Are All Problems Solveable and obstacles surmountable?

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't want to derail the other thread at viewtopic.php?f=19&t=271825

btbnnyr said

I have some questions about the concept.

I do believe there are solutions to this particular problem.


The assumption that you and others are under is that every problem has a solution at all or a solution that is implementable at the given time. I do not accept this to be the case because this would imply that we were Q from Star Trek who has omnipotence and omniscience. Because of this, I am unable to accept this internal locus of control that most people believe in here as a philosophy to the extent that people do. There is truth to it but not to the extreme most people here in the USA do.

What is the evidence that suggests that all problems individual a has is solvable by individual a?

What is the amount of control that we have over our own lives and our own destinies?

How is personal responsibility always a viable philosophy when even Steven Covey acknowledges there are things outside of ourselves that we don't control that can impact us? Steven Covey talks about the sphere of influence vs. the sphere of concern? How is it viable when we don't live in a vacuum but are inter-connected with nature, society, existence and our culture? To me, it is situational and depends upon context.

Is society and the majority ever wrong?

Is there any problem that is truthfully unsolvable by individual a?




What is the extent of our choices exactly? How do we tell? Do we all have the same amount of choices as others?

Of course everyone has a choice, i.e. one can choose not to choose. Having a choice is a tautology. Can one actually know all of his choices and can one know the possible outcomes to all of his choices? How would one be able to tell if there are unknown, unknowns that exist?

If he is asking for help to solve the problem then how is "he" solving the problem and not someone else solving the problem? What do we mean by help? Do we mean guidance or the actual answer? Does he even know that he is allowed to ask for help and in what way to do so?

My question is this. When is it ever legitimate to call it quits? What is the fundamental reasoning that one must "Never Give Up?" Why? Why must one never give up? Who says this? What is the basis for this?

It is said that "One can do anything he sets his mind to." How? How is this always true? Empirical evidence throughout history seems to go against this. What is the logical basis for this?

The vast majority of problems have solutions.

We have to always seek solutions to problems.

It doesn't make any sense NOT to seek solutions.

If there's no solution, then we have to go on to something else.

I agree! What is the extent to our problem solving? What is our limit?

There is no general answer to this question. It depends upon the specific situation.

Trying to solve one problem may not get a direct solution to that problem, but in the process, one may discover knowledge and new problems, which may be more solveable, so one has to try, even if the main problem cannot be solved in one's lifetime.

For eberryday problems like from the sleeping thread, it is good for parents to teach kids not to give in to the urge to give up or blame others. Often, using logical arguments to say that one can't solve this problem or all problems so one shouldn't even try is just a way to justify not trying, because trying takes effort and is often uncomfortable. Instead, the best thing is to give kids a bit of illogical belief, that they can try and possibly succeed on any problem. It doesn't mean that they always will, but they will try more and succeed more if they apply this than if they don't in the long-term, or they apply the opposite of giving up and blaming others.

I believe that nearly all problems have solutions, yes, but the issue is going to be what getting to that solution is worth to you.

You can't set a defined limit on it; it doesn't work that way. Problem solving is a process of trail and error. You can't solve stubborn problems if you let yourself believe that there is no solution; you only solve them by being willing to try anyway, and fail. And do that all again.

What I wrote in the other thread is that it is the trail and error part the ASD members in my family don't seem to accept. Here is that discussion:

Obviously, individuals vary, and that includes ASD individuals. What I am describing is my experience with my father, husband, and son, all believed to be ASD.

They believe that every problem has a single, best solution, and enjoy the process of selecting and preparing that solution before attacking an issue. It is a very clean process and, when the solution works, often brilliant. All that is a good thing.

But the process derails if that solution does not actually work. They can't move onto finding a different plan. Unless they had a plan B (which is rare) or can figure out the flaw in the original plan quickly, then the problem must be unsolvable and, therefore, abandoned. After all, they invested a lot into thinking the issue through, and had truly selected the one, best, approach, in their system of logic.

But I don't stop there. I won't let go of a problem until it is actually solved. I have to run through a whole alphabet of plans before I let go. The problem never leaves my head, even if that means two years later I'm going, "oh, I should done Z!" I have had these individuals yelling at me that I'm wasting everyone's time and ruining things as I sit there and actually SOLVE the "unsolvable" problem. It is infuriating to have them so completely unable to see past that theoretically perfect plan A, or sometimes B, and be willing to just experiment. There is no room in their minds for messy, imperfect solutions that actually work, whereas that is how things usually actually get resolved, in my experience.

All problems are solvable - sometimes the solution is that we have to live with things the way that they are.

The reason people use this phrase is not that they have the expectation that every problem should be solved, it's because a problem has nearly zero chance of being solved if no one attempts to solve it (assuming that the problem requires action.) What it means is "One should approach every problem as though it has a solution"

Think about it in this way: in video games, we know every problem has some kind of solution, because why would programmers create a game where the problem can't be solved (excepting, of course, games about futility like the Stanley Parable.) Therefore, one tends to approach problem-solving in a game with a lot more energy than IRL, because even if we don't know the solution, we know that there is one.

This statement is not literally about solving problems, it's about approaching problems with the same energy as you would if you knew a solution was out there (same goes for obstacles.)

Unfortunately, many NTs take this statement much too literally as well...

Just to muddy the waters:

Sometimes, especially if you are a person who hyperfocuses, you do have to know when to give up and tackle something else.

Just as DW_a_Mom said you sometimes have to abandon the perfect solution to find a different one; sometimes you have to conclude that a particular problem does not currently have a solution, put it on the back burner, and work on something else. In other words, sometimes the tentative solution is to let something sit and fight other battles.

For example: Let's say a child has issues with shoelace tying, and working on it day in and day out is just frustrating the child with no progress. Sometimes the solution is to get bungee laces, and figure out the foundational fine motor skills that need to be worked on first, or maybe even taking a break from the whole thing temporarily b/c there is only a finite amount of time and energy you have, and more urgent issues abound.

I see the bungee laces as problem solved.

It may not be tying a shoe, but it gets the job done, and the real issue isn't tying the shoes, but keeping the shoes on in an appropriate manner.

That is almost a perfect example of a plan D that one must be willing to see. Thankfully, in this example, it is a solution our kids usually like.

Right - we also tend to categorize skills by whether they are needed in adulthood. For some reason, adults can easily avoid shoes with laces (I don't get why kids aren't allowed loafers or loafer-style tennis shoes) and nobody thinks about it. DS did eventually decide that bungee laces weren't socially acceptable and learned to tie his shoes...loose enough that he can kick them on and off without tying them every time. Works for him, problem solved.

We also gave up on "lining up." Not standing or entering a queue, but the elementary-school rush where all the kids stand up and go to stand in a line by the door. It pushed so many of DS's buttons that we finally asked that he just be last in line, so he could hang back during the pell-mell part, and so he always knew where to go. I felt bad about him not learning this skill until I realized that adults NEVER do that: as an adult, you always go to the end of the line. Skill learned.

So, my measure: is this some sort of requirement we only put on kids, or will DS need to develop this skill to function as an adult? (And sometimes, as with the shoes, it's just a matter of waiting until he develops the ability and/or interest.)

I approach every problem with the philosophy that all problems can be solved, it is just a matter of how easily and how creative you may have to be, how many assumptions you will need to challenge, and how unconventional you will have to be, etc.

But the reality is, not all problems can be solved. And not all obstacles are surmountable. And those things are even more true when you get down to the individual level. And sometimes it is a matter of accepting the best "solution," which might not even be a solution at all, but the closest approximation that you can find. Or the solution that harms the fewest or helps the most, even though it isn't a true solution. And sometimes you need to change your perception of an obstacle to make it no longer be an obstacle.

But I always approach each problem with the certainty that it can be solved and I always view each obstacle as something I will overcome. To me, it seems like if you start with the belief that you may not be able to succeed, you will give up too early and not challenge yourself sufficiently. I stubbornly persist at solving problems and overcoming obstacles until I am sufficiently satisfied that I have tried all available routes, including those that I may have initially discarded as irrelevant.

Please don't ask how I know when I have done this...I don't know. I just do.

Also the individual.

What if someone else was actually to blame though or played a major role in the issue at hand? Also hypothetically, couldn't a kid also take it over-board and push themselves way too hard into a state of burn out if they take it to mean they should never let things go and beat themselves up over things they aren't able to accomplish? Kids with autism are known to take things a bit literally.

This is why I love talking with those on the parent's discussion forum. You all give out well thought out replies.

Hey, he stole my idea. That's how I do it



This is why I love talking to you. You give solid logical answers that are so easy to understand. Sort of like the X-Files right when Mulder says "The truth is out there." Why can't people including my father say it like this.

Ya beat me to the punch. These are good questions for btbnnyr

Interesting post. Now the Lab Pet will offer insights. Not all problems are solvable. However, an important tactic is to re-route scenarios so that they are solvable. That is, to re-frame the question.

Next, certain problems may not actually be 'problems' at all, but instead the factors are mostly unknown. If so, then the approach is to shed light onto the unknown. That is, to describe/illustrate the 'problem' such that it instead becomes a well-characterised scenario.

As a scientist, I know that 'problems' are oftentimes instead approached as 'to tell a story.' That is, to fill in gaps in the knowledge base. I know too that oftentimes to ask 'how' is as important as the eternal 'why.'

Lastly, really complex problems that are solvable can actually have quite simple solutions.

And that is my non-parental answer. (Now for the punchline: the answer is 42 )