<p>Ahh yes, <a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1582701709" rel="noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>The Secret</em></a>. I'd recommend starting with Wikipedia for a critical view of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction#Criticism_of_the_idea" rel="noreferrer">&quot;law of attraction&quot;</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_%28book%29#Criticism" rel="noreferrer">the book as a whole</a>. The former page has some particularly good excerpts to offer (emphasis added; hyperlinks not preserved, though I'd appreciate help editing them back in):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Skeptical Inquirer magazine criticized the <strong>lack of falsifiability and testability</strong> of these claims.<span class="math-container">$^{[6]}$</span> Critics have asserted that the evidence provided is usually anecdotal and that, <strong>because of the self-selecting nature of the positive reports, as well as the subjective nature of any results, these reports are susceptible to confirmation bias and selection bias</strong>.<span class="math-container">$^{[18]}$</span> Physicist Ali Alousi, for instance, criticized it as <strong>unmeasurable</strong> and <strong>questioned the likelihood that thoughts can affect anything outside the head</strong>.<span class="math-container">$^{[1]}$</span></p>
<p>The Law of Attraction has been popularized in recent years by books and films such as The Secret...Writing for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Mary Carmichael and Ben Radford wrote that <strong>&quot;neither the film nor the book has any basis in scientific reality&quot;</strong>, and that its premise contains <strong>&quot;an ugly flipside: if you have an accident or disease, it's your fault.&quot;</strong> <span class="math-container">$^{[6]}$</span></p>
<p><strong>Others have questioned the references to modern scientific theory, and have maintained, for example, that the law of attraction misrepresents the electrical activity of brainwaves.</strong> <span class="math-container">$^{[20]}$</span> Victor Stenger and Leon Lederman are <strong>critical of attempts to use quantum mysticism to bridge any unexplained or seemingly implausible effects</strong>, believing these to be <strong>traits of modern pseudoscience</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To sum that up, the &quot;law of attraction&quot; hardly has a <em>physical</em> basis, and it hardly could as it's been defined, given the joint lack of measurability, testability, and falsifiability. If it has a psychological basis that might explain why you've observed multiple independent authors advocating vaguely the same idea, that basis is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias" rel="noreferrer">confirmation bias</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias" rel="noreferrer">selection bias</a>, and the &quot;law&quot; is an illusory result of these biases. That is, it is not at all a law in the usual, scientific sense of a time-tested theory that explains a copious range of empirically verifiable facts; it is almost the furthest thing from a law in this sense. Advocates of the idea often borrow language from popularly recognized but poorly understood (by non-physicists) physical concepts like quantum mechanics and electromagnetism, but repurpose them to communicate metaphysical claims without clarifying whether their use is intended <strong>(a)</strong> as analogy, or <strong>(b)</strong> as literal claims for the physical mechanisms by which the metaphysical claims are proposed to operate.</p>
<p>I believe Alousi's criticism in the above quote was a response to the latter interpretation: I think he's arguing that thoughts are unlikely to <em>directly</em> cause physical effects outside the brain, presumably excluding effects on the rest of one's own body, and excluding effects that are mediated by behavior. No known process exists to affect &quot;luck&quot; or the realization of desires <strong>through thought alone</strong>, so it's unlikely we've overlooked some secret mechanism through which such an effect could operate. Conversely, it seems plenty likely that, for instance, thinking I deserve a cookie would result in me getting a cookie, <strong>if</strong> I don't exclude all the ordinary processes that mediate this effect (e.g., getting up, opening the cookie jar, stuffing my face)...but this is no secret.</p>
<p>(Full disclosure: I haven't read <em>The Secret</em>...and given my familiarity with its detractors, I'm not likely to.)</p>
<p><strong>[Edit]:</strong> For another, broader response to the related concept of &quot;autosuggestion,&quot; check out <a href="https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/18562/16995">this question on skeptics.SE</a>. @Articuno's answer cites some interesting studies that seem to have identified <strong>counterproductive</strong> effects of focusing on outcome goals (instead of process goals; Pham &amp; Taylor, 1999) and positive fantasies of success before it is actually attained (Oettingen, 1996)! Maybe this is the real, dirty secret about <em>The Secret</em> that's most worth knowing.</p>
<p><strong>References</strong></p>
<p>Oettingen, G. (1996). Positive fantasy and motivation. In P. M. Gollwitzer &amp; J. A. Bargh (Eds.), <em>The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior</em>, pp. 236–259. New York: Guilford Press.</p>
<p>Pham, L. B., &amp; Taylor, S. E. (1999). From thought to action: Effects of process-versus outcome-based mental simulations on performance. <em>Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25</em>(2), 250–260.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T16:07:25.340Z
While imagining cookies won't give you cookies, it may make you more aware when there are cookies around. Anything that may significantly affect the outcome will be more clearly seen rather than ignored.
user4951
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T23:01:53.087Z
If we could all agree that the "law of attraction" amounts to no more and no less than, "Keep your eye on the prize," or some such aphorism, I don't think *The Secret* would attract anywhere near as much attention as it does (critical and otherwise)...though it might deserve more!
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T03:00:03.723Z
@nick-stauner: I have had some unexplainable experiences with the Secret concept, so be careful to not count it out. There is definitely a correlation to quantum physics and our thoughts.
Greg McNulty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T08:13:15.067Z
@GregMcNulty it has absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics, don't subscribe to such hokum. See the last two sections of [my answer here](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/5434/29) since they apply to pretty much every use of the word quantum near anything to do with humans.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T08:14:04.730Z
@NickStauner I am not opposed to your use of wikipedia in this answer! Especially with the bolding and expansion in the rest of the answer, it shows that you are taking time to provide a good answer. However, I would have voted to close this question as answerable by wikipedia and being better fit for skeptics than here.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T09:19:25.960Z
@GregMcNulty: I'm unclear on what you mean by "a correlation to quantum physics and our thoughts." As for "unexplainable experiences" of any kind, be careful not to discount theorists' abilities to explain *anything* at least as meaningfully as it can be defined! No one has a comprehensive grasp on what theorists have explained already, much less what might be explained in the future. Most truly inexplicable phenomena are only inexplicable because they are poorly defined (or so I'd argue on a mostly intuitive basis).
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T10:11:51.577Z
@ArtemKaznatcheev: I followed up on your point about skeptics.SE and edited in some good info from a related (and more clearly psychological) question that's already been asked and answered over there!
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T21:03:42.833Z
@ArtemKaznatcheev: Science and religion are both pointing towards the mind/spirit as separate from the brain/body. There are clearly gaps in science as well as religion - but it is not black and white or mutually exclusive.  and many people have experienced these gaps. While I do not agree with the gimmic part of concept (i.e. make more money instantly by thinking about it) there is a fundamental truth to the root. I am very interested to have u watch, please, even if you say no to every part of it, open minded, (then tear it apart with science) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltGstp5GaFc
Greg McNulty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T21:10:43.047Z
@nick-stauner: the idea is that everything in reality is energetic vibration, a thought a physical object an intent...the "vibrations" that we have free will in creating do effect what we experience to some degree, this I know for sure.
Greg McNulty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T23:12:18.183Z
Citation very much needed regarding scientific support for dualism. [As with spirituality](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/5472/4086), religion [does not unanimously support dualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism). As for "vibrations," if you're referring to wave-particle duality, you may want to note [the controversy about this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Alternative_views) that arises before the discussion even gets particularly metaphysical. Last, if true, it means whatever vibrations we create are an infinitesimal fraction of overall activity.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T23:14:14.893Z
...So good luck to anyone trying to sort that signal out of the noise. I feel confident in betting you haven't done enough sorting (and wouldn't even be capable, nor would I) to be as sure as you are. Skepticism is paramount in resolving pseudoscientific claims like these.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-24T02:52:57.370Z
@nick-stauner: I completely get the skepticism...but it is hard to ignore certain life experiences that defy common scientific findings. I am not saying there is a formula for this either but rather elements that perhaps science has yet to explore or is outside of our awareness. Did you get a chance to watch the video? Re: "it means whatever vibrations we create are an infinitesimal fraction of overall activity. " yes, I do agree but also relative to the size of the world your awareness is part of.
Greg McNulty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-24T03:36:00.333Z
I'm not sure you do! ;) Skepticism doesn't dictate ignoring experiences at all, certainly not when they defy a theory. Being skeptical means not saying "I know for sure" about any theory *at least* until some serious effort has been invested in *trying and failing* to prove the theory wrong. It means doubting scientific findings too, especially if counterevidence exists. Science certainly has more left to explore than it has so far, as does our collective awareness, but where this is especially true, one must remain especially skeptical of ideas that propose to fill those gaps prematurely!
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-25T22:06:48.673Z
@nick-stauner: +1 fair enough
Greg McNulty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T13:27:36.260Z
2014-01-23T10:47:54.873Z
2020-06-17T09:55:31.633Z
Nick Stauner
<p>A common claim in business and self-help seminars is that <strong>optimists are luckier</strong>.</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Is it true that optimism leads to greater success in life?</strong></li>
<li><strong>If so, what part of the brain support this so called "higher self"?</strong> Basal ganglia?</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T12:03:19.170Z
Is [this "law of attraction"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction) the one you're referring to? What "higher self" are you asking about? I don't want to overwhelm you with clarification requests, but I even think "luckier" may need some further definition if this is to be an evidence-based discussion.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T12:04:52.880Z
Yes. Actually the idea of subconcious mind, or higher self is from book "The Secret". Some says it's God. I see it said again and again. In books like road less traveled.
user4951
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T13:42:05.590Z
Any particular reason you've included the [tag:stress] tag?
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-22T16:07:45.967Z
Because I am always a stressful person.
user4951
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T02:58:01.807Z
@jim-thio: the higher self is not a self help gimmic. Read up on Buddhism and Jesus. and LOL on the "Because I am always a stressful person."
Greg McNulty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-23T09:08:22.810Z
Well, it is a self-help gimmick too ;) Religion doesn't have a monopoly on "the higher self" either, after all! BTW, nice edit @JeromyAnglim! It's much clearer if I assume I can equate "luck" with "success in life," but I'm not quite ready to retract my close vote while "higher self" remains undefined.
Nick Stauner
<personality><motivation><performance><positive-thinking>
Does law of attraction have psychological basis?
user4951
# Does law of attraction have psychological basis?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-01-22)

A common claim in business and self-help seminars is that **optimists are luckier**.

* **Is it true that optimism leads to greater success in life?**
* **If so, what part of the brain support this so called "higher self"?** Basal ganglia?

**Tags:** personality, motivation, performance, positive-thinking

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Is [this "law of attraction"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction) the one you're referring to? What "higher self" are you asking about? I don't want to overwhelm you with clarification requests, but I even think "luckier" may need some further definition if this is to be an evidence-based discussion.  
> **username_0**: Yes. Actually the idea of subconcious mind, or higher self is from book "The Secret". Some says it's God. I see it said again and again. In books like road less traveled.  
> **username_1**: Any particular reason you've included the [tag:stress] tag?  
> **username_0**: Because I am always a stressful person.  
> **username_2**: @jim-thio: the higher self is not a self help gimmic. Read up on Buddhism and Jesus. and LOL on the "Because I am always a stressful person."  
> **username_1**: Well, it is a self-help gimmick too ;) Religion doesn't have a monopoly on "the higher self" either, after all! BTW, nice edit @JeromyAnglim! It's much clearer if I assume I can equate "luck" with "success in life," but I'm not quite ready to retract my close vote while "higher self" remains undefined.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-01-22. Score: 5

Ahh yes, [*The Secret*](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/1582701709). I'd recommend starting with Wikipedia for a critical view of the ["law of attraction"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction#Criticism_of_the_idea) and [the book as a whole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_%28book%29#Criticism). The former page has some particularly good excerpts to offer (emphasis added; hyperlinks not preserved, though I'd appreciate help editing them back in):

> Skeptical Inquirer magazine criticized the **lack of falsifiability and testability** of these claims.$^{[6]}$ Critics have asserted that the evidence provided is usually anecdotal and that, **because of the self-selecting nature of the positive reports, as well as the subjective nature of any results, these reports are susceptible to confirmation bias and selection bias**.$^{[18]}$ Physicist Ali Alousi, for instance, criticized it as **unmeasurable** and **questioned the likelihood that thoughts can affect anything outside the head**.$^{[1]}$
>
> The Law of Attraction has been popularized in recent years by books and films such as The Secret...Writing for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Mary Carmichael and Ben Radford wrote that **"neither the film nor the book has any basis in scientific reality"**, and that its premise contains **"an ugly flipside: if you have an accident or disease, it's your fault."** $^{[6]}$
>
> **Others have questioned the references to modern scientific theory, and have maintained, for example, that the law of attraction misrepresents the electrical activity of brainwaves.** $^{[20]}$ Victor Stenger and Leon Lederman are **critical of attempts to use quantum mysticism to bridge any unexplained or seemingly implausible effects**, believing these to be **traits of modern pseudoscience**.

To sum that up, the "law of attraction" hardly has a *physical* basis, and it hardly could as it's been defined, given the joint lack of measurability, testability, and falsifiability. If it has a psychological basis that might explain why you've observed multiple independent authors advocating vaguely the same idea, that basis is [confirmation bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) or [selection bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias), and the "law" is an illusory result of these biases. That is, it is not at all a law in the usual, scientific sense of a time-tested theory that explains a copious range of empirically verifiable facts; it is almost the furthest thing from a law in this sense. Advocates of the idea often borrow language from popularly recognized but poorly understood (by non-physicists) physical concepts like quantum mechanics and electromagnetism, but repurpose them to communicate metaphysical claims without clarifying whether their use is intended **(a)** as analogy, or **(b)** as literal claims for the physical mechanisms by which the metaphysical claims are proposed to operate.

I believe Alousi's criticism in the above quote was a response to the latter interpretation: I think he's arguing that thoughts are unlikely to *directly* cause physical effects outside the brain, presumably excluding effects on the rest of one's own body, and excluding effects that are mediated by behavior. No known process exists to affect "luck" or the realization of desires **through thought alone**, so it's unlikely we've overlooked some secret mechanism through which such an effect could operate. Conversely, it seems plenty likely that, for instance, thinking I deserve a cookie would result in me getting a cookie, **if** I don't exclude all the ordinary processes that mediate this effect (e.g., getting up, opening the cookie jar, stuffing my face)...but this is no secret.

(Full disclosure: I haven't read *The Secret*...and given my familiarity with its detractors, I'm not likely to.)

**[Edit]:** For another, broader response to the related concept of "autosuggestion," check out [this question on skeptics.SE](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/18562/16995). @Articuno's answer cites some interesting studies that seem to have identified **counterproductive** effects of focusing on outcome goals (instead of process goals; Pham & Taylor, 1999) and positive fantasies of success before it is actually attained (Oettingen, 1996)! Maybe this is the real, dirty secret about *The Secret* that's most worth knowing.

**References**

Oettingen, G. (1996). Positive fantasy and motivation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), *The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior*, pp. 236–259. New York: Guilford Press.

Pham, L. B., & Taylor, S. E. (1999). From thought to action: Effects of process-versus outcome-based mental simulations on performance. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25*(2), 250–260.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: While imagining cookies won't give you cookies, it may make you more aware when there are cookies around. Anything that may significantly affect the outcome will be more clearly seen rather than ignored.  
> **username_1**: If we could all agree that the "law of attraction" amounts to no more and no less than, "Keep your eye on the prize," or some such aphorism, I don't think *The Secret* would attract anywhere near as much attention as it does (critical and otherwise)...though it might deserve more!  
> **username_2**: @nick-stauner: I have had some unexplainable experiences with the Secret concept, so be careful to not count it out. There is definitely a correlation to quantum physics and our thoughts.  
> **username_3**: @GregMcNulty it has absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics, don't subscribe to such hokum. See the last two sections of [my answer here](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/5434/29) since they apply to pretty much every use of the word quantum near anything to do with humans.  
> **username_3**: @NickStauner I am not opposed to your use of wikipedia in this answer! Especially with the bolding and expansion in the rest of the answer, it shows that you are taking time to provide a good answer. However, I would have voted to close this question as answerable by wikipedia and being better fit for skeptics than here.  
> **username_1**: @GregMcNulty: I'm unclear on what you mean by "a correlation to quantum physics and our thoughts." As for "unexplainable experiences" of any kind, be careful not to discount theorists' abilities to explain *anything* at least as meaningfully as it can be defined! No one has a comprehensive grasp on what theorists have explained already, much less what might be explained in the future. Most truly inexplicable phenomena are only inexplicable because they are poorly defined (or so I'd argue on a mostly intuitive basis).  
> **username_1**: @ArtemKaznatcheev: I followed up on your point about skeptics.SE and edited in some good info from a related (and more clearly psychological) question that's already been asked and answered over there!  
> **username_2**: @ArtemKaznatcheev: Science and religion are both pointing towards the mind/spirit as separate from the brain/body. There are clearly gaps in science as well as religion - but it is not black and white or mutually exclusive.  and many people have experienced these gaps. While I do not agree with the gimmic part of concept (i.e. make more money instantly by thinking about it) there is a fundamental truth to the root. I am very interested to have u watch, please, even if you say no to every part of it, open minded, (then tear it apart with science) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltGstp5GaFc  
> **username_2**: @nick-stauner: the idea is that everything in reality is energetic vibration, a thought a physical object an intent...the "vibrations" that we have free will in creating do effect what we experience to some degree, this I know for sure.  
> **username_1**: Citation very much needed regarding scientific support for dualism. [As with spirituality](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/a/5472/4086), religion [does not unanimously support dualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism). As for "vibrations," if you're referring to wave-particle duality, you may want to note [the controversy about this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality#Alternative_views) that arises before the discussion even gets particularly metaphysical. Last, if true, it means whatever vibrations we create are an infinitesimal fraction of overall activity.  
> **username_1**: ...So good luck to anyone trying to sort that signal out of the noise. I feel confident in betting you haven't done enough sorting (and wouldn't even be capable, nor would I) to be as sure as you are. Skepticism is paramount in resolving pseudoscientific claims like these.  
> **username_2**: @nick-stauner: I completely get the skepticism...but it is hard to ignore certain life experiences that defy common scientific findings. I am not saying there is a formula for this either but rather elements that perhaps science has yet to explore or is outside of our awareness. Did you get a chance to watch the video? Re: "it means whatever vibrations we create are an infinitesimal fraction of overall activity. " yes, I do agree but also relative to the size of the world your awareness is part of.  
> **username_1**: I'm not sure you do! ;) Skepticism doesn't dictate ignoring experiences at all, certainly not when they defy a theory. Being skeptical means not saying "I know for sure" about any theory *at least* until some serious effort has been invested in *trying and failing* to prove the theory wrong. It means doubting scientific findings too, especially if counterevidence exists. Science certainly has more left to explore than it has so far, as does our collective awareness, but where this is especially true, one must remain especially skeptical of ideas that propose to fill those gaps prematurely!  
> **username_2**: @nick-stauner: +1 fair enough  

---

