Happy New Year, everyone! May your 2025 be filled with love, joy, abundance and all the seeds of a long and healthy life.
Pop star Dua Lipa says she manifested her slot as a headliner at this year’s British Glastonbury Festival in Britain – one of the world’s top pop festivals.
American gymnastic Olympian Simone Biles claimed she owed her 11 Olympic medals and 30 World Championship medals to manifestation.
And now ‘manifest’ has been crowned ‘Word of the Year’ by the Cambridge Dictionary, as the most looked up word of 2024.
Many scientists and psychologists are decidedly unhappy about this because they believe that manifesting has no basis in fact, calling it nothing more than ‘magical thinking.’
I beg to differ. Of the 41 Intention Experiments I’ve run with prestigious scientists from top universities, 37 have shown positive results. And through my Power of Eight® groups, I’ve helped tens of thousands of people manifest their dreams, whether for better health, relationships, finances or career, and more.
There’s no question that intention works.
The only magical thinking has to do with the many myths surrounding how exactly to ‘do’ intention.
One of the most overlooked methods in popular culture about manifestation is ‘mental rehearsal,’ practicing how to fulfil your dream by rehearsing it in your head. No question that Simone Biles will have practiced her routines hundreds of times in her head until she’d rehearsed every last move before stepping out on the Olympic floor.
In fact, every elite athlete today, from football players to rock climbers to Olympic swimmers, uses mental rehearsal to prepare for a match or event of any variety because they know that mental visualization spells the difference between winning and losing.
The reason why it works so well comes down to this one fact: your brain, extraordinary as it is in other regards, just cannot tell the difference between the thought of an action and the action itself. Rehearsing in your head is the equivalent of rehearsing with you body, smoothing the way for its actualization in the world.
In case you missed it, here’s an early podcast I did exploring the science of why this works.
I also cover why mental rehearsal is so essential to highly effective intention and how this amplifies the power of your thoughts to transform your body or indeed any area of your life.
The presidential election is finally over, and about 71 million Americans are jubilant, while the other 66 million who voted are in deep shock and despondent mourning. Much of Europe and the UK looks on in disbelief.
With the US election looming, a £40 billion tax budget just announced in the UK, and economic difficulties and political unrest across much of the world, fairness is at the top of the agenda.
How do you determine what is fair? A good idea of how to work this out can come from the New Science.
Swiss economist Ernst Fehr, based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has made his life’s work the study of the economics of fairness.
As he has demonstrated with many experiments, fairness entirely rests on the assumption that this impulse also exists in the person who is the object of our generosity, and that he or she will automatically return the favor. We immediately respond to any instance where we are in some way betrayed – whether by bankers rewarding themselves with giant bonuses after bankrupting the pensions of ordinary citizens, or by freeloaders capable of working who illegitimately claim welfare benefits.
Most of us possess an in-built scorecard that abhors a freeloader, with a corresponding need to punish those who take more than their fair share. In humans our abhorrence of unfairness is most evident in the fact that we are willing to punish transgressors of the social contract, even if it comes at our own expense.
Fehr has proved this with a game called the “Public Goods,” a standard in experimental economics. This game is designed to test how people behave when asked to contribute to something that could benefit the entire community, but at a price to themselves. It’s a bit like asking people to voluntarily pay a sum of their own choosing in taxation toward maintaining the parks in California.
In this scenario, a number of participants are given tokens, which are redeemable at the end for money. They’re allowed to decide secretly how much of it to keep and how much to put into a common pot. The experimenters then award some percentage of the total in the pot — 40 per cent, say — to everyone playing. If each player is playing with 20 tokens and all four put in all their tokens, the experiments will award 40 per cent of eighty, or thirty-two tokens to each. The irony of the game is that everyone makes the most money when handing over all his own tokens, since the experimenters reward the most from the highest amounts within the pot.
Although you’d expect many not to put anything into the pot, lest they become victim to freeloaders, this has almost never happened among the large number of Public Goods experiments carried out by Fehr and other social psychologists.
Most people add something to the pot and the average is for people to give up half their tokens to the public good.
This game can be run either as a “one shot” or a “repeat” over a series of up to ten rounds. A very different scenario emerges during repeat Public Goods games. In that case, the urge to give is initially enormous — on average, people begin playing by giving up to 40 to 60 per cent of their tokens — but this generous impulse quickly abates so that, by the final rounds, nearly three-quarters of all people contribute nothing and the rest, close to nothing.
Although at first glance, it would appear that people are simply following their own self-interest, that isn’t the explanation offered by the players. When interviewed later, those participants who had initially been generous grew increasingly furious at freeloaders, who were either contributing nothing or less than the others. The generous players had retaliated with the only weapon available to them: they’d stop contributing to the public fund. In other versions of the game, when players are allowed to fine the freeloader, albeit at a cost to themselves, they are more than happy to do so, even though they would benefit more individually by continuing to contribute to the pot.
Fehr discovered that, when people are allowed to punish those who are simply along for a free ride, cooperation in the game is maintained. Furthermore, the biggest contributors turned out to be the biggest punishers.
When there is no possibility of punishment, however, cooperation quickly deteriorates, and the game, in effect, falls apart. We’re willing to spite ourselves to stop people from violating our expectation of giving to the common good. It’s a bit like a taxpayer, annoyed at loads of people on the welfare rolls, refusing to pay his taxes.
Our reaction to inequity has nothing to do with a need for sameness —or a socialist-style, across-the-board equality. Throughout history, the fact that there is a wealthy group of individuals at the top of any society has not automatically made for revolution.
Members of society are usually only prompted to rise up in rebellion when conditions are manifestly unfair, such in 2008 when bankers took record bonuses after trashing the economy, or when millions of people fully capable of working are on welfare benefits.
None of those at the top of government understand our fundamental need for give-and-take community. Our sense of unfairness emerges when the most fundamental needs we have — to belong together, to give generously of ourselves, to take our turn — are thwarted, when the promises we make to each other to take our fair share are broken.
Fairness is an innate drive in nature – a basic pulse of life itself. But the difference between taking too much at the top and the bottom of society is finely balanced. Taking turns and making a contribution to the whole is not only the key to cooperation and the primary glue of society, but also the most politically stable strategy.
Like the Public Goods game, everyone in our society is better off simply by taking turns with each other. If politicians can’t achieve it nationally, we can do in our communities. In the coming months, I will show you how to achieve true fairness locally and how you can cause this to go viral.
As an American living abroad, I’ve just sent in my postal vote. For a moment I allowed myself the heady feeling of civic pride in that portentous moment of every democracy: casting your vote for a new leader. I thought of all the lovely presidential slogans I’d heard over the years, all promising major transformation: The New Frontier; Yes, We Can; It’s Morning Again in America; A Bridge to the 21st Century; Make America Great Again.
Around 2600 BCE, honey was listed in an ancient Egyptian trauma manual, much treasured for its ability to speed wound healing. And now, modern science has proved these ancient wisdoms correct. Manuka honey is now accepted, in even mainstream medicine, for its ability to heal wounds and successfully fight an array of nasty bugs like strep infection and E. coli.
For many Americans, the greatest challenge the country faces is not foreign wars or the economy or even the forthcoming presidential election. It is finding a way to heal our nation’s deeply divided soul.
Last month, as you may remember, I had a unique opportunity to demonstrate, once again, a simple way that we might be able to achieve this.
For many years, I’ve witnessed that Peace Intention Experiments do far more than achieve whatever target we set, whether it is lowering violence or anything else.
The bigger story is that they appear to enable polarized communities to breach the divide, for enemies to express love for each other – for the heart to leap across the fence.
It happened in 2011, with the 10th anniversary of 9/11, when I invited both Americans, other Westerners and Arabs to come together to intend for peace in Afghanistan.
It happened with Arabs and Israelis in 2017, when both sides joined together to do an Intention Experiment for peace in Jerusalem.
It happened in 2021, when I had Republicans and Democrats (and other polarized peoples) join together to intend for a peaceful transfer of power during the American inauguration of Joe Biden, in the wake of the storming into the Capitol on January 6 of that year.
In every instance, former enemies expressed love for each other, called each other ‘brother’ and ‘sister,’ and even said, ‘Your God is my God.’
And now we saw good signs of it again.
On August 20, I spontaneously called an Intention Experiment to take the heat out of the presidential campaign. More than 2000 participants joined us on Zoom, on Youtube and also on Instagram and Facebook.
We held an intention for the American presidential and other elections ‘to proceed peacefully and with dignity, so that candidates focus on the political issues, and not resort to name-calling and other tactics that incite violence and division.’ We also asked for ‘peace and unity to prevail among the population.’
As always, after waiting several weeks I surveyed the thousands of people who took part to find out if anything had changed in their lives.
Of the hundreds who filled out the survey, the overwhelming message was more peace in their own lives and greater tolerance of people who think or act differently from them.
The vast majority of attendees (69%) felt ‘peaceful’ during the experiment, and this peace carried on. Dozens spoke of a greater feeling of connectedness to all, even those of a different political party, and a greater ability to listen without judgment.
Numerous of participants found that their reactions to other political parties dramatically changed:
‘I am able to see multiple sides of especially political issues even though I didn't have what I thought was a problem. Something has definitely shifted, and I feel even more tolerant and a solidarity even with the people and their point of view when I'm together with them, no matter which point of view. At a recent group meeting I said I couldn't take the ranting, but with total love and compassion, AND EVERYONE joined me for going for a hike in nature afterward. We've been meeting for three years weekly. Nothing like this ever happened before. We parted relaxed and happy.’
Others opened their hearts to listen to the other side:
‘I normally would not listen to a politician that is not my party but listen I did to podcast and interviews after the experiment and saw them with different eyes. My judgments were neutralized by seeing them compassionately.’
‘I am less triggered by other’s anger and division with the election process. I’ve been working on having compassion for political personalities I don’t agree with.’
‘I was willing to listen to a portion of the convention of the political party I normally wouldn't have.’
I'm able to see the world more objectively, see the bigger picture. I have more compassion for the other political party.'
‘I am not as fearful about the outcome of the Presidential election.’
I have more hope for the future of the country and feel that more people are becoming tired of the hate and negativity.’
This peace and love spilled over into their own lives, with many people remarking upon how much love and tolerance has filled their hearts.
‘There is warmth between me and everybody I talk to.’
‘I am more open, receptive, compassionate.’
‘I am more tolerant and more open to listening more.’
Some 39 % felt more love for their loved ones, but 41% felt more love for everyone they come into contact with, and 32 % are getting along better with people they normally dislike or argue with. Their peaceful hearts have had a mirror effect. As their attitudes radiated peace, the reaction of others changed:
‘I’ve noticed more peace, more smoothness with things just falling into place, less chaos, less stress, less obstinacy from kids. There’s been a lot more togetherness!’
‘The telephone calls with my adult children are more pleasant. Don't feel as if I'm walking on eggshells as often happens. The change is in me.’
‘I had a conversation with a sister who often misunderstands, takes things personally, and holds a grudge for months, and she got upset and hung up on me. Usually she would then not speak to me for months but she called me two days later and we had a nice conversation. This has never been the case in all our 70+ years!’
‘My husband and I enjoy more harmony in our day- to-day life at home.’
‘Either the “problematic” people like my boss or colleague vanished or they talked more friendly and normally to me instead of being angry or critical.’
And this healing happened physically, too. An extraordinary 58% of the participants reported experienced mental or physical improvements:
‘Within a few hours of the experiment, my far vision was dramatically improved and has remained so.’
‘I suffer from an anxiety disorder and PTSD. Since I have participated, I’ve not noticed ANY anxiety or trauma issues!!!’
‘My husband, David, who also participated, has feet and ankles that have been swollen for years and are now normal.’
‘My body moves more easily (I have a hip/leg issue).’
‘My mental health is different. I've always been loving and kind, understanding but now I feel like it is coming even more naturally and not just randomly; ALL THE TIME!’
I see this almost mystical rejuvenation in my participants in every single Intention Experiment I do, but what interests me now is how contagious this change of heart and mind can be.
Harvard University sociological Nicholas Christakis, who studies the ripple effect of social networks, recently discovered a phenomenon that spreads from person to person along any given network. If one person is kind or loving to someone else, it spreads three degrees down a social network. The actions of participants affected the future interactions of other people in their network.
“So if Tom is kind to Harry, Harry will be kind to Susan, Susan will be kind to Jane, and Jane will be kind to Peter,” writes Christakis.
Giving creates a contagion of giving, a network of love and generosity that carries on, even in the most hardened and polarized of hearts.
So let’s say that 2000 people participated in this experiment and they each know 150 people (an average number of our social contacts). If you count three degrees down a social network, this relatively small band of intenders could affect nearly 7 billion people – enough to light up the world.
Something about coming together in a secular prayer that we can all participate in without the divisions artificially created by separate creeds or political parties enables us to finally experience the oneness that is our common humanity.
The other day I was having lunch with the amazing Gina Lazenby, bestselling author, speaker and mentor for women leaders and entrepreneurs. Gina is one of the best multitaskers I know. A consummate networker, she loves to hold women’s circles and put people together, focusing on the rise of the feminine (the title of her forthcoming book).
Science writer, broadcaster and regular What Doctors Don’t Tell You contributor Tony Edwards, who published his book The Good News about Booze (Premium Publishing) in 2013, didn’t plan to write another book about alcohol, let alone wine. After he had scoured all the possible scientific evidence about alcohol of all persuasions, the copious research led him to two conclusions: moderate drinkers of all varieties live longer, and both teetotalers and outright alcoholics live shorter lives. (more…)
Yesterday, I came across some scientific evidence that our skin – even our immune system – hears sounds like the human voice.
Just ponder that information for a moment, when it comes to a health condition and working with your doctor or therapist.
Join the thousands of people who are already part of the Intention Revolution and start using the universe’s most powerful tool—the power of intention—to transform your life, each other and the world.
Sign up and receive FREE GIFTS including The Power of Eight® handbook and a special video from Lynne!
The Landing, Tileman House, 131 Upper Richmond Rd, London, SW15 2TL
You can connect with Lynne at: info@lynnemctaggart.com