Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What do you think about impact of the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you work hard enough' ?
Replies
-
"Nothing is impossible if you work hard enough". I think my elementary aged kids could get a lot out of this. It also appears that it could be useful in youth sports environments. Maybe as a pep-talk for parolees shortly before they are discharged from prison? Beyond that, I can't see any way that this would be useful.
I listen to a lot of audiobooks during the course of commuting back and forth to work, and I am at the point where I can hardly make myself listen to the self-help genre anymore. Usually, this format is a narrative of a person (not revealing the name), the struggles they endured, the huge success they found, and then the big reveal of who it was. It is always someone very accomplished like Thomas Edison, Michael Jordan, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Steve Jobs, etc. Queue the dramatic voice: "And that young man grew up to be...Franklin Delano Roosevelt!"
As an adult, I find it to be completely useless, inapplicable, and unmotivating. It is great that Jordan overcame getting cut by his high school coach and became the greatest basketball player ever: how does that actually help me? I am more responsive to life-hacks and practical advice on how to objectively improve what I'm doing, not the dramatic "nothing is impossible" mantra that lacks clarity and applicability in my life.9 -
As with nearly all things, context is critical.
Who's saying it?
To whom?
About what?
A friend that has gone through similar struggles and accomplished a (at least fairly) reasonable goal, trying to motivate his/her friend, whom it seems should be able to obtain that goal? Fine.
One of the elite, that has always found something easy, telling someone without the physical gifts this? That'll likely just sound condescending.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »"Nothing is impossible if you work hard enough". I think my elementary aged kids could get a lot out of this. It also appears that it could be useful in youth sports environments. Maybe as a pep-talk for parolees shortly before they are discharged from prison? Beyond that, I can't see any way that this would be useful.
I listen to a lot of audiobooks during the course of commuting back and forth to work, and I am at the point where I can hardly make myself listen to the self-help genre anymore. Usually, this format is a narrative of a person (not revealing the name), the struggles they endured, the huge success they found, and then the big reveal of who it was. It is always someone very accomplished like Thomas Edison, Michael Jordan, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Steve Jobs, etc. Queue the dramatic voice: "And that young man grew up to be...Franklin Delano Roosevelt!"
As an adult, I find it to be completely useless, inapplicable, and unmotivating. It is great that Jordan overcame getting cut by his high school coach and became the greatest basketball player ever: how does that actually help me? I am more responsive to life-hacks and practical advice on how to objectively improve what I'm doing, not the dramatic "nothing is impossible" mantra that lacks clarity and applicability in my life.
I couldn't put my finger on why motivational phrases don't resonate with me and I think this may be part of it. They're too generic and lack practicality. It's like they're being spoken from above, and expect me to take action based on a feeling. Feelings don't last, and then what? No game plan, no realistic perspective, and then like a friend of mine, you're trying to wiggle yourself out of debt because you've jumped into something without a gameplan riding on motivation because "nothing is impossible".5 -
As a child who always had physical disabilities that are are not obvious (you can’t see them) and who had a cousin who was dyslexic before anyone knew much about dyslexia I’ll just say this and then shut up and go away.
Phrases like this one were among the most emotionally destructive things said to us as children. We knew they were not true, yet were shamed for ‘not working hard enough’, for being lazy etc. Our normal siblings held up as proof that anything was possible and our lack of trying as being the fault of our failures.
It is always worthwhile to give your best - but some of us have always understood that many things, even things 99% of the population take for granted, are in fact actually impossible for us.
I am very careful in how I motivate children. Casual words such as these can be devastating even if the intent was kind.10 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Then choose different words. I know that you have the power to adjust your phrasing to say what you want. This debate is about who's trying harder or hardest, right? So why not try harder to convey your meaning instead of clinging to a cliche that's not going to say what you want it to say?
The debate is about our feelings for the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you try hard enough'.
My feelings are that it's a cliche that feels empowering to some people and doesn't to others. When I'm trying to lift someone up I try to avoid phrases that are 1. trite and 2. just as likely to make them feel bad as it is to make them feel good. Your feelings seem to be that if someone doesn't find the phrase empowering they need "help" and everyone should just use whatever inaccurate cliches they want as long as they feel good with no concern for others. Is that about right?
Now you are just trying to bait me I think. You know perfectly well I never suggested anything even close to that.
Honestly, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. You've made a lot of one-line statements in this debate and I honestly cannot narrow down whether you think this is a good phrase or a bad one. I included the message I've taken from your posts so far in the hope that you can correct or expand any points that I'm not getting.
I don't have a problem with the phrase. I'm sure some hear it and think "Yeah, right." and others find it inspiring and likely most fall somewhere in between. I think this of just about every phrase.
Since we're clearing things up, how exactly does my saying someone getting anxiety over a simple phrase needs help equate to my thinking everyone that doesn't find the phrase empowering needs "help"?
I'm in the middle of writing a pep talk for a group of writers who will be undertaking the challenge to write a novel in a month next month. So what people find empowering vs. what they find discouraging is much on my mind today. In my experience, based on the people I've talked to who undertake various challenges -- whether it's writing or a new degree or weight loss or whatever -- things that people don't find empower tend to create some degree of anxiety when they're said by someone they perceive to have experience or authority in that particular field. I tried to bring up the anxiety as a part of what makes phrasing like this so useless when you're trying to empower someone who sees you as a figure they'll listen to and you brushed it off as simply them needing help. If I can stop someone from feeling anxiety by being realistic, avoiding platitudes, and telling them the truth about the world, then I'm going to do that and be careful how I phrase things. Your post read to me as though you felt that anyone who finds something to be not empowering, and thus likely feels some anxiety after it's said to them, needs help.
Just to be clear, do you think this simple little phrase causes many/most people anxiety? Like that would be a common enough thing to make the phrase something that should never be said?
And do you think a figure they'll listen to saying 'never give up' could never cause these same people anxiety?
Does it matter whether it causes many/most people anxiety? I suspect it doesn't cause a majority of people anxiety. But I also don't give a tick how many people it hurts if I can minimize it by choosing different words. It costs me nothing and is better writing if I can avoid the cliche. And it has the added benefit of not hurting people (or not hurting as many -- I recognize that in large groups you can't please everyone).
And honestly, I wouldn't use a phrase like "never give up" in its place unless I was trying to be funny (and then I'd most likely quote Galaxy Quest or Buzz Lightyear). I'm not a positive catch phrases kind of person. I reached for a quick alternative and if you don't find it useful then don't use it. The point was to demonstrate that there are alternatives.
Everyone on this board has at least some grasp of the English language. Some of us better than others, obviously (that's not a dig, I'm referring to people for whom English is a second or third language), but we all get to choose which kind of support we give. I don't know why you are so interested in picking apart my arguments on this topic, but everyone gets to choose whether or not they use this phrase. I'm not the galactic arbiter of all language. Use it. Don't use it. But once people come out -- like they have on this thread -- and say that they don't find it a useful phrase or find it a harmful one, then you get to choose whether or not to reconsider using it.
*shrug* That's all I've got. I choose not to use it. I gave some of my reasons why. I find it to be more harmful than helpful. I gave some of my reasons why. Others have done the same. If you want to continue to dig into my psyche on this matter, I'm not sure you'll find anything deeper than that.4 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
Removing societal barriers? My, that sounds like an awful lot of hard work.
It is. But it can rarely be done by a single person. If only one person is pushing to remove a barrier, do you really think they'll achieve their goal with hard work?
It's a bit like moving a goal post. One person who tries to move it probably won't see their dream come true no matter how hard they work. But a lot of people working to the same ends can get it done.
Exactly. Jackie Robinson didn't become the first black MLB player because he and he alone worked hard. He got there on the backs of many other minority athletes who worked hard but never achieved their goal because they had to wait for society to get on board, which involved not just baseball players but a movement acroos all of society.
There are other criteria to achieving goals than just what you individually do. The fact of the matter is that the NHL is a business. If the fans are uncomfortable with the idea of female players, a woman can work her heiny off and never get to play.
There are also physical factors. Someone mentioned Phelps. He has the perfect body to be a swimmer. He has obviously worked super hard and deserves his success. But if he had been 5'7" with a stocky build and short arms, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that while he may have been able to become a competitive swimmer, he would not have broken world records and become internationally famous and wealthy as a swimmer, no matter how hard he worked and how high he dreamed.
I disagree with this; if there was a female hockey player who could play in the NHL it would be a tremendous draw (I believe that there have been female goalies at the lower minor league levels and the fan support was huge). The reason why they aren't in the NHL isn't because of bias or marketing, it is because female players are not as large, fast, or strong as the males.
As evidence - Manon Rheaume:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_Rhéaume
I was at the exhibition game when she played and the arena was filled to capacity - in large to see Manon.
Yep, it was a draw for one game and it was a big publicity stunt that got her answering questions about getting her nails done and a Playboy offer she turned down. It also led to discussions about the ridiculousness of women competing in a men's league. About ruining team chemistry and how the male athletes would be at a disadvantage if more women got in because they would be afraid of hurting them. And it would be a waste because the women would only play a few years before they decided to start a family anyway. And where would they change into their uniforms? Not exactly a glowing endorsement for how ready most sports fans were to accept co-ed leagues.
Cam Newton's recent amusement that a woman was interested in routes comes to mind, and based on the dialogue I hear among sports fans and pundits about the WBNA, I don't personally believe that has changed much. Maybe that's just in my little corner of the world though!
Eta: I agree that even the elite female athlete would be at a physical disadvantage in a league like the NHL. Suggesting that would in fact be an impossible goal, no matter how hard she worked
In this case I would argue that the goal was not to integrate the NHL, but to entertain and to promote the NHL and hockey in general to a broader audience. To that end this goal was certainly achieved. For Miss Rheaume her place in history was made. NHL viewership was at an all time high in the early 90s.
0 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »Wow, I did not expect to be in the minority on this one. That's a perfectly positive phrase and I've found it to be mostly true. The other variant I've heard once was "If someone REALLY wants to do something, that person is going to do it REALLY well." I'm not sure if intelligence, dedication, and strong work ethic counts as 'privilege.'
There are an awful lot of other privileges, the lack of which can make achieving the promise of this phrase logistically improbable.
Besides the fact that the bolded are not privileges...
Depends on who you ask.
No...
Yeah, it does. Many people assert that the ability/willingness to hustle and keep at something are a sign of privilege.
Whoa, this blows my mind. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but how is not being a lazy quitter a privilege?
There's a big yawning gulf of a spectrum between being a lazy quitter and being a dedicated hustler.
At some places on that spectrum, things like physical and mental disabilities can impact one's ability and or willingness to hustle. Not having such a physical or mental impairment is privilege.3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
There is no way to say there is nothing that could have been done differently that might have gotten them in the league. There simply is no way to prove it.
Which kind of backs my point, doesn't it? If you can't say whether or not there was a path to success if they'd done something different then you're saying that there might not have been a path to success. There might have been or there might not have been. If nothing is impossible then there must have been a path for these women. If you can't say, then maybe some things are impossible.
But seriously, does this make the saying such a horrible thing?
At least one person has posted in this thread explaining that sayings like this give them anxiety problems. The saying doesn't mean anything except that you should try your hardest and not give up. Why not just say "try your hardest and never give up" instead of making up this idea that nothing is impossible. Some things are impossible. Why does it bother people so much to be real about that?
Someone getting anxiety over a simple saying does not make a saying bad. It means the person needs help.
How is saying never give up any better? I should keep trying to get in the NHL until the day I die?
I like words. Words are important. The words we choose and the emphasis behind them can lift people up or put people down. They can empower the status quo or break through it. In this thread alone, this saying has sparked controversy and debate. It's not just about the saying or the phrasing and it would be naive to boil this down to just one simple phrase. The thoughts behind the words and what they convey to others can be powerful. Why use a cliche that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone and that some people find to be negative if you can find words that convey your meaning better?
But how is saying never give up better than you can do anything? Either is bad advice if it turns out to be something truly impossible.
Then choose different words. I know that you have the power to adjust your phrasing to say what you want. This debate is about who's trying harder or hardest, right? So why not try harder to convey your meaning instead of clinging to a cliche that's not going to say what you want it to say?
The debate is about our feelings for the phrase 'nothing is impossible if you try hard enough'.
My feelings are that it's a cliche that feels empowering to some people and doesn't to others. When I'm trying to lift someone up I try to avoid phrases that are 1. trite and 2. just as likely to make them feel bad as it is to make them feel good. Your feelings seem to be that if someone doesn't find the phrase empowering they need "help" and everyone should just use whatever inaccurate cliches they want as long as they feel good with no concern for others. Is that about right?
Now you are just trying to bait me I think. You know perfectly well I never suggested anything even close to that.
Honestly, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. You've made a lot of one-line statements in this debate and I honestly cannot narrow down whether you think this is a good phrase or a bad one. I included the message I've taken from your posts so far in the hope that you can correct or expand any points that I'm not getting.
I don't have a problem with the phrase. I'm sure some hear it and think "Yeah, right." and others find it inspiring and likely most fall somewhere in between. I think this of just about every phrase.
Since we're clearing things up, how exactly does my saying someone getting anxiety over a simple phrase needs help equate to my thinking everyone that doesn't find the phrase empowering needs "help"?
I'm in the middle of writing a pep talk for a group of writers who will be undertaking the challenge to write a novel in a month next month. So what people find empowering vs. what they find discouraging is much on my mind today. In my experience, based on the people I've talked to who undertake various challenges -- whether it's writing or a new degree or weight loss or whatever -- things that people don't find empower tend to create some degree of anxiety when they're said by someone they perceive to have experience or authority in that particular field. I tried to bring up the anxiety as a part of what makes phrasing like this so useless when you're trying to empower someone who sees you as a figure they'll listen to and you brushed it off as simply them needing help. If I can stop someone from feeling anxiety by being realistic, avoiding platitudes, and telling them the truth about the world, then I'm going to do that and be careful how I phrase things. Your post read to me as though you felt that anyone who finds something to be not empowering, and thus likely feels some anxiety after it's said to them, needs help.
Just to be clear, do you think this simple little phrase causes many/most people anxiety? Like that would be a common enough thing to make the phrase something that should never be said?
And do you think a figure they'll listen to saying 'never give up' could never cause these same people anxiety?
Does it matter whether it causes many/most people anxiety? I suspect it doesn't cause a majority of people anxiety. But I also don't give a tick how many people it hurts if I can minimize it by choosing different words. It costs me nothing and is better writing if I can avoid the cliche. And it has the added benefit of not hurting people (or not hurting as many -- I recognize that in large groups you can't please everyone).
And honestly, I wouldn't use a phrase like "never give up" in its place unless I was trying to be funny (and then I'd most likely quote Galaxy Quest or Buzz Lightyear). I'm not a positive catch phrases kind of person. I reached for a quick alternative and if you don't find it useful then don't use it. The point was to demonstrate that there are alternatives.
Everyone on this board has at least some grasp of the English language. Some of us better than others, obviously (that's not a dig, I'm referring to people for whom English is a second or third language), but we all get to choose which kind of support we give. I don't know why you are so interested in picking apart my arguments on this topic, but everyone gets to choose whether or not they use this phrase. I'm not the galactic arbiter of all language. Use it. Don't use it. But once people come out -- like they have on this thread -- and say that they don't find it a useful phrase or find it a harmful one, then you get to choose whether or not to reconsider using it.
*shrug* That's all I've got. I choose not to use it. I gave some of my reasons why. I find it to be more harmful than helpful. I gave some of my reasons why. Others have done the same. If you want to continue to dig into my psyche on this matter, I'm not sure you'll find anything deeper than that.
Yeah, I think it being a common cause of anxiety does matter in the context of the discussion we've been having. Because anything can cause someone anxiety. But expecting a simple single phrase to cause anxiety seems odd.
I don't use the phrase either. At least I can't remember ever using it. That wasn't what was asked.1 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
Removing societal barriers? My, that sounds like an awful lot of hard work.
Could it be that men are privileged in this situation?4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
How about "Try the impossible, you might just succeed."
Another thing I tell my son is, "you never know what you are capable of until you try..."3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
How about "Try the impossible, you might just succeed."
I've always been a fan of: "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
Yeah, that's a good one.
Another thing I always say to my son, "practice makes progress..."4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »Wow, I did not expect to be in the minority on this one. That's a perfectly positive phrase and I've found it to be mostly true. The other variant I've heard once was "If someone REALLY wants to do something, that person is going to do it REALLY well." I'm not sure if intelligence, dedication, and strong work ethic counts as 'privilege.'
You look young and healthy.
That might be why you think anything is possible.
That's also a privileged position, whether you realize it or not.
How do you know he's hasn't worked his *kitten* off to look young and healthy?
Your entire post reeks of self pity and envy.
Since I specifically said I wasn't coming from a place of victimization, I don't know how you came to this conclusion.
It's been my experience that youthful idealism is usually responsible for thinking things like anyone can do anything, and I offer up the many instances of people telling children this in this thread.
Older people generally learn and know better.
I feel blessed that such knowledge hasn't embittered me. I'm filled with gratitude every day for what I have accomplished, even with my limitations.4 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
Removing societal barriers? My, that sounds like an awful lot of hard work.
It is. But it can rarely be done by a single person. If only one person is pushing to remove a barrier, do you really think they'll achieve their goal with hard work?
It's a bit like moving a goal post. One person who tries to move it probably won't see their dream come true no matter how hard they work. But a lot of people working to the same ends can get it done.
Exactly. Jackie Robinson didn't become the first black MLB player because he and he alone worked hard. He got there on the backs of many other minority athletes who worked hard but never achieved their goal because they had to wait for society to get on board, which involved not just baseball players but a movement acroos all of society.
There are other criteria to achieving goals than just what you individually do. The fact of the matter is that the NHL is a business. If the fans are uncomfortable with the idea of female players, a woman can work her heiny off and never get to play.
There are also physical factors. Someone mentioned Phelps. He has the perfect body to be a swimmer. He has obviously worked super hard and deserves his success. But if he had been 5'7" with a stocky build and short arms, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that while he may have been able to become a competitive swimmer, he would not have broken world records and become internationally famous and wealthy as a swimmer, no matter how hard he worked and how high he dreamed.
I disagree with this; if there was a female hockey player who could play in the NHL it would be a tremendous draw (I believe that there have been female goalies at the lower minor league levels and the fan support was huge). The reason why they aren't in the NHL isn't because of bias or marketing, it is because female players are not as large, fast, or strong as the males.
As evidence - Manon Rheaume:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_Rhéaume
I was at the exhibition game when she played and the arena was filled to capacity - in large to see Manon.
Yep, it was a draw for one game and it was a big publicity stunt that got her answering questions about getting her nails done and a Playboy offer she turned down. It also led to discussions about the ridiculousness of women competing in a men's league. About ruining team chemistry and how the male athletes would be at a disadvantage if more women got in because they would be afraid of hurting them. And it would be a waste because the women would only play a few years before they decided to start a family anyway. And where would they change into their uniforms? Not exactly a glowing endorsement for how ready most sports fans were to accept co-ed leagues.
Cam Newton's recent amusement that a woman was interested in routes comes to mind, and based on the dialogue I hear among sports fans and pundits about the WBNA, I don't personally believe that has changed much. Maybe that's just in my little corner of the world though!
Eta: I agree that even the elite female athlete would be at a physical disadvantage in a league like the NHL. Suggesting that would in fact be an impossible goal, no matter how hard she worked
In this case I would argue that the goal was not to integrate the NHL, but to entertain and to promote the NHL and hockey in general to a broader audience. To that end this goal was certainly achieved. For Miss Rheaume her place in history was made. NHL viewership was at an all time high in the early 90s.
I agree! I think she's a rock star! I had a picture of her on my dorm room wall, amongst other athletes and singers i admired. I just don't see her as an example of how women could be NHL players if they worked hard and were physically able. She made a courageous statement 25 years ago, but nothing has changed.
I'm honestly not sure why I got so caught up in this, it's just a cliche that we are picking apart for our own amusement. I don't think anyone here is stumping for mediocrity, just arguing against what they see as a naive cliche. Some things are impossible. I see that as being practical!3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
How about "Try the impossible, you might just succeed."
This I can get behind.
Sometimes I need to try harder to put my cynicism in the drawer, LOL!1 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I think you're taking the phrase WAY too literally.
no, i don't think so. if someone asks me a question, i like to actually think about my answer, whatever it is. and i like to know why it is my answer and be able to explain it.
the phrase does literally annoy me, because i'm a literal-minded kind of person. imprecision and over-inflation undermine the speaker's credibility. and i like clarity in communication, so sloppy credibility is a definite irritant. some people do like having motivational sunshine blown up their butts, but that doesnt' mean everyone does or that everyone should.It'd be interesting to see which group is generally happier and/or more successful at achieving their goals.
see, ime different people define happiness itself in different ways, so i wouldn't get too invested in the idea that everyone who's not wired to your grid is either an automatic sad sack or a 'failure'. i know people who achieve based on this kind of narrow motivational path and are happy with it. and people who achieve based on that path and instantly question whether the achievement was worth the cost. equally, i know very happy 'dabblers' who never set a goal in their lives and who like it that way. and others who have set goals, and failed, and been wrecked because they had all their psychological/identity eggs in that single basket.
i don't think you should be making it such a defensive, zero-sum kind of competitive thing. it's an exchange of opinions and a range of people expressing their views, not a psycho-ideological war. but then again, i prefer conversation over this thing of 'debate' so maybe i should just stay out of discussions like these.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I guess I'm really confused about the "opportunities" conversation.
My mom introduced me to NHL hockey and the NY Rangers when I was a kid. I would literally dream of playing for the team, being a professional athlete. So is the idea that if I had just worked really hard, I could have been the NHL's first female player in 1992? That the reason there are now in 2017 still no female NHL players is because women just haven't worked hard enough? All those women who have played on the Olympic teams and continue to try to get at least a women's league going are failing because they haven't worked hard enough?
If the goal is vague, like I want to get strong, or personal best motivated, like I want to get faster... then sure you can accomplish anything you want if you work hard enough. But there are plenty of specific goals that specific individuals will never have a realistic opportunity to accomplish, even if they work themselves into the ground.
That's a good point, but I think it could be argued that no, they didn't work hard enough. Or they weren't directing their hard work into the right place. Apparently someone did though because there is a national women's hockey league. HQ'd in NY, actually.
Yes, and I can guarantee you NONE of those women grew up watching the NHL dreaming that one day they would play in a 4 team league of female players, playing 16 games a season, with no media exposure, making a fraction of the salary of an NHL player.
I'm not going to touch the idea that no women are playing in the 4 major sports league due to not working hard enough, because I would not be able to respond without getting suspended from the forum.
Haha. Yeah, please don't get suspended. I agree with you about opportunities. That was 1992 and now it's only 2017. We'll get there. Eventually.
Edit to add - With hard work!
"We" may get there as a society, but will the women watching hockey in 1992 get there within their lifetimes? And if they don't, is it because they didn't work hard enough or because society had some barriers in place that had to be moved before they could achieve what they wanted to achieve?
Removing societal barriers? My, that sounds like an awful lot of hard work.
It is. But it can rarely be done by a single person. If only one person is pushing to remove a barrier, do you really think they'll achieve their goal with hard work?
It's a bit like moving a goal post. One person who tries to move it probably won't see their dream come true no matter how hard they work. But a lot of people working to the same ends can get it done.
Exactly. Jackie Robinson didn't become the first black MLB player because he and he alone worked hard. He got there on the backs of many other minority athletes who worked hard but never achieved their goal because they had to wait for society to get on board, which involved not just baseball players but a movement acroos all of society.
There are other criteria to achieving goals than just what you individually do. The fact of the matter is that the NHL is a business. If the fans are uncomfortable with the idea of female players, a woman can work her heiny off and never get to play.
There are also physical factors. Someone mentioned Phelps. He has the perfect body to be a swimmer. He has obviously worked super hard and deserves his success. But if he had been 5'7" with a stocky build and short arms, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that while he may have been able to become a competitive swimmer, he would not have broken world records and become internationally famous and wealthy as a swimmer, no matter how hard he worked and how high he dreamed.
I disagree with this; if there was a female hockey player who could play in the NHL it would be a tremendous draw (I believe that there have been female goalies at the lower minor league levels and the fan support was huge). The reason why they aren't in the NHL isn't because of bias or marketing, it is because female players are not as large, fast, or strong as the males.
As evidence - Manon Rheaume:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manon_Rhéaume
I was at the exhibition game when she played and the arena was filled to capacity - in large to see Manon.
Yep, it was a draw for one game and it was a big publicity stunt that got her answering questions about getting her nails done and a Playboy offer she turned down. It also led to discussions about the ridiculousness of women competing in a men's league. About ruining team chemistry and how the male athletes would be at a disadvantage if more women got in because they would be afraid of hurting them. And it would be a waste because the women would only play a few years before they decided to start a family anyway. And where would they change into their uniforms? Not exactly a glowing endorsement for how ready most sports fans were to accept co-ed leagues.
Cam Newton's recent amusement that a woman was interested in routes comes to mind, and based on the dialogue I hear among sports fans and pundits about the WBNA, I don't personally believe that has changed much. Maybe that's just in my little corner of the world though!
Eta: I agree that even the elite female athlete would be at a physical disadvantage in a league like the NHL. Suggesting that would in fact be an impossible goal, no matter how hard she worked
She was the first to enter into a male-dominated sport, and with that came a ridiculous amount of publicity. The same thing happened to Michael Sam when he was the first gay NFL player to come out. In the military, there are awkward situations caused by allowing women to have combat arms occupations. Barriers aren't broken down without a significant amount of adjustment.
If Manon Rheaume would have been the first of many women to make it in the pros, it would have ceased to be a novelty.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »Wow, I did not expect to be in the minority on this one. That's a perfectly positive phrase and I've found it to be mostly true. The other variant I've heard once was "If someone REALLY wants to do something, that person is going to do it REALLY well." I'm not sure if intelligence, dedication, and strong work ethic counts as 'privilege.'
There are an awful lot of other privileges, the lack of which can make achieving the promise of this phrase logistically improbable.
Besides the fact that the bolded are not privileges...
Depends on who you ask.
No...
Yeah, it does. Many people assert that the ability/willingness to hustle and keep at something are a sign of privilege.
Whoa, this blows my mind. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but how is not being a lazy quitter a privilege?
There's a big yawning gulf of a spectrum between being a lazy quitter and being a dedicated hustler.
At some places on that spectrum, things like physical and mental disabilities can impact one's ability and or willingness to hustle. Not having such a physical or mental impairment is privilege.
Respectfully disagree. The absence of disabilities should not be viewed as privilege, unless we're using a really loose definition of privilege where a vast majority of people qualify.
All this talk of privilege is getting old. So people have some advantages that others don't. That's life. A lot of us weren't born with silver spoons in our mouths, but that doesn't hold us back from success or reaching our goals. Seems like more of an excuse than an explanation.
As for the phrase in question, is it really so bad to offer up optimistic hope when people really can do things they think are impossible? Perhaps people really just don't want to see the flip-side of the coin, that if they don't reach their goals it's their own fault.5 -
@canadianlbs wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I think you're taking the phrase WAY too literally.
no, i don't think so. if someone asks me a question, i like to actually think about my answer, whatever it is. and i like to know why it is my answer and be able to explain it.
the phrase does literally annoy me, because i'm a literal-minded kind of person. imprecision and over-inflation undermine the speaker's credibility. and i like clarity in communication, so sloppy credibility is a definite irritant. some people do like having motivational sunshine blown up their butts, but that doesnt' mean everyone does or that everyone should.It'd be interesting to see which group is generally happier and/or more successful at achieving their goals.
see, ime different people define happiness itself in different ways, so i wouldn't get too invested in the idea that everyone who's not wired to your grid is either an automatic sad sack or a 'failure'. i know people who achieve based on this kind of narrow motivational path and are happy with it. and people who achieve based on that path and instantly question whether the achievement was worth the cost. equally, i know very happy 'dabblers' who never set a goal in their lives and who like it that way. and others who have set goals, and failed, and been wrecked because they had all their psychological/identity eggs in that single basket.
i don't think you should be making it such a defensive, zero-sum kind of competitive thing. it's an exchange of opinions and a range of people expressing their views, not a psycho-ideological war. but then again, i prefer conversation over this thing of 'debate' so maybe i should just stay out of discussions like these.
You must read a lot of non-fiction. haha
Let's go with the individuals' definition of happiness then. I'm saying it'd be interesting to know, either way. I'm open to the possibility that the realists or pessimistic ones could truly be happier and more successful. Another possibility is that both are equal.
Not to outshine your very literal, cold way of thinking, but shouldn't the point of every discussion be to end with a truth? A binary and definite answer? The broadening of one's mind and hearing the thoughts and opinions of others is icing on the cake, but I don't like talking for the sake of talking.1 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »@canadianlbs wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I think you're taking the phrase WAY too literally.
no, i don't think so. if someone asks me a question, i like to actually think about my answer, whatever it is. and i like to know why it is my answer and be able to explain it.
the phrase does literally annoy me, because i'm a literal-minded kind of person. imprecision and over-inflation undermine the speaker's credibility. and i like clarity in communication, so sloppy credibility is a definite irritant. some people do like having motivational sunshine blown up their butts, but that doesnt' mean everyone does or that everyone should.It'd be interesting to see which group is generally happier and/or more successful at achieving their goals.
see, ime different people define happiness itself in different ways, so i wouldn't get too invested in the idea that everyone who's not wired to your grid is either an automatic sad sack or a 'failure'. i know people who achieve based on this kind of narrow motivational path and are happy with it. and people who achieve based on that path and instantly question whether the achievement was worth the cost. equally, i know very happy 'dabblers' who never set a goal in their lives and who like it that way. and others who have set goals, and failed, and been wrecked because they had all their psychological/identity eggs in that single basket.
i don't think you should be making it such a defensive, zero-sum kind of competitive thing. it's an exchange of opinions and a range of people expressing their views, not a psycho-ideological war. but then again, i prefer conversation over this thing of 'debate' so maybe i should just stay out of discussions like these.
Not to outshine your very literal, cold way of thinking, but shouldn't the point of every discussion be to end with a truth? A binary and definite answer? The broadening of one's mind and hearing the thoughts and opinions of others is icing on the cake, but I don't like talking for the sake of talking.
Nope. Sometimes it's important to get a clear answer, but in other cases, understanding is more important than being right. Additionally, in discussions that involve personal experience, more than one option may be "right." Requiring a binary often sets you up for the false choice fallacy.4 -
clicketykeys wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »@canadianlbs wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I think you're taking the phrase WAY too literally.
no, i don't think so. if someone asks me a question, i like to actually think about my answer, whatever it is. and i like to know why it is my answer and be able to explain it.
the phrase does literally annoy me, because i'm a literal-minded kind of person. imprecision and over-inflation undermine the speaker's credibility. and i like clarity in communication, so sloppy credibility is a definite irritant. some people do like having motivational sunshine blown up their butts, but that doesnt' mean everyone does or that everyone should.It'd be interesting to see which group is generally happier and/or more successful at achieving their goals.
see, ime different people define happiness itself in different ways, so i wouldn't get too invested in the idea that everyone who's not wired to your grid is either an automatic sad sack or a 'failure'. i know people who achieve based on this kind of narrow motivational path and are happy with it. and people who achieve based on that path and instantly question whether the achievement was worth the cost. equally, i know very happy 'dabblers' who never set a goal in their lives and who like it that way. and others who have set goals, and failed, and been wrecked because they had all their psychological/identity eggs in that single basket.
i don't think you should be making it such a defensive, zero-sum kind of competitive thing. it's an exchange of opinions and a range of people expressing their views, not a psycho-ideological war. but then again, i prefer conversation over this thing of 'debate' so maybe i should just stay out of discussions like these.
Not to outshine your very literal, cold way of thinking, but shouldn't the point of every discussion be to end with a truth? A binary and definite answer? The broadening of one's mind and hearing the thoughts and opinions of others is icing on the cake, but I don't like talking for the sake of talking.
Nope. Sometimes it's important to get a clear answer, but in other cases, understanding is more important than being right. Additionally, in discussions that involve personal experience, more than one option may be "right." Requiring a binary often sets you up for the false choice fallacy.
We're getting a little off topic, and I feel bad for that. Sorry OP! But what's the point of understanding if not to enable us to make right choices in the future. Even if we make the mistake of a logical fallacy, the new discussion should be to address if that is true or false.1 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »@canadianlbs wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I think you're taking the phrase WAY too literally.
no, i don't think so. if someone asks me a question, i like to actually think about my answer, whatever it is. and i like to know why it is my answer and be able to explain it.
the phrase does literally annoy me, because i'm a literal-minded kind of person. imprecision and over-inflation undermine the speaker's credibility. and i like clarity in communication, so sloppy credibility is a definite irritant. some people do like having motivational sunshine blown up their butts, but that doesnt' mean everyone does or that everyone should.It'd be interesting to see which group is generally happier and/or more successful at achieving their goals.
see, ime different people define happiness itself in different ways, so i wouldn't get too invested in the idea that everyone who's not wired to your grid is either an automatic sad sack or a 'failure'. i know people who achieve based on this kind of narrow motivational path and are happy with it. and people who achieve based on that path and instantly question whether the achievement was worth the cost. equally, i know very happy 'dabblers' who never set a goal in their lives and who like it that way. and others who have set goals, and failed, and been wrecked because they had all their psychological/identity eggs in that single basket.
i don't think you should be making it such a defensive, zero-sum kind of competitive thing. it's an exchange of opinions and a range of people expressing their views, not a psycho-ideological war. but then again, i prefer conversation over this thing of 'debate' so maybe i should just stay out of discussions like these.
Not to outshine your very literal, cold way of thinking, but shouldn't the point of every discussion be to end with a truth? A binary and definite answer? The broadening of one's mind and hearing the thoughts and opinions of others is icing on the cake, but I don't like talking for the sake of talking.
Nope. Sometimes it's important to get a clear answer, but in other cases, understanding is more important than being right. Additionally, in discussions that involve personal experience, more than one option may be "right." Requiring a binary often sets you up for the false choice fallacy.
We're getting a little off topic, and I feel bad for that. Sorry OP! But what's the point of understanding if not to enable us to make right choices in the future. Even if we make the mistake of a logical fallacy, the new discussion should be to address if that is true or false.
True for who? Maybe for you but not for someone else...1 -
I prefer, "You never know until you try." No one transformed their lives in an hour; it takes time and effort to make real changes. Running the odds and probabilities, few things that obey the laws of physics are actually impossible. Highly implausible? Sure. But I'm with Han Solo: when it comes to the goal, "never tell me the odds."5
-
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »@canadianlbs wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I think you're taking the phrase WAY too literally.
no, i don't think so. if someone asks me a question, i like to actually think about my answer, whatever it is. and i like to know why it is my answer and be able to explain it.
the phrase does literally annoy me, because i'm a literal-minded kind of person. imprecision and over-inflation undermine the speaker's credibility. and i like clarity in communication, so sloppy credibility is a definite irritant. some people do like having motivational sunshine blown up their butts, but that doesnt' mean everyone does or that everyone should.It'd be interesting to see which group is generally happier and/or more successful at achieving their goals.
see, ime different people define happiness itself in different ways, so i wouldn't get too invested in the idea that everyone who's not wired to your grid is either an automatic sad sack or a 'failure'. i know people who achieve based on this kind of narrow motivational path and are happy with it. and people who achieve based on that path and instantly question whether the achievement was worth the cost. equally, i know very happy 'dabblers' who never set a goal in their lives and who like it that way. and others who have set goals, and failed, and been wrecked because they had all their psychological/identity eggs in that single basket.
i don't think you should be making it such a defensive, zero-sum kind of competitive thing. it's an exchange of opinions and a range of people expressing their views, not a psycho-ideological war. but then again, i prefer conversation over this thing of 'debate' so maybe i should just stay out of discussions like these.
Not to outshine your very literal, cold way of thinking, but shouldn't the point of every discussion be to end with a truth? A binary and definite answer? The broadening of one's mind and hearing the thoughts and opinions of others is icing on the cake, but I don't like talking for the sake of talking.
Nope. Sometimes it's important to get a clear answer, but in other cases, understanding is more important than being right. Additionally, in discussions that involve personal experience, more than one option may be "right." Requiring a binary often sets you up for the false choice fallacy.
We're getting a little off topic, and I feel bad for that. Sorry OP! But what's the point of understanding if not to enable us to make right choices in the future. Even if we make the mistake of a logical fallacy, the new discussion should be to address if that is true or false.
True for who? Maybe for you but not for someone else...
Haha, nah. I don't believe that. I'm not talking about perception, I'm talking about truth. If someone believes that the world is flat, that doesn't mean that it's the truth, even for them. It just means they're wrong.1 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »@canadianlbs wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I think you're taking the phrase WAY too literally.
no, i don't think so. if someone asks me a question, i like to actually think about my answer, whatever it is. and i like to know why it is my answer and be able to explain it.
the phrase does literally annoy me, because i'm a literal-minded kind of person. imprecision and over-inflation undermine the speaker's credibility. and i like clarity in communication, so sloppy credibility is a definite irritant. some people do like having motivational sunshine blown up their butts, but that doesnt' mean everyone does or that everyone should.It'd be interesting to see which group is generally happier and/or more successful at achieving their goals.
see, ime different people define happiness itself in different ways, so i wouldn't get too invested in the idea that everyone who's not wired to your grid is either an automatic sad sack or a 'failure'. i know people who achieve based on this kind of narrow motivational path and are happy with it. and people who achieve based on that path and instantly question whether the achievement was worth the cost. equally, i know very happy 'dabblers' who never set a goal in their lives and who like it that way. and others who have set goals, and failed, and been wrecked because they had all their psychological/identity eggs in that single basket.
i don't think you should be making it such a defensive, zero-sum kind of competitive thing. it's an exchange of opinions and a range of people expressing their views, not a psycho-ideological war. but then again, i prefer conversation over this thing of 'debate' so maybe i should just stay out of discussions like these.
Not to outshine your very literal, cold way of thinking, but shouldn't the point of every discussion be to end with a truth? A binary and definite answer? The broadening of one's mind and hearing the thoughts and opinions of others is icing on the cake, but I don't like talking for the sake of talking.
Nope. Sometimes it's important to get a clear answer, but in other cases, understanding is more important than being right. Additionally, in discussions that involve personal experience, more than one option may be "right." Requiring a binary often sets you up for the false choice fallacy.
We're getting a little off topic, and I feel bad for that. Sorry OP! But what's the point of understanding if not to enable us to make right choices in the future. Even if we make the mistake of a logical fallacy, the new discussion should be to address if that is true or false.
True for who? Maybe for you but not for someone else...
Haha, nah. I don't believe that. I'm not talking about perception, I'm talking about truth. If someone believes that the world is flat, that doesn't mean that it's the truth, even for them. It just means they're wrong.
But we're not talking about something as definitive as the earth being flat. We're talking about people, their perception, their personalities etc. There are many shades of grey involved....3 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »@canadianlbs wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I think you're taking the phrase WAY too literally.
no, i don't think so. if someone asks me a question, i like to actually think about my answer, whatever it is. and i like to know why it is my answer and be able to explain it.
the phrase does literally annoy me, because i'm a literal-minded kind of person. imprecision and over-inflation undermine the speaker's credibility. and i like clarity in communication, so sloppy credibility is a definite irritant. some people do like having motivational sunshine blown up their butts, but that doesnt' mean everyone does or that everyone should.It'd be interesting to see which group is generally happier and/or more successful at achieving their goals.
see, ime different people define happiness itself in different ways, so i wouldn't get too invested in the idea that everyone who's not wired to your grid is either an automatic sad sack or a 'failure'. i know people who achieve based on this kind of narrow motivational path and are happy with it. and people who achieve based on that path and instantly question whether the achievement was worth the cost. equally, i know very happy 'dabblers' who never set a goal in their lives and who like it that way. and others who have set goals, and failed, and been wrecked because they had all their psychological/identity eggs in that single basket.
i don't think you should be making it such a defensive, zero-sum kind of competitive thing. it's an exchange of opinions and a range of people expressing their views, not a psycho-ideological war. but then again, i prefer conversation over this thing of 'debate' so maybe i should just stay out of discussions like these.
Not to outshine your very literal, cold way of thinking, but shouldn't the point of every discussion be to end with a truth? A binary and definite answer? The broadening of one's mind and hearing the thoughts and opinions of others is icing on the cake, but I don't like talking for the sake of talking.
Nope. Sometimes it's important to get a clear answer, but in other cases, understanding is more important than being right. Additionally, in discussions that involve personal experience, more than one option may be "right." Requiring a binary often sets you up for the false choice fallacy.
We're getting a little off topic, and I feel bad for that. Sorry OP! But what's the point of understanding if not to enable us to make right choices in the future. Even if we make the mistake of a logical fallacy, the new discussion should be to address if that is true or false.
True for who? Maybe for you but not for someone else...
Haha, nah. I don't believe that. I'm not talking about perception, I'm talking about truth. If someone believes that the world is flat, that doesn't mean that it's the truth, even for them. It just means they're wrong.
But we're not talking about something as definitive as the earth being flat. We're talking about people, their perception, their personalities etc. There are many shades of grey involved....
True and I understand shades of grey. But I'm not talking about perceptions and personalities. We're talking about possibilities. Is something possible? True or false? I think we both agree that what may be easily achieved by some, requires extraordinary effort and willpower for others.1 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »shouldn't the point of every discussion be to end with a truth? A binary and definite answer?
i don't think so, but if you do that certainly puts a context around how you're approaching this one.
3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
How about "Try the impossible, you might just succeed."
This I can get behind.
Sometimes I need to try harder to put my cynicism in the drawer, LOL!
I'm intrigued at how many people think "Try the impossible, you might just succeed" is a good phrase, while not liking 'nothing is impossible if you work hard enough' because it's not always true.
"Try the impossible, you might just succeed" is always untrue. If it's impossible you can't succeed, because if you succeed then it wasn't impossible.2 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »@canadianlbs wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I think you're taking the phrase WAY too literally.
no, i don't think so. if someone asks me a question, i like to actually think about my answer, whatever it is. and i like to know why it is my answer and be able to explain it.
the phrase does literally annoy me, because i'm a literal-minded kind of person. imprecision and over-inflation undermine the speaker's credibility. and i like clarity in communication, so sloppy credibility is a definite irritant. some people do like having motivational sunshine blown up their butts, but that doesnt' mean everyone does or that everyone should.It'd be interesting to see which group is generally happier and/or more successful at achieving their goals.
see, ime different people define happiness itself in different ways, so i wouldn't get too invested in the idea that everyone who's not wired to your grid is either an automatic sad sack or a 'failure'. i know people who achieve based on this kind of narrow motivational path and are happy with it. and people who achieve based on that path and instantly question whether the achievement was worth the cost. equally, i know very happy 'dabblers' who never set a goal in their lives and who like it that way. and others who have set goals, and failed, and been wrecked because they had all their psychological/identity eggs in that single basket.
i don't think you should be making it such a defensive, zero-sum kind of competitive thing. it's an exchange of opinions and a range of people expressing their views, not a psycho-ideological war. but then again, i prefer conversation over this thing of 'debate' so maybe i should just stay out of discussions like these.
Not to outshine your very literal, cold way of thinking, but shouldn't the point of every discussion be to end with a truth? A binary and definite answer? The broadening of one's mind and hearing the thoughts and opinions of others is icing on the cake, but I don't like talking for the sake of talking.
Nope. Sometimes it's important to get a clear answer, but in other cases, understanding is more important than being right. Additionally, in discussions that involve personal experience, more than one option may be "right." Requiring a binary often sets you up for the false choice fallacy.
We're getting a little off topic, and I feel bad for that. Sorry OP! But what's the point of understanding if not to enable us to make right choices in the future. Even if we make the mistake of a logical fallacy, the new discussion should be to address if that is true or false.
True for who? Maybe for you but not for someone else...
Haha, nah. I don't believe that. I'm not talking about perception, I'm talking about truth. If someone believes that the world is flat, that doesn't mean that it's the truth, even for them. It just means they're wrong.
But we're not talking about something as definitive as the earth being flat. We're talking about people, their perception, their personalities etc. There are many shades of grey involved....
True and I understand shades of grey. But I'm not talking about perceptions and personalities. We're talking about possibilities. Is something possible? True or false? I think we both agree that what may be easily achieved by some, requires extraordinary effort and willpower for others.
What are you even asserting? That no matter what everything is possible for every person if you just try hard enough? That's just not true.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I don't think "try your hardest and never give up" is sufficient. Just imagine all of the remarkable technologies and discoveries that wouldn't have had a chance if everyone was so defeatist.
How about "Try the impossible, you might just succeed."
This I can get behind.
Sometimes I need to try harder to put my cynicism in the drawer, LOL!
I'm intrigued at how many people think "Try the impossible, you might just succeed" is a good phrase, while not liking 'nothing is impossible if you work hard enough' because it's not always true.
"Try the impossible, you might just succeed" is always untrue. If it's impossible you can't succeed, because if you succeed then it wasn't impossible.
I think it's implied to be "Try (what you believe to be) the impossible, you might just succeed." Everyone is so literal around here. haha2 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »@canadianlbs wrote: »WorkerDrone83 wrote: »I think you're taking the phrase WAY too literally.
no, i don't think so. if someone asks me a question, i like to actually think about my answer, whatever it is. and i like to know why it is my answer and be able to explain it.
the phrase does literally annoy me, because i'm a literal-minded kind of person. imprecision and over-inflation undermine the speaker's credibility. and i like clarity in communication, so sloppy credibility is a definite irritant. some people do like having motivational sunshine blown up their butts, but that doesnt' mean everyone does or that everyone should.It'd be interesting to see which group is generally happier and/or more successful at achieving their goals.
see, ime different people define happiness itself in different ways, so i wouldn't get too invested in the idea that everyone who's not wired to your grid is either an automatic sad sack or a 'failure'. i know people who achieve based on this kind of narrow motivational path and are happy with it. and people who achieve based on that path and instantly question whether the achievement was worth the cost. equally, i know very happy 'dabblers' who never set a goal in their lives and who like it that way. and others who have set goals, and failed, and been wrecked because they had all their psychological/identity eggs in that single basket.
i don't think you should be making it such a defensive, zero-sum kind of competitive thing. it's an exchange of opinions and a range of people expressing their views, not a psycho-ideological war. but then again, i prefer conversation over this thing of 'debate' so maybe i should just stay out of discussions like these.
Not to outshine your very literal, cold way of thinking, but shouldn't the point of every discussion be to end with a truth? A binary and definite answer? The broadening of one's mind and hearing the thoughts and opinions of others is icing on the cake, but I don't like talking for the sake of talking.
Nope. Sometimes it's important to get a clear answer, but in other cases, understanding is more important than being right. Additionally, in discussions that involve personal experience, more than one option may be "right." Requiring a binary often sets you up for the false choice fallacy.
We're getting a little off topic, and I feel bad for that. Sorry OP! But what's the point of understanding if not to enable us to make right choices in the future. Even if we make the mistake of a logical fallacy, the new discussion should be to address if that is true or false.
True for who? Maybe for you but not for someone else...
Haha, nah. I don't believe that. I'm not talking about perception, I'm talking about truth. If someone believes that the world is flat, that doesn't mean that it's the truth, even for them. It just means they're wrong.
But we're not talking about something as definitive as the earth being flat. We're talking about people, their perception, their personalities etc. There are many shades of grey involved....
True and I understand shades of grey. But I'm not talking about perceptions and personalities. We're talking about possibilities. Is something possible? True or false? I think we both agree that what may be easily achieved by some, requires extraordinary effort and willpower for others.
Sometimes true, sometimes false. Does not mean you should not shoot for the moon, you might just land amongst the stars...3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions