Norman Vincent Peale

===General and psychological critique===
Peale's works were criticized by several mental health experts who denounced his writings as bad for mental health, and concluded that Peale was a "con man and a fraud,"<ref>Park, "Superstition"</ref> and a "Confidence Man."<ref name=meyer_conman>Donald Meyer, "Confidence Man", ''New Republic'', July 11, 1955, pp 8-10</ref> These critics appeared in the early 1950s after the publication of The Power of Positive Thinking.

One critique of The Power of Positive Thinking noted that the book contained anecdotes that are hard to substantiate. Critics noted many of the testimonials that Peale quoted as supporting his philosophy were unnamed, unknown and unsourced. Examples included a "famous psychologist,"<ref name=book>Power of Positive Thinking</ref>{{rp|52}}  a two-page letter from a "practicing physician",<ref name=book/>{{rp|150}}  another "famous psychologist",<ref name=book/>{{rp|169}} a "prominent citizen of New York City",<ref name=book/>{{rp|88}} and dozens, if not hundreds, more unverifiable quotations. Similar scientific studies of questionable validity are also cited. As psychiatrist R.C. Murphy wrote, "All this advertising is vindicated as it were, by a strict cleaving to the side of part truth," and referred to the work and the quoted material as "implausible and woodenly pious".<ref name="murphy">{{cite magazine|first=R.C.|last=Murphy|title=Think Right: Reverend Peale's Panacea|magazine=[[The Nation]]|date=May 7, 1955|pages=398–400}}</ref> Peale's works were criticized by several mental health experts who declared his writings were actually bad for mental health, concluding that Peale was a "con man and a fraud,"<ref>{{cite book|first=Robert L.|last=Park|author-link=Robert L. Park|date=2009|title=Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science|url=https://archive.org/details/superstitionbeli00park|url-access=limited|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]]|location=Princeton, New Jersey|page=[https://archive.org/details/superstitionbeli00park/page/n139 127]|isbn=978-0-691-13355-3|quote=Peale's self-hypnosis technique was heavily criticized by mental health experts, who warned that it was dangerous. Critics denounced him as a con man and a fraud. As a minister, however, Peale was spared from any requirement to prove his assertions.}}</ref> with his being referred to as a confidence man in the popular press in 1955.<ref name=meyer_conman/>

Agreeing with Murphy is William Lee Miller, a professor at the University of Virginia, who wrote an extensive article called “Some Negative Thinking About Norman Vincent Peale.” After reviewing the entire Peale library, Miller concluded that the books “are hard on the truth,” and that “the later books are worse” than the earlier ones. Miller challenged the plausibility and truthfulness of Peale's testimonials with “Great Men” in his books, almost all of whom were unnamed, unknown and unverifiable. <blockquote>“In Dr. Peale’s books these men turn out to talk just like Dr. Peale…. There is a continuing recurring episode in his books that goes like this: Peale meets Great Man; Peale humbly asks Great Man for his secret (his formula, technique); Great Man tells Peale his strikingly Peale-like secret (formula, technique)….”</blockquote>Miller also mocks the success formulas these “great men” reveal, such as the unnamed newspaper editor who credits repeating a single phrase [a technique in [[Self-hypnosis|auto-hypnosis]]] as the reason for his success. The unnamed editor's “secret is card in wallet with words to the effect that successful man is successful.” Miller explains, “There is never the suggestion that hard work might be involved in achievement. There are no demands on the reader.” Miller wrote “All this is hard on the truth, but it is good for the preacher’s popularity. It enables him to say exactly what his hearers want to hear.” Miller further mocks Peale's claims that his methods of “religion” are scientifically proven. Miller quotes Peale: “The laws are so precise and have been so often demonstrated… that religion may be said to form an exact science.” Peale provides no scientific evidence in his books to support this claim. He provides no evidence that his methods and “techniques” have been scientifically tested or proven to work. Miller goes on to note that there are no scientific references supporting Peale, no footnotes, no index, no bibliography, no recommendations for further readings, almost no evidence of any kind presented in the Peale books. Miller concluded that the Peale claims were untruthful and unsupported by evidence. Miller wrote that in order to gain followers “He [Peale] is willing to use without flinching the most blatant appeals and to promise without stint.”<ref>{{cite journal | author = Miller, William Lee | date = January 13, 1955 | title = Some Negative Thinking About Norman Vincent Peale | journal = The Reporter | volume = | issue = | pages = 19–24 | url = | access-date = | quote = }}{{full citation needed|date = January 2022}}</ref>{{full citation needed | date = January 2022}}

A second critique of Peale was that he attempted to conceal that his techniques for giving the reader absolute self-confidence and deliverance from suffering are a well known form of hypnosis, and that he persuaded his readers to follow his beliefs through a combination of false evidence and self-hypnosis ([[autosuggestion]]), disguised by the use of terms which may sound more benign from the reader's point of view ("techniques", "formulas", "methods", "prayers", and "prescriptions").<ref>Murphy, "Think Right"</ref><ref>Miller, "Some Negative"</ref> One author called Peale's book "The Bible of American autohypnotism".<ref name=meyer_positive/>{{rp|264}} While his techniques have been debated by [[psychologists]], Peale said his theological practice and strategy was directed more at self-analysis, forgiveness, character development, and growth<ref>{{cite book | author = Peale, Norman Vincent | date = 1976 | title = The Positive Principle Today: How to Renew and Sustain the Power of Positive | page = 183 | location = | publisher = | isbn = | url = | access-date = | quote = }}{{full citation needed|date = January 2022}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date = January 2022}} which has been suggested by some{{who|date = January 2022}} to be much like the teachings of the [[Jesuits]] of the Catholic Church.<ref>{{cite book|first=Henry Vincent|last=Gill|title=Jesuit Spirituality: Leading Ideas of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius|publisher=[[Gill (publisher)|M.H. Gill & Sons]]|location=Dublin, Ireland|asin=B0006ANI58|date=1935}}{{page needed|date=January 2022}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date = January 2022}}{{Original research inline|date = January 2022}}

Psychiatrist R. C. Murphy wrote "Self knowledge, in Mr. Peale's understanding is unequivocally bad: self hypnosis is good." Murphy added that repeated hypnosis defeats an individual's self-motivation, self-knowledge, unique sense of self, sense of reality, and ability to think critically. Murphy describes Peale's understanding of the mind as inaccurate, "without depth", and his description of the workings of the mind and the [[unconscious mind|unconscious]] as deceptively simplistic and false: "It is the very shallowness of his concept of 'person' that makes his rules appear easy&nbsp;... If the unconscious of man&nbsp;... can be conceptualized as a container for a small number of psychic fragments, then ideas like 'mind-drainage' follow. So does the reliance on self-hypnosis, which is the cornerstone of Mr. Peale's philosophy.'"<ref name="murphy"/>

Psychologist [[Albert Ellis (psychologist)|Albert Ellis]],<ref name=opplll>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/aug/11/guardianobituaries.usa|title=Albert Ellis|first=Oliver|last=Burkeman|date=August 10, 2007|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> founder of the branch of psychology known as [[cognitive psychology]], compared the Peale techniques with those of French psychologist, hypnotherapist and pharmacist [[Émile Coué]], and Ellis said that the repeated use of these hypnotic techniques could lead to significant mental health problems. Ellis, ranked by the [[American Psychological Association]] as the second most influential psychologist of the 20th century (behind [[Carl Rogers]], but ahead of [[Sigmund Freud]]),<ref>ibid</ref> documented in several of his books the many individuals he has treated who suffered mental breakdowns from following Peale's teachings. Ellis described one of his case studies: <blockquote>"One of my 50-year-old clients, Sidney, read everything that Norman Vincent Peale ever wrote, went to many of his sermons at Marble Collegiate Church, and turned many of his friends onto trusting completely in God and in the Reverend Peale to cure them of all their ills. When some of these friends, in spite of their vigorous positive thinking, wound up in the mental hospital, and when Sidney had to turn to massive doses of tranquilizers to keep himself going, he became disillusioned..." </blockquote>Fortunately, Ellis' client began attending therapy and workshop groups at his clinic (The Albert Ellis Institute), and through [[cognitive behavioral therapy]] (at that time, known as [[Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy]], or REBT), he was able to improve his mental health and reduce his medications.<ref>How to Make Yourself Happy and Remarkably Less Disturbable, Impact Publishers, Copyright by the Albert Ellis Institute, 1999, p. 89.</ref> Ellis' writings repeatedly warn the public not to follow the Peale message. Ellis contends the Peale approach is dangerous, distorted, unrealistic. He compares the black or white view of life that Peale teaches to a psychological disorder ([[borderline personality disorder]]), perhaps implying that dangerous mental habits which he sees in the disorder may be brought on by following the teaching. "In the long run [Peale's teachings] lead to failure and disillusionment, and not only boomerang back against people, but often prejudice them against effective therapy."<ref>{{cite book|first=Albert|last=Ellis|author-link=Albert Ellis|title=Overcoming Resistance: Rational Emotive Therapy With Difficult Clients|url=https://archive.org/details/overcomingresist0000elli|url-access=registration|publisher=[[Springer (publisher)|Springer Publishing]]|location=New York City|date=1985|isbn=978-0826149107|page=[https://archive.org/details/overcomingresist0000elli/page/147 147]}}</ref>

A third critique was that Peale's philosophy was based on exaggerating the fears of his readers and followers, and that this exaggerated fear inevitably leads to aggression and the destruction of those considered "negative". Peale's views were critically reviewed in a 1955 article by psychiatrist R. C. Murphy, published in ''The Nation,'' titled "Think Right: Reverend Peale's Panacea".

{{blockquote|With saccharine terrorism, Mr. Peale refuses to allow his followers to hear, speak or see any evil. For him real human suffering does not exist; there is no such thing as murderous rage, suicidal despair, cruelty, lust, greed, mass poverty, or illiteracy. All these things he would dismiss as trivial mental processes which will evaporate if thoughts are simply turned into more cheerful channels. This attitude is so unpleasant it bears some search for its real meaning. It is clearly not a genuine denial of evil but rather a horror of it. A person turns his eyes away from human bestiality and the suffering it evokes only if he cannot stand to look at it. By doing so he affirms the evil to be absolute, he looks away only when he feels that nothing can be done about it&nbsp;... The belief in pure evil, an area of experience beyond the possibility of help or redemption, is automatically a summons to action: 'evil' means 'that which must be attacked&nbsp;... ' Between races for instance, this belief leads to prejudice. In child-rearing it drives parents into trying to obliterate rather than trying to nurture one or another area of the child's emerging personality&nbsp;... In international relationships it leads to war. As soon as a religious authority endorses our capacity for hatred, either by refusing to recognize unpleasantness in the style of Mr Peale or in the more classical style of setting up a nice comfortable [[Satan]] to hate, it lulls our struggles for growth to a standstill&nbsp;... Thus Mr Peale's book is not only inadequate for our needs but even undertakes to drown out the fragile inner voice which is the spur to inner growth.<ref name="murphy"/>}}

Donald B. Meyer seemed to agree with this assessment, presenting similar warnings of a religious nature. In his article "Confidence Man", Meyer wrote, "In more classic literature, this sort of pretension to mastery has often been thought to indicate an alliance with a Lower rather than a Higher power."<ref>{{cite magazine|first=Donald B.|last=Meyer|title=The Confidence Man|magazine=[[The New Republic|New Republic]]|volume=133|issue=11|date=1955|pages=8–10}}</ref> The mastery Peale speaks of is not the mastery of skills or tasks, but the mastery of fleeing and avoiding one's own "negative thoughts". Meyer wrote, exaggerated fear inevitably leads to aggression: "Battle it is; Peale, in sublime betrayal of the aggression within his philosophy of peace, talks of 'shooting' prayers at people."<ref name=meyer_conman/>

Psychologist [[Martin Seligman]], former APA president and the founder of the branch of psychology known as [[Positive Psychology]], differentiated Peale's positive thinking from his own positive psychology, while acknowledging their common roots.

{{blockquote|It is important to see the difference: Is Positive Psychology just positive thinking warmed over? 
Positive Psychology has a philosophical connection to positive thinking, but not an empirical one. The [[Arminianism|Arminian]] Heresy (discussed at length in the notes for Chapter 5) is at the foundations of Methodism, and Norman Vincent Peale's positive thinking grows out of it. Positive Psychology is also tied at its foundations to the individual freely choosing, and in this sense both endeavors have common roots.

But Positive Psychology is also different in significant ways from positive thinking, in that Positive Psychology is based on scientific accuracy while positive thinking is not, and that positive thinking could even be fatal in the wrong circumstances.

First, positive thinking is an armchair activity. Positive Psychology, on the other hand, is tied to a program of empirical and replicable scientific activity. Second, Positive Psychology does not hold a brief for positivity. There is a balance sheet, and in spite of the many advantages of positive thinking, there are times when negative thinking is to be preferred. Although there are many studies that correlate positivity with later health, longevity, sociability, and success, the balance of the evidence suggests that in some situations negative thinking leads to more accuracy. Where accuracy is tied to potentially catastrophic outcomes (for example, when an airplane pilot is deciding whether to de-ice the wings of her airplane), we should all be pessimists. With these benefits in mind, Positive Psychology aims for the optimal balance between positive and negative thinking. Third, many leaders in the Positive Psychology movement have spent decades working on the "negative" side of things. Positive Psychology is a supplement to negative psychology, not a substitute.<ref>{{cite book|first=Martin|last=Seligman|author-link=Martin Seligman|title=Authentic Happiness|url=https://archive.org/details/authentichappine00seli_0|url-access=registration|publisher=[[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]]|location=New York City|date=2002|page=[https://archive.org/details/authentichappine00seli_0/page/288 288]|isbn=9780743222976}}</ref>}}

Seligman went on to say "Positive thinking often involves trying to believe upbeat statements such as 'Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better,' in the absence of evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence. ... Learned optimism, in contrast, is about accuracy".<ref>Ibid, page 98</ref>

Another difference experts noted was that though Seligman describes his positive psychology as a self-empowering program completely within the ability of the individual to achieve on his or her own, experts described positive thinking as disempowering to the individual and a religion of weakness, where individuals are told by Peale they cannot overcome their negative circumstances without his autosuggestive "techniques," which he claims will give them the power of God. As Meyer quotes Peale as saying, "No man, however resourceful or pugnacious, is a match for so great an adversary as a hostile world. He is at best a puny and impotent creature quite at the mercy of the cosmic and social forces in the midst of which he dwells." Meyer noted that Peale always "reacted to the image of harshness with flight rather than competitive fight",<ref>Meyer, 1965, 261</ref> and the only solution Peale offers out of this state of helplessness are his autosuggestive "techniques", which he claims will give people the power of God. Meyer adds that the proof that positive thinking cannot work is that according to Peale, even with God's power on one's side, one still cannot face negative reality, which is always stronger.

Meyer, like Seligman, noted that such unrealistic thinking by a positive thinker could easily be fatal.

<blockquote>Faith that you could defeat an opponent who could run faster than you would be contemptible since it could only mean you expected God to lend you power He refused to lend your opponent or that you hoped your opponent lacked self-knowledge, lacked faith, and hence failed to use his real powers. Such faith could be fatal if it led you into competitions it would be fatal to lose. As for those competitions where luck or accident or providence might decide, certainly the faith which looked to luck or accident or providence would be contemptible, and also possibly fatal.<ref>Ibid, p.&nbsp;284</ref></blockquote>