The Secret of Mass Delusion

The leaders of Delta Zeta – the sorority which just made national news by expelling all overweight and nonwhite members from its Depauw University chapter – must have read The Secret. In this runaway self-help bestseller, author Rhonda Byrne advises that you can keep your weight down by avoiding the sight of fat people. "If you see people who are overweight, do not observe them, but immediately switch your mind to the picture of you in your perfect body and feel it." Don’t worry about calories, just get rid of that 150-pound sorority sister down the hall.

Here’s The Secret, in case you missed it: You can have anything you want simply by visualizing it intensely enough. I don’t have to write this blog, I can simply visualize it already written – or could, if I’d bothered to read the whole book and finish the DVD. To be fair to Byrne, she does not suggest avoiding nonwhite people; in fact one of the teachers of “the secret” she cites is the African-American motivational speaker Lisa Nichols. The Delta Zeta leaders probably just thought: Why take a chance?

Can you really get anything you want through some mysterious “Law of Attraction”? It may not be as easy as it seems. Take the case of Esther Hicks, spirit-channeler, motivational speaker, and co-author of a book entitled The Law of Attraction. Byrne had told Hicks she would have a starring role in the DVD of The Secret, but her face was never shown in the film’s first cut (although her voice, channeling a group of spirits called “Abraham” was used throughout.) Hicks was furious and demanded that her voice, or Abraham’s, also be excised from the DVD, which has now sold about 1.5 million copies.

Possibly Hicks was just too fat for the film, or at least too dowdy. It’s hard to judge her weight from a photo in the New York Times, which shows Hicks seated – eyes closed in channeling mode – inside her $1.4 million bus. But just underneath is a photo of a sylph-like Byrnes frolicking on a beach in a fur-trimmed jacket. From a Delta Zeta perspective, who would you rather look at?

Hicks says she is not going to sue, and why should she? She could just use the Law of Attraction to reinsert herself back into the DVD. Or to deflect Byrne’s profits into her own bank account. Or to take off 15 pounds and have them padded onto Byrne’s tiny waist.

If a leading proponent of the Law of Attraction cannot control a little thing like a DVD with her thoughts, then why are millions of Americans spending good money to find out how to use that Law to control the entire universe? The scary thing is that the subscribers to the Law aren’t just a bunch of wistful, isolated, misfits. Read the reviews of the DVD of The Secret and you find that companies are beginning to impose it on their employees. An N.Van Buskirk writes that:

I was presented this DVD at work and I found it disturbing. A gimmick to say the least, but the real issue is that I felt like I was being indoctrinated into a cult -- I had to leave about half-way through.

And Steven E. Cramer, an employer, reports that “I had my sales staff watch ‘The Secret,’ and saw an immediate jump in morale, goals and production.”

Or check out the credentials of the “teachers” enlisted in The Secret. Most are well-known motivational speakers who claim to instruct such business heavy-weights as financial advisors, developers and a “master marketer.” One of The Secret’s teachers, Denis Waitley, includes on his website testimonials from Merrill Lynch, WorldCom, 3M, Dell Computers and IBM, among many others.

Well, here’s a little secret I’d like to share, channeled to me by Einstein, Newton and thousands of enlightenment thinkers: When the leaders of a major economy lapse into mysticism and come to believe they can accomplish things through their mental vibrations, without lifting a finger – then it’s time to start thinking about going into subsistence farming on a remote compound in Idaho. I’ll have the DVD out in no time.

Comments

[Anarcissie]

This is somewhat tangential, but I was heartened by the report that half of the slim white girls who were not kicked out of the DePauw sorority quit in protest. It's not often that you see a community half of whose members are willing to choose righteousness over self-interest and convenience. Sometimes there is a glimmer of hope.

As for those corporate self-help books, they are pretty scary. A friend of mine has a little collection of them. She thinks they're harbingers of layoffs, as robins presage the coming spring.

[Ron Davison]

The allure of products like the secret has at least two components: awesome risk return ($25 could transform your life, a bargain by any calculation) and an element of truth (visualization before acting has been repeatedly proven to help performance). The movie Little Miss Sunshine is a reminder that the actual success of such products is more subject to random outcome than any of the creators of such products would care to admit.

Anarcissie, you could write a best-selling book yourself: "How Self-Help Books Signal Economic Downturns!"

[Riz]

I've just come across this whole 'Secret' malarki. It's so irrational it hurts, but as Ron Davison says above, it has a couple of seeds of truth. I just can't believe people have bought in to the hype to the extent they have - it will be interesting to see if the concept makes any progress over here in the skeptical United Kingdom. Now, I've been visualisng a cup of tea for about 5 minutes now, and nothing. I guess I am actually going to have to get up and make it. To quote H.Simpson 'Doh!'

[chris]

Those interested can read a more skeptical view of The Secret at the following link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/fashion/25attraction.html?pagewanted=print

[The Eternal Squire]

And of course since math, science, technology, and composition are no longer "cool" subjects, our entire society is descending into mysticism... on the far right we have the holy rollers and on the far left we have the law of attraction... and in the center we have psychobabble.

Far be it that a Cold War surplus engineer like me can ever find a job in this social climate.

I'd rather stay a homemaker, after all.

The Eternal Squire

[chris]

Eternal Squire, you wrote:

"And of course since math, science, technology, and composition are no longer "cool" subjects, our entire society is descending into mysticism..."

My nieces are top science students in the most academcially rigorous high schools in NY City. My sons have demonstrated their grasp of science and math in their public schools. I make this assessment as a person who holds an engineering undergraduate degree.

Meanwhile, most of the friends of my nieces and sons are like minded. Moreover, the country is not short on top students elbowing each other for admission to MIT, Cal Tech and all the other top tech schools in the country.

Furthermore, when has there ever been widespread science, math and compositional literacy in this country?

Engineers have always accounted for a very small percentage of college grads.

Given the fact that college is now open to anyone, and probably an increasing number of people with non-specific knowledge now graduate, it is likely that the percentage who graduate with engineering degrees is slipping.

On the other hand, the asian population in the US is breaking records in this area. Thus, it's just as likely the percentage of engineering graduates is rising relative to overall graduation trends.

Let's get serious. Engineering school is hard. Sociology is easy. The dropout rate from engineering programs is high. But many of those engineering dropouts do well in business programs, where many engineers go for MBAs.

You added:

"...on the far right we have the holy rollers and on the far left we have the law of attraction... and in the center we have psychobabble."

When was it ever different?

Meanwhile, I find it hard to criticize the people who observe social trends and take steps to capitalize on what they've seen.

Some people are good at spotting movements and taking the public pulse, then bringing the like-minded people together.

Their powers and drive impress me.

And what makes these fads different from their long-lived relations otherwise known as "established religions?"

[Hattie]

I want to be brave, noble, and good. Will *The Secret* help me there?
What grinds me are the piddling goals of people these days.

[fedup]

I can't believe, that in 2007, I'm still reading stories like this!

[Antigone]

Who ever said sociology was easy? I'm in Aviation, and I wouldn't switch to sociology if you paid me.

[realpc]

Barbara E. is an atheist, so she is naturally baffled and appalled by the philosophy expressed in The Secret. But the idea that the universe can respond to our desires is ancient, and is found in all religious and mystical practices.

It doesn't mean we can boss the universe around. Obviously, our wishes are going to conflict with the wishes of others, for one thing. If we make selfish demands, the universe might just ignore us.

But if try to connect with the universe and harmonize our desires with it, we can get out of ruts and turn things around -- without Prozac.

But this would not make any sense to an "enlightened" atheist who is certain that the universe is mindless.

[Greg Bohun]

So the "secret" is simply visualizing something strongly enough and that is enough to bring it about? No personal effort required then? I was always under the mistaken belief that visualization was a useful motivational tool if it was then followed up with action on my part. For example, I always thougth that if I was to imagine vividly how good it would be to be a doctor. This should then allow me to maintain the necessary motivation to persist through the necessary difficulties of study and its resultant sacrifice sacrifice. I was suffering under the delusion that simply wishing for it was not going to allow a medical school to bestow a degree on me, or a medical association a license to practise. Silly me. I just need to wish for it. In the same way that if I am a manager in a business, I dont need to develop good interpersonal skills as a way of motivating my staff, I dont need to work diligently to remove demotivators to performance, I dont need to apply intellectual rigor to problem solve. I dont need to have courage to tell my superiors that what they are asking for is unworkable. I dont need the necesary busines knowledge to offer a constructive solution. All I need is to hand out some self help books and then blame the subordinates when their lack of powerful wishing brings about the desired results. This sounds so much better than trying to be competent or hard working. I must run it by my current employer. Mind you, I wonder why companies go broke or lose touch with reality? Just too many negative pragmatists. Obviously the former head of ICI, Sir John Harvey-Jones was deluded and so yesterday when he stated that the most valuable employer was a constructive "no man" as "yes men" were ten a penny. Thankfully we have put that nonsense to bed. Sycophantic Yes People, are the most valuable, as evidenced by how much they get paid

[Anarcissie]

realpc: 'Barbara E. is an atheist, so she is naturally baffled and appalled by the philosophy expressed in The Secret. But the idea that the universe can respond to our desires is ancient, and is found in all religious and mystical practices. ...'

Certainly the universe responds to our desires. It responds when those desires are expressed in action. Maybe that's what it's for. And action can be motivated and organized by creative visualization, as they call it, among other things. I don't really think too many atheists would disagree with you on that.

If you're saying you believe some sort of larger being will intervene in your world if you just think certain things, even though you do nothing about them, the problem with that is that there's no reliable evidence for it. It doesn't mean it isn't so, but it's a chosen belief, not a common perception of what's going on around us. If a book promotes it as a certainty, it's almost certain to be hogwash.

[Barbara E]

You can call me an atheist, but I think it trivializes God to think He's a big Servant in the Sky waiting to fulfill our wishes.

[realpc]

I would NEVER say that God is a big Servant in the Sky. You can look at what I wrote and see for yourself.

When we try to harmonize our desires with the desires of the universe, we become less selfish, more loving. The Secret makes it look selfish, I admit. You can have the gold necklace or the expensive car if you focus your imagination. I think there may be some truth in that. But we limit ourselves by focusing on acquiring status symbols. And I don't think the universe -- which is infinitely wiser than all of us put together -- showers happiness on people who are obsessed with status and worldly possessions.

Barbara E., without realizing it, you practice the same technique. Your desire is to help people who are having trouble surviving in this society. You desire to be of service, and the universe opens doors for you and helps you fulfill that desire. Intellectually, you deny that your consciousness is connected to anything. But -- and of course you disagree -- the subconscious mind grows directly out of the great universal mind (as William James said -- but that was before the scientific atheism craze).

Of course it's impossible to separate our own actions from the guidance and help we get from spirit guides, Jesus, Buddha, whatever (these are merely symbols that individuals use to help them focus and connect with some kind of higher level consciousness). We can't measure how much of our success results from our actions, and how much comes from the higher levels that coordinate, motivate and inspire.

We are all connected, to some degree, with our Source (whatever that is, I am agnostic and open-minded). We are also disconnected, alienated to some degree.

To the extent that you are connected to, harmonized with, the Source, you will be inspired, motivated, encouraged, successful.

That doesn't mean it's our own fault when we fail. Failure is inevitable and it's impossible for each of us to have our own way all the time.

The people who made The Secret are fallible humans, trying to explain things no human being can understand. This is a money-making endeavour for them, so they try to make it look simple and easy, so people will buy the books, tapes, seminars, etc.

In reality, trying to improve ourselves and increase our consciousness and our connection with our Source is a lifelong ordeal.

[Maya's Granny]

The Secret fits in so well with the current administration, with its scorn of reality-based thinking. And notice how well that is going.

Books like this being distributed at work are a real signal that management is looking for a way to blame employees for their own mistreatment. How easy to say, "Well, yes you did a better job, but obviously you weren't visualizing the promotion as well as the person who got it."

[tang]

I have not read the Secret, but I am astonished to hear that it claims that you can, say, just wish for your coffee to be made, and it will be made? Somehow I do not think that the book is trying to get that message across at all, because that is insane and nobody would take it seriously.

I agree with the idea that visualization is an effective motivational and/or performance enhancing technique. When I play baseball, and I am waiting for 8 players to bat before me, I visualize how I am going to read the pitcher, how I am going to take my swing, and how good it will feel when I smack that ball with the sweet spot right out of the ball park. I can't claim that I've ever quantified the effects of this, but I think it helps!

[realpc]

"I am astonished to hear that it claims that you can, say, just wish for your coffee to be made, and it will be made?"

Of course it doesn't. Barbara E. hates anything new-agey, because she'a an "enlightened" secular humanist socialist. They think supernatural beliefs are idiotic.

But you are right -- whether you think it's supernatual or natural, visualization and positive thinking work. They can work for atheists or theists.

I'm not sure why Barbara E. hates that stuff so much. Maybe because it's a way for people to find some happiness without overthrowing the government and creating a utopia. In other words, contented citizens are unlikely to join a revolution.

We should try to be as miserable as possible, so we never forget how unfair capitalism is.

[Anarcissie]

I don't see why you think creative visualization necessarily excludes overthrowing the government and creating a utopia.

[realpc]

"I don't see why you think creative visualization necessarily excludes overthrowing the government and creating a utopia."

Sometimes overthrowing a government is a good idea. But creating a utopia is never a good idea.

[Anarcissie]

There is nothing in the notion of creative visualization to specify that all the ideas which are creatively visualized will be good ones.

However, when I read my friend's little self-help books, my impression is that most of the ideas in them are neither good nor bad -- they're just vacuous platitudes, a sort of mental styrofoam. It worries me, though, that people want to fill their minds up with it.

[realpc]

Self-help books vary in quality, as do books on any other subject. There have been many great books -- self-help or philosophy, or whatever -- that have transformed people's lives.

It's easy to be happy as long as everything goes well (although we know plenty of examples of rich famous drug addicts). But when the inevitable problems occur, not everyone knows how to recover. You might think Prozac or Paxil is all you need, but pills do nothing to strengthen and heal the spirit.

As life goes on, we either learn how to be strong and flexible, or we learn to be depressed and to rely on chemicals. Humans in all times and places have struggled with this, and answers have been collected in books.

You can reject all that wisdom because the books you happen to have seen are silly. You can turn your natural human misery into anti-capitalist rage. Or you can learn how to be happy, in spite of life's imperfections.

You could still criticize capitalism, even if you learned to be a little happier. Actually, most of the new age people I know are anti-capitalists (unfortunately).

[Anarcissie]

The New-Agers who sell books seem to be capitalistic enough.

But it seems to me that the books and the pills are about this same -- take this pill / read this book, and you'll be happier / stronger / richer / prettier, etc. But far be it from me to criticize that. Whatever gets you through the night, as the song says.

I do find the ones corps hand out to be generally a bit sleazy, because they are usually about doing your job more effectively for the boss, as if that was the most important thing in the world. In other words they're not about your happiness, they're about someone else's bottom line.

[realpc]

In the context of the workplace, the emphasis of motivational stuff will naturally be on doing your job better. But there is no shortage of material on how to improve your non-work life.

And I personally think that being good at your job is a great source of self-fulfillment. We are not just working for some boss, but for our own development. What is wrong with having useful skills? And using those skills is rewarding.

Leftists are generally opposed to work, especially if it helps someone else make money. But work is an area of life where we face some of the greatest rewards, as well as some of the greatest challenges.

Not that I'm opposed to the other areas of life, which are at least as important. But hating work is a big mistake, because it's a fact of life, unless you were born rich. And if you were born rich, I think you have to find some kind of purpose in life so you won't just hang around and take drugs.

[Anarcissie]

You seem to be unaware of labor fetishism, which reached its apex in Marxism. (Some critics called it "workerism".) The Marxists too believed in the automatic goodness of work, or a lot of them did. No surprise, then, that Lenin called his system "state capitalism".

I suppose that's faded out now. Several years ago I was observing a political rally next to an anarcho-punk. When the speaker (I think it was Jesse Jackson) intoned "Jobs, not jails" the a.-p. snarled "What's the difference?" and huffed off. No workist he. I don't think he was going to vote for anyone at that rally anyway.

But I think the question is, work for what? Work for whom? Is it your own or someone else's? What's it doing to the world? Those little self-help books the corps give you don't answer or even ask those questions, not the ones I've seen.

[dr mezmer]

The pop artist Andy Warhol predicted that with the technological advance of the media, soon everyone will be famous, but only for 15 minutes. A columnist in the Wall Street Journal recently turned this prediction on its head, and noted that as the media fractures as it advances, everyone will be famous all the time, in the eyes of 15 people that is. Thus, given advances in mass communication led by the internet, you will always find at least 15 people who raptly attend to your every musing, even if your claim to fame is a mere knowledge of the natural history of the dung beatle.

And this of course is a good thing, for if we can readily find 15 people who will give us an 'atta-boy' for our every murmur and burp on any topic that interests us, we will be more motivated to develop and perpetuate that interest. That's a wonderful change from pre-internet times, when the only 15 people who cared about us were more concerned with how we made our bed, fixed dinner, or paid the bills. We were famous of course, but not for the things that we felt truly mattered. Indeed, accomplishment and genius is only nurtured in environments where there are small groups of people to provide the 'atta-boy' for the simple act of trying. Indeed, where would Mozart, Galileo, and Einstein be without family and friends who gave them encouragement?

Of course, popular psychology give short shrift to this simple truism. Motivation is just a matter of optimism, not a product of day to day encouragement, and your weightiest goals will move to you as a function of a sort of psychic gravity, or law of attraction if you will. So to get what you expect, you just have to learn how to expect, and keep expecting good things.

But this is nonsense, because as neuro-science demonstrates, motivation is not just a logical but an affective thing, and without the daily pleasantries of an unexpected compliment or word of encouragement, motivation is extinguished like a candle. To love what you're doing, you have to have other people love you because you're doing it. There is no other option. Motivation is not found in the logical constructions of optimism, but in our affective reaction to the opinions of other people.

To illustrate this truism, consider this global mind experiment, which can be performed by everyone who has ever posted to the internet. Consider a world without the internet. This would snuff out more than daily stock quotes and news blurbs on celebrities, but the individual inspirations of millions. Indeed, who would blog unto silence, or keep their aspirations bright when no one can hear them speak? Expectations would never be matched, because there would be no motivation to reach them. Indeed, that is the true 'Secret' of motivation, not the reflection of a cosmic law, but of a very human one. Motivation, like happiness, is not found in the facile and nonsensical laws of pop-psychologists, it is found in the 15 people who care about what we do.