Yesterday I posted The “Law” of Attraction (Not) – a response to Joe Vitale’s blog post, Is Attraction a Law? Short version – The Law of Attraction (LOA) is not a law like the Law of Gravitation that has predictable, repeatable (no exceptions) results. I posted a brief comment on Joe’s blog, linking back to my post.
Now, Joe is one of the luminaries who appears in “The Secret”, and he has clearly stated the “LOA does work every time - no exceptions”. If this is true, Joe must have attracted my attentions, and my skeptical responses and questions. Strangely though, Joe doesn’t practice what he preaches with regard to the LOA. Specifically, he resorts to the decidedly non-LOA method of holding all comments on his blog until he can read them and decide which ones he will allow to be published. Why does he need to do this? Surely if you can use the LOA to make checks appear in your mailbox instead of bills (one of the specific claims made for the LOA), you can use the LOA to make only complimentary comments appear in your blog? Or doesn’t Joe really believe in the LOA?
Check out the actual exchange of comments (reproduced below), and remember that Joe is not just some random LOA believer – he is one of the main proponents of The Secret and the LOA, and he actually appears in the film:
Skeptico: Joe, I don’t think you understand what a Law is and what it isn’t. I just posted a reply: The “Law” of Attraction (Not).
Joe Vitale: Ah, you might want to re-read my post. :)
While people are arguing if LOA is a law or not, others are using the principle/law/insight/method (choose what makes you feel ok) to create lives of happiness and abundance.
The choice is yours.
Note the avoidance of the issue. I point out the LOA is not a Law. Joe ignores this, and equivocates by saying many people are benefiting from it. Remember, his claim was that the LOA is a Law like gravity. I try to pull him back to what was, remember, the subject of this post on his blog:
Skeptico: Maybe they are. And I re-read your post. The Law of Attraction is still not a law, for the reasons I gave in my post.
Joe Vitale: The next time a cop pulls you over for speeding, be sure to tell him you don't have to obey that "law," either.
Joe avoids the issue again – this time equivocating to a different (lesser) kind of law – speeding. But a speeding law (made up by man) is not the same as a scientific Law: you can break a speeding law; you can’t break the laws of the universe. Remember, Joe is the one who, in his own post, compares the LOA to gravity. He can’t justify that and so he has to try to pretend this is now the same as a traffic law.
Skeptico: A Scientific Law is a precise description of how the universe works. A speeding law is a rule written by lawyers – it says if you break the law you get a fine. The universe can’t “break” the law of gravitation – that’s the difference.
The math for Newton’s laws works every time. That’s why it’s a law. The Law of attraction does not work every time, if at all – that’s why it is not a law.
Joe Vitale: Again, LOA does work every time - no exceptions.
Again, re-read my post.
Note – Joe again ignores my arguments for why the LOA is not a law like the Law of Gravitation that he compared it to. He just asserts he is right, with no evidence, and not one word to refute what I had written. Clearly the LOA is not working to Joe’s benefit, as I am still responding to his original post, making points that refute his claims - points he can’t refute. Here’s where Joe gives up on the LOA that he has just said, “does work every time - no exceptions”, because clearly it’s not working for him now. What is this non-LOA method for getting rid of me? Easy - he doesn’t allow my next comment to be published. This is the comment Joe didn’t want anyone to see:
Skeptico: No it doesn't. It's not a Law. And read my post.
That’s it. Those were the eleven words Joe was frightened you would read. The eleven measly words that the oh-so-powerful LOA couldn’t make disappear. This is the best that one of the main proponents of The Secret can come up with. Remember that when anyone tells you how profound The Secret and the LOA are.
I’m not going to comment any more on Joe’s blog – I’m not going to waste time on someone who holds comments for review and then won't publish those he doesn’t like. (You can see some other critical comments now after mine. Did Joe attract those, I wonder? Remember, some of those people might have replied to Joe with comments he didn’t allow.) But I’m going to ask him two open questions about this LOA that “does work every time - no exceptions”:
- Suppose there is a traffic jam. Some of the people caught in that jam had been worried about being late, and so possibly attracted the jam. What about the other people caught in the jam who had been positive, and had been thinking about being on time? How is the LOA working for them?
- Imagine two people with identical bicycles. One locks up his bike because he is worried about theft. The other one is not worried about theft, and leaves his bike at the same place, unlocked. If the bike thief steals the unlocked bike, how is the LOA working for these two people? Or are you saying the bike thief will only steal the locked bike and ignore the unlocked one? If you are saying this, what studies have been done to show that this actually happens?
You can reply in the comments, Joe. I don’t hold replies for moderation.
Joe Vitale and the Secret folks say that like attracts like, and that this is a law. I have it on good authority, however, that "opposites attract." Furthermore, I am told that not only is this not fiction, but it is a "natural fact."
Clearly, this disproves "The Secret," and I would advise Mr. Vitale and his colleagues to examine the work of P. Abdul and S. Kat, M.C., and to do a little research before they make any more ridiculous claims.
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 24, 2007 at 03:41 PM
I must admit that the Law of Attraction makes sense... if you live in a fairy tale.
Posted by: Boris Yankov | February 24, 2007 at 03:51 PM
I wrote a comment to Joe about my own problems with the LoA, which resulted in my receipt of 200,000 male deer and a large pianist. So far, it hasn't made it through the filter. I really hope it does, because I think my god/universe/genie is broken.
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 24, 2007 at 06:27 PM
A large pianist? I'm envious!
Posted by: Paul | February 25, 2007 at 09:47 AM
Mr. Vitale's comments suggest they he engages in the same kind of post post hoc reasoning common to many ardent believers in various religions: If he is "thinking positive", and there is still a traffic jam, he obviously wasn't positive enough. If there is no traffic jam, then... "See?! It works!"
Posted by: JG | February 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Skeptico, you may want to re-examine the law of attraction. After Dover and the Shawn Hornbeck case I was worried that creationists and Sylvia Browne were going to lay low for a while thus depriving me of daily doses of wooish humor. I began to attract a new form of woo to keep things fresh, thus "The Secret." Yes everyone, you may thank me.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | February 26, 2007 at 08:05 AM
I say we all start wishing that Joe Vitale will win the Randi Challenge with "The Secret." I think there's an easy way to test that.
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 26, 2007 at 09:01 AM
I’ve been trying to attract Joe Vitale to answer my questions above by leaving a comment on this blog. Hasn’t worked so far. Funny – according to Joe the "LOA does work every time - no exceptions".
Posted by: Skeptico | February 26, 2007 at 09:17 AM
Tom, your deer problem got through on his blog. Funny, I've been trying to attract some venison. Hook me up!
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | February 26, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Not only did it get through, but someone apparently took it seriously. My irony meter may bust easily, but at least I have one.
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 26, 2007 at 12:34 PM
I saw that Tom. I initially thought the guy was making a joke, but perhaps he was serious. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference with bleevers.
Take a look at Joe’s response to Steve Salerno. Steve makes some valid points, but Joe just replies with:
Talk about mentally blocking out the facts – that’s Joe’s entire method. Just as he did with me, he ignores Steve Salerno’s objections and claims they were all covered in the original post. Except they weren’t.
I guess Joe isn’t going to answer my questions. Big surprise.
Posted by: Skeptico | February 26, 2007 at 01:23 PM
Wow, these guys are the king of unfounded claims, huh? Ask them how it's supposed to work and they come back with "It's a law, so I win the argument."
I thought about asking one of the commentors exactly what the "vibrational signals" were that everybody was sending out, but I've already reached my daily limit of woo.
Posted by: Eric | February 27, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Skepticism is healthy but the Science behind The Law Of Attraction is Quantum Physics, see "What The Bleep Do We Know":
http://www.thevideosense.com/user/jcv1011/
scroll down the page for the title.
Unless you have a basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics, one will get the reactions that have been expressed within this blog.
This Law as some call it NOW is not new, in fact, it is an ancient practice. I just discovered it 20 years ago and it was at that time called Visualized Meditation.
I wouldn't call this a religion by any stretch (Give me a Break lol), it is what it is, something we all possess. Nothing Twi-Light-Zonian, no Hocus Pocus. Nothing to shake the belief system of those who may have a weak belief system.
It amazes me that some find this hard to understand. One needs not to be "bleevers" to comprehend. I was skeptical until I did this "thing" and discovered it worked.
It is what it is and nothing more and not all that earth shaking.
John V
Posted by: John C Vincent | February 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM
John:
I note you can’t answer either of my two questions in the post above.
In my review of The Secret I wrote:
John, I explained why QM does not support this nonsense in my review of What The Bleep.
Posted by: Skeptico | February 27, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Doggerel #17: "Quantum"
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 27, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Tell me, John, have you ever normalized a wavefunction? Can you give me the three-dimensional Time-Dependent Schrödinger Equation? Perhaps you could give me the basic expression for momentum, using the complex conjugate of the wavefunction. Do you know what an eigenstate is? Do you have any idea what value is represented by < a | a >?
I'm going to guess that you don't, because if you did, you'd see "The Secret" for the new age garbage it is. Just because you think "quantum physics" means "magic" doesn't mean that it actually does, and just because no one in the Secret fanclub knows anything about QM doesn't mean that no one does. I have significantly more than a basic understanding of Quantum Physics, and I'm calling you on your bullshit. QM doesn't explain "The Secret," except to explain that it's nothing but wishful thinking and new age pseudoscience.
In other words, you are wrong, and you're a fucker for thinking that no one would call you on it.
Sorry, when people tell me that I need to learn something about Quantum Physics in order to understand their particular woo, I get a little indignant. Although if John wants to show me how the Secret fits into an infinite square well, he's welcome to do so.
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 27, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Well said Tom. Or to put it another way - unless you have a basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics, one will get the reactions that have been expressed by people like John C Vincent.
Posted by: Skeptico | February 27, 2007 at 03:37 PM
Tom since you took my comments personally:
For the Comedians in this group, there's is a skill called Reading, you should attempt it. There are a Ton of sites on the internet that will satisfy your skepticism.
But it doesn't matter if you believe or not, this skill exists and no egging on by the peanut gallery will change this.
New Age Garbage??? As I stated, this is a technique practiced thousands of years ago,if you could read, you would have known this. There's nothing New about this. But I waste time here. READ if you dare and then rip holes in it, if you can.
And since you choose to use expletives when referring to me (I'm above this childishness), I can only state, this shows your level of understanding as well as your embarrassingly low IQ.
And Tom if you comprehend wavefunctions, Schrödinger Equation (Cat), why would you have a problem with this ancient technique?
Oh and btw,an eigenstate is one of the many possible states which may exist prior to quantum decoherence. And in case you don't know the meaning of the theory of decoherence:
The theory of decoherence is the study of (spontaneous) interactions between a system and it's environment that lead to such suppression of interference.
Look it up.
And the Scientists involved in Quantum Physics would laugh at your retort, you must be a believer in the Flat Earth Theory.
If you were born 300 years ago, you'd problably believe that electricity was the sign of the devil. Or maybe sound waves don't exist, I mean, you can't see them nor can you see radio waves. How can Tons of metal fly... it's an airplane. How can you put words and pictures on a piece of tape or on a disk...IT'S THE DEVIL'S WORK I TELL YAH.
And yes I do question your knowledge concerning Quantum Physics. No one with an understanding would refute this "New AGE"???? (Give me a break)Science with a straight face.
I'm outta here. (yeah I know...good riddance LOL)
To Skeptico
And as far as the 2 questions, this has nothing to do with, the thing called the Law Of Attraction. It's like saying, one can change the weather or an ocean's tide or turn silver into gold. The question does not make sense as it relates to what is now called the Law Of Attraction. And whoever gave you that impression is in error. As for the traffic Jam...that's easy...you just would not take that route on that day. Call it a hunch, call it luck...but that's how it works ... as a Coincidence.
There's nothing magical or religious here.
But let me ask you Skeptico, do you have any beliefs that cannot be proven? Do you have faith in a belief NOT a proven fact. Belief is conjecture, opinion and nothing more. Even an Atheist has a belief, he/she has a belief in NO God. Can the Atheist prove that there is no God, can you prove that there is? Conjecture!
I merely ask because this site and we pea brain humans as a whole, think of the infinite with our lowly finite minds. We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant. We're still cavemen when it comes to intellectual esoteric pursuits lol and you wish to discuss the so-called unknown with our very small percentage of grey matter power???? LOL
So the arguments discussed here are futile. Which is no reflection on you, the good host (ignoring your comment to Tom). You're stimulating thought and we tiny brain humans can only respond with limited ability.
OK I left a door open for the children among the adults within this group to "Rag" on me (GRIN).
The problem with The Law and how it's now being promoted is in the cost, the fee these marketers charge to become educated in it. There should be no cost/fee/payment. The info is to be given freely, if not, the Law will not function. This is the Law Of Attraction in its purest sense. If one is to gain, one must be willing to give...Freely.
But this is beyond the scope of this Blog and I can hear you chuckling. :-)
I bid you all a fond farewell and let you bask in your futility. Be sure to talk about me Real bad when I'm gone ...sheeesh!
Actually, I'll be mentioning this blog on one of my blogs...I'm giving it a positive review, you have a page rank of 5, which means, you're very effective in SEO and your point of view.
Take Care :-)
John V
Posted by: John Vincent | February 27, 2007 at 07:57 PM
It seems that Mr. Vincent is the one with the reading comprehension problem.
He also does not understand basic neurology. He wrote "We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant.", which is a myth. It is explained here in a format he should be able to understand:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
Posted by: HCN | February 27, 2007 at 08:17 PM
Gee HNC
Don't you know the difference between the brain and the mind. Excuse me for not elaborating.
I obviously didn't mean the physical brain.
And if you state that the brain and the mind are the same... Science is still questioning this. Yes we use 100% of our physical brain but the mind is another matter.
The mind is thought to be the seat of perception, self-consciousness, thinking, believing, remembering, hoping, desiring, willing, judging, analyzing, evaluating, reasoning, etc.
This is all true But what is the true nature of "The Mind"?
Well philosophers and the clergy have had many questionable answers.
What about the discipline of Neuroscience?
Well they can only tell us so much and they admit this. So in the end,it goes to my comment on faith.
Your reference stated 10% of the physical brain and I state 5 to 8% of the emotional mind. It is my "Belief" that They are 2 distinct things.
This is one reason why prodigies cannot be explained and wars can.
If mankind used more of his mind and less of his reptile brain LOL the world would be in much better shape.
This site is becoming addictive, I guess because I've made myself a target. lol
Posted by: John Vincent | February 27, 2007 at 09:19 PM
Mr. Vincent's response is so typical of New Age believers -- it's almost frightening...
Posted by: cyrusgeo | February 27, 2007 at 09:26 PM
And if you state that the brain and the mind are the same... Science is still questioning this.
No, not really, sorry. "The Mind," like "The Spirit" and "The Soul" are irrelevant, redundant hypotheses with no use for science. Assuming a mind explains nothing and is fundamentally useless, especially when there is no evidence for anything other than the physical brain. A great summary of the real evidence is Ebon Musings: A Ghost in the Machine. You're violating Occam's Razor by positing the existence of a superfluity like "The Mind."
Well philosophers and the clergy have had many questionable answers.
I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you said something true here: the "answers" given by philosophers and the clergy are most questionable. Most philosophers know jack about science and just muse on and on endlessly about what essentially amounts to nothing. And what the hell do the clergy have to do with anything? They're about as far from scientists as you can get.
The theory of decoherence is the study of (spontaneous) interactions between a system and it's environment that lead to such suppression of interference.
Look it up.
I'm sure you did, and that's why you graced us with a piece of technical-sounding trivia: "Look, I'm smart! I'm not stupid! I can use big words!"
And since you choose to use expletives when referring to me (I'm above this childishness), I can only state, this shows your level of understanding as well as your embarrassingly low IQ.
For the foolishness of that statement, I direct you here and here.
To sum up, because I'm sure you won't bother to click the links, use of profanity has nothing to do with the truth value of an argument and likewise has nothing to do with the intelligence of the arguer. To say anything else is a dodge. "Oh, you cussed, therefore I don't have to answer you." Bullshit.
Basic lack of English grammar and punctuation rules, however, could possibly denote one who is either undereducated or just plain stupid.
Shit, JV, I get the feeling you're not quite sure just how much it takes to get Tom Foss to become that vehement. I almost never see him be anything other than civil, if occasionally gruff. You ignorance really speaks for itself, but by getting Tom to bust out the F-bomb like that...Well, that speaks volumes more. I think I second him. You're a fucker. An ignorant, dumbass fucker. And no, saying so does not render my argument false.
Posted by: Akusai | February 27, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Is it a scientific law, or an ancient mystic art, John? Is it Quantum Physics or ancient wisdom? And for someone who can't bother to read anything about Quantum Physics before admonishing others to find out about it, you sure are arrogant about this reading thing.
My use of expletives has no bearing on the factual nature of my argument. ħ=h/2π whether or not I decide to pepper my speech with four-letter words. Also, since you want others to read so much, I suggest that you do the same. Really? I like your assumption that, because I call you a fucker for misrepresenting your woo as science, and furthermore cast false assumptions on us, that no one here will be able to call your bluff, that I have a low IQ. I'm still waiting for you to normalize a wavefunction, John. This is the most basic Quantum Physics, John, why can't you give a straight answer?What's more childish: being unafraid to use all the words in the English language (even the bad ones), or believing that if you wish for a new bike, it'll be magically delivered to your doorstep?
I like how you think that the Schrödinger Equation has to do with Schrödinger's cat. I mean, I suppose they're related, but it's not like kitty is the be-all, end-all of quantum physics.The reason I have a problem with your "ancient technique" is because I actually understand the principles that you name-drop to explain why the universe is a wish-granting fairy tale genie.
I was looking for something a little more like "when the wavefunction is an eigenfunction of some observable operator, the system is considered to be in an eigenstate of that observable," but we'll go with that. Gee, I wonder why you and your woo latched onto decoherence...1. A "theory" is not a "study."
2. How does decoherence explain The Secret? What are you measuring to create the appearance of a collapsed wavefunction? What states are in superposition? Are you aware that the properties of decoherence only apply on a microscopic level on a very small timescale, which is part of why we don't see quantum effects on a macroscopic level? So, please, enlighten the rest of us on how my macroscopic brain and the macroscopic universe can interact in such a way as to apparently (but not actually) collapse a wavefunction and cause a quantum superposition to behave as a classical ensemble, thereby producing a new bike or a traffic jam. Really? Because I could call over to FermiLab, and ask what's more laughable: the TDSE, or believing that anything you wish for will come true. No, I "believe" in what the evidence shows. And while the evidence shows that laser light will interfere with itself in a two-slit experiment, it doesn't show that wishing for things makes them happen. I wished for a lot of crazy shit as a kid, but eventually you learn that not every wish will be heard and answered when wished on a morning star (sorry, Kermit). See, it's scientists who figured out that the Earth was round (or the closest thing they had to scientists back in the classical age), not New Age mystics. It didn't become round because people wished for it to be, and if I spent the next thousand years wishing for the Earth to be flat, it would still be round. No, dude, it's "The Secret." Why, the only reason I hear the Beatles when I pop a Beatles disc into a CD player is because I'm wishing to hear the Beatles, and the universe is granting my wishes, because it's my own personal genie.
Give me a break. Here's a hint, boyo: all those things you're talking about, all those concepts, were discovered by scientists. Orville and Wilbur didn't get to fly by wishing they had wings. Thomas Edison didn't make his lightbulb glow by wishing really hard at it. Marconi didn't pick radio waves out of the great cosmic catalog. And if I lived 300 years ago, and I wished for an electric toaster, I still wouldn't get it.
Prove me wrong. Spend the next several days wishing for a perpetual motion machine, or a time machine, or a perfect fuel source, or the cure for cancer. When it shows up on your doorstep due to the interference of the universal decoherence genie, then I'll start believing in The Secret.
Is that a No True Scotsman fallacy? I do believe it is. You can question my knowledge of Quantum Physics all you want, but you have yet to answer any of my questions (I might give you half a point for eigenstate, but I sure was wishing for a more technical answer). Show me you can normalize a wavefunction, John. What do you get from < a | a >? What's a complex conjugate? Show me the TDSE in three dimensions. Show me an expression for momentum. I've got my Morrison and my Sakurai right here (strangely enough, neither one lists "The Secret" in the index), you can question all you want. But I'm not alone when I say that until you can give an explanation for how The Secret works, which uses Quantum Mechanics correctly, then I'm going to call it precisely the bullshit that it appears to be. I do believe that impression was given by the video promoting The Secret. You'd think the people claiming that it's a law would have a better understanding of it. I mean, any physicist can spit out Gm1m2/d^2. So everyone caught in a traffic jam was either wishing for it or worrying about being late? All the hundreds of cars in the jam, and not a one of them was thinking "I'll just make a little trip to the store"? Just genies and wishes coming true. Not the stuff of fairy tales or anything. If the Law of Attraction is a Law like gravitation, then it has to have been proven. What you're talking about now suggests that it hasn't.Incidentally, most atheists would say that they don't believe "there is no God," they simply don't believe in God. It's not up to the atheist to prove a negative (generally an impossibility), it's up to the theist to show some positive evidence. Science assumes the null hypothesis until positive evidence suggests otherwise.
The only LOLing is every biologist, neuroscientist, and psychologist in the world at your variation on the "10% of our brains" myth.So, what is the Law of Attraction, John? Is it a proven, 100% accurate law of nature, or is it an unproven belief? Is it Quantum Physics or Ancient Wisdom? Is it proven and known to work every time, or is it mysterious and unknowable?
Maybe the Law of Attraction exists in a superposition of states (magic and science), and every time we try to define it, the wavefunction collapses to show us one or the other.
Any argument with someone who assumes the stupidity of everyone else is futile, John. But next time you want to have a Quantum Pissing contest, I suggest you make sure you can disentangle yourself from your pants. Otherwise, you come out looking all wet. The only children here are the ones who still believe that Santa Universe will bring them a brand new pony if they wish for it hard enough. I thought the law in its purest sense was "like attracts like." Gosh, you people really ought to come up with some kind of mathematical equation or simple Newton-esque statement, because it sure looks like this law is all over the place. I mean, you ask any physicist what Newton's 3rd Law is, and Bam!--"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." But this Law of Attraction sure seems hard to pin down, almost like it's totally undefined and could be anything to any person. But then, it wouldn't be a law with the same validity as gravitation, and that certainly can't be right. See, if you hadn't wished for it, it wouldn't have happened. You really need to get the hang of this Law of Attraction thing.Posted by: Tom Foss | February 27, 2007 at 10:26 PM
John:
I thought you said religion had nothing to do with this. I have 'faith' that if I do damage to the brain, the "mind" is going to suffer. It's funny how I can eliminate consciousness by mucking about with the physical brain, almost as if the two were one and the same. And what do you use to measure the emotional mind so accurately that you can determine what percentage of it we use? I'm sure the scientific community would be very interested in your mind-scanner, since it seems like you not only know that the mind is separate from the physical brain, but you also know how much "power" it uses and how much it can potentially use.
Akusai: I find it awesome that not only did we both link to the same pages, but did so in the same order. Fantastic.
I'm always a little surprised by how surprised people get when I use profanity. I use it so casually in private conversation that I forget how rarely I use it in public and in writing. I spent a year writing opinions columns for a paper that pretty much self-governed on profanity, and four years on a radio show where the rule was "if you can't say it on South Park, you can't say it on the air," so self-censorship comes pretty naturally. Heck, my skill with the "dump" button got so honed (my crowning achievement was playing Tenacious D's "Fuck Her Gently" and Ben Folds' cover of "Bitches Ain't Shit" back to back, without a single curse word slipping through) that my co-host suggested I was named for Thomas Bowdler.
But that's neither here nor there. I do try to be civil in arguments, because the other parties so often aren't, but such arrogant misuse and misrepresentations of my favorite branch of physics presses all of my buttons.
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 27, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Mr. Vincent wrote "Gee HNC"
I see you do have trouble with reading, especially with that whole letter arrangement thing. To make it more clear in your mind, think of my initials as something quite poisonous... but very natural (it is also a key ingredient of bitter almonds and apricot pits).
And then continues to dig deeper with:
"Don't you know the difference between the brain and the mind. Excuse me for not elaborating."
A suggested reading for you:
_A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers_ by V.S. Ramachandran
And an even deeper hole: "I obviously didn't mean the physical brain."
I'm not quite sure how you separate the physical brain from the body and still have it work. Yes, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, especially when you let it whither away with vacuous beliefs and not a shred of substantial reality.
You do need to do some remedial reading. You should start at the website I listed:
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/introb.html
Then perhaps continue on to the essay type books by Dr. Oliver Sacks, which are entertaining and very educational. Even just reading the book _The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat_ might give you a clue as to why we are laughing at you, not with you.
Posted by: HCN | February 27, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I'm not afraid, though. Despite the homeopaths and the organic-types and the antivaxers, I recognize that poison is a dosage issue :).
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 27, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Wow you do scare easy, you must be a ... never mind I was going to get political on you lol
I bet you like to play with guns too. YOU my friend, frighten me.
But since you're so skiddish ...
Boo!
Posted by: John Vincent | February 27, 2007 at 11:01 PM
HCN
Wow one mistake and now you're a critic :-)
Posted by: John Vincent | February 27, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Skeptico replies to John Vincent
A bit late to this party it seems – I’ll go anyway.
Re: And the Scientists involved in Quantum Physics would laugh at your retort, you must be a believer in the Flat Earth Theory.
If you were born 300 years ago, you'd problably believe that electricity was the sign of the devil. Or maybe sound waves don't exist, I mean, you can't see them nor can you see radio waves. How can Tons of metal fly... it's an airplane. How can you put words and pictures on a piece of tape or on a disk...IT'S THE DEVIL'S WORK I TELL YAH.
LOL - this is the fallacious appeal to “science doesn’t know everything”. Of course, science doesn’t know everything, but you think the corollary is that any idea you like the sound of, that cannot be proven false, is worthy of consideration. Wrong. Something is only worthy of consideration if there is a reason to suppose it is true.
I don’t believe it - you even used the “radio waves” argument I covered in my write up – you really have read and digested the woo handbook John, haven’t you?
And it’s noted that you can’t refute what I wrote about QM not supporting this nonsense.
Re: And as far as the 2 questions, this has nothing to do with, the thing called the Law Of Attraction. It's like saying, one can change the weather or an ocean's tide or turn silver into gold. The question does not make sense as it relates to what is now called the Law Of Attraction.
The question makes perfect sense – you just can’t answer it.
Re: And whoever gave you that impression is in error.
That would have been Joe Vitale – I suggest you go speak to him.
Re: As for the traffic Jam...that's easy...you just would not take that route on that day.
You’re saying ALL the positive people concentrating on being on time would have taken a different route. All of them. And you really think this makes sense? Are you retarded?
Re: But let me ask you Skeptico, do you have any beliefs that cannot be proven? Do you have faith in a belief NOT a proven fact.
Strictly speaking, nothing is proven. But I don’t have “faith” – belief without evidence – in anything. You should look for evidence that something is true before you believe in it. Otherwise, how do you tell what is true and what isn’t?
Seriously - how do you decide what to believe in and what not to believe?
Re: Even an Atheist has a belief, he/she has a belief in NO God. Can the Atheist prove that there is no God, can you prove that there is? Conjecture!
(Yawn.) Wrong. Atheists just have no belief in God. Just as I have no belief in a teapot orbiting near Mars. Really, don’t you have any original arguments? Any we haven’t heard and debunked a hundred times already.
Re: I merely ask because this site and we pea brain humans as a whole, think of the infinite with our lowly finite minds. We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant. We're still cavemen when it comes to intellectual esoteric pursuits lol and you wish to discuss the so-called unknown with our very small percentage of grey matter power???? LOL
Several people have explained that we do not only use 10% of our brain – that’s an old wives tale.
But then you replied with this piece of equivocation:
Don't you know the difference between the brain and the mind. Excuse me for not elaborating.
I obviously didn't mean the physical brain.
First – evidence please that we only use 5 to 8% of our mind (however you want to define it). Your claim – back it up.
Secondly - yes you did mean the physical brain. Quote (1) you specifically refer to “brain power" and “grey matter” – the physical brain. Quote (2) “I obviously didn't mean the physical brain” – this really goes beyond equivocation and becomes lying. What’s the matter – can’t you debate honestly? Do you have to resort to this kind of sophistry to feel good about yourself?
Re: The info is to be given freely, if not, the Law will not function.
Not according to Joe Vitale. He says it always works – no exceptions. Not even where money is involved. Funny how this “Law” differs depending on which woo is droning on about it. And yet gravity works the same for everyone. But then gravity really is a Law, unlike the “Law” of attraction.
Posted by: Skeptico | February 27, 2007 at 11:10 PM
I'll assume self-centeredly that this refers to me. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm scared, and if you want my politics, you can click my name.
I'll admit, I do love guns. In fact, I have my two favorites sitting next to me, bright blue Nerf pistols with not-actually-laser sights. As to the more lethal variety, I've only ever handled one before, and I wasn't real thrilled with it.
Nice to see how you didn't answer any of the questions or criticisms posed to you. You're really tossing out the non sequiturs tonight.
Actually, you've made quite a few mistakes. In fact, there's very little that you've gotten right so far.Wonderful reply, Skeptico. I admire your succinctness.
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 27, 2007 at 11:23 PM
No, Tom, this "argument" was probably aimed at me — and it was so irrefutable that I'm obviously left speechless...
Posted by: cyrusgeo | February 28, 2007 at 06:27 AM
I agree with this thread's contempt for the "law of attraction." Yet the "The Secret" is the best selling book and DVD on Amazon. This leads to a conclusion either that a great many people in this global village are "morons" or simply hurting. If you believe the latter, as I do, this furor merely opens a door. I have tried to go further on this in a post titled "How 'The Secret' Harms Holistic Communities" at my weblog theseekeracademy.com. Please visit and, if you wish, here or there, respond.
Posted by: L. D. Gussin | February 28, 2007 at 06:48 AM
I was going to list all the doggerel this guy had spouted, or was about to spout, but I think I hit a character limit with all the html.
But, I anticipated about 50 total out of the list of 62, so I might as well just leave:
The big list for your reading pleasure.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 28, 2007 at 06:53 AM
Mr. Vincent said "HCN
Wow one mistake and now you're a critic :-)"
I'm sorry, but you have made more than one mistake. The problem is that you are so close minded you refuse to learn about the real science.
I gave you a list of reading materials in the hope that you would become a bit more educated in the fascinating and wonderful things that have been learned about the human brain over the last century.
Another good book that goes over the history of brain research, including where the "mind" is in the body is _Postcards from the Brain Museum_ by Brian Burrell.
Really, the science and the history of the science are much more interesting than anything you can make up!
Posted by: HCN | February 28, 2007 at 07:59 AM
cyrusgeo:
Ah, I apologize then, I missed your comment. You are, of course, quite right. It's disheartening to see so much doggerel and fallacy used so efficiently. It's almost content-free.
HCN: Amen to that!
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 28, 2007 at 08:09 AM
Leaving aside the quantam mechanics, since Tom has more than made it evident that Mr Vincent knows bugger all about it, there's still plenty to talk about here.
Before you whinge Vincent, you stated:
Unless you have a basic understanding of Quantum Mechanics, one will get the reactions that have been expressed within this blog.
And Tom asked you to perform some tasks that would demonstrate your knowledge of quantam mechanics.
Since you haven't, it's safe to assume you can't and that you yourself have no understanding of quantam physics other than what other woo bleevers have told you. And no, copying a definition you found off an internet site for just one of the terms Tom asked you about doesn't count as demonstrating your knowledge.
Just in case anyone was wondering, Vincent looked up the definition of eigenstate here:
everything2.com
and didn't even bother to change the wording. Unless that's you Vincent, that means you've been caught red handed mate.
And in case anyone was wondering further, his definition of decoherence is taken word for word from here:
Plato.stanford.edu
So at best it appears your basic understanding of quantam mechanics involves cutting and pasting words from people who really do know about it, and pretending they are your own.
Oh course it gets funnier when you consider that your source for the quantam physics behind the law of attraction is the already debunked and ridiculed 'What the Bleep'. Priceless.
Vincent said:
I was skeptical until I did this "thing" and discovered it worked.
How exactly does this 'thing' work?
I wished and hoped for our first two pregnancies harder than anything I've ever hoped for, yet my wife had two miscarriages. I wished and hoped for 15 years to get into the RAF as an officer and worked harder for that than anything I ever have, and yet after three attempts they told me not to try again. I wished my grandfather would get better and yet I attended his funeral two days ago. My grandmother is suffering from alzheimers but I'm pretty sure she didn't wish for that.
If this is something we 'all possess' then why the fuck doesn't it work?
In fact, just for one moment sit down and think of all the things you may have wished for and didn't get. Set aside your confimation bias and really think about it.
Vincent wrote:
And Tom if you comprehend wavefunctions, Schrödinger Equation (Cat), why would you have a problem with this ancient technique?
Because he really does understand it, not just what people have told him to understand by them, but really what they mean.
Vincent wrote:
I'm above this childishness
And then you call into question Tom's intelligence a few words later. And post other people's words as your own. And make some ridiculous strawmen statements. And avoid answering his questions. And say you are out of here and keep coming back. Yes, you are such a grown up.
Vincent wrote:
Even an Atheist has a belief, he/she has a belief in NO God.
Oh for fuck's sake. Atheists.Do.Not.Believe.Atheism.Is.A.Lack.Of.Belief.
Vincent wrote this old urban myth out and takes it seriously:
We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant.
But then pretends he means our minds. As already asked, please do show us how you measure the mind's capacity, or for that matter the brain's. Whichever one you want to.
Take a look at this page. Do yourself a favour and READ.
snopes
Vincent wrote:
And if you state that the brain and the mind are the same... Science is still questioning this.
Please cite just one peer reviewed article published in a respected publication that supports you in this assertion.
Vincent wrote:
Your reference stated 10% of the physical brain and I state 5 to 8% of the emotional mind.
Really. Because what you wrote was:
We use 5 to 8% of our brain power, 95 to 93% of our brain capibility is left unused, dormant.
Maybe I didn't read that properly, but where did you say 'emotional mind' in there?
Vincent then goes off on one:
This is one reason why prodigies cannot be explained and wars can.
If mankind used more of his mind and less of his reptile brain LOL the world would be in much better shape.
Forgive me but, huh? 'Reptile brain'? Not only do you need physics lessons, looks like biology too.
Vincent wrote:
Wow one mistake and now you're a critic :-)
If only you'd made just one mistake. Of course, someone who criticises others for not reading or understanding correctly should at least try, well, reading and understanding correctly. Not to mention writing.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | February 28, 2007 at 08:42 AM
Oh and btw, an eigenstate is one of the many possible states which may exist prior to quantum decoherence. And in case you don't know the meaning of the theory of decoherence:
The theory of decoherence is the study of (spontaneous) interactions between a system and it's environment that lead to such suppression of interference.
Look it up.
Funny, I did look it up, and discovered that you copied and pasted the above bolded quotes from two easily Googlable sites. See HERE and HERE.
Not exactly compelling evidence that you actually know anything about Quantum Mechanics when you just plagiarize the first sites that come up on a Google search for the terms in question.
Posted by: Jeremy Henderson | February 28, 2007 at 09:17 AM
Honestly, this has been one of the best takedowns of a woo that I've ever read. Catching him pretending to know about quantum physics when he was just quoting something from the internet was the crowning touch. Well DONE, everybody.
Posted by: Eric | February 28, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Forgive me but, huh? 'Reptile brain'? Not only do you need physics lessons, looks like biology too.
It's not the best term, but it does refer to an old chunk of our brain, sometimes called the R-complex. It first evolved in our distant reptilian ancestors, and deals with things like the fight-or-flight instinct.
Of course, society's problems actually come more from using our higher functions incorrectly: When we realize that we're inevitably going to die, thanks to the help of one of our more recently evolved lobes, we experience anxiety. Classically, humans dealt with this by believing in an afterlife, thus "avoiding" the unavoidable with a comforting fictional story that often motivates a person to make life less comfortable for the heretics who don't believe in it.
That's why we need science: The better we can get at knowing the truth through the scientific method, the better we'll be able to do something about the nasty bits.
Pretending that Quantum Mechanics works contrary to how the data shows it works isn't how we make the world a better place, Mr. Vincent.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 28, 2007 at 10:20 AM
I laughed when I said reptile brain, it was a joke, didn’t you see the “lol”
You guys are a sad bunch of misfits and you deserve each other.
Joe Vitale is rich man not only in his wallet but within his life as well.
Skeptico, maybe he doesn't have time for your foolish questions. Why waste time with a negative, "life Ain't Fair" individual?
How successful are the folks in this group? There might, just might be 1 or 2 but by the discussion within this forum/blog I would venture that the group is filled with sad sacks and “I should have beens...”
Your are the drones, incomplete and frustrated, just waiting to get back at the world for some preconceived injustice. Grow UP!!! Little boys!!!
Joe is wealthy and I'm working on it and doing very well so far. But you guys sound like pitiful losers, drowning in a lake of excrement and too dumb to swim out. You’ll never be whatever you wish to be and if you’re satisfied with where you are...Then God Bless you...you’ll need it.
You folks are indeed a sad lot and I feel sorry for you since you spend your time tearing down instead of creating. Social Masturbating instead of doing something positive for yourselves. Does it truly make you feel better? That Is Sad.
You are indeed a pitiful group of sad, sad people. I hope you have someone who loves you, you reallllly need it.
I wish you better than this.
I’m gone and I leave you with your angst "forever".
Posted by: John Vincent | February 28, 2007 at 02:00 PM
And the moral we learn from that last comment, Boys and Girls, is that if you can't win an arguement on its merits, take a shit on the desk and leave.
Posted by: Jody | February 28, 2007 at 02:19 PM
Wow! And I mean, wow! What a pathetic excuse for a response, John Vincent. That last comment of yours was the very definition of ad hominem – you can’t refute any of our arguments and can’t answer any of our questions (and you were caught out copying your supposed answers about quantum mechanics), so you insult everybody instead. Wow! Your response speaks so eloquently to the question of whether the “Law” Of Attraction really is a Law, and to whether you can support your claims or not. If that’s the way you want to leave it - up to you. Your comment stands as a fine indictment of the views you were trying to promote. I’m happy for anyone reading this thread to read your last comment and decide for themselves if your views make sense or not.
Posted by: Skeptico | February 28, 2007 at 02:37 PM
I laughed when I said reptile brain, it was a joke, didn’t you see the “lol”
Someone here has a broken sense of humor. Get the glue.
You guys are a sad bunch of misfits and you deserve each other.
And we're all good buddies. Ad hominem-heavy people like you, however, probably can't tolerate deviation from sacred dogma.
Skeptico, maybe he doesn't have time for your foolish questions. Why waste time with a negative, "life Ain't Fair" individual?
Unlike you, people like Skeptico and us are very, very much in favor of enforcing fairness on life with truth and science. People like you pretend that victims of life's unfairness deserve it.
How successful are the folks in this group? There might, just might be 1 or 2 but by the discussion within this forum/blog I would venture that the group is filled with sad sacks and “I should have beens...”
Yeah, run away from the subject and dwell on irrelevancies.
Your are the drones, incomplete and frustrated, just waiting to get back at the world for some preconceived injustice. Grow UP!!! Little boys!!!
Says the coward who runs away from the real discussion. Says the coward who has to pretend we're exactly like the newage (rhymes with sewage) Hollywood propaganda actually represents reality. Says the coward who contributes nothing to society and rationalizes it into something.
Joe is wealthy and I'm working on it and doing very well so far. But you guys sound like pitiful losers, drowning in a lake of excrement and too dumb to swim out. You’ll never be whatever you wish to be and if you’re satisfied with where you are...Then God Bless you...you’ll need it.
Says the dark age priest who discourages people from looking up at the stars, and into the depths of subatomic space. There's no need to research, you've got it ALL figured out.
You folks are indeed a sad lot and I feel sorry for you since you spend your time tearing down instead of creating. Social Masturbating instead of doing something positive for yourselves. Does it truly make you feel better? That Is Sad.
Your utter inability to see the constructive nature of science is appalling. Your mere presence here would be impossible if it weren't for the scientific method.
STOP PROJECTING YOURSELF ONTO US!
You are indeed a pitiful group of sad, sad people. I hope you have someone who loves you, you reallllly need it.
We've got more than you. I seriously doubt you're capable of genuine love, given your performance here.
I wish you better than this.
I doubt you could come up with something better. The universe is frikkin' amazing! and you'd have us abandon that behind for shallow, meaningless drivel.
I’m gone and I leave you with your angst "forever".
Methinks the woo protest too much. You came in here, and started bashing the wonders of the universe and the method that introduced us to them, and we naturally get angry at your act of anti-wonder verbal violence.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 28, 2007 at 03:24 PM
Darnit, Jimmy Blue beat me to the revelation that JV just copied and pasted his quantum mechanics info from a couple of websites. From the timestamps it looks he posted his mere minutes before I typed up mine.
Or (GASP!) did my reading JV's post attract someone who'd call him out on his bullshit? Gosh, this Secret stuff sure is neat!
Posted by: Jeremy Henderson | February 28, 2007 at 03:41 PM
John Vincent:
Please know that the commenters here take absolutely no offense to your ad hominem. We have dealt with so many individuals that make silly claims and can't back them up that end the "debate" just like you have.
Trust me when I say it is obvious that the waiter has brought out the main course on a silver platter - a huge helping of your own ass - and everyone is laughing at you. Your insults have had the exact opposite effect you were looking at. You dropped by, told us you were tougher than us then pissed your pants and ran home.
We'll go back to our "sad little lives" where your magic powers don't exist, we need a reason to believe things and don't smother ourselves in bullshit because it feels good.
You can go back to being milked like a blindfolded house cat by the purveyors of woo.
Remeber this discussion two years from now - perhaps your opinion will have changed. Just maybe this discussion will make you open your closed little mind enough to think maybe, just maybe you and your magic doctor could be wrong.
Good bye. I'll miss you. Sorry I wasn't around to make fun of you.
Posted by: Rockstar Ryan | February 28, 2007 at 03:45 PM
I won't pretend to understand some of the scientific arguments being made here, but I must say John Vincent's "reasoning" is absolutely terrifying.
Still, I believe the Law of Attraction does work - not as a universal law, of course, but as one hell of a profitable product.
In fact, I would argue that this "law" has been around for thousands of years not because of its validity, but because of its profitability.
A more accurate name would really be the Law of Extraction (of cash, that is) and unlike the "Law" of Attraction, this one does seem to work everytime.
Posted by: Blair Warren | February 28, 2007 at 04:00 PM
See what I meant?
Frightening...
Posted by: cyrusgeo | February 28, 2007 at 04:28 PM
Well, that was amusing.
The sad fact is that Mr. Vincent has absolutely no clue as to how silly he really is!
Posted by: HCN | February 28, 2007 at 04:47 PM
Blair Warren:
That's fantastic, and yet, so sad. "Law of Extraction," though...awesome.
I'm going to try one more test of the Secret...I wish John Vincent would come back here to address some of the questions that have been posed to him, and to get refuted just a little bit more. I wish he'd see the error of his ways and recognize the Law of Attraction for the idiocy it is, thereby decreasing the number of people with batshit insane beliefs by one.
There's no place like debunking woo, there's no place like debunking woo, there's no place like debunking woo...
Posted by: Tom Foss | February 28, 2007 at 06:03 PM
John Vincent wrote:
"Joe is wealthy and I'm working on it and doing very well so far."
John, think about all the "big names" in the Law of Attraction market and ask yourself:
How many of them made their real fortunes *practicing* the "Law" of Attraction before they started *selling* it?
Really, do a little investigating and find out. I think you will be very surprised.
Unless you plan on peddling this same type of nonsense to folks more gullible than you, it is highly doubtful you will "achieve" the same level of success they have.
Posted by: Blair Warren | February 28, 2007 at 07:51 PM
Blair Warren said "Unless you plan on peddling this same type of nonsense to folks more gullible than you, it is highly doubtful you will "achieve" the same level of success they have."
I took a look at Vincent's websites (using a high security browser with cookies disabled)... he is trying to make money through blogging by ad clicks, or something like that. Basically the old "something for nothing" ploy.
Skimming through the posts I was reminded of my step-mother and her Unity Church. Unity is kind of a "Christian Science Lite". It has some of the same philosophies like "Let go, let God", but does allow real medicine.
She used to send me some weekly pamphlet from them, and one testimony really repelled me. The author wrote that she was working on finishing a table when she collapsed (probably from fumes in an unventilated space), but instead of calling 911 she just decided to pray to see what happens. She recovered (possibly due to the fumes dissipating).
My step-mother would tell me how wonderful it was that God provided my family with so much... but then I would remind her that both spouse and I took the hard courses at school to get good engineering jobs, PLUS we both worked very hard scraping, painting, pounding nails, digging the garden, etc. to create our home. Nothing was given to us, we worked for it!
When our oldest son was born with disabilities she then tried to credit God with all his progress. Again, I had to remind her that there were lots of wonderful professionals at Children's Hospital that worked hard for his health (including the sweet janitor lady who liked to make babies smile with her funny faces and kind words). When he finally started to speak, again she tried to give God all the credit... I told her that the twice a week speech therapy along with the work we did at home AND the special ed. preschool (that included an OT/PT, a speech therapist, teacher and aide working as team) was also part of that equation.
Wishing will only get you so far... things in life that are worthwhile take real work!
Posted by: HCN | February 28, 2007 at 09:23 PM
HCN wrote: "Wishing will only get you so far... things in life that are worthwhile take real work!"
This reminds me of a quote I once found online:
A lot of people spend half their time wishing for things they could have if they didn't spend half their time wishing.
Posted by: Blair Warren | February 28, 2007 at 10:14 PM
[humor]
Okay, which idiot decided to think positively for snow in the Puget Sound area? This is just irritating right now.
Stop thinking SNOW! Keep it in the mountains where it belongs and can be skied upon... not down here in the lowlands where it causes 50 car pile-ups on I-90.
Who knows what kind of havoc "your" thinking has caused!
[/humor]
Posted by: HCN | February 28, 2007 at 10:45 PM
I was expecting John Vincent to return, spouting more drivel. Guess I wasn't expecting hard enough or something.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 01, 2007 at 04:47 AM
Thanks, Mr. Vincent. You have kept me entertained for a few days.
HCN, your post 5 posts above, is brilliant. Thank you. I know it has all been said before, but so many people overlook the hard work of all the people in the world that has gotten us to where we are. A silver bullet to solve our problems is enticing, but ultimately disappointing.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | March 01, 2007 at 06:07 AM
Please someone remind me that sarcasm doesn't always work or come across correctly on the internet.
Bronze Dog, thanks for pointing that out. I've been reading The Ancestors Tale off and on for a year and that just slipped away. Time for some revision methinks!
See Vincent, I've forgotten more science in a year than you know, and I'm capable of admitting where my knowledge fails me. I don't need to pretend other people's words are my own to make me look clever.
Anyway, on to my favourite bit of debating woosters, the point when they have been utterly humiliated and play the 'skeptics aren't true beautiful people/don't lead fulfilling lives/must not be successful/don't love/aren't rich' card.
I laughed when I said reptile brain, it was a joke, didn’t you see the “lol”
{sarcasm}Oh no you're right, I didn't see that at all. You're so smart. And wealthy.{/sarcasm} The ironic thing is, you said it as a joke, believe it is a joke, make a point of highlighting you don't mean it, and it's partially in some remote way correct. Genius, I couldn't have made this up.
You guys are a sad bunch of misfits and you deserve each other.
If the guys round here are a sad bunch of misfits, then colour me a sad misfit and proud of it. At least they are not unpleasant, close minded, self righteous, smug morons. And hang on a sec, who was it who said:
I'm above this childishness
Why the sudden descent to our level?
Joe Vitale is rich man not only in his wallet but within his life as well.
But mostly in his wallet I'll wager. Damn if the bible of all things doesn't have a quote for this. You know, rich men, camels, heaven and needles.
How successful are the folks in this group? There might, just might be 1 or 2 but by the discussion within this forum/blog I would venture that the group is filled with sad sacks and “I should have beens...”
How do you determine success? I'll wager it says more about how shallow you are than how successful I am. A person without regrets is a person who hasn't taken risks. A person who hasn't truly lived.
Your are the drones, incomplete and frustrated, just waiting to get back at the world for some preconceived injustice. Grow UP!!! Little boys!!!
I'm a drone? That's rich coming from someone who follows a 'law' and structures his life around it, don't you think? Incomplete you say? Sure, if you consider having a job I enjoy, lots of free time to enjoy my varied interests, two children, two dogs and a beautiful wife to be incomplete. How are you doing John? Frustrated? Sorry, maybe you'll have to point out why. I suppose the dogs could be a little better behaved and that frustrates me every now and then. And then there is the unquestioning acceptance of total crap by people like you, who then have the cheek to claim my life is pathetic. That's pretty frustrating at times. But then a man who thinks wishing for things makes them come to him tells me to grow up, my ironometer measured a point 9 with that one.
Joe is wealthy and I'm working on it and doing very well so far. But you guys sound like pitiful losers, drowning in a lake of excrement and too dumb to swim out.
This I find is the sentence which tells us all the most about you though (apart from pretending other people's words are your own, which tells me enough). Is wealth really how you measure success in life? You sad, lonely, shallow, pathetic little man. I pity you and your soulless money grubbing existence.
You’ll never be whatever you wish to be and if you’re satisfied with where you are...Then God Bless you...you’ll need it.
And if you can never find happiness where you are, then you'll never be happy. Perhaps one day you'll understand this.
You folks are indeed a sad lot and I feel sorry for you since you spend your time tearing down instead of creating. Social Masturbating instead of doing something positive for yourselves. Does it truly make you feel better? That Is Sad.
Creating what? A happy home? A community of people dedicated to the advancement of science and knowledge? A place for intelligent discourse? A great RPG adventure? You know nothing about us, so please don't pretend you do. I did 7 years of voluntary work with teenagers, many of them underprivileged and from rough homes. I feel plenty positive about myself, how about you and your single minded pursuit of the almighty dollar? Feeling positive? Feeling better about yourself?
You are indeed a pitiful group of sad, sad people. I hope you have someone who loves you, you reallllly need it.
Oh I do, how about you? Remember the Beatles song?
I’m gone and I leave you with your angst "forever".
Do you really mean it this time? If we wish for you to come back so we can make you look even more ridiculous and you don't, what does that mean for your 'secret'?
How about this. I wish for you not to come back. So, the fact that you are reading this means what exactly? Because there is no way in hell someone as self satisfied as you could ever not come back to read what people are saying about him.
Don't worry John, I'm sure you'll be happy one day.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 01, 2007 at 06:34 AM
Thank you.
Posted by: HCN | March 01, 2007 at 07:44 AM
He's proving that the Law of Attraction works by not engaging you in your negative scepticism. He's not being affected by it because it's not in his psyche like it is in yours.
Posted by: Beverly | March 01, 2007 at 07:46 PM
So, the law of attraction works because people can ignore things? Great! I'm going to try it out by refusing to engage highway traffic in their negative collisions.
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 01, 2007 at 07:48 PM
Beverly:
By “he” I presume you mean Joe Vitale.
If Joe decides not to engage, but I have been trying to “attract” him to reply, how is it that the “Law” of Attraction “does work every time - no exceptions”? It’s not working for me. And yet, if I jump off a tall building, I will always fall according to the Laws of Gravitation. How is the LOA a law, and isn’t Joe wrong when he says the “LOA does work every time - no exceptions”?
Posted by: Skeptico | March 01, 2007 at 10:56 PM
So was Joe attracting the experience of being totally illogical? And then he attracted the experience of looking like a foolish child who decided to call everyone foolish little children just before running home with his ball?
Methinks, Joe isn't using the LoA very effectively. Or he actually wanted the experience that he went through here. Or, it just doesn't work.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | March 02, 2007 at 06:48 AM
How successful are the folks in this group? There might, just might be 1 or 2 but by the discussion within this forum/blog I would venture that the group is filled with sad sacks and “I should have beens...”
That is just hilarious.
Whew....give me a sec while I wipe the tears from my eyes... Ok.
I'll have to say this one post and the following comments have given me so much joy over the past few days. I'm thinking positively about about further take downs by Bronze Dog and Tom Foss and Skeptico and Rockstar Ryan and well everyone. I'm thinking positively about the possibility that more woo-meisters wander on over here spouting more muck filled spewings about how much fuller their lives are than all us "Should have beens" and then running away to their much more fulfilled (with woo) lives.
I know it will happen because the Law says so.
Praise be to woo.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 02, 2007 at 07:20 AM
Bourgeois_Rage:
That was John Vincent posting here, calling everyone foolish little children etc, not Joe Vitale.
Posted by: Skeptico | March 02, 2007 at 08:02 AM
Although they do have the same initials...
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 02, 2007 at 08:25 AM
Sock puppet? ;-P
Posted by: Tyler | March 02, 2007 at 09:06 AM
Of course it does, because Joe gets to define what "it works" means, and he can always broaden the definition of "working" is.
Posted by: Orac | March 02, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Tom, that comment made me literately laugh out loud. Thank you for that laugh, I needed that.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | March 02, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Whoops, Skeptico. I totally meant John, but it came out Joe. Could be some odd corollary to the Law of Attraction. Maybe if I focus on it enough, John will become Joe?
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | March 02, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Why should he go through all the work of visualizing, when he can just delete your post?
Posted by: Joe Smith | March 02, 2007 at 01:35 PM
I just got done seeing 'The Secret' and I have to say what a load of crap it is. It's a self-help book on drugs. Positive thinking is great. "Stay motivated" "Don't quit" These are some sayings everyone has heard. They inspire us to keep going and achieve our goals that require HARD WORK, and DETERMINATION. 'The Secret' is full of crap because it is saying that wishful thinking will give you everything you ever wanted. Don't we already do that?
Sceptico, here's a good example de-bunked from the film: You stub your toe in the morning and you whole day goes to pot because you were not a positive thinker. right? Well what about those days where you stub your toe and your day is great? Did you ever not have anything go wrong in the morning and still get stuck in traffic? We live in a happenstance day and age where "BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE." Did everyone in the twin towers during 9/11 think negative and so through their thoughts and the world's bring about the terrorists acts? Or was it that there are bad people in this world that want to hurt us and there is no positive thinking in this world that can stop that.
I'm appalled at the fact that they are selling this DVD for 33 bucks. Now who's getting rich. Joe Shmoe seeing the film and thinking positive (Which, by the way, they input a disclaimer and say that it takes a while for the 'Universe' to get around to it) or is it the DVD company or the the publisher or the producer. Or, could it be the writers of this film getting rich on positively thinking you will buy their DVD or book or cassette:
Rhonda Byrne
Skye Byrne
Paul Harrington
Drew Heriot
Boycott this Falsity. Tell others to not even bother. Maybe we can save this world form it's self!
Posted by: Charles Handel | March 02, 2007 at 05:17 PM
Please forgive the thread derail, but I found an explanation for the "Indians couldn't see Columbus" story from What the Bleep... in of all places, the Fortean Times, and comments are closed on the What the Bleep... thread, so I thought I'd post it here.
Apparently, 1) the incident in question actually took place on the coast of Australia, and the Europeans involved were Captain James Cook and his crew, and 2) it wasn't that the natives didn't see them; it was that as long as they kept their distance, the natives just didn't give a hoot. As soon as the English tried to land, the natives would show up to repel the invasion. Apparently, the Aborigines were going through hard times when Cook and company showed up, and their entire attitude was "If it ain't a threat, I'm not wastin' my time on it."
Posted by: Inquisitive Raven | March 02, 2007 at 07:28 PM
Beverly:
He's proving that the Law of Attraction works by not engaging you in your negative scepticism. He's not being affected by it because it's not in his psyche like it is in yours.
So are you disproving it by engaging us? When did skepticism of ridiculous claims become a negative thing?
If I told you I could fly by puffing my cheeks out and flapping my arms would your skepticism be negative, or the only common sense response?
What your comment sounds like to me is:
He's not engaging you because he has his head up his ass and likes the view
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 03, 2007 at 06:54 AM
Well, LOA must be working for Joe Vitale. He's all set to buy a two-point-something-million-dollar mansion in California. And felt compelled to casually mention it on a recent blog post, which he was writing while sitting in the back seat of a limo (another casual mention), on his way to look at the property.
And Simon & Schuster has just placed an unprecedented two-million-copy order for a reprint of "The Secret" book.
Meanwhile, back at the science wars -- "Secret" star and Vitale bud James Arthur Ray has been making the rounds on TV with "scientific" arguments in support of "The Secret" and LOA.
Just thought y'all would like to know.
Posted by: Cosmic Connie | March 03, 2007 at 08:36 AM
Odd comment: Would a rapist be able to use the LOA as an argument in court? "Well, you see your honor, she was asking for it and I just fulfilled her desire".
I think not.
Posted by: So it goes | March 03, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Thanks, y'all -- I've really enjoyed this thread. I was struck by one thing, though. Mr. Vincent says (sentence fragment his): "Social Masturbating instead of doing something positive for yourselves." I had to think for a while about that phrase. Would "Social Masturbating" mean "sex"?
Posted by: Egg Syntax | March 03, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Connie, the fact that he's scammed his way into millions is no more proof that it is working than is me wanting it not to rain today and it didn't.
He's making millions because he's preying on the less than skepitcal population who buy this type of tripe all the time. He's a good salesman but it's not any evidence that the LoA works or is a law.
I'm going to make up a law that says I can control the weather. Any time it doesn't rain it's because I didn't want it to. Any time it does rain it's because deep down I know that the tree out front near my mailbox really likes it when it rains and I'm being a nice guy to let it happen every once in a while.
Prove me wrong that I'm not controlling the weather and while you're at it, prove to me there isn't an invisible dragon in my garage.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 03, 2007 at 02:18 PM
I think Connie was being ironic.
Posted by: Skeptico | March 03, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Skeptico is correct, Chimp. I was being ironic. If you read my own blog you might see I am no fan of "The Secret" or its stars.
Posted by: Cosmic Connie | March 04, 2007 at 08:12 AM
Skeptico is correct, Chimp. I was being ironic. If you read my own blog you might see I am no fan of "The Secret" or its stars.
My bad. It was a bad day at work and my sense of humor was on it's last thread. I extend my apologies.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 05, 2007 at 07:51 AM
Instead of a shiny new bike or a necklace, I've decided to go in another direction. I'v asked the universe for this object. I believe I deserve it. I've visualized myself with it. It makes me feel real good when I think of myself with it. I'm so very positive I will receive it. The only question is when the universe will be delivering my nuclear weapon.
Posted by: doyle | March 05, 2007 at 07:58 AM
I don't need the Law of Attraction. My life is perfect as it is. I can't imagine what I'd need that I don't already have.
I used to believe in that LoA. But back when I believed in it I was a no-good loser in a minimum-wage dead-end job.
Since I chucked that magical thinking and rolled up my sleeves and started to work on actually achieving things, I became quite a success. Funny. Old fashioned work ethic actually works.
Now I've got beautiful wife, a kid, a kickass job that pays excellently and allows me total creativity....
It's a dream life, but not for the "dreamers" who aren't "doers."
Posted by: Siamang | March 05, 2007 at 04:14 PM
wow...this john vincent dude certainly got you riled up...
what a powerful guy...
Posted by: joey | March 09, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Go away Mora. Same writing style, same ellipses.
Either stupidity is infectious, or you're the same person.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 09, 2007 at 11:08 PM
mora ain't going away...she's sitting right next to me and we're finding this to be so entertaining...
why should we go away? are you scared?
don't be...it's just dialogue, nothing to be threatened by...bunch of words put together to explain each of our views...
i will say this...i don't necessarily agree with everything mora says...this past life stuff...a bit too out there...
but, she has a right to express herself...as do you...i notice however that her expression seems to attract quite a lot of what reads like anger...
why?
Posted by: joey | March 09, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Oh right, she's sitting there next to you. How about Joe, is he there too?
Like I said Mora, you need help.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 09, 2007 at 11:41 PM
The guy is a scumbag. On Larry King the other night he claimed that Jessica Lunsford, the 9 year old child who was raped and buried alive in Florida by convicted sex offender John Couey, "attracted" it to her. An innocent child attracted her own rape and murder by a vile subhuman dirtbag? What a way to blame the victim. This guy is a bloated pusbag and needs a swift kick in the mouth. As far as I can see, that's what he's "attracting".
Posted by: Ais | March 10, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Some people need things to make sense; they need an explanation for everything. It's just too much living this life without knowing the sense of it. That's what drives some ppl. do fundamentalist religion and that's why they're always affecting that attitude of, "tsk, if only those lost souls were found like us". That's why when you talk to them you get drawn into this game of out condescend the other guy. They've always got this smirk on to prove that you're not getting to them, and it's always a smirk their gritting their teeth through.
The Secret quotes Joseph Cambell, "follow your bliss" (a lot of quotes are taken out of context, come to that) - he also said, quoting someone else, "life is not a puzzle to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived". Some ppl. just cannot live with that.
Posted by: Vosh | March 11, 2007 at 09:33 PM
The Secret quotes Joseph Cambell, "follow your bliss" (a lot of quotes are taken out of context, come to that) - he also said, quoting someone else, "life is not a puzzle to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived". Some ppl. just cannot live with that.
Because deliberate ignorance and sloth are destructive sins. I'd rather be a constructive force.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | March 12, 2007 at 04:30 AM
It's obviously so morally bankrupt to blame the victim they way the Secreters do. And doesn't make sense. Obviously positive thinking is a good thing. But for several years in my life I was pretty negative and sulky, but nothing bad happened to me. Maybe it's because I was also still doing my job and being responsible?? If this were a "law", then I would have been harmed in some way, or gone through a tragedy at that precise time!! Guess my "past lives" were protecting me?? lol. That Mora, really gave me something to think about!!
Posted by: | March 12, 2007 at 03:49 PM
Christ I can't believe I missed that, thanks anonymous.
Teenagers spend years miserable, negative and apathetic, how does the 'secret' or the 'law' explain that?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | March 12, 2007 at 06:43 PM
I wrote this on another Blog ...
....about THE Secret of The Secret ...
When I saw the first Trailer from the secret - the one with the Aladdin lamp and snapshots of people getting their wish, I thought, wow, just like a movie production.
It was FREE so what the heck, just watch it then....
Then came the DVDs, I didn't get them. But later I got an email saying I can watch The Secret movie for free on youtube, so I watched all 11 video clips.
So far so good - waddaheck, it's FREE...
and free is GOOD.
Then those Secret folks sent me an email about a blog.
So I went there, just curious to know what's there... and
BAM !!
I just knew it!
All that free trailer, even the entire FREE The Secret Movie had only one purpose...
It was gearing everyone up for the big launch ...
Yeah, that big launch of: The SECRET SCIENCE OF GETTING RICH ...
... for 'only' .... yeah, baby, 'only' yours for $1995.
and what do you get?
A 'magical briefcase' that'll teach you that it's OK to be rich, with supporting video, audio and workbooks ... oh yeah, and don't forget the Affiliate Program.
Don't forget too that you'll recoup the $2000 dollars you spent by referring just 2 friends, and they each refer 2 friends to buy the magic briefcase ..... oh, and did I mention too ... you also get a website and all the tools you need for 'affiliate marketing' this product ...
Sounds familiar, yeah?! Hell it does!
Check it out here:
http://purchase.theofficialsecretseminar.com
... and you'll see what i mean ...
so now I know the Secret of Getting Rich ...
and the secret of the Secret....
...it's one big Multi-level-marketing project, with all the fanfare and fluff that goes with it ....
... yeah, genuine BS does sell.
Joe B.
Posted by: Joe | March 16, 2007 at 04:40 AM
Not that I'm assuming that any of those who post here are of any particular religious background or affiliation, but there is an interesting article here:
http://www.liberty.edu/academics/
communications/champion/index.cfm?PID=
10609&CAID=191
that makes the argument that this "The Secret" is elements of the Christian Bible perverted or slighty twisted.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading the above comments. You all have written wonderful rebuttals and created a damn entertaining read if I do say so myself.
Posted by: Erich F | March 17, 2007 at 02:52 AM
I like the secret. I think it comes in an attractive package. I feel that positive thinking is... well, positive.
The law of attraction is not science however. The way the Secret is marketed preys on general public ignorance about what science is and is not.
Claiming that the law of attraction is scientific and provable is riduculous. The law of attraction is only "provable" with pseuodosicence... meaning, not-science.
I'm not even a science guy but I can see false science being used to sell stuff. The secret teaches positive thinking, a good thing to practice - but many ignorant people are being led to delusion by this film.
The making of "vision boards" will not produce wealth. Wealth is produced by action and action alone. Postitive thinking doen't hurt - it helps us to persevere and overcome the challenges we will face in life.
No genies in bottles please. Some good planning , consistent action and a good attitude will generally resuly in consistent growth of income....and lets face it - The Secret is being peddled mostly to people who want more money.
The Secret is based on Wallace Wattles "the science of getting rich", which is actually a very good read and I think less likely to produce the delusional thinking many experience after seeing the film.
Posted by: Loren | March 17, 2007 at 10:59 PM
The Secret quotes Joseph Cambell, "follow your bliss" (a lot of quotes are taken out of context, come to that) - he also said, quoting someone else, "life is not a puzzle to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived". Some ppl. just cannot live with that.
Because deliberate ignorance and sloth are destructive sins. I'd rather be a constructive force.
Tactics like that work on some people and I reckon they always will. I've noticed this goes for voting, too. Ppl. don't judge according to what a candidate says, but by how much a candidate SOUNDS like they're winning a debate. The candidate with a nice smile and a folksy way about him will win a debate against a droopy sad sack, and the smiler can just stand their and smirk and say nothing while droopy reveals the most profound truths.
All conartists know that you can get on national tv and announce this to one and all, thinking that you're putting an end to the careers of conartists everywhere, but it just won't matter. You won't make a dent. Conartists smile because they know that even THEY could get out on a balcony and announce that they're conartists and tomorrow they can go out and con the same people! There's not much you can do except remain vigilant for anytime they might step over that thin line into the legal definition of fraud and get them that way.
Posted by: vosh | March 21, 2007 at 06:53 AM
The greatest farce in the world likes between the first verse in Genesis and the last verse in the Book of Revelation. Yet, that farce has served a lot of people. It has also gotten a lot of people killed, both for upholding it, and refuting it.
Do you call Bible salespersons con artists?
There will always be The Gullible. They'll buy anything, follow anything, give up anything. The only way to stop all con artists is to get rid of the gullible. However, there is no chance of that. So, get on the band wagon and create your own con. Quit trying to save the gullible. They don't want to be saved!
Posted by: RKent | March 24, 2007 at 02:16 PM
It's all about education. Some people are unwilling to learn, some people will learn and forget, but others will learn and will apply that learning for the rest of their lives.
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 24, 2007 at 02:24 PM
Tell me what you mean by skeptical. Not the dictionary def, but yours. Reason I ask? If one is constantly skeptical, won't all info eventually be tossed? What is this learning you speak of that some will apply for the rest of their lives? What kind of learning would that be? Math? Science? Religion? Economics? Language? Ah, language. Do we not create our experience of reality through our language? Great linguists have said so. Or am I being gullible?
What's important enough to hang onto for life, learningwise?
Thanks.
Posted by: RKent | March 24, 2007 at 03:47 PM
I will leave you all alone after this:
Back to my earlier posts, if you will count your blessings (your adversities are blessings, too, if you will see them that way) and quit complaining, recognize your uniqueness, gifts, and talents, and go the extra mile with time, effort, and dollars, you'll see a major and beneficial change in your life. You may not call it the Law of Attraction, but it works. And it's proveable. Do it for six weeks, no charge. If at the end of those weeks, things haven't changed for the better, call me a quack. If they do change, well, told ya so.
One caveat: don't embark upon this little journey just to prove me wrong. You'll be doing yourself a great disservice. Do it to see if it works. If I'm wrong, all you've lost is a little time. But if I'm right, well. . .
Have great lives, all of you. Bye!
Posted by: Rev. Richard | March 24, 2007 at 04:27 PM
There are things in other disciplines worth hanging onto as well, but as far as understanding the universe, there's nothing better than good ol' skeptical science.
I don't know about being gullible, but perhaps putting a little too much stock into what linguists say about their own field. I heard a geology student say recently that all science relied on geology ("without rocks, there can't be anything else"), while physicists sometimes say that all science boils down to physics, and mathematicians and philosophers will rightly argue that their fields are yet a step more fundamental (and they can duke it out among themselves as to which is the more fundamental of their two fields). We all tend to emphasize the importance of our own fields, linguists included. And while there's quite a bit of truth to say that our experience of reality is filtered through language, there's also the example of people who don't have language skills (infants and feral children, for instance) but still experience reality, and there are people who don't think in terms of words (like Albert Einstein). So, I think perhaps some linguists, like those in all fields, have engaged in a bit of hyperbole to emphasize their importance. I'd say the big things are the philosophies of life. The Golden Rule, the Scientific Method, that sort of thing, the methods that help us to understand and interact with the rest of the universe, and to evaluate other knowledge that we receive. There are, naturally, other facts and theories and methodologies and whatnot that are worth the time and effort as well. But unless you can test your learning and understanding with some sort of skepticism, how will you ever know what's worth keeping and what should be discarded?Posted by: Tom Foss | March 24, 2007 at 04:35 PM
And who's disputing that? Who doesn't stop and think once in awhile "gee, I've really got it good. I'm pretty lucky." I'd say that "provable" is a bit heavy a word for what the good reverend is saying, after all, counting your blessings and working hard and putting forth an effort to be happy won't make things all peachy-keen if in the next six weeks you lose your wife, your kids, your job, your health, and your life becomes a country song. There's a large degree to which your attitude influences your experience of reality, but every once in awhile, reality steps in to remind you that interpretation and experience are still dependent on what happens in the real world.
Posted by: Tom Foss | March 24, 2007 at 04:44 PM