The subconscious is claimed to accept repeated suggestions uncritically, so wording must be positive and present-tense to avoid instructing the opposite.
The doctrine generates the familiar instruction to say what you want rather than what you want to avoid. There is a real phenomenon nearby, Wegner's ironic process, in which monitoring for an unwanted thought makes it more available. It has a mechanism and boundary conditions; this has a metaphor.
In practice
- An instruction not to think about the deadline does raise its salience, for a reason this doctrine does not correctly state.
- A safety notice phrased as a prohibition is followed, which the doctrine predicts it will not be.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation offered is that the subconscious accepts suggestions uncritically and cannot process negation, so wording must be positive. The nearby real phenomenon is Wegner's ironic process, in which monitoring for an unwanted thought keeps it active.
- In its favour
- Ironic process effects are experimentally demonstrated, which gives the practical rule about avoiding negation a partial justification.
- Against it
- The mechanism proposed is not the one with evidence behind it, no evidential base supports a literal-minded subconscious, and the doctrine's confident wording rules are not derived from any test.
- Standing
- Testimonial evidence selected on success, with no comparison group. No study supports a literal-minded subconscious. The rule against negation resembles the ironic process finding superficially, and that effect concerns deliberate suppression under load rather than an uncritical subconscious.
- Subject
- Psychology & Behavior
- Essay
- Moralists, aphorists and the self-help tradition