Steve, You're becoming more close minded

[TimRobinson]

This isn't about being polyamorous, I'm all for that, I've been polyamorous before in my life and it was great experiencing connections with so many people at once. I do truely believe it is an excellent way to live.

I've been reading this blog practically since it started (and dexterity articles before then) and I've noticed over the past 6 months or so you've started falling into the trap most guru's fall into, the trap of turning your ideas into your identity and are starting to sound more like a close minded guru or teacher than a conciously growing companion. As well as taking comments from others personally rather than looking at them from a more objective point of view.

You've started to use a lot more deflection in your posts than ever before, which is the first sign that you're becoming close minded to other points of view, saying things like

This is an area where people are clearly projecting their own personal issues onto us.Most of the negative feedback in this area is so far out of sync with reality, I can’t even relate to it. There’s just no shred of truth to grasp because such feedback has nothing to do with us whatsoever. The best response I can offer these fear-mongers is a eye roll. Maybe for good measure, I can add, “Oh, please. Get real.”

"To label this journey a selfish one is simply ignorant. I suspect those who label it this way are having issues coming to terms with their own desire for greater physical intimacy. Consequently, they attack me because I’m a symbol that reminds them of their inner discontent."

You seem to be Deflecting the views of everyone else as "someone elses problem" if they don't align with your current point of view.

By Doing this deflection you're closing yourself off from love and oneness though disconnecting and deflecting their thoughts.

At the same time you are also closing yourself off from truth in seeing the full light of the situation (someone may present to you some amazing insights which you glaze over).

Acting in this way does strengthen your power, but is that really worth closing yourself off from truth and love?

Of course I know you wouldn't have chosen to start becoming more close minded, I think it's more a result of where you are in this point in time (becoming more of a guru with your own book / much more popular blog).

In fact I think it may have started with the release of the book, simply because now instead of being a freeform blogger exploring different areas of growth and personal development you've zoned in on your *theory* so to speak and don't want to move away from that as that would cause a loss of identity.

It's ok to take that as the main construct of your personal growth, I just don't want you to get too stuck in the mindset of "this is the only way" and only teach the one underlying philsophy, which in turn will be a detriment growth in your readers as it is closing theirs (and your) mind to the possiblity that there could be a more empowering personal development framework out there.

One big example is that of Mystery:

The methods Mystery teaches for Pick Up Artists have long been superceded by much faster, more effective and better ways to pick up women. However mystery still teaches the same system he taught 5 years ago due to that becoming his identity.

He's a clear cut case of someone who had a huge amount of growing experience with women (and life in general) in those 7-8 years of experience he had before he became an instructor, then when he became an instructor his growth has slowed to a crawl simply because his framework built an identity he can't get out of.

He stopped growing, he stopped improving and now seems to only be the "go to guy" for newbies to get into PUA before they move onto more advanced, evolving, constantly growing methods and systems that help them not only become a better PUA, but a better person.

I'd hate for you to fall into the same trap.

Just helping you shed light on something you may not have realized.

Cheers, Tim

[-B-]

He's pretty 'closed minded' about being a raw foodist too.

[Trezker]

I have felt this too. The tone in his posts this last year has become more defensive. It seems strange since he's written about defensiveness before. Then he explained how not to take things personally, not accepting the negative "gifts" and so on.

The defensiveness in the blog only invites people to bash you even more and the remarks are unnecessary anyway.

Another thing I've noticed lately is a somewhat higher rate of spelling and grammar errors. He's pumping out longer texts at a higher rate but I think he lets quality slip a bit too much.

[Jonathan Browne]

This guy doesn't have to live his life to any of your standards. It's his life, not yours.

[cristio]

The way i perceive it:

more and more amazining blogs; and yes, i noticed they are longer and somehow still easy (easier) to read and clear (like dropping the Ads, Create&Deliver and now poly)

I can understand that he is going to upset some ppl (like a previous poster said, he is pretty strong about vegan too). There are some of his blogs that i don't relate to or i just don't go and read.

I must admit that reading those posts i had an "A-ha" moment and started to be interested. And he did that to me many more times. Is like opening doors you might not have seen or bothered to notice. But I am not a vegan (sometimes i do 30 or 60 days of vegetarian) and i don't feel like going there. Still, i am not offended by his opinion about ppl who touch meat.

I didn't read the forums, so i don't know if he attracted that much flake before. If not, maybe is the subject of the posts, but also maybe is the tonality. Still I don't find it offending.
My curiosity is maybe stronger?
Also, I have to admit that i agree with most of his "defensive" words. Especially the ones cited in this thread by TimRobinson.

So, i cant agree with Tim... my feeling is Steve is becoming much more open-minded.


Cristian

[Parthon]

I'm not sure myself if he is being defensive or not, I guess it dependson how you read into it.

From what he's said though, I get the impression that he honestly accepts and reads what everyone writes to him, but he also notices that so much of it comes from low levels of consciousness. The people sending him the emails aren't conscious enough to really communicate fully and help Steve grow because they are still stuck in their own stuff.

To put in more concrete terms, if 100 people called you a prick, would you believe them? Maybe. Now, do you embrace the prickness and lower your consciousness, or do you look for the truth, and bring love into your life so you are less of a prick.

How about people who cut you off on the freeway, then give you the finger and call you an arsehole? Are they acting out because of the way you drive, or because they are an angry driver?

I do, like you, really hope Steve doesn't go stale. Just from his experiments into the weird and wonderful side of life, I don't think that's going to happen for years to come. I think Steve would only go stale if he ran out of ways to grow, and I don't think he would stop trying to grow until the world is a peaceful paradise for everyone.

Now, why did you get so defensive about him possibly growing stale? Is it because you don't think your growth is going as fast as it could right now?

[Savage]

Read Chapter 5, and you'll have a better understanding of the nature of this change. To put it simply, I've been gaining more clarity and certainty about certain things.

I can understand why you might interpret it as close-mindedness, defensiveness, arrogance, or something along those lines though.

Your challenge is to step into your own Authority and learn what's true and empowering for you. You can agree or disagree with me however you wish -- it doesn't matter. You have to build authority over your own life. You're the author.

[jawillie]

Thank you!!!

And I still say... when polyamory is "the norm" will monogamy be the new "high-conscious" way to live??? I don't buy it.

It's not ACTIONS that make for high conscious-living. It's the reasons why you do what you do. Free thinking is high-conscious living, isn't it? When we all have to "do" certain things to be "highly conscious" then it's just another religion with a different name.

[Jack Christopher]

There are two versions of closed-mindedness: The first, is the refusal to accept new ideas. The second, from realizing there's nothing left to consider, because you've got to the truth and you've concluded the issue.

Steve's hitting the second. And his response to criticism is his standard response. Excluding the early days, he's always responded with, "You're reacting to yourself, not me."

But I see where you're coming from. And I do agree that something has changed since then; the audience.

The early blog comments were more critical of his ideas; He wasn't a "guru" then. Now they criticize the man; there's ownership of Steve the person.

It's like that local band you've listened to since day one, that suddenly blow up to pop stardom. At first, you'd criticize their songs; they wanted positive feedback. Now, you hate them for being mainstream sell outs; You've taken ownership of them.

In essence Steve is taking the criticism exactly as is natural.

[Savage]

@Jack: I also noticed that critical feedback increased a LOT after my book came out, and it didn't matter what I wrote about or how I wrote about it. As you noted, there was a shift from criticizing the ideas to more personal attacks.

I think some people got used to me being Steve the Blogger for so long, and something about me becoming Steve the Author disturbed them deeply. Mostly I saw this kind of reaction from fellow bloggers who weren't authors themselves.

For me this wasn't that much of a border crossing, but I think some people saw it differently, like it represented a transition from amateur to pro. Even successful pro bloggers have an air of amateurism about them.

I think there's a lot of underlying resentment, but it really isn't about me. People read all sorts of things into my writing that I never put in.

To a lesser degree, I saw this same dynamic arise when I started doing very well financially as a blogger a few years ago. Many people found it inspiring and helpful when I shared income figures, and tons of new blogs were launched as a result. But others went on the attack, perhaps due to jealousy or envy. Several people claimed I was lying. Partly this is why I stopped posting specific income updates. I got tired of dealing with the negative reactions, especially from other bloggers who weren't doing as well financially.

To me this is all a scarcity dynamic. When I see someone succeed in a big way, it inspires me. I want to learn how they did it. But some people actually feel like more of a failure when they watch someone else succeed. This makes them want to backlash against that person to boost their self-esteem.

Do I feel superior to others because I'm an author or because I make a certain amount of money? No, of course not. That's just silly. Those kinds of reactions invariably come from people who've never even met me.

Since I can't unpublish my book, I imagine this is something I'll always have to deal with. Some people are always going to be pissed off by what I represent to them.

[newmark]

Originally Posted by jawillie

Thank you!!!

And I still say... when polyamory is "the norm" will monogamy be the new "high-conscious" way to live??? I don't buy it.

It's not ACTIONS that make for high conscious-living. It's the reasons why you do what you do. Free thinking is high-conscious living, isn't it? When we all have to "do" certain things to be "highly conscious" then it's just another religion with a different name.

I agree that a lifestyle choice will not raise consciousness by itself.

Moving from polyamory to monogamy could, for some people, be very conscious raising. And so could be moving from either to celibacy; or vice versa.

It all depends on why you are doing it; and how.

[Jumanji]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

@Jack: I also noticed that critical feedback increased a LOT after my book came out, and it didn't matter what I wrote about or how I wrote about it. As you noted, there was a shift from criticizing the ideas to more personal attacks.

I think some people got used to me being Steve the Blogger for so long, and something about me becoming Steve the Author disturbed them deeply. Mostly I saw this kind of reaction from fellow bloggers who weren't authors themselves.

For me this wasn't that much of a border crossing, but I think some people saw it differently, like it represented a transition from amateur to pro. Even successful pro bloggers have an air of amateurism about them.

I think there's a lot of underlying resentment, but it really isn't about me. People read all sorts of things into my writing that I never put in.

To a lesser degree, I saw this same dynamic arise when I started doing very well financially as a blogger a few years ago. Many people found it inspiring and helpful when I shared income figures, and tons of new blogs were launched as a result. But others went on the attack, perhaps due to jealousy or envy. Several people claimed I was lying. Partly this is why I stopped posting specific income updates. I got tired of dealing with the negative reactions, especially from other bloggers who weren't doing as well financially.

To me this is all a scarcity dynamic. When I see someone succeed in a big way, it inspires me. I want to learn how they did it. But some people actually feel like more of a failure when they watch someone else succeed. This makes them want to backlash against that person to boost their self-esteem.

Do I feel superior to others because I'm an author or because I make a certain amount of money? No, of course not. That's just silly. Those kinds of reactions invariably come from people who've never even met me.

Since I can't unpublish my book, I imagine this is something I'll always have to deal with. Some people are always going to be pissed off by what I represent to them.

Steve,

no offence but before December 2008 I had never heard of you. I don't even recall how I came across your site but there is so much useful advice on there I bookmarked it and I'm glad I did.

I am not a blogger, and I'm not fussed that you became an author. I take the good things from your blogs and filter out the stuff which isn't relevant to me. I guess other guys in your field might feel it more personally, and vice versa it has to be said.

[RT Wolf]

Every stimulus affords a million different responses.

TimRobinson, in this case, I disagree with your conclusion that he's deflecting. I think he's stopped pulling his punches and just saying it like he sees it, which I'd agree is accurate. People aren't responding to him per se, they're responding to their understanding of reality and of him. Some people are further perceiving this as, "I don't care what you think cause you're not good enough to pay attention to."

Earlier, I've perceived him to be be more courteous that some readers might be angered by what he does and he added to one of his early posts on beliefs somin to the effect of, "I know this will anger some people because it talks about religion. An important part of personal development includes spirituality and religious beliefs." or somin to that effect. It was compassionate in a sense. Later on, he just said, "Religion is spiritual immaturity." Would you say he's getting close-minded cause he is no longer concerned with pissing off some people? I believe he's written somewhere already that writing in an oppositional way encourages people to think more, which is one of his goals.

Now, the above is my understanding of this situation. However, I'm presenting it as a possible alternate explanation to yours. I dunno how Steve sees it.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

Every stimulus affords a million different responses.

TimRobinson, in this case, I disagree with your conclusion that he's deflecting. I think he's stopped pulling his punches and just saying it like he sees it, which I'd agree is accurate. People aren't responding to him per se, they're responding to their understanding of reality and of him. Some people are further perceiving this as, "I don't care what you think cause you're not good enough to pay attention to."

Earlier, I've perceived him to be be more courteous that some readers might be angered by what he does and he added to one of his early posts on beliefs somin to the effect of, "I know this will anger some people because it talks about religion. An important part of personal development includes spirituality and religious beliefs." or somin to that effect. It was compassionate in a sense. Later on, he just said, "Religion is spiritual immaturity." Would you say he's getting close-minded cause he is no longer concerned with pissing off some people? I believe he's written somewhere already that writing in an oppositional way encourages people to think more, which is one of his goals.

Now, the above is my understanding of this situation. However, I'm presenting it as a possible alternate explanation to yours. I dunno how Steve sees it.

Actually I see it pretty much the way you described it.

In the beginning I would soften and/or pre-qualify some of my points to cut off possible negative reactions. But as traffic grew, I realized that was an impossible task, and that it just didn't matter anyway. So I decided to simply let people whine and complain about what they didn't like, call me arrogant, whatever... since I began to see that resistance as part of their growth process. It had nothing to do with me anyway.

[RT Wolf]

Ok, cool. Thanks for confirming that, Steve.

I have also found value in deciding who I care the opinions of. Consciously make a decision allows my feelings to come through afterwards.

[Parthon]

It's funny that.

Choosing whether to ignore or cherish a person's advice is an intelligent move, if done from a place of love, power and truth. And even if you ignore their advice, you can still love the person. Not all advice is good, and like Steve has said before, advice says more about the person saying it than the person receiving it.

Perhaps we should all look to the advice we are giving and see if it applies to us first.

[Matt Willard]

Originally Posted by Parthon

It's funny that.

Choosing whether to ignore or cherish a person's advice is an intelligent move, if done from a place of love, power and truth. And even if you ignore their advice, you can still love the person. Not all advice is good, and like Steve has said before, advice says more about the person saying it than the person receiving it.

Perhaps we should all look to the advice we are giving and see if it applies to us first.

I think we all just got owned

[Jumanji]

I came across this site quite recently and I had a mixed reaction. A lot of the personal development advice is on a different level to most other sites so I was impressed. Then in some articles I read Steve came across as a bit of a smart ass and I thought this guy is on a power trip.

It's interesting though when you land on a site through some random link and get a skewed picture by looking at topics which interest you for a certain reason which colours your vision. Today I came across this article

The Meaning of Life: Intro

which threw a totally different light. A lot of the conflicts he's gone through struck a chord and I saw a mirror of parts of my life, the difference being he addressed them and I stayed in the comfort zone.

I really enjoyed that article and it awoke something I probably hadn't realised I'd lost. Many thanks for that Steve, it was inspiring.

[ggwbach]

when one has collected a lot of evidence, and subjected it to lengthy analysis, one can become quite certain of the results. This often presents as someone pontificating, or preaching, or being full-of-oneself, but certainty gives its own assurance.

it can put some people off, but the truth is the truth.

its state simply and directly, with little hedging.

by its very nature, its 'out there'.

[SimonaRich]

About the length of his articles. Sometimes bloggers/authors do get burned out, this is natural. It is unlikely that he would write only perfect articles.

[Judge]

Steve's ego is no different than anyone else's. The more it's fed the larger it grows. No ego can get the attention that Steve gets and not swell, that's what all the ego's do as it's a natural by-product of egoic self concern.

Is it a bad thing?

Only if you're own egoic self becomes jealous of Steve's ego

In truth it's your own ego that is suffering. If Steve didn't exist, then your ego would find something else to be jealous over. Steve's ego isn't the problem and in fact there are no problems 'out there' because any problem that exists, is your egoic reaction to content. Content and form are all neutral in context.

If you remove Steve and all the other things to react to in your life, what's left? Your ego is lost, threatened, fearful that it won't stand out and exist. This is why we search constantly to find stuff to react to and it's never the Steve(s) or the boss at work or the realtionship or the lack of something.

It is always your ego looking for a way to exsit and that can only be achieved by reacting to content and in this case the content is called Steve Pavlina.

Judge

[DerekH]

Originally Posted by Judge

Steve's ego is no different than anyone else's. The more it's fed the larger it grows. No ego can get the attention that Steve gets and not swell, that's what all the ego's do as it's a natural by-product of egoic self concern.

Is it a bad thing?

Only if you're own egoic self becomes jealous of Steve's ego

In truth it's your own ego that is suffering. If Steve didn't exist, then your ego would find something else to be jealous over. Steve's ego isn't the problem and in fact there are no problems 'out there' because any problem that exists, is your egoic reaction to content. Content and form are all neutral in context.

If you remove Steve and all the other things to react to in your life, what's left? Your ego is lost, threatened, fearful that it won't stand out and exist. This is why we search constantly to find stuff to react to and it's never the Steve(s) or the boss at work or the realtionship or the lack of something.

It is always your ego looking for a way to exsit and that can only be achieved by reacting to content and in this case the content is called Steve Pavlina.

Judge

OMG you figured it ALL OUT! THANKS MAN!

[JeromeX]

Originally Posted by Judge

Steve's ego is no different than anyone else's. The more it's fed the larger it grows. No ego can get the attention that Steve gets and not swell, that's what all the ego's do as it's a natural by-product of egoic self concern.

Is it a bad thing?

Only if you're own egoic self becomes jealous of Steve's ego

In truth it's your own ego that is suffering. If Steve didn't exist, then your ego would find something else to be jealous over. Steve's ego isn't the problem and in fact there are no problems 'out there' because any problem that exists, is your egoic reaction to content. Content and form are all neutral in context.

If you remove Steve and all the other things to react to in your life, what's left? Your ego is lost, threatened, fearful that it won't stand out and exist. This is why we search constantly to find stuff to react to and it's never the Steve(s) or the boss at work or the realtionship or the lack of something.

It is always your ego looking for a way to exsit and that can only be achieved by reacting to content and in this case the content is called Steve Pavlina.

Judge

Then what you gonna do with your ego? Kill it?
Don't judge and blame your or Steve's ego man. You are nothing without ego in THIS world. Giving up the judgement is the first step to tame your ego.

[Parthon]

As far as I've read, Steve seems to be one of the most down to earth and well-connected-to-others guys out there. I doubt he's very egoic at all. I think it's his persona that's huge, and that would be what our own ego's react to: The persona we apply to the person we think of as Steve.

As for the ego, it's your best friend and confidant, but it's quite a curmudgeon. It's best to love it as a fundamental part of yourself, but also train it and not let it control you. The ego isn't the problem, it's when we let it make the decisions. It's quite an unruly child when it gets it's way.

[bluedragon]

I listened yesterday to Steve's podcast about overcoming fear and he says that the only way he was able to transcend fear was to understand Buddha's advice that other people are not separated from him and therefore it's impossible to be afraid of anyone, since everyone is his own creation. It's funny, cause in this case, it means all of you (an me) are not something different than him, but only his perception or imagination. So it would make no sense for him to worry about criticism from people.
I think I am beginning to come to the same conclusion myself. Do you still hold that belief, Steve? How does that influence your attitude in this matter?

[Parthon]

Rofl! That's awesome!

I don't see why he would give up such an awesome belief. Hell, it's the core of an entire chapter of his book.

Can you imagine that though. Your little pinky finger turning around and saying "Yo! Big guy! You suck!" ... BAHAHAHA.

In that space, all that exists is forgiveness. You just can't wish ill or take offense to another part of you. "How dare you say that Mr Finger! I've very angry at you right now!" Hehehe.

Thanks for the insight bluedragon.

[supertom]

I think its funny that he points out his own book proves hes not-closed minded