Self-Help Claptrap

I am deeply critical of anyone who utilizes vague jargon such as "soul" and "spirit" and "opening up your heart." Sure, their intentions are usually to help influence a person to be kind, open-minded and loving. Their vocabulary fails to stimulate the mind in any real or lasting manner, however. The terms are completely up for grabs as far as their meaning is concerned. People may think they know what they mean, but you'll find that everyone's interpretation is at least slightly different.

These terms are used by well-meaning, dull-witted people (or business savvy people) in a bow-tied package for sale in the shapes of self-help books, CDs, DVDs, and articles. They are not practical and their effects are boiled down to an immediate sense of motivation with little to no sustaining impact. Their advice is to "open up your heart" or "search deep in your soul" or "feel your spirit." How? No fucking clue. They sure won't let you know. Is there some deeply ingrained knowledge that we all possess which allows us to understand exactly what it means to "open your heart" and how to do so? Not really, no. The reader interprets the advice in their own way, just as the writer intended with such vague claptrap, and they experience a momentary sense of hope. What happens the minute they place the book back on the shelf? That feeling dissipates and as the reader returns to reality and they are right back where they began -- with their familiar frustrations and inability to cope with difficult situations or people.

My frustration doesn't necessarily lie with the idea that I don't believe there exists a "soul" or "spirit," nor that the idea of "opening your heart" is a poorly explained approach to making use of the chemicals temporarily excreted and interpreted by the brain. It also doesn't lie with the fact that there are many successful authors out there that understand that this type of ambiguous writing sells well and that they take advantage of such a simple method of raking in the dough.

What upsets me is that so many people are gullible dolts who willingly spend $15-$25 on a single book that either explains absurdly common sense advice that people already know or that takes advantage of enigmatic vocabulary and phrases. Not only that, but they will also spend hundreds of dollars on "life coaches" and self-help "gurus" to listen to their horrifyingly inane speeches and workshops.

Why don't I get upset with the people who spread such nonsense? Partially because I envy them. They've figured out a way to make a decent living with very little work involved. Also, because I cannot fault them for helping themselves, even if it means being somewhat deceitful. Yes, of course I would love to get a chance to let them know that what they're spelling out to their audiences is complete horseshit. But they are not the source of the problem. They are merely a symptom.

The problem? The severe lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the audience. If they were smarter or if they employed their minds a little more carefully, those taking advantage of mysticism would have no audience, they would make no money, they would be forced to actually earn a living doing something legitimate. I can still get mad at them for saying stupid stuff, especially if they are some of the few who actually believe what they're saying. What really infuriates me, however, is the sheer magnitude of stupidity on the part of the masses.

Critical thinking skills. Logic. Reason. Rationality. Learn it, live it, love it.

False Patterns

As human beings, we attempt to find patterns. We are pattern-seeking species. Recognizing patterns is beneficial for our survival, so why would this capability be discarded? Finding the purpose for something, the cause and subsequent effect, has allowed us to develop useful food gathering/hunting techniques until they've eventually reached epic proportions (see our genetic modifications of food to produce as much as possible for our constantly expanding populations). Our ability to recognize patterns has allowed us to develop complex systems of communication, of transportation, of social interaction.

It's no surprise that we would find pattern where there otherwise would not be a pattern. We actively seek them out, even if we are not completely aware of the processes our brains are engaged in. Even though we have the capability to consciously participate in critical thinking to determine if these patterns are, indeed, legitimate, many people are convinced solely upon their personal perceptions or anecdotal evidence.

Time and again humans have been misled by their pattern-seeking behavior. For instance, despite all evidence to the contrary, many people still choose to see a pattern between vaccinations and autism. Prior to researching this phenomenon of autism and its cause, vaccinations would sound quite plausible to people unfamiliar with the medical aspects of vaccines and autism. Around the same time that a child is vaccinated is about the time that symptoms of autism begin to sprout. However, since the medical community has been studying this pattern of cause-and-effect, they have not been able to find any link with vaccinations and autism (except that they coincidentally occur at approximately the same time).

People strive to find a pattern, a reason, a purpose for something that occurs. It helps us to cope with the phenomenon in question and allows us to have a sense of control about a situation that we might find ourselves in.

Belief in there being a supernatural deity or a meaning to life is no different. Though we have the natural instinct to locate a pattern that would offer us a satisfactory explanation for something that is otherwise mysterious to us, we must curtail this instinctive behavior in favor of something that will provide a more substantial explanation. Critical thinking and the scientific method are available for this very purpose.

We would like for there to be a "meaning" or "purpose" for our lives as homo sapiens and as individuals, an overall meaning that prevails all personal meanings. Based on how well finding patterns between cause and effect relationships have been for us as a species, it seems common sense that we would be able to use this same ability for things more abstract, like the meaning of life.

I believe that this is where our natural instincts for locating a pattern or a purpose fails us. We are misled by this capability time and again, in instances of ghosts, spirits, vaccines/autism, the Obama/birth conspiracy,  homeopathic remedies, and dream interpretation. Likewise, I would venture to propose that we are being misled by our need to find pattern and purpose in things more abstract and broad like an "ultimate" meaning of life. I remain unconvinced by the assertions made by those who claim that there is a meaning to life. Especially when that meaning includes a supernatural aspect.

The Secret to the Meaning of Life (for only $11.99 +S&H)

When someone like Rick Warren, author of a (somehow) nationally well-received book, The Purpose Driven Life: What on Earth am I Here For?, states that the secret meaning to life is to serve and obey god (the Christian one, of course), from where did they derive that information? What life are they talking about? All of life, or just the modern homo sapiens? Did homo neanderthalensis or homo erectus have the privilege of being god's creations, made for god's intention to have a species serve him (again, the Christian one)? Or were they failed experiments? Or perhaps just too boring?

Do these people who believe that the meaning of life is to be their god's slave get this information from the bible? Or did their god conveniently speak to them in private, far away from other people's ears? In either case, it seems this "hidden" meaning of life -- specifically the life of those species capable of conscious self-awareness -- must stand trial and answer some pretty basic questions in order to hold any credibility.

1. How reliable is the source of the claim (the claim being that the meaning of life is to serve and obey the Christian god)?
2. Does this source often make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by another source?
4. How does this fit with what we know about the world & how it works?
5. Has anyone, including and especially the claimant, gone out of their way to disprove the claim, or has only confirmatory evidence been sought?
6. In the absence of clearly defined proof, does the preponderance of evidence converge to the claimant's conclusion, or a different one?
7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research (i.e. - scientific method), or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?
8. Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing explanation?
9. If the claimant has proffered a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation?
10. Do the claimants' personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?
(Thank you, Michael Shermer, for this very useful list)

The fact that so many U.S. citizens slurp this condescending and questionable information up like so many Catholic priests at an altar boy field trip is ridiculous. Take two minutes to question the origin of this information, and you'll likely find that an overall, ultimate "meaning of life" is a bullshit concept to begin with, let alone that any answer given by someone who is clearly biased in their perspective (or is trying to make bank on a half-assed-written self-help book) is probably going to be full of shit as well.