Scientifically proven

What happens in your mind when you read a phrase like "scientifically proven?" This morning, I was reading a book that is currently the subject of lots of buzz (yes - it made it to Oprah). It contained a statement that it has been 'scientifically' proven that an affirmative thought is hundreds of times more powerful than a negative thought. No reference was given to the study or studies that "proved" this hypothesis.

I wonder when the notions of affirmation and negation were operationalized so that they could be tested experimentally.

I wonder what units of power were used in quantifying.

I wonder how many hundreds of times more powerful. Since this is science, I assume quantity matters.

The book made it to Oprah. The people involved with it are going to realize their own affirmations - they are going to make lots of money. Probably not as much as a the quiet single mom who wrote a children's book while sitting in coffee shops with her baby. But still. Lots of money. Wealth is a word that figures frequently in their affirmations.

I am aware of science that will show that more parts of one's brain are active in a positive thought (positive in that it represents something that can be perceived) than are active in a negative thought (negative in that it is a "not" thought - a trick of language that allows us to talk about something that is opposite to what can be perceived). In this model, the mushroom cloud after a nuclear explosion is a "positive" while "not smoking" is a negative. This is not quite the same as saying the brain supports thoughts about what we want.

What happens in your mind when you are fed bits of information that are related to truth and which correspond your experience and then a bit of information that you would never accept out of context? Do you notice how many words have been twisted just a little to make the point?

Comments

Drilling Services said…
I am not bothered by whether it is "scientifically proven" or not.

The crux is that positive thinking really works.
6:10 am
Aaron Whiston said…
Why is it that so many people jump at the chance to defend negativity and self-defeatist thinking? It's a little pathetic to be honest - what is it about the idea of personal empowerment that is so upsetting to the blogger who made this post?

I'm not familiar with the study Beckwith cited here but I do know a growing body of evidence in various scientific circles is proving the obvious relation to consciousness/observation and what we candidly refer to as "reality". John Hagelin, Fred Alan Wolf, Lyn Mctaggert, and hundreds of others have written about and conducted their own experiments and it's just a matter of time before ALL of mainstream science (once again) stops resisting a "new" idea and admits the truth of these matters.
10:29 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The hypnotic contract

Under what conditions would you allow someone else to tell you what to think?   If you have watched a stage hypnotist, you have seen what looks like one person exercising remarkable control over the thoughts and actions of another. It is fascinating, in part, because we have all seen it happen in real life. Suddenly someone we know seems to be relying on someone else to do the thinking.  Even if the influence is good, it is a little frightening. The secret is that there are no magic words.  In order to lead someone into hypnosis, that person has to be willing to go there. Often the people you see on stage are more than willing. For whatever reasons, they are enthusiastic about giving up self control and allowing someone else to take charge. They know that there are limits to what can happen on stage and they are only agreeing to give up control within those limits. What you see in hypnosis is an agreement between two people. Like all agreements between human beings, it stretches as far...
Read more

Good with people

What do you think of when you hear the phrase "good with people?" When a wine is good with steak, it means that both the steak and the wine taste better when enjoyed together. If you are 'good with people' that could mean that both you and they perform better when you work together. "Good with people" should not be confused with charm or grace. Many famous leaders have, in the absence of any obvious charm or eloquence, managed to get people to produce at high levels. Some introverts fail to be influential; some extraverts fail to be effective. The most useful criteria for "good with people" is the performance that results when an individual is working with others: does the sum exceed the total of the parts? Or would they all have been better working from separate cubicles? We are entering the season of networking: it's a perfect time to observe the difference between the people who are working the room and the people who are making the room w...
Read more

The fine line between observations, suggestions and commands

I have been watching Tony Robbins this week in the documentary called " I Am Not Your Guru ." You can read a nicely ambivalent review in the Financial Times here.   I think the ambivalence is built into the process, which might be surprising given the loud celebration that characterizes the Date with Destiny in the film. For those of us whose work has evolved from NLP, there are lessons to be learned from modelling the most famous and successful practitioner of NLP (Robbins has far surpassed all the founders by all measures of success). Because he does so much so well, Robbins lets us see how fine the line is between observing and suggesting. Let me explain. Robbins frames his "interventions" both with the exercises and performances we do not see in the film and with his invitations. The film opens with an intervention with a young man who says he is suicidal; it is only later that we see Robbins say he is looking for someone who is suicidal to work with. Since...
Read more