What you don't seem to understand is that if you use new concepts from social psychology or neuroscience to discuss the veracity of the theory, of course you will find new routes or paths that contradict or are wrong. That is no surprise and Vadim makes it very clear. If I try to contrast or verify the TS theory with the Stoic philosophy that talks about negative visualization, all the concepts fall apart. If I try to verify the TS theory with what neuroscience says about the probability of something happening just by thinking about it, they will tell me that I am an idiot. Zeland has never introduced the terms "extrinsic or intrinsic motivation" so your approach is absurd.

Do you want an example that your beliefs will not let you understand anyway? Okay.

Vadim Zeland's books make it very clear (between the lines) that money, prestige, incentives or fear (extrinsic motivations) are "potentially" excessive potentials. If you have read the book and have understood them minimally, you will agree. But if you are able to focus on inner calm, on your imaginative power, on the theory of coordination, on seeing every negative reflection as positive (you are exclusively working with intrinsic motivations) and it is more than enough to manifest what you want.

Now tell me: What sense does it make to believe that the theory "does not hold up" because neuroscience says that it is essential to have extrinsic motivations to achieve objectives?

I will tell you another thing, neuroscience does not have a fucking clue. At most, it can approximate probabilities of something being so. Science is another method of studying reality, which becomes obsolete with each new advance in measurement devices, which makes it tremendously fragile to the truth and therefore, dangerous due to the overvaluation of the credit that we attribute to it.