More threads by David Baxter PhD

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
The poison of positive thinking: How self-help culture helped create the credit crisis
BY STEVE SALERNO, New York Daily News
Friday, December 26th 2008

It's a fascinating juxtaposition. On the one hand, the holidays are a time of hope and renewal, culminating in the boundless optimism of New Year's resolutions. Yet as 2008 lurches to a close, it must be said that of the myriad factors in America's teetering economy, the most ironic is the role of positive thinking.

In recent years America's native optimism has snowballed into a veritable avalanche of positivity. The market penetration of the movement's top authors is jaw-dropping. Eckhart Tolle sold 3.5 million copies of A New Earth, his latest tract on "living in the now" - in one month. The Secret, Rhonda Byrne's tribute to wishful thinking, has sold at least 7 million hardcover copies plus 2million DVDs. Joe (The Attraction Factor) Vitale cracked the million-copy threshold through viral marketing alone.

These and other authors preach a build-your-own-reality view of life. Vitale, for example, describes affluence as a simple matter of "placing your order with the universe. It's really that easy!"

Meanwhile, Anthony Robbins and other top seminarists tout their favorite ploys for defining away negativity. "There's no such thing as failure," asserts a key piece of Robbins dogma. "There is only feedback."

Such pop-culture nostrums receive reinforcement from formal psychology, thanks to celebrity shrink Martin Seligman, who's credited with inventing so-called positive psychology. "Posi-psych" inverts tradition by focusing on silver linings, not dark clouds.

With this chorus of positivity playing as the nonstop soundtrack of American life, who can blame society for losing its regard for prudence and moderation? All of our major economic woes are, at least in part, creatures of unchecked optimism, compelling evidence of what happens when timeless proverbs like "a penny saved is a penny earned" are scorned as outmoded and "disempowering." Indeed, self-styled Texas pastor Joel Osteen (Your Best Life Now, over 4 million copies sold) built his Lakewood Church into a national icon by framing acquisitiveness and flash as virtues. "God wants us to be prosperous," he told Time magazine.

Unsurprisingly, America maintains one of the lowest personal saving rates in the free world - putting us in a very precarious position as we try to weather this economic storm. In 2005 and 2006, that rate sank below zero as consumers spent every nickel they earned. We giddily underplanned and overextended in every measurable area of endeavor. Consumer debt skyrocketed. Unqualified buyers took on mortgages from banks that had no business offering them. Lenders optimistically assumed that escalating property values would vindicate their investment; borrowers told themselves, "It'll all work out somehow." Thus was sealed the fate of the mortgage industry and aligned ventures on Wall Street.

In corporate settings, risk aversion and contingency planning have become signs of "naysaying." To many executives, writes renowned management consultant William Altier, "the idea that they should devote time and effort to thinking about things that could go wrong is anathema, un-American, disrespectful of apple pie, motherhood and the flag."

You might think the advocates of personal empowerment would feel chastened by the fact that all this rude interruption by reality comes at a time when positivity is being celebrated as never before.

Think again. Rather than concede the fallibility of an unfailingly positive attitude, they counter that some negativity must have snuck in, queering the deal. (This is the logic Byrne used in blaming Hurricane Katrina victims for failing to repel the storm with upbeat vibes.) Vitale characterizes America's doldrums as a byproduct of "the media bad-news scenario," making it sound as if unemployment, the foreclosure crisis and the looming collapse of major industries didn't exist until the media reported them. He argues that what we need now is even more pie-in-the-sky.

Or as best-selling guru Wayne Dyer puts it in the title of his new book, due out this January: Change Your Thoughts - Change Your Life.

Yeah, that'll work.

No one is suggesting that people should curl up in the fetal position and expect the worst. This is about balance. Realism isn't fatalism, and failure isn't just "feedback." Sometimes failure is failure. To leach misfortune of its sting is also to leach it of its lessons.

Some dreams - like some mortgages - are too big for the dreamer. Some risks aren't worth taking. Today more than ever, we should view our options in life through the clearest possible lens, not a rose-colored one.

Now there's a resolution that will serve us well in 2009.

Steve Salerno is the author of Sham: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless.
 

Lana

Member
No one is suggesting that people should curl up in the fetal position and expect the worst. This is about balance. Realism isn't fatalism, and failure isn't just "feedback." Sometimes failure is failure. To leach misfortune of its sting is also to leach it of its lessons.

Some dreams - like some mortgages - are too big for the dreamer. Some risks aren't worth taking. Today more than ever, we should view our options in life through the clearest possible lens, not a rose-colored one.
Amen.
 

Sparrow

Member
Very interesting article. Well written and I agree with most of it. I am not sitting on the fence though when I say that some things are neither black OR white.
Such pop-culture nostrums receive reinforcement from formal psychology, thanks to celebrity shrink Martin Seligman, who's credited with inventing so-called positive psychology. "Posi-psych" inverts tradition by focusing on silver linings, not dark clouds.
I think before positive psychology or self-help book aisles even existed, I was born un-dsm. Just a positive... person, period. Pop-culture nostrums? Good grief. I am my own man in my own right, and may choose not to subscribe to the latest popularity contest like some cheap 4 string puppet. If everyone wants to go and jump in the lake, I don't have to.

Perhaps in this day and age, a cynic is a realist and vice versa. Personally, I have a very large bucket of salt, it comes in handy around smoke and mirrors.
With this chorus of positivity playing as the nonstop soundtrack of American life, who can blame society for losing its regard for prudence and moderation?
I would. That's assuming the society had it to begin with. You can't very well blame someone for losing their wits if they were witless to begin with now can you? It's sad, but true.
It's been said there's a sucker born every minute, and like sheep going to slaughter I'm reminded of Darwin!
Then again..I'm just a
 

amastie

Member
Hi,

to my mind, the message of 'balance' in this article is lost in the argument against being positive. The one small paragraph near the end in which he says "No one is suggesting that people should curl up in the fetal position and expect the worst" doesn’t much cut back on the general tenor of this piece for me. The writer gives no leeway for their being real benefits to being positive or to positive psychology. The writer says he is for balance but the style of his writing is not so much an argument in favour of balance as it is an argument *against* being positive.

As for whether the beating up of positive has been the cause of people aspiring to own more than they can afford, I would want to see the scientific study that shows that to be so. It could be put down just as easily to other factors (probably a number of them).

In my own life, I see the effect of negative *much* more than positive - even a gravitational pull toward that.

It’s certainly true that there are an increasing number of people preaching positivity, which I find not surprising. That some people make a lot of money from that or attempt to dupe people out of money on that pretext doesn’t surprise me either. Once, we would have easily said “negative sells” (to see from all the shock/reality tv and radio programs). Now, we can add that “positive sells” and it can be said cynically. It could also be said hopefully, in the wish that some (if not all) people who are tired of the negative pull in the media and are pushing to market positive in ways that are attractive to people.

I see no inherent maliciousness in “selling” positive. It’s all in the intent. As for what people buy, whether it be the case for positive, the notion that we “should be more realistic” - or something in our local hardware shop - we remain responsible for our choices.

To me, selling positive makes a nice addition to those choices.

amastie
 

stargazer

Member
I agree completely with amastie. Her words quote my exact take on this article, for whatever it's worth.

stargazer added 16 Minutes and 16 Seconds later...

In my own life, I see the effect of negative *much* more than positive - even a gravitational pull toward that.

Maybe I can expand upon this with my own experience. Daily, I find myself drawn toward negative outlooks that can be absolutely paralyzing if I give in to them. Sometimes I have to resist acting according to them, and instead act according to a more positive attitude, in order to get anything done.

In my case, the negative thinking will tell me that some particular endeavor is "doomed" or "not even worth it." If I give in to that, I won't even *try* to do the thing that will actually wind up being beneficial - to myself or others - in some way.

Or, the negative thinking might be that I am inordinately hesitant to perform some simple task. Once I proceed according to more optimism, or courage, or open-mindedness - or one of any number of positive attitudes - I am able to accomplish the thing that I had been reluctant to do, for having previously been pessimistic, or afraid, or change-resistant.

This is not the same kind of "positive thinking" as the extremism advocated in certain circles. I'm not fond of "New Age" thinking, for example - the idea that good things are going to come to pass if we simply imagine them. And I'm not particularly fond of Wayne Dyer or Eckhart Tolle either. The positive attitude that I'm trying to describe is one that is based on realism, that does not deny it, nor does it try to alter the state of reality through means that probably will not work.

The kind of positive thinking I'm trying to describe is the stuff that is essential to make sure not only that I move forward, but that the various forces of the Usual Universe (and of my own mind) do not destroy me completely along the way. I think we all need something very similar, and I think that the article does not acknowledge this. It only presents certain "negative" aspects of the emphasis on the "positive."

So, as amastie has said, the importance of balance is being lost here.
 
Last edited:

Lana

Member
I think the article is not just about balance, but about realism and being realistic. There is a fine line between being positive and ignoring reality. Positive thinking does have benefits, but only if the person takes reality into account.
 

amastie

Member
...Her words quote my exact take on this article, for whatever it's worth. ....
Maybe I can expand upon this with my own experience....
As to your experience, stargazer, I can only say "ditto" :) .. except that I am a fervent believer in a lot of New Age beliefs - not Anthony Robbins, but certainly Eckhart Tolle.

amastie
 

stargazer

Member
I think the article is not just about balance...

That's my point, Lana. The article isn't balanced at all, and that's where its fault lies. It misleads the reader by only presenting one side, and a distorted side at that. I'm not suggesting we see the world through rose-colored lenses either. But I don't think the author is doing justice to the concept of positive thinking by leaving out what I think are its core elements.

As to your experience, stargazer, I can only say "ditto" :) .. except that I am a fervent believer in a lot of New Age beliefs - not Anthony Robbins, but certainly Eckhart Tolle.

I've got a book by Eckhart Tolle sitting within an arm's length of me as we speak, but only because I received it as an unexpected gift in the mail from one of the DBT counselors at the hospital. I like a lot of it, but I always put it down when I get to a part that seems unrealistic to me. Of course, we all have our different takes on things. In my opinion, that's what makes life interesting.
 

Daniel E.

daniel@psychlinks.ca
Administrator
To reiterate some of the above points, I've become less of a fan of the author of the article, Steve Salerno, as I think he doesn't go beyond common sense compared to, say, Daniel Gilbert's book Stumbling on Happiness:

When people try to imagine what the future will hold, they make some basic and consistent mistakes. Just as memory plays tricks on us when we try to look backward in time, so does imagination play tricks when we try to look forward.

Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert | About the Book
 

amastie

Member
I think the article is not just about balance, but about realism and being realistic. There is a fine line between being positive and ignoring reality. Positive thinking does have benefits, but only if the person takes reality into account.
Hi Lana,
I had difficulty understanding this except insofar as being "positive" means being manic - or, in any way, falsely positive, which is already a state of (self) delusion. To me, the argument is not whether one is positive or not, but whether one has abandoned reason or not. To believe in any of the positive-preaching pundits is not proof in itself of having abandoned reason. The line that I see is not between positive and reality, but between making considered choices (regardless of those being positive or negative) and abandoning one's reason to something or to someone else.

For now,
amastie

amastie added 6 Minutes and 25 Seconds later...

...he doesn't go beyond common sense compared to, say, Daniel Gilbert's book Stumbling on Happiness:
Sounds interesting, Daniel. I will be interested in looking up that book.
Thanks,
amastie
 
Last edited:

stargazer

Member
To reiterate some of the above points, I've become less of a fan of the author of the article, Steve Salerno, as I think he doesn't go beyond common sense compared to, say, Daniel Gilbert's book Stumbling on Happiness:

I read the description and bookmarked that page. It sounds like a fascinating book. I'm tempted to order it, but I'm trying to save money. (I have a self-defeating tendency to spend every penny I earn.)

Hi Lana :)

To me, the argument is not whether one is positive or not, but whether one has abandoned reason or not. To believe in any of the positive-preaching pundits is not proof in itself of having abandoned reason.

That's what I've been trying to say as well. Simply put, a true positive attitude embraces reality, it does not deny it. In that light, a positive outlook is not only beneficial, but necessary.

My other point was that the article doesn't deal with this, and in not dealing with it, it subtly misleads the reader into thinking that a positive attitude is actually a negative thing. And I don't think that's fair to those of us who believe strongly in the power of positive thinking.

stargazer added 1 Minutes and 11 Seconds later...

Oh, I just wanted to add that it's time for me to have coffee with my housemates, which is a morning ritual usually leading to much laughter on many themes. I'll be back within the hour, as this is a fascinating thread.
 
Last edited:

amastie

Member
.. oh, oh, meant to add:

I was once told by a psychiatrist that it is the norm for people to be slightly "manic", to expect positive outcomes at a rate that is ("statistically"?) unlikely to occur.
 

amastie

Member
I read the description and bookmarked that page. It sounds like a fascinating book. ...
Yes, so far, the more that I read about it, the more I am ready to obtain it.

...a positive outlook is not only beneficial, but necessary...
I don't know about "necessary" so much as "inevitable", because being alive requires an expectation of positive results flowing from our considered endeavours.
...

...I have a self-defeating tendency to spend every penny I earn....
This quote taken out of order just so that I can end my reply on this note: I think, stargarzer, that we have now entered the realm of having too much in common! (Ouch!) :)

For now,
amastie

amastie added 20 Minutes and 19 Seconds later...

Since I'm unable to quote from stargazer's quote from Lana, I have copied Lana's words here:

Originally Posted by Lana
I think the article is not just about balance...
That's my point, Lana. The article isn't balanced at all...
My reading of Lana's words, stargazer, was not that the article was (or wasn't) balanced, but that it was "about" balance. While I would agree with that it wasn't balanced, I felt the need to note that we read her words differently. (And I stand to be corrected too Lana ) That said, I didn't think it was about balance either (as I have said in a previous post).

On the subject of what it was "about", I actually asked myself if the writer might have had an undisclosed agenda - by arguing so one-sidedly against the perils of pursuing positivitiy, if it wasn't, after all, just a beat-up! Look at how much it stirred us up. I can imagine that it might well have a similar effect on his original audience - and, therefore - possibly - a separate purpose, entirely, fulfilled.

I had not intended to be online this long but this has been a very interesting subject

Again, for now,
amastie
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sparrow

Member
Hmm...

I agree with Amastie,
The writer says he is for balance but the style of his writing is not so much an argument in favour of balance as it is an argument *against* being positive.
That's what perplexed me, he also combines fallacies. When he states "This is about balance" what exactly does he take into account, and who is in his cast of Yea's and Nay's? 4 millions copies, 2 million DVD's, Seligman, Katrina victims, Anthony Robbins, Dr. Phil?
And then it struck me, why would'nt he play it all for his own means.. his book? SHAM is Self Help Actualization Movement.

As for his article, my suspicions became hilariously crystal clear when I found out he was once a professor of creative writing in an american college. But combining good points with bad justification struck me as shallow. He also has a blog on his train of thought.

But getting back to balance, reality, positive, negative, schools of thought.
Today more than ever, we should view our options in life through the clearest possible lens, not a rose-colored one.
What about a w i d e r lense to take into account a much more eclectic view and broader approach... with realism being far beyond a flash in the pan or 100 year old snake oil?
 

stargazer

Member
I don't know about "necessary" so much as "inevitable", because being alive requires an expectation of positive results flowing from our considered endeavours.

I almost qualified that statement by adding that it might be more necessary for me than it is for most people. I think it relates to my being manic-depressive. Not certain about that, though. In any case, the way you phrased that is intriguing. I'd never heard it put that way before. I do know that I have a tendency always to expect the best, even against the odds.

I think, stargarzer, that we have now entered the realm of having too much in common!

Perhaps we share the same diagnosis, then. Parenthetically, my landlady thinks I should go to an online dating site and announce that I have a spending problem and that I need a girlfriend so I can spend all my money on *her* rather than on all this other stuff.

She might have a point there.....

stargazer added 6 Minutes and 35 Seconds later...

My reading of Lana's words, stargazer, was not that the article was (or wasn't) balanced, but that it was "about" balance. While I would agree with that it wasn't balanced, I felt the need to note that we read her words differently. (And I stand to be corrected too Lana :) ) That said, I didn't think it was about balance either (as I have said in a previous post).

I already knew that; therefore, I must not have expressed my point clearly. What I was trying to say was that the article could not have actually been "about balance" when it was, in fact, imbalanced. Think about it. :bonk:

stargazer added 9 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...

As for his article, my suspicions became hilariously crystal clear when I found out he was once a professor of creative writing in an american college.

Touche. That about says it right there.
 
Last edited:

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
There is a fine line between being positive and ignoring reality. Positive thinking does have benefits, but only if the person takes reality into account.

Yes. This is how I read the article. On the way home from grocery shopping today, I was listening to someone on the radio talk about what a good time this was to be thinking about buying a new home. Bear in mind that this was a real estate agent talking so he's obviously not unbiased - if people stop buying new homes, he loses money. The reality, it seems to me, is that with lower interest rates it may well be a good time for people who are financially secure... but for those worrying realistically about losing their jobs it might well be a financial disaster.

That's what I've been trying to say as well. Simply put, a true positive attitude embraces reality, it does not deny it. In that light, a positive outlook is not only beneficial, but necessary.

But the author's point is that many of the more enthusiastic and simplistic self-help power-of-positive-thinking books don't seem to focus on reality at all. They arfe overly simplistic - think positive and all your problems will be solved. But the real world just doesn't work that way sometimes.

My other point was that the article doesn't deal with this, and in not dealing with it, it subtly misleads the reader into thinking that a positive attitude is actually a negative thing. And I don't think that's fair to those of us who believe strongly in the power of positive thinking.

I don't read that in the article at all.
 

amastie

Member
:funny:

As for my diagnosis, stargazer, I am not manic depressive though part of my experience has something in common with yours. This is not the thread to go into it.

As for your landlay's advice, don't do it when you're high as it is then that pursuing happiness really *is* unreal. :)

(Just caught sight of Sparrow's post - about the other interests of the author. Goes to my thinking that he could have had another agenda.)

I'm signing off on this and all activity now.

Goodnight to all,

amastie
 

stargazer

Member
But the author's point is that many of the more enthusiastic and simplistic self-help power-of-positive-thinking books don't seem to focus on reality at all. They are overly simplistic - think positive and all your problems will be solved. But the real world just doesn't work that way sometimes.

I did grasp that point, and I agree with it.

I don't read that in the article at all.

I'll take another look at it. I've learned that I have a tendency to read too much into things, and it sometimes gets me into trouble. (It might also be why I don't score well on I.Q. tests and the like, nor did I do particularly well in college. I'm always on the lookout for some kind of trick question or hidden agenda. It's something I need to work on.)

It isn't evening here, but I'm going to have to sign off in a while, too. I want to go running before half the day's gone already. I've been lingering on my laptop since when I awoke at around three in the morning, except for coffee hour with my mates.

I've been enjoying being back on PsychLinks, by the way. There are a lot of new features since the last time I was here, and many of the conversations are also very vibrant. New members, too - at least since the last time I hung out here. It's very refreshing.
 

Sparrow

Member
David,
I must agree with you somewhat
But the author's point is that many of the more enthusiastic and simplistic self-help power-of-positive-thinking books don't seem to focus on reality at all. They are overly simplistic - think positive and all your problems will be solved. But the real world just doesn't work that way sometimes.
However, I endeavour for some forms of simplistic realism. Why would one knowingly bog themselves down in their small sweat with complications let alone someones similiar slant of the same? That's realistic too, no apathy but a winning and purposeful avoidance.
That does not discount the fact that
the real world just doesn't work that way sometimes.
in the least. Far from it.
 
Replying is not possible. This forum is only available as an archive.
Top