Million Dollar Experiment Psychology
Dan on December 24th, 2005
I’ve been observing Steve Pavlina’s Million Dollar Experiment since inception. It’s an interesting concept, however it has quite a few flaws that I’d like to point out.
The idea that you can create money out of thin air is an enticing concept. The promise of something for nothing always draws interest. The act of setting the goal to obtain $1 million alone can increase your income. (1) You may begin to see opportunities that existed all along. However, once you believe that money will start coming into your life due to outside influences you start to apply confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the concept that you will have “the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.” So once you believe that money will appear you will start seeing sources of income that would have happened anyway as fulfilling that prophacy. Confirmation bias also causes you to downplay anything that disproves the concept.
Take Steve’s most recent million dollar blog entry. He recently received $10,000 as an inheritance from the passing of a grandfather. Would he have received this money had he not created the $1 million experiment? The probability of that is very high. Everything to create this situation has been building over many years. His grandfather saved money, his parents are generous to their children, everyone dies, and his grandfather had willed money to his parents. It is a logical conclusion that he would have received this money no matter what his goal or intentions were. Yet he sees this money as fulfilling his intention to make a passive $1 million. Had he not received this money he wouldn’t have said “My $1 million experiment was a failure because I didn’t receive any inheritance money from my grandfather.” This is a perfect example of confirmation bias.
Wishing to receive $1 million can be an excellent intention. It will have a psychological effect on you that will help you see income that you would have otherwise missed. However, you must step back and watch with an objective mind. If you start blindly looking at everything as fulfilling your intention you will be short changing yourself and ignoring science and physics. There is no magical power that allows you to will money into your life.
1. There has been plenty of research into the effect of goal-setting. Searching the net can find many sources.
December 24th, 2005 at 6:01 am
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.
December 24th, 2005 at 7:43 am
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.
January 6th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
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! (-:
January 6th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
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.
January 6th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
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.