吸引力法则，《The Secret》，幻觉

BNF

人呢?

JunJun04035

叫做 religion
bashlyner 发表于 20-5-2012 10:48

哈哈哈，向宇宙乞求，跟向上帝祈祷有什么分别？

都把上帝和宇宙当做阿拉丁神灯了
尽善尽美 发表于 20-5-2012 12:41

至少宗教（教義）有叫你往前走

尽善尽美

宇宙啊，给我一个神

神啊，给我个阿拉丁神灯

哈哈哈哈哈

OPO

虽然不是很认同 吸引力法则 ，但可以肯定的是，它并不是好像楼主说得那么肤浅。
尤其是2#，让俺可以肯定楼主并没研究过这本书。。



内容就不说了，有兴趣的自己看，没兴趣但想知道大概的也可以网上找。

这里只说楼主的话的矛盾。一本励志书籍，会是楼主所说的，鼓励人家不侍耕耘，期待不劳而获？
说的那么明显的问题，会畅销数百万本？真当数百万买书的，都是傻瓜，只有楼主厉害？？？

所以，建议楼主，要反驳一样事情，首先请先具体了解，再反驳。


再说说俺不认同的地方：
很难做到，很难坚持不说，
说到底，最后还是：“心诚则灵”  =〉If you believe in it, it works。
换句话说，灵，是它的功劳。不灵，是因为你心不够诚。

尽善尽美

说的那么明显的问题，会畅销数百万本？真当数百万买书的，都是傻瓜，只有楼主厉害？？？
OPO 发表于 20-5-2012 10:28 PM

   那那那，这是你自己说的哈，不是我说的
还有卖多卖少根本不能代表书写的东西是事实。

所以，建议楼主，要反驳一样事情，首先请先具体了解，再反驳。

类似书籍我看过很多了，所以我没必要再去买来看

关于书的内容以及所受到的批评，我是参考能够辨别伪科学比如维基，skepdic，rational wiki以及等等等等网站（我写的东西都是虽然个人色彩很重，但不代表都乱吹出来的哦）

再说说俺不认同的地方：
很难做到，很难坚持不说，
说到底，最后还是：“心诚则灵”  =〉If you believe in it, it works。
换句话说，灵，是它的功劳。不灵，是因为你心不够诚。

这本书最大问题，并不是它是一本励志书，而是骑劫科学理论
如果他仅仅只是说明自己是一本励志书，那倒没问题
主要问题是它牵扯到科学，充满误导性

对科学来说，灵的不管你信不信，照样灵
不灵的，也不管你信不信，照样不灵

尽善尽美

Prepare to have everything you've ever wanted, simply by thinking happy thoughts about it; and be careful of negative scary thoughts which might cause those things to happen to you to too. Little did you know that, just like in the original Star Trek episode Shore Leave, whatever you think of — either good or bad — will actually happen! This is the premise of Rhonda Byrne's 2006 book and movie, both titled The Secret.

Rhonda Byrne is an Australian television producer and author. Her book and movie propose that many of the most successful people throughout history have known a "secret" — a secret closely guarded in the marketing materials for the book and movie. The "secret" turns out to be nothing more than the old motivational speaker's standby, that positive thinking leads to positive results. But she took the idea a step further. The Secret claims that you can actually cause events to happen by wishing for them hard enough, literally like winning the lottery or recovering from terminal illness. Similarly, a focus on fears or negative ideas will cause those things to appear or happen as well. The Secret calls this the "Law of Attraction". The Secret further makes the completely unfounded claim that many great people knew and relied upon this wisdom, and taught it to others as "secret teachers". "Secret teachers" included Buddha, Aristotle, Plato, Sir Isaac Newton, Martin Luther King Jr., Carl Jung, Henry Ford, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Andrew Carnegie, Joseph Campbell, Alexander Graham Bell, and even Beethoven. This claim is just a made-up lie: Most of these people lived before the "Law of Attraction" was invented, and there's no evidence that any of them ever heard of it.

As of today, a year and a half after its release, The Secret remains #26 of Amazon's list of best selling books, better than any Harry Potter book. It has over 2,000 customer reviews. Half of them are 5 star, and a quarter of them are 1 star. This is the sign of a polarizing book. Most people either love it or find it to be utter nonsense. In the case of The Secret, most people love it. Thanks in large part to promotion by Oprah Winfrey, The Secret sold 2 million DVD's in its first year and 4 million books in its first six months.

Many of the people appearing in the movie version of The Secret are motivational speakers who spout the same old "If you can dream it, you can do it" nonsense that Amway salesmen have been chanting for decades. In essence, part of what Rhonda Byrne has done has been to simply repackage Motivational Speaking 101 inside the wrapper of a century-old philosophical construct, which we'll look at in closer detail in a moment.

As you've probably heard, The Secret has been roundly criticized from all quarters. The most common criticism is of The Secret's assertion that victims are always to blame for whatever happens to them. Whether it's a rape victim, a tsunami victim, or a heart attack victim, The Secret teaches that they brought it upon themselves with their own negative thoughts. This idea is, of course, profoundly offensive in many ways. Doctors attack The Secret for teaching that positive thinking is an adequate substitute for medical care in cases of serious illness: Wish for it hard enough, and your cancer tumors will melt away. Religious leaders criticize The Secret for its ethical claims that victims are always to blame, and for promoting the attitude that anyone can be just like a god by wishing hard enough. Many financial critics and advisors have pointed out the dangers of yet another baseless get-rich-quick scheme. The list of critics of The Secret goes on and on, as tends to happen to any mega-successful franchise.

So the question people ask me is "What do I think of The Secret?" This is really asking what is the best way to use critical thinking to analyze the validity of The Secret's claims. To do this, we first ignore everything that people say about it. We ignore the critics, we ignore the supporters and testimonial writers, and we ignore the Amazon reviews. Let's examine the claims themselves, on their own merits, and let's start by tracking down precisely where this "secret" of the "Law of Attraction" comes from.

The concept now called the "Law of Attraction" was described by James Allen in his 1902 book As a Man Thinketh. He wrote: "The soul attracts that which it secretly harbors, that which it loves, and also that which it fears. It reaches the height of its cherished aspirations. It falls to the level of its unchastened desires — and circumstances are the means by which the soul receives its own." Allen was saying that circumstances — things that happen to us — will make our desires and our fears both come to pass. Allen said that our desires and fears would "attract" those things. If Winston Churchill was indeed a "Secret teacher", we might conclude that he desired gin and feared the fire bombing of London, because both of those things certainly found their way to him. Allen wrote his book during a philosophical period called the New Thought movement, which applied metaphysical concepts to modern life. This movement was akin to what we describe as New Age today: Same ideas, slightly different buzzwords, a century apart.

Other authors followed suit based on James Allen's success, and the term "Law of Attraction" came into being among some of these followup books. A hundred years later, Rhonda Byrne read Wallace Wattles' 1910 New Thought book The Science of Getting Rich, and cleverly used it as an "ancient wisdom" foundation for contemporary motivational self-help ideas. The general public tends to love anything that can be attributed to ancient wisdom, so it's no accident that Rhonda made reference to Buddha, Aristotle, and Plato.

New Thought's "blame the victim" concept is one that's attractive to most people at a deep level. When we see someone else victimized, we take a sort of smug pride in that we did not let that happen to ourselves because we did not think whatever ugly thoughts that person must have. The Secret works! The Secret appeals to that selfish ego that's somewhere inside of all of us. This is ugly and embarrassing, but it's part of why The Secret is psychologically appealing.

Put all of these together, and The Secret is a marketing 1-2-3 punch:

It's based on ancient wisdom, which is always popular
It sells the same motivational self-help pitches that are always popular
It teaches that you're already a winner because you didn't fail like those people who died in New Orleans.
Some claims in The Secret are simply factually wrong, and so fall apart under their own weight when scrutinized. Specifically, The Secret claims that quantum physics supports and explains the "Law of Attraction". At its most superficial, this claim sounds reasonable to the uncritical layperson because attraction sounds like magnetism which is a real scientific thing, and any mention of the term quantum physics sounds scientific enough to be acceptable at face value. Who's qualified to argue against quantum physics? The Secret says that thoughts have energy, and similar energies are attracted to each other. That's their quantum physics.

In fact, scientifically speaking, that statement is completely meaningless at every level, and at no level does it have anything whatsoever to do with real quantum physics. In fact, the closest analog I can find in science is that like charges repel one another, they do not attract. But we're talking about "thought energy" here, so we've already left the realm of real science and are in the world of metaphysics. Since metaphysics is a philosophical invention with no connection to real physics, either quantum or classical, you can pretty much say whatever you want and there is no scientific way to respond to it. Thus, The Secret's claim to have roots in quantum physics is childish and meaningless, yet it succeeds because it appeals to the uncritical layperson's tendency to accept scientific sounding terminology at face value. Check out Rhonda Byrne's background in quantum physics. You'll find that she took the same university courses that your cat did.

Now, it's probably important to point out that there's nothing wrong with positive thinking, and usually nothing terribly helpful about negative thinking. People with positive attitudes tend to be happier and more personable. People with negative attitudes tend to bring other people down or get blown off. In this sense, having a positive attitude is good, but nobody needs to be told that and you certainly don't need a self-help book and movie to make the point. The important line to be aware of is the division between fantasy and reality. People who buy into The Secret are not generally healthier or wealthier than anybody else, in fact they're poorer by the price of a movie ticket or a book. So go forth and be a positive person, but of claims that thought materializes into physical possessions or actions, you have good reason to be skeptical.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4096

尽善尽美

哇哈哈哈，里面有句话笑死我了

书里面有提到【形而上学】，以及一些“形而上学专家”企图证明吸引力力法则是真的

但是什么是形而上学（metaphysics）？
简单地说形而上学就是哲学里面除了科学之外解释这个世界的学说
所以形而上学并不能证明什么东西，更和量子学无关

而且量子学到底是什么？
我相信量子学并不是一种大众的知识，所以当有人说【我这说法是科学的，符合量子学的】，自然很难去断定真伪。

但是无法断定真伪并不是悲剧，悲剧的是：

尽善尽美之人类大脑毛病之二（放个品牌先）

对于模糊的事物，人类对于【信其有】的保留多过【信其无】

没有勇气去完全拒绝相信毫无根据的东西，喜欢屈服于【模糊的淫威】，更糟糕的是，有点小聪明就伪中立、滥用客观

JunJun04035

再说说俺不认同的地方：
很难做到，很难坚持不说，
说到底，最后还是：“心诚则灵”  =〉If you believe in it, it works。
换句话说，灵，是它的功劳。不灵，是因为你心不够诚。
OPO 发表于 20-5-2012 22:28

這...不就是迷信嗎

尽善尽美

老子突然也想发财了
这本《秘密》写到这么多矛盾，牵强，一下子就被拆穿了
ceh，换做我写的话，才不会那么肤浅呢，肯定可以骗到更多人

和秘密以及继续炒秘密冷饭不同的是，我这将推翻吸引力法则，成为更前卫的新思想

鼓吹，不去想，才可以心想事成

以前是信则灵，现在是，不信则灵！！

就决定law of repulsion，吸引力法则解释有矛盾的，我这里却不会
使用简单但不矛盾的逻辑，浅入深出，大幅度加强信服力，更合理！
再用一些道德观来粉饰粉饰，讲一些这个法则可以让你更善良啊，谦虚啊，更智慧等等

如果在运用更多的科学和哲学术语
到时候，肯定有读者说：
这本书很科学啊，很哲学啊，很心理学啊，很有潜意识学啊，很有xxx学啊，小孩子激发了他们对宇宙学的兴趣，从此立志当科学家，心理学家等等



将逻辑和科学混合道德、宗教、哲学和心灵的综合性激励读物
直观上肯定比吸引力法则更受欢迎，因为人们普遍上都对这东西很上瘾的！


灵感越来越多了，有点迫不及待骗几百万个傻子和半傻子人士，赚点poket money
推翻吸引力法则和创造NEXT GENERATION NEW AGE的重任就落在我身上了，hohoho
一想到我将会名流千史，我就了

已经想到要怎样写了
首先得深入研究秘密这本垃圾先

出版社有兴趣的话，现在可以向我联系哦
试想想一个懂得拆穿秘密的人去写秘密一书，效果就等同叫锁头师傅去偷东西哦

尽善尽美

反伪科学又没好处拿
我讲死讲活，你们也是照样相信，照样ding dong ding diang
傻傻分不清楚，讲一点点就信，什么都要信
那不如我自己就把你们吃掉更好

OPO

回复 45# 尽善尽美

1) 你有蛮严重的自言自语，越说越HIGH 的倾向。。这虽然不是什么大问题，但敬请记得留意“三连灌”的规则。
（连续发超过3个帖，当灌水论）。特此提醒，请善用编辑功能。。
   
2）Amazon 书评，50% 支持，buy 它 （5星）。25% 不支持（1星）。

你自己主楼都说了：这本书，如果纯粹拿来当做成功学，励志书籍，激励课程来看待，绝对可以。
相信buy 它的，都是朝这个方向。

而你，是属于抱着怀疑态度，理智求证型。。要求证它的理论。。哪结果肯定是25%中。。
它的所谓科学（不管是类科学，或者伪科学）理论，你当然可以选择逐一反驳。
反驳得好不好，俺就不讨论了，俺只想说，这些反驳，很难引起buy 它的群众太大的反映或回响。

原因是，BUY 它的，根本不会太在意这些不是重点的东西。
看后。。最多只是。。“哦。。”或者。。“hmm..intresing...  " 然后继续。。

因为buy 它的，会注重在书的重点：“怎样positive thinking，怎样维持positive thinking, 怎样抗拒negative thoughts"..
而不是那些前戏，非重点的科学理论。

“虽然我对那些宇宙法则有所怀疑，但那书教会我怎样积极面对事情。。”
“跟着书的说法走，即使未必得到目标，但至少活得比较积极，比较有希望。。。”

3）
“对科学来说，灵的不管你信不信，照样灵
不灵的，也不管你信不信，照样不灵”

這...不就是迷信嗎
JunJun04035 发表于 21-5-2012 01:36 AM

所谓心诚则灵。跟信则灵是不同概念的。。

信，只要求你信。心诚，除了信，还要诚意。。

精诚所至，金石为开 =〉并不是叫你坐在家里想。。

心诚，除了虔诚，还要正气的诚意。
锲而不舍的态度和力行。合理的要求，不过分贪婪，不是坐着等不劳而获。

给个现实中，比较接近的例子：
运动就能减肥。如果你瘦不下，是因为你没做足够的运动。。。 你不够诚。
不够运动，没毅力，当然就达不到目标。。

俺引用“心诚则灵”，其实只是反驳楼主所谓的“不想面对事实”“好吃懒做+不劳而获”的破绽。。
因为这些都是negative energy, negative thinking. 有这些negative thinking, 心不诚，不成功就是必然的。。。
（ 诚如俺之前说的，如果它那么肤浅，那么容易破，哪还算励志书？还能卖千万本？真当买书的都是傻瓜？？）

当然，至于buy 不 buy 心诚则灵这一套，则另当别论。反正俺不BUY。。

aalexthon

哇哈哈哈，里面有句话笑死我了

书里面有提到【形而上学】，以及一些“形而上学专家”企图证明吸引力力法 ...
尽善尽美 发表于 20-5-2012 11:45 PM

你有什么根据证明你提示是真的科学? 别人的论文？

aalexthon

那那那，这是你自己说的哈，不是我说的
还有卖多卖少根本不能代表书写的东西是事实。


...
尽善尽美 发表于 20-5-2012 10:43 PM

如何证明你自己写得是事实不是虚假？

aalexthon

【內幕與謊言--牛奶，颠覆传统营养常识，牛奶的真相，这本书将让你大开眼界！！】
http://cforum3.cari.com.my/viewt ... ghlight=&page=2

现在假的变得越来越像真的营养家。

boobanzhu

现在搞电子科学都可以搞营养学,还能指正别人学术。厉害。

aalexthon

我超爱这句：“有种就去反驳【世界营养学界的爱因斯坦】”

尽善尽美

如何证明你自己写得是事实不是虚假？
aalexthon 发表于 21-5-2012 12:30 PM

   哦，请问我这里散播了哪一个科学学说？

尽善尽美

如何证明你自己写得是事实不是虚假？
aalexthon 发表于 21-5-2012 12:30 PM

   哪一点

aalexthon

哦，请问我这里散播了哪一个科学学说？
尽善尽美 发表于 21-5-2012 05:34 PM

我也不懂你是否科学系？ 很多都是像我那样，抄别人的。去指正别人是伪科学。

aalexthon

哪一点
尽善尽美 发表于 21-5-2012 05:35 PM

当然你写那些东东，难道是我的东东吗。 丢。