Law of attraction

Dolphins and Money New Age

Cosmic concepts

Crystals Quantums Your inner self Holistic medicine

Spiritual selections

Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn Homeopathy Being of light Access Consciousness New Age Gregg Braden (slovensky) Falun Gong HeartMath Institute v - t - e

Not to be confused with the real "law of attraction".

The Law of Attraction (LOA) is a "natural law" that (1) thinking about some goal and (2) behaving as though you'd already achieved that goal will cause the Universe to bring that goal closer to actually happening. To become rich, truly believe you are already rich. To win your sporting event, envision your victory in detailed technicolor. To gain someone's love, behave as if you already have it. In the context of the LOA, the practice of concentrating on a goal in this way is referred to as "Manifestation" or "Manifesting". The LOA is self-defending: failures of this method are waved off as "just not visualizing it" or "not truly believing it" and ignored.

This is of course nonsense with no factual basis, which maybe explains why books, videos and courses on it make so much money and sell so well. Why work hard at achieving something when you can visualize? Why accept some people get things through some measure of chance when you can manifest? Why go along with the cold mechanical universe when you can scam people out of their hard earned cash? One need only look at how thousands of fans at Brazillian football fans visualise their football teams glory each week and yet somehow their teams lose sometimes and only one team wins the league cup. Or, if prisoners truly visualized their freedom they'd find an unexpected Presidential pardon, or who knows, with enough quantum vibrations the bars in their cell would just fall down and all the guards would pass out. Visualize!

Proponents try to wrap the idea up in pseudoscientific language, usually something to do with quantum physics. Why not go with: thoughts form "energy fields" that "vibrate" with a "frequency" that attracts "like-energy" from the "cosmos" and because of quantum probability waves whatever. You can also go with: your vibrations are a precious bodily fluid treasure that you should guard.

A not uncommon sinister interpretation of LOA is implying the inverse of the law, that is: not achieving something or lacking something is due to a deficiency in "wanting it", or lack of visualising. By this logic, many Africans are under-nourished because none of them are thinking about food hard enough.

History

A precursor to the LOA might be seen in the (pseudoscientific) optimistic autosuggestion theories of Emile Coule (1857-1926).

The law of attraction has definite origins in the New Thought movement. William Walker Atkinson titled his New Thought book Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World (1906). The person behind the pseudonym "Bruce MacLelland", a fellow New Thinker, published Prosperity Through Thought Force circa 1907. He summarized the principle as: "You are what you think, not what you think you are." But almost nobody reads these texts anymore.

The phrase "Law of Attraction" also appeared in the writings of the theosophical authors William Quan Judge (1915) and Annie Besant (1919). But nobody reads these texts anymore.

Instead, the LOA finally gained true popularity after the 2006 release of the book (and movie) The Secret. After all these years, the desire of LOA proponents to become mainstream is finally happening!

Logical flaws

Experimental disproof

To prove that this so-called "law" is woo, one must complete the following experiment:

1. Pick a body part of yours that isn't the size that you want.
2. Think really hard about changing that body part's size.

When that doesn't yield your ideal dimensions, then clearly you didn't wish for them hard enough scientifically! this hypothesis is falsified.

Self-contradiction

In addition to its other obvious flaws, the Law of Attraction can contradict itself in various ways. Most apparently, it is unclear what the Universe is supposed to do when two or more people want contradictory things. This wouldn't be as problematic if LOA advocates didn't hype it as the only guiding principle of reality, i.e., there are no other physical laws.

Semantics vs physics

Furthermore, the variant promoted by The Secret argues that the Universe ignores the negative aspect of a negative thought; for example, if you constantly wish to not get into traffic jams, you will keep getting into traffic jams because the "not" part is irrelevant from the Universe's point of view. This notion may derive from psychological studies that suggest that people in a state of less concentration often "tune out" terms like not in statements, forgetting that they were there. Of course, this is a fact about human psychology and should not impede the Universe (unless the Universe is sleepy or distracted). However, nearly every statement can be expressed in either positive or negative terms, and many thoughts are nonverbal. If Bob spends his time consciously or subconsciously desiring a vegetarian meal, will he get a vegetarian meal… or will he get a cheese steak because "vegetarian" is just another way of saying "not including any meat"? If he wants a hamburger, will he get a living cow because "dead" means "not alive"?

Note that this aspect of the logic of human language allows for yet another "out" in the case of failures of the LOA, alongside "more people thought about the opposite happening", "you weren't really thinking about it correctly", and "you really wanted the thing that happened; your conscious desire was just an expression of that".

One would think that, if the LoA actually worked in any real sense, it wouldn't need so many escape hatches and other dodges.

Ethical flaws

The Law of Attraction postulates a false meritocracy, in that people are supposed to receive rewards for supernatural reasons. A genuine meritocracy requires that rewards are apportioned based on demonstrable competency and abilities. In this system, one gets what one deserves, as decided by woo. The availability of rewards in a meritocratic system would almost always imply that less-competent people are not going to be rewarded. This withholding of rewards, amounting to de facto punishment, is where the Law of Attraction becomes truly sinister.

Victim blaming

Adherents of the Law of Attraction can dismiss the misfortune of others as being a case of "bad things happening to bad people".

For example, The Secret author Rhonda Byrne put the blame for natural disasters on the victims themselves. As the Daily Mail reports:

So what about those caught up in wars, acts of terrorism and natural disasters? The hundreds of thousands killed in the Asian tsunami, the thousands who died on 9/11, the millions put to death in the Holocaust? Are we simply to assume it was all their own fault?

Byrne sounds rather weary as she skirts round this subject in her book but, basically, her answer is an extraordinary yes. "By the law of attraction, they had to be on the same frequency as the event," she says, allowing only a small concession: "It doesn't necessarily mean they thought of that event."

An interviewer on ABC's Nightline in America recently posed a similar question to Bob Proctor, one of the positive thinking experts quoted at length in Byrne's book.

"Children in Darfur are starving to death," she pointed out. "Have they attracted that starvation to themselves?"

Proctor replied: "I think the country probably has."

So it's not actually about what the individual wishes for? Got it.

The Law of Attraction does not necessarily mandate that the suffering of those less worthy should be ignored, leaving them to their fate, but it certainly makes it easier to blame someone for events beyond their control. Starving Africans are presumably hungry because they just don't want food, or they lack the self-actualization to demand it from the cosmos. Conversely, the Law of Attraction would appear to personally reward people for their good fortune in being born into a wealthy society.

Related laws

Related laws seem to include:

• Law of reciprocity: This was a term Pat Robertson used — inspired by name it and claim it theology — to help increase the donations his flock of followers would give during his pledge drives on the 700 Club. Robertson basically claims that if you give him money, then God would in turn find a way to give you that money back plus a bunch more. Robertson would describe this "law" with accompanied anecdotal stories from purported victims describing how they got rich giving all their money to Robertson's diamond mining operations in Africa. While "name it and claim it" is a doctrine found in some Christian circles, the LOA take on the "if I really want it, it will be mine" approach to self-fulfillment is geared more towards New Agers. Otherwise, they are fundamentally the same: bullshit.
• Law of appreciation: What you appreciate gets bigger, what you don't appreciate gets smaller. You cannot change, you can only appreciate. Appreciation is an attractive force, depreciation is a repulsive force. In other words, if you appreciate something, you get more of it. Or: "thinking about things makes them happen". Again.
• Law of vibration: Everything vibrates. Oh hey there, shitty string theory!

• Law of resonance: Specific "vibratory frequencies" are projected by specific thoughts. This "projected frequency" only harmonizes with vibrations of similar frequency; when harmonization occurs, the harmonized object is attracted to you. Or: "thinking about things makes them happen". Again. - Does that resonate with you?
• Law of polarity: Every mental "vibratory frequency" has an opposite. By concentrating on the opposite thought, humans can suppress undesirable thoughts.
• Law of growth/abundance: Everything is always growing. Everything. This is because the universe has "unlimited energy".

For just $19.99/mo, you too can tap in!

See also

• Christian science
• Esther Hicks
• Magical thinking
• Psychokinesis
• Rosicrucianism
• Karma

External links

• The Chaser's War on Everything testing the Law of Attraction
• Quick exchange between a contributor and Joe Vitale, who appeared in the film
• New Thought (aka Mind Cure or Mind Science) movement