The Myth of Confidence

Post Reply New Topic

That's not the claim I made. The reason why I can't clarify further is because you are not critically examining what I'm saying. If you want to have a rational conversation about these things, I'll be happy to do so. But I can't clarify things that I've already made completely clear.

If I have to explain what "try" means, it's clear that you're not willing to do your own thinking.


I'm not instructing you in how to succeed in America. I'm explaining basic success principles in general. It has nothing to do with America.

You seem to think that how you feel about reality should somehow impact reality. The universe doesn't care what you think. It doesn't care what I think.

Frankly, the main reason I'm done explaining is because it's readily apparent that your issue isn't a lack of understanding but a dislike of the US. If you believe that life will be better elsewhere, then move to where you think it'll be better. I'm not trying to sell you on American exceptionalism or morality.

Can we discuss this further in PM if you do not mind? I have been told by many people in my life that I do over think things. If you are willing to instruct and break things down I am willing to learn. I will accept that I may be misunderstanding things but here is the thing. If no one will show me where my assumptions are faulty I can't change them. It doesn't do me any good to do research if I am interpreting the research and reality in a fallacious way.

I do not know how to derive the specifics from the general. I only know how to derive the general from the specifics. If you're giving me general principles first without specifics my mind goes completely blank.

You want me to do my own thinking is this correct? Let's say I am delusional and I am not seeing reality in the way one is supposed to see it. How can I be expected to do my own thinking and come to sound conclusions if I am delusional? How can I use my own mind to correct my own mind without expectation of any assistance or help whatsoever?

Ok. First, let me apologize for losing my patience with you. I can relate to the difficulty of deriving specifics from general rules and it's something I should be more sympathetic about.

So, let's start with a fundamental principle that's necessary for personal growth: cause and effect.

Everything you do generates some outcome. If you want to change outcomes, you have to change actions. To use a very simple social example, if you walk around without showering, people will shun you. If you change your actions (showering before you go out), people will respond more favorably to you.

Even though the effect may not be clear, it still exists. It doesn't matter how you feel about it or what you think about it. Every effect has a cause. It doesn't matter if you think that people should treat you the same whether you shower or not -- the effect still occurs.

The only aspect we control is our actions. You choose whether or not you shower. You have no real control over how other people respond. The only concern you should have for that response is feedback to adjust your actions.

So, to reiterate the example:

Joe doesn't shower. People shun Joe. Joe wants to know why people shun him, so he asks (or researches) and discovers that he's shunned because he stinks. Whether Joe likes this response or not, he only has direct control over whether or not he stinks. By changing his behavior (showering), he can cause a different effect (people accept him).

In the article you posted originally, the author identified a variety of causes and the subsequent effects. If you dress well, you will be treated better. If you learn social etiquette, you will be treated better. If you have more wealth, you will be treated better. He doesn't do a great job of explaining why these are true, but empirical data has demonstrated it in a variety of studies that he could have referenced.

So the thought process one pursues based on an article like this is:

Do I want to be treated better? Yes, being treated better is always advantageous over being treated worse.

Based on the article, this means I need to improve my dress, social etiquette, and financial status. So how do I do these things? Well, I can use the internet, I can ask people, I can read books; there are a lot of resources.

So then you experiment. You try different clothing based on the information you discovered and see if people treat you differently. You try different social rules and see how people respond. Money is a bit harder to experiment with, but the other two are a good start.

I said earlier that I assume that I am in control of my circumstances. What I mean by this is that I accept responsibility for my circumstances. My starting position when I evaluate a response that I get from the universe (an effect) is to think through how my decisions and subsequent actions led me to that effect. This isn't to say that other people weren't actors in the process -- just that some decision or set of decisions that I made put me in that position. What could I have done differently? What might I do in the future to avoid or repeat the effect? I start with myself before I credit or blame external factors.

The reason I start with myself is because it's where I have direct control. I don't have control over other people or natural events, so there's no point in spending time concerning myself with it.

Nothing here is about America or western culture. You'll have to deal with causality no matter where you are. My concern with you is that you seem to be giving control over your life to your environment, with the expectation that changing your environment will fix your problems. I don't think you're going to succeed with that approach.

Confidence is not caring what people think. The irony is (as Napoleon said) those who never risk their reputation are sure to lose it.
Without the fear of what people think you cannot help but be confident. You will find yourself (which is real and therefore can act on the real world) and your ego (self-concept in other words a cloud of abstractions) will evaporate.
PS: The beautiful truth is that people dont ponder about you. Once a woman said to me,"I admire that you never gossip." I answered," I'm not noble. I'm self-centerd. Why would I want to talk about anyone other than me?" Most people feel the same way. They might think/talk about you for a fewseconds but will immediately go back to thinking/talking about themselves.

There are exceptions to caring what people think being bad. For example, in poker you want them to think you have a bad hand. Or you might be a politician . However, the art is to always remember that its only a mask. There is nothing wrong in being an actor as long as you know that it is only a role you are playing and has nothing to do with who you are. If it fools the public, cool. If you fool yourself, that is neurotic.

I get what you're saying now. I think I may have a frame of reference and that is computer programming. I was able to get good with computer programming by having to create code and debug code and create more code and debug more code. In addition, I had to try different experiments to understand different concepts. I was able to develop a programming style that worked for me. I was able to create tic tac toe game with an AI player a long time ago. Is this what you're telling me?

What you're telling me is to take this concept and apply it in the social world and ditch the way academia did it especially elementary, middle and high school which was spoon feeding me the information. What I am being told to do is simply to do is take the idea of how programming is done and apply it to the real world, not the syntax but the idea of how code is developed. I need to try different things and different iterations is what you're telling me. Am I correct?

My expectation was that I would be told what I needed to know to succeed. What you're telling me is this is not the case. I need to try different things with some rational thought behind them. This tells me Academia's universe is different from the surrounding universe and I need to deal within the surrounding universe outside of academia.

I did compile some stats and college graduates. http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt238505.html

This tells me that most students who go to college will not get a career in their field upon graduation possibly ever.

By the way, my wife and I are trying to do a non-profit. We have an event coming up in which we're giving holiday cheer and food to families. I had to write a letter asking for a donation from Kroger. First, it took me quite a bit to figure out where to send the letter to. I had to persist in trying to find out how to obtain the address to send the letter to. I was able to figure it out by trying different selections when I called them. I used a template online and customized it. One thing I decided to do was this. I decided to ask for a donation to get specific items instead of directly asking for money. Asking for money seems to upset people because it comes across as asking for a handout. The outcome was they sent us a $100.00 gift card. It took a lot to get to this point like taking an online grant writing class, looking at examples online and getting others to review what I have written. Is this kind of what you mean as well?

Is the phrase "starting at the bottom" supposed to be taken as partly literal and partly figurative meaning that there is no organized, universal, and rotely stated bottom but it is something that one has to figure out on his own through trial and error? Is this what I did with the grant writing?

I do accept your apology and if I was disrespectful in anyway I apologize to you as well. No hard feelings right?

Yes, this is it exactly!

As you do more and more programming, you develop "best practices" that help you perform better in the future. Social rules work much the same way, but instead of a learning a vocabulary of algorithms and design patterns, you learn how to read figurative speech and body language. When you detect bugs in your code (have a failure in a social interaction), you run the debugger (examining your behavior and how people might interpret it) and try different fixes (alternate behaviors that give you different results). As you become more skilled, you can predict what those fixes should be and reduce the amount of experimentation required.


Yes, people can only tell you what they did to succeed. For you to identify how you can succeed, you have to experiment and learn from your failure.

I love academia, but I will never take counsel with an academic on how to live. They don't operate in the realm of the practical and are notoriously bad at considering unintended consequences.


Yes. You decided what you wanted, researched what you needed, then took the appropriate steps to make it happen.


That phrase generally refers to climbing the corporate ladder, but I suppose you could apply it here using a similar meaning of "don't get ahead of yourself".

But, I should add that it's not always necessary to fail on your own. You can learn from other peoples' failures. It's just a matter of perceiving cause and effect around you.


Absolutely. I'd much rather have a productive conversation.

I learned a lot more in a day than I did from all of the doctors I have seen since I was 4 years old. ZeroNetGain and autisticmillionaire said that I am thinking in to much into the world of ideas instead of the world of the practical facts. I think I understand what they're talking about now. I have taken the world of ideas to an extreme due to my own autistic tendencies. My parents were more on the academic side so I grew up and was nurtured with that. Because of my autistic tendencies I took it even more. What I have to do is move away from the world of ideas towards the world of present day facts meaning move away from what is possible but to what is now.




I understand now. When people tell you various things like be yourself it is because it worked for them because they understand it through their experiences and how they grew up.



Therein lies one of my weaknesses including my poor social skills. I need to understand the realm of the practical and become proficient at it.




True. I have been thinking this. Information Technology is a fast paced industry in which technology changes all of the time. I do love programming and I believe I am quite good at it but I do not believe the practical environment in which I would have to keep current on it would work for me. Based upon what others said and the articles I have read by managers the environment would not work. I want something that is more stable. I want to see if I can do grant writing at least for our non-profit and do it as a career in our non-profit. I believe this is the way to go for me. I am thinking of creating a grant writing resume documenting the grants I was able to get our non-profit. What do you think?




What it really means is don't think something is beneath you?



I didn't realize this. Basically observe others and what they do and don't go to deep into theory?



me too

OK...you're looking at it from a strict, scientific, empirical, logical perspective. You're actually right...there is no logic to it.

"Believe in yourself" and "just go for it" are not squarely logical like that. They have to do with how a person FEELS about doing/not doing something. And how someone FEELS emotionally about something may or may not be rooted in logic. We're addressing psychology, not rationality.

If you want to look at it logically, the best way I can describe it is like this:

1. Successful people are confident
2. Confidence comes with success.
3. One can't feel confident without succeeding.
4. One cannot succeed without feeling confident.

Notice that "success" and "confidence" here are mutually exclusive. You cannot have one without first having the other.

In order to break mutual exclusivity, you need some sort of (figurative) shot in the arm. Since you understand scientific reasoning, let's go with that. Scientists do not set out to "prove" anything. An experiment is successful if it yields data. It is NOT successful based on the merits of yielding what the scientist expects to see. It might yield something quite different than what is expected. There's really no such thing as a "failed experiment," because scientists continue to learn new things even when something goes wrong, equipment malfunctions, a sample is contaminated, or accidents happen. Experiments are repeated with improvements in accuracy, or aberrant results are studied to show what effects an anomalous event has on what is being studied.

Successful, confident people are like that. They use their "failures" less like failures and more like opportunities for growth. You don't even really have to be all that confident, just willing to take risk. Just do SOMETHING. See what happens. If it doesn't work, OK, don't do that again. Monitor. Adjust. Do something else. Just don't stop working on it. If that machine you invented doesn't work only because one component is faulty by design, then redesign that one component. The shot in the arm here is simply just doing what you love doing, what you're expert at, and not allowing yourself to become to emotionally married to a desired outcome.

I love teaching piano. The trouble I've run into is I can't force any of my students, with the exceptions of my own children who live with me, to sacrifice and put the work into practice it takes to be awesome at piano. And so I have high turnaround, especially this year, because kids and even adults lose interest so quickly. I KNOW what it takes to be great at it, so I do two things: I continue to set goals from week-to-week and encourage my students to work towards those goals in their practice time, and I continue to be an active performer myself so that I don't lose my chops during a dry spell. All the "confidence" and "belief in myself and my abilities" isn't going to bring in students or make me a pile of money. But neither does staying at home and feeling sorry for myself. I got NOTHING if I DO NOTHING. I don't do it because I want tons of students and their money; I do it because I enjoy it and hope to maybe make a little extra money along the way. Teaching lessons itself is the reward; money is just icing on the cake.

The other shot in the arm to get things rolling is simply find other people who do what you want to do and learn from them. I suppose this is a more logical way to get out of the above Catch-22. There are tons of people out there who are amazingly charismatic, motivational speakers and writers. Read their books. Hang out with them if you get the chance. Tell them what your issues are where you are in what you want to do at this point in time. Seek input from other professionals in your area and let them help you figure out how to buttress the weaknesses that are causing you to be paralyzed by fear. If you enjoy cooking and you really want to learn how to cook, say, Asian food, find a restaurant that specializes in Asian food and see if they'll let you work for free just so you can learn to cook Asian food the way they do it. Want to learn a foreign language? Move to a foreign country that speaks that language--my wife spent a summer in Mexico and wasn't ALLOWED to speak English. The goal is to build confidence without having to actually DO in a public sense what it is you want that has you so afraid.

The shot in the arm I've gotten the most was one I told two of my most recent students to quit piano: They want to play piano for church services, which is what I do the most right now. I took them through all the basic skills they'd need to get playing. One lady picked up very quickly, but still claimed she "didn't have any rhythm." I pointed out that it wasn't rhythm she lacked--she lacked pressure to perform and therefore had no impetus to work towards the goal of playing in public. I suggested that she work up two numbers and practice with her choir (they work entirely a cappella). Do that for two weeks. On the third week, have two tunes ready to play for the church service. Only two. Do that for 3-4 weeks, and start doing 3 tunes every Sunday. After a while, she would learn all the songs they ever use at church and would no longer need to practice as much learning new material (rather, polishing familiar material) and be able to confidently play full services for her congregation. The shot in the arm is this: When you're scared to do something, do it anyway. The pressure of having to perform will force you to improve at a faster rate.

In my experience, there is a sort of "singularity" you reach in your abilities. You cross a kind of point-of-no-return beyond which nothing seems impossible anymore. When I first started playing in church, I had a lot of negative, false assumptions about our congregation. I thought I was expected to play note-for-note what was on the page of choir specials. I did a TON of sight-reading during choir practices and felt as though I could barely keep up at times. I was a clarinet major in college and only took what piano courses I was required to for my music degree. Piano is NOT what I do, and yet I find myself playing in church. The thing is, I KNOW how to read changes and improvise. I just didn't know what all I was really allowed to do in church. I attended a church music conference, got to hear what other pianists do in larger churches, sat in on their workshops, and took home a lot of new ideas that completely changed my approach to my role as a leading instrumentalist at our church. I just make up stuff at the end of sermons, during prayers, and in any otherwise awkward "dead spots" in the service. I don't play piano parts out of octavos any more--those arrangements are BORING and unnatural-feeling. I play the changes instead and use the printed music as more of a guide than something to be played note-for-note, and typically what I come up with is more interesting. I've also forced myself to play by ear more, memorize changes, and transpose so that I don't even really need sheet music or even lyric sheets anymore. The important thing is that all that I needed was someone to, in a sense, give me permission to do it. I've been able to do all those kinds of things since high school. I just didn't know I was allowed or expected to do that here.

So the shot in the arm that worked best for me was always just going for it whether I believed I could do the job or not. I think you'd be amazed how much you really can do when you decide to do it "no matter what." THAT breaks you out of the mutual exclusivity of confidence and success, the Catch-22, which is really only an illusion, anyway.

And, finally, I think it's best to reevaluate success. It's not about climbing the corporate ladder or making a lot of money. It's about simply doing what you do. Did I have students today? Yes. Did I teach them? Yes. Did they actually learn something? Yes. Then I succeeded. Did I have a church service or choir practice today? Yes? Did I make it through? Yes? Then I succeeded.

I want to release an album next year. At this point in time, I don't care if it sells, although I'd be happy just to break even. I'll be in charge of EVERY aspect of production with the exception of manufacturing, which I'm happily outsourcing. For me, success simply means completing the project on time, and right now I'm stuck with the minutia of planning out every tiny step of writing new instrumental arrangements and recording them, setting start dates and deadlines for each step. And since I'm taking the time to write out note-for-note my arrangements, I'll be able to self-publish the album as written transcriptions if there happen to be instrumentalists in the audience. Why stop there? I could sell my accompaniment tracks and maybe even instructional DVD's in order to get other people performing my music. I'd break even on my studio recording sales alone, but a tiny amount of money selling other related or tie-in products wouldn't hurt anything!

The thing is, I KNOW how to put it all together. But I'm scared to death to actually do it. That's going to mean lining up gigs to promote and sell the product. I might be playing free concerts for a year or two. But how is that really different from the private parties I play already?

I'm low on gigs lately as well. I used to make good money playing weddings. No one asks me to do weddings anymore, and I have no idea what I'm doing wrong (people are still getting married, right?) Turns out there's a bridal fair coming up in January. What's stopping me from setting up a booth with my piano and playing love songs to the crowd for a day? BTW, here's my card. The best way to book me is by sending me an email. No, I DON'T know what I'm doing, but I'm not going to learn what to do if I don't try. I'm scared to death to get out there. But if I'm not willing to look like an idiot at least once just so I can get my name out there, I'm not going to get more wedding gigs. Setting up a public booth for a bridal fair at the local convention center is my way of auditioning in front of people who might have a serious interest in hiring me for their special occasion. It could be I'm not getting hired because people simply do not know I even exist. All that can change by playing a bridal fair.

Finally, I see how you look at everything with a square sort of logic, but you're looking at a Catch-22. The Catch-22 is predicated on fear and is by its nature irrational. All you need is one external force to change the landscape of a Catch-22. For me, it means not waiting until I can shake off the fear of doing something, but just do whatever it is I want to do anyway. I may lack confidence, but all it takes is one success to get the ball rolling out of the Catch-22. OK, I finally won ONE time...if I did it ONCE, I can do it AGAIN. You've had one success, so you have a LITTLE confidence. Use what little confidence you have to get another success. More success breeds more confidence. More confidence breeds more success. You start a feedback loop. Suddenly anything is possible.

Make better sense?

AngelRho, wow, both you and adb have given me a wealth of information that I can actually go on. It makes a lot more sense than what my family has told me, the psychologists and other counselors have told me and what the self-help gurus have said.

Why don't they speak in a similar manner to the way you both speak? Why do they speak in this flowery, emotional and ambiguous language? Both of you have given me more in the past two days then what any of these folks gave me in a lifetime. From my perspective, it came across like they were smoking to much marijuana or did to many hits of acid. Literally, what they kept telling me made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. There was no linear mode of thought. It was like they were all over the place and there was no pattern I could place.

To summarize, what both of you are telling me to do is to try different things but those things that I should try should have some sense and rationality to them. Definitely don't jump off of a cliff and expect to fly. If your strategy for trying to obtain a job isn't working than change strategies which includes starting a non-profit or for-profit business.

I would like to give a practical example of what you're telling me to determine if I am on the right track. If my wife leaves her car door open for a long time certain components in the car will remain on and will drain the battery. I found instructions on how to charge a battery online. Even with the instructions I felt like I could not charge this car and I felt like I would blow out her engine. I did not feel like I was qualified to do it. I had these negative thoughts in my head running.

I decided to try something. I asked myself what if I am wrong here. My thoughts were telling me not to do it. I made the conscious decision to do it anyway because it could be possible that my doubts were unfounded. I decided to take the chance and follow it and if something did go wrong I would just take the heat. It would mean I would have to take her to work everyday. I doubted my own doubts. Guess what? I was able to charge her battery. Things went smoothly without a hitch. It was so strange.

I was able to form negative thoughts which negated the other negative thoughts which turned into positive thoughts. I used a form of negative thinking to negate negative thinking. Despite all of my doubts I decided to try it anyway because I doubted my doubts. Let's look at in this form.

~ is a symbol representing negation.

C represents the belief I could recharge my wife's battery.
~C represents the negation to C meaning I did not believe I could charge my wife's battery.
~~C represents the negation of ~C means that I do not believe in the belief that I could not charge my wife's batter

The law of double negation says

~~A = A which means that ~~C = C.

I believed I could charge my wife's battery despite my doubts. This was the process I consciously chose to put my thoughts through.

AngelRho, Am I on the right track here?

Writing grants is an incredibly valuable skill these days. There is a lot of government in the US today with a lot of funny money to throw around. You write well, so it seems like it would be a reasonable path.

Software development is an excellent field for autistic people. Systems and network administration can be more challenging since it's usually much higher pressure.

Both technology and proposal writing are highly profitable fields if you can find the right fit. Both are also things you can do in a consulting role if you don't want regular employment. I've done extensive work in these areas as an employee and now as a business owner.


That's an even better way of putting it.


Yes, keep it in the realm of the practical.

For example, let's say you see a friend give his girlfriend a box of chocolates. Even though he was doing something nice, she gets mad because he knows she's trying to lose weight and she feels like he's sabotaging her. It's good to learn from this that it's a bad idea to give your wife food when she's trying to lose weight. It's counter-productive to spend a lot of time building a philosophy of predicting her behavior based on her current goals. Even for us, the latter will come naturally as a consequence of the former... it just takes us longer to get there.

I'm not saying that you should ignore the theory... just don't get obsessed with it. Other people interpret obsession like this as you being "in your head", "not paying attention", "not present".

I'm really impressed with AngelRho's response. He provided much better examples than I did.


They don't understand the challenges we face when it comes to thinking patterns. Most people respond well to "flowery, emotional and ambiguous" language. We don't. We need these things broken down into logical chunks that we can turn into rules. We don't learn the rules of society intuitively -- we have to consciously figure them out.

When we try to communicate this way with neurotypicals, they get angry and frustrated with us


Yes.

Actually, I wasn't saying that at all...

However, since we're keeping things linear here, what you're saying actually DOES WORK.

I honestly hadn't thought of it that way, but it seems to nicely distill everything I've been trying to say in a neat mathematical formula. So yes, you are on the right track in a much simpler and elegant way than anything I could formulate. So thank YOU for that.

I've made mention of this in other posts, but I'll say it again here: A book I've enjoyed reading lately has been Jon Acuff's Start. It's one of those motivational kinds of things that you might have a hard time digesting, so I'll keep this short. One thing he says regarding fear (doubt, "I can't..." etc.) is it's irrational cleverly disguised as rational. It seems more logical. So if you can come up with statements regarding your fears, you can make your fears look utterly ridiculous and absurd.

For example, I was afraid to play piano in front of hundreds of people my first Sunday on the job. If I go by Acuff's advice, I could say I'm scared because if I screw up, hundreds of people are going to laugh at me, maybe even thousands because it's going to be televised. There are all these people watching ME to see what I do, and those cameras are looking right at ME. And if I goof up just the least little bit, everyone will hate me and I'll never get to play in front of people again.

Except...

I'm just one component of the whole thing. People's attention will actually be directed towards the worship leader. When the choir sings, everyone is looking at the choir, not me. If I miss one note...big deal...it's just ONE NOTE. And if I make other mistakes, I'm not going to DIE.

So...exactly what am I afraid of, here? I'm prepared. I practiced. I'm ready. Let's do this.

Or like this album I want to release next year... What if people don't like it? What if I can't talk churches or other organizations into letting me come in and play concerts to promote it? And I spend $300 for a small run of CDs that I won't be able to sell? It's just too risky...I can't do it.

Except...

$300 for a limited run is not all that much. I sell 30 units and I've broken even. I think I can make that happen, just off people feeling sorry for me. Enough people like me that I can do at least that much, and worst comes to worst, I'll just give the rest of my inventory out for free and hope for a better year next year.

And even if I can't do that well, $300 isn't exactly my life savings. I play three gigs and make it back. Big deal. Exactly WHAT am I worried about?

Or...what if I actually succeed? What am I afraid of? That I'll have to release another album, play more promo concerts, make a little more money, and do more work in future releases and promos? Holy Cow!! ! I might have to actually hire a road crew and outsource my promotion... I might have to hire someone else to write arrangements and do production FOR me just so I have a little time to spend with my family... I might actually have to book studio time instead of doing all my work on my laptop...

Wait...that's a BAD thing because...? It's what I always wanted, right? Why am I freaking out?

...

That's the Jon Acuff style of handling fear and anxiety. It's remarkably like your Law of Double Negation. In more, um, NT usage, we'd call that turning a negative into a positive. You're looking at it as a cognitive approach or strategy while NTs look at it more pragmatically. To an NT, it's the whole "when life hands you lemons, make lemonade" thing.

I suspect people like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates encountered software and hardware challenges in their every day business. They dug in, addressed the problems, made machines work. They were also limited by the state of technology at various times but were constantly growing as capabilities increased. Both of them got to a point that what they were doing was bigger than they were. They didn't work alone. They couldn't. Nobody can. They collaborated with other people who had similar goals and passions. So when new opportunities presented themselves, they hire a new guy to work on that opportunity with their shared vision. They start out as just a couple of nerds playing with circuit boards and/or writing code. As their needs grow, so does their personnel. Now you have Apple Stores so you can walk right in and try out the latest iPod or MBP or iPad yourself.

How is new technology a problem? When it requires updated software and new architecture to operate. Software and hardware companies that were content with the way things were at the time are no longer in business. They could have kept doing what they were doing, but they were unable to scale down in order to serve a niche market. I'm thinking like Atari, Amiga...guys like that who made GREAT computers but just couldn't keep up. People still trade vintage computers via eBay, so don't tell me there's NO market for it whatsoever. My favorite synthesizer company, New England Digital, went belly-up because they refused to compromise on going to cheaper components and outsourced manufacturing, which prevented them from competing effectively with Japanese manufacturers like Roland, Yamaha, and Korg. Nowadays, nobody has even heard of the Synclavier, much less is aware of the impact it had on the music and film industry. They may have made a superior product, but having a superior product does no good if nobody can afford to buy it and enjoy it. Life handed them lemons, and they just ignored it. Imagine what Apple would be like now if they completely dismissed tablet computing.

Having confidence and believing ALONE won't cut it. You DO have to examine risks. When I considered releasing an album, I'm thinking "risk-benefit analysis." Can I come up with $300 to invest in something risky, and not miss that money if it fails? Sure. Will failure come at a high price to me and my family? No. If I succeed, what do I potentially stand to make in profit? $400. I have to sell 30 units to break even. I want to keep $300 in residual to put towards the next project OR to manufacture more units if there is a demand for it. I may need to build inventory, which I'm not willing to do unless I see that there is a demand, so I don't need to count an excessive amount as profit. So for every $1,000 I make, $300 goes back to break even, $300 goes to reinvesting, and $400 remains to do whatever I want with--feed kids, pay private school tuition, or whatever. I mean, even Apple has had their share of duds over the years. They've lost tons of money in failed tech. They've more than made up for it in things that WORK...but they had to be willing to take risks and be burned in order to find what DOES work and capitalize on those markets.

What confidence and faith DO is really a mind game just to get you started. You DO need more than that to actually get the job done...but if you don't first BELIEVE in at least the possibility of succeeding, you won't be emotionally prepared for the task.

I think your double-negation strategy is brilliant. Any time this comes up, I'm going to use your mathematical formula. That's great!! !

Thank you AngelRho and I do appreciate the compliment. It really means a lot to me. All I was trying to do was take what you, adb said and my own experiences and connect it in a way my brain could process. This gives a lot of insight into myself as well that I never understood before and gave an insight to others as well. What I am is an extreme version a linear thinker. The self-help gurus, psychologists and my family are using a form of non-linear thinking.

http://chuckslamp.com/index.php/2009/04 ... rthinking/

Since the success of my first grant with a $100.00 gift card I do feel more pumped. It is why I feel like they're all over the place. Eventually, I will have to talk to the grantors who give out the grants. The most that will happen is we don't get the grant and there will be other opportunities to try to get other grants and I will get better with more practice especially if I receive constructive feedback from my wife, my father and you guys if you all don't mind.

If I become a more successful grant-writer I think will write my own self-help book to show others another possible way they can help themselves. I have to create empirical evidence by being successful with grant-writing and out non-profit using the law of double negation. Hmmm, An aspie self-help guru. Now that would be a trip lol

As an aside AngelRho, will you come look at this and tell me what you think of my questions and my responses to other people's questions? http://www.wrongplanet.net/postx244977-15-0.html

adb

I do love information technology but based upon what I have been told it not a good field to get into. I did research to figure out what one was supposed to do to get into the IT field. A lot of people are having the same difficulties I am. It is almost an impossible field to get into because

each job requires multi-skills with each skill requiring multiple years of experience.

Technology changes very fast and one has to be able to keep current. Other autistics may be able to do this but I know me. It would not work for me because it would be to fast and one would be able to learn fast what he needs to keep current on. I have the knack for coding and programming but not for the industry itself.

Honestly, I should've switched fields along time ago and went into one that was more relaxed and stable. The writing was on the wall and I should've listened to my gut instead of other people who do not know the intricies of me. I believe grant writing may be a better fit for me and if it is we shall soon see. I will still attempt to do app development though. Except for app development I am getting out of the IT field.

You mean "Can God create a rock so heavy He can't even lift it?"

Ugh...

Stay out of silly discussions like that. Don't even attempt logic with those. Instead, you should be rolling on the floor laughing that people ask these questions and somehow think they are intellectual giants because questions like these are guaranteed to stump people who believe in God. You should be laughing because these people are intellectually weak and dishonest. They're trolling...and may not even be aware that they're trolling. Don't waste your time on it.

Here's why:

Those kinds of questions are based on word-game nonsense. You can't possibly answer without your own answer being as absurd as the question. You've lost the instant you honestly try to answer the question. I have two responses.

1. Can water not be wet?

The point being that nothing can be more or less what its own nature causes it to be. Water is wet because that's what water IS. God by His very nature is a perfect being, and a perfect being would not stoop to contradict Himself or His nature. If God is omnipotent, it does stand to reason that God COULD possibly create such a rock--but the very idea that God would do something contradictory to His own nature--create something greater than Himself or impossible for Him to do, is absurd.

Also, there's a false assumption behind the question. Suppose God really COULD go against His own nature and create something higher than Himself. Why assume that the ability to do something DEMANDS that He actually do it? Declining to do something that violates His own nature by no means contradicts the God's character trait of omnipotence.

2. This one is a purposefully absurd response to an absurd question: God very well COULD make that rock too heavy for Him to lift...and then LIFT IT!! !

Questions like these constitute silly word-play. It's like asking how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Save yourself the grief. Never argue with an idiot. He'll pull you down to his level and beat you with experience.