I did post something positive about it:
For the record, I'm not angry
I see it in the first few lines here ..
I agree.
You just made his case for him. If you had written that piece instead of him, I would have sat back and made sense of it, but I didn't - and still don't - mainly because of the tone of the writing.
That's so all-encompassing and without a shred of evidence to support it.
"Compelling evidence"?! No, it's not!
Again, jumping to conclusions which are totally unsupported.
Here, he finally cites a reference, one other person's opinion - a "renowned management consultant". He may be (what are his credentials?). Based on the style of the writers words to this point, I would want to have this referee's expertise checked out before I jumped to agree based on his word alone. And even if expert, it is only one person. Where are the studies to show that this is so?
He seriously would have us believe that all those who would have us follow the path of being positive (in any form) don't want us to be in touch with reality?
His sound more and more like a diatribe against those who espouse positive psychology - and who dare to make money from it. He resents them enormously - which he would if he holds them resonsible for the catastrophic underming of the American way of life - but again, his ranting doesn't stay on that point. It goes well beyond a reasoned argument to what I can only refer to, again, as a rambling diatribe. As for Wayne Dwyer's words that he quotes, he dismisses those words *completely* as if spoken by a fool.
Who shall decide which lens is clear? For every man, woman and child, there is a different lens. Is the writer putting himself forward as an arbiter of wisdom, greater than those whom he so strongly condemns? Suddenly, I'm smelling another prophet, in the same way as he describes the others with a belief to sell. He may not charge... or does he? Was he not paid for the article? Did he not have an investment in writing a "good" article, to appeal to a specific audience? The money may be peanuts by comparison, but the question is not irrelevant.
If the question regards why people don't save enough and engage in profligate spending, I think it's the form of their desires (or lack of more psychologically fulfilling desires) more than anything else, e.g.Lana said:
Our perceptions are *so* different. I don?t feel outraged, and I didn?t know anyone else was.
I can honestly say that doesn?t apply to me. I?m aware of being drawn to many of the positive psychology ?gurus? but I don?t dwell on them or on positive. I *try* to be with it more but find it very hard to do. Right now, I have a reverse response. I?m slightly afraid of not being seen to be thinking more negatively (which, given my predilection for negative, is hugely ironic.) I say ?slightly? because, if I truly felt that I had done something wrong (at least, intended something wrong), I would be much more afraid of disagreeing with you.
I considered that possibility when I wrote that previous post - that I might be getting caught up in the way he wrote the article when I should be looking at the points he was trying to make. And I decided, in good conscience, that the way he wrote his article, in particular his lack of reasoned arguments together with the derisive nature of his tone, warranted the response I gave - that those things were worth addressing. Your own post served to show me what was missing from his article that would have warranted a different response.
I wasn?t trying to be positive or negative. I was trying only to be truthful, and to properly justify my arguments by drawing on the writer?s own words. Contrary to what is thought to be the message of the messengers of positive, I don?t believe that there is a virtue in being positive for positive?s sake. Only when it true or when it is supportive - and then I still want it to be true.
I can only say that we see, and feel, things at present *so* differently. I?m really sorry that this thread has brought you down. I never wanted that and I am easy with this being my last post on the matter rather than sustain that discomfort for you.
I agree with that, but only to an extent. Regardless of what one is feeling, the writer will always choose the tone of the article. Just as what we feel will predispose us to receiving the words differently, in my experience it is more likely that the tone of the writing will help to change the tone of my feeling to the one reflected in the writing. For that reason, I won?t watch depressing movies. And I?ve been on a ?happy? binge over the holiday season. I?ve needed it
And receive honest feedback.
Again, I respectfully disagree. We all are entitled to our responses to anything such as this. And it is not judging a person. It is a response to his writing and what we feel in reading it. That raised questions for me about his intent, but not any intent to do with his personal life, only his intent in writing the article.
Our understanding of ?penmanship? is different. I believe that my response was entirely valid. I am open to being questioned about my response, and I do take your words to heart. Having done that, I still feel justified and *not* heartless. I?m sorry that it comes across as that to you.
..It would be a much more positive turn of this discussion.
but I do want to add something which is valuable - *and* positive - to this, my final post on this thread.
