Problem with references is that they're not accurate. People who seek out a life-coach are already working to improve themselves. Along with seeing the life-coach they will make other changes to their life that might improve things, and they will blindly attribute the positive changes to that paid experience.
You can see this in people who were criminals then become deeply religious. Their lives "improve" after becoming devout in their faith because they stop abusing substance, smoking, gambling and associating with other criminals. What the dogma gave them is just some codified rules, no one else needs to join the religion to reap the benefits of discipline, but to the practitioners, their faith is the end all be all and they have evidence to prove "it works".
> What the dogma gave them is just some codified rules, no one else needs to join the religion to reap the benefits of discipline, but to the practitioners, their faith is the end all be all and they have evidence to prove "it works".
I wouldn't make such a sweeping statement about everybody who became religious, even if you're only talking about criminals. You have no way of knowing this.
I am not talking about religion alone, that was only an example, take any other "system" to organize human behavior that doesn't directly credit the human adopter, and it's the same.
Another example is people who swear by military service as the only way to become disciplined.
On the other hand, people may quit alcohol consumption based on brief news accounts about the results of scientific research at Harvard Medical School. Such people have little more first hand evidence for modifying their behavior than a person acting out of spiritual devotion.
When the effect of one person reading USA Today is identical to the effect of another person's reading of The Feast:90, then there is no difference from a pragmatic point of view...even though we are inclined to judge one logical and the other dogmatic.
If the USA Today reader claimed his life is better because he reads USA Today, I would judge him just as irrational.
But what usually happens is that the person reading, usually secondhand, research publications makes the changes in behavior for the sole purpose of self-improvement, and he takes credit for it: "I quit drinking heavily because I care about my life."
He doesn't credit the source of the information for his betterment. He knows he could just as easily get health news, movie listings, cooking recipes, travel trips and Soduku from any other newspaper. Should he make wise stock-picks or improve his health, USA Today would not be the first to be thanked for this, because, most certainly, he gathers news from various other sources.
> "If the USA Today reader claimed his life is better because he reads USA Today, I would judge him just as irrational."
I understand and appreciate your point. However, it is common for someone in that situation to describe their rationale as "recent scientific studies" or words to that effect.
One might even observe that the person claiming a scientific rationale for their behavior is typically further removed from the evidence they cite than a person relying on a religious text (which they have often read directly). Many people are predisposed to accept the claim of a scientific basis unquestioningly (a point brought out by the original article) and to dismiss claims based on religious texts as unthinking dogma. Yet we are ready to accept the intellectual validity of "Catcher in the Rye" changed my life.
I don't see any reason to believe that a person claiming to rely on science has more claim to acting for the sake of self improvement than a person relying on religious teachings. Both care deeply about their lives.
Thank you for taking the time to respond intelligently.
I completely understand what you mean and it bugs me to hear, often from myself, that a certain work of fiction "changed my life". Sometimes in exaggeration, to emphasize our appreciation, but often not.
And yes, I get your point about blind trust of "published" materials.
I really hoped to see a better argument than "trust me" ..
People are terrible at identifying what is responsible for improving their lives, and are all too readily willing to credit something else, just as they are to blame; instead of identifying and acknowledging their own efforts, or the lack of them.
I picked religion as an example because it's something people credit for their well-being almost everywhere.
And I am certain "placebo" is a well studied phenomenon, and proven to exist.
You can see this in people who were criminals then become deeply religious. Their lives "improve" after becoming devout in their faith because they stop abusing substance, smoking, gambling and associating with other criminals. What the dogma gave them is just some codified rules, no one else needs to join the religion to reap the benefits of discipline, but to the practitioners, their faith is the end all be all and they have evidence to prove "it works".