Discussion Forum > "Sailing the oceans" vs "Sail around the world solo"
Seraphim:
Definitely there will be big differences in personality styles concerning goals, as you suggest. But when I think about my personal situation and also see how other people talk about themselves, I think we should also not forget the general tendency to see, to look for and to construct meaning in everything when seeing backwards. So I think the difference can be not only in how we set our goals, but simply in the ways we speak (and think) about our history. I think many people tell only "yes, I actually always had this dream", when some other (you and me probably included) would say for the exact same situation "yes, that was one of ideas which I always had about this life area but I did not know I would choose exactly this way". People forget all the goals they abandoned, alternatives they dismissed etc. They simplify their story. So they start to talk to themselves having achieved something - yes, that was always my goal.
I studied psychology and yes, it was one of my goals when I was teenager to study psychology. But I also wanted to study electronics, computers, medicine, cultural anthropology...which I did not study. So I could say "I had always this specific goal" or I could say "I had so many alternatives which I adapted to circumstances, my new visions etc...and I chose some of them"
I do not think at all it explains everything but this "backward thinking and congruency seeking tendency" is important factor when discussing about level of concreteness/looseness of long-term goals in stories of different people...
Definitely there will be big differences in personality styles concerning goals, as you suggest. But when I think about my personal situation and also see how other people talk about themselves, I think we should also not forget the general tendency to see, to look for and to construct meaning in everything when seeing backwards. So I think the difference can be not only in how we set our goals, but simply in the ways we speak (and think) about our history. I think many people tell only "yes, I actually always had this dream", when some other (you and me probably included) would say for the exact same situation "yes, that was one of ideas which I always had about this life area but I did not know I would choose exactly this way". People forget all the goals they abandoned, alternatives they dismissed etc. They simplify their story. So they start to talk to themselves having achieved something - yes, that was always my goal.
I studied psychology and yes, it was one of my goals when I was teenager to study psychology. But I also wanted to study electronics, computers, medicine, cultural anthropology...which I did not study. So I could say "I had always this specific goal" or I could say "I had so many alternatives which I adapted to circumstances, my new visions etc...and I chose some of them"
I do not think at all it explains everything but this "backward thinking and congruency seeking tendency" is important factor when discussing about level of concreteness/looseness of long-term goals in stories of different people...
October 4, 2011 at 17:34 |
Daneb
Daneb
Great insights, Daneb.
Maybe this is another form of "survivorship bias".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Maybe this is another form of "survivorship bias".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
October 4, 2011 at 19:44 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
Seraphim:
Yes, I've often thought that a lot of personal development stuff is based on "survivorship bias". I've heard presentations by multi-millionaire businessmen (it always seems to be men) who say that one of the factors in success is willingness to take risks. Well, it may have been a factor in _their_ success, but has also more than likely been a factor in the failure of many more people for whom the gamble didn't pay off. Those people aren't going to be invited to give presentations though!
Yes, I've often thought that a lot of personal development stuff is based on "survivorship bias". I've heard presentations by multi-millionaire businessmen (it always seems to be men) who say that one of the factors in success is willingness to take risks. Well, it may have been a factor in _their_ success, but has also more than likely been a factor in the failure of many more people for whom the gamble didn't pay off. Those people aren't going to be invited to give presentations though!
October 4, 2011 at 20:23 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I am in the middle of the Halvorson book and this touches on one of the things that I like about her book. She discusses failure. She discusses how to decide when one's had enough and it's time to abandon a goal.
I find it refreshing. No matter how much "grit" anyone has, if they are halfway rational, there will be many instances where they decide that the best thing to do is to give up.
An honest book about about setting and achieving goals would do well to give serious discussion to dealing with failure.
If you take 10,000 people, there might be one who has win after win after win. Studying her and ignoring the other 9,999 is a form of survivorship bias.
Is the good life the lucky life?
I find it refreshing. No matter how much "grit" anyone has, if they are halfway rational, there will be many instances where they decide that the best thing to do is to give up.
An honest book about about setting and achieving goals would do well to give serious discussion to dealing with failure.
If you take 10,000 people, there might be one who has win after win after win. Studying her and ignoring the other 9,999 is a form of survivorship bias.
Is the good life the lucky life?
October 4, 2011 at 21:38 |
moises
moises
I've still got about half the Halvorson book to go - it fell off my list at some stage. So I must put it back on the list and get it finished.
October 4, 2011 at 22:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
<< Is the good life the lucky life? >>
I think the good life is the virtuous life. But then again, the virtuous man, by virtue of his being virtuous, often generates his own luck.
<< Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and has not stood in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the seat of evil men. But his pleasure is in the law of the Lord; and in his law will he meditate day and night. And he shall be as a tree planted by the brooks of waters, which shall yield its fruit in its season, and its leaf shall not fall off; and whatsoever he shall do shall be prospered. >> - Psalm 1
I think the good life is the virtuous life. But then again, the virtuous man, by virtue of his being virtuous, often generates his own luck.
<< Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and has not stood in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the seat of evil men. But his pleasure is in the law of the Lord; and in his law will he meditate day and night. And he shall be as a tree planted by the brooks of waters, which shall yield its fruit in its season, and its leaf shall not fall off; and whatsoever he shall do shall be prospered. >> - Psalm 1
October 4, 2011 at 22:58 |
Seraphim
Seraphim
This thread is a continuation of the thread that Alan initiated on Halvorson's book.
I listened to her book using the Kindle's text-to-speech function, so I cannot say that I have digested every bit of it. But I do have a good overall sense of it.
Some popularizations of psych research (Danial Wegner comes to mind) take lots of research and synthesize it into a unified whole. Of course, others might say that they must give short shrift to alternative viewpoints in order to do this. But their final work hangs together well.
I loved Halvorson's book because it is so full of information about a subject close to my (and, presumably, many readers of this forum's) heart. But she really is not a systematizer.
Mark is the system-maker par excellence. I wonder if he or we could make a system from Halvorson's book. Perhaps we could start with some kind of flow chart. Much of her book is about using goals differently in different circumstances. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves a series of questions in order to figure out the best way to formulate our goals.
I listened to her book using the Kindle's text-to-speech function, so I cannot say that I have digested every bit of it. But I do have a good overall sense of it.
Some popularizations of psych research (Danial Wegner comes to mind) take lots of research and synthesize it into a unified whole. Of course, others might say that they must give short shrift to alternative viewpoints in order to do this. But their final work hangs together well.
I loved Halvorson's book because it is so full of information about a subject close to my (and, presumably, many readers of this forum's) heart. But she really is not a systematizer.
Mark is the system-maker par excellence. I wonder if he or we could make a system from Halvorson's book. Perhaps we could start with some kind of flow chart. Much of her book is about using goals differently in different circumstances. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves a series of questions in order to figure out the best way to formulate our goals.
October 10, 2011 at 17:15 |
moises
moises
moises:
I'm on the case already.
I'm on the case already.
October 10, 2011 at 18:27 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
I think you are right Moises. In addition, Halvorson's website has exactly those questions. Read through them, figure out what difficulty you are having with achieving goals, and turn to the book section that proposes a solution.
October 10, 2011 at 20:43 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
Alan,
Are you referring to:
http://www.heidigranthalvorson.com/p/nine-things-successful-people-do.html
?
Are you referring to:
http://www.heidigranthalvorson.com/p/nine-things-successful-people-do.html
?
October 10, 2011 at 21:51 |
moises
moises
October 10, 2011 at 23:05 |
Alan Baljeu
Alan Baljeu
I hadn't seen that. Thanks.
October 11, 2011 at 13:33 |
moises
moises
I have the book on hold from the library and will be picking it up this week, so I will post my thoughts after reading it. Her nine things successful people do is an interesting list. But like all generalizations there are many obvious exceptions.
Gerry
Gerry
October 11, 2011 at 16:23 |
Gerry
Gerry
She seems to mention willpower quite a bit. My impression from Mark's"Dreams" book was that willpower isn't a great approach. I share that view. Trying to force yourself to do something you are resisting is really making an enemy of the part of that doesn't agree with the goal. It seems to me a better approach is to find out which aspects of you are resisting and why. A chap called Michael Pantalon has an approach called "self influence" which I shall be trying shortly. Here is an outline of his process:
Instant Influence at a glance
Step 1
Why might you change? (Or if you want to influence yourself, why might I change?)
Step 2
How ready are you to change -- on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means "not ready at all" and 10 means "totally ready"?
Step 3
Why didn't you pick a lower number? (Or if the influencee picked 1, either ask the second question again, this time about a smaller step toward change, or ask, what would it take for that 1 to turn into a 2?
Step4
Imagine you've changed. What would the positive outcome be?
Step 5
Why are those outcomes important to you?
Step 6
What's the next step, if any?
Instant Influence at a glance
Step 1
Why might you change? (Or if you want to influence yourself, why might I change?)
Step 2
How ready are you to change -- on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 means "not ready at all" and 10 means "totally ready"?
Step 3
Why didn't you pick a lower number? (Or if the influencee picked 1, either ask the second question again, this time about a smaller step toward change, or ask, what would it take for that 1 to turn into a 2?
Step4
Imagine you've changed. What would the positive outcome be?
Step 5
Why are those outcomes important to you?
Step 6
What's the next step, if any?
October 11, 2011 at 17:33 |
michael
michael
<<Trying to force yourself to do something you are resisting is really making an enemy of the part of that doesn't agree with the goal. It seems to me a better approach is to find out which aspects of you are resisting and why.>>
I like the first sentence, not the second, If something is truly a goal and passion why would you resist it? I have a goal to become a better musician. I never encounter any resistance to practicing my instrument. It is a joy and I could play for hours. Now if someone convinced me to become a better golfer, I would resist it all way, as I have no passion for it and would hate to practice.
For me improving as a musician or working on any other goal using DO IT involves time blocking so I can get as many uninterrupted blocks of time to practice.
Gerry
I like the first sentence, not the second, If something is truly a goal and passion why would you resist it? I have a goal to become a better musician. I never encounter any resistance to practicing my instrument. It is a joy and I could play for hours. Now if someone convinced me to become a better golfer, I would resist it all way, as I have no passion for it and would hate to practice.
For me improving as a musician or working on any other goal using DO IT involves time blocking so I can get as many uninterrupted blocks of time to practice.
Gerry
October 11, 2011 at 18:07 |
Gerry
Gerry
Gerry: interesting points here aren't there. Perhaps an example would be why diets (generally) don't work, or why alcoholics just don't stop drinking. The goals are clear and people know how to achieve the goals - they just choose behaviours which create different outcomes. Why? It seems to me - as an example - that the Al Anon 12 step programme (generally) expands awareness of hidden motivations. Diets seems to me generally argued for by the ego but rejected by the aspects of ourselves that benefit from current eating patterns. More willpower just sets up stronger internal ambivalence unless the existing motivations are rearranged. In "Dreams" I think Mark calls this the compelling future vision. If the vision is only full of "oughts" and "should do's" without feeling and desire the goals seem to fail.
October 11, 2011 at 19:37 |
michael
michael
Unfortunately - and I guess it's human nature -, a lot of prople do not find the drive and motivation to change until they have 'hit bottom' and hurt themselves and/or others around them.
October 11, 2011 at 22:08 |
BKK
BKK
michael:
I'm not of the opinion that one won't resist things which one really wants to do - quite the reverse in fact. I think that the reason we have to spend so much time creating compelling visions is precisely that we naturally resist anything that takes us out of our comfort zone. Unless we have no desire to move out of our comfort zone at all that means that we will be resisting a whole load of stuff that we really want to do.
Halvorson in her book says some very interesting things about willpower and building the willpower muscle. She gives an example of the amazing effect on her life of getting a small dog when she was at a particularly low point. Because she had to exercise responsibility towards the dog, she found herself acting more responsibly in nearly all the other areas of her life.
I'm not of the opinion that one won't resist things which one really wants to do - quite the reverse in fact. I think that the reason we have to spend so much time creating compelling visions is precisely that we naturally resist anything that takes us out of our comfort zone. Unless we have no desire to move out of our comfort zone at all that means that we will be resisting a whole load of stuff that we really want to do.
Halvorson in her book says some very interesting things about willpower and building the willpower muscle. She gives an example of the amazing effect on her life of getting a small dog when she was at a particularly low point. Because she had to exercise responsibility towards the dog, she found herself acting more responsibly in nearly all the other areas of her life.
October 11, 2011 at 22:41 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark - I read the article you referenced on Neal Petersen ( http://www.knowitall.org/sandlapper/Summer-07/PDFs/NoBarriers.pdf ). I found it just as inspiring and interesting as when I met Mr. Petersen in person. The article is right -- he really comes across as a "genuine" person, down-to-earth, and humble. And his story is very interesting.
But I still came away from reading that article with an even stronger impression that his "sail around the world solo" goal appeared very early in his life, and he persisted in reaching for *that particular goal* for year after year until he finally achieved it.
Perhaps it grew out of his initial childhood inspiration of "sailing the oceans". But it took on that very specific form very early on, and kept that same form for years.
I really do admire his persistence and dedication. But I just don't find that my goals ever form themselves like that.
I do have several goals expressed in the broad sense of "sailing the oceans", and over time, those goals take various forms, acquire more clarity, and so on -- but never form themselves into a single large goal that persists year after year in more or less the same form.
For me, the overarching patterns are more "themes" than goals. Very persistent themes. But the goals change, acquire more clarity, and the means and emphases change, as I iterate on those major themes.
I'm not discounting Petersen's approach, which so many have found to be the foundation of their own success - the persistent single-minded pursual of a specific large goal. I am just saying that I haven't found that approach to be an effective instrument in my own set of tools.
Maybe it's a personality thing. :-)