Cart 0

Rationalizations received by John T. Reed regarding false statements in Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki

Posted by John Reed on

Certain “spin” themes recur:

  • So what, it's just a little book.
  • So who cares if he oversimplifies a little?
  • It's OK if he lies because it's just a motivational book.
  • He got me thinking about finance and that's all I care about.
  • What is truth anyway?

Here is a pertinent statement that Adlai Stevenson once said in a speech: “You will find that the truth is often unpopular and the contest between agreeable fancy and disagreeable fact is unequal. For, in the vernacular, we Americans are suckers for good news.”

In his book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, historian Daniel J. Boorstin said, “[P.T.] Barnum's great discovery was not how easy it is to deceive the public, but rather how much the public enjoyed being deceived.” Media consultant Ellen Hume says, “The problem is you get to the point where people prefer to believe the myth.”


“How can someone be wrong when he tells his own story? It's up to the reader how much of that experience he wants to emulate or dismiss. I am sorry to say that I did not have the patience to read all that Reed had to say, but I did read enough to determine that unlike "Rich Dad Poor Dad" doing so would only discourage me from accepting a compelling life story which to be blunt, I don't care if it is absolutely correct theory or not. I simply believe that it offers some very important concepts that to me are important to learn. I can see that the bottom line is that Kiosaki benefited by his effort in writting the book to a far greater extent than Reed did by trying to tear it down.

“So for my bet I don't care who is right or wrong, I can benefit from reading Kiosaki and I don't see any benefit from Reed.”


“You took several portions of selected text out of context to give the reader the impression that Kiyosaki recommended strategies which were obviously not sound, when in fact he did not. You omitted important qualifiers that Kiyosaki added to his advice, which if included, would have shown that the advice is valid.”


If you expect to get a book that tells you in detail step-by-step how to create wealth, and then it doesnt, I guess you would be upset. I didnt expect this though, so those things you pointed out didnt really upset me, thought most of them are true.

I think people that are upset or felt decieved after buying Kiyosaki's book and then reading your review are the ones that have the problems. If Kiyosaki made them feel so passionate for him, and then you reveresed thier whole thinking simply with one webpage, i really doubt the common sense and intelligence of those people.

To sum it up. People who got upset from buying his book need to learn to control thier impulsive habits. They thought Kiyosaki's book was get-rich-quick scheme, and they fell for it. Then got upset when you pointed it out. Kiyosaki is more a motivational speaker than business man, i can see that, and anyone who would have taken a little time to research things before impulsively buying wouldve realized the same. Complaining about it wont help them. I like Kiyosaki's books, but then again i have realistic expectations about them, and i look elsewhere if i want more in detailed information.”


“Reading your article it seems to me that you know a lot more about investing, real estate and the law. But the one thing R.K's books has got me doing is thinking about my finances and how to improve my life in later years.”


“Do I believe all of his stories are true? Nope. Neither were most of the stories Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed (sp?) told. They were not reporting facts, they were telling a tale to make a point.

BTW, if you check on his definition of an "inside investor" in Book 3, I think you'll discover that he is not recommending anything illegal, immoral or unethical.”


“I thought that your critics would be less offended if you attempted to be less overtly negative and tried to find some good with the bad. Maybe you feel that there is little or no value to Rich Dad Poor Dad (RDPD), but making an attempt to point out some ideas that have merit would give the impression of a more open-minded, fair review.

[Note from Reed: I agree. I usually do point out the good in my negative reviews. For example, see my review of Robert Shemin's book Secrets of A Millionaire Real Estate Investor. The fact that I was unable to do so with Rich Dad Poor Dad is an indication of how amazingly awful that book is.]

After reading your review, I cannot help but agree that RDPD is bad real estate investment resource, but may have some motivational value and the author is correct that our educational system does an ineffective job teaching financial literacy.”


“Page 19 ‘...The lessons are not meant to be answers, but guideposts.'”


“You concentrate on picking apart the technical aspects of the book while I look at the overall inspirational benefit of having my own "Rich Dad". ”


“…your following statement amounts to no more or less than "fundamentalism," if you take it "literally," and I see no other "stated" reason on you part to read it otherwise. Mind you, if you agree with yourself, you'd be undoing every possible rational argument on your behalf:

"In fact, if a book has a point, multiple readers ought to come up with the same answer when asked what that point is. If they come up with different answers, it is either because the author was incompetent at communicating his point, or because the book has no point, or because the author deliberately obfuscated the point."

What is the difference between this line of thinking and every fundamentalist reading of any text around Planet Earth?

Apparently, then, the God of the Judeo-Muslim-Christian Scriptures was deeply flawed, or so were Cervantes, Cervantes, Flaubert, and the writers of the US Constitution. You sure know a lot about the latter. Hmmm! What if multiple readers had come up with different answers. Well… some history might have happened!!!

Following your own statements, please tell us then what is "the" point of the Bible or the Koran. Please tell us what is "the" point of the American Constitution or the French Declaration of Human Rights. Better yet, Hamlet or Don Quijote. Or were they all part of an "obsfuscating" conspiracy? Hmmm! If you can tell us what THE point of these books are, you'll make a lot more sense. I eagerly await from you THE answer to which "multiple readers ought to come up with".”


“I've read the first three of his books, and have found each of them wonderfully informative, written for the beginner that knows nothing, like me. I rate him an A+ for even attempting to teach a subject as complex as investing. ”


“You provide a valuable tool for people looking for the truth, but the truth isn't always black or white.”


I frankly was less interested in investigating Kiosaki's exact assets, and was more interested to evaluate his message and extract any pertient value. No doubt, a lot of literary license was taken in the detail, but the message holds true, all the same, and made the read rather absorbing. Anyway, enough said. Different people have different opinions, much like the three blind men and the elephant.


Education is the key, and if you can understand that, you won't be tarrying on simple details.


Is he technically erroneous? Sure. What do you want for twenty dollars?


I like the RK books because they're easy to read being that it provides a story. It gives personal history (no matter how true it may be) and that keeps my attention.


I am not going to defend Robert Kiyosaki based on the specifics of his book, but upon the worth while paradigm shift that he presents…


And one last mention, your so worried about what's real and whats not in his book, and yet mention it's place on the book shelf (fiction/non fiction) in one editorial..think about it.....what he did is extremely smart. It's placement on the book shelf means that not every thing in the book has to be true, thus avoiding any legal conflict and allows the autho to stretch the truth a little bit to make it more intresting ....duh


Everything is a matter of interpretation. If 100 people say the object they see is blue and 1 says it is red, which one is it? Red or blue? Where is the truth? Can the answer be truth for all? What if the object is really violet? Those who want to see red, see red, those who want to see purple see purple.


Oh - and even if Kiyosaki's stories are total FICTION - nevertheless they are a GREAT METAPHOR to explain his



Perhaps Robert Kiyosaki has embellished his wealth or experiences, who cares. He's reaching people and trying to do something positive…if he profits along the way…that is ok.

Share this post

← Older Post Newer Post →

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published.