UnderGround Forums
 

SBGI >> The fallacy of "goal" setting. . .


7/5/05 4:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Jul-05 04:06 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2448
 
It's clear some people don't understand my PERSONAL dislike for goal setting, (I get asked this a lot at seminars as well). . .so maybe this article will help clarify that, and maybe it will be useful to other people in some way. . .or not. But before I post it let me clarify this. . . SBGi is a HUGE organization right now. And very few people see the Org as a whole. In fact, I may be the only one because I have the great job of traveling to the different locations. So I can tell you that it is filled with all kinds of RADICALLY different people, with very different politics, ideas, and beliefs. Which is perfect. Speaking for myself. . .and ONLY myself. . .I do have a lot of problems with the way "goal setting" is often used, or advocated in the pop psychology world. My main problem with it is that it is often, NOT ALWAYS, offered as a form of manipulation. IE: Anthony Robbins actually has a large section in his books devoted to mimicking the facial expressions of the person you are speaking with as way to gain empathy, as a means of manipulating them. . . . .manipulation = seperation. I can see some areas, such as interrogation rooms, where this may be a valid skill. But in day to day life, when trying to form MEANINGFUL relationships with people, it strikes me as sick, and extremely vulgar. That is one of many-many examples. . .but it is a HUGE topic to discuss. Again, speaking only for myself I can tell you that I try and make a practice of observing all the places/times during the day where I can catch myself trying to manipulate someone else. And I can tell you there are MANY. In fact, I find I really hide all the ways I use, or try and use, manipulation on many-many different levels. This is not to say I am not honest with people about what I do, or don't want at the time. . .in fact, I think a lack of manipulation only leads to honesty. . .which is f**king scary, as they say in French. . . . I feel that manipulation stands between self, and real meaningful relationships. Between self, and growth as a human. So given that PERSONAL context, you can see where I would find the Tony Robbins technique to be completely backwards from what it is I am personally trying to recognize in the moment. I also write about this. I would encourage everyone to do so if it felt right to them. I think the stoic ideas of being strong and silent are outdated bullshit. . .again, just my thoughts. I'd hope that succeding generations (especially men) find more honest communication routes, more ways to express their thoughts and feelings, not less. And it seems pretty obvious to me that the way things are evolving, that will be the case. And that is good. But also note that at the top of my BLOG there is a disclaimer that says that these are MY ideas. . .not those of the Gym as a whole. In fact I make a great point, or I try to anyway, to write about the need for loads of skeptiscm. The need to question everything, every idea, every concept, every notion. . .to not accept anyone elses at face value. . .ever. So it would be honest to say I have my own opinions. . .obvious, as I write them down. But it would never be valid to say that the Gym as a whole has a party "line". . .at least not one that has come from myself, or from Luis. Because the only line I have repeated over and over as a mantra for others is that everyone needs to find their OWN line! Having said that, here is part of an article I wrote in 2004, but have yet to put online. . .(until now), on this exact topic. It is a little far 'out there'. . .so you may hate it, or love it. But regardless don't believe it. . .if it gets people questioning that is perfect. It's just a thought folks. . . . .
7/5/05 4:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Jul-05 04:08 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2449
"Goal setting should come with a warning label, what you desire keeps you from achieving what you really want!" I know as I sit down to write out this article that there will be a tremendous skepticism about the title, premise, and statement, which I am making with this piece. I have known that for a long time, which is why I very carefully wrote this particular article, after much thought and contemplation. Like many ideas which meet immediate barriers in the mind, the premise written in the title seems to defy 'common' sense, and go against what might appear to some of you to be first hand experience. However, I am confident that if you attempt to read this piece with an open mind, and sit with it for a bit afterwards, you just may begin agreeing with the points made, and understanding the reasons why I feel it's so important to state them. So with that I have to ask you to forget what you think you know, or have learned about "goal setting", the force of will, and the concept of success, and move forward. The 1953 Yale study: There is a report that is often cited by the self help gurus who speak much about positive thinking, and goal setting. The study most cited is the famous 1953 Yale University report. 'In 1953 a graduating Yale class was surveyed as to whether or not they had specific "goals", and if they did, did they write them down? A certain percentage said they did have goals, but only 3% said they had their goals written down somewhere. After 20 Years they contacted these graduates and found some amazing results. The percentage that said they had goals did decidedly better then the other percentage that said they did not. But even more shocking, the 3% that had written down their goals were worth more financially then the other 97% combined!' Sound good? One problem, this study never happened. Yale University has no record of the study ever occurring. It was completely made up, and then re-told in countless books and articles by the self help "experts". Goal setting as a concept in today's modern world has become so popular and common that nobody has bothered to question its validity. Like most of the false premises taught in this world, it is now passed on as just another form of conditioning, and accepted as a theory without much critical thinking applied to the matter. I know that may sound crazy to some of you, as we are fed all the pop psychology nonsense of people like Anthony Robbins, on an almost daily basis in this Country. But no studies have shown any correlation to goal setting and material success. People will produce quotes and books that they sell which feature "successful" people speaking on goal setting. Or even some non scientific polling data. There is good money in that. But objective researchers can clearly show you an equal amount of quotes, or people, who measured in material wealth, meet or exceed those who set goals, and never followed such a paradigm. So the idea that there is any scientific data to back up the concept of goal setting is simply false. Isn't trying to get what you want pretty much what everyone is doing? And the fact that this strategy has gone unquestioned and unexamined, except in the most superficial ways is itself pretty amazing. For those interested in further reading on this subject I would suggest a book called 'Stop setting goals?' by Bobb Biehl. In it he shows the dangers or pitfalls people who find themselves attracted to goal setting often fall prey to. Among the most common is the loss of meaningful relationships and connections. The use of goal setting as poor replacement for fluid problem solving in the moment; and the common effect of driving creative people away, which many goal setters create. As we enter and Age and economy which will be impacted most by creative ideas and concepts, this effect posses an extreme danger to modern corporations, and Countries hoping to compete in the global market in the coming Years. How about this idea. . ."The only thing you ever need is a true awareness of what already is." What about first hand experience? First hand experience is an amazing phenomena. What our awareness is focused on is almost always what we will find. This is what I mean. Imagine you are on a long road trip with three friends. You are all tired as you have been on the road for many hours, and you begin to pass through the city center of a small town. You, the driver, are focused on getting to your destination. You awareness and mind remain on this 'goal'. Your friend in the passenger seat is hungry, and has awareness is clearly on his stomach. The two passengers in the back have been discussing women and relationships for several hours. The one behind you just recently broke up with his girlfriend, and his awareness is tuned to that. Your friend next to him is single, and is clearly looking forward to meeting new women on this trip. His awareness seems focused very much on that desire. You pass through the town without stopping. It was a busy Sunday afternoon, and it took maybe ten minutes to drive all the way through, stopping only at a few stoplights. All four of you passed through the same town, the same 'reality'. All of you obviously have the same five senses. As you exit the town you are pulled over and quizzed by the 'reality police'. The RP want to know what each of you saw and 'experienced' as you drove through the town. You, the driver, where impressed with the time you are making. You comment regarding how rapidly the trip can go by when you just focus on your goal, and drive non stop to your objective. Your friend riding shotgun witnessed at least eight restaurants that where open for business and looked good. The passenger behind you saw three different women, two shops, and heard one song in another driver's car, all of which sadly reminded him of his former girlfriend. And your friend sitting next to him in the back seat noticed at least fifteen very attractive women who where walking through the city. The point? Where your awareness and thoughts are focused, directly affects what you see, hear, feel, touch, smell, and taste, and therefore it directly affects what you perceive to be "reality".
7/5/05 4:03 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2450
If you believe thoughts regarding goal setting, then you will find what you believe to be evidence for that concept within your perception of reality. If you believe instead in pre-destined synchronicity, then you can seem to find evidence which supports that concept within the very same reality. And if you believe in helpless chaos, then you will again find assumed evidence to support that concept as well. Bottom line, what IS, is. Getting as much of as many things as I want is pretty much the given strategy for happiness in today's world. So it's time for an honest question, how well does that really work? This is one of many problems with the idea of "goal" setting. A goal in and of itself is simply a thought based on desire for a future outcome. Are you your thoughts, or are you thought? Imagine that you are sitting at a large table, and there are a dozen or so other people sharing the table with you. Many of them are speaking with each other, and several conversations are taking place. As you listen to the noise around you, and individual from across the table calls your name and engages you in a direct talk. In that moment you shift your awareness from the broader noise around you, and focus it on the individual who is trying to speak directly with you. In so doing you hear what they say, while at the same time tuning out, or turning into background noise, the voices closer to you. This type of situation has probably been experienced many times by everyone reading this article. Now in that above situation what do you identify with? That may seem like a strange question if you have never thought deeply about it before. Identification with the human body as "I" seems like the 'normal' state. Yet that is not what most people do. If we were to identify solely with the human body then our lives would be far more objective then they are. Dealing on a daily basis with what IS NOW, in an almost animal like natural sense. But if asked, people will say, "this is 'my' body. In much the same was as they may say, "these are 'my' clothes", or "this is 'my' house". Are you your clothes, or are you your house? No people don't identify the body as "I", with just a little inspection in becomes clear that people identify their thoughts as "I". Their thoughts about what they think they have accomplished, what they think they like, what they think they dislike, what they think they believe, what they think they can do, what they think they cannot do, etc. This is simply measurement. And the important point to remember is that ALL measurement must by its very nature be relative. No down without an up, no left without a right, no light without shadow, no front without back, no better without worse, no smarter without dumber, no nice without mean, no bitter without sweet, no desire without fear. The subject of one becomes absolutely meaningless and non-existent without the context of the "other" to measure against. In truth, both extremes exist as two sides of an inseparable whole. You cannot have a down without an up, a left without a right, light without a shadow, a front without a back, a better without a worse, a smarter without a dumber, a nice without a mean, a desire without a fear. The word itself ‘MEASURE', actually comes from the Sanskrit word ‘Met`r', which is also the root from which we derive the words ‘matter', and ‘meter'. This is a very important point because once again everything we perceive as ‘objective reality' is perceived as such through a process of ‘measurement'. If you say you have become smarter, then you are comparing, or ‘measuring' yourself against something else. . .smarter in comparison to what? If I say I am better, or faster, or stronger, then it is always a form of measurement. As simple as this concept may seem, it's very important that we understand it, because the very act of measurement itself is how we as human personas define ourselves. Within this universe of objective reality, it's simply not possible to have one without the other. The simple concept of duality, it is what IS. Who is "I"? So in understanding that, then it should be clear that my "self" as I normally consider it is simply a collection of HIGHLY edited thoughts, all of which are based on measurement, and all of which are stored as a set of memories I call. . "I". And the person speaking to me? Same-Same. . .another mind/body organism, alive on this spinning rock, which identifies itself based on it's own selected set of memories, again HIGHLY edited, and again ALL based on measurement.
7/5/05 4:04 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2451
Please read this again, and see if this rings true for you. Then ask yourself this, how many memories do you remember from Oct 1995? Can you remember what you where doing at 4:21pm on Oct 4th 1995? If not, what do you remember from that day? What do you remember from that Month? How about that Year? To see for firsthand just how small, selective, and restrictive the little string of memories is that we put together in an order and call "I" can be mind blowing. Many people wont even allow themselves to go there, for fear that this "me" story they have been clinging to with such attachment may not actually be real upon closer examination. All this is considered 'normal' behavior, and this is what the average person calls "I". If you don't see how subjective this process of "me" creation obviously is then think back to the example of the passengers in the car. Now back to the table. When the person across the table catches your attention and engages you in a conversation, and in that moment you shift your awareness from the broader noise around you, and focus it on the individual who is trying to speak directly with you, and in so doing you hear what they say, while at the same time tuning out, or turning into background noise, the voices closer to you. . . . . . .now in that above situation what do you identify with as "I" ? Are you the thoughts you remember, your "me" story, or are you the awareness itself that has focused its direction? Quite obviously, the "me" story cannot focus it's awareness, it's consciousness. The "me" story IS just a thought. If it was not, then whose me story would it be?! If we abandon time, that is, let go of obsessively thinking about ourselves in the purest way possible to simple, open awareness and kindness, we set into motion something that is without bounds or limits, something that immediately and eventually touches everyone. Into the hamster wheel! So in understanding the reality that what most people call "I" doesn't really exist we are left with a fundamental question. . .who is the "I" that sets 'goals' ? The only answer I have been able to come up with is this. . . the same being which is created by measurement and identifies itself as thought sets up an artificial series of objectives based on it's own "me" story by which it will seek to further measure, and therefore CREATE, it-self. What an endless hamster wheel that is. Consider this: Is it possible to be afraid without holding beliefs? This brings us to the second major problem with goal setting. I Remember the reality of measurement, and I understand that desire cannot exist without fear. Therefore, the stronger the desire, the greater the fear. Fear of failure to achieve the desire, fear of losing the object of desire, attachment to the desired object, or need for the object. . . .ALL of it leads to suffering. But only always. Everything we call the "past" is nothing but present memory, and highly edited memory at that. Everything we call the "future" is nothing but fantasy and commentary, that is, present memory recycled and rearranged. NOW is the only "time" we can ever be awake, free, honest, wise, intimate, and compassionate. NOW is the only time we can be happy and at peace. No entangling alliances to any system of belief, mythology, or authority will set you free. The motive to be generous, to give, and to share, and the ambition to acquire, possess, and control, are two radically different approaches to living. The 'power of positive thinking' sounds good. You can seem to control things until you can't. We take our health for granted until we lose it. We take loved ones for granted until we lose them. We think we will live forever until we are about to die. We can hear we should be able to heal ourselves if we have enough faith and think positively, a great theory unless your one of those for whom it doesn't work. What is really required is a sit in against the voices of conditioning that say you should have control. The control we think we have is in reality the control egocentricity has over us. The voice that says you should have control, controls you utterly. To restore order then would mean to liberate oneself from the spell of what SEEMS, and come back to what IS. And that is why I dislike "goal setting". It is just not practical. -Matt ps: If we abandon time, that is, let go of obsessively thinking about ourselves in the purest way possible to simple, open awareness and kindness, we set into motion something that is without bounds or limits, something that immediately and eventually touches everyone. . . .and we still get to keep our day planner. : ) __________________ Amantium irae, amoris integratio est. in saecula saeculorum
7/5/05 12:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Ausgepicht
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 17174
Take this to the KrishnamurtiGround Sucka!! j/k I recall you mentioning your personal Dislike for Goal Setting in the Past and your Explanation was a bit "fuzzy" for me, this certainly clarifies your Viewpoint. You have an excellent Knack for staying on Topic in a clear & concise Manner. I hope some of this Stuff is in the forthcoming SBG Book. Thanks for sharing. -Joe
7/5/05 12:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Chuckk
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 796
Excellent post Matt!
7/5/05 2:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2452
Thank you.
7/5/05 4:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Joe
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Jul-05
Member Since: 05/28/2004
Posts: 137
that was a great read. thanks
7/7/05 3:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
mandalalisten
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/27/2003
Posts: 385
"So in understanding the reality that what most people call "I" doesn't really exist we are left with a fundamental question. . .who is the "I" that sets 'goals' ?" The I that wants to dominate, or the I that wishes it would dissolve. The transluscent nature of dissolution repeals the goal setters goals from them. Perhaps success only reinforces original insecurity. "The only answer I have been able to come up with is this. . . the same being which is created by measurement and identifies itself as thought sets up an artificial series of objectives based on it's own "me" story by which it will seek to further measure, and therefore CREATE, it-self." When genuine transformation occurs as a result of a specific line of events transpiring in a seemingly "random" yet syncronistic harmony with the individuals secret desire... and this occurs over... and over... and over again... in an endless cycle of death, rebirth and transformation... is this a hamster wheel? If the dualistic nature is transcended by the surfing of percieved opposites is this manipulation or witchcraft? Or is it simply Art. Then again some consider lying an art. "What an endless hamster wheel that is. " There is a funny thing in music. As the scale of fifths ascends to the 7th octave, the harmonics create a differential gap called a pythagrean comma. This occurs harmonically / mathematically, this is not new-age metaphysics. Thus simple by following natural geometry, sound transcends it's own origins (the fundamental) by viture of it's movement thru space. Pure and simple. I believe improved communication is the goal Matt. We do not end up where we started, but strangely... we do.... We can see the end results of our work every time we are face to face w/ someone. Your endless hamster wheel has produced one of the finest martial art organizations ever... i believe because of your honesty and sincere seeker intent. I enjoy your thoughts thanks for the post. David Copeland Beaverton SBGi
7/7/05 4:10 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
mandalalisten
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/27/2003
Posts: 387
tt
7/7/05 2:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
JasonKeaton
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-05
Member Since: 03/12/2002
Posts: 881
I was just always to lazy to set goals. And you are right you do not need them.
7/7/05 4:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2473
Thanks David, much appreciated.
7/11/05 6:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
C-Hamzeh
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8196
Great read, and I agree with much of it... I feel that desire can lead to fear, yes, so iyo Matt, should desire be dissolved and enjoyment be focused on? I started out enjoying MMA, then became to0 serious about the future of it, and desired to get to whatever goal, etc.... on this small scale, I know my best has always been accomplished when I enjoyed it and let loose. C
7/11/05 9:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2477
"Matt, should desire be dissolved and enjoyment be focused on?" The best I can do is suggest that an individual really take an honest look in the moment at what they really 'think' they want, desire, and as a consequence what they really fear, and worry over. I think total self honesty makes it all self evident.
7/12/05 1:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
C-Hamzeh
12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 12-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8198
Best to always stay in shape and only fight when you really feel like it then, just randomly when watching events, ha.... point taken though, interesting to apply this to competition. C
7/15/05 4:13 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
markijkd
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 15-Jul-05
Member Since: 12/19/2003
Posts: 169
I-JKD/Asia Pac.San Shou League
Matt, I really enjoyed ur piece/whole as well... However, in my opinion it is not "goal setting" that is necessarily the negative but the importance or emphasis place upon it... Patterns, rythm, goals seem to be quite natural... What seems to be negative is the "clinging to them"... So instead of ending this sentance with 3 periods, I will end with Mark
7/16/05 10:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
mandalalisten
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 16-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/27/2003
Posts: 397
?The use of goal setting as poor replacement for fluid problem solving in the moment; ? Perhaps Navigational Skills transcend linear or non-linear problem solving. Triangulation is Universal. I disagree that the two are not interchangeable, perhaps our culture suggests through it?s own ?production? process and amplifies the linear time based brute force dynamic. I.E. if I do it for long enough, or stand in line long enough, I?ll get what I want? somehow. ?and the common effect of driving creative people away, which many goal setters create.? I agree! Perhaps because goal setters present a strict set of rules for themselves to ?succeed? with. But like it?s been said before, can you succeed with a series of yes?s or a list of no?s? The reversal of opposites demands the transcendence of goal oriented thinking thru the doublespeak of cyclic logic. Make sense? Good. Creativity demands it. Some learn it, some do it, but creativity is the rhythmic breath of any movement. Yet when dealing with capitol investment, goal settings seems to be the only way. How does non-goal oriented thinking move beyond living paycheck to paycheck? How does creativity apply to capitol? I?ve trained Jiu Jitsu for 11 years (yeah isn't it pitifull?), sometimes it feels on the creative edge, other times on the back of a large gorilla carrying me to a safe place, but I have yet to figure out how my creativity could benefit me financially without setting goals for myself (& family). ?As we enter and Age and economy which will be impacted most by creative ideas and concepts, this effect posses an extreme danger to modern corporations, and Countries hoping to compete in the global market in the coming Years. ? Unfortunately the countries hoping to ?compete in the world market? most likely have oral traditions that span centuries and will be lost in the global market that swings and sways to the consumer mindset leaving behind the wisdom of the ages for the "my way right away" global marketplace western mentality. ?impacted most by creative ideas and concepts? Creative ideas and concepts that are sitting atop the western steed of technology which go hand in hand with the corporate take over of every means of communication outside of technology. Putting to rest the ?old? way of communicating information thru the generations. Afterall, since we can transcend space and time in our communication, what need have we for improving our relationships? (sarcasm is free) cont...
7/16/05 10:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
mandalalisten
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 16-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/27/2003
Posts: 398
"If we abandon time, that is, let go of obsessively thinking about ourselves in the purest way possible to simple, open awareness and kindness, we set into motion something that is without bounds or limits, something that immediately and eventually touches everyone. . . ." What do you call this something that manifests when you abandon your fixation with time? divaD
7/17/05 4:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dracovich
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6389
"I Remember the reality of measurement, and I understand that desire cannot exist without fear. Therefore, the stronger the desire, the greater the fear. Fear of failure to achieve the desire, fear of losing the object of desire, attachment to the desired object, or need for the object. . . .ALL of it leads to suffering. But only always." I had a bit of a hard time understanding the gist of your post, i'm more used to reading very concise and to the point texts (this is not meant as an insult, merely that i don't read much outside of my studies, so i'm ill equipped to read other styles of writing). But the way i understand what you're saying, is that goal setting is bad because it leads you to strive for your goal too much and get tunnel vision, so to say, and thus neglecting other parts of your life, am i correct in my understanding? If so, then i must disagree to a point, sure, this is propably not the best in the world for an individual to be transfixed upon one goal, and other parts of his life will definetly suffer as a result. But i don't believe greatness can be achieved any other way, will it mean that you will become less a man in other fields of life? Yes propably, you only have so much attention and time to use, but if you want to be truly great at something you have to be willing to sacrifice some things in order to achieve your goal. I'm sure many great scientists neglected their friendships on their road to great discoveries, many athletes put strain on their family relationships striving for excellence in their sport. But i don't think greatness can be achieved through normal means.
7/19/05 3:15 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2497
"But the way i understand what you're saying, is that goal setting is bad because it leads you to strive for your goal too much and get tunnel vision, so to say, and thus neglecting other parts of your life, am i correct in my understanding?" No I am not saying that. "If so, then i must disagree to a point, sure, this is propably not the best in the world for an individual to be transfixed upon one goal, and other parts of his life will definetly suffer as a result. But i don't believe greatness can be achieved any other way" "Greatness" like the word 'success, is a completely subjective word. According to whose standard? The cultures? Different cultures have very different models for what success is. Often they conflict which other. By the individuals standard? Then that would be completely dependent on the value system of the individual. IE: Donald Trump would most likely consider himself a succes, but someone with different value ethics may view him as an absolute failure. It is all subjective, and relative. "if you want to be truly great at something you have to be willing to sacrifice some things in order to achieve your goal. I'm sure many great scientists neglected their friendships on their road to great discoveries, many athletes put strain on their family relationships striving for excellence in their sport. But i don't think greatness can be achieved through normal means." By that definition of greatness, you mean specificly greatness as defined by skill at a certain particular task. A sport, a discovery in science, etc. And I would only offer that there is a large body of work which directly contradicts the idea that only those who set goals will achieve such greatness. If you do some research on the web you will find many books and articles by leading people in different fields, all of whom claim zero goal setting behaviours, and many of whom who dislike the concept as much as I do. Often times for the reasons I listed above, but also for many more. And they have all reached great heights anyway. It's pause for thought.
7/20/05 1:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dracovich
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6392
Yeah i don't know about goal setting specificly, i was more talking about the fear of failure (which i thought you were talking about), because that's how i understood your post. And yes i do define greatness as being so good at some one thing that you are on a whole other level then others. Say James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Jordan or Bill Gates. Does it mean that they were great human beings with perfect lives? No, i'm sure there are lots of people that want nothing to do with the things they missed to achieve their greatness, but they still achieved greatness in their respective field. P.S. i'm curious as to what your thoughts are on Lloyd Irvin and his grappling gameplan, i don't own it or follow it much, but he seems to have produced many champions using his method, and from what i've gathered it's pretty extreme goalsetting.
7/20/05 1:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2505
I have never read or seen it. Goal setting is the average thought paradigm right now. Many people claim success with it. And many claim success without it. www.straightblastgym.com
8/1/05 9:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
mandalalisten
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Aug-05
Member Since: 01/27/2003
Posts: 405
"average thought paradigm" ... indeed. And circular logic pointing in two directions at once disarms opinions by joining them in a successful direction. Perhaps 'methods' of success are flawed thru the personal identification process that goes along w/ it. Are the songs we hum when no-one is listening the key to harmony when we stutter the words that go along w/ the song of life? If I expect nothing and recieve nothing am I happy with what I have? Is what I have tommorow more or less then what I have today? Is progress having more... or having less? Is True progress beyong measure. Is measure detatchment from true relationship.... And the circular logic pointing in two directions at once which disarms opinions by joining them in a successful direction... is success for the transcendent, and failure to the dual. Just thoughts. Dave Copeland
8/1/05 11:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
mandalalisten
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Aug-05
Member Since: 01/27/2003
Posts: 406
If everyday you do something because you love doing it, and you dissolve your self awareness in that action, that act...that meditation... then I would imagine the identification process with goals would be dissolved with that same act... of love. What we spend time meditating on resolves the conflict of goal and non-goal thru the lovely mandalinguistic relationship of the human soul. The focused or unfocused eye of awareness creates and destroys, internalized or externalized, but in the end sights are set on success, accidental or experimental. The 'tools' only become problems when we step down from our ladder to look at our work. Labors of love spoil not the creative connection. We always start were we left off. Grace Saves Us. David
8/2/05 2:14 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Matt Thornton
5 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Aug-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2652
Well said Dave.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.