Mark: Most of us believe getting rich is about talent, luck, or grinding harder than everyone else. What if that's all wrong? What if it's an exact science, as predictable as 2+2=4, and the secret was written down over 100 years ago by a former farm laborer? Michelle: Come on, an exact science? That sounds like the kind of thing you see in a late-night infomercial. Every self-help guru has a "secret formula." What makes this one different? Mark: Well, for one, this one might be the original formula. That's the wild claim at the heart of The Science of Getting Rich by Wallace D. Wattles. Michelle: Wattles… I've heard the name. He's the guy who directly inspired the book The Secret, right? The whole 'Law of Attraction' phenomenon? Mark: Exactly. And what's fascinating is that he wrote this in 1910, coming from a background with very little formal education. He was part of this spiritual movement called New Thought, which believed the mind could directly shape reality. And the book has been polarizing ever since. Michelle: I can see why. It's a massive claim. So, let's get into it. What on earth does he mean by an 'exact science'?

Mark: He starts with a premise that is, frankly, designed to either make you lean in or throw the book across the room. He posits that the universe is made from a single, intelligent, "Formless Thinking Substance." Michelle: Hold on, Mark. 'Thinking Substance'? That sounds incredibly unscientific. Is he just rebranding 'God' for a more modern, scientific-sounding audience? Mark: That's a great question, and in a way, yes. Remember, this is 1910. Science is king. Edison and Marconi are changing the world with invisible forces like electricity and radio waves. Wattles frames his spiritual idea in the language of the day. He says this 'Formless Substance' permeates everything, and it's alive, intelligent, and wants to express itself. Michelle: Okay, so it’s this invisible, thinking energy field. How does that help me get rich? Mark: Because, he argues, this substance thinks. And a thought held within this substance produces the thing that is imaged by the thought. He says humans are unique because we are "thinking centers" that can originate thought. We can impress our original thoughts onto this substance and cause things to be created. Michelle: So it's like a cosmic 3D printer, and our thoughts are the design files? Mark: That's a perfect analogy! He gives the example of building a house. You don't just magically zap a house into existence. When you hold the clear, unwavering thought of the house you want, you impress that blueprint onto the Formless Substance. This, in turn, sets creative energies in motion through the normal channels of trade and commerce. It might cause the right plot of land to come up for sale, or lead you to an architect, or bring a business opportunity that provides the funds. The thought is the cause; the material result is the effect. Michelle: Huh. That’s a much more grounded explanation than just ‘wishing for a million dollars.’ He’s saying the thought initiates a process, it doesn’t just skip to the end. But he still calls it a science, which implies it's repeatable and predictable. Mark: He's adamant about it. He says, "It is a natural law that like causes always produce like effects; and, therefore, any man or woman who learns to do things in this certain way will infallibly get rich." For him, the failure rate is zero if you follow the instructions perfectly. Michelle: Infallibly? That's a bold, bold word. It removes all external factors—the economy, your background, systemic barriers. He’s saying none of that matters as much as your thinking. Mark: Precisely. He argues that environment, talent, and even thrift are not the primary causes of wealth. He points out that you see rich and poor people in the same neighborhood, talented people who are poor, and less talented people who are rich. The one variable, he claims, is that the rich are, consciously or unconsciously, operating according to this 'Certain Way.' Michelle: Wow. Okay, so if we accept this wild premise for a moment—that we have a cosmic 3D printer at our disposal—how do we actually use it? What is this 'Certain Way' of thinking and acting?

Mark: Exactly. And to operate that cosmic 3D printer, Wattles says you need to think and act in a 'Certain Way.' It's a two-part engine, and both parts have to be running at full steam. You can't have one without the other. Michelle: A two-part engine. I like that. What's the first part? The mental work, I assume? Mark: Yes, the mental work is the foundation. It has three key components. First, you must form a clear and definite mental picture of what you want. Not a vague wish for 'more money,' but a precise, detailed vision. You want a house? What does it look like? How many rooms? What kind of furniture? You have to see it, feel it, live in it mentally. Michelle: That sounds like modern visualization techniques. Athletes do this all the time. Mark: It's the exact same principle. But then he adds the second component: you must hold that vision with unwavering faith and a fixed purpose. Faith that it is already on its way to you, and purpose to get it. This isn't passive daydreaming. It's an active, focused state of belief. Michelle: Okay, vision and faith. That's pretty standard for this kind of book. What’s the third part? Mark: This is the one that often gets overlooked, but Wattles says it's the most critical: gratitude. He argues that gratitude is the 'tuning fork' that harmonizes your mind with the Formless Substance. A grateful mind is constantly focused on the best, so it takes on the form of the best and will receive the best. Michelle: So gratitude isn't just about being polite to the universe? It's a functional tool? Mark: It's entirely functional. He says, "The grateful mind is constantly fixed upon the best; therefore it tends to become the best... faith is born of gratitude." Gratitude keeps you connected to the creative power and prevents you from falling into a competitive, doubtful mindset. It’s the glue that holds the whole mental process together. Michelle: That's fascinating. The visualization and gratitude part sounds like modern mindfulness, but I feel like there's a 'but' coming. What's the second part of the engine? Mark: The second part is where he separates himself from a lot of the purely 'positive thinking' crowd. It's action. Specifically, you must act now, in your present environment, with maximum efficiency. He says, "By thought, the thing you want is brought to you; by action you receive it." Michelle: I can see how that would be a sticking point for people. It's not enough to just sit on your couch and visualize a check arriving in the mail. Mark: Not at all. He's very clear on this. You can't wait until your circumstances are perfect. You have to use your current business, your current job, your current relationships as the means to get what you want. You hold the vision of the better job, but you act with all your mind and strength in your present job. Michelle: But what if your current job is terrible? What if you hate it? How do you act with purpose and efficiency there? That sounds incredibly difficult. Mark: He addresses that directly. He says you advance by being bigger than your present place. If you are a wage-earner, for example, you don't just do enough to get by. You see yourself as an advancing person, you hold the vision of what you want to become, and you do every single task, no matter how small, in a perfectly successful manner. This 'over-filling' of your current position creates a force that opens up the next opportunity. People are drawn to an advancing person. Michelle: So you’re not just working for your boss; you’re working for your vision. You’re using your current job as a gym to build the muscles you’ll need for the next stage. Mark: That's a brilliant way to put it. It’s a launchpad, not a prison. And this combination of a clear, faithful, grateful mind with powerful, efficient, present-moment action is what he calls the 'Certain Way.' Michelle: Okay, so the 'how' is this blend of mind and action. But the 'why' and the ethics behind it get... weird. Let's talk about his idea of competition. It feels like the most radical part of the whole book.

Mark: It absolutely is. This is where Wattles throws a grenade into conventional economic thinking. He argues that you must get rich on the creative plane, not the competitive one. Michelle: What's the difference? Isn't all business competitive? Mark: Not for Wattles. The competitive mind sees a limited supply. It thinks, "There's only one pie, and if I want a bigger slice, I have to take it from someone else." This, he says, is the source of all economic strife. The creative mind, on the other hand, knows that the Formless Substance is unlimited. You don't have to take anything from anyone because you can create what you want from this infinite source. Michelle: So, instead of fighting over the existing pie, you just bake a new one. Mark: Exactly. And because you're creating new wealth, not just rearranging existing wealth, your getting rich makes everyone else richer too. This leads to his central principle for all business transactions: you must give every person more in use value than you take from them in cash value. Michelle: Can you give an example of that? It sounds a bit abstract. Mark: He tells a great story. Imagine you have a valuable painting, worth thousands of dollars. You go to an Eskimo in the Arctic and, through clever salesmanship, you convince him to trade his entire winter's supply of furs, worth $500, for this painting. You've made a huge profit. But Wattles says this is a wicked transaction. The painting has zero use value to the Eskimo. He can't eat it, wear it, or use it to improve his life. You've impoverished him. Michelle: Right, you've taken advantage of him. Mark: Now, contrast that with taking a rifle worth $50 and trading it for the same furs. The rifle has immense use value. With it, the Eskimo can hunt more efficiently, get more furs, get more food, and dramatically improve his life. He has received far more in use value than the $50 cash value of the gun. That, Wattles says, is a righteous transaction. You are giving the impression of increase to everyone you deal with. Michelle: I like that. The idea of 'increase' is powerful. It’s about making sure every interaction leaves the other person better off. But this is where I get stuck, and I know a lot of readers do too. He takes this idea to a very controversial conclusion when it comes to charity. Mark: He does. He says the best way to help the poor is not to give them charity, which he sees as just giving them a temporary scrap from the competitive table. He says the best way to help the poor is to get rich yourself, by creation, and show them that it's possible. To become an inspiration that awakens their own hope and desire. Michelle: That feels... incredibly callous, especially for 1910 when poverty was rampant and social safety nets were nonexistent. It sounds like a convenient justification for being selfish. Mark: It's the most criticized part of the book. But here's the kicker, the fact that makes this so much more complex: Wallace D. Wattles himself was a Socialist. He ran for office in Indiana as a member of the Socialist Party. Michelle: Wait, what? A Socialist who wrote a book on getting rich and argued against charity? How do you even begin to reconcile that? Mark: That's the million-dollar question, isn't it? One interpretation is that he saw the competitive, capitalist system as the root cause of poverty. He believed it was built on a lie of scarcity. So, for him, the most revolutionary act wasn't to redistribute the crumbs of a broken system, but to prove the system's premise was wrong. He might have been arguing that if enough individuals adopt a creative, abundance-based mindset and become rich, they will fundamentally change the system from within, creating new industries and opportunities for everyone. It’s a radical, bottom-up approach to social change, starting with individual consciousness. Michelle: So he’s not saying 'don't help people.' He's saying 'the way we think we're helping is wrong.' We're just reinforcing the scarcity mindset. By becoming a living example of abundance, you do more good than by handing out a dollar. Mark: That's the charitable reading of it, no pun intended. It's a challenging, and for many, an unconvincing argument. But it forces you to think about the root causes of poverty, not just its symptoms.

Michelle: Wow. This book is so much weirder and more interesting than I thought. It’s not just 'think positive.' It’s a whole metaphysical and ethical system. So after all this, what's the one thing we should take away from this strange, influential little book? Mark: I think it’s that Wattles is forcing us to question our most fundamental assumption: that the world is zero-sum. He argues that poverty isn't a lack of stuff, but a lack of a certain kind of thought. That scarcity is a mindset, not a reality. Michelle: And that's a powerful idea, whether you believe in a 'Thinking Substance' or not. Mark: Exactly. The challenge to shift from a competitive to a creative mindset, to believe in abundance, and to align your thoughts, gratitude, and actions toward a single purpose—that is a powerful psychological tool that has clearly shaped self-help and business thinking for over a century. Michelle: It really reframes the whole pursuit of wealth. It’s not about winning a game against others; it’s about creating a masterpiece with the universe. Mark: Beautifully put. The real question he leaves us with is: What would you do differently if you truly believed there was enough for everyone? If you knew, with scientific certainty, that you could create anything you wanted without taking from anyone else? Michelle: That's a powerful question to sit with. It changes everything. We'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Does this feel like profound wisdom or dangerous pseudoscience? Let us know your take on our social channels. Mark: This is Aibrary, signing off.