I noticed a common pattern in self-help publications:
1. Claim a common self-help method is ineffective.
2. Show why it's ineffective.
3. Present a different self-help method.
Point number 2 is really important. It could be anything: an anecdote, some data, a paper. But the strongest signal is if the readers themselves already tried the ineffective solution. If it was effective, there's no need for them to research more. But it wasn't working and there's this person who says there's no way it would work. And they are right, so let's hear what else do they have to say (or sell).
You've the walking proof something didn't work and there's someone who's agreeing with you. You did all the hard work and the author is tagging along.
The beauty of it is the original method might be fine, it just didn't work out for you for whatever reason. Including if you read about it, but didn't try.
1. Claim a common self-help method is ineffective.
2. Show why it's ineffective.
3. Present a different self-help method.
Point number 2 is really important. It could be anything: an anecdote, some data, a paper. But the strongest signal is if the readers themselves already tried the ineffective solution. If it was effective, there's no need for them to research more. But it wasn't working and there's this person who says there's no way it would work. And they are right, so let's hear what else do they have to say (or sell).
You've the walking proof something didn't work and there's someone who's agreeing with you. You did all the hard work and the author is tagging along.
The beauty of it is the original method might be fine, it just didn't work out for you for whatever reason. Including if you read about it, but didn't try.