Wattles was explicit about his intent. He wanted the book practical — not inspirational, not philosophical, functional. A person who reads it and does what it says, he claimed, will get rich. Not because the universe owes them anything, not because poverty is a spiritual failure, but because there are specific, learnable ways of thinking and acting that consistently produce wealth, and specific, learnable ways that consistently fail to — and the difference between the two is the actual subject of the book. That this framework got wrapped in New Thought metaphysics doesn’t invalidate its practical content, though it does require the reader to do some separating of signal from noise.
The signal is substantial. Strip away the Formless Substance cosmology and the monistic theology, and what’s left is a set of claims about human motivation, economic creativity, and the psychology of wealth creation that anticipates by decades many of the insights behavioral economists, organizational psychologists, and successful practitioners have since reached through more rigorous routes. Wattles didn’t have the vocabulary of modern psychology. But he had a remarkable grasp of the behavioral patterns distinguishing people who build wealth from people who don’t — and he stated those patterns with a directness most contemporary business writers, padded with case studies and caveats, never quite match.
The Formless Substance: Metaphysics as Motivational Frame
Wattles begins with metaphysics — a choice plenty of contemporary readers skip or dismiss outright. He proposes that all material reality expresses a single underlying Formless Substance, an intelligent original substance that thinks and desires, and that thinking vividly about a desired outcome impresses that outcome onto the Formless Substance, which then arranges the material world to produce it. New Thought cosmology at its most unfiltered, and not scientifically defensible in any meaningful sense.
But Wattles’s metaphysics function primarily as motivational infrastructure, not literal description of physical causation. Whatever the cosmological framework accomplishes — regardless of its literal truth — it establishes in the reader’s mind a specific relationship to the project of wealth creation: that it’s natural rather than transgressive, that the universe favors life and growth rather than scarcity and competition, and that the resources available to someone seeking to create wealth aren’t diminished by their seeking. The function is preemptively dismantling the guilt, ambivalence, and shame plenty of people carry around the pursuit of money — associations Wattles correctly identified as among the most reliably self-defeating psychological conditions a person can bring to building wealth.
The psychological cost of money ambivalence is real, and underestimated. Research on money attitudes consistently shows many people carry deeply conflicted feelings about wealth — wanting it while believing wanting it is selfish, or that having it is corrupting, or that pursuing it is spiritually incompatible with being a good person. These conflicts don’t just cause inefficiency. They produce active self-sabotage: unconsciously undermining wealth-building efforts because the fully realized outcome is tied to a negative self-concept. Wattles’s metaphysical framework attacks this directly — by positioning the pursuit of wealth as not just acceptable but as an expression of the universe’s inherent desire for growth and life, he tries to remove the ambivalence before it can do damage. Whether the metaphysics is true matters less than whether the psychological effect it produces — permission to pursue wealth without guilt — is genuine.
Creative vs. Competitive: The Most Important Distinction in the Book
The most genuinely important idea in The Science of Getting Rich — the one most worth examining carefully and applying seriously — is Wattles’s distinction between the creative plane and the competitive plane of economic activity. This is where Wattles departs most clearly from the conventional economic thinking of his era, and where his framework most clearly anticipates insights that would take another century to fully articulate.
Wattles argues wealth isn’t created by competing for a fixed share of existing resources — taking from others, outmaneuvering competitors, securing a bigger piece of a pie whose total size is fixed. That approach, the competitive plane, is both limited in ultimate yield and corrosive in its psychological effects. It positions every economic transaction as a zero-sum contest where your gain requires someone else’s loss, and it produces exactly the mental habits — vigilance, defensiveness, scarcity thinking — most likely to prevent the creative expansion of genuine wealth.
The alternative — the creative plane — is the economic mode where new value gets genuinely created: new products, new services, new solutions to existing problems, new ways of delivering existing goods with greater efficiency or quality. On the creative plane, the relevant question isn’t “how do I get a bigger share of what already exists” but “how do I create something that didn’t exist before, that people genuinely need and will pay for?” Not merely a different strategy, this. A fundamentally different orientation to economic life — one requiring different psychological equipment, different kinds of attention, different sources of motivation.
The economic validity of this distinction is well established by modern entrepreneurship research and innovation economics. Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction — economic growth driven by the continuous introduction of genuinely new products and processes, not by the redistribution of existing resources — is essentially Wattles’s creative plane, formalized into economic theory. Research on entrepreneurial motivation confirms that the most economically productive entrepreneurs aren’t primarily motivated by zero-sum competitive victories but by the intrinsic drive to build, to solve, to create something that didn’t previously exist. The competitive mindset — what Wattles would recognize as the scarcity orientation — turns up more in incumbent firms defending market share than in the innovative individuals and organizations actually driving economic growth.
For the individual reader, the practical implication of Wattles’s creative-versus-competitive distinction is significant. The question of how to get rich shifts from “how do I beat others at the existing game” to “what problem can I solve, what value can I create, what genuinely useful thing can I bring into the world that people will be grateful to pay for?” Different questions, these, producing different strategies, different business models, different psychological experiences of the wealth-building process itself. Wattles’s insistence that you cannot enrich yourself by impoverishing others — that genuine wealth is always created rather than taken — is both economically accurate and psychologically important. It removes the zero-sum anxiety from wealth-building and replaces it with a creative orientation that is, at every scale from individual to civilization, the actual engine of economic growth.
The Certain Way: Thinking in a Specific Manner
Wattles refers throughout to “the certain way” — the specific manner of thinking and acting he claims reliably produces wealth. Mystical-sounding, the phrase. More prosaic and more practically useful than the language suggests, the content. Examined carefully, the certain way describes a specific psychological orientation toward wealth creation: clarity of desire, absence of doubt, continuous gratitude, decisive action.
The first element is clarity. Wattles is emphatic that vague, unfocused desire — the generalized wish to “be successful” or “have more” — produces nothing. The Formless Substance, he says, can’t respond to ambiguity. In non-metaphysical terms: the mind can’t effectively pursue what it can’t clearly specify. Research on goal setting consistently confirms this. Specific, clearly defined goals — the kind letting you know precisely when you’ve achieved them — produce significantly better outcomes than vague aspirations, across domains from physical performance to financial achievement to educational attainment. Wattles’s instruction to form a clear and specific mental picture of what you want — not “a nice house” but a specific house with specific features in a specific location — is behavioral goal specification, not magical incantation.
The second element is the absence of doubt. Wattles names doubt — specifically, doubt you’ll achieve what you seek, or that the universe will provide it — as the single most destructive element in the wealth-creation psychology. This is where he’s closest to modern self-efficacy theory. Albert Bandura’s research established that belief in one’s capacity to execute the behaviors required to achieve a goal is one of the strongest predictors of goal achievement, independent of actual ability. The person who doubts they can do something tends to make less effort, give up sooner in the face of difficulty, and interpret setbacks as confirmation of their own inadequacy — all of which reliably produce the failure the doubt anticipated. The person who believes they can do something makes more effort, persists longer, interprets setbacks as information rather than verdict — all of which dramatically increase the odds of success.
Wattles isn’t saying doubt is cosmically harmful in a metaphysical sense. He’s saying — with more precision than he knew, given research that would follow — that doubt is functionally destructive because it changes the behavioral patterns that actually produce outcomes. The believer and the doubter aren’t distinguished by what the universe hands them. They’re distinguished by what they do — how hard they try, how long they persist, how they respond to adversity — and those behavioral differences are what produce the outcome differences Wattles observed and attributed to cosmic responsiveness.
Gratitude: The Psychological Mechanism Behind the Metaphysics
What is scientifically defensible is the psychological effect of gratitude practice — and the research is extensive enough that Wattles’s prescription, if not his mechanism, holds up well. Robert Emmons and Michael McCullough’s foundational research on gratitude showed people who regularly practice it — who consistently direct attention toward what’s going well, what they’ve received, what they appreciate — report greater positive affect, greater life satisfaction, more energy, stronger social connections, better physical health than matched controls who don’t. Not trivial in size, these effects, and they’ve been replicated across many subsequent studies, multiple countries, multiple populations.
The mechanism isn’t cosmological. It’s attentional. Gratitude practice works by systematically redirecting attention from what’s absent, deficient, or threatening — the default attentional orientation of human minds shaped by evolutionary negativity bias — toward what’s present, sufficient, positive. That redirection changes emotional tone, which changes motivation, which changes behavior, which changes outcomes. The grateful person isn’t cosmically favored. They’re psychologically better equipped for the creative activity Wattles says produces wealth, because genuine appreciation is fundamentally incompatible with the scarcity anxiety that disrupts creative thinking.
The specific gratitude practice Wattles recommends — thanking for what you’re about to receive, as if it were already on its way — is essentially mental contrasting with an optimistic prior. It generates the psychological state of confident expectation, which research on implementation intentions and approach motivation shows is among the most powerful predictors of successful goal pursuit. Someone genuinely grateful in advance isn’t fooling themselves. They’re generating the motivational and attentional state most conducive to the actions that will actually produce the outcome they’re grateful for.
Acting in the Certain Way: Vision Without Action Is Daydream
One feature setting Wattles apart from much of the New Thought tradition is his insistence on action. Explicit and emphatic, this: thinking the right thoughts, maintaining gratitude, visualizing clearly — none of it substitutes for decisive, purposeful action. “You must act NOW,” he writes, in one of his most direct passages. The person who thinks correctly and waits for wealth to appear without acting isn’t following the certain way. They’re indulging wishful thinking dressed up in metaphysical vocabulary.
This insistence on action as the essential component of wealth creation separates Wattles from the pure law-of-attraction tradition Byrne’s The Secret represents, and it’s where his framework runs most practically rigorous. He argues the mind in the creative orientation — clear about its goal, free of doubt, sustained by gratitude — will naturally generate impulses toward specific, concrete action. The conscious mind’s job isn’t planning a complete strategy in advance but recognizing and acting on the impulses as they arise, with full energy and no hesitation. This description of the psychology of creative action — the experience of being “in the zone,” a clear sense of what to do next and the energy to do it immediately — is a recognizable feature of high-performance creative and entrepreneurial work.
What Wattles is describing, in the language available to him in 1910, is something close to what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi would later call “flow” — total absorption in a meaningful challenge, marked by effortless effort, clear goals, immediate feedback, the near-complete merger of action and awareness. Flow states associate with peak performance, creative breakthrough, work of unusual quality. They tend to arise under the right psychological conditions: high challenge matched with high skill, clear goals, intrinsic motivation, absence of self-consciousness. Wattles’s prescriptions — clarity of purpose, absence of doubt, creative orientation, decisive action — describe, in behavioral terms, the psychological preconditions for flow-like states of productive creative engagement. The metaphysical vocabulary is the vehicle.
The destination is a recognizable and achievable human psychological state.
The Right Business: Matching Work to Genuine Contribution
Wattles makes a claim in the later chapters that’s often overlooked but ranks among his most practically valuable insights: you’ll most readily get rich in a business or career naturally expressing your greatest abilities and deepest interests — not whatever business happens to be most fashionable or most obviously lucrative. Someone who forces themselves into a field for which they hold no natural talent or genuine enthusiasm is working against the grain of their own psychological equipment, and the friction of that misalignment shows in the quality and creativity of their work.
This claim is well supported by research on vocational fit, engagement, and performance. Cal Newport’s concept of career capital — building deep skills in work you’re genuinely drawn to produces both greater mastery and greater opportunity than chasing fashionable careers for external reasons — is one contemporary formulation of the same insight. Extensive research on work engagement shows people who experience their work as meaningful and aligned with their strengths produce consistently better outcomes — more creative solutions, greater persistence through difficulty, more effective collaboration — than people doing the same work while viewing it as merely instrumental to financial goals.
Wattles’s specific instruction is to identify the work you can do most naturally and most enthusiastically, and to develop, within that domain, the creative, value-adding approach that constitutes the certain way. Not “follow your passion” in the naive sense — Wattles isn’t promising enthusiasm alone will produce wealth absent skill, strategy, and action. He’s arguing that genuine interest paired with creative orientation beats calculated choice paired with competitive motivation, and that finding the work domain where you most easily access the creative orientation is a practical strategic priority, not merely a lifestyle preference.
The Impression of Increase: Every Transaction as an Act of Value Creation
One of Wattles’s most practically specific instructions is giving every person more in use value than you take from them in cash value — making sure every commercial transaction, every service rendered, every product sold, leaves the other party genuinely better off than the price they paid. He calls this the impression of increase: the experience, for everyone you deal with, that engaging with you leaves them richer, more capable, or more alive than before.
In economic terms, this instruction is a description of customer surplus maximization — making sure the value delivered to the customer reliably exceeds the price charged. In marketing terms, it’s brand building at its most fundamental: creating the experience of genuine benefit that produces loyalty, referral, and the kind of reputation that reduces customer acquisition costs indefinitely. In ethical terms, it’s a commitment to honest commerce — actually delivering what’s promised rather than exploiting information asymmetry or switching costs.
The business strategy research here is clear and consistent. Companies that systematically create customer value exceeding the price charged — consistently leaving customers feeling they got more than they paid for — outperform companies optimizing for margin extraction over the long run. The mechanism is simple: genuine value creation produces loyalty, referral, and growing customer bases; margin extraction produces churn, negative word of mouth, and deteriorating competitive position. Wattles is describing, a century before the research existed to confirm it, the strategic logic of sustainable value-based business — the approach producing the kind of durable, compounding wealth he’s writing about.
Where Wattles Falls Short: The Limits of Individual Psychology
In 1910, Wattles wrote in a context where racial apartheid, gender exclusion from most economic activity, legal barriers to property ownership, and labor practices making genuine entrepreneurship impossible for most workers were simply the normal conditions of economic life. His framework, which assumes anyone thinking in the certain way can get rich, presupposes a level of structural opportunity that wasn’t equally available to all Americans in 1910 — and isn’t equally available to all people today. Someone living in a community without functioning capital markets, legal protections for property rights, access to education, or freedom from violence isn’t failing to think in the certain way when they fail to build wealth. They’re operating under structural conditions his framework simply can’t account for.
Not a fatal objection to the book’s practical value, this, but an important limitation on the scope of its claims. The correct reading isn’t that Wattles’s principles apply universally regardless of structural conditions. It’s that within the structural conditions that do permit individual economic agency — which, for this book’s intended audience, likely includes most readers — the psychological and behavioral principles Wattles identifies are genuine and important determinants of outcomes. The framework works best as a guide for the internal changes within individual agency, held alongside a clear-eyed understanding of the external conditions that aren’t.
The Enduring Case for Wattles
Wallace Wattles published The Science of Getting Rich three years before his death, in poor health, in modest financial circumstances. The irony hasn’t escaped critics of the New Thought tradition. But the more relevant question isn’t whether Wattles himself got rich by following his own principles — he may not have had the time or health to fully apply them — but whether the principles themselves produce the outcomes he claimed, applied consistently under appropriate conditions. The answer, based on a century of accumulated research since his death, is largely yes — with the qualifications already noted.
The core insights of The Science of Getting Rich — that wealth is created rather than competed for, that the psychology of abundance outperforms the psychology of scarcity, that clarity of purpose and absence of doubt are behavioral prerequisites for high performance, that gratitude redirects attention in ways improving motivation and creative thinking, that every commercial interaction should aim to create genuine value exceeding its price — aren’t New Age platitudes. They’re descriptions of behavioral patterns the research on entrepreneurship, motivation, creativity, and economic performance consistently confirms. The metaphysical vocabulary Wattles used to express these insights isn’t the vocabulary we’d use today. But the insights themselves have aged remarkably well — better, in a lot of respects, than more methodologically rigorous works from the same era that have long since been forgotten.
The book’s most practically valuable instruction remains the distinction between the creative and competitive planes — the choice, at every decision point, between creating new value and competing for existing value. Available at every scale of economic life, this choice, from the individual freelancer positioning their services to the multinational corporation deciding whether to innovate or to litigate. The person who consistently chooses the creative plane — who asks, in every context, how they can create more value rather than capture more of the existing value — isn’t merely following an old self-help book. They’re enacting, one decision at a time, the economic logic that’s produced every significant human advancement. Wattles understood this in 1910. The rest of us are still learning to act on it.
Advance, Not Competition: The Psychology of Collaborative Prosperity
One of the less-discussed but practically significant aspects of Wattles’s framework is his explicit argument against competitive psychology — the zero-sum orientation to business and economic life that treats every competitor’s success as a reduction in your own opportunity. Wattles is direct: the person who thinks in terms of competition — watching competitors with resentment, celebrating their failures, viewing the market as a contest with fixed prizes — isn’t merely philosophically mistaken. They’re psychologically equipped for the wrong game.
The competitive psychology, as Wattles describes it, produces a specific and damaging attentional orientation: rather than focusing on what can be created, improved, what genuine value can be brought to the people being served, the competitive mind spends its attention on what others are doing — how to undercut, outmaneuver, outlast them. This attention isn’t merely wasted. It actively displaces the creative attention that would otherwise produce real value. The entrepreneur obsessed with what a competitor is building is an entrepreneur not building anything. The attention runs zero-sum in practice even when the market isn’t: every hour spent monitoring and reacting to competition is an hour not spent creating.
Modern strategic research has increasingly confirmed the wisdom of this orientation. W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne’s “Blue Ocean Strategy” — one of the most influential business frameworks of the past two decades — makes essentially the same argument in the language of business strategy: companies focused on creating new market space rather than competing for existing market share consistently outperform companies oriented around competitive positioning. The companies Kim and Mauborgne study are creating industries rather than taking market share — making the competitive reference point irrelevant by operating in space competitors haven’t entered yet. Wattles’s creative plane, translated into MBA language, and its consistent association with superior business outcomes is a meaningful vindication of his framework.
The individual-level application here is about attentional management: where is the mental energy going? Someone building a business, a career, or a creative practice who spends significant time and energy watching competitors, resenting successful practitioners in their field, or positioning against specific alternatives is operating from the competitive orientation Wattles identifies as ultimately self-limiting. The same energy directed toward improving the quality and value of what they’re creating themselves — toward the creative plane — produces better outcomes and generates a fundamentally different experience of the work itself.
The Certain Way Applied: Practical Daily Implementation
Wattles’s framework gets most practical translated from principle into daily habit — when the abstract prescription to “think in the certain way” converts into specific, schedulable practices applicable regardless of the reader’s circumstances, income level, or current financial position. At daily practice, the certain way consists of four primary activities Wattles prescribes with varying degrees of explicitness throughout the book.
The first is morning intention setting: starting each day with a clear, specific review of what you’re working toward — a definite purpose, stated clearly enough to know what success looks like — and the activities you’ll perform that day in service of it. Wattles insists that vagueness here is fatal. Beginning the day with a vague sense of wanting to make progress toward some loosely defined goal isn’t practicing the certain way. Beginning with a specific intention — three calls to potential clients, a specific section of a project finished, a specific acquisition opportunity researched — creates the attentional focus that translates creative orientation into concrete action.
The second is the practice of gratitude — deliberate, specific enumeration of what’s going well, what resources are available, what progress has been made. Wattles suggests maintaining this as a continuous background orientation rather than a single daily exercise: a habit of mind noticing and appreciating evidence of abundance rather than filtering for evidence of scarcity. The research on gratitude practice consistently shows this orientation can be deliberately cultivated through practice, and its effects on mood, motivation, and cognitive flexibility are real and meaningful. For the business person or entrepreneur, this might take the specific form of: reviewing three wins from the previous day before starting the current day’s work, reviewing evidence of customer value before entering challenging negotiations, reviewing progress toward long-term goals during moments the current situation feels discouraging.
The third is what Wattles calls acting in the “present moment with all your power” — a commitment to bring full engagement and energy to the tasks immediately at hand rather than saving effort for more glamorous future opportunities. This principle anticipates the research on deliberate practice by nearly a century: the quality of attention and effort brought to the current task is the primary determinant of skill development and output quality, and the habit of performing current tasks at less than full engagement because they feel insufficiently significant is a habit of mind guaranteeing mediocre outcomes across all tasks — including the eventually significant ones.
The fourth is the daily review — honest assessment, at the end of each working day, of whether that day’s actions aligned with the certain way: creative rather than competitive, value-creating rather than value-extracting, focused on advancement rather than resentment, gratitude rather than complaint. Not an occasion for self-recrimination when the day fell short, this review. A calibration tool — a daily opportunity to notice drift from the intended orientation and recommit before the drift becomes a habit of its own. The person practicing this four-part daily discipline — intention, gratitude, full engagement, honest review — isn’t practicing magic. They’re practicing the attentional and behavioral hygiene Wattles correctly identified as the foundation of sustained productive action in any domain.
What Wattles Would Make of the Modern Economy
Reading Wattles from 2025’s vantage point raises an interesting question: how would his framework translate to an economy he couldn’t have imagined? In 1910, the creative plane belonged primarily to manufacturers, merchants, and professional service providers working within the constraints of physical geography and pre-digital communication. The products that could be created were physical. The markets that could be reached were local or regional. The scale of value creation available to an individual was bounded by the physical limits of their time and their geography.
The digital economy has removed most of these constraints. The person who creates genuine value today — a piece of software, a course, a piece of content, a digital tool, a marketplace, a community — can distribute that value to a global audience at essentially zero marginal cost. The use available to a single value creator in 2025 outstrips by orders of magnitude what the most creative merchant in 1910 could reach. The principle that wealth is created rather than competed for — that the creative plane outperforms the competitive plane — is more true in the digital economy than when Wattles wrote it, because the returns to genuine creative value creation have never been larger or more broadly accessible.
At the same time, the attention economy the digital world has produced creates a specific challenge Wattles couldn’t have anticipated: the abundance of competition for attention makes the competitive orientation more tempting and more immediately rewarding than it’s ever been. The social media metrics — views, followers, engagement — measuring competitive positioning in the attention economy create constant pressure toward the competitive orientation, toward content that outcompetes rather than content that creates genuine value. The creator optimizing for metrics is optimizing for attention capture — competitive thinking. The creator optimizing for genuine value — for the reader, listener, or viewer genuinely better off for the engagement — sits on the creative plane. The distinction matters, and the digital environment makes it harder to maintain, because competitive metrics are visible and immediate while the cumulative effect of genuine value creation on a loyal audience takes longer to manifest and is harder to quantify. Wattles’s framework, applied to this environment, would emphasize the same things it always has: create the thing that genuinely helps, trust the creative process, refuse to be pulled into the metric-optimizing competition substituting visibility for value. The certain way hasn’t changed. The distractions from it have multiplied.
Related: When Things Fall Apart Summary: Key Takeaways and What to Do Next
FROM THE LIBRARY ›
References
Editorial StandardsCorrectionsMedical DisclaimerAbout Our ContentAffiliate DisclosureSite Map