The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: Scott in Winnipeg on June 26, 2008, 12:56:53 PM

Title: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Scott in Winnipeg on June 26, 2008, 12:56:53 PM
Ian has mentioned a couple of time about Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) "healing himself" when this "law of attraction" nonsense has come up a few times.

Positive thinking, defining and making the effort to reach goals is perfectly plausiable and that is NOT what the "Law of Attraction" is, the Law of Attraction has to do with sending out vibrations and is magic, and not real.

Here are the facts with Scott Adams.

- he's been dyslexic his entire life

- in 1992 he was diagnosed with focal dystonia, which made it hard for him to draw his cartoons. He was able to work around it by developing a physical pattern of drawing that worked for him. Eventually the problem went away. It came back in 2004 and instead of doing what he did before he got a new drawing tool that allowed him to work with little noticable difference to the end user.

- in December 2005 he announced that he has spasmodic dysphonia, a brain abnormality that affects speech for which there is no known cure. There are treatments to manage it thought, and Scott is one of a few people for who the condition comes and goes, and is able to manage it through vocal exercises and cognitive thearapies. Scott has not complletely recovered, he still has a raspy, tinny voice, but at least he can talk. One article says " His doctor told him that nobody with this condition has ever regained the ability to speak." That doctor was wrong, and the condition doesn't necessarily mean that people won't be able to speak at all.

Scott didn't cure himself of spasmodic dysphonia. He's experienced a temporary reprieve from it based on some personal experimentation.

If he takes this further and develops a process which works permanently for everyone with the condition, then it will be correct to say that he has cured it.

None of this has to do with the magic of the "Law of Attraction", it has to do with effort and work and a positive attitude.

Here's what the basis of the "Law of Attraction" is, it's "vibratrions" and "energies" and it's nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXqzRulbMyU


Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_dystonia  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spasmodic_dysphonia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901066.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15446515/
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/25/scott-adams-hacks-hi.html
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Blackie on June 26, 2008, 01:07:19 PM
Yea, LoA is BS. Everyone knows that the Quan Yin Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quan_Yin_Method) of Supreme Master Ching Hai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Master_Ching_Hai) is the only true method.

Quote
Prerequisite of Initiation: A lifetime commitment to the vegetarian diet and keeping of the Five Precepts.
The Five Precepts:

1. Refrain from taking the life of sentient beings. This precept requires strict adherence to a vegan or lacto-vegetarian diet. No meat, fish, poultry or eggs (fertilized or nonfertilized).

2. Refrain from speaking what is not true.

3. Refrain from taking what is not yours.
 
4. Refrain from sexual misconduct.

5. Refrain from using intoxicants. This includes avoiding all poisons of any kind, such as alcohol, drugs, tobacco, Pornography, gambling, and excessively violent films or literature.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/ChingHai_Sydney_in_1993.jpg/300px-ChingHai_Sydney_in_1993.jpg)
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: thomasjack on June 26, 2008, 01:59:33 PM
Yea, LoA is BS. Everyone knows that the Quan Yin Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quan_Yin_Method) of Supreme Master Ching Hai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Master_Ching_Hai) is the only true method.

Quote
Prerequisite of Initiation: A lifetime commitment to the vegetarian diet and keeping of the Five Precepts.
The Five Precepts:

1. Refrain from taking the life of sentient beings. This precept requires strict adherence to a vegan or lacto-vegetarian diet. No meat, fish, poultry or eggs (fertilized or nonfertilized).

2. Refrain from speaking what is not true.

3. Refrain from taking what is not yours.
 
4. Refrain from sexual misconduct.

5. Refrain from using intoxicants. This includes avoiding all poisons of any kind, such as alcohol, drugs, tobacco, Pornography, gambling, and excessively violent films or literature.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/ChingHai_Sydney_in_1993.jpg/300px-ChingHai_Sydney_in_1993.jpg)

Does Supreme Master Ching Hai mention that she lifted those precepts directly from Buddhism?

[edit] well, except for the vegetarian, porn, gambling, and violent stuff parts.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Blackie on June 26, 2008, 02:34:49 PM

Does Supreme Master Ching Hai mention that she lifted those precepts directly from Buddhism?

[edit] well, except for the vegetarian, porn, gambling, and violent stuff parts.
Yea.
She pulls stuff from lots of religions.

Quote
In the years after her enlightenment, Ching Hai lived the quiet, unassuming life of a Buddhist nun, until people sincerely sought her instruction and initiation. Starting in 1985,[14] through the insistent requests and efforts of her disciples in Taiwan and the United States, she began lecturing extensively throughout the world in Chinese, English and Vietnamese, and has since initiated many tens of thousands of spiritual aspirants. She continued to dress as a nun until around 1993 when she began wearing her own fashion designs and grew out her hair.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Taors on June 26, 2008, 02:39:39 PM
Quote
Law of Attraction has to do with sending out vibrations and is magic, and not real.

:lol:
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: DanPatrick on June 28, 2008, 07:45:15 PM
I was personally very disappointed in hearing Ian, whom is generally a skeptic, talk about this bullshit.  I give any proponent of LoA the link to James Randi's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: John Shaw on June 29, 2008, 11:58:40 AM
I was personally very disappointed in hearing Ian, whom is generally a skeptic, talk about this bullshit.  I give any proponent of LoA the link to James Randi's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html

LoA people aren't interested in evidence, let alone proof.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: alkanen on June 29, 2008, 08:48:44 PM
Glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by this crap.

If you're being negative and think you'll never make it, you won't see opportunities and take them.  It has nothing to do with the universe being some kind of sentient being sending you shit for being a dick-head.  Occam's razor gods damnit.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: John Shaw on June 29, 2008, 09:56:46 PM
Glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by this crap.

If you're being negative and think you'll never make it, you won't see opportunities and take them.  It has nothing to do with the universe being some kind of sentient being sending you shit for being a dick-head.  Occam's razor gods damnit.

Ian doesn't seem to believe in the validity of science:

I don't really care if you believe it or not, and I think it's already been made clear that there's no science or testing involved here.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: mikehz on June 30, 2008, 01:04:49 PM
http://cectic.com/015.html  (http://cectic.com/015.html)
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: trollfreezone on July 01, 2008, 09:56:02 PM
Found when googling amazing randi "law of attraction."

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/021607failure.html (http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/021607failure.html)

Quote from: James Randi
BIG SECRET

Reader Scott Marshall, a proud JREF member, tells us of yet another film that presents woo-woo as fact:

Quote from: Scott Marshall
A friend at work gave me the DVD movie, "The Secret," a 90-minute movie from Australia that promises to reveal the answer to all of one's hopes and dreams. He said it was recently featured on Oprah. If Oprah covers it, it must be real, right?

In the first few minutes of the film, I was drawn in just a little by the familiar promise that it would change my life, though I was skeptical, since this had been promised by so many other works, so many times before. The movie spends a good part of its opening dramatically and slickly portraying ancient Egyptians coveting and hiding the Secret of the Ages, plus other similar exciting historical dramatizations. It brings us up-to-date with a modern boardroom of executives using their knowledge of "The Secret" to expand their wealth and power. It lists historical figures supposedly privy to this secret – Plato, Newton, Carnegie, Beethoven, Edison, Shakespeare, Einstein – although backing this up with no supporting evidence. The implication is that I could achieve similar heights of fame and accomplishment if I were to follow the upcoming advice contained on that very disk. The onscreen pundits worried me, e.g. a New Age Minister, a Quantum Physicist.

Then they revealed "The Secret."

Called "The Law of Attraction," it basically means that thinking things makes them happen because of “quantum effects.” They express this visually as a shock wave emanating from the head that, when passing things nearby, causes the world to fall in line with one's expectations: one "attracts" what one expects. The video is not content, however, to suggest that a good or bad attitude makes you see the world in a better or worse light and leads you indirectly to obtain these things you are thinking about. It's not content to suggest that these waves emanating from our brains are metaphorical. It really suggest that, for example, if you worry that you will be stuck in a traffic jam, the quantum waves from your brain will cause the traffic to jam and make you late. They back up their magical promise with irrelevant ramblings from their Quantum Physicist, and a dramatization of an Aladdin-style Genie – a 20-foot-tall black bodybuilder – granting our every wish.

That was enough for me. I've sent this disk to you since it seems to be a fairly loud cannon blast. Defenders of the rational need to know of this incoming missile from New Age woo-woos.

Thank you, Scott.  I’ll look this over and have my own comments, anon.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Scott in Winnipeg on July 01, 2008, 10:16:18 PM
Exactly, I wish that Ian and Mark would take notice that the "Law of Attraction" is not the same thing as having a postiive or negative attitude, it is magic.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: gu3st on September 09, 2008, 05:08:17 PM
I don't believe in Law of Attraction, I believe in the Law of think->define->believe->plan->act->persist->profit. :)

Napoleon Hill, author of "Think and Grow Rich" was a genious. Authors of "The Secret" are sensationalist new agers. They based quite a bit of their ideas on Napoleon Hill's work, but in an attempt to merge it with the New Age style religions, perverted it into barely pseudoscience and a religion, not to mention a self improvement scam.

The bad thing about this is that due to its publicity it may give a bad name to the actual provable and demonstrable philosophy by Napoleon Hill. People who get disappointed for not getting everything they desire (thinking that's enough) are then less likely to again try the real thing.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Kevin Freeheart on September 09, 2008, 05:15:14 PM
Quote
I wish that Ian and Mark would take notice that the "Law of Attraction" is not the same thing as having a postiive or negative attitude,

Ian understands the difference. He just beleives the crocpottery. He's clear. "My thoughts create the universe".

Mark thinks it's crap, but puts a lot of importance on positive thought.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on September 09, 2008, 05:40:22 PM
I don't believe in Law of Attraction, I believe in the Law of think->define->believe->plan->act->persist->profit. :)

Napoleon Hill, author of "Think and Grow Rich" was a genious. Authors of "The Secret" are sensationalist new agers. They based quite a bit of their ideas on Napoleon Hill's work, but in an attempt to merge it with the New Age style religions, perverted it into barely pseudoscience and a religion, not to mention a self improvement scam.

The bad thing about this is that due to its publicity it may give a bad name to the actual provable and demonstrable philosophy by Napoleon Hill. People who get disappointed for not getting everything they desire (thinking that's enough) are then less likely to again try the real thing.

Sounds about like the truth to me.  I for one hate all this "New Age" religious crap.  It's just a rehash of all the paganistic false science religions of old in a fancy new wrapper.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Militant on September 09, 2008, 06:32:45 PM
Found when googling amazing randi "law of attraction."

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/021607failure.html (http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/021607failure.html)

Quote from: James Randi
BIG SECRET

Reader Scott Marshall, a proud JREF member, tells us of yet another film that presents woo-woo as fact:

Quote from: Scott Marshall
A friend at work gave me the DVD movie, "The Secret," a 90-minute movie from Australia that promises to reveal the answer to all of one's hopes and dreams. He said it was recently featured on Oprah. If Oprah covers it, it must be real, right?

In the first few minutes of the film, I was drawn in just a little by the familiar promise that it would change my life, though I was skeptical, since this had been promised by so many other works, so many times before. The movie spends a good part of its opening dramatically and slickly portraying ancient Egyptians coveting and hiding the Secret of the Ages, plus other similar exciting historical dramatizations. It brings us up-to-date with a modern boardroom of executives using their knowledge of "The Secret" to expand their wealth and power. It lists historical figures supposedly privy to this secret – Plato, Newton, Carnegie, Beethoven, Edison, Shakespeare, Einstein – although backing this up with no supporting evidence. The implication is that I could achieve similar heights of fame and accomplishment if I were to follow the upcoming advice contained on that very disk. The onscreen pundits worried me, e.g. a New Age Minister, a Quantum Physicist.

Then they revealed "The Secret."

Called "The Law of Attraction," it basically means that thinking things makes them happen because of “quantum effects.” They express this visually as a shock wave emanating from the head that, when passing things nearby, causes the world to fall in line with one's expectations: one "attracts" what one expects. The video is not content, however, to suggest that a good or bad attitude makes you see the world in a better or worse light and leads you indirectly to obtain these things you are thinking about. It's not content to suggest that these waves emanating from our brains are metaphorical. It really suggest that, for example, if you worry that you will be stuck in a traffic jam, the quantum waves from your brain will cause the traffic to jam and make you late. They back up their magical promise with irrelevant ramblings from their Quantum Physicist, and a dramatization of an Aladdin-style Genie – a 20-foot-tall black bodybuilder – granting our every wish.

That was enough for me. I've sent this disk to you since it seems to be a fairly loud cannon blast. Defenders of the rational need to know of this incoming missile from New Age woo-woos.

Thank you, Scott.  I’ll look this over and have my own comments, anon.


Randi is giving a speech this Friday at the local Center for Inquiry that I will be attending.  I might mention this pantheism bullshit in relation to the law of attraction flim flam to him. Then again... why bother.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: FTL_Ian on September 15, 2008, 05:32:42 PM
Because there has been some obvious confusion, here is my explanation for Law of Attraction, Law of Deliberate Creation, and Art of Allowing.

We exist in a space time reality wherein you can be and do whatever you want.  You create your own experience, good or bad, based on your thoughts.  What you focus your thoughts (and subsequent action) on, you get.  If your thoughts are of what you do not want, you get what you do not want.  If your thoughts are on what you want, you get what you want.  If your thoughts are on what you want, but you tell yourself you can't have, you do not get it.  As this is a time space reality, the buffer of time is an important factor, as it give you time to figure out and allow exactly what you want to manifest, but you must open the doors (take action) to get it!  (Incidentally, this part is what confuses lots of critics, because some purveyors of Law of Attraction ideas focus on trinkets like money and cars, and they make it look like you just think and then someone shows up to give you a car!)

When you focus on what you want, the universe begins to set up opportunities for you.  It is up to you to identify them and take them.

Additionally "Art of Allowing" plays a critical role.  In order to get what you want, you must allow others to get what they want, instead of attempting to control and restrict them.  This probably sounds familiar as it's the core idea of liberty.  So, this part is easiest for people like us to grasp. 
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: trollfreezone on September 15, 2008, 05:41:24 PM
That's nice and all, but there are clearly some things that no matter how big your magic wand, you're simply never going to get.  It still doesn't pass the "hocus pocus" test.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: FTL_Ian on September 15, 2008, 06:01:27 PM
I don't believe in Law of Attraction, I believe in the Law of think->define->believe->plan->act->persist->profit. :)

Napoleon Hill, author of "Think and Grow Rich" was a genious. Authors of "The Secret" are sensationalist new agers. They based quite a bit of their ideas on Napoleon Hill's work, but in an attempt to merge it with the New Age style religions, perverted it into barely pseudoscience and a religion, not to mention a self improvement scam.

The bad thing about this is that due to its publicity it may give a bad name to the actual provable and demonstrable philosophy by Napoleon Hill. People who get disappointed for not getting everything they desire (thinking that's enough) are then less likely to again try the real thing.

Think and Grow Rich has been sitting on my bookshelf for years and I haven't yet read it.  It has come to my attention that the original version, available in full here (http://books.google.com/books?id=c86H36mgiM4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=think+and+grow+rich&ei=MdfOSN3kGqK-tgOgo8CbCg&sig=ACfU3U3iaGVnJsXSiU7oskHv1LTGSloaAA#PPA264,M1), is even more obviously metaphysical.

Again, I have not yet read either, so I cannot comment personally.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: FTL_Ian on September 15, 2008, 06:06:17 PM
That's nice and all, but there are clearly some things that no matter how big your magic wand, you're simply never going to get.  It still doesn't pass the "hocus pocus" test.

With that attitude, you can be sure you won't get them.

"Man can't fly!" - I bet people used to say that a lot to those who invented flight.  They figured out how to manipulate this reality to make the "impossible" possible and they didn't have to magically sprout wings to do it.

Again, this is a space time reality.  Thoughts are the origin of all wealth.  If it can be thought, it can be done.  Can we manifest things from thin air just by wishing them into existence?  Not yet, but do you think a replicator is impossible?


Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: trollfreezone on September 15, 2008, 08:31:48 PM
That's nice and all, but there are clearly some things that no matter how big your magic wand, you're simply never going to get.  It still doesn't pass the "hocus pocus" test.

With that attitude, you can be sure you won't get them.

"Man can't fly!" - I bet people used to say that a lot to those who invented flight.  They figured out how to manipulate this reality to make the "impossible" possible and they didn't have to magically sprout wings to do it.

Again, this is a space time reality.  Thoughts are the origin of all wealth.  If it can be thought, it can be done.  Can we manifest things from thin air just by wishing them into existence?  Not yet, but do you think a replicator is impossible?


Listen.  I'm as much for positive thinking as the next guy.  There's nothing wrong with scoping for possibilities.  There's nothing wrong with creating possibilities.  I watched my father, the most eternal optimist I've ever met, become utterly defeated and depressed because he was worn down by expecting the unrealistic just too many times.  As an engineer, I'm expected not only to tell clients what is possible, but also to tell them what it will cost.  I run into numbnuts all the time who will tell the clients what they want to hear because they know they'll be able to collect money in the process of hoping a miracle happens.  Such behavior is not responsibility.  It is stupidity.  For those who know the odds--or at least know that they suck--I wish them the best at trying to beat them, the rest should stop blowing smoke up peoples' asses.

This "if it can be thought it can be done" BS has broken a lot of people who didn't know they were dealing with someone from fantasyland, rather than tomorrowland.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: blackie on September 15, 2008, 08:55:07 PM
I run into numbnuts all the time who will tell the clients what they want to hear because they know they'll be able to collect money in the process of hoping a miracle happens.  Such behavior is not responsibility.  It is stupidity.
No it's called marketing. And why I hate people who work in marketing.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Militant on September 15, 2008, 08:55:33 PM
Because there has been some obvious confusion, here is my explanation for Law of Attraction, Law of Deliberate Creation, and Art of Allowing.

We exist in a space time reality wherein you can be and do whatever you want.  You create your own experience, good or bad, based on your thoughts.  What you focus your thoughts (and subsequent action) on, you get.  If your thoughts are of what you do not want, you get what you do not want.  If your thoughts are on what you want, you get what you want.  If your thoughts are on what you want, but you tell yourself you can't have, you do not get it.  As this is a time space reality, the buffer of time is an important factor, as it give you time to figure out and allow exactly what you want to manifest, but you must open the doors (take action) to get it!  (Incidentally, this part is what confuses lots of critics, because some purveyors of Law of Attraction ideas focus on trinkets like money and cars, and they make it look like you just think and then someone shows up to give you a car!)

When you focus on what you want, the universe begins to set up opportunities for you.  It is up to you to identify them and take them.

Additionally "Art of Allowing" plays a critical role.  In order to get what you want, you must allow others to get what they want, instead of attempting to control and restrict them.  This probably sounds familiar as it's the core idea of liberty.  So, this part is easiest for people like us to grasp. 

This is where I disagree with you.  If you have a positive value giving attitude, people may open up more to you and provide you with greater opportunities. If you have the right mindset, you will take advantage of said opportunities and that's how the law of attraction "exists".

Talking in woo-woo terms of "the universe setting up opportunities for you" is too new age crazy for me. Thats not the proper way to describe it. Then you connect "god" to this for whatever reason.  That I STILL don't understand. If you could explain why you throw the god word into all this and consider yourself a pantheist, I'd appreciate it.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: blackie on September 15, 2008, 09:04:22 PM
I'm a pretty negative person, but everything seems to go my way. That is why I don't believe in LoA.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: FTL_Ian on September 15, 2008, 10:39:17 PM
Talking in woo-woo terms of "the universe setting up opportunities for you" is too new age crazy for me. Thats not the proper way to describe it. Then you connect "god" to this for whatever reason.  That I STILL don't understand. If you could explain why you throw the god word into all this and consider yourself a pantheist, I'd appreciate it.

You can describe it however you want, and I'll describe it how I want, regardless of whether you consider it proper.

Perhaps you should read a description of Pantheism.  To a pantheist, "god" is all that is - the universe itself.  The universe doesn't judge you or setup a list of rules for you to follow, so "god" is a poor word because of its monotheistic, paternalistic common definition.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Militant on September 15, 2008, 11:17:53 PM
Talking in woo-woo terms of "the universe setting up opportunities for you" is too new age crazy for me. Thats not the proper way to describe it. Then you connect "god" to this for whatever reason.  That I STILL don't understand. If you could explain why you throw the god word into all this and consider yourself a pantheist, I'd appreciate it.

You can describe it however you want, and I'll describe it how I want, regardless of whether you consider it proper.

Perhaps you should read a description of Pantheism.  To a pantheist, "god" is all that is - the universe itself.  The universe doesn't judge you or setup a list of rules for you to follow, so "god" is a poor word because of its monotheistic, paternalistic common definition.

Referring to "the universe" is still too flim flam, woo woo for me. Call it what you will, but attaching the word "god" to it in any way is worse. That being said, anything is possible.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: John Shaw on September 15, 2008, 11:27:06 PM
That being said, anything is possible.

No.

There can't be a square circle. Or a down up. Or a geocentric universe. Or a good evil.

The nature of the universe is an objective absolute.

Perception is not reality. Otherwise an assassination by rifle would be impossible. Don't perceive the bullet? It can't kill you.

Boolsheet.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Militant on September 15, 2008, 11:46:51 PM
That being said, anything is possible.

No.

There can't be a square circle. Or a down up. Or a geocentric universe. Or a good evil.

The nature of the universe is an objective absolute.

Perception is not reality. Otherwise an assassination by rifle would be impossible. Don't perceive the bullet? It can't kill you.

Boolsheet.


EDIT:  I'm not giving you enough credit. You are absolutely right that the universe is an objective absolute. When it comes to perception is reality, I was talking simply in the human psychology sense in relation to marketing and the like.  If you say something enough, you can turn it into an objective reality in an average person's mind. Whether it is true or not is completely irrelevant in this given case.

In the terms in which I originally said "anything is possible", I was referring to my strongly held view that as technology rapidly increases, things that will have seemed absolutely impossible to damn near everybody, will become commonplace. I didn't properly describe my thoughts.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: John Shaw on September 16, 2008, 12:12:20 AM
Your perception line however is kooky.

Pretty straightforward Aristotelian. Dunno what's so kooky about it.

To the greater or lesser degree a person's thought processes are in line with reality, they are better or worse off, respectively.

To the degree with which I am aware of the rampaging rhinoceros behind me, is the degree to which I am capable of surviving or avoiding a rhino mauling.

You can apply this to anything in importance from whether or not dogs can look up, (Not super important or life effecting.) to donating 10% of your income to some preachy con artist, (How bad that is for you depends on how much money you have, I suppose) to the rhino scenario. (Pretty damned important.)

Yes, there are varying degrees of importance, obviously. Having said that, woo woo is a waste of time. If you don't mind wasting time, go with the woo woo. If your time dedicated to intellectual pursuit is important to you, you should abandon the woo woo as soon and you recognize it for what it is.

The "Law" of Attraction is no law. It is woo woo nonsense and a waste of time. A rabbit hole. Whatever you want to call it. It's the same crap that Wiccans and Hermetics and crystal waving goofusses and crappy evil German philosophers have been talking about forever.

Having said that, in the grand scheme of things, it's probably unimportant and semi harmless. Unless you use your amazing mental powers of universe manipulation to try and win at the stock market or other risky gamble, of course. Then you're just another sucker who's out a bundle.

The only thing that "wanting very badly" can do for you is maybe motivate you to take action. Nothing else. Ever. Unless you can prove it with repeatable, testable evidence.

A double blind experiment- Get a coin. Write down on a piece of paper which side you want to come up more. Hand that piece of paper to a second party, in a closed envelope. Don't tell the person what the test is. Just that when it is all over, to open the envelope and read the results. Have a person in another room with a sign that lights up with a plus or minus. This person is to log the number of plusses or minuses, they have no idea what is happening apart from recording the results. Flip the coin one thousand times, each time signaling the outcome as a plus or minus. WILL the coin to land on the side you want it to. (And wrote on the paper.)

If there is a discrepancy of more than 3% in favor of your chosen side, I will personally offer five thousand dollars to start a study on the validity of the LOA.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: hellbilly on September 16, 2008, 12:17:50 AM
Ian.. I need a cure for my Diabeetuss.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: John Shaw on September 16, 2008, 12:19:23 AM
Ian.. I need a cure for my Diabeetuss.

You did not just pray to Ian Bernard Freeman Jamal Warner.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: trollfreezone on September 16, 2008, 11:21:49 AM
That being said, anything is possible.

No.

There can't be a square circle. Or a down up. Or a geocentric universe. Or a good evil.

The nature of the universe is an objective absolute.

Perception is not reality. Otherwise an assassination by rifle would be impossible. Don't perceive the bullet? It can't kill you.

Boolsheet.

this
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: blackie on September 16, 2008, 11:40:08 AM
Ian.. I need a cure for my Diabeetuss.
Death will fix that.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: trollfreezone on September 16, 2008, 11:42:08 AM
Ian.. I need a cure for my Diabeetuss.
Death will fix that.

Hellbilly can live forever because "anything's possible."  Hell, he can become a teenager again!
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: blackie on September 16, 2008, 11:50:37 AM
Ian.. I need a cure for my Diabeetuss.
Death will fix that.

Hellbilly can live forever because "anything's possible."  Hell, he can become a teenager again!
I'm pretty sure Ian is a transhumanist extropian (http://www.extropy.org/faq.htm).

Hellbilly can upload his self into a machine one day.

Then I will unplug him.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: trollfreezone on September 16, 2008, 11:55:05 AM
Ian.. I need a cure for my Diabeetuss.
Death will fix that.

Hellbilly can live forever because "anything's possible."  Hell, he can become a teenager again!
I'm pretty sure Ian is a transhumanist extropian (http://www.extropy.org/faq.htm).

Hellbilly can upload his self into a machine one day.

Then I will unplug him.

Yeah, but if "anything's possible" why bother with machines?  Only a miracle is acceptable.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: blackie on September 16, 2008, 12:02:14 PM
The human condition is limited.

Quote
Since "posthuman" is characterized primarily by contrasting with the limitations of "human" we can only speculate about the particular forms that posthumans might take. Posthumans may be partly or mostly biological in form although, by definition, they would have overcome most of the constraints of the genetic structure of homo sapiens. Many transhumanists find it highly plausible that posthumans would be partly or wholly postbiological – the personalities of biological humans having been transferred "into" (or gradually replaced by) more durable, modifiable, faster, and more powerful bodies and thinking hardware. Some of the disciplines that transhumanists currently expect to play a role in allowing us to become posthuman include genetic engineering, neural-computer integration, biomedicine and nanobiotechnology, regenerative medicine, and the cognitive sciences.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: trollfreezone on September 16, 2008, 12:03:04 PM
The human condition is limited.

Quote
Since "posthuman" is characterized primarily by contrasting with the limitations of "human" we can only speculate about the particular forms that posthumans might take. Posthumans may be partly or mostly biological in form although, by definition, they would have overcome most of the constraints of the genetic structure of homo sapiens. Many transhumanists find it highly plausible that posthumans would be partly or wholly postbiological – the personalities of biological humans having been transferred "into" (or gradually replaced by) more durable, modifiable, faster, and more powerful bodies and thinking hardware. Some of the disciplines that transhumanists currently expect to play a role in allowing us to become posthuman include genetic engineering, neural-computer integration, biomedicine and nanobiotechnology, regenerative medicine, and the cognitive sciences.


Screw limitations.  "Anything is possible."
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: blackie on September 16, 2008, 12:13:52 PM
magic is real. and if you can't perform a particular magical operation, it just means that you are not a good enough magician.

LoA is not magic. Magicians only teach other magicians.

[youtube=425,350]IKtBaDsCgn4[/youtube]

Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: hellbilly on September 16, 2008, 09:27:44 PM
Ian.. I need a cure for my Diabeetuss.

You did not just pray to Ian Bernard Freeman Jamal Warner.

Oh ya I did. I'm sending Intergalactic Deep Space Penetrating Powerful Positive Pro-Pantheist Phsychological Projectiles (IDSPPPPPPP's) outward, and somewhere the Universe has an answer waiting for me. I just need the right tuner.

And Blackie wouldn't unplug me.. he'd download me and attempt to sort out my master code so he could have a chance to be as cool as me.

WTFK is correct. No cures- fair is fair.. the all-powerful universe dealt me the condition of Diabeetus-dom, and for that I want a cure of it.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: blackie on September 17, 2008, 12:54:55 PM
WTFK is correct. No cures- fair is fair.. the all-powerful universe dealt me the condition of Diabeetus-dom, and for that I want a cure of it.
You can get off the ride any time you want.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: hellbilly on September 17, 2008, 10:22:18 PM
I've not quite stated that I have a death wish. Rather, I've indicated that the Law of Attraction not only has it's boundaries, but is just plain thilly.
Title: Re: Scott Adams and the Law of Attraction
Post by: Alex Libman on August 10, 2010, 02:57:21 AM
From the Let A Thousand Nations Bloom (http://athousandnations.com/) blog -- Scott Adams on Startup Countries (http://athousandnations.com/2010/08/09/scott-adams-on-startup-countries/) --

Quote
The always-interesting Scott Adams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Adams), of Dilbert (http://www.dilbert.com/) fame, wants to let a thousand nations bloom (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/startup_country/).  Elsewhere, he has said that understanding economics is like having a mild superpower (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/10/mild-super-powe.html).  He shows off that superpower by channelling Mancur Olson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson)’s argument in The Rise and Decline of Nations (http://books.google.com/books?id=vKxxtjJz--wC):

Quote
One of the biggest problems with the world is that we’re bound by so many legacy systems.  For example, it’s hard to deal with global warming because there are so many entrenched interests.  It’s problematic to get power from where it can best be generated to where people live.  The tax system is a mess.  Banking is a hodgepodge of regulations and products glued together.  I could go on.  The point is that anything that has been around for awhile is a complicated and inconvenient mess compared to what its ideal form could be.

His solution should be familiar to readers of this blog:

Quote
My idea for today is that established nations could launch startup countries within their own borders, free of all the legacy restrictions in the parent country.  The startup country, let’s say the size of modern day Israel, would be designed from the ground up for efficiency.

As Katherine Mangu-Ward at Hit & Run points out (http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/27/dilbert-establishes-a-charter), startup Adams’s startup countries are essentially Paul Romer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Romer)’s charter cities (http://www.chartercities.org/).  Adams wants to centrally plan the country quite a bit more than Romer and other competitive government advocates (http://www.seasteading.org/), failing to recognize that competition is a discovery process (http://mises.org/daily/4181) which could continually improve government (http://athousandnations.com/2009/08/13/any-technology-can-be-improved/) through opt-in experimentation.

I have no idea whether Adams is familiar with Mancur Olson’s work, charter cities, free zones (http://athousandnations.com/2009/04/10/free-zones-as-an-additional-option-for-the-cambrian-explosion-in-government/), or seasteading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading).  It’s clear that he gets the power of bloodless instability (http://athousandnations.com/2009/07/01/bloodless-instability/), though, and even uses one of our favorite examples (http://athousandnations.com/?s=%22hong+kong%22):

Quote
Arguably, China accidentally performed a variant of this experiment with Hong Kong (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=24520).  Oversimplifying the history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hong_Kong), Hong Kong was part of China and leased to the United Kingdom for 99 years, like a startup country within a country.  When the lease expired, China presumably made a fortune by getting it back in a far more robust form than it could have generated within the Chinese system.

Hat tip: Crampton (http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/).


(As usual, original links are in bold, with Libman-added links not in bold, and some other formatting added.)