50 Rules, Fnord's quote, Denis Waitley quote

Post Reply New Topic

Denis Waitley notes: "The winners in life think constantly in terms of I can, I will, and I am. Losers, on the other hand, concentrate their waking thoughts on what they should have done or would have done, or what they cant do.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4964845.html#4964845

I have the book 50 Rules Kids Won't Learn in Schoo and have read it from cover to coverl. I do believe there are things Mr. Charles J. Sykes actually is logical on. There are things he says that his logic is spot on.

He quotes Denis Waitley and he also uses a quote that Fnord used. There are things about these quotes I do not understand. On the Denis Waitley quote about winners and losers here are my questions:

1.

a. If one does not understand his past how would he know where he is going?

b. Why is it wrong to analyze one's past to determine what he or she did wrong so he or she doesn't make the same follies? I do not grasp the rationale behind this.

c. What if the thing which this person can't do is vital to his survival in a given society? Why would he not focus on this to try to gain an understanding of it in order to mitigate it or to work around it? How does this quote teach someone how to grow food or drive a car?

2. Why is the belief in one's ability to do something is concentrated on more and given more emphasis then the actual ability itself? Why is the attitude of a person concentrated on more so then the actualy teaching of the ability?

For example, let's say I do not know how to change a tire. This is where the logic seems to fall apart. Why do people concentrate on my belief that I can change the tire instead of teaching how to change the tire? Why is attitude and belief given way more emphasis then teaching the content of something and improving the ability?

3. If one's belief truthfully can affect his reasoning then how can one determine what he can do or can't do in an objective and impartial manner? If I can truthfully do anything and I believe then why can't I levitate a rock just with the power of my thoughts?

4. How do quotes like this help a person who lacks an ability in something? How does mere belief give one the ability without instruction and studying?

I think that a great deal of this has to do with our internal grammar.

Phrases like, "I can," "I will," and, "I am," are all in the active voice and the indicative mode. They indicate direct action by the speaker.

Phrases that start, "I should have," are generally in the subjunctive mood and they serve to subordinate the speaker's actions to some external condition.

Phrases in the structure, "I was (verb) by (agent)," are generally in the passive voice, and reduce the speaker from the agent to the object.

Now, when looking back at past mistakes, the person who speaks in the active voice and indicative mood says, "I will never make that mistake again." Whereas the person who speaks in the subjunctive says, "I shouldn't have done things that way." The person who speaks in the passive voice says something like, "I was beaten by _____." The meaning is essentially similar, but the first is more affirmative than the second, and both imply a level of personal responsibility that is missing from the third.

Similar grammar can be found in tackling the unknown. "I will figure out how to do this," is a much more affirmative statement than, "I should learn how to do this," which is stronger still than, "I don't know how to do this."

Attitude most certainly does have an impact on all manner of human activities. The motivated learner is likely to be a more effective learner. "I'm here to learn because I want to know this stuff," is a stronger attitude than, "I'm here because I don't know this stuff." I certainly see it in a clinical setting with patients. Not all patients respond identically to treatment--but those who have a positive attitude toward their therapy will, generally speaking, respond better than a similar patient with a neutral or negative attitude.

Attitude won't let a person accomplish the impossible. But it will allow a person to accomplish more than they expected.

This is very interesting. I will have to tell my father about this. I believe my perception of the internal grammar is different. This may be where I may be getting my wires crossed with other people.



I interpret this differently. From my perception, if I say "I will never make that nevermake that mistake again" to me it comes across as a form of having a high ego and pride. How can you say for absolute certainty you won't make the same mistake? To me, when one says the first one they are setting themselves up of making a promise and failing to deliver.

The second one leaves it as conditional. To me, it says one must try not to do it again but may not always succeed. In my mind, if I use this form, I'm not lying to others or myself. I will not guarantee success to myself or to others If I do not know for absolute certainity that I can deliver. To me, that is being a straight up liar.

With respect to the third one, this is where I have issues. There are areas I do not feel personally responsible and the reason why I should feel personally responsible eludes me. I will not claim personal responsibility if I do not feel personally responsible. If I did that, again would I not be dishonest and be a liar? Wouldn't it be irresponsible of me to lie about being responsible when I truthfully do not feel that way?



Again, this is an issue about deception and about empty promises. When one says "I will figure out how to do this" and he does not then to me he broke a promise. He set himself up to make a promise he could not keep. With respect to the second one, to me one needs to but one may not always be able to tackling this unknown. One may fail. Failure is a part of reality and to claim one will succeed with absolute certainity like he is God to me is pride. To me, when one says the first one instead of the second he again sets himself up to make a promise he may not be able to keep.



Yes, attitude does have some impact on all manner of human activities. There is some truth to it but where I have a problem is when attitude is presented as though that it is the building blocks of all time and space. Human beings are limited to certain constraints. We are not gods. I do not see myself. The only thing that I know of and aware of is my own ignorance.

The thing is not all human beings will be interested in all subjects. This is as natural as night and day. I don't understand how by sheer thought that one can just become interested in a subject and why one must do so. There are some things I'm not interested in but logically derive that I must learn it for practicality's sake. For example, I am not interested in cleaning and I hate cleaning the house but I do it anyway because it needs to be done to keep the house especially our cooking area free of germs.



I agree but to a certain extent. No human being is a god and we do not have control over time and space.

Internal grammar is most often aspirational rather than declarative. Saying, "I will never make that mistake again," is not a statement of absolute condition--it is a condition to be aspired to. If we never make aspirational statements, for fear of failure, then where would be the genesis of achievement? I subscribe to the sentiment, "failure is no sin--only low ambition."

As for the last, one should certainly not take responsibility uncritically. But too often people are prepared to blame external forces in an effort to absolve themselves of any responsibility. Blaming circumstances or others entirely for one's own lack of success is just as much an error as failure to acknowledge the role that external circumstances have played.



Your sentiments are far too absolute for my taste.

As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no promise inherent in the first statement, and there is no blame in a failure to achieve it. Period.



No one is suggesting that attitude is sufficient in and of itself. You are subjecting the sentiment to analysis that it was never intended to bear.

And never have I suggested that interest and motivation are identical. You are not interested in cleaning--but you are motivated to clean because of other, rational interests. Your attitude (your desire to keep your house hygenic) provides you with the motivation to do what you would not otherwise be inclined to do. The triumph of attitude over inclination.



How is your statement not incorporated in to my first sentence?

Have you started this thread looking for understanding, or for confirmation of your own biases?

I think I grasp what you're saying. What you are saying is I can get closer and closer to infinity but never reach it. Let's say I have 4/x=z The more I increase z to positive infinity the closer and closer I will reach 0 but I will never reach 0. Is this what you're trying to convey?




I get what you're saying. You're saying that there are those who will always blame external circumstances when they should not. This means they are being too extreme on the external side of the locus of control scale am I correct?




I wasn't trying to be absolute. I must've misunderstood then. What you're saying is the possibility of failure is implied then but one must not concentrate on failure even though one must acknowledge that failure is logically possible? Is this what you're conveying?





Will you please elaborate further?



I was thinking along the lines of it was the rational and logical thing to do. Maybe I am misunderstanding what attitude even means? Can you provide a definition to what attitude means just to make sure we're on the same wavelength if you don't mind?





I was affirming and agreeing with what you said. We're in agreement.



First, can one ever get rid of all biases one has?

Second, I desire these main things out of life.

a. I am looking for understanding.
b. Knowing what the right thing to do in every circumstance and being able to do it.
c. A world without contradictions.
d. Being able to be true to myself

I look for truth and understanding and that is the problem. Fnord told me and others to love our country or to leave it. I can't do that because I want to pursue truth and I will do the same thing in another country as this one. I understand why Socrates stayed and took the hemlock. To him, it was honorable to follow the law and he couldn't stop practicing what he believed.

I have to ask you why is living life always a noble thing and why is death always ignoble? My idea of heaven would be able to engage with socrates and the other philosophers of the different time periods.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 24 Oct 2012, 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

People develop an external locus of control when they perceive themselves as having failed over and over. It's a defense mechanism when accepting internal responsibility will just lead to an unproductive feelings of self-hatred and rage. In this case the only productive option is to set your own goal posts. Becoming hyper-self-conscious and constantly thinking in terms artificial goal posts that are perceived as being imposed on you by the outside world is horribly depressing and counterproductive.

Motivation is more like a flame. If the flame sputters out under the weight of depression you have to slowly feed it with small kindling to get it going again. It's only the experience of setting small goals and following through that build the flame of confidence and motivation back up. The problem that gets in the way for me personally is having an all-or-nothing attitude. It's extremely easy to get massively frustrated over some failure and not be able to let it go and come up with a different goal post.

In any case, letting "society" or some external ideal define the success you strive for is stupid. Success is a relative concept that must be set internally. Seriously, in real life there will be s**t that happens that you have no control over forcing you to reassess the things that are truly important. There are professional athletes who have an accident and become paraplegic. For most it isn't a good enough reason to immediately give up on life and ask for death. They try to find new challenges even if they might seem much smaller in comparison.

Marshall, how can one set a goal if one does not know nor understand the parameters of a given system. With respect to programming, I can create a software application because programming has a syntax to it. I can derive the rules. With respect to society I cannot derive them, the workplace and obtaining a job.

For example, I had to claim disability and I majored in IT. I did not know how one was supposed to obtain an IT job at all after college. I did have a job but it did not pay enough and I did not know the next step was to move on. Certain things transpired and I was fired.

Here is the thing. A number of aspies on here somehow figured out the system of the IT workplace. One possibility is my version of aspergers is very severe and may be the most severe case out there. The thing is though all I'm told is to quit overthinking and to change my attitude. I'm given quotes such as the ones I posted in my initial post. They tell me nothing.

What I need is not aspirational quotes that make no sense but concrete and specific instruction as to how the workplace works. Metaphorically, I need to know how to change the tire. I don't need people to be concerned with how I feel or my disposition towards the tire or my belief of lack ability to change the tire.

Mini Rant-How do I change the f*****g tire?-Mini rant over This last line is helping to vent my rage. Please, I intend no offense to anyone.

I think that the first step is to remember that human language does not obey the same rules of syntax as programming.

When you say that you don't need aspirational quotes, but concrete and specific instructions, I think you have arrived at what you don't understand about the original quote. You have an expectation that people's language will have a single, clear and unambiguous meaning. But human language will never have that.

I think he's talking about aspirational platitudes being used as a cheap substitute for actual concrete advice. Unfortunately this is something that occurs a lot in our culture. There's nothing wrong with aspirational talk as long as it's considered a supplement to actual practical advice, not something that people simply fall back on when they don't have any real answers or don't even understand the problem because they have no perspective on the obstacles others face that they didn't necessarily face.

I really understand your frustration. I think there are two things that can happen.

1.) People don't have enough experience with your specific problems to know how to help but are uncomfortable admitting that they don't know how to help or not saying anything. They offer inspirational talk to try to at least make you feel better but this backfires because it's not what you really need.

2.) You aren't communicating clearly enough to them exactly what they problem is and they just don't understand. If you express too much frustration in describing your problem they unfairly read into that, thinking you're problems are all related to attitude. In that case they're paying more attention to your negative tone than the content of your problem.

This is another thing that frustrates me. A lot of NTs do this but I would never expect this from aspies. I don't just need to be told what not to do. I need to be told what to do. Let's say there are 4 different color of lug nuts. They are red, green, purple, and blue. When you tell me not to use the red one I am still left with three of them. Do I use green, purple or blue?

Marshall, what frustrates me the most is when they treat attitude as though it is the building blocks of reality. They truthfully act like that I have control over the phsyical properties of time and space. There is some truth to attitude influencing my reality but it does not create my reality. For example, if I believed I was Barack Obama and went to the white house and claimed this what do you think would happen. I would be thrown jail or a straight jacket.

When you are told not to use the red one, it seems to me that the principle of expressio unius exclusio alterius est tells us that you may use any of the green, the purple or the blue. Ironically, you seem to be creating an ambiguity where none needs exist.

I don't think that you are correct in the distinction that you draw between Aspies and NTs regarding the use of language. In my experience of Aspies, the impediment that we share in common is not related to the use of language--it is connected to how we relate to other individuals. Some Aspies are perfect wizards with language, possessing the ability to express themselves in poetry, and with subtlety. Others among us are highly impeded verbally. And in that sense, the same is true of NTs.

Am I just overthinking it then? I remember one time I was told to put a pot of water on the opposite side of the stove. I looked at the stove like it was a 2d cartisan plane with an x and y axis. The pot was on the (front, right). There was an issue I had. The back is the opposite of the front. The left is opposite of the right. Which opposite was being referred to? Was I supposed to consider opposite on both dimensions? Only one dimension and if so which one?

I looked up the principle. What it seems to say is that to express one thing excludes another. In this case I started off with exclusion and what you're saying leads to the inclusion. My example seems to be the inverse of expressio unius exclusio alterius est. Is the inverse referred under the same title?



Can you explain further if you don't mind? What do you mean how we relate to other individuals?

By the way, I noticed that the name "James" at the bottom of your posts. Is this your name?

Cubi, you're overthinking it.

Q: If one does not understand his past how would he know where he is going?
A: You need only know where you are right now to determine how to get to where you want to go.

Q: Why is it wrong to analyze one's past to determine what he or she did wrong so he or she doesn't make the same follies?
A: Consider the fate of Lot's wife as a metaphor; she kept looking back to the life she left behind, and this made her as harsh and bitter as a pillar of salt. Another way to say it is this: Dwelling on the past is like rowing a boat -- if you look only where you've been, you never see the dangers that await you on your journey.

Q: What if the thing which this person can't do is vital to his survival in a given society?
A: Then he must either depend upon the kindness and charity of others, or find a cold, dark place to curl up and die.

Q: Why would he not focus on this to try to gain an understanding of it in order to mitigate it or to work around it?
A: Why would he waste time arguing about it when he could seek those who are sympathetic to his needs?

Q: How does this quote teach someone how to grow food or drive a car?
A: It does not. The quote is an essay against the idea that complaining is more productive than effort...

... there are any number of people who whine and complain about how successful people "aren't all that great", but the key point they seem to miss is that successful people are not the ones who whine and complain, but the people who try, try, and try again while suffering the injuries and indignities of failure [i]until they succeed. Successful people don't look at a problem, throw up their hands in defeat, and cry "It's too much!" No, successful people are the ones who look at a problem, determine how to solve it, and then do what it takes to get the job done, even if it means failure and scorn -- they keep trying until the problem is solved.

Q: Why is the belief in one's ability to do something is concentrated on more and given more emphasis then the actual ability itself?
A: It isn't. It is both the ability and the willingness to do the work that are important. Belief does nothing. No one ever accomplished anything by mere belief alone. Even when belief is based on fact, without the ability and willingness to express those beliefs, nothing is going to happen.

Q: Why is the attitude of a person concentrated on more so then the actual teaching of the ability?
A: A person who has already decided that "I can't do it" or "It can't be done" will not benefit from learning, and will only waste the teachers' efforts. This is why those whose only answer to frustration and is "I'm worthless" are quickly ignored and soon forgotten. No one wants to waste time and effort trying to teach someone who is not open to learning; and the person who says, "It's too hard for me" is not open to learning. Instead, the proper attitude for learning is shown by the person who says, "I can do it", "It can be done", "I'm worth more than this", and "It will get easier".

Q: For example, let's say I do not know how to change a tire. This is where the logic seems to fall apart. Why do people concentrate on my belief that I can change the tire instead of teaching how to change the tire? Why is attitude and belief given way more emphasis then teaching the content of something and improving the ability?
A: "I do not know" and "I can't do it" are two different claims. Ignorance is cured by learning, while being physically unable to change a tire may also mean that a person can't dress himself, can't feed himself, and can't perform many other basic functions of day-to-day living. So if you can't change a tire because you don't know how, then learn. The time you've spent posting in this thread could have been spent googling "How to Change a Tire" instead.

Q: If one's belief truthfully can affect his reasoning then how can one determine what he can do or can't do in an objective and impartial manner?
A: By knowing that valid belief comes only after proof. Believing in something without ever having seen it proven is called "faith". Religion is the expression of faith. If your religion demands that you believe that you are incapable of learning and doing, then you've chosen a very poor religion for yourself.

Q: If I can truthfully do anything and I believe then why can't I levitate a rock just with the power of my thoughts?
A: Because what you've been told about telekinesis is a lie. You have to physically act on your beliefs. Mere belief accomplishes nothing.

Q: How do quotes like this help a person who lacks an ability in something?
A: They instruct people in the proper attitude for learning the ability (piano playing, for example), but if you lack the capability to exercise the ability (no hands to play the piano with), then maybe you should find something else that you have the capability of.

Q: How does mere belief give one the ability without instruction and studying?
A: It does not. Mere belief accomplishes nothing.

Stop believing, and start doing -- that's how to succeed.

I will admit I do have a problem with this.



Huh!! I am very confused by what you are saying here. Maybe your brain operates differently than mine. This is along the lines of how I think. Let's say one is consistently late to his job. He is eventually fired. He thinks traffic prevented him from getting to work. In fact, he is consistently late to many appointments and he thinks it is traffic. People get angry with him and he loses friends and family. He believes he can't control traffic and there is nothing he can do. He then wonders, what if he is wrong? He starts to have doubts about his perceived lack of responsibility. He starts to develop a negative disposition towards his own belief of his lack of responsibility. He keeps asking himself "how am I wrong I'm always getting stuck in traffic?" The man mulls over this and his late appointments. He asks himself how can I be on time to my appointments with consistent traffic? He thinks "I don't see how this is possible." After a while an idea hits him. He thinks "for my future appointments I need to leave a hour early. " He implements this idea and obtains good results. Not only is he is their to his appointments on time but he is there early. Sometimes he is their earlier then those he has an appointment with. He is considered reliable. People like him.

If he did not dwell and analyze his past how would he have altered his future results? I do not follow your logic at all.



How do you derive this from the Lot story? I don't understand. All I read is that she was told not to her head back. In fact, Lot and his family was told not to do it. I don't believe the bible states the thoughts in her head whatsoever. I do not derive any kind of point from this part of the story except that she disobeyed an order she was given.

If one has rowboating as a hobby and his boat consistently gets holes because it hits rocks a lot and it leaks when it does wouldn't you want to dwell on the past events of the boat to try to understand why one's boat kept getting holes? If one does not analyze what occured how can one come up with a solution? Maybe he analyzes the bottom of the boat and reenforces the bottom. Unless I am mistaken, I'm interpreting you as saying not to even worry about past sinking of the boats at all. To me, this makes no sense and defies any logic I understand.




Why wouldn't he try to figure out a way around what he can't do? What if he analyzes what he thinks he can't do and it turns out there is a fix or one of his assumptions is faulty? How is one supposed mitigate, work-around or over something he can't do if it is unacceptable to focus on it? I do not understand the thinking on this. To me, it makes no sense.



Maybe because he sees certain beliefs in a given belief system as faulty or the very least they make no sense to him. They come across as Jabberwocky. Maybe he does not accept that just because most of the population in a given society accepts a belief as true does not make it true. This is based upon The Parable of the Poisoned Well(http://www.theparableteller.com/2010/08 ... -well.html)

In addition, he keeps in mind that maybe his assumptions are faulty as well.



I was using the car as a metaphorical example. I should've elaborated. This makes no sense though. If you see a problem and identitfy it one already has a complaint. If one has no complaint then how does he have a problem. How is it possible to identify a problem at all? One has to be able to identify a problem in order to find resolution am I correct? If my assumptions are faulty then why are they faulty?





So, we're in agreement then? This is how I see reality. This is not what is promoted though in our society. What is promoted is things like "you can do anything you set your mind to" or "if you believe hard enough and long enough then your dreams will come to." Henry Ford did not just dream of the Model T. He had it built, massed produced and sold. He had the ability and know how to do this.



This form of thinking is alien to me. I do not think in this way whatsoever. I did not know one was supposed to think in this way. This is how my thought processes work. I initally believe there are some things I can't do. I will call one instance x. I look at the statements of "I can't do it" or "it can't be done" as conclusions from premises. Later after I state these statements or think about them I ask myself what if my conclusion is based upon a faulty premise? There have been times my conclusion has been faulty. I apply my negative thinking to my negative conclusion and correct the faulty premise.

For example, right now I do not believe I can obtain a job at all. I do have a track record in which I have lasted in jobs for quite a bit. My doubt of my ability to obtain a job at all is in doubt. What I seek in this case is to know am I correct in my negativity and my "I can't" attitude or are my premises faulty?

Another example, I didn't think I could wash dishes whatsoever because of my motor coordination problems. Since I have doubts about what I am able to do I then start to doubt the doubting. I start asking myself what if there is a way I can wash the dishes. It took a long time but I found a solution. I doubted my own negativity and the premises the conclusion it came from. I had a negative disposition towards certain premises that made up the negative conclusion.



Sorry, I should've elaborated. I was using the changing of the tire in a metaphorical sense. I've taught myself to tie a tie before by looking it up. I've forgotten it and I would have to re-learn it. I had to go through the steps multiple times. I had doubts I could ever tie a tie until it came to me to look it up. Even then, I still had doubts about tying the tie. Therein lies the problem. What if my doubts are based upon faulty premises. What it turned out was I had problems following the mirror image and I missed a step. The only way I was able to catch this missing step was to play the video step by step and pause in between steps. I was able to disprove my own doubts on tying a tie and my premise that led me to this doubt was missing a step everytime until I did the step by step and pause the video method.



This is what I do not understand myself. To me, one has to have a starting point. How would it be possible to literally prove everything? It took me a long time to grasp this myself. If one has to have proof for all then how would we establish a starting point that is not derived from something else. If one proves x one would have to prove the premises that led to x. One would have to prove the premises that led to the conclusions that became the premises that led to x. This could go on in a infinte regression. To me, one has to have an axiom to start from. The axioms that are accepted today include All A are A and Existence Exists. Can you prove these two things? Can you prove that a chair is a chair? Can you prove that existence exists? Is it possible to disprove existence as existing but still existing to think about existence not thinking? How would you prove these things? My question to you is why is accepting some things based upon faith is considered ignoble to you if certain things are considered axiomatic, axioms and starting points must exist?




Again, I was using this as a metaphorical example. I should've elaborated. Again, my apologies. My point is there are limits that a person can do. If I am wrong and If the "I can" belief and method always holds up then why can't one do telekinesis and in fact we can be like Q from star trek who can change the very rules and laws of space and time itself? I do not believe I can change the very rules and laws of space and time itself with my belief and thoughts alone. Do I have a premise that is faulty?



This is a good idea as well. This is what I would think to do. If one does that wouldn't one be considered giving up? I thought it was unacceptable to give up. I do not understand.



Why do a lot of people promote mere belief alone and that mere belief alone can give ability? This is what comes across to me.



One has to make sure he knows how to do it, has the right equipment and he is doing it correctly. For me, obtaining a job something kept nagging at me that did not quite feel right as well besides my work history. In order for me to state with absolute certainity that I can't work and pass the interviews. For the I can't work part, how is it possible for me to prove this? I would have to be able to tested on every job that exists now. For the interview, what if there is a way to effectively train me to pass an interview. I am starting to go to a workshop every tuesday and thursday. The guy breaks it down in simplistic, specific and concrete terms. What if I am wrong? What if there is a way I can pass it? What if my doubts about my passing the interview have major holes in the premises? I am starting to doubt my own doubt of my ability to obtain and keep a job? What if my negativity is flawed? This how I think Fnord. If my thinking is faulty how do I think like you? Your thinking is so foreign.