can. I do find that your objections seem very personal, and you seem way too invested in debunking this than need be. I'm guessing you probably think psychology and behavioral science are pseudo-sciences as well, since LofA involves those fields of study as well as quantum physics, and metaphysics.

I'm also guessing you have no respect for Napoleon Hill, Clement Stone, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Joseph Murphy, Jack Canfield, and many others through the ages who believed in the LofA.

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. So feel free to bugger off. But I leave you with a quote by Albert Einstein:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Why would you encourage people to watch kook nonsense? Have you watched it? Did you read my synopsis in post #9? Please explain what is kooky about it. The principles are biblical and that is all too easy to prove.

There are a lot of things that are "biblical" because similar concepts can be found in the bible, but the bible doesn't tell you, "Live this way and you will be the happiest that you can be." There is no magic bullet that will maximize happiness in your life, and calling it biblical is just acknowledging that the bible acknowledges its existence. It doesn't mean it's the best path in life for everyone or for anyone, necessarily. The fact that the concept can be found in the bible does not automatically make it sane or good, and it is quite possible to confuse something kooky for something legitimate just because they look so similar. Underlying differences in the framework that surround it, however, can be crucial to what it's really worth. One poster noted the absence of God in the equation. This could be the defining factor which changes the tone of the whole discussion and leads people down the wrong path. I haven't even watched the video, but I can still tell you that some master life formula isn't likely to fundamentally change the course of your life. The course of my life has been altered quite dramatically a few times already, and it was my ability to adapt that kept me from believing I had lost anything as a result. Pursuing what you want takes hard work and vigorous dedication. Even then there are no guarantees.

 

[Deborah K]

There are a lot of things that are "biblical" because similar concepts can be found in the bible, but the bible doesn't tell you, "Live this way and you will be the happiest that you can be." There is no magic bullet that will maximize happiness in your life, and calling it biblical is just acknowledging that the bible acknowledges its existence. It doesn't mean it's the best path in life for everyone or for anyone, necessarily. The fact that the concept can be found in the bible does not automatically make it sane or good, and it is quite possible to confuse something kooky for something legitimate just because they look so similar. Underlying differences in the framework that surround it, however, can be crucial to what it's really worth. One poster noted the absence of God in the equation. This could be the defining factor which changes the tone of the whole discussion and leads people down the wrong path. I haven't even watched the video, but I can still tell you that some master life formula isn't likely to fundamentally change the course of your life. The course of my life has been altered quite dramatically a few times already, and it was my ability to adapt that kept me from believing I had lost anything as a result. Pursuing what you want takes hard work and vigorous dedication. Even then there are no guarantees.

The documentary linked to in the OP is but one version of a concept that has been known to work exceptionally well for many people, for many years. As with anything, one must determine if it is right for them. The poster who noted the absence of God in the equation isn't accurate. God is mentioned in the documentary, the focus is not on God, however. Napoleon Hill, oth, puts the focus on a higher power. Joseph Murphy puts the focus directly on God, as do others. So, it is a non-issue that God is not the focus in this particular documentary. All of the aforementioned however, do put the focus on the workings of the subconscious mind and its relationship to God/a universal force/a higher power, etc. IOW, your belief system can be your own while you practice the LofA- it is all inclusive. But, in addition to that, there is the science behind it.

So no, no one is claiming it's a magic bullet. And the LofA does indeed require one to take the initiative, as I wrote in the OP.

This could be the defining factor which changes the tone of the whole discussion and leads people down the wrong path.

Can you cite an example of someone being led down the wrong path by doing the exercises listed in the OP?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

How about we do an experiment, right here in this thread?

This sure would mean a lot to me if anybody who was interested could participate.

New age folks tend to be into numerology and such. On 11/11/11 I attended a new age festival and somebody sitting next to me got up from their chair and somebody else noticed that they had left exactly $0.11 (one dime & one penny) right on the chair. I took a picture of it for evidence. I also had a very enlightening weekend. The #1 goal in my life at the time was to find a romantic partner as I had lacked one for some time. That was pretty much the entire focus of my life.

2 weeks later I invited a girl over and we ended up hooking up that night. The next morning after she left, I looked on my chair where she had left all her stuff and to my surprise she had forgotten a pair of pink socks along with, you got it, $0.11 (one dime & one penny). I took another picture for evidence.

We ended up falling in love, she moved in with me and the next two years were the best two years of my life. They weren't a perfect, she isn't perfect and neither am I, but for some reason I feel like we belong together and were meant for each other. I bought her a puppy and we have considered him our 'son' and 'raised him' together and he is the cutest and one of the happiest, loving little dogs in the whole world.

Two months ago we were both completely in love. We had moved into our own place from living with roommates previously. She had professed her undying love to me and me to her in early November. That was when something happened which may or may not have had a significant impact on the rest of our lives. Her doctor told her that they no longer manufactured her birth control and that they would have to put her on a new type of birth control.

In less than two weeks after switching birth control she decided that she 'wanted to see other people' and broke up with me. We didn't have any fights, it just came out of nowhere. We never celebrated our 2 year anniversary. We still live together but she is planning on moving out and already seeing somebody else. This 'somebody else' is unemployed, lives in a trailer next to his parents house and on top of that he has already totalled her car after borrowing it because his car ran out of gas. In the mean time, I am still madly in love with this girl and will do anything to get her back, but I really just don't know what to do. This whole thing is like watching a car accident in slow motion and I can't stop it from happening. Not only am I losing the woman of my life, but I see the person I care most about making horrible decisions.

I have been trying to use the concepts I learned prior to going out with her to get her back and so far no luck.

Maybe it's time to try increasing the numbers.

So as an experiment -

Visualize my soul mate falling back in love with me - meditate - send positive energy into the universe.

I will try and keep you guys up to date if it works out.

This story made me depressed. It's a reminder of how even the things you are most certain about in life can change in an instant, something I've had to go through before. My humble advice, if I am qualified to give any, would be to move on. I don't trust many women with my heart anymore.

 

[Deborah K]

This story made me depressed. It's a reminder of how even the things you are most certain about in life can change in an instant, something I've had to go through before. My humble advice, if I am qualified to give any, would be to move on. I don't trust many women with my heart anymore.

The girl you've been dating lately didn't work out?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Here are some indisputable facts for you:

1. The entire Universe and everything in it is made up of energy.

2. Every thought has a frequency, you can measure a thought. Your thoughts are emitting a magnetic frequency.

3. The field of psychology took the visualization process that was used in the Apollo program and instituted it during the 80s and 90s into the Olympic program and named it ‘Visual Motor Rehearsal’. They then took Olympic track and field athletes and hooked them up to bio-feedback machines and had them running their events in their minds. The same muscles fired in the same sequence in their minds as on the field. The mind cannot distinguish between visualization and reality. Tiger Woods and many other professional athletes use this form of training.

4. In medical science, they are beginning to understand the degree to which thoughts and emotions actually determine the physical substance, structure, and functions of our bodies. Consider the placebo effect. Consider the cliché: mind over matter.

5. Science has learned that the human mind is the biggest factor in healing.

6. The law of attraction has been well known for thousands of years. It’s found in the Bible, and every well-known philosopher has taught on it. Consider Plato for example. Inventors, athletes, scientists, writers, composers, and on and on throughout history have used the law of attraction and talked about it.

7. The law of attraction manifests the things you are thinking and feeling, whether your thoughts are good or bad, and whether you believe it or not. Your entire life is a result of what your thoughts and feelings have attracted into it. "Whether you think you can or you can't - either way you are right." Henry Ford

Forgive me, but the law of attraction sounds like something that can be summed up by a few posters I've seen hanging in my high school's hallways. How is this such a novel concept? Just because you take the common sense part of it and attach a bunch of feel-good new agey stuff to it, that doesn't make it gospel, that just makes it good marketing. Thinking positive thoughts and taking positive action should be a no-brainer for anyone. Why this needs to be anything more than an obvious aspect of success is beyond me. There's no debate in the fact that successful people are positive thinkers. Positive thinkers are motivated because they believe their work will pay off, which allows them to keep working for it. There's really nothing mystical about this idea.

 

[Deborah K]

Forgive me, but the law of attraction sounds like something that can be summed up by a few posters I've seen hanging in my high school's hallways. How is this such a novel concept? Just because you take the common sense part of it and attach a bunch of feel-good new agey stuff to it, that doesn't make it gospel, that just makes it good marketing. Thinking positive thoughts and taking positive action should be a no-brainer for anyone. Why this needs to be anything more than an obvious aspect of success is beyond me. There's no debate in the fact that successful people are positive thinkers. Positive thinkers are motivated because they believe their work will pay off, which allows them to keep working for it. There's really nothing mystical about this idea.

At least half of the world's population is made of up negative-thinking people. Perhaps the LofA is for them?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Refute what? You seem to think, like most have done throughout history, that Man has solved all the mysteries of the universe, that He mostly understands it all and the species is currently at its zenith. I don't need to refute that; that you are wrong is self-evident.

We are only at the dawn of realizing that there are at least 11 dimensions, but can't yet even prove it. I'd say, Man today is like a two-dimensional ant trying to comprehend 3-D.

The fact that there are things beyond our comprehension shouldn't take much brainpower to figure out. Do you know everything? No. Do you know half of everything? No.

See? The fact that you can't quantify how much of everything you know is enough to refute any sure-minded individual who thinks the human race has reached some sort of peak of knowledge. I'm sure humans throughout history have thought the very same things: that they were living at the greatest heights of human achievement, and that our knowledge of the universe was pretty set in stone. Until you figure out just how much things can change without you having any idea why, you will continue to be ignorant in your belief that you are wise.

This applies to the sum of human knowledge as well as the individual. What we know is dwarfed by reality. The only reasonable mindset is to acknowledge your own ignorance and realize that there are things way outside of our ability to comprehend that have a very real effect on our lives.

This coming from a guy who doesn't really buy into the Law of Attraction as a magical wish list that can be 100% fulfilled just by believing hard enough. But on the other hand, to think our knowledge of the universe is anywhere close to complete or realistic is to cement your own ignorance and stall any further progress in your own mental development.

 

[Deborah K]

This coming from a guy who doesn't really buy into the Law of Attraction as a magical wish list that can be 100% fulfilled just by believing hard enough. But on the other hand, to think our knowledge of the universe is anywhere close to complete or realistic is to cement your own ignorance and stall any further progress in your own mental development.

This is a gross oversimplification and really kind of insulting.

When Josh had this clip posted for every member to watch, did you give him shit about it?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yep, I remember this. It's awesome. And it's probably more the speed people around here would accept. I think maybe 'The Secret' comes off a little hokey to many of the no-nonsense, naturally suspicious-of-everything types. Same message though.

After watching this video, I fully endorse the message being portrayed. At first, the idea seemed laden with unrealistic nonsense that did not involve action. Now I realize it's just common sense. Regardless of how the original video may come off, the takeaway message is that you can and will be successful only by applying yourself and spending your time doing something productive rather than unproductive. If you spent half the time you wasted being productive in the past, how much more would you have now than you already do? I'm willing to bet it's quite a lot. Either way, it's not too late to start.

Believe and achieve, as the old saying goes. It's nothing new and it's basically common sense. There's no snake oil salesman that can sell you something to improve this very simple message. Just go out and do.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I take issue with people trying to use it for monetary gain. I'm all about thinking positive, but 'wishing' to be rich is kinda missing the point. Just be a positive thinker and follow your dreams... that simple.

If your dreams are to be rich, then there's no reason you can't achieve them. It doesn't "miss the point" if being rich is what you really want.