I am super disgusted that Anna continues to claim LoA is scientifically proven effective. I know why she does it: because that's what she googled to lift content from others without any real effort (content which I've definitely read before in many pseudoscientific spaces for free, and it made me roll my eyes there too).
For any wanting a quick recap of why they should NOT purchase Anna's course on the basis that she'll teach you LoA, in spite of her lengthy testimony that it 'worked for her to manifest a husband,' please consider:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-blame-game/201609/the-truth-about-the-law-attraction?amp
A free resource I mentioned before, Google Scholar, will reveal no
empirical studies demonstrating LoA's effects --
ever wonder why that is? I know Anna never did, because she doesn't have any critical thinking skills.
I want to avoid turning this into a debate about LoA, even though it's largely what Anna is selling in her newest course content, because I know I'll never convince some to let it go; it's one of those things that sounds very warm-and-cozy-and-in-control, so I get its appeal. Nonetheless, those who go on claiming its efficacy are usually the people who don't understand placebo effects: LoA supporters often rebut that it doesn't matter whether the details of LoA are sound in their rationale/science as long as there is some beneficial outcome of practicing it. But I ask you: are you also OK with calling a sugar pill your heart medication, and paying for it at the same cost as your heart medication? Repeating mantras that convince you that a problem doesn't exist or that it will fix itself with little effort from you *as long as you buy Anna's course* is NOT "investing in yourself," and causes avoidance of the
real underlying issues. Paying for LoA delivered by Anna is paying for a way to DECEIVE YOURSELF, and Anna is evidence of that: she has deceived herself entirely of her credentials, her SES, and for at least some time (perhaps still) of her relationship status.
LoA isn't effective because of its contents (just like the sugar pill). Anna is not an effective JSB, elegance coach, nor (probably) motivator just because she's used LoA to convince herself that she is (but if you pay for her new course then you can be her guinea pig for testing that out).
This is getting long, I know, but the worst part of what I read in those shared files is the shame-pressure-selling. Items 1 and 5 are IDENTICAL: "be a 'doer,' take action". But, Anna obviously doesn't mean to take effective action to improve oneself because she's belittled REAL education -- she obviously means "take action by buying my course" so you can
have an excuse for not taking REAL, effortful, self-improvement action. Anna makes her course SOUND like it's a real effort so that it can resolve the fake problem she's created for you to fix, but it's actually just listening to Anna subtly belittle you so she can keep selling you sugar pills. And, by shaming people into believing that NOT buying her (Anna's) course means they've failed to take action to improve themselves, she's using distasteful and completely inelegant marketing tactics.
Don't be a victim of Anna's sugar pill delusions. Don't buy her course -- address your
actual issues using
real actions (not LoA pseudo-actions) through thoughtful introspection and a desire to change.
