Thoughts are claimed to be causally efficacious in the world beyond their effect on the thinker's own behaviour.
Hill's formulation is the direct ancestor of the law of attraction. The defensible residue is that expectations change behaviour, which changes outcomes, and that this route is well documented. The doctrine asserts something stronger and unevidenced, and its practical harm is that it implies failure was a failure of thinking.
In practice
- An expectation that alters preparation alters outcomes, and the mechanism is the preparation.
- A doctrine that makes misfortune the sufferer's fault is doing something other than describing the world.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation offered is direct causation by thought. The defensible residue is expectancy: beliefs change behaviour, which changes outcomes, and the route runs through action rather than around it.
- In its favour
- Expectancy and self-efficacy effects are real and measurable, and the emphasis on what a person expects of themselves is not empty.
- Against it
- No evidence has been found for the strong version's claim about physical causation, the measured effects operate through behaviour and are far smaller than the doctrine implies, and its evidence is testimonial.
- Standing
- Testimonial evidence selected on success, with no comparison group. No evidence has been found for the strong version's claim about physical causation. Expectancy and self-efficacy effects are real, operate through behaviour, and are far smaller than the doctrine implies.
- Subject
- Psychology & Behavior
- Essay
- Moralists, aphorists and the self-help tradition