This Law of Attraction thing

[thriller222]

I was reading about this subject on something called the law of attraction. Basically, it say's that the universe is shaped by your way of thinking. For example, if you tell yourself you are going to be a rich actor in 10 years, then you will be a rich actor in 10 years. Not really the best way to describe it, but I hope you get what I mean. Now, I'm not willing to believe that this belief is true, because it just seems too good to be true. But a lot of people have convinced themselves that this is what life is about. There was some movie a while back talking about it called The Secret. But what I really wanted to know was your opinions on it. I don't have any links right now for you to read, but I can post some later. But if you go reading about it on your own, or just want to respond with your opinion on the subject, please reply. I will be interested to see your opinions on the subject.

[Katelyn]

To me, its just a bunch of bull. It will not just happen because you want it. You have to work hard at what you would like to do, you must earn it (or just get lucky in some cases).

[SoulRiser]

Quote:It will not just happen because you want it. You have to work hard at what you would like to do, you must earn it (or just get lucky in some cases).

But if you really want it, you're more likely to actually do something to get it.

This Law of Attraction thing can actually be explained (to some extent) by psychology. If you believe you're ugly, you will behave in a way that makes other people perceive you as ugly, and thus you will make it true. If you believe you're going to be rich, you'll act like you already are and people will perceive you that way. In some cases people's perception of you might even lead to some business deal or whatever that makes you rich. If you believe that you're doomed to be poor forever, you'll avoid any opportunity that could change that because you'll believe it's too good to be true. Stuff like that.

I don't really know about the universe changing based on people's thoughts, it's an interesting idea, but I do think people's thoughts definitely do influence a lot (like the stuff I explained above). So in a way, if you do believe something, there's a pretty good chance it'll happen (as long as you don't expect it to just fall in your lap without you having to do anything at all).

[IamNoone]

^This

I think if you believe something hard enough, you start subconsciousley making actions to work towards that goal. The brain is a strange and powerful thing, only a few know how to use it to its full extent.
(Shaolin Monks get close)

[Sociopath]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Secret

It's bullshit. Opinions might matter on one thing but to think it "changes the universe to one's desires" is fucking ridiculous. And easily disproven. Example; If I believe I will transform into a dog (inb4 dogboy) in the next 5 seconds, and it doesn't happen, which it didn't, it disproves this bullshit. So either it needs to reallocate its laws or accept the fact that it doesn't work, which will most likely be glazed over by 'true believers' via either special pleading or selective reporting.


Besides, thought processes are just the allocation of neurons at certain p[laces in the brain to produce certain thoughts. In light of this, what they are really stating is that "Allocating neurons energy output to a certain place will cause changes outside this system."

And Soul, get a grip on reality. Really.

2 moar questions for this already disproven "hypothesis"; 1. Do animals and other beings count, since they have neurons? and 2. what happens if 2 or more wants contradict themselves? For example, what if both me and another person wish we were not going to die, and at the same time, wish eachother would die in a certain way at a certain time. Are we going to die or not? Which one of us would die, if at all? Does the universe "choose" who to listen to and who to not listen to?


But like I said it's all disproven bullshit. Read a damn science book!

[Ky]

The power of positive thinking - powerful enough to be unexplainable, but not too overpowered.

It's sort of like "you are what you eat" and "problems are only perceived".

[Sociopath]

(08-21-2012 08:41 AM)Doa Wrote:  The power of positive thinking - powerful enough to be unexplainable, but not too overpowered.

It's sort of like "you are what you eat" and "problems are only perceived".

Nothing is unexplainable.

[Ky]

(08-21-2012 09:35 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 08:41 AM)Doa Wrote:  The power of positive thinking - powerful enough to be unexplainable, but not too overpowered.

It's sort of like "you are what you eat" and "problems are only perceived".

Nothing is unexplainable.

You can't explain that.

[Sociopath]

(08-21-2012 09:39 AM)Doa Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 09:35 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 08:41 AM)Doa Wrote:  The power of positive thinking - powerful enough to be unexplainable, but not too overpowered.

It's sort of like "you are what you eat" and "problems are only perceived".

Nothing is unexplainable.

You can't explain that.

[Aya]

(08-21-2012 09:39 AM)Doa Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 09:35 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 08:41 AM)Doa Wrote:  The power of positive thinking - powerful enough to be unexplainable, but not too overpowered.

It's sort of like "you are what you eat" and "problems are only perceived".

Nothing is unexplainable.

You can't explain that.

Doa: 1
Socio: 0

edit:
Aya: -1 lrn2read bitch!

[Ky]

(08-21-2012 11:06 AM)Aya Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 09:39 AM)Doa Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 09:35 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 08:41 AM)Doa Wrote:  The power of positive thinking - powerful enough to be unexplainable, but not too overpowered.

It's sort of like "you are what you eat" and "problems are only perceived".

Nothing is unexplainable.

You can't explain that.

Desu: 1
Socio: 0

Erm...hate to burst your bubble...but I'm Doa. :/

[Aya]

(08-21-2012 11:09 AM)Doa Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 11:06 AM)Aya Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 09:39 AM)Doa Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 09:35 AM)Sociopath Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 08:41 AM)Doa Wrote:  The power of positive thinking - powerful enough to be unexplainable, but not too overpowered.

It's sort of like "you are what you eat" and "problems are only perceived".

Nothing is unexplainable.

You can't explain that.

Desu: 1
Socio: 0

Erm...hate to burst your bubble...but I'm Doa. :/

meh same difference.

[1312]

Oh look, another "It doesn't wurkkk!11one" thread.

[SoulRiser]

Sociopath, I don't think you actually read my post. Please do so before insulting my 'grip' on reality.

[SoulRiser]

Also, this is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

[Ky]

(08-22-2012 02:36 AM)SoulRiser Wrote:  Also, this is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

I've been talking about that a lot lately. It's like how people say that "school is a fact of life" , and guess what happens? Yeah.

Other annoying self-fulfilling prophecies are based on age discrimination and the unfairness of life. This amount of negativity will not bring society anywhere

[Sociopath]

liq3 apparently subscribes to this disproven bullshit belief. I can only hope this just happens to be a long, long, and very bad acid trip. Also, steve pavlina is a con artist and a dumbass, don't listen to him.

[Aya]

(08-24-2012 12:42 PM)Sociopath Wrote:  Also, steve pavlina is a con artist and a dumbass, don't listen to him.

I have to second this. steve Pavlina is quite the shithead.

[zagix]

Law of attraction is bullshit. (see split thread).

[Aya]

(08-26-2012 05:28 PM)zagix Wrote:  Law of attraction is bullshit. (see split thread).

No.

[zagix]

Thought you had a shred of a brain.
Something is a law if:


1. summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,

2. can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,

are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The "Law" of Attraction fulfills none of this. It is not supported by any real data or experiment, does not summarize a large collection of facts, and cannot be used to make mathematical predictions.

It is essentially a pile of bullshit to make people feel that they can achieve something by sitting on their asses. Hint, nothing comes free.

If you mean the law of gravitational attraction, then I have no real qualms.

[Aya]

(08-27-2012 06:20 AM)zagix Wrote:  

[Sociopath]

I did, and thank you, zagix, that was very helpful.
Related:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Pavlina

[SoulRiser]

Just came upon this:
The Law of Attraction, for science-heads and Secret-haters

[Sociopath]

(08-28-2012 07:11 AM)SoulRiser Wrote:  Just came upon this:
The Law of Attraction, for science-heads and Secret-haters

Pffft, pathetic rationalizations trying to draw a distinction between "different" (i.e. bullshit) and science. I don't know if you're defending this or not, Soul, All I can say is, this thing is bullshit, disproven, and isn't worth going after.

Working hard towards a goal is NOT the same thing as believing it will happen and sit on your ass and do nothing and it will happen for you. The former is an actual method to get shit done, the latter is that attraction fuckshit. There's a massive, distinct difference.

[Ky]

The funny thing is I strongly dislike science, am fully aware that it isn't complete, and have come to the impression that in a few centuries it will be replaced by something else (kind of like magic was with science). This law of attraction thing makes more sense because it's based on the amazing power of positive thinking, which I was forced to read way too much about this summer.

[Miller0700]

I want to ask why you dislike science.



Anyways...

I don't think in any time that science will be replaced with something "better." It [science] is a method of trying to understand the natural universe. You can't really "replace" it with anything better. Perfected? Yes. Replaced? I don't think so.

It's just like trying to "replace" math or art with something "better," you can shake something that general and incredibly useful off.

[Ky]

- I dislike science mainly because it makes a mockery of math, keeps ending up on the opposite side of a religion argument, and most importantly most of the science teachers I've had are incredibly egotistic or self-centered.
- Science can and will be replaced if it ends up completely refuting itself. Given the principles of quantum physics, it is highly likely that such a refutation will occur. The core laws and theories of science can be turned upside down. Most importantly, history repeats itself, albeit in slightly different fashions. All I know is they won't be calling it "science" in the year 3000 unless they're trying to sound archaic.
- Art can and is often replaced. As for math, I'm sure there will always be a need for basic arithmetic, but it is possible that the cores of math could be abridged as either to have algebra lead away from calculus or arithmetic to lead away from algebra. And, who knows, maybe we'll stop using that crappy base ten.

[zagix]

Science is a very simple quest. It is to understand how everything around us works in the most accurate possible way. That's the goal of science. I don't see how anyone can possibly have any qualms with that goal.

Now the method that science uses to find how the world works is through repeatable, verifiable experiments. Why? If only one person witnesses something, and it's impossible for it to be repeated, how accurate is the piece of information (what that person observed)? Just look at the testimonies for a murder case. People see different things.

For some information (historical, etc.), the scientific method of analysis doesn't work. But for physical phenomena, it is sufficient and the best way to ensure accuracy.

DOA, science is always moving in a direction towards more and more accurate representation of data. Though core principles may change, the general theories and patterns that are observed are always tending towards a more accurate representation of data. For example, take Newton's laws of gravitation. For large bodies, they are extremely accurate, but a closer measurement is made by Einstein's laws. But both of these methods are FAR more accurate than pulling numbers out of one's ass.

[Miller0700]

(08-28-2012 09:28 AM)Doa Wrote:  - I dislike science mainly because it makes a mockery of math,

In what sense? Science incorporates a lot from math and vice-versa. I don't see how it makes a "mockery" out of it.

(08-28-2012 09:28 AM)Doa Wrote:  keeps ending up on the opposite side of a religion argument

I've been reading up and researching biology for a few years now. Yes, some of the research explains that religious belief and current studies in the biological field (Specifically Abiogenesis and evolution) contradict, but its not like its spewing "OMG!! Religion and god are evul!! They must be eradicated!!!" It's just that religious belief is not needed because we have far better explanations. Outside of biology, astronomy and maybe geology, the rest of the fields of science are relatively okay.

It's from the religious groups that I've heard and seen that argue for a discontinuation of evolution and that this "opposite side" you speak of rears its head.

(08-28-2012 09:28 AM)Doa Wrote:  and most importantly most of the science teachers I've had are incredibly egotistic or self-centered.

Certainly not mine. Its all a point of perspective.

And again, its only from some religious folks that are frustrated that their particular beliefs aren't taught in schools is that generalization brought up.

A few people shouldn't (and don't) represent the majority in any way.

(08-28-2012 09:28 AM)Doa Wrote:  - Science can and will be replaced if it ends up completely refuting itself.

So science will be replaced by...a better version of science?

(08-28-2012 09:28 AM)Doa Wrote:  The core laws and theories of science can be turned upside down.

By a better version of itself?

Perfecting=/=Refuting

(08-28-2012 09:28 AM)Doa Wrote:  Most importantly, history repeats itself, albeit in slightly different fashions.

During the dark ages was where science was "refuted" (or rather frowned upon), but I don't think history will repeat itself. Too many people rely on science for ordinary life and tasks.

(08-28-2012 09:28 AM)Doa Wrote:  All I know is they won't be calling it "science" in the year 3000 unless they're trying to sound archaic.

And what will replace it, exactly?

(08-28-2012 09:28 AM)Doa Wrote:  Art can and is often replaced

I would love for you to explain to me how and specifically with what will it be replaced with.

(08-28-2012 09:28 AM)Doa Wrote:  As for math, I'm sure there will always be a need for basic arithmetic, but it is possible that the cores of math could be abridged as either to have algebra lead away from calculus or arithmetic to lead away from algebra. And, who knows, maybe we'll stop using that crappy base ten.

I'm going against my gut (otherwise I'd be agreeing with you any other time), but fields of math are too ingrained in one another to simply ignore one part.