Why Steve Pavlina is WRONG!
Uh oh, I said it. Some of you may have heard about this guy, Steve Pavlina, because of his successful blogging ventures but more importantly because he is the author of a book which hit Barnes & Noble shelves a while back known as Personal Development for Smart People: The Conscious Pursuit of Personal Growth. Now, do not misinterpret my respect and love for Steve – I think in many different areas the guy is an absolute genius. He has over a million readers and there is a reason he does: he provides a huge amount of value to readers all over the world who find benefit by reading his articles.
This particular blog entry, however, is about how Steve Pavlina is wrong about a number of different things.
Raw food and vegetarianism – One of the primary topics that Steve talks about in his blog is vegetarianism, which he had seemed particularly proud of when he first started writing about it, and raw food. He claims that not only has he felt better and been more healthy but that if you consume the same diet as he does you will feel better and be more healthy too! Not so, folks. And there is a few different reasons why.
- Vegetarianism and its benefits, or especially veganism, have been grossly over-exaggerated. In fact, according to some, vegetarian diets will actually harm you because you are not getting essential vitamins.
- Raw food is also a bad idea, no matter what the raw food community is trying to tell you. Steve has also said that people from the raw food community “seem nicer” than that of other communities. He may not mean bad by saying such a thing but to me that is a bit pompous.
The problem, which Steve has hinted at, is actually in the foundations of how modern food is prepared and processed. A much more credible sort of work on the problems with modern meat processing might be the documentary Food, Inc. or a very delightful read I had the opportunity to experience during a vacation of mine: Twinkie, Deconstructed. I would also highly recommend the work on Al Sears MD.
To get a handle on what foods we should consume we should really examine the diet of our native ancestors and how the most healthy of them survived. The best hunters ate plentiful portions of meats, vegetables, fruits, and while yes – some of it was raw – they also enjoyed cooked meals over an open fire. A lot of advocates of raw food diets like to preach that raw food somehow is what we need because of nutritional value when in reality: the real culprit is food processing, sugar, preservatives, chemical additives, high fructose corn syrup and an excess of corn products, and other simple problems that have only emerged in their worst form during the past century.
Sorry, Steve, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of people who consume a raw food diet not only will not stick with it – they will not think it tastes very good either. On the other hand, if you let me have my grass fed beef with green beans and my daily multivitamin I will be very happy.
In fact, his entire attitude is pompous by his site’s motto: “Personal Development for Smart People.” Who the heck does he think he is? So if you are not smart, then apparently you will not be reading his site. To his credit, he often responds to this anecdote with a good deal of humor, wit, and charm. He has a big problem with his overall ending response, though, when he claims that anyone who “doesn’t get it” or disagrees with it is somehow not among the ‘smart people’ he is writing for. Steve, the doctoral degrees and some of the biggest experts in the field would say that a lot of what you are writing about is complete rubbish. One reason he could write a lot about things that are so sensational, of course, is that it probably generates a good buzz and brings in a substantial number of readers. Still, Steve: the doctoral degrees know a thing or two as well.
The guy’s an ex-Scientologist for crying out loud… In fact, that could be a bit of an understatement.
- If you dive deep enough into Steve Pavlina’s history, you find out he is an ex-Scientologist. Not only does he not regret the decision, he also claims that it was a beneficial time of his life. The amount of stuff that is just absolutely nutty and crazy with Scientology and the horror stories of the cult-way in which it has taken advantage of its members is enough to get me to steer clear from reading even a single word of L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics.
- The fact that Steve supports this and then goes so far as to say he actually buys into his now ex-wife’s psychic abilities says enough about his intellectual integrity to me.
Of course, the ironic part is that even while Pavlina completely ignores rational thought processes he still manages to give some extremely sound advice that people not only listen to but many actually find tremendous benefit from. I think guys like Pavlina and other big industry gurus who are pushing the Law of Attraction, however, are giving people unrealistic hopes and dreams.
If you know me personally, you know that I have absolutely no issues what so ever with the idea of thinking BIG! I do it all the time myself and I also follow my ideas with an intense drive and motivation that few other people I know have – the problem lies in how he is telling people to get there. This trend of “think about it and it will happen” type of mentality needs to end and Steve Pavlina has done little to actually help end its existence. Instead of turning to scientific thought processes people are turning to more abstract, almost pop-culture like philosophies preached by guys like Pavlina. Even in his book, he is not giving rational strategies for practical things that can aid you in the real world but is instead telling you abstract concepts that you must somehow figure out HOW to apply.
All the while he is leaving some sense of vague uncertainty in the readers’ mind but manages to present it in a way that is appealing enough that it keeps you reading entry after entry. Some time ago, I actually stopped reading Pavlina’s entries because they all grew to sort of repeat themselves about the same general concepts. He has also, as much as he has tried to avoid it, hit the problem of trying to make his website one that appeals to multiple different markets while still dropping everything he writes about under the category of “personal development.” Sometimes, the stuff he is writing about is arguably nothing to really do with personal development itself at all. Perhaps he only wants the term to be broadly defined.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people that would argue that Steve Pavlina “invented” personal development in the same sense that people liked to say that Al Gore “invented the internet.” Obviously, I disagree with even this sort of a metaphor.
A good friend of mine, Bill Perry, who I have often worked with on various different research projects, wrote a review of Steve Pavlina’s book here. Steve, if you’re reading this, I admit that I will soon purchase a copy of your book and read it the book in its entirety – it seems the stuff that you are putting out onto store shelves is a bit more valid and well constructed than certain things you have touched on in your blog. Congratulations on your success.
As for others, I highly recommend you at least read some of the best, popular articles that Steve has written. If you are just now diving into a journey of personal change I think he is a wonderful guy to start with. But for those who are serious about wanting to push past their long term sticking points and to come out on top in a way they have never done before, we need someone a bit more scientific in their approach.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Scott Lee on February 3, 2010 at 8:23 PM, and is filed under Creative Growth, General Philosophy, Goal Setting/Goal Achieving, Personal Development. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 weeks ago
You shouldn’t have posted this, man. You can’t label your post “Steve P is WRONG!!!” and then commend and agree with him. Lots of confusing conflicts in this blog.
I read his stuff, and for the most part, I think it’s great and I agree with him. Sometimes I disagree, but that’s where it ends. If I don’t like what’s he’s writing, I don’t have to read it, or believe it. You can’t say he’s wrong hoping to somehow save all the people that don’t know better. And providing scientific proof is overrated. How much did we “know” 5 years ago that’s completely changed because of what we “know” today? And about the raw thing, people being nicer than those who eat cooked food, you’re making your own subjective, non-scientific claims about what you “think” is the real deal.
As for the Scientology, I don’t know a lot about it, but like so many eventually corrupted organizations, it started with a pure intention, and a lot of the ideas and skills have a very valid place in the realm of spirituality. Just like any religion, it’s best not to gather crowds in a hall conducted by 1 person, but to teach an individual how to find themselves, by themselves.
“Sorry, Steve, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of people who consume a raw food diet not only will not stick with it – they will not think it tastes very good either. On the other hand, if you let me have my grass fed beef with green beans and my daily multivitamin I will be very happy.”
You’re right, most people won’t stick with it, because it’s a move against social norms, and because they won’t do it long enough, they won’t experience and appreciate the best benefits of it. However, it’s “scientifically” proven that people who eat only raw food develop 100x more taste buds, and I can personally testify that raw food tastes better (than it normally does) after eating raw for so long.
Beef isn’t bad if it’s raw, and clean. Greens aren’t as healthy when they’re cooked, and multivitamins, while beneficial, aren’t nearly as effective as natural vitamins and minerals. We choose cooked beef, cooked veggies, and multivitamins because we’re all following society instead of asking ourselves why we’re listening to advertisements and letting Big Business tell us how we need to live.
My closing statement is:
You seem like a cool, intelligent guy. There are a lot of holes in your post, there are holes in Steve’s post, as well as my reply. We all need to strive to live more consciously. One of the things I admire so much about Steve is that he doesn’t (that I can recall) make hater posts to slam people. He is his own force. He wants people to take a conscious stand, because that’s all the world really needs.
So Pavlina may be WRONG in some areas of his writings, but overall, considering the wealth of value he is, and is trying to provide, he’s way more RIGHT than not.
about 3 weeks ago
After I posted this, I have read his book. Here’s my primary problem with Steve Pavlina: he’s a guy who gets people really excited about doing something and then proceeds to tell them how to do very little.
Scientific proof is NOT overrated. The past five years? They are making progress all the time, especially in behavioral science. We are learning more and more about the different portions of the brain using lesion studies and the instrumentation such as the fMRI that enables us to study the various functions of the brain more adequately.
Take a look at the top inventions of the past 50 years as according to Popular Mechanics and it’s not hard to see that science is behind every single one of them:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/2078467
Steve is completely unscientific and writes primarily about where his intuition gets him. The reason I’m not writing a post to completely bash him is because he’s not worth completely bashing – he has some good thoughts, an interesting perspective, and does provide people with some value. But if there is anything I would say is overrated, it’s Steve.
You might ask, “Why waste your time writing about why he’s wrong? What good does it do?” An answer would be that for one – I do not have to have a reason to write anything but two would more importantly be that the perspective he has, and so many other “gurus” like him have is HARMFUL to many different people. His idea of manifestation is entirely misleading: there’s a fat and obvious difference staring you in the face between finding coins on the ground versus starting a business and making millions.
His attitude that making thousands is just as easy as making pennies if you “know how to manifest it” is, I’m sorry to say, the wrong one to have. If you want the real truth about money, don’t follow your feelings and what “the Universe is telling you.” DO THE MATH. You can ‘manifest’ over $900 more dollars at the end of the year, for example, if you do not buy Starbucks every day. That’s science, not what Steve is actually teaching.
He teaches in abstracts and abstracts are a part of everyone’s development but my main point is that the evidence POINTS THE WAY, not emotion, not feelings. What do the FACTS tell you? The cold, ugly, hard, dirty truth is in empiricism. Even when we’re talking about life happiness this is STILL the case.
Treating everything and everyone in terms of a subjective reality perspective is not the only way to go and more importantly: it’s not the BEST way to go.
In response to your thoughts on food: I agree with what you said and believe you that raw food tastes better the longer and more you eat it – I’ve experienced the same thing with my low carb diet. Society doesn’t have to tell me to cook and eat beef, I do it because science (and my emotional whim and taste buds) told me to.
We could also say society tells me to eat french fries, chips, sandwiches, and lots of other unhealthy food but I don’t follow that norm. People not eating one particular way might be influenced by societal norms but I would disagree that’s their primary motivation for not doing it.