Articles's tone (rant)

[sadavis00]

Though I like a lot of Pavlina's ideas, I am getting increasingly put off by the tone of his recent articles (I am not a writer, so I don't know what tone means exactly, but the rant stand ). Earlier articles always contained personal experiences, like how he proved how polyphasic sleep could work. The tone seemed to be "see I did it, maybe you can do it, try it!". Recent articles seem to have the tone "this is how it is, do it now young padawan" as in the recent articles on polarity. OK, so the new articles have good intuitive arguments, but the reason I read blogs is for personal experiences and examples. Good intuitive arguments are also neccessary ofcourse, but the flavor comes from the personal experience, the more specific the better. For example, how did you find out about polarity? How did you become convinced? What thoughts went through your head? What difficulties did you experience? When and how did you finally succeed? How has polarity affected your own life? and so on....

[sirkinm]

I also have the sense that Steve's latest stuff is a bit of a departure from much of the past material. He's brought his unique perspective to bear on some hard-to-tackle issues of personal development in the past, but recently it seems that he's going into more specific, somewhat esoteric PD material. The newer entries are blowing my mind, which I really like. I think much of the past materials has laid the groundwork for the current entries.

But hey, if you want to go back to reading people's experience on raw food diets, there's probably a blog or two out there for you

[Paul C]

Reading this made me smile, thank you.

One thing to note: When reading blogs, read the ones that are specific to your needs. If one blogger cannot supply that demand, read another, then come back.

Your rant, though, is not an original idea when it comes to Steve's writing.

[Jill]

Sounds like someone's mom..."I don't like your tone, young man."

Read it or don't read it. I doubt Steve cares.

[Still Growing]

I agree that its as if someone new is writing the last few articles.

The reason is that all of his previous articles were written from a perspective of "Personal Development for Smart People" and the latest conflict with that very idea.

The motivation behind a "Million Dollar Experiment" is as a darkworker and the one behind explaining why darkworkers are bad and lightworkers like me are good.

Its ironic that Steve says that one polarity should be maintained but he is switching. I'm sure he would argue that he has been under the lightworker mentality since he started.

IMHO I think this is a phase for Steve and I'm sticking with him through it. Although Steve is very smart he is obviously doing a little soul searching right now. When he comes out on the other end he'll realize that people are neither purely good nor purely evil.

[Sunsingh]

the polarisation articles are some of the most interesting things I've ever found on the internet. I hope he adds more clarification in the future...

[sirkinm]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

The motivation behind a "Million Dollar Experiment" is as a darkworker and the one behind explaining why darkworkers are bad and lightworkers like me are good.

I'm not sure that he meant to convey that darkworkers are bad and lightworkers (like you ) are good -- in fact, I think he meant to convey (even if he wasn't that convincing) that it is pointless to attempt to label them good/bad.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Jill

Sounds like someone's mom..."I don't like your tone, young man."

Read it or don't read it. I doubt Steve cares.

I think sadavis' point was that we would all to know more about the background of Steve's recent articles. He is presenting really fresh ideas and does it so in a bit of 'de facto' fashion. Readers are just curious about what input inspired him this time, as they should be.

I'd be surprised if Steve doesn't care for honest feedback.

[Amadeus]

I don't think you all are being completely fair to Steve. This is Personal Development for Smart People. This is a blog for personal development for all, lightworkers and darkworkers. Steve is providing a service. When he writes an article like the Million Dollar Experiment you are assuming that he is participating in it and that he is trying to make more money for self to consume by self. Steve didn't say he has ALWAYS been a lightworker. He has been successful in the past as a lightworker and a darkworker.

MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT STEVE IS DOING HERE:
1. A lot of posts may be from when he was using his darkworker side.
2. He is writing to his audience. A lot of his audience, probably the majority, are darkworkers.
3. You are assuming that creating wealth for self would have to be darkerworker. Erin explained that you have to feel yourself up some in order to give.

Honestly, I think developing a personal development site like this is lightworker through and through. I really think Steve created this site to help people. I don't think he ever dreamed he would be making $12K+ a month doing this. With his education, intelligence, and drive he could have gone into a lot of other fields which SEEMS to more lucrative to a darkworker's mind. I think this site answers the question to whether he is a lightworker or a darkworker. HE IS S LIGHTWORKER.................now.

[John Wesley]

I know what you mean, I prefer the personal experience based writing as well. The way I see it though, everything on this site is free, so who are we to complain.

Steve has a limited amount of personal experience to draw from. Maybe he's already told us all his best stories. Maybe he feels like writing about something different. You can't write the same article more than once.

Who knows, this may just a phase and he'll go back to the more practical stuff when it suits him. Either way, I'm grateful for the insightful writing he's already given us.

[Kevin]

Many of the sentiments on this board mirror my own thoughts. Part of the reason I was initially attracted to this site was that Steve DIDN'T write like the majority of personal development writers: He was methodical and analytical, explained things logically, and generally assumed his audience was critical and skeptical, but open-minded and eager to learn. It was a unique perspective. The most recent articles -- to me at least -- feel hazier, and a lot more like lots of the other PD books I've seen and read.

I'm not saying Steve's articles on polarity are wrong or misguiding, just that they're among the first of his original ideas to require a pretty strong leap of faith to adopt. Everyone's mileage varies, and like someone else said, it's a free site. I've gotten a LOT of good advice from this site, and if I choose to abandon it for any reason, I'll do so knowing that it's done me worlds of good.

(And speaking as an English major and occasional college composition teacher, the word "tone" is used correctly by the OP.)