The Secret

[Defensorem Lupus]

I just found this out. You must check it out. Here is the website: http://www.thesecret.tv/

Also, here is the You Tube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b1GKGWJbE8

It really gets you thinking. Check it out and get back to me.

[Berserker]

"The Secret" is lame. It's just generic self-help tripe that's been around for 70 years wrapped up in this overblown money-sucking package. The kind of thing Oprah watchers eat up.

[Wselfwulf]

I think my father purchased this idiocy in both book and dvd form when it came out in Australia sometime last year. If you can get people to belief this baloney you can get them to believe anything. Sadly though, you can. If anything get's you thinking it's how these people manipulate anecdotal evidence and psychological principles of cognition to make you part with your money and look like they have something to say.

[Defensorem Lupus]

Oprah watchers, part with your money! Whoa, I did not know that there was more too it.

The thing that really drew in me was about the Law of Attraction. It kind of made sense to me. I really did not know that it was that bad, maybe I was wrong . . .

[Berserker]

Yeah Oprah actually popularized The Secret when she had a special on it. Since Oprah is usually associated with sentimental garbage, people in the media started to really blast The Secret, debunking and exposing it whenever possible. Just look it up on Wikipedia, you can see just how controversial it is.

[Defensorem Lupus]

Okay, think I will have to do that. Thanks.

[PariahPoet]

That stuff is such a stupid fad.

[Scott Gardener]

Actually, I'll endorse the premise behind it. I'm a proponent of the idea that we create our own reality. I'll dispute that creative visualization takes the place of, say, seeing a physician to treat serious illnesses. And, I don't recommend standing in the middle of a railroad track and disbelieving in the train. But, I do believe that mindset has a lot to do with what comes in and out of our lives.

I have friends who swear by this thing, and it has helped me get some things resolved. Or, more precisely, it helped remind me how I normally approach problems in life, reminding me to back off in-context perception and focus more on the greater perspective of what I'd rather be doing.

My reservations are less about the message itself (except for the die-hard literal approach that assumes reality itself does not exist except to service one's consciousness--and I have yet to be too inundated with people smart enough to grasp that notion, let alone be dogmatic about it), and more about the packaging. It's a reinvention of other self-help ideas. I've been doing Morning Pages and Artist Dates under Julia Cameron's The Artist's Way series for fifteen years now, and Cameron in turn pulled a lot of the basic principles from Shakti Gawain's essays and books about creative visualization. As a practitioner of Wicca, many of the ideas of The Secret run parallel to my religious beliefs.

Its a careful balancing act for me, though, since these ideas seem to fly in the face of my upbringing of scientific skepticism. I've managed to find a balance that works for me--a methodology that works well enough to get me by in the world, even if I'm working with two different cosmologies that contradict each other. But, hey, until they get the Large Hadron Collider up and running and get sorted out whether or not superstring theory is still the leading theory, then physicists are already doing the same kind of double-think about gravity and quantum mechanics. Both operationally behave as if true and are useful for interpreting particular phenomena, even though both fundamentally contradict each other as-is. I just go through life knowing that I don't know everything, but have two equitable interpretations of reality that each have their uses, depending upon my functional objectives.

[Wselfwulf]

Phenomenology, Existentalism, Cognitive Self-fulfilling Prophecy. These things either exist or are good ideas, except when the unscrupulous slap flowery jargon onto it and use it to make money.

[Defensorem Lupus]

I agree with you on some of the things you said Scott Gardener. You make a very interesting point. As for the whole money making thing, Wselfwulf, you are right about people using it to make money. But that does not mean that we cannot take advantage of the situation. That is at least what I think.

[Kaebora]

I suppose you are paying for more than the idea. It's a movie, a book, and study materials. You're paying for the tools to educate that these people put the effort into. Personally I don't feel I need any of it to live life.

For me it's simple. Live a purpose driven life. Have long-term goals to reach, and live to obtain those goals. Without purpose, life is pointless. If you don't have a purpose, become inspired to find one. Put forth the effort to live for these goals, and in the end you will be satisfied.

[Defensorem Lupus]

You are right Kaebora, I agree with you 100% on that.

I just liked the whole idea of the Law of Attraction. That the thoughts you have make what your day will become and what kind of events you attract.

Maybe I am seeing something different. I do not know.

[Wselfwulf]

Think of it this way. The 'Law' of attraction is crudely based on some psychological principles of cognition that was being best developed around by Loftus, Palmer, Zanni, Gerards-Hesse, Zimbardo. Look up 'social psychology' maybe with 'ABC'. It finds it's way into intuition in phrases like 'misery loves company' and is the basic idea that your attitude, your behaviour and your environment are in a tripartite state of mutual influence. Also that emotion is a social construct through the medium of expression.

-Behaviour affects attitude (I'm eating this prawn and not cringing so I must be partial to it; I'm singing along to this song without realizing, so I must like it)

-Attitude affects context (I love silence, I think I'll hang out in the library; People who smile all the time make me uncomfortable, I'll try making friends who don't smile often)

-Context affects behaviour (rabid warthog! Run!; Too many populosos are at this party, I'll play it low key)

-Behaviour affects context (I've run until I've out of danger; their are a lot less women at this party after my 'party trick')

-context affects attitude (this picture makes me sad and hopeless, and so does this dark room; they seemed pretty cool so maybe not all asians are number crunching nerds)

-Attitude affects behaviour (Women do not working as hard as men, so cindy is not getting that promotion not a friendly greeting in the office;the world is full of spores, I'll stay inside where it's clean)

These are mundane, everyday interactions, occuring without exposure to this silly idea and you can see how a mere attitude can have a snowball affect on your life. This is as close to true as the secret gets. The producers of 'The Secret' do not really like to elaborate on this law of attraction using concrete terms, like most self-help ideas, as it would detract from its mysticism, marketability and originality (thereby their ability to claim it as their idea) . They also seem to skip the step that leads cognitions to affecting reality (through behaviour) and the condescending title should not slip past you either. We are all privy to these relations so no arbitrary change of thought is going to empower us.

[Defensorem Lupus]

Wow, thanks Wselfwulf, that makes more sense to me. I see what you are talking about and I have to agree with you; that they failed to grasp the full meaning of it or the concoction they made they pulled it off as their own.

[Scott Gardener]

I know the author Rhonda Byrne endorses a total commitment to absolute acceptance of the idea, but I still have to classify the "Law of Attraction" as a theory for my own purposes, and a fairly plausible hypothesis when presenting it to other people who haven't had my specific life experiences and world-view to back it up. None-the-less, I don't get the impression from reading or listening to the audiobook off iTunes that there was any profit-scheming going on. The intention instead is a benevolent one, to spread a meme that puts people into a mindset of enablement and self-sufficiency.

[Defensorem Lupus]

I was thinking the same thing Scott Gardener.

But at this point I am not sure if I want to watch the movie, or read the book. I do not like doing things that may be a waste of time. Especially when money, for me, is an issue.

[Wselfwulf]

To scott: you say personal experience has made this theory plausible. I can't argue with that as I don't know your experience, but I still can't help but cringe when you give it that credence. As a theory, it is incomplete. It suggests no mechanisms for any of the relations between thought and reality except perhaps obfuscatory pseudoscienctific nothing terms.

As for the argument from personal experience, look up, if you will, some of the more famous experiments of Loftus and Palmer. This may be relevant only to a particular kind of experience (visual and memory), and you may offer some other, but any good site that mentions them should link this entire field of reasoning errors, logical fallacies, patterns in randomness and so forth. It is important to be humble about the trustworthiness of our own experience and to dispel that great piece of hubris 'seeing is believing'.

You are very kind to attribute benevolence to this kind of thing. I may even have to sympathize with you on that one. I tried to think of some counterexamples, like the attribution of benevolence to Christianity or Islam, but no one conducts mass physical and intellectual devestation in the name of the Secret, so I guess that doesn't carry. But I can't hold the idea that they wish to empower us with some fallacious neo-karmaic mysticism. If they really had total commitment and an intention to provide self-determination, a laudable goal, why not make this information available freely? Why the DVD, the book, the audiobook, heaven knows what other merchandise? It is not simply the cynic in me that says be careful who to trust, but the pragmatist. The simplicity of what has been done can and has been replicated many times over using simple formula for self-empowerment that sells like hotcakes. Tread carefully in your own ideas and that of others.

To MrDragon: In an ideal world all I would give all ideas an equal go, critically evaluate all and so forth and no idea deserves to be ignored. The non-ideal real world engenders that not all ideas were created equal; this will waste your time and money.

[Defensorem Lupus]

Okay, thanks Wselfwulf, that makes more sense. I have to agree with you that if The Secret was some big thing that all people should know that it should be given freely and not turned into merchandise. But because this is a capitalistic society that is what happens; people will do anything for money.

[Baphnedia]

Pretty much nail on the head. Just because it was done for money doesn't invalidate it. Like anything else, give whatever you find due consideration before using it (or not).

[Berserker]

Doing something for money doesn't automatically invalidate it, but it definitely brings it under suspicion, since the methods of making money traditionally involve unscrupulous practices, lies, "dumbing-down" or appeal to the masses, appeal to sentimentality, etc.

[Defensorem Lupus]

You guys are right. I will keep those things in mind. I still want to at least see the movie to see exactly what else there is too it. But does anyone know if they show online for free?

[Scott Gardener]

In discussing it with others, I endorse it as a hypothesis. I use it as a theory for my own purposes. Since my personal beliefs do not include a proselytizing imperative, I exclude ideas I believe out of personal experiences that pass my own personal critical threshold but cannot replicate or verify publicly from my formal endorsements publicly.

For example, a number of years back, I believe I experienced a brief astral projection. If I described my experience and listened to my own description, I would be compelled to ask how one could be convinced that it was not instead a dream or a hypnogogic event. Without anything to prove that I didn't experience anything other than eccentric brain activity, I am left with personally interpreting an event as meaningful but formally presenting it as a curiosity, mainly only useful right now for use as this example of something unverifiable. I do not routinely tell people about this at all, but I do believe the experience carries personal merit.

I've had a number of interesting paranormal dealings over the past decade, but I do not on a day to day basis bring them up because there is no advantage in trying to convince others whether or not they occurred. And, I am perfectly capable of garnering other people's attention more efficiently with information that doesn't actively invite ridicule.

If I'd be skeptical of myself if I weren't me, I expect others of reasonable mind to have the same standards. And therefore, I have my beliefs, and I have what I can back up. I wish more people understood the difference, that there are varying levels of quality of reliability of information. Too many people claim to "know" great "truths" that either have yet to be verified or cannot be verified. Belief and knowing are not the same, and claiming to "know" a belief cheapens the meaningfulness of both knowledge and belief. Having all the faith in the world that one is right does not prove a darned thing. It doesn't deprive me of my right to have faith, but it does point out the essential possibility that I could be wrong. I acknowledge that possibility so I can upgrade my beliefs in light of new facts, rather than being stuck for the rest of my life in a belief that defies evidence.

But, maybe I'm simply falling prey to the human need to believe, but I do personally believe that I astrally projected, that one can manifest one's desires in life through thinking certain ways, and that other paranormal phenomena are real. I just don't expect any of you to take my word for it if I have nothing to back it up except a funky dream, some lucky events, and some descriptions of stuff that hinges on my word alone, no photographs or corroboration, that still might have mundane explanations. Besides, why should I convince others? If I make other people believe in astral projection, do I get a prize?

[Wselfwulf]

If you convince the right people I'm sure it will not go unnoticed. But you seem to have a very mature attitude regarding belief, and I support anyones right to have a difficult-to-support belief insofar as it does not infringe upon any freedoms of any other, in which case support becomes paramount. Alas, you identify correctly that humans seem to have certain needs satisfied. If we tie that in with the cultural saturation of mysticism, we already have a huge confirmation bias interpreting stimuli that could be supernatural or mundane. Not knowing alternate explanations does not help either.

[IndianaJones]

Don't believe in this half-lying bullshit.

[Defensorem Lupus]

Scott Gardener and Wselfwulf, you two could not put that any better. I have to agree with you. You guys do a job of explaining things. I take your word Scott, but I still feel that you are right about the whole corroboration with evidence. I still feel that there needs to be evidence to prove things but just because you do not, that does not mean you have to deny it.

IndianaJones, you are correct on the half-lying part.