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.

[Anarcissie]

But isn't that pop psychology?

[chris]

dr. mezmer wrote:

"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."

The preceding is an example of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy of composition.

If we attend a sporting event and stand up to get a better view, we have an advantage -- until everyone else does the same.

Advances in communications -- the Internet -- allow everyone to gain the same advantage. But that ultimately means millions of people are competing for a slight advantage, which technology simultaneously gives and takes away.

How many blogs do we read? A handful. And most of us are willing to explore new ones since most are tedious, boring and utterly predictable after a couple of readings.

Meanwhile, we still read the standouts. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin is still one of the greatest pre-blog blogs ever written. I'm sure many readers at this site can offer a long list of brilliant pre-Internet, pre-blog publications written by sxtreme thinkers who set the standards for all subsequent observers and opinionators.

[spit]

Eh, well, nothing really that new. People have been visualizing world peace for years, too. How's that working out?

There's something weird about Americans that we really seem to love anything that tells us we can have what we want without actually working our butts off for it. Really, this is no different than a spiritual version of the diet fad.

Copper coinage.

[The Eternal Squire]

Spit,

I've been visualizing whirled peas ever since my daughter was old enough to eat solids.

The Eternal Squire

[eRobin]

She could just use the Law of Attraction to reinsert herself back into the DVD.

ROFL. It would be a consistent use of all that mental energy. I'm with Hattie, why don't they use all this power to solve real problems?

[M]

Ms. Ehrenreich, I am watching you on C-SPAN2 right now, and listening to you repeating myths. The fact is that illegal aliens (they aren't immigrants, they are aliens. Alien refers to a person who comes from a foreign country.) do receive welfare, medicaid, medical, food stamps, and housing assistance.

They become eligible once they become pregnant in this country, and the benefits include children born outside this country as well as the parents.

American citizens are deprived of these benefits, even when they desperately need them. My husband died because cancer went undiagnosed as he didn't have health insurance. This impacted our entire family, espcially our child.. perhaps human rights do not apply to the most powerless Americans in your book?

Anyone seeking to further human rights would demand the countries, like Mexico take responsibility for their powerless and provide more for them.. not turn a blind eye to corporate interests that collude with the new left who seek to exploit the poor for their own agenda.

Another myth you give lip service to is that socialism is in aid of equality and representing the poor's interests. If one looks at the impact of socialism, the world over, including Europe.. through the gainin of power of the student movements you wrote about.. is that the poor are as, if not more exploited than they were before. The average life expectancy of a French laborer for example, is 34. How progressive is that?

Also, how can you claim not to have known how bad Bush would be? It was well reported that he was aiming to push us into a war in the Middle East, long before he gained office. His record as governor of Texas was one of the utmost inhumanity, his eradication of environmental laws and workers rights. You'd have had to be blind or willingly indifferent to not have known this.. also, these facts were loudly debated in 2000.

[JP Merzetti]

A sign of the times:
Twenty some-odd years ago, a local monthly mag used to advertise things to learn - this appealed to people who wanted to get out in an evening after work, and do something useful, mingle with like-minded souls all trying to improve themselves in some way or other.
one could learn how to knit, crochet, fix the car, learn to play the guitar, learn pottery and ceramics, woodworking, serious photography, visual art techniques, a new language, adapt certain academic skills like learning how to properly research a book topic......there were hundreds of things - all taught fairly inexpensively, affordably - by people who were not "professionals" but knew enough about their subject and were adept enough to teach it.
This organization was referred to as a "skills exchange."
it was quite popular.

Twenty some-odd years later, what has it turned into?
There are no more "hard" skills being offered. These - have gone the way of the dodo.
They have been replaced by:
"finding your inner child, peace, muse, lover, saint"...or any other creature you may be pursuing...
Other replacements - any number of get rich quick flim flams (bordering on both the illegal and the ridiculous)
Any number of powder-puffy soft and squishy joy-rides to any number of endless Nirvanas - forget waiting until you die - go there now!
Any number of brand new slick tricks involving how to adapt to the greasy spread of "new" business and corporate realities.
And so it goes...
The one thing I've noticed that even remotely seems linked with the spirit of the original endeavour - is a strong tendency toward home improvement (in today's bubble unreal estate situation, I'm not surprised.)

Compare and contrast:
How is it that so many will not equate the pleasure of DOING something useful (and thereby benefitting from the pastime directly) to slowly dissolving into the sludge of a quivering spiritual slop bent on knowing nothing but how good it can feel - while doing nothing?

I have often imagined that this is kind of how a happy newborn-ish baby might actually feel?
Not having been there in awhile, I'm just not so sure anymore.

Motivation - is an intensely personal and heart-felt connection with one's own power.
I say, don't mess with it.
Even a gift-horse has a helluva bite!

[Jennifer Warwick]

Thanks for this post - I was working on a piece for my own blog about this sorority mess, and was tickled to see your take on it. Keep up the great work challenging what a previous commenter characterized so vividly as "mental styrofoam."

[Rella Bezanilla]

The Secret is in one sentence "As ye think so shall ye be". Nothing more nothing less.

[catherine summers]

Thanks for a great laugh on a drab day. Have you read Maureen Dowd's column on the Secret and George W?

[Whatstherealnews]

Caught Coughing Barbara today on Book-TV. Would that C-Spann had a mute button.

Interestingly, she and Cynthia both displayed the arrogance of media.

To my question, "Why does media ignore the one court most often used by the public, and for the longest period of time, Not covered by media?

(see www.FamilyLawCourts.com)

The response?

They both blew it off. Barbara resumed hacking and it was, next caller!

[Anarcissie]

I'm not surprised. The web site is fairly incoherent, as was the question. I can't help imagining it had as much to do with the subject of the program, as your message here has to do with the subject here.

[James]

I saw Barbara this weekend.

Anyway, her next apparent offering is going to be a book about the Self Help industry. Bear in mind, I'm not trying to say here that self-help isn't needed. People can try to improve themselves in so many ways. But I'm hoping her book points out the idea behind this constant barrage of self-help books. Why is it that the self-help book industry is larger than the rest of the book industry. I mean, how many diet books do we need, how many books telling us to invest right, or how to dress for success, or any number of other books. Why is it these folks who run publishing offices, those who make the decisions publish so many offerings in this field, put out so many books on these subjects?

Obviously, publishing magnates are incredibly rich folks, much like many who are involved in the various media outlets, from the small screen to the big screen offerings, from television news to reality shows. There is big money in manipulating minds through entertainment.

My contention is that one of the services self help books provide the very rich is in making us all think we are unworthy of their largess. Perhaps we are, but if that is so, why do they imply in many of these books that if we weren't so screwed up we'd all be CEO's. Are there really 300 million CEx jobs out there? Who would do all the menial jobs that apparently aren't filled when we take the high earning positions once these books correct our ineptness, our self-inadequacy?

No, clearly the idea is to make us think we are flawed. The reason we don't have insurance is that we are too fat, we say "f*ck" too much, or we don't belong to the right religion. If we think we are screwed up, then we won't look for any societal causes. Of course we all know that the Capitalistic American system is without flaws, is perfect, and God, those rich folks in politics certainly don't miss any chance to tell us how perfect America is. It must be our problem. We don't have insurance, we don't have that CEO job, we can't seem to get along because we just didn't do something right. Pick up a book and learn what you've done wrong and you too can become a productive member of the upper 20%, you too can have health care.

I don't know if it is true, but I do know the results of a society that makes us all think we are flawed, but the system we live under is perfect. We end up having a lot of folks with low self-esteem, some who don't even bother to vote. We have people blaming themselves, and never examining the possibility a governmental system that leaves 40 million at any time without insurance, while having hundreds of Billionaires is flawed. Yea, just pick up a book on "Interviewing" when you go to Barnes and Nobles next time. Maybe another diet will help. Yea, it'll help; you'll put more money into their pockets, and continue to promote the idea that it is your fault, you are flawed. Ever notice Republican rhetoric? It falls along the same line. It is your fault, it has nothing to do with availability of education, or that you only had one parent, or your mom might have liked the crack too much. It's all you baby, our society is perfect!! Not!!

[chris]

JP Merzetti, you wrote:

"A sign of the times:
Twenty some-odd years ago, a local monthly mag used to advertise things to learn - one could learn how to knit, crochet, fix the car...there were hundreds of things - all taught fairly inexpensively by people who...were adept enough to teach it.

and

"Twenty some-odd years later, what has it turned into? There are no more "hard" skills being offered. These - have gone the way of the dodo.
They have been replaced by:
"finding your inner child, peace, muse, lover, saint"...Other replacements - any number of get rich quick flim flams (bordering on both the illegal and the ridiculous), powder-puffy soft and squishy joy-rides to any number of endless Nirvanas..."

JP Merzetti, did you just wake up from a long nap? Nothing has changed. First, we live in a market economy. Therefore, if today people want warm and fuzzy classes on spirituality, so what?

Meanwhile, you haven't been paying attention to the education boom. There are new and popular computer-based learning aids for EVERYTHING, especially for foreign-language study. See Rosetta Stone for some great language software.

You can now go to college from home. Is this evidence of declining interest in hard knowledge? You can get an MBA from home. You can criticize the University of Phoenix programs, but you'll have trouble proving it.

You wrote:

"Any number of brand new slick tricks involving how to adapt to the greasy spread of "new" business and corporate realities."

Really? Sorry. Nothing NEW here.

You noticed:

"The one thing I've noticed that even remotely seems linked with the spirit of the original endeavour - is a strong tendency toward home improvement (in today's bubble unreal estate situation, I'm not surprised.)"

Has there ever been a time when home improvement was considered a bad idea? Home Depot, another subject of this blog, made the Do-It-Yourself concept a reality.

You were baffled by:

"Compare and contrast:
How is it that so many will not equate the pleasure of DOING something useful (and thereby benefitting from the pastime directly) to slowly dissolving into the sludge of a quivering spiritual slop bent on knowing nothing but how good it can feel - while doing nothing?"

This part of human nature has always existed. But it appears you have only recently come to recognize it. Oh well. Now you know.

[chris]

The Secret is out.

Why is it viewed as new?

List its predecessors.

The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale.

Think and Grow Rich, can't recall the author.

Every book on goal-seeking tells you to visualize -- focus on -- your goal until you achieve it through your work.

Meanwhile, the history of publishing is filled with self-help books maing promises too good to be true.

Whether it's money, weight loss, beauty, word power, career advancement, personal relationships, etc., the shelves are clogged with crap.

I think the most profitable segment of publishing focuses on the irrational hopes, fears, dreams and desires of the world's wishful readership.

What publishing scheme of selling dreams or nightmares to readers has not been attempted repeatedly?

Nuclear Winter. Global Cooling. Global Warming. Stock Market, Dow 36,000. The Coming Depression. Right Wing Christian Takeover. Left Wing Anarchy or Dictatorship.

I'm OK-You're Okay. My Mother My Self. Kinsey and Sex. Every glossy magazine and Sex. Good Sex, Bad Sex.

We live in a market economy. If we want it, someone will sell it to us. That's good.

[Mary Lou]

there was a comment about it being bad to create a utopia. everybody who worked on creating the united states constitution did as well as they could in creating a governable country. the problem is not in the ideal but in the country refusing to compare itself to a reasonable ideal. i do think that by 2010 there will be some sort of universal health care plan coming out of congress, but that is no reason not to complain about it now. only by complaining about its unfairness can we hope to get the political will to change the situation.

and yes, we as a society need all those sorts of work done, not just the highly compensated ones.

[chris]

Mary Lou wrote:

"i do think that by 2010 there will be some sort of universal health care plan coming out of congress..."

NOT A CHANCE. Not as long as it's possible for pregnant non-citizens to sneak in and give birth to citizens.

We can only consider this option if we limit the range of beneficiaries to legal citizens. As long as the benefits are, in fact, UNIVERSALLY available, it cannot happen.

Frankly, Universal Health Care is muslim terrorists' dream come true. They would move here in the greatest numbers possible and bear children at taxpayers' expense and create a powerful voting bloc that would lead to serious problems for those of us who enjoy our freedoms.

Furthermore, we'd become the de facto social services agency for Mexico, and several other Latin American countries. Sorry. No thanks.

[Anarcissie]

Actually, politics, religion and other ideological commitments are not genetically coded for, Chris. Some of those Muslims and Mexicans will turn out to be good old Constitution-loving classical liberals ("conservatives"). Many of them will go back to the old country and corrupt it with capitalism, free speech, due process, and other heresies.

I think the big problem with universal goverment-paid medical insurance is not that the poor will loot the system, but that the rich will. It's a kind of self-help they don't seem to need a book to figure out. If some people can get $105 for a bottle of saline solution now, imagine what they'll be able to do when the supply of money becomes effectively unlimited.

[Anarcissie]

James: "... We have people blaming themselves, and never examining the possibility a governmental system that leaves 40 million at any time without insurance, while having hundreds of Billionaires is flawed. ..."

Well, where does this system come from? It didn't drop from Mars.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"I think the big problem with universal goverment-paid medical insurance is not that the poor will loot the system, but that the rich will."

Your statement is absolute nonsense. The "poor" do not pay a full share for healthcare. They are the beneficiaries who pay very little, if anything, for their coverage.

Start with Medicaid. The system that supports people who have NO MONEY.

Don't misunderstand, I think the US has extraordinary resources and we can put them to work more effectively than we do in the area of healthcare and other areas of social need and public good.

But my views don't ignore where the money comes from. It comes from those who have money to support the system. It doesn't come from "the poor."

It's everyone else who pays, in varying degrees.

Moreover, it's irrelevant that some ambitious aliens will come to the US and prosper and export capitalism and make the world a better place. Most will not. Most will drain the system -- legally -- because a "universal healthcare program" that covers all citizens will cover the offspring of illegal aliens, which will, by extension, cover illegal aliens, making the trip over deserts, through shark-infested waters and across oceans well worth it.

Who could blame them for exploiting such a huge opportunity -- legally?

To borrow a phrase, If We Build It, They Will Come.

[Anarcissie]

Chris: '... Your statement is absolute nonsense. The "poor" do not pay a full share for healthcare. They are the beneficiaries who pay very little, if anything, for their coverage. ...'

Yes, but the poor have no power. About all they can do to pressure people is suffer in the street. As tools of money-making used by others, though, they can be quite useful, in more ways than one. Not only as excuses to sell vastly overpriced goods and services, but as convenient targets onto which public anger and hostility can be deflected.

[annika]

My boyfriend's sister got The Secret DVD for her mom and siblings during the holidays, instructed us to watch it and then report back to her.

As most people have found, it was a gimmick. I did the research like barbara and found the people in the film were all marketers and had worked for Amway.

But the sad thing is people will continue to blame their many problems on the lack of positive thinking. It's a new way of keeping problems personal and individual rather than collective and political.

The second sad thing is that Larry King and Ellen Degeneres have promoted this stuff on their shows.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"Yes, but the poor have no power."

Really? Let's see. The US fought its Civil War for those powerless "poor".

When you don't have power, it's good to have a president who will lend a hand.

Lyndon Johnson formulated the Great Society. A lot of money has been spent on programs started in his administration. The spending continues today.

If that's what having "no power" means, well, give me some of that.

Meanwhile, if you want to go to college, a good college, the best ticket for entry is to be a poor black.

You wrote:

"About all they can do to pressure people is suffer in the street."

If you mean they shoot each other in drug deals gone bad, well, you might have a point. That way they get emergency hospital care without having to pay for it.

You rambled:

"As tools of money-making used by others, though, they can be quite useful, in more ways than one."

Wrong. The profit margins from selling to the poor are not large. Wal-Mart earns a very small profit margin, but it does offer what price-conscious shoppers want.

The poor, however, are voters. They elect people who will legislate vast transfers of wealth from everyone else to the neediest.

That's a lot of power.

You opined:

"Not only as excuses to sell vastly overpriced goods and services.."

Nonsense. You can't sell goods and services to people with no money. If consumers spend foolishly, well, they're fools.

Your conclusion implies that "the poor" are too dim to know what's good for them, that they don't know a fair price from a rip-off. If that were true, Wal-Mart would be out of business.

You blindly assume:

"...but as convenient targets onto which public anger and hostility can be deflected."

Too often the biggest enemies of "the poor" are the people who purport to represent them in our government. When local politicians oppose the arrival of WalMart, who's hurt and who benefits?

When Wal-Mart is shut out, as it is in NY City, all consumers must pay more for goods and services.

The convenience store near my house accepts all forms of "food stamps." But every item at my neighborhood store costs a lot more there than at nearby supermarkets or WalMart. Thus, taxpayers who fund these "food stamps", are getting a bad deal.

Whose fault is that? It is the fault of politicians who want to preserve the businesses of those who charge high prices. These are the same businesses that employ illegal aliens to sweep the shop and stock the shelves for pay that is well below minimum wage.

Meanwhile, what's funny is the reverberating hate focused on "the rich". As if the people with the most money don't pay the most taxes and actually drive the economy.

Democrats have made an industry of hating the rich, even though nitwits like John Kerry wouldn't know how to get through the day without everything his ketchup heiress has given him.

Who are all these people who hate "the poor"? I see nothing but benevolence and outreach in NY City.

The people who seem to hate "the poor" seem to be other poor people. Every day on the streets and in the subway I hear blacks, mostly young blacks who are poor, calling each other the n-word. They give monologues in subway cars, as I was subjected to last night on the way home. He ranted as I traveled from 86th St to 14th St about how his fellow blacks were nothing but stupid n-s for listening to any white m-f. He hesitated when he tried to recall the name of the president during his diatribe. I'm certain he couldn't name the vice president.

Anyway, as I said, the poor don't pay for much. Their benefactors pick up the tab. That's usually the taxpayers. But it's often private charity in one form or another.

[Anarcissie]

Chris: '...Who are all these people who hate "the poor"? I see nothing but benevolence and outreach in NY City. The people who seem to hate "the poor" seem to be other poor people. ...'

You're contradicting yourself, aren't you? But in fact you don't seem to like them very much yourself. However, regardless of that -- no real reason why you should -- the fact remains that the poor don't have power. The fact that people exploit them and use them as tools and excuses doesn't make them powerful. The poor person whose medical treatment includes a $105 bottle of saline solution isn't getting $105, someone else is, and you're paying for it. You might try to be less of a sucker and figure that one out.

Also: by and large, the poor don't vote; and the Democrats don't hate the rich, they are the rich, as you should know, being the close student of John Kerry that you are.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"The poor person whose medical treatment includes a $105 bottle of saline solution isn't getting $105, someone else is, and you're paying for it. You might try to be less of a sucker and figure that one out."

The bill for the overpriced saline solution is ultimately paid by the usual bearers of all costs -- the better-off segment of society.

That's only because somebody gets the bill that enables the hospital to pay the doctors, nurses, and all the other humans who provide healthcare services.

If rates for medical services are capped -- which they are -- management will find unregulated segments where prices can be raised to offset the shortfall caused by insufficiencies elsewhere.

This merely allows healthcare providers to provide healthcare. Otherwise, we'd revert to the old cash system and "the poor" would find themselves without any care.

If healthcare were as lucrative as you suggest, the Microsoft of healthcare would have arisen by now, and its stock would have performed with the same spectacular rise.

Instead, we have healthcare companies that sometimes go broke and very often have significant financial swings that management cannot ignore.

But there are no healthcare companies as profitable as Microsoft at its worst.

As for voting, you have no idea what you're claiming. Brooklyn is full of poor districts. There was a district election on February 20. The only people who voted were poor. Why do I know? Beause all the districts holding elections that day are poor.

In presidential elections, there is much effort spent on "getting out the vote."

Is voter turn-out higher in white districts than black? I'm sure it is. But my poor neighbors recently elected Yvette Clarke to the House even though she lied about having graduated from college. She holds the seat created for Shirley Chisholm. She beat a highly qualified and far superior white male candidate.

Somebody votes for these clowns who then run to Congress for huge allocations of taxpayer funds. It is "the poor" whom you claim don't vote.

As for whether Democrats are rich, well, if there were as many rich Democrats as Republicans, the Democratic National Committee would have less trouble raising money. But it trails far behind the Republicans.

There may be many rich Hollywood gasbags supporting Obama and Hillary and so forth, but they're reluctant to write big checks to the party.

[Anarcissie]

chris: '... The bill for the overpriced saline solution is ultimately paid by the usual bearers of all costs -- the better-off segment of society. ...'

Incorrect. The truly well-off have all kinds of ways of beating taxes and defending and increasing their unequal share of the social product. The people who actually produce value, the middle and / or working class, are the ones who pay for everything.

[Jorge X. Rodriguez]

"But the sad thing is people will continue to blame their many problems on the lack of positive thinking. It's a new way of keeping problems personal and individual rather than collective and political.

The second sad thing is that Larry King and Ellen Degeneres have promoted this stuff on their shows."

I see these books as drugs. Some people need them to get through life. Others find them reassuring or amusing. I don't think the situation is serious enough to be sad. If people wanted to do collective action the books wouldn't stop them.

[Berzelius Windrip]

Feeling Good by Getting In Touch With the Universe is nothing new.

I suppose the earliest version was Stoicism, which came into fashion (not coincidentally) when the Greek polis was losing its freedom and independence.

When you're losing political and economic power, it's easy to compensate by indulging in dreams of cosmic power.

It's safer, too. People don't call you nasty names, tear your bumper stickers off your car, or shoot at you.

Slavery can be a form of Comfort Zone, after all...

[petie]

I have a relative in the religious/self help book business, and she has a phrase for this sort of book:

Ten dollars worth of nothing.

(I'm guessing this is more like thirty)

[Erick]

Two things...

1. If I had to sum the entire thing up, it's that the Law of Attraction
is all about alignment. You've got to do the "work" if you want to
bring something info your life.

This is where I think people mess up, which gives the entire thing the
"MLM/Amway" kind of vibe. You can't just sit around eating junk food
and watching reruns and expect to live on the beach...regardless of what
the infomercials say.

People like Joe Vitale are out working. Bob Proctor is out working.
James Ray is out working.

2. I found a FREE book (yes, FREE) that helped me figure out all of
this. http://www.receivethebook.com/ has it and it's well worth the read.

And like I said, it's FREE. So you can't argue that the guy is trying
to take advantage of people looking for a "magic pill" or whatever else
I've been hearing over the last 2-3 weeks since this thing hit Oprah.

http://www.receivethebook.com/

[Linda]

How timely! A few nights ago, I watched Larry King interview several of these new "Secret" gurus. It was really scary. Barbara, my first thought was that several of these guys looked and sounded just like the "motivational" coaches you wrote about in "Bait and Switch." Totally fake smiles, and eager to blame and shame people in order to enrich themselves. One of them actually said that the vibes you put out account for everything that happens to you--even if you are a child who's abducted and killed.

I've been reading some of the new findings about how the brain works (currently "The Intention Experiment"), and I believe that our perceptions and intentions affect our lives in fascinating ways.

What scares the hell out of me is when people use this science to shame/blame other people. What's up with the masochistic American public that they'll eat this stuff up?

One of Larry's interviewees was asked about the fact that it apparently takes no effort to exercise this "secret" to make your wildest dreams come true. He said, "Ah, but this is only ONE secret; there are many to follow." Larry was literally rolling his eyes, contemplating "The Secret II."

This whole trend reminds me of the Amway cult and other pyramid schemes: "Easy millions, you don't even have to sell anything. Just sign up and visualize yourself rich."

[Linda]

realpc: "Barbara E. is an atheist, so she is naturally baffled and appalled by the philosophy expressed in The Secret."

realpc, that's a strawman argument if I ever saw one. While these Amway-type trends DO tend to appeal more to fundamentalist Christians, I even know some of THEM who recognize when they're being offered the kool-aid.

Religious people and atheists alike can agree on the premise that our perceptions and intentions affect the quality of our lives. And people of any (or no) faith can see that this movement has taken the idea to ridiculous new levels.

[Linda]

Anarcissie: "The truly well-off have all kinds of ways of beating taxes and defending and increasing their unequal share of the social product. The people who actually produce value, the middle and/or working class, are the ones who pay for everything."

Bingo! And as much as Republicans say they value hard work, what they mean is they value the fact that YOU do the hard work. In reality, all of the American financial incentives are weighted in favor of valuing wealth. Not work.

In the Larry King interviews, one of the "Secrets" gurus was asked who was going to do all the work (like drive the buses and haul the garbage) if these secrets made everybody's wildest dreams come true. He answered that certainly SOME PEOPLE'S dream will be to become the best bus driver they can be.

He apparently doesn't get it. Wealth is valued so much over work in this society that MANY people in stressful blue-collar jobs mentally escape by dreaming that they'll win the lottery so they can quit. These are the very people who are going to get suckered into drinking "The Secret" kool-aid because all they have to do is keep dreamin' and it'll happen.

[chris2]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"The truly well-off have all kinds of ways of beating taxes and defending and increasing their unequal share of the social product."

Tell me about these ways the truly well off have for beating taxes and increasing their share of the nation's wealth.

What are these "ways"? How do they work?

[GATT]

Great info.

I watched the Secret DVD a few months ago and got another book on Law of Attraction,
but it didn't really start happening for me until I wrote down my intentions. I found that to be
VERY powerful.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0975436171/ is a book I just got, which makes
planning out your Law of Attraction goals easy. Just fill in the blanks and you've got a road
map to follow. Has been working well so far.

[SeanG]

Well Christ did say that a mustards seed worth of faith (in God) could move mountains. In our development we are no where near being there. Also The Savior was a Man of action and would call "The Secret" a pile of camel cookies.

This administration as well as others before it like the Pop science BS.

I do believe positive thinking and attitude makes a difference. In any Endeavour positive thinking will most certainly get you farther than negative thinking will. The attitude however does not mean one ignores reality, quite the contrary. With out a good perspective on the challenges ahead, one can not successfully overcome them no matter how they think.

Modern physics has proven that we do affect our reality on a very fundamental level, proven with things like delayed diffraction experiments, and they seem to think that have a significant interaction with the reality before us.

That interaction has yet to be modeled. They are in search of things like unified field theory and Quantum mechanics and the experimental results suggest that you can not have a model that is complete and consistent with out being able to take into account the effect of consciousness on the universe.

Now a "author" comes along and translates the things they are finding into something called "The Secret" based in part upon what the results of some Modern physics experiments have proven and left alot of people heads scratching.

But the author of "the Secret" is willing derive unproven conclusions and say we can entirely create our reality. Which is what the results of some experiments done in modern physics will suggest.

What the experiments suggest actually that for each choice there are lirally in infinite number of decisions and perhaps all alternatives are taken in parallel universes.

Before you laugh, there is a thing called a quantum computer that has been built in early prototype form that proves this theory out. It is based upon the theory that light can interact in a small but fundamental way with light from parallel universes.

Given that, you can make a computer that try multiple possibilities of a solution depending on how many "qubits" the computer has.

A traditional computer computes on operation at a time. Quantum computing can so several in the same cycle. This is especially useful if you want to find decryption keys for instance. The only sure fire way is to try every key in the key space a lengthy task for a traditional computer, but an easy one for a quantum computer with enough qubits in it's processor to do the job.

Don’t expect a windows or Mac version to be released anytime soon. The machines would be rather specialized and very expensive and are still in the prototype phase. The NSA is pour billions in to their research and development.

I have been a bit lengthy but I wanted to tell people what they are basing their pop psychology on.

While the result of modern physics is strange and interesting to contemplate the conclusions "The secret" is drawing are hardly substantiated.

You want a cup of coffee and your thought make you et up and get one. there you have changed your reality just by thinking about it! That would be the more appropriate conclusion. Thoughts become action that changes the universe. This agree with the results of modern physics. not that I imagine hard and the coffee appears cup and everything. The energy to make the coffee the cups etc has to come from somewhere in that case and your imagination doesn't have it.

Thoughts do become reality through the transformation of action. It is the Action part that these guys seem to have issue with.

Imagining your results before taking action like the perfect golf swing can and do help the transformation in to action to produce the desired result. So it plays a role, kind of like taking dry runs and getting practice. the more detailed the thought the better you can be. but nothing replaces practice.

end rant

[Lyn]

For a critique of Rhonda Byrne from a biblical point of view, I've posted a few excerpts at Thought Renewal. Thanks, Lyn http://thoughtrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/03/secrets-out.html

[Monica]

A 150-pound woman is fat? Crikey!

[ben hassel]

I HAVE THE BEST PLAN, A WAY TO THINK YOUR SELF THIN.

[Toby]

"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."

I would thank you not to trivialize medication used for depression, which is a physical problem that medicine can help. Can you also harmonize with the universe and turn things around without chemotherapy if you have cancer?

Some prefer reality instead of fantasy.

[Heidi]

To be fair to this movie, let's also mention that most of the teachers of The Secret emphasize the need to 'take action'. It's not as simple as just visualizing the goal clearly, though some segments of this film seem to imply that. If you watch the whole production carefully and pay attention, you'll hear many of the teachers saying it also takes acting on the situations that arise in our day to day lives, becoming aware of syncronicities. I think the visualization aspect is a way to be more clear about what it is we truly want and what direction we are taking. It involves paying close attention to our thinking process and what kind of messages are we giving ourselves.

I'm curious to know where in the book the comment is made regarding not looking at fat people if one wants to be slim. I read it and don't recall that particular part.

[QrazyQat]

M said: The average life expectancy of a French laborer for example, is 34.

I find this hard to believe, since the avg. life expectancy for males in France is 75 years, with the lowest region's male's life expectancy at just under 70 years. Do you have a credible source for your claim, or is it, as it seems to be, bullshit?

[Robert Van Laarhoven, Ph.D.]

I recently caught "Micki McGee, Self-Help, Inc.: Makeover Culture in American Life" interview on NPR "The Marketing of The Secret" http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=27-Mar-07 and enjoyed the pros and cons discussion on the genre of self-help. As the listener/reader reviews from a 25,000 foot scope, one can capture and appreciate the maturity and growth of the human spirit and how it is expanding at an exponential rate. The beauty of each person's view point is their realty but the objective listener will hear the truth. The joy of having your mind in the clouds but having your feet firmly on the ground is to enjoy the spectrum of the human experience. May I offer a suggestion; the book "Making It So" addresses both parties view point and offers satisfying answers.

[Jane]

I'm reading this book for my bookclub and honestly I was apprehensive even before I started. Now I'm on page 50 and I'm like, do I really have to read this? I'm laughing at every other statement. So I just googled to make sure I wasn't the only person who finds this book just totally blown out of proportion by massmedia and bearing really not much useful information. It's common sence that if you do good and no harm, good things will happen to you. But I'll never believe that just thinking would do that. It takes more than meditating, it takes getting off your butt and actually doing something to bring about positive change

[Vietnam tour operator]

Exotic Ho Chi Minh City, still referred to as 'Saigon' by many, has preserved its distinctly Asian feel and ancient culture, where monks pray in the numerous pagodas, temples and mosques. The capital Hanoi, is a pleasant and charming city of lakes, shaded boulevards and public parks. The old quarter, built around the Hoan Kiem Lake, is an architectural museum-piece characterised by its narrow streets. Ha Long Bay, with its 3000-plus islands rising from the clear, emerald waters, dotted with beaches and grottoes created by waves, is one of Vietnam's natural marvels.

[use the law of attraction]

Well like with Everything that's coming into your life you are attracting into your life. And it's attracted by virtue of the images you're holding in your mind. It's what you're thinking. Whatever is going on in your mind you are attracting to you.

Few deep things on this matter:)

Warmly

Thor

[Philip]

I like the Secret Movie. It helps.
Should have discovered this “Attraction Secret” years ago.

The 1 hr. 38 min movie The Secret is available here.
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=1199691524596728977

Let’s promote it.
Cheers!

[Dr Martin Russell]

Couldn't agree more with your assessment Barbara.

On my blog I likened "The Secret" to a version of "Wall Street" released in the same year of the 1987 stock market crash... "Law Of Attraction" is the modern "Greed is Good".

I hear Wall Street II is coming out soon.

More signs that the economic heavens are set to cave in.

[Pamela]

There is no harm in The Secret, in my opinion. If you break it down, it's just trying to think more positive thoughts and having a more positive life. The way I see it, millions of people have purchased The Secret Book/DVD/CD's and millions are trying to make a positive change in their lives, and to me... that's a good thing. There are a lot worse things in the world to be reading. For those who don't want to over-analyze The Secret and just want to talk about how it is or isn't working in your life, a good blog to participate in is at http://micheleduvauchelle.blogspot.com

[Lenora Joyce]

I recently saw the film many people are calling the Sequel to The Secret. The film is called The Opus and it features many of the secret cast returning. I thought The Opus was a stronger movie and shared all the practical information that many people complained was missing from the first secret. I thought the teachers all went further into how to make the law of attrqction actually work in your life and that it wasn't as "New Agey" as everyone thought. It is defintiely a stronger movie in many ways and for those who enjoyed The Secret or were left with questions about it, you should definitely check out this movie wwww.TheOpusMovie.com