My issue with Tony Robbins

Tony Robbins, the famous personal improvement guru who cheered up Bill Clinton in his times of Monica-Lewinsky embarrassment, is teaming up with Arianna Huffington to promote Robbins’ new reality-TV show, Breakthrough.  Call me naive or stupid, but Tony Robbins seems to me like a person with the heart in the right place.  Yet, I have a huge issue with his approach to tackling personal problems.   Quickly jotted, here’s why:

The problems we face individually, to the extent they are not the result of our insufficient ability to conform nature to our designs (including here our own human nature) — i.e. to the extent these problems don’t simply reflect our always finite productivity or the limits of our technological and scientific level (what economists call “scarcity”) — are human-made in a collective fashion.

Another way to put this is to say that the constraints we face individually (the conditions that enable but also limit what one can achieve) result largely from our own collective actions, i.e. the actions of others as they clash with one’s own actions.  All these individual actions aggregate socially and appear to us as hardened as a block of armed concrete.  They are what we commonly refer as the outcomes of “markets,” “governments,” and other social institutions; things like “prices,” “policies,” “unemployment rates,” “interest rates,” etc.  To those of us who are not Ben Bernanke (and that’s assuming away a nasty liquidity trap), the interest rate is not a choice, it’s rather as hardened a fact of life as the law of gravity.

No matter how much we may believe that mind rules over matter, very few people are willing to test the law of gravity by doing bungee jumping without a bungee.   These social obstacles are not simply figments in one’s imagination that one can individually will away.  To repeat: they result from the combined actions of many.  Therefore, only the concerted actions of many will alter or dismantle them.

What makes things worse is the fact that the social conditions that exist (the outcomes of our social institutions) are not equal-opportunity providers.  They benefit some at the expense of others.   We cannot just think “win-win” and abolish this nasty reality.   There are limits to the Kumbaya approach.  The status quo vests and reinforces the interest of those who benefit from it.  It is a chicken-and-egg dynamics, since these benefits accrue in the form of wealth and power, then the beneficiaries (typically, a very small minority) are able to resist change with all they have, which is precisely all their wealth and power!

If, at the public expense, our politicians give freebies to Boeing, GE, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, and Exxon-Mobile, in the form of military contracts, concessions, tax breaks, or what-have-you, then one can be sure that Boeing, GE, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, and Exxon-Mobile will promote the best politicians their money can buy, those politicians that once in office will ensure them more freebies at our expense.  Only forceful (and smart) collective actions can challenge and unhinge those vested interests.  But then we have to be willing to do “whatever it takes” (one of those phrases Tony Robbins likes) collectively to uproot those politicians, their policies, the ideas that they use to rationalize their policies, and even — if they’ve been corrupted beyond repair — the existing political and social institutions in which those vested interests have entrenched themselves.

In this context, when the institutional framework in which we live and work pits us against one another, the kind of personal-improvement technology that gurus like Robbins hone and sell leads to a situation in which the successes of some are cancelled out by the successes of others, in a sort of arms race.   Pushed to its conceivable limit, if we all follow Tony Robbins’ advice at once, if we all “awaken the giants” we hold within, the result will only be our fastest, most effective mutual annihilation!

So, we need to dismantle the social, institutional framework that pits us against one another.  And for that, we need to  tackle our social problems collectively, through cooperation.  But not cooperation with everybody, because — again — a small minority is expected to put up a nasty fight.  They will not only refuse to cooperate in advancing the common good, but they will actively sabotage our attempts to do so.  They will seek to divide us in order to rule us.  The sardine cannot cooperate with the shark and live to tell the story — and I know that we shouldn’t view ourselves as mere sardines, because then we will be inviting the sharks to have us for lunch.

We have to struggle.  We may have to start by cooperating and struggling within or through the existing social institutions, if only to demonstrate ourselves that we have not accepted passively our fate as mere clogs in the machine.  I guess some of us will start by getting more involved in pitiful institutions like the ineffable Democratic Party.  But at some point we should realize that many of those institutions are simply not reformable — that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.  That means that at a point, we will need to discard them and build new institutions that can advance our struggle and not sabotage it.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not saying that we don’t need to use all our individual power and initiative.  I’m not saying that one’s individual mental disposition does not matter.  Of course, it matters.  We do need to “awaken the giant” within each of us.  I know that if we see ourselves defeated, then we are defeated already.  If we see ourselves as victors, then our victory will not be guaranteed, but we will significantly increase the chances of winning.  But individual psychology is not sufficient.  We need serious historical awareness as well as hard-nosed sociological, political, and economic analysis.  If one looks at the bigger picture, it is clear that, ultimately, we can only succeed individually if we succeed collectively — and vice versa.  The status quo excretes the individual success of the few at the expense of the individual failure of the many.  “Succeeding” individually at each other’s expense is failing collectively!

Something tells me that people like Tony Hayward (BP’s CEO), Lloyd Blankfein (GS’ CEO), or Dick Cheney (Halliburton’s former CEO) have read well Napoleon Hill’s, Wayne Dyer’s, Stephen Covey’s, and Tony Robbins’ books.  Judging by how “effective” they have been in their personal lives, I would not doubt that they visualize every day their “results” or “outcomes,” rationalize them, and fuel the pursuit of their goals with as much passion as they can personally harness.  Clearly, to amass the power and wealth they have amassed, they must have developed and executed masterful MAPs (“massive action plans”).  Unfortunately, they accomplished all their haughty goals at the expense of most everybody else! To use another example: How does it help us to make “our” soldiers more “effective” if they are going to be used to wage the wrong wars?

So, by all means, let’s follow Tony Robbins’ advice and visualize our “results,” individually — but also and more importantly collectively, through genuine democratic processes.  Let’s come up with very powerful individual, gut-level reasons (“purposes” as Tony calls them) to fight and change the lousy conditions in which we work and live — but let’s also recognize that the main reason why we need to change society is because business-as-usual is an unforgivable waste of our humanity.  And humanity is really all we have.  And finally, let’s devise a true MAP.  But let that MAP be “massive” not only in the sense that one individually commits to taking many actions in a short period of time, but in the sense that we commit to involving the mass, the majority of us in this struggle, the majority of us who don’t live off accumulated wealth or vested power, but off a wage or a salary, and with shameless affirmative action in favor of the poorest and most vulnerable among us.

If we keep matters in terms of personal psychology, personal responsibility, and the like, Tony Robbins’ piecemeal approach will remain pretense or will end up reinforcing the social garbage in which we now swim.  Because the “solution” to one’s individual problems without consideration for our collective problems, without concern for the big picture, will prove to be illusory if not purposefully deceitful — pseudo-solutions purchased at the price of creating more and worse problems for the rest of us.


  1. WOW!
    More power to you, for really hitting at a powerful truth.
    We all as humans want to believe there is an easy fix, like The Secret, positive thinking and other guru styled “answers to the power of the universe”!
    But, there are forces at will that we can not forget about or act as if they do not control our collective world, as this would only blindly entrap us more.
    Thank you for your perspective and wisdom,

  2. Well done for highlighting this. I feel that people can blindly follow into some of these techniques of trying to improve themselves and lose sight of the fact that we are actually controlled by physical forces as well as our mental forces. My personal feeling from coming through NLP training and from there going onto other further disciplines is that the real ‘Secret’ is not to add any more to ourselves, but rather to uncover the jewel that is within each of us. Not a cop out of life, but a full involvement without wearing any mask.

  3. Julio the fact of people not knowing the true or be well inform leave some empty holes in our mind therefore its easy to fill them up with a little sweetnes and we believe it as bad as it apears to me that is the reason why some people like him make so much money brain washing us just because we dont get to be who we want us to be by ourselfs you are rigth all the way good point of view to bad im one of them lol

  4. My, what a mishmash of ideas you have written.
    This blog reads as if you have taken a little of this from one author, a little of that from another – on and on.
    Sounds like bla bla bla to me.
    How about generating some new ideas?
    Also, your writing is convoluted.
    Cramming many thoughts in a single sentence is tiresome to read.
    Please, learn how to gather thoughts into simple, cohesive statments.
    Maybe start with an outline?

  5. Great post, feels very balanced. I like Tony Robbins’ teachings to a certain extent and it’s easier to change oneself than to (collectively) change society but there are so many conditions in the world which have a drastic impact on us. This is even more the case in less developed countries with more poverty and oftentimes less individual freedom (try being an unmarried woman with children or an openly gay person in these countries and you will encounter a lot of resistence, in some places even threats to your life). And these conditions and global inequality need to be changed for the greater good of humanity.

  6. You have a problem with Tony Robbins, but he is only a good coach and what you were saying is just that: significantly improving one group of students’ SAT scores will lower other’s chance to get accepted into a good university, which is inevitably true. You can not have a problem with a good teacher, can you?

  7. BTW, I agree with you that Tony Robbins can change the individual, but not the country. That is precisely the reason why we need Bill Clintion to run the country, and what Tony Robbins can do is to coach Bill Clinton.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s