Comments on: Million Dollar Experiment Psychology

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 00:09:00 +0000

Very interesting concepts Paul. You’re discussing it on a philosophical level that I am not qualified nor able to properly analyze. If I’m reading your post correctly, you are assuming that we are able to manipulate the world around us with thought. I have yet to see any evidence that would suggest this to be true. The mind can manipulate itself all it wants, however I (and science) believe that its manipulative ability ends there.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:59:45 +0000

Excuse the double-negative (impossible/cannot) in my above comment. You know what I mean? (-:

And excuse the typo (past not pass).

I’m not used to posting on blogs – I must learn to check what I type BEFORE I submit it.

Thanks for getting me thinking.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:56:22 +0000

I wonder if you’ve read Steve’s article:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/11/musings-on-reality-the-scientific-method-and-the-cure-for-dandruff/

This (aside from Steve’s flippancy) explains neatly the weakness of science or logic(so-called) when applied to situations such as this.

For instance, your “logic” presupposes a system of cause and effect – and at that a system of cause and effect that is time-constrained. What I mean is: you have ASSUMED it impossible that Steve’s intentions in the present cannot have affected the past. Specifically, you have assumed that his present intentions could not have affected the prior sequence of events that led to his inheritance.

To the average person’s belief system the idea that the present could possibly have a causal effect on the pass probably seems ludicrous, but there is no way of objectively proving that this does not happen. So this must remain an assumption. Or you could choose to think that this assumption MAY not be correct.

The same is true of the foundations of “the scientific method”. The scientific method as we know it is based upon an assumption which has not been proven (and has had doubt cast upon it by research in quantum physics).

Steve bravely challenges these assumptions (knowing of course that the assumptions MAY be right, but also knowing that they haven’t been thoroughly explored).

Sorry to be longwinded! (-:

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 12:43:04 +0000

I agree with your motivation 100%. I see the experiment as a positive thing that will probably help people earn extra money. The mindset alone will help you find new avenues of revenue, but wishing alone won’t cause money to rain from the sky That’s my main point, that anyone could easily participate in this and earn extra money. They just have to think logically about where the money comes from instead of blindly saying it came from the experiment.

By: Steve Pavlina

Steve Pavlina — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 11:01:37 +0000

From an objective standpoint, you’re absolutely right.

My goal with this experiment, however, isn’t to be right. It’s to manifest $1 million in a way that serves the greatest good of all. Think of it as an experiment into the potential power of confirmation bias — if you go as far as you can in that direction, will it distort your view of reality to the point where you achieve less abundance? Or will it serve as an empowering belief that causes you to push way beyond your perceived (perhaps unnecessary) limits and get better results than you would otherwise?

In the case of an inheritance, you can say the money would have come either way. But I also directly made some financial deals I wouldn’t have otherwise that generated thousands of dollars in income.

Most people who think they are behaving logically are in fact behaving very fearfully and timidly. So some excessive optimism may help tip the scale back to the point of greater accuracy. Ultimately we want to make accurate decisions and maximize our effectiveness.