Talk:Law of attraction (New Thought)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

historical and current "attractions" beliefs are missing from this discussion

Law of Attraction beliefs have been a part of religious and philosophical beliefs for thousands of years, and currently. "Law of Attraction" was preceded by "The Power of Positive Thinking" a century ago, back into antiquity and the Bible (Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.). Even today, informally, many people believe that natural disasters are the result of "punishment from God", an unavoidable attraction that resulted from negative,or ungodly, thoughts or actions. This concept is not usually published, except notably about AIDS being the will of God. "The Will of God" is the religious twin of the secular "The Law of Attraction" and "The Power of Positive Thinking", in both cases the events in ones' life are attracted. I do understand the injustice of "attraction", sacred and secular, as related to groups, but such beliefs are just what this subject is, beliefs. --174.54.12.120 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Advertising?

The sentence at the end: "In August 2008, Esther and Jerry Hicks's book Money and the Law of Attraction: Learning to Attract Health, Wealth & Happiness appeared on the New York Times Best Seller list." seems to me to be an advert. robert2957 (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Goobley Gook, contradictory mumbo jumbo in first paragraph

The Law of Attraction says that which is like unto itself is drawn. Essentially, "if you really want something and truly believe it's possible, you'll get it",

Ummm, Essentially, it means nothing like that. Essentially it means that similar people are drawn to each other. These are two totally different theories altogether.

I'm deleting the sentence. If someone wants to put it back, you should rephrase it so it doesn't break the laws of logic and language.texxs (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Law of Attraction has nothing to do with romantic preferences. The "attraction" it is referring to is the attraction of similar energies. If you think about positive things, you will cause (attract) positive things to happen. I will put this in the first paragraph: "The Law of Attraction works like this. Your thoughts are energy. Energy pulls towards itself (attracts) similar energies. Therefore, what you think about and/or dwell on, you cause to happen. This is where the "attraction" occurs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.155.76 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, why are we editing at all?

Okay, all of this information comes from a book. Now of course, if anybody here helped to write the book and are going back on it, that's fine. If that's the case, then I can see perfectly why we are changing solid information from the book/film. But I'm guessing that's not the case. Well, am I right? Anyone? No, I didn't think so. But someone wrote this book, and we think it's up to us to contradict what they wrote? I'm really not following. Of course, I have my own theories about how this could work, but that's beside the point. But anyway, we're taking up all of our energy saying that this can't exist, and not doing anything to prove that it does exist. Now, if someone can prove that it has worked for them,then maybe we can stop wasting our time attacking articles like these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.175.119 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not allowed to add our personal opinions or experiences. If others have written opinions or experiences and these have been published in reliable sources then we can and should refer to these. __meco (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This article isn't about the book is it? This article is about the psychological: "Law of Attraction" This is clearly stated in the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texxs (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
First, "But I'm guessing that's not the case. Well, am I right? Anyone? "No, I didn't think so." You never gave anyone a chance to answer before you answered yourself.

Second, "and not doing anything to prove that it does exist." The burden of proof is on the theory. If you propose a hypothesis and theory, it is up to you to validate it. Not for others to disprove.129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? no criticism?

I come here after being forced to watch The Secret, and there's no criticism section? all the religions have a criticism section. This clearly falls into the boundaries of philosophy, not psychology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.29.223 (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

While there's no specific criticism section, the article is certainly critical of this "law" and not presenting it as fact. BabyNuke (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, add one dude! just remember not to put your opinion in, but summaries/paraphrases of quotable materials. That's what wikipedia is about.texxs (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The "law of attraction" in the 21st century

I will try to help the the author or authors with needed citations - I am talking about the sentences that say citations needed. So here's one for Larry King in the The "law of attraction" in the 21st century section http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/08/lkl.01.html This is the actual transcript of the show that you mentioned where Larry King asked challemging questions about this concept. I hope you use it because it might get deleted without citation. I will look for others when I can. Ti-30X (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Here on a CBS morning show a Professor of Psychology, University of Scraton, critizes and helps to debunk the book "The Secret" and the beliefs it professes as not standing up to the rigors of science - and he points out the "patient blaming themselves mentality". (I believe you need a science person or two for your citations): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWfmkh7eN-4&NR=1
Ti-30X (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article that is in Newsweek magazine, on the web, which questions the book's validity. The article opens with "If you're a woman trying to lose weight, you had your choice of two pieces of advice last week. One, from the American Heart Association, was to eat more vegetables and exercise an hour a day. The other was from a woman named Rhonda Byrne, a former television producer ... Byrne's recommendation was to avoid looking at fat people." the article is at http://www.newsweek.com/id/36603

Larry King uses a quote from this article in his interview.
Larry King asks his interviewee "Newsweek magazine did a lengthy article entitled "Decoding The Secret" and the article said, in part: "On an ethical level, The Secret appears deplorable. It concerns itself almost entirely with a narrow range of middle class concerns -- houses, cars, vacations, followed by health and relationships, with the rest of humanity a very distant sixth."
How do you react?
Ti-30X (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link for your reference for Byrne on the Ophra Winfrey show in the opening of the article. http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprahshow/slideshow1_ss_20070208/1
Ti-30X (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you google this phrase that you have written in the article "Neil Skelton of AYC Financial claim they have prospered by using The Law of Attraction" you will find a whole bunch of links that you could possibly use for a reference that is needed at the beginning of the article.
By the way I simplified the sentence that was about "a series of interviews on Ophra" to one interview with the author of "The Secret (book)" Believe me, it is a lot easier to go with this than try to research a series of interviews on a show. This, perhaps, represents the idea that you were trying to get across. The other sentence was vague and overly general. Ti-30X (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is already pretty good overall. It has a lot of citations, the history is good, and upon re-reading the intro paragraph, I thought that was good too. The refrences are really good and the links before that are a good addition.

I have been unable to find any verifiable source for the Neil Skelton of AYC financial line that is used for an example. Ti-30X (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thought Vibration or The law of Attraction in the Thought World: http://www.thoughtvibrations.com/
by by William Walker Atkinson (1906) Ti-30X (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Request Clarity

There are two sentences in the article:
"Scientists are never unanimous in their opinions of most any areas of interests, whether it's concerning political science, economics, history, religious science or metaphysical or spiritual science.[citation needed] But the reach and scope of science is ever expanding with sincere, objective and open-minded study.[citation needed]"

I do not understand these statements. There is a wide sweeping area of topics for one thing that you say scientists are not unanimous about,i.e., political science, economics, history, religious science or metaphysical or spiritual science. That is almost too convoluted. An economist backs up what he says (or writes) with the practical discipline of economics. History is promgulated by historians not scientists. Political Science is a "social science" and what they say and write about is backed up the "science" discipline of political science.

In addition, you don't have a time frame that you are talking about. Is this the 16th century sceintist, the 19th century scientist, 20th century scientist? As science progresses through the centuries we begin to see that scientists throw out non-applicable and irrelevant ideas or beliefs. By the 19th and 20th centuries the method of experimentation and observation (along with measurement) has become standard in any scientific discipline. That means developing evidence for an objective reality derived from experimentation, observation and measurement. Even in the field of Psychology the practice is to derive answers from the same method - they are very careful to do this.

Scientists are unanimous about established scientific fact. Ti-30X (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like I missed out on the fun with this one, but the real problem with those sentences (which, by the way, were very well-written, IMHO) is a problem that appears to persist in the "criticism" section, and that problem is tangentiality. Those lines about scientists would be perfectly fine in an article about scientists or about science, but I think we can all agree that this isn't an article about scientists or science. Connections between concepts other than the Law of Attraction (as with any other article topic) and the actual focus of the article need to be explicit, and they most certainly should not be framed in a rhetorical fashion--encyclopedia articles don't argue for or against anything. My main problem is with the Bernie Siegel passage in the "criticism" section. It's fascinating stuff, and it could very well belong in Siegel's own article, which as of now is just a stub that needs expansion. But what, pray tell, does it have to do with the Law of Attraction? If the rationale basically boils down to, "Well, L. of A. proponents make some wild mind-body claims, and Siegel makes some bold mind-body statements of his own", that's what we call an original synthesis of published material, which is not allowed on here. However, the passage would be perfectly germane to Siegel's own article, because his article implies no connection with the L. of A. proponents' work. Then again, if there is an explicit connection between Siegel and L. of A., then this connection needs to be spelled out in the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Weasel word template

Whats this in regards to? Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't template the article, but I'd have said some of what you just removed fell into that category--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I stumbled on this page through a forum, and I think that there is some relevance to this article. http://www.indraslawofattraction.com/ There are links to plenty of original source material on the topic of Law of Attraction, including several mentioned in the article. To name a couple, "The Secret", and "Think and Grow Rich". I think this link should be added in the external links section, it gives a reasonable presentation about the Law of Attraction, and informs viewers where to go if they are interested in learning more about the ideas presented in the article. DrewK2525 (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not link to web pages that simply collect other information. If your site has links to useful source material, perhaps you could suggest adding the links directly to the article. Bhimaji (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this site mentioned falls under the category of, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." listed under links to be considered in the Wikipedia:external links guideline. The site contains plenty of information about "Law of Attraction" that is all gathered from "knowledgeable sources." If you check this section of the website: http://www.indraslawofattraction.com/insight.html you will see how it thoroughly explains the ideas of "Law of Attration", and contain many quotes from authors who would be considered "knowledgeable sources" on this topic. DrewK2525 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Conspicuous but minor problem

Prior to the Contents, there is a run-on sentence. I'm guessing it was created inadvertently via the editing process; perhaps earlier it had been two sentences, and some text got deleted?

In the 1980's, Jerry and Esther Hicks introduced the Law of Attraction was channelled through Esther via a group of spirits collectively named Abraham.

Hopefully someone--who already knows what was introduced by the Hicks--can easily fix this. As a less-than-engaged observer, I doubt I'm the right person to make the attempt.drone5 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It was an entry made last week by an anonymous editor which I have now removed. Thanks for drawing it to our attention. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ talk 11:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism comparison section

I intend to add a section with this source [1] with the concept that the LoA is similar to karma; however, LoA reinforces attaching and fixating on desires while the Buddha taught methods to apply the LOA to liberate people from attachment to desire's suffering. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another source [2] Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Earl Nightingale

JamesBWatson's reversion is valid for the reason he gave. The sentence reads "Other proponents of the Law of Attraction included Wallace Wattles, Robert Collier, Earl Nightingale and Helena Blavatsky, who all published books in the early 1900s." Tanahboys claims "The section is titled Mid-1900s–2000. Nightingale first published in 60s)" however s/he has not read to the end of the sentence, which says "who ALL published books in the early 1900s". If Earl Nightingale was born in 1921 then he can not have published a book in the early 1900s. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I added Haruhi Suzumiya to see other.

It features stuff like this in it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.121.173 (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Major POV issues

This article doesn't even make the slightest attempt to lend any credibility to this "law of attraction". But even worse, it uses a vague conspiracy theory magazine as it's main source. I mean, come on, if you are going to completely POV this article, why would you use an idiotic source like that? I'm not saying that this Law of Attraction has anything to it, but I'm not saying it doesn't either. Major rewrite needed, sources need to be checked, and it needs to tell BOTH sides of the story. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Which source are you specifically claiming violates wp:rs? Also check out wp:undue for why "both sides" is usually not the best approach. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Lede and the law's scientific credibility

This line from the lede, "Some people claim that the Law of Attraction is unsupported by scientific evidence, and violates the scientific principles and understanding of the universe," seems misleading. I think the line should read "The Law of Attraction is not a scientific law. It is unsupported by scientific evidence and violates scientific principles and understanding of the universe," or "critics note the lack of any scientific evidence for the Law of Attraction," or something along these lines. I am going to go ahead and change it myself if no one objects. -Aronoel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC).

Golden Rule

It is actually not a new thought at all, since it embodies one of the core principles in theology, namely the Golden Rule. [3]

No way. Maybe someone claimed this, but you'll need to say "so-and-so claims that ..." or something. --174.119.186.126 (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What a mess.

Regardless of the POV of the article, the structure is an unholy mess and much of the sentence-by-sentence writing is no better. If I have time in the next day or two to rewrite it, I will, but if I don't, someone needs to. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I just had a stab at rewriting the intro paragraph Chips (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Can this all be attributed to Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Placebo Affect, and the brain's Reticular Activating System?

I know Self-Fulfilling Prophecy has strong support from Psychology and seems similar to the Law of Attraction but I don't think anyone has compared the Law of Attraction to it (at least in a journal or 2nd-party source). To me the Law seems a lot like Self-Fulfilling Prophecy taken to an extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.12 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Law of Attraction is, in part, affected by Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. The "power of the universe" concept sounds bloody silly, but I have applied these principles over and over with success. I attribute it to a combination of scientifically verifiable concepts, all having to do with the way the human brain processes information: 1) The Reticular Activating System in your brain filters through millions of pieces of data every day, discarding "unimportant" information, such as the color of the third car you saw today. However, when your Reticular Activating System deems something "important," it comes to the forefront of your consciousness. For example, when you buy a new car, you tend to start noticing all of the similar cars on the road of the same make and model. You saw these before, but never paid attention to them. When a person re-trains their brain on a goal, the Reticular Activating System will begin to allow the person to notice opportunities that were really there all along, and subconsciously the person himself is in fact attracted to them-- not the other way around. 2) The Placebo Affect allows a person to have the confidence to make an attempt. Statistically, the more that a person thinks about something with great intensity and confidence, the more likely they are to take action, which substantially increases the odds of success. 3) Self-Fulfilling Prophecy can work in many different ways. For example, if a college student tells all of his friends that he is going to shave his head bald at a party, peer pressure is now working to encourage his decision. Conversely, this can also work because of a person's psychological need for internal consistency. If a person says a daily affirmation and believes it such as, "I am healthy and attractive!" then in order to maintain internal consistency, they may start to seek out ways to lose weight, such as joining weight watchers. 4) Many other psychological tendencies can contribute to this as well. Any scholarly effort at researching exceptional human beings (self-made billionaires, Olympic gold medalists, et cetera) and their opinions of the power one's thoughts will yield uncanny data suggesting that only a dogmatic person could ignore. Rhetoric suggesting that the Law of Attraction is unscientific is overgeneralizing the Law of Attraction and painting it into being something that it is not, but some proponents of the Law of Attraction tend to over-state its effectiveness. Envisioning a 300 year lifespan will probably not yield one. 5) Anecdotal data does not negate the Law of Attraction. Because I personally acquired a Rolls-Royce, airplanes, and a $2 million home using the Law of Attraction, my personal experience does not invalidate it. There have been thousands of scholarly researchers who have studied the human brain and its many tendencies. Many of these could substantiate the Law of Attraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insightfullysaid (talk • contribs)
Please remember WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM garik (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Law of attraction as a belief is not a proper noun

The lead says the article is about a belief not a book or movie title. If so, then "law of attraction" is a common name and should not be capitalized. Jojalozzo 22:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll see if I can move it. Yworo (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

clarification needed re "positive" and "negative"

These terms are used in this article in a highly weaselly way. They are left completely undefined and subjective, and such writing does not meet Wikipedia quality standards.-- TyrS  chatties  02:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

be WP:BOLD. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical Context RE: Esther_Hicks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Hicks Information about the history of this idea that is present on this page needs to be added. As currently stands, it sounds like Esther Hicks was on "The Secret" (2006) bandwagon in 2008, but this is not at all the case. Quite deceptive and it doesn't mention the rich history; obviously this article has been ravaged by skeptics with good intentions, but what it needs is a historian capable of researching beyond pop psychology. --NOTbrowsingFromAnIPaddress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.99.118.9 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Developing Your Esoteric Vocabulary

Maybe this info would be available if more channeled texts were discussed and worked upon by skeptics. For example, the precise nature of positive/negative is an attribute of mind and mind-orientation specified very clearly in the Law of One books, an article oft-deleted here because it would put too many pieces of the puzzle together. --NOTBROWSINGFROMANIPADDRESS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.99.118.9 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Double-Slit Experiment and other scientific evidence in support of the Law of Attraction

Double-slit experiment (both the classic experiment and the more recent Silicone Oil Droplet experiment) is repeatedly cited as a scientific basis to support the hypothesis. This article uses several studies to promote this hypothesis. The skeptics dictionary article on the other hand seems like a rather biased interpretation that relies on a lack of data in an attempt to discount the scientific merit of the Law of Attraction. Therefore, the perspective that there is no scientific evidence seems to be misleading and not representative of the scientific viewpoint of the hypothesis . For this reason, this article should be modified to more accurately reflect the mixed opinion on this hypothesis, such as a viewpoint like "*little* scientific evidence has been found in support of this hypothesis."

In addition, this hypothesis has been miscategorized as a belief system. Due to it being supported using scientific evidence, however little, it is not accurate to define it as belief system. Permafry42 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have just read and discovered that even the source skeptics dictionary article says "there is little evidence to support the notion that believing something can make it so." There's a huge difference between 'little' scientific evidence and 'no' scientific evidence Permafry42 (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that's not strong enough for you, he says at the end of the first paragraph that 'this "law" is false; it's not even truthy." The point is, as this Wikipedia article makes clear, that there are some limited cases where positive thinking can bring about positive results. That's not the same as scientific evidence for the Law of Attraction. In fact it very much is the scientific consensus that the Law of attraction is not supported by scientific evidence, the quantum mysticism of a few fringe thinkers notwithstanding. garik (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bill/check example

An editor took out the "For example, if a person opened an envelope expecting to see a bill, then according to the law of attraction, the law would "confirm" those thoughts and contain a bill when opened. A person who decided to instead expect a check might, under the same law, find a check instead of a bill." from the lede, feeling that it was "obviously biased". It's taken from a Csicop article, but it's an example used by Lisa Nichols, a law of attraction exponent.

The article seems badly in need of an example that explains what "positive or negative results" this school of thought is actually talking about. If this is a bad example, can we find a better one? --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the same edit also removed the statement that there was "no scientific basis" for the law of attraction, so perhaps that was the only "obvious bias" being objected to. But the example is worth discussing anyway, as it is perhaps a silly, over-literal one that doesn't do the literature justice. --McGeddon (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Pending any discussion of this, I have restored the example. --McGeddon (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, not sure what the issue was, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Please remove that example, as it arbitrarily removes time from the equation. Also you are not distinguishing between attraction (realization) of desires and attraction of like energies. One should not write of a field which he does not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.140.233 (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Master Key

Why has no mention been made to Charles Haanel's The Master Key? This is a seminal work that has launched many lives from mediocrity to achievement and reportedly it 'created' Microsoft in the mind of Bill Gates.

This is a major omission and it and he should have been mentioned in the main article.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashpark (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you review the guideline on reliable sources. That you (and others) feel a book is "seminal" and that it "reportedly" did something valuable isn't the basis, here at Wikipedia, for including anything about that book in an article. What needs to be done, to be included, is for a reliable third-party source, such as the New York Times, to discuss the book. Then information from that news article (not the book) can be used in this Wikipedia article. (If that sounds unreasonable, well, there are lots of other places on the Internet to write, to your heart's content.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Reception of the Idea" section

I did some edits on this section because I thought it was a bit too gung-ho with the viewpoint against the law of attraction. That is the viewpoint that I happen to hold, but I did think it definitely needed to be toned down a bit. Ashleyleia (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That section is still heavy. Somehow we are treating the so called 'scientific and rationalist' community with the sort of reverence they don't really deserve. If they know so much, let them explain how to create life. Or how iron knows that it has to be solid while water knows it has to be liquid - when underneath they are all made up of the same electrons, protons and neutrons. These morons know f- all. ~~PB~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.162.241.242 (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Iron is solid because it has a metallic structure. It has unfilled d-orbitals, so it has many delocalised electrons. The electrons and the positive Fe irons are strongly attracted together. A lot of energy is required to break those attractions, so at room temperature (and most other temperatures humans will experience) iron is a solid.
Water is a covalent structure. Oxygen has six electrons in its outer shell, which means it can bond with two more electrons before it has a complete outer shell (as it does not have d-orbitals). Hydrogen has one electron (and as it only has 1s orbitals, it only needs one more to have a full outer shell) so two hydrogen atoms can covalently bond with oxygen by sharing electrons. This creates a water molecule, H2O. The forces between H2O molecules are what determines the melting point. These are reasonably strong- oxygen is extremely electronegative so there is a strong dipole, and there is even hydrogen bonding- but they are not nearly as strong as the intermolecular forces in iron. Less energy is needed to separate one water molecule from the next.
In short: iron has stronger intermolecular forces than water, so more energy is needed to turn iron into a liquid.SCIAG (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And why does iron have unfilled d-orbitals? ~~PB~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.162.240.241 (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this issue could be resolved by renaming the header to read, "Criticisms." Atheus42 (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you guys/ladies are all way too generous in your assessment. This is a one-sided POV hitpiece using terribly unobjective sources with an axe to grind. Too much negative energy, so I'm outa' here. But first let me say if the POV pushers can ever unbend themselves enough to want to entertain a better, self-empowering reality, they ought to watch the original Secret film with Esther Hicks. Or just read some objective material on the subject. How about Think and Grow Rich. (The author did think and grow very rich, and not from writing his book.) Anything w/b better than some angry popular journalists' opinions. They're really missing the picture.
Also, it's not just thought and focus. Feeling is the real' heavy hitter in LOA. This is old, old stuff. There is nothing new under the sun. And this isn't rocket science.
The "I'm-a-victim" mentality is not what made Western civilization great. Lots of the great innovators and icons of the 20th Century (including, e.g., Thomas Edison) had reason to feel like victims but they knew the secret and it motivated them to spend all those endless hours to improve their own lives and the lot of humankind.
Peace to you all, and especially wishing the POV pushers a better song to sing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.110.89 (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me Thomas Edison espoused working, not wishing and waiting, when he said genius is "99% perspiration". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

paragraph about Srinivasan Pillay

See the change I made. Here's my reasoning:

  • "According to several other scientists,[...] certainly believes and teaches"--this is the way I first tried to parse the sentence. It's missing a subject. There are other ways to try to parse it, but I couldn't find one that gave a working sentence.
  • Which books he has written is not germane to the body of the article. If he is of sufficient notability to warrant his own article (none exists at this writing), those details could go there.
  • The book seems to me to be careful not to claim that the law of attraction is supported by science, but rather to posit that science explains the law of attraction.
  • The "several other scientists" and the "and many others" I can find no support for in this primary source, at a brief glance.
    • If there are other scientists who hold this or a similar position, that would need to be supported by a reliable secondary source.
    • I could find no obvious reliable secondary source regarding this book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathieu ottawa (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of attraction (New Thought). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of attraction (New Thought). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Plausibility

Overscepticism also is non neutrality, this article would look awsome with a resume of the experiments realized if any to proof the supposed law.--Neurorebel (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

 not done it’s not clear what change you want to make. Also, as a registered user, you can make any edits (based on sources) to the article you feel are necessary. Edaham (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Claims of its effects - section

Related policies: WP:CLAIMWP:WEASEL
A couple of issues. Firstly the language used in this section of the article repeatedly makes use of the word claim. It sounds unencyclopedic. The claims aren’t attributed to anyone or thing in the text, making it sound weasely. Secondly the citations given all look as if they are linking to commercial sites on the subject. These aren’t good sources. There’s a section on health here. The sources referenced should be up to WP:MEDRS if we are going to say anything about the subject. I personally think this whole section is an excuse to stuff in a bunch of commercial links. As an encyclopedia we shouldn’t give a hoot what people claim about their Harry Potter notions on how the world works unless those claims have been reported on by reliable secondary sources and are notable for having been so. Pending a discussion on this section and the use of similar links throughout the article I will leave the content alone for a reasonable period and remove it afterwards if there’s no objection (from editors, not new thought sales-persons) Edaham (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

.....and I think that time has now arrived!Edaham (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I've removed a section based solely on these sources.
These sources are either: Personal websites/blogs, commercial sites or written by authors from an "in-universe" perspective. While we can argue that they are useful for validating their own claims, we cannot use these sites to verify the merit-worthiness of the authors of this content within their field. We need academic sources (or at least more mainstream sources) if the the content is to be restored. Please refrain from restoring without discussion or at least a good summary. Please also address the rest of the article, which contains similarly sourced content. Cheers! Edaham (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

What is the reason for this revert? [4] --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems biased to put the pseudoscience panel on just because SOME think it's pseudoscience. Alot of really successful people have used LoA to raise their vibration and manifest their dream lives and buttloads didn't even care about a scientific basis for it to be "pseudo".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:f563:e763:59d5:6e5f:d8bb:8972 (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I added the paranormal banner. Hey, it says it’s pseudoscience right in the article. That’s actually a stretch because there is NO science in it at all — not even psuedo. But if something like this works (which it doesn’t) it’s definitely paranormal, not by the known laws of nature. RobP (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Which part of their "vibration" did they "raise"? Frequency? Wavelength? Amplitude? And by what amount? What part of them vibrates?
"Raising vibration" is exactly what the term "pseudoscience" means: abusing scientific terms and giving them new fantasy meanings in order to sound scientific. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to revise an old discussion Hob Gadling, and thanks for your edits with the article. I won't revert the citation change, because you're right about them being in the lead section. But just because certain words are used doesn't mean that its practitioners are advancing a spiritual belief as science. Even if they were, they would just be non-scientists using scientific terms, not some type of academic fraud. I don't think sources show anywhere that it is widely held to be fake science, certainly not by the general public. The Psychology Today article you linked shows that some psychologists don't believe in the idea, but not much more. "Widely held" seems to be quite an overstatement. Maybe "widely held by psychologists" or social scientists, etc. But the sentence as it stands is too broad compared wit the sources. AnandaBliss (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
You start from the assumption that pseudoscience means "scientific fraud". You also said I don't think religious/spirituality articles should be labeled as bad science when they're not science at all, which starts from the assumption that pseudoscience is "bad science". But pseudoscience is neither of those. Pseudoscience means it pretends to be science but isn't. If you look at the claims of the Lawyers of attraction, you can clearly see that they try to sell it as science. You already agree that it is not, so QED.
But that does not matter. We have reliable sources which say it is pseudoscience, and we have no reliable sources which say it is not. Case closed.
Also, your attempts are at minimizing the group of people who see it as pseudoscientific bullshit fail. Everybody who knows even the tiniest amount of science can see this does not work. I'll ask at WP:FTN if there is anybody who agrees with you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Hob, I'm not trying to oppose you, not sure why you're taking such an adversarial tone. I'm not convinced that certain buzzwords all of a sudden trigger a "science claim." I think this is a spiritual idea, claimed as a spiritual idea, by people who think what they're advocating for is a spiritual idea. I'm not trying to minimize anyone, just get the right message across. Do not proscribe an agenda to me just because I have a different opinion. Please don't escalate this further, I already said I'm not reverting. I still don't see anything that says it's "widely" considered anything, unless the group doing the considering is true scientists, and if so then maybe the lead should say that. AnandaBliss (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The FTN crowd has lots of experience with articles about such subjects. They know how Wikipedia handles them. They also know what the word "pseudoscience" means. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't doubt that they do. But since there is no dispute, there's no reason to raise an issue. There's no revert-war here, just a discussion. I'm not going to change the article to go against the sources, just a tone issue is all. AnandaBliss (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia Talk pages are not the place for tone issues. They are for improving the article.
But what you call "adversarial tone" is just refutation of the false claims you made. When you tried to remove the word "pseudoscience", you used two wrong definitions for "pseudoscience", and I told you. That is called "reasoning", and it is the way Wikipedia resolves differences of opinion on how an article should look. I don't know how to refute your reasoning without sounding "adversarial" to you, so, by making that accusation, you are essentially trying to forbid people to contradict you. I don't know where you get the "agenda" stuff from, but "the right message" you are trying to get across is just your opinion: in your opinion, the number of scientists who disagree with the childish fantasy called "Law of attraction" is smaller than reliable sources suggest - there is no hint there of any real scientist agreeing with it - so you were trying to minimize them. But we follow reliable sources, not editors' opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this. How it exists in culture is primarily as a spiritual idea & practice. You might as well write that prayer is a pseudoscience in the first line of that entry. There’s obviously a crowd of sources out there that call it a pseudoscience & that should be acknowledged but I don’t believe that is a neutral description. Maybe every spiritual belief that is not from pre-20th C has the fate of being labelled a pseudoscience? E--85.255.232.192 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Read WP:INDENT. You made it look as if you agreed with me and I responded to you, when actually you agreed with AnandaBliss. I corrected that.
If something is called pseudoscience in reliable sources, we also say that. If it is not, we do not. There is no point in trying to change that. See WP:RS. Regarding "neutral description", see WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Protection?

Should this page be semi-protected? It has regularly been subject to attempts at promotion of dubious websites over the years. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

To all the IPs who want to remove the word "pseudoscience" from the article: Why do you waste your time by editing it? Why don't you just send a wish to the universe that the article never contained the word in the first place? --Hob Gadling (talk)
It doesn't seem so NPOV to call it pseudoscience right out the gate. And so many people are using the Law of Attraction to speak their dreams into existence, maybe the mainstream scientific community is missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.52.209 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Have you read WP:NPOV? It doesn't mean all text is neutral. It means that reliable sources are summarized in a neutral manner. The preponderance of reliable sources consider "law of attraction" to be pseudoscience, so the article should and does reflect that. You might also read through Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Schazjmd (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
If the mainstream scientific community is missing something, then it is Wikipedia's duty to also miss it. You are starting in the wrong place, it does not work that way. Change the scientific community's mind, then Wikipedia will follow. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Evidence for the law of attraction

I believe the book Mindset by Carol Dweck ph. D holds evidence for the law of attraction. 65.129.89.59 (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think her work on fixed and growth mindsets is related. Which pages of her book do you see as providing evidence for the law of attraction? Schazjmd (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_of_attraction_(New_Thought)/Archive_4&oldid=1189969293"