| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Steve Pavlina Discuss ideas, articles, and podcasts from StevePavlina.com. New threads are automatically generated for Steve's latest blog posts. |
|
Welcome to the Personal Development for Smart People Forums, the place for lively, intelligent discussion of all personal growth issues -- physical, mental, financial, social, emotional, spiritual, and more. You're currently viewing as a guest, which gives you limited read-only access. By joining our free community, you'll be able to post your own messages, access many members-only features, see the new messages posted since your last visit, and of course remove this header message. Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please join today. If you arrived here from a search engine, you may want to explore the main site first, which includes hundreds of deep and insightful articles on a variety of personal development topics. |
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
09-20-2007, 08:00 PM
| |||
| |||
 David Schirmer Exposed (Blog)      |
|
09-20-2007, 09:14 PM
| |||
| |||
| Sounds like he never established "truth" as one of the items on his list of desires to manifest.  |
|
09-20-2007, 09:43 PM
| |||
| |||
| Not surprising The whole over-production of "The Secret" carries mixed messages and hidden intent. Rather than coming from a genuine place, to me, it moved like an ad designed to "sell" the secret. Make it sound rare, make it mysterious, and promise sudden wealth to those who learn to use it. The biggest promise I took from the DVD were the certainty of all the spin-off products for those involved in it's making. There have been many genuinely motivated mainstream books written on this so-called guarded secret, that date back a few decades. As a Man Thinketh by James Allen, and Three Magic Words by U.S. Andersen come to mind. I'm not at all surprised to see the lack of honest intent by David Schirmer. Let's hope it serves as a reminder to us to be clear about where we stand, act accordingly -- and really mean it. Cheers, John John Rocheleau Canadian Artist |
|
09-20-2007, 10:12 PM
| |||
| |||
| I wonder how does this all reflect on the secret? Specially after i saw Bob Proctor with him. If it were just Schirmer... but with Bob hanging with him now it's kinda on everybody from the secret. Before i wasn't "doubting" so to speak in the industry i guess because i was still "new". But after a while of sucking information in (2-3 years) and after seeing a lot of things you start to wonder is this all just a scam? I mean, everything with teaching self-help, personal development industry? I believe that personal development is really possible and real but pd industry? Meaning: teaching others and making money from people misery? Or to put it in a different way. How do all these people really make a difference in others peoples life's? Real difference? Let's face it. Self-help gurus weren't successful before stepping in to sh teaching and that includes Steve. (Ok he was running good but he wasn't that successful as he is now.) And their success is their biggest asset in teaching, giving them credibility. The facts: 1.Somebody sells you a product that should help you and solve "some stuff" in your life 2.I don't believe there is a human being that quit buying these products because he solved "the stuff" in his life. It was either disappointment or there never was any quiting. What does that tell us? |
|
09-20-2007, 10:27 PM
| |||
| |||
| Steve doesn't charge us anything for his services. I personally have learned a great deal from him as well as from Erin, and it hasn't cost me a dime. I will purchase his book when it's released. This David Schirmer guy has a very smarmy vibe about him. Do not want.
__________________ We are continually faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems. - John W. Gardner |
|
09-20-2007, 10:37 PM
| |||
| |||
| I too learned a lot from Steve, that is not the point. And his free material makes his credibility i would say. But i don't want this to be pro vs. contra steve post. It's about teaching others and it's effects and who gets the real benefits of it? The teacher or the student? |
|
09-20-2007, 10:38 PM
| |||
| |||
| I would say a denial vs. a secret Most people are not aware of how their thoughts (and vibes they put out) effect their life. Successful people draw other successful people to them. Examine the people you know: some are negative and everything seems to go wrong for them (they make bad choices/are careless). Others seems to glide through life, have peace and accomplish whatever they set there minds to. I suppose David got caught up in greed. I am sure he has some investment expertise. It was so easy...he got caught up. |
|
09-20-2007, 10:38 PM
| |||
| |||
| Schirmer the member of "The Secret" gang (tm)... :-) He was just little less sophisticated than other guys, i.e. you can pin the stuff on him. Other guys are just more subtle, but I would say that most of it is at least misleading... The secret about "The Secret" is that it is designed to make the money for people that published the book and DVD. There are no other secrets. I don't know how much they sold but with the amount of publicity they've got it has to be sizable chunk of change I bet... They worked hard for it though, they push it for couple of years until they made it big. It is magnificent piece of marketing, I have to give them that :-) What always, always amazes me is the amount of people that actually want to believe in lot of this crap. Like those guys investing with Schirmer for 900% return. I mean how deluded you have to be? Polag, you are right most of these guys got rich by telling others how to get rich. However, they exist because there is market for the stuff they sell. And market is like vacuum, it sucks in the stuff to fulfill demand. |
|
09-20-2007, 10:40 PM
| |||
| |||
| Polag, You've hit on the heart of the damage when you ask, "wonder is this all just a scam? I mean, everything with teaching self-help, personal development industry? " As with everything, you get more than what is offered on the surface of it; you also get some of the hidden intent behind the offer. If the teacher, writer, or speaker is clear about their motivation, and it is what they say it is, then you'll get the real deal if you are ready to receive it. If the teacher isn't clear or honest with himself or you, then you'll get some of that disconnect as a not-so-special bonus, along with the offer. As I read Steve's articles I get a clear message. I know he makes a bundle doing this, but he seems honest about why he wants to write what he does. And that makes all the difference. Did you watch the video clip that Steve posted a link to, of Mr Rogers speaking to the US Senate? Now there's an example of purity of intent. Did he make a lot of money doing it? Does it matter? Cheers, John |
|
09-20-2007, 10:42 PM
| |||
| |||
| I've had a reasonable amount of behind-the-scenes interaction with other people who work in the PD field. I've encountered some people whose obsession with money, status, and ego gratification creeps me out. But I've also met people I really respect and consider to be of high integrity. Most people fall somewhere in the middle, polarized neither one way or the other. One person I greatly respect in this field is Marc Allen. He struck me as incredibly authentic, both in his writing and during a phone conversation. I think his authenticity comes across in his interview too. I know someone who turned down a substantial six-figure book deal from a mainstream publisher in order to have it published by Marc Allen's company, New World Library, since he knew he could trust them. When I asked Marc Allen why he wanted to be a millionaire, he replied: I always knew that being a millionaire was not all that important — there are far more things that are far more important, such as family, friends, and doing what you love to do in life. I knew early on that the most important thing for me was to do what I loved to do in my life, and make that work somehow. And it always has. That bit of knowledge has served me very well. Kent Nerburn said a brilliant thing about money in his book Letters to My Son: “Money is central to our lives. Yet money is not of central importance. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the lasting values that make life worth living.” This is good to keep in mind, always. It helps us keep money in the proper perspective. It is a very, very good servant but a terrible master. That being said, I realized in my early thirties that being a millionaire is a very good goal. It’s a solid, concrete number that your subconscious mind can grab hold of. My motivation for that goal was simple: It dawned on me one day that I wanted to write books and write and record music, and be successful enough to continue to do it for the rest of my life — and doing what I love to do is far easier with substantial reserves in liquid assets than it is with no money. So I decided to become a millionaire. That became a clear goal in my mind. When you make a clear goal, and when you remind yourself of it enough so that your subconscious mind grasps it, an amazing, mysterious thing happens. Some part of you starts working backwards from that number, and finding how to achieve it. It’s difficult for me to explain how I feel the process works, but when you decide to become a millionaire, you automatically start asking yourself how you can reach that goal. And once you start asking that question, you start getting answers. All kinds of possibilities become obvious to you — they were always there, but you never saw them before because you weren’t looking for them. |
|
09-20-2007, 10:48 PM
| |||
| |||
| I loved the movie the Secret when I first saw it. It solidified the concept of law of attraction for me in a way that I could easily understand. I saw that the people in the movie were focusing on wealth creation but that didn't bother me. I got out of it what I needed to. The movie had real value to me and I don't regret watching it and I'm glad it was made. Finding out that some of the people who were featured in the movie are seemingly only concerned with money makes me sad but it still doesn't devalue the lessons and informatin I got from the movie. I think we should separate the two. I also think there are people out there who are genuinely trying to help others, then get popular and make a lot of money and then the money goes to their head and they crave more and start doing things that are not as genuine. But I also think there are people out there trying to genuinely help people, who make a lot of money, and it's simply a byproduct of the value they are giving to others. Dr. Wayne Dyer springs to mind. Not all people who get rich helping others are in it only for the money. Some may be, but we shouldn't judge everyone based on one or a few people's actions.
__________________ Erin Pavlina, Psychic Medium Book a reading | Readings FAQ | Testimonials "I’ve had many readings over the years, and it takes quite a lot to impress me, but you blew me away." - Marci Shimoff, author of Happy For No Reason, Chicken Soup for the Woman's Soul, and featured in The Secret |
|
09-20-2007, 11:01 PM
| |||
| |||
| I watched the secret and enjoyed it. It was very inspiring and got me thinking about the effect of thought on reality. Of course it's materialistic, shallow, and overproduced. But that has nothing to do with me. I am beginning to wonder, though, if the excessive production, along with the questionable behavior of at least one member of the cast, is actually doing more to harm the LOA's reputation. |
|
09-20-2007, 11:05 PM
| |||
| |||
| I'd just like to point out that the TV show made tonnes of money reporting about this guy making tonnes of money off of people without complete integrity. Not that I am defending the guy, but the way they ambushed him and mis-represented themselves into tricking him to be on camera is the exact same thing he did to his clients. Law of Attraction right there. Also, who were the "suckers" to him? People who want 900-1000% rates of return on their investment...aka something for nothing. Why did he become a "sucker" to the TV Show? Because he wanted something for nothing - tonnes of free publicity without anything to "publicize about". I think the media is bored with "Could the Secret really work?" so they're going to now turn their attention towards "The Secret a Scam? Could it be?" and they'll look for people using "The Secret" to scam people. Nothing new. They always have to sensationalize everything. Personally after watching the video I still really don't have a clue what this guy does or who these "victims" are. I don't get how he's able to fill seats and make millions. If he has thousands of "clients" in each seminar and this TV show found 5 or 6 people that are unhappy, what happened to the other 99% of his client base? How is he making money for them? Like I said, I'm not trying to defend the guy. I'm just saying there seems to be something missing in this story. |
|
09-20-2007, 11:10 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
A Current Affair told Schirmer that there were people who were seeking his financial assistance. It simply turned out that the people seeking financial assistance were the people he ripped off. Schirmer stole, ACA exposed him, plain and simple. Quote:
__________________ Best, Dan Linehan |
|
09-20-2007, 11:53 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
 Once again, I'm not defending the guy. If he stole from people, he's an idiot. But if people gave him $92k and he stole it, why haven't they called the Police? Why not sue the guy? I don't know. Personally, I always take anything I see from the media with a grain of salt. They are masters at spinning a story any way they want. They are really good at magnifying the hurt of the public. Constantly showing this guy driving his BMW and once again presenting that "Rich guy must be EVIL" archetype. I remember when the Michael Jackson trial was on I cought a segment where they had an interview with an FBI agent who was saying that he knows "FOR SURE" that Michael molested kids because he had cameras in the hallway leading into his room and he had a button in the room that locked all the doors. That was his reasoning for being "SURE" that Michael was a child molester. I know someone who's a multi-millionaire and he has cameras outside and inside his home. He uses them for security purposes and to keep an eye on his nannies etc. while they are with his kids. That doesn't make him a child molester. Once again, I'm not defending Michael either, I'm just saying that if I had a net worth like that, I'd have camera's in my hallways and a panic room in my house. |
|
09-21-2007, 12:03 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
What ACA did was an interview that exposed someone who was stealing money. What Schirmer did was the stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from people that he was supposed to be investing for. These are not the same things, obviously. Spending $250,000 of stolen money on a new car is not a good thing to do. Its totally valid to report that Schirmer is saying he can't pay these people back yet is spending money like that.
__________________ Best, Dan Linehan |
|
09-21-2007, 12:25 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
We don't know he spent $250k of stolen money on that car. He could have legitimately earned it. This is why we have a legal system in the world that can cut through this crap and find the truth and act accordingly. I don't think trial by public opinion works. We might as well go back to chasing people out of town with pitch-forks if we're going to do that. Ask yourself this. If you went to his seminar and he said to you. Give me $92,000 cash and I will give you a 900% return in 1 year, would you give him the money? I mean, just look at his face and tell me if you would trust him with $92,000 of cash? With no contract? With no guarantee? Just hand over $92,000 cash? I would guess you wouldn't right? Then what are these people DOING!? There's gotta be more to this story than is being reported. Or I could be totally wrong. Maybe there's so many suckers out there that you can just put on a suit and say "Give me your money" and people will give it to you. |
|
09-21-2007, 01:17 AM
| |||
| |||
| Wow. His response was pathetic and it didn't even seem like he was trying to defend himself, but still alluded to the accusations at the same time. This is a classic example of someone who becomes successful only by telling other people how to be successful. He even tries to pitch one of his events in the video! People like this provide very little value to anyone and it's clear that the only reason he is rich is because he has taken value from other people, often without their consent.
__________________ Want readers? Try BLOG RUSH. It's 100% free. Still looking for the ideal diet? The answer is 10,000 years old: I'm an Omnivore |
|
09-21-2007, 01:33 AM
| |||
| |||
| Haven't seen the video in question so I can't really comment on who ambushed whom. But in Wallace Wattles' book he makes it pretty clear that those who make money through competition rather than creativity will always suffer downfall. Clearly - even if half the accusations against Schrimer are true - he falls into the competitive category. That doesn't necessarily prove or disprove Wattles' point, but it supports Wattles' theory. |
|
09-21-2007, 01:52 AM
| |||
| |||
| impaul99 : This is why I categorically ignore any information coming from A Current Affair (and the "slightly worse" Today Tonight). As you mention, it's a lot of editing trickery and the complete uselessness of a "surprise interview". I'm sure that if I was holding someone's money (honestly or otherwise) and I got surprised by an ACA interviewer asking "where's the money?" I'd say "I don't know, I didn't prepare for that question, I'd have to look it up". Of course, nor do I think Schirmer is a saint just to spite ACA. In the end the information is completely irrelevant to me. I'm smart enough to know not to invest at 900%pa without expecting some serious risk attached and without a strong contract to make everyone's intentions and obligations clear. I don't need ACA to tell me this. ACA isn't at all informative. It's simply mindless, shallow entertainment with a bit of fear thrown in for some nicotine-like addiction. Or it's slightly less shallow meta-entertainment, where you have fun picking apart the sneaky editing and invalid leaps of logic to try and identify the spin  |
|
09-21-2007, 02:15 AM
| |||
| |||
| My initial response swung between pity and sadistic glee. Watching him squirm after seeing all those people complain about their lost money, the sadist in me did a little dance. But tricking him into that sort of interview, was that really right? Even if he really is a nasty old conman, I still don't know that was the right tactic to take. I wouldn't like to be tricked like that. But I suppose for the people who lost their money, that sort of tactic is just perfect. They feel justified, they might even get a sadist kick out of it too. impaul99 has a good point about them people handing over their money like that though. Was there any contracts or gaurantees? If not, just wow... handing your money over to a stranger like that, maybe you deserve to get screwed over. |
|
09-21-2007, 03:00 AM
| |||
| |||
| Some of the people who are complaining were apparently employees owed back wages. I agree that this ACA show used some dishonest tactics so even if Schirmer is guilty I think ACA is guilty themselves of other dishonesties. Also, it's their show and they're going to edit it the way that draws the most viewers and makes them the most money so I'm not sure their motives are pure. Regardless of the ACA method, someone impartial should investigate the accusations. |