Law of Attraction: Superior Woo

[StarSeed]

Hi guys. Hope you're ready to get beat down by the Woo-Master!

Last time I was here, I was discussing pendulums with you, and I do still work with them, but I was running into roadblocks here and there. Fortunately, the law of attraction (hereafter referred to as LOA), is helping me understand and resolve these roadblocks.

But I'm not here to yap about pendulums this time. I'm interested in dispelling the misconceptions, misinterpretations and typical bad info that goes around in these circles.

My background with LOA thus far: I began work with it about 9 months ago. I discovered it initially via Ramtha, but those materials appeared to be more about story telling and vague possibilities than actual how-to methods.

I then googled around regarding 'the secret', and quickly found the Abraham materials and the rave reviews.

So I have gone through almost 3 books, as well as a good chunck of video/audio seminar Q&A.

I'm not an expert, and I don't yet have the millions to show off, but I have learned quite a bit, am very familiar with the concept, and have seen a good amount of minor shaping of my daily experiences (nothing I could prove to anyone else, but enough for me).

So, I've glanced around a bit, and see lots of laughs and sarcasm regarding the subject, as could be expected on a skeptic forum, but now that the Woo-Master is here, you can step right up and be put in your place, free of charge!

Try to keep your questions and scenarios on the more serious side, if you can. Believe it or not, I'm really not here to waste my time, but to clarify the concept, level the field a bit and have fun doing it.

Ok, fire away!

 

[remirol]

But I'm not here to yap about pendulums this time. I'm interested in dispelling the misconceptions, misinterpretations and typical bad info that goes around in these circles.

Great! I'm sure we'll all have a jolly old time.

Try to keep your questions and scenarios on the more serious side, if you can. Believe it or not, I'm really not here to waste my time, but to clarify the concept, level the field a bit and have fun doing it.

Ok, fire away!

Well, what can you actually _do_? That seems like a good place to start.

 

[StarSeed]

So far, just minor stuff; nothing eye popping. I have gradually raised my emotional state out of constant negativity into one of hopefullness and optimism. My daily affairs, work, interactions with others, have improved.

I know some will say that being positive will make others more comfortable around you and they will generally reciropcate, but I'm talking about positive interactions that I do not initiate.

My work with LOA has not been scheduled very well. I'm almost terminally lazy, so that's something I'm still dealing with, but during the timeframes where I'm spending more time with it, things seem to go significantly better for me than when I'm not.

In a few weeks, I'm hoping to be able to share the results of a 2 month long quest for 'better shopping deals'. So far, it seems to have paid off here and there, and there is a possibility that I may have gained $200-300 in one transaction. I'm still waiting to see on that one.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Maybe you should raise your emotional state out of laziness?

 

[Monza]

As I understand, the Law Of Attraction states that one can create their reality (i.e. getting something you want) by having a sufficient level of positive thoughts (i.e. wishing). My question is simple and serious. How can you (or anyone) be sure that the LOA actually exists?

It seems to me that it cannot be detected. If you wish for something and you end up getting it, then LOA is intact. But if you wish for something and you don't get it, then you can conclude you simply didn't wish hard enough and LOA is still intact. Or, one can conclude that either outcome would have happened anyway, regardless of the amount of wishing. So what is the difference between the LOA and the absence of the LOA? Can it be falsified?

 

[schlitt]

StarSeed, read this brief article.

http://csicop.org/specialarticles/secrets.html

The law of attraction is nothing more than another flawed new age concept, dressed up in pseudo-science.

You will come to realize this eventually when you find that you are not able to feel things into existance.

The positive effects you claim to have noticed are due to confirmation bias.
You do would do well to do some reading on the subject of confirmation bias.

 

[blauregen]

The positive effects you claim to have noticed are due to confirmation bias
You do would do well to do some reading on the subject of confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias towards positive events..... I think I finally found a good short definition of 'optimistic world view'.

 

[StarSeed]

Maybe you should raise your emotional state out of laziness?

Well, laziness isn't actually an emotional state, but the result of one, combined with a belief, and the fact is that my improved emotional state has shown me some relief in that area. I'm not quite as lazy as I was 9 months ago, but still have a long ways to go.

As I understand, the Law Of Attraction states that one can create their reality (i.e. getting something you want) by having a sufficient level of positive thoughts (i.e. wishing). My question is simple and serious. How can you (or anyone) be sure that the LOA actually exists?

It seems to me that it cannot be detected. If you wish for something and you end up getting it, then LOA is intact. But if you wish for something and you don't get it, then you can conclude you simply didn't wish hard enough and LOA is still intact. Or, one can conclude that either outcome would have happened anyway, regardless of the amount of wishing. So what is the difference between the LOA and the absence of the LOA? Can it be falsified?

I understand the dilema. It's the same argument with prayer and faith healing. If it works, it's a miracle, if it doesn't, it's God's will.

But in this case, technically, yes, it could be proven in a scientific setting, but it would require the absolute best preparation, with no holes left unpatched, otherwise, it would be open to interpretation again.

Basically, you'd have to bring in LOA's (coining terms on the fly here......meaning practicioners of LOA) that are self proclaimed masters, and work with them to setup the test protocols. There are many ways it could be tested, so long as the LOA's were able to maintain the highest emotional state regarding the testing methods.

Probably the easiest test would simply be the tired old 'psychic guessing' test, with several containers on a table with only one containing an object.

Oh, and, I almost forgot, as I was pondering this very thing earlier when responding on someone's blog to the same idea. Those closely involved with the test would have to be well known to be open minded to the "infinite possibilities of the universe".

In a group setting, what is called co-creating will take place, where the agregate group energy can affect the outcome, whether they believe or not, of course. The scientists would not be required to do or believe anything special for the test, but would simply need to openly admit their general beliefs in grand possibilities, as opposed to being well known 'woo-bashers'.

As far as personal proof goes, that is much easier, but it won't necessarily convince outsiders. For personal proof, I simply must see a string of coincidences long enough that I can no longer maintain a belief in coicidence.........and then it must continue.

That's the great thing about ideas that can be practiced and monitored on an individual level for success.

 

[Monza]

...Those closely involved with the test would have to be well known to be open minded to the "infinite possibilities of the universe".

In a group setting, what is called co-creating will take place, where the agregate group energy can affect the outcome, whether they believe or not, of course. The scientists would not be required to do or believe anything special for the test, but would simply need to openly admit their general beliefs in grand possibilities, as opposed to being well known 'woo-bashers.

So the testing of LOA can be foiled simply by having someone involved in the test who happens to think it's non-sense? It's a good thing penicillin doesn't work that way. The fact that it won't work if someone in the group doesn't have the right energy supports my earlier assertion that LOA can't be detected or falsified.

...As far as personal proof goes, that is much easier, but it won't necessarily convince outsiders. For personal proof, I simply must see a string of coincidences long enough that I can no longer maintain a belief in coicidence.........and then it must continue.

That's the great thing about ideas that can be practiced and monitored on an individual level for success.

That is a good definition of confirmation bias.

 

[StarSeed]

StarSeed, read this brief article.

.....

The law of attraction is nothing more than another flawed new age concept, dressed up in pseudo-science.

You will come to realize this eventually when you find that you are not able to feel things into existance.

The positive effects you claim to have noticed are due to confirmation bias.
You do would do well to do some reading on the subject of confirmation bias.

Just finished the article. I don't see anything there upsetting my apple cart. Just standard rebuttle, but I'll address two things in it:

* The observer affect. I had heard of this long before I found LOA, and I don't see how that conflicts. Anytime you observe something, you are doing so with one of a few things or a combination of them:

1) A general, 'lay' expectation of what could be found.

2) A knowledge base lending you to a more focused, or precise expectation of what could be found

3) A hope or wish of what could be found

In other words, no concious entity can observe something without the 'gears of conciousness' turning in some way. Even if one is disinterested in an object, there is still an expectation of what would be there.

* 2nd, the idea that LOA has been around in some form or fashion for a long time.

Fine. I have no problem with that. That fact does not invalidate it. How many incredible ideas have been out there for centuries and have only been deemed scientific fact in the last century?

The age of the idea, and the alleged failure of its' practicioners throughout history don't really leave us with anything to draw definitive conclusions.

 

[StarSeed]

So the testing of LOA can be foiled simply by having someone involved in the test who happens to think it's non-sense? It's a good thing penicillin doesn't work that way. The fact that it won't work if someone in the group doesn't have the right energy supports my earlier assertion that LOA can't be detected or falsified.

Well, it would be a bit more complicated than that. The 'energy blender' is not a black and white operation. One of the problems that skeptics have when trying to understand woo concepts is that they tend to try create all or nothing scenarios to test the idea, when life never really works like that.

I cannot see this energy myself, so I am left to imagine how one complex energy system might interact with another. Maybe it would help to use the analogy of the physical, biochemical bodies that we have. How many systems, and sub systems, chemcials, molecules, ect are there in the body? Tons, to say the least!

These components, in their various complexities, can interact with each other, and in groups, in countless different ways, many of those ways can cause pain, disease and death, while others yield optimum health.

As far as what the exact mindset of each individual should be ideally, and how much affect it would have,....these are just too many variables, but basically what I'm suggesting is to try and minimise them, which is just basic sensible science.

It shouldn't be that hard to find scientists like that, afterall, there are many who are religious, and that's a start, but I'd stick with the loosely spiritual as opposed to the 'fire and brimstone' type.

As far as the medicine argument goes, can you tell me that everyone who has ever been treated with penecillin has not only improved, but lived? I don't think so, so how can you assure me that those who have not responded to the treatment, as well as those who have died from it, were not fanatical disbelievers? They may have been.

Furthermore, there's more to the LOA equation than just thoughts. It's also the method of thinking, and the timeline involved, as well as the counter-balance from other thoughts. This is a lengthy bit so I'll save it for other posts and questions.

--------

That is a good definition of confirmation bias.

I'll look into this tomorrow.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Round and round we go!

As I said when the Secret last came up here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2334096#post2334096

If any of what is claimed is true. how come nobody remembers Émile Coué?

Coué published Self-mastery through Conscious Autosuggestion in English in1920 and its theme ("All is possible with that which believes ") was taken up by hundreds of thousands in the UK, the US and the rest of the English speaking world. They repeated the mantra, "In every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better" as frequently as they could get it out of their mouths.

And we all know Coué today is respected more than Jesus Christ because it worked for everyone. Err, what? Oh, sorry, wrong Universe.

'Tis to cry.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm not an expert, and I don't yet have the millions to show off, but I have learned quite a bit, am very familiar with the concept, and have seen a good amount of minor shaping of my daily experiences (nothing I could prove to anyone else, but enough for me).

If it's enough for you, that's all it matters.

No one needs to be proven about the existence of the Law Of Attraction, because it's a human concept that can only be experienced individually. No one is ever proven its existence. People choose to believe in it. That's how it's created. If you believe strongly in it, you make it "real" in some kind of way. On the other hand, there are some people don't need to believe that they control external things through some Law of Attraction in order to live prosper, healthy and happy lives. They just live their lives.

In other words, enjoy your thing. We don't need it proven (cause it can't anyway but feel free to prove us wrong).

 

[yairhol]

If it's enough for you, that's all it matters.

No one needs to be proven about the existence of the Law Of Attraction, because it's a human concept that can only be experienced individually. No one is ever proven its existence. People choose to believe in it. That's how it's created. If you believe strongly in it, you make it "real" in some kind of way. On the other hand, there are some people don't need to believe that they control external things through some Law of Attraction in order to live prosper, healthy and happy lives. They just live their lives.

In other words, enjoy your thing. We don't need it proven (cause it can't anyway but feel free to prove us wrong).

yeah, I agree although that's obvious and does not progress our discussion further to try and find a way to scientifically prove/disprove the LOA.

I always wondered what would happen if one 'master' (as the OP refers to them) of LOA needed to get somewhere (say for a meeting) in a hurry while another 'master' needed to be at the same place but wanted some road delay in order to complete something for the same meeting. So the first 'master' is saying "no traffic, no traffic, no traffic...." while the other is saying "a lot of traffic, a lot of traffic, a lot of traffic...". They cannot both have their wishes come true but think of the battle of energies going on in the universe as they are both 100% sure their wishes will be fullfilled. Wow, that would make a good science fiction movie.

Another thing: How would the LOA explain that sometimes I'm very passimistic about something and have almost zero positive thought about it, yet it happens anyway?
For example: I needed a plumber to fix my toilet. A day before he came he called my wife and told her that he probably won't be able to come tommorow because of this and that (he's been delaying us for some time). I was very passimistic and frustrated that we'll need to spend another weekend with a broken toilet. But what do you know? The guy came the day after and fixed the toilet.
I didn't attract this even with my thoughts. Could it have been that my phone call to his boss and threatening to sue him has helped me?

The secret says: Ask, Believe, Recieve.
Most of us say: Ask, Believe, Act, Recieve.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

yeah, I agree although that's obvious and does not progress our discussion further to try and find a way to scientifically prove/disprove the LOA.

Oh no, but you see: It does. Like I told the OP "Feel free to prove us wrong".

And he's the one making the extraordinary claim. He's the one who has to provide the extraordinary evidence.

So OP, feel free to provide it. We'll gladly take a look at it.

 

[Monza]

Well, the OP asked for questions regarding the LOA. I asked but was given an answer that basically said you could test for the LOA effect, but if the results show no effect then that's because of the LOA too. So if a world where LOA functions is indistinguishable from a world where LOA does not function, what's the point?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well, the OP asked for questions regarding the LOA. I asked but was given an answer that basically said you could test for the LOA effect, but if the results show no effect then that's because of the LOA too. So if a world where LOA functions is indistinguishable from a world where LOA does not function, what's the point?

Exactly. There's no point.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, laziness isn't actually an emotional state, but the result of one, combined with a belief, and the fact is that my improved emotional state has shown me some relief in that area. I'm not quite as lazy as I was 9 months ago, but still have a long ways to go.

Laziness is the result of an emotional state combined with a belief???
The fact is, the only thing that's changed in the last nine months is your definition of laziness.

I understand the dilema. It's the same argument with prayer and faith healing. If it works, it's a miracle, if it doesn't, it's God's will.

What a strange hybrid logical fallacy you've created here. It's like a cross between equivocation and false dichotomy.

But in this case, technically, yes, it could be proven in a scientific setting, but it would require the absolute best preparation, with no holes left unpatched, otherwise, it would be open to interpretation again.

Again?

Basically, you'd have to bring in LOA's (coining terms on the fly here......meaning practicioners of LOA) that are self proclaimed masters, and work with them to setup the test protocols. There are many ways it could be tested, so long as the LOA's were able to maintain the highest emotional state regarding the testing methods.

The previous paragarph mentioned a scientific setting. This one addresses the "highest emotional state" of the test subjects. One of these things is not like the other ones; one of these things does not belong.

Probably the easiest test would simply be the tired old 'psychic guessing' test, with several containers on a table with only one containing an object.

I currently have several tables in my home. Each has several containers upon it, some with objects inside and others without. In what way am I conducting a tired old psychic test?

Oh, and, I almost forgot, as I was pondering this very thing earlier when responding on someone's blog to the same idea. Those closely involved with the test would have to be well known to be open minded to the "infinite possibilities of the universe".

Oh bugger! That's the end of it then. Since the Universe doesn't contain infinite possibilities, having people closely involved in your test who believe that it does is going to skew the results somewhat.

In a group setting, what is called co-creating will take place, where the agregate group energy can affect the outcome, whether they believe or not, of course. The scientists would not be required to do or believe anything special for the test, but would simply need to openly admit their general beliefs in grand possibilities, as opposed to being well known 'woo-bashers'.

Again with the false dichotomy. I rather think that the majority of good science is done by people who neither "openly admit their general beliefs in grand possibilities" or whom are "well known 'woo-bashers'" Somewhere in the middle seems sensible.

As far as personal proof goes, that is much easier, but it won't necessarily convince outsiders. For personal proof, I simply must see a string of coincidences long enough that I can no longer maintain a belief in coicidence.........and then it must continue.

A string of coincidences will convince you that coincidences don't exist. That's interesting.

That's the great thing about ideas that can be practiced and monitored on an individual level for success.

But never monitored for abject failure. Failure is always swept aside as "having a bad woo day".

 

[yairhol]

Originally Posted by Monza
Well, the OP asked for questions regarding the LOA. I asked but was given an answer that basically said you could test for the LOA effect, but if the results show no effect then that's because of the LOA too. So if a world where LOA functions is indistinguishable from a world where LOA does not function, what's the point?


Exactly. There's no point.

I disagree.
The pupose of science is, amongst others, to investigate and study the natural laws governing the world around us. If, like in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle , the experiment results are manipulated by the observer effect then the OP could protest that his experiments are manipulated by those same effects.
Of course the difference between the OP's claim and those of Heisenberg's are that the later have been scientifically concluded after rigorous theoretical and scientifically experimental studies whereas the LOA is just heresay and nothing more.

 

[SezMe]

Again with the false dichotomy. I rather think that the majority of good science is done by people who neither "openly admit their general beliefs in grand possibilities" or whom are "well known 'woo-bashers'" Somewhere in the middle seems sensible.

No **** "Again with the false dichotomy". Only this time it is on your own part.

Scientists do not fall on a scale between "general beliefs in grand possibilities" [whatever that means] and "woo-bashers".

The majority (nay, all) of "good science" is done by people who engage in the scientific process. Your mythical "middle" does not exist.