I wrote earlier this year about the scam that is The Secret, and how The Law of Attraction is not an actual scientific law. Of course, I wrote using logic and facts. Boring! Anyway, reader Martin sent me a link to this You Tube clip. These two Australian guys know the right way to do it – with humor. Brilliant humor. Worth watching all seven minutes.
I especially loved it at the end where they are in the dry cleaners and they “visualize” the clothes as being theirs. Unfortunately the shop owner had obviously also been watching The Secret – and she visualized them back.
Very funny, but are you prepared for the crap storm that this is going to attract, again!
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | June 28, 2007 at 09:32 PM
I do love the Chaser. Best thing on television over here (and on a Government sponsored channel too, somehow).
Posted by: Aesmael | June 28, 2007 at 10:09 PM
The very best Secret exposed was an Australian show that exposed that Shirmer guy for the thieving scumbag he is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icklckUsOGM
http://www.schirmerexposed.co.nr/
Posted by: Niobe | June 28, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Jimmy, I was hoping to attract some humor. ;-)
Posted by: Skeptico | June 28, 2007 at 11:09 PM
holy crap that was funny, particularly the end! I have tears in my eyes.
I was at kinko's the other day. They sell some books there, but The Secret was laid out in a nice pile on the counter away from all the other books where it was singled out.
I grabbed a book from the normal bookrack and placed it next to the pile.
Now when people see the pile of Secret books, they will also see "“Scam-Proof Your Life: 377 Smart Ways to Protect You & Your Family from Ripoffs, Bogus Deals & Other Consumer Headaches” "
I hope they leave my book there.
Posted by: Techskeptic | June 28, 2007 at 11:19 PM
oh man that was good. more things need debunking this way - look at Scientology; we've gotten more people outta there with Xenu jokes than we ever have by logic.
(ed. i've not given up on logic.)
Lepht
Posted by: Lepht | June 28, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Lies! Red bicycles don't come from old pedophiles; they come from Canadian Tire.
Posted by: simmirans | June 29, 2007 at 06:38 AM
I should make a note not to watch YouTube after my job moves into the new office building. Otherwise, I'll be causing the prairie dog effect with my massive laughter.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 29, 2007 at 06:54 AM
Thanks Skeptico for all your writings! I first read your blog by looking for anti-"what the bleep" info online. I bet you've gotten quite a few readers from that one post alone.
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for being that "candle in the dark" (same goes for bronze dog, et all on the skeptic blog-role.)
That is a hilarious video too!
I am trying to show my mom "the light" about the Secret but she keeps giving me the line:
"well, it works for me, so thats all that matters." How would you counter this? (If you have time to respond anyway!) Thanks and keep up the honest work!
Posted by: Tyler | June 29, 2007 at 03:29 PM
Well, I'm not actually the one the question was addressed to nor do I have much experience, but I'd point out that according to The Secret, positively thinking people are essentially omnipotent.
Posted by: Corey | June 29, 2007 at 03:51 PM
God, what a selfish lot Secret-believers are! Why aren't they getting together and bringing about world peace? Cures for cancer and AIDS? No, they're quite happy with necklaces, bikes and mysteriously unearned income. I can't help wondering what the taxman made of the last item.
Posted by: Julia | June 30, 2007 at 05:46 AM
Tyler – thanks for your comments. I’m glad you like the blog.
I really don’t know how to counter the believers in The Secret. Check the comments of the other two posts to see how impervious they are to reason. I think the video above should help – anyone who still believes in it after than is probably immune.
Posted by: Skeptico | June 30, 2007 at 09:02 AM
Hi, Skeptico. I'm from Thailand and just want to say that I really love your blog. There are so much of this superstitious going on in Thailand, and I think The Secret is coming now too. It would be really really nice if there are more people like you in Thailand :(
Anyway, the video is hilarious! Thanks for sharing!
Posted by: gut | June 30, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Tyler -
You could try explaining to your Mom what confirmation bias is. It explains why this nonsense "seems to work". Might be worth a try.
And Skeptico - I'm a big fan of this blog, and I've learned a lot. Many thanks - and keep writing.
Posted by: Rational Thinking | June 30, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Nice. I'm linking to it.
Posted by: angry doc | July 01, 2007 at 10:58 PM
I've tried to discuss The Secret with believers. It's hard since voicing any criticism is often considered to be spreading "bad vibes" and negativity. They are also advised to stay clear of people who spread negativity, which doesn't leave much room for discussion.
Thank you Skeptico, for one of the best skeptical blogs out there!
Take care and keep up the good work!
Posted by: Skepticnurse | July 02, 2007 at 03:40 AM
Tyler:
Tell you mom that she should start working on getting some stuff for you since it seems to work for her, but not you.
Great find, Skeptico.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | July 02, 2007 at 08:31 AM
Tyler,
Here's an example for your mom (not too flattering, though, I'm afraid):
The dog barks at the mailman when he drops off the mail, and the mailman leaves. It doesn't stop the mailman from coming every day and delivering the mail, but the dog only sees that its barking is "working for it," getting rid of the "intruder." What's actually going on has nothing to do with the dog or its barking at all.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | July 02, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I find that the best starting point for most discussions about woo is to ask what it would take to convince the woo believer that they are wrong about their pet woo.
Posted by: JC | July 02, 2007 at 04:12 PM
Tyler-
I've never had to convince someone that their pet woo was wrong, since my family has always been of the more skeptical sort. As such, my advice is kind of a stab in the dark. However...
Debates with woos always seem to go in circles with the woos refusing to consider their pet woo wrong. Merely trying to disprove the woo is probably not going to work, nor is seeming condescending going to help. Evidence will convince a rational third-party observer, but you can't really reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.
As such, I'd suggest figuring out why she started believing in the Secret. What, exactly, has it done to "work for her?"
I do like David D. G.'s analogy, though.
Posted by: Maronan | July 02, 2007 at 10:15 PM
I had a friend start telling me about how great The Secret was over lunch. I got her to rethink her position by telling her that if she was raped, the Secretards would blame her negative thinking for bringing it on. A little extreme, but it works.
Posted by: Cain | July 02, 2007 at 10:49 PM
It's the perrennial rapist's excuse, isn't it? "She asked for it."
Seems the Secretards are in total agreement with rapists.
Posted by: Big Al | July 03, 2007 at 06:26 AM
I was reading 'Elmer Gantry' recently, and found he was selling this ancient secret, between church gigs. Woo is constantly recycled.
Posted by: Ruth | July 03, 2007 at 07:40 AM
The cat and the car parking space were pretty damn funny too.
If the Secret works how come when I was a teenager I couldn't score with any Playboy centrefolds because I visualized that a LOT.
Posted by: athemax | July 06, 2007 at 12:54 PM
The cat and the car parking space were pretty damn funny too.
If the Secret works how come when I was a teenager I couldn't score with any Playboy centrefolds because I visualized that a LOT.
Posted by: athemax | July 06, 2007 at 12:55 PM
That was astounding! I loved it! The end was hilarious!
Posted by: American Scot | July 07, 2007 at 09:55 AM
Hmmm... "this video is no longer available"-- must have been good!
Posted by: just me | July 08, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Another 'law' perpeturated by these clowns is the "law of giving". I'm not really clear on what it says, but then again, I'm not really clear on much of the Secret stuff. But you must give the thing you want to receive or something like that.
Posted by: You've got a Secret | July 13, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Dear Skeptico, I have seen your article and points like this: 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?
My Zen master would just smile when you ask him this question and i just smiled at it. i think there is no need to argue unless you think there is.
I don't know what to say actually. You know, you are right in your arguments against Joe Vitale, perfectly right Skeptico. And you know, Joe Vitale is also perfectly right. We are always all right in our own context. Everyone is right that is why I guess Joe Vitale was ignoring your question and arguments. You are attracting what you want--to prove LOA and Joe Vitale wrong and you are perfect in doing it. Opposites attract is true and the Law of Attraction is also true.
Unless you suppose there is only one truth. because personally i believe there are as many truths as there are imaginations from people. I think each one is free to accept as truth what he wants to.
ALso i believe there are many kinds of people- people who believe the LOA but believe it is not absolute (e.g. it doesnt apply to traffic jams), people who believe it is absolute, and people who don't believe it but make it happen, hahahaha,etc.
Thanks and take care Skeptico.
Posted by: Sev | July 21, 2007 at 07:52 AM
My Zen master would just smile when you ask him this question and i just smiled at it. i think there is no need to argue unless you think there is.
I'll leave Skeptico to respond for himself, but yes, there is a need to argue: If people want to find out the truth, they have to argue and sort out the evidence and arguments brought up. Apathy and sloth are not my style when it comes to truth.
I don't know what to say actually. You know, you are right in your arguments against Joe Vitale, perfectly right Skeptico. And you know, Joe Vitale is also perfectly right. We are always all right in our own context.
Subjective reality, and inevitable solipsism is not becoming of you or anyone. It's lazy, uncaring, and selfish.
Unless you suppose there is only one truth. because personally i believe there are as many truths as there are imaginations from people. I think each one is free to accept as truth what he wants to.
Willing to go play in traffic to prove it?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 21, 2007 at 09:24 AM
Re: Opposites attract is true and the Law of Attraction is also true.
So opposites attract AND like attracts like. Makes it kind-of hard to know what to do to attract what we want, doesn’t it?
I don’t know much about Zen or Zen masters, but if their reply would be as Sev suggests I can only think that Zen is as much woo as is The Secret. It certainly sounds like vacuous drivel.
There’s really not much point refuting Sev’s rather absurd points – anyone who would be convinced by that kind of argument is probably beyond reasoned discussion. All I’ll say is, if you really believe “we are always all right in our own context”, and “each one is free to accept as truth what he wants to”, I suggest the following:
We both go to the top of a 20 storey building. You jump off the top / I’ll take the elevator down. We’ll compare notes at the bottom.
Posted by: Skeptico | July 21, 2007 at 09:54 AM
Dear Skeptico,
My name is Sev. I have labeled my first quoted entries Sev and the succeeding paragraph Bronze Dog (I supposed it was from him since his name was the one posted here for the response. Im sorry if Im wrong. and every 3rd paragraph labeled SEV is my latest response).
Sev: My Zen master would just smile when you ask him this question and i just smiled at it. i think there is no need to argue unless you think there is.
Bronze Dog: I'll leave Skeptico to respond for himself, but yes, there is a need to argue: If people want to find out the truth, they have to argue and sort out the evidence and arguments brought up. Apathy and sloth are not my style when it comes to truth.
SEV: WELL, I CANNOT ARGUE WITH YOU BECAUSE FOR ME THERE IS NO NEED. BUT FOR YOU THERE IS. DAVID HUME WOULD TELL YOU, WELL PROVE THAT THERE IS A NEED TO ARGUE. IF YOU CAN'T, THEN THERE MUST NOT BE. BUT, IF YOU CAN'T, I AM KIND ENOUGH TO SAY THAT MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT MAYBE YOU'RE ALSO WRONG, RIGHT?
Sev: I don't know what to say actually. You know, you are right in your arguments against Joe Vitale, perfectly right Skeptico. And you know, Joe Vitale is also perfectly right. We are always all right in our own context.
Bronze Dog: Subjective reality, and inevitable solipsism is not becoming of you or anyone. It's lazy, uncaring, and selfish.
SEV: APATHY, SLOTH, LAZY, UNCARING, SELFISH. YOU TYPED THESE WORDS BASED ON YOUR OWN SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION AND OPINION OF SUBJECTIVE REALITY AND SOLIPSISM. RIGHT? DO YOU THINK THIS IS OBJECTIVE OPINION? HALF THE PEOPLE I AM WITH RIGHT NOW MAY HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS FROM YOU. BUT WELL, MAYBE IM WRONG. MAYBE YOURE REALLY RIGHT. HEHE.
Sev: Unless you suppose there is only one truth. because personally i believe there are as many truths as there are imaginations from people. I think each one is free to accept as truth what he wants to.
Bronze Dog: Willing to go play in traffic to prove it?
SEV: YES. WHY...DO YOU THINK ALL THOSE PEOPLE CAUGHT IN TRAFFIC REALLY BELIEVE THEY ARE IN TRAFFIC? MAYBE ONE OR TWO DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE THEY ARE ON THE ROAD. I WAS WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE BEFORE ON THE ROAD (AS WE DEFINE ROAD IN THE DICTIONARY) AND HALF OF THEM THINK THEY'RE IN THE WATER. HAHA. DO YOU GET THE POINT? WELL, YOU WILL GET THE POINT IF YOU THINK THERE IS. BUT IF YOU THINK THERE ISN'T, THEN THERE'S NONE AND I'M WRONG.
Dear Skeptico and Bronze Dog, I rest my case (because there is no case, hahaha!). But this is all I have to say, the Secret has given me much more money than i can handle (and even an some good investments in South America and Africa, hehe, and well here in the Philippines) after I have adopted the Law of Attraction. I was poorer than a rat before. So somehow I believe it but you know, it is TRUE and NOT TRUE at the same time. I don't see much DIFFERENCE nowadays. The TRUE and the NOT TRUE make up a BEAUTIFUL WHOLE. Hehe. Well, unless you believe that there is WHOLE and there is BEAUTIFUL. Simply put, no amount of proof would ever convince a skeptic, and no amount of disproof (?) would convince a believer.
I really loved this blog and I love the UNITY of thoughts, Skeptico and Bronze Dog. Hehe.
You know, everytime you prove anybody's opinion wrong, you are REINFORCING the idea that THERE IS ALWAYS A DIFFERENT OPINION. and that's THE CORE of SUBJECTIVE REALITY. For in OBJECTIVE REALITY, there is only one truth and one opinion. Unless you can OBJECTIVELY distinguish REALITY and OPINION. For I think some people would say that when they say "IM UGLY" that's reality for them but opinion for others.
Haah....
Thank you for helping prove my point further when you thought you "disagreed" with me. Read your answers again and please read between and beyond the lines to see what I mean.
Sev
P.S. As of now, i have no need to argue anymore but Im willing to read your answer if you think you wanna help me prove my point more. But I may not need such help this time.
"Ignorance is bliss." -from the Matrix
"Grutyhaplitathj reaj kyluhyaoli." -Seth, a former Lemurian (if you don't get it, read again...then you'll see it. There is some truth there.)
Posted by: Sev | July 25, 2007 at 06:57 AM
Sev, are you stating that the opinions I have are subject to the opinions you have about what opinions I have?
Because you're very much missing the point.
But this is all I have to say, the Secret has given me much more money than i can handle (and even an some good investments in South America and Africa, hehe, and well here in the Philippines) after I have adopted the Law of Attraction. I was poorer than a rat before.
Given what you've been talking about, that's just your opinion, not fact, that you have money. The overarching theme behind your tirade is "knowledge is impossible".
What you're advocating boils down to the idea there's no purpose to communicating: If we're all in our own little subjective realities, we can't say or mean anything and expect it to get through. It's solipsism.
As for proof/disproof: Yes, you can convince a skeptic. You have to use evidence. Passing James Randi's Paranormal Challenge would be very convincing for me. It's only the woos who fall back into word games and redefining "true" to mean whatever they want. Reminds me of this one person who claimed she was "healed" by a faith healer, even though all her medical problems still existed and everything was unchanged, even by her own admission.
Essentially all I see in your statement is "open-mindedness is impossible." It's a negative, defeatist attitude, and I highly doubt it's responsible for any success of yours.
As for objective evidence versus opinion: There's this little thing called science. The kind of thing that's responsible for your ability to post meaningless nonsense online. Unless you believe it's merely your opinion that the computer and the people on the other end exist.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 25, 2007 at 08:07 AM
Off topic post deleted.
Sorry Julie - this blog is not your soap box.
- Skeptico.
Posted by: Julie | August 27, 2007 at 08:18 PM