There's a whole flotilla of self-help books out there--and Stawicki's work floats amongst them without any unique signifying markers. It's the same message--and Stawicki freely admits it: Think differently and you'll be different (i.e., successful, thinner--whatever personal blemish you're attempting to burnish). As he states, "You are what you consistently do."
The issue I have is the definition of success Stawicki is promoting: He seems obsessed with more money and a thinner abdomen. He advocates reading non-fiction and listening to podcasts and TED talks regimentally and meeting really great people (either in Internet chatrooms or in person). He's proud to have written books, and while his challenge of writing in a non-native language is admirable, it isn't earth-shattering in content.
There's good advice here, but that's all it is--the advice of someone who has read a ton of self-help books and joined a few communities on the Internet. I can't help but think of the wheelchair bound-character in Office Space marketing his "jump to conclusions" mat thanks to the "great luck" of being struck by a speeding truck. He tells the protagonist: "Good things can happen. Look at me." I get that vibe from Stawicki: I'm looking, and our perspectives on success are not aligned.
The real problem is Stawicki's reiteration that success is the result of the consistent implementation of a personal philosophy which interprets and interacts with the world without negativity. You can't copy the philosophy of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs--you've got to model your own because only your own will move you forward. It's a win-win for the author, right? If you succeed, he helped you form your personal philosophy. If you fail, you didn't form your personal phillosophy correctly--the author told you what to do and you didn't implement it correctly. Shame on you--turn off the TV and write in your journal and listen to another TED Talk, Loser.
Finally, the title. Stawicki's model isn't really a "trickle down" model. It's more of the "butterfly effect." He believes it we change one seemingly insignificant action or thought, we can make an impact on the whole system. He uses the analogy of a plane flying from New York to Los Angeles--the change of one degree in the flight plan changes the destination. It's an interesting model, and it does have applications--but why couldn't it have a name which reflects the actual model? If I want to move a boulder in my life, I can't do it with a single pebble. I move one pebble to nudge another pebble and then start an inexorable movement of pebbles which eventually obliterate the boulder and anything else in its path. Rather than trickle down, perhaps, we could call it "Avalanche Mentality" or something.
Ah well, it's 8 o'clock and I'm off to handle my responsiblities at work. I will try to change one small thing about my perspective today--I promise.