There is no such thing as potential

Post Reply New Topic

There's a lot of wishy washy, patronising self help books out there.

Stuff like: "If you try hard you'll reach your potential."

I don't think that potential exists.

People can do what they can do.

Dreaming in fantasy land in my experience doesn't help.

Notice how a lot of the people who write books on "How to achieve happiness." seem to have achieved what they wanted to?

I just dislike the irritating tone of these books. They aren't realistic or down to earth. I melt down because I was so frustrated with these sugary, touchy-feely unpragmatic approaches.

I found the book:
"Asperger Syndrome in Adults A guide to Realising your potential"
by Dr Ruth Searle

Particularly unhelpful for me.
The ideas were basically parrotting earlier research or blending with other people's views.
Also, all of the case studies were men or boys.
I found no detailed or significantly new ideas on AS in females in this book.

The book talks about concepts such as "lack of empathy" and restricted repetitive interests. I believe that I do have empathy for people who have a similar communication style to me. Also people who have similar body language patterns (non verbal dialects). People I believe can read others who behave and act in the same way that they do. I related well to my family, people who looked/behaved like my family and science teachers. I also relate well to people who have had similar experiences to me or who have been ostracised/suffered at the hands of bullies. I also tend to understand people who use object and procedure orientated language.

As for my interests, I don't think that they are restrictive. I have many interests which I engage in with intense detail. I think that they broaden my appreciation of the world especially the physical world which is so often ignored and pathologised by others. These interests have opened doors to me in terms of education, so I wouldn't call these interests "restrictive".

One point that I do agree with in this book is that AS should be viewed as a neurological difference. The thing is, I realised that I was different in a positive way from the beginning, I don't need a doctor to tell me what my strengths are. I already know.

The problems came when other people didn't accept me, misunderstood me or called me a syndrome. The problems came when people forced me to work in situations that I wasn't comfortable with. Or they expected me to talk and act in a "girly" way.

I never ever thought that there was anything wrong with me, even if other people did.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that happiness or fulfilling your potential can be taught.
Trying to teach people how to be happy I think is almost like a form of social control.
How can someone who isn't you that you've never met, possibly know what will make you happy and successful in life?

What if you don't reach your highest aspirations?

Many people don't. Even when they try their hardest.
Perhaps through circumstance or just bad luck.

The idea of "reaching your highest aspirations" doesn't allow for sensibly changing your plans if things don't work out the first time or accepting your limitations.

What if you, sheer dumb luck, reached a completely different successful outcome to the one that you aspired to?

Does that make you a failure because you reached a completely different goal to the one that you were expecting?



The ideas of potential and happiness are very vague.
I found concrete and practical advice lacking.

That's a good point. Each person could, speaking theoretically ( and therefore necessarily inexactly/simplistically ), become any number of things, but in fact/in the full detail of reality we can only ever be exactly what we are, do exactly what we do at any given moment; each ondition/act is the result of absolutely everything/the universe, ( our genes, conditioning, environment both physical and cultural, etc etc etc ). The "theoretical" position is actually totally wrong.

We are already being and doing precisely that which our background, our body, and our circumstances allow us to be. We couldn't, in fact, ( as opposed to theoretically ), have ever done anything other than we did. We can't "lose our way"/"waste our abilities". Talk/thought about potential is just that, words, a virtual reality which could not exist without language, one which creates a great deal of pressure if you believe in it.

Re. the "happiness" thing:

I had a breakthrough about that 5 years ago when thinking gloomily that "life was s**t" and that humans were like viruses or a swarm of locusts. Instead of hastily disagreeing with myself as usual, ( for fear of sinking into depression ), instead of labelling and dismissing the thought as "negative", self-pitying/unhelpful, I thought "this really is "true" ( for me right now )!" I accepted it/my reality. ... Repeatedly denying your subjective reality just alienates you from yourself.

And as soon as I thought that I felt liberated from some huge weight that I'd been carrying around, that I "should be positive", "should" be happy, etc. My signature here on WP for a couple of years was "Life is pain, anyone who says differently is selling something" ( from "The Princess Bride" ), because I found it so useful, a kind of mantra/touchstone which made life surprisingly, paradoxically, ok!

PS. But interestingly about "potential", books which tell you that you can change your life etc are data/input, are in fact "environmental forces", which may enable you, because of that information, to change in a direction that you would not have done without them. :lol
.

Last edited by ouinon on 25 Aug 2010, 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't understand. You and/or the books are using the word potential in a way that confuses me. To say that potential does not exist is like saying nothing is possible.

I have the potential to go in the other room and make a sandwich, but I don't because I'm not hungry.

If you read a book that didn't help you, that's a different thing. I'm sorry you wasted your time. I hope you find advice you can make sense of.

Yeah, the "successful" people's opinions are given a special badge of validity that may or may not be deserved. They're assumed to have some special, useful insight; that it couldn't have been dumb luck, or for reasons the person can't really fathom.

I also suspect the more thoughtful ones are selected out of authorship by realizing that they don't have a simple, pat, Disneyland answer. A book called, "I don't know exactly why, but here's what I think..." won't sell as well as, "Three Simple Steps to Becoming a Billionaire (in Ten Days)!"


And I think Ouinon, you make an excellent point about the tyranny of mandated happiness. That stuff is really popular in the USA, and is incredibly oppressive.

Perhaps you are defining "potential" too literally.

I'd define potential as what you can be that society considers valuable enough to pay you well. This may or may not have anything to do with what you are actually interested in or makes you happy. In this case, you may just end up with a high paying job. If you read the book "Moneyball," you can read about an athlete just like this. He was a "5 tool" baseball player-had all the skills to be great and would occasionally make plays that most pros couldn't make. But, for him, it was just a job--no real passion for the game.

Exactly.

Dreaming about "your highest aspirations" is like playing a video game set to an infinite number of points with an infinite number of lives.

Creative visualisation is like a simulation of how you would ideally like reality to be.

People encouraged me to dream about the future in this way.

The trouble was, I'd run the perfect simulation, but reality would not meet my ridiculously high expectations.

For example, I'd visualise getting 100% on a test and revised hard.
So, I was very disappointed when if my test result came back as 75%, a very reasonable score. By visualising my highest aspirations, I was setting myself up for disappointment.

Sometimes I'd visualise myself cheerfully and productively engaged in a group discussion, knowing exactly when to contribute. This didn't happen in reality. I found myself inadvertantly annoying or talking over others. Or I'd find myself painfully shy, unable to contribute at all.

People told me that I had little contact with reality.
I don't need to dream about my "potential" more, I need someone to "wake me up" so that I can engage productively with the real world.

Creative visualisation can be a powerful tool for simulating controlled circumstances e.g. A running race. I've found that it doesn't work so well in the messy social world of real life.

The book was telling me that I should be proud of who I am.
I don't think that I do the "proud" emotion. If I do, it comes across to other people as self centered and arrogant. This is why I'd much rather be quietly satisfied with a job well done than be "proud" of something vague like "character".

Being proud of who I am seems rather strange. I am who I am. That's it. It's not like I'll be given a body transplant any time soon. I am stuck with who I am, so being proud of being somene else really isn't an option.

I agree with this statement.

I want to add that positive thought is supposed to be a way of setting yourself up for a more positive experience. If you anticipate that your positive thoughts will always return a positive reality, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. There are too many exterior factors involved.

It's very important to attempt a release of absolutes.

How is there no such thing as potential? If there was no such thing as potential nothing could exist.

Maybe perfection is unobtainable but that's why you lower your standards and just decide to be "good enough" or better yet as Tyler Durden would say "let the pieces fall where they may".

Accidents happen, life isn't fair and you don't always get what you want.

I can't help, but to wonder if potential is just a fancy euphemism, for being successful in a conventional way, such as having a family, a house with a car, and a career.

I'm afraid I don't understand this.

Some would argue that you haven't fulfilled your potential if you hadn't eaten the sandwich.

I wouldn't say this. I wouldn't demand that you eat that sandwich to "fulfill your potential".

I'd observe that there was a sandwich in the kitchen. That's it.

A solid sphere could be at the on top of a slope.
It could have a lot of gravitational potential energy, but it could theoretically be at the top of the slope forever.

It would be ridiculous to say that the ball isn't "fulfilling its potential". It won't move unless it's pushed by an external force. The ball is where it is.

That's why physics used to confuse me.
I'd see physical processes occurring due to different forces, but I couldn't see this "potential".

Also probability, I saw things happening and not happening.

The idea of predicting the potential of them happening used to confuse me even if I got the Maths correct. Sometimes the mathematical predictions wouldn't match reality so I'd think: "Why bother?"

Potential doesn't seem to be a physical object that I can touch, taste, smell or hold.
It seems to be a product of the mind, so I don't believe that it physically can exist.

Hope this makes some sense.

Last edited by AmberEyes on 25 Aug 2010, 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

yeah, I think they are saying that potential is ANY victory against a challenge. They are trying to say you "can" win. It's motivational garbage. I agree with what you're saying


This is why I got extremely annoyed when I went in for diagnostic interview having crap like that thrown at me, that means nothing to me and is just substanceless babbling. I need practical models, patterns, expert examples to study and emulate. I do what I want, regardless.

---

What do you want to accomplish by age 30?
What do you want to accomplish by age 40?
What do you want to accomplish by age 50?
What do you want to accomplish by age 60?
What do you want to accomplish by age 70?

http://www.sife.org/
http://www.bthompson.net/quotationlinks/it_works.pdf
http://www.ja.org/
http://www.grove.com/

---

In 1940, when he was 15 years old, he wrote down a list of 127 goals he wanted to accomplish, from learning to type and becoming an Eagle Scout to climbing Mt. Everest and exploring the Nile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Goddard_(adventurer)

---

http://www.plannerpads.com/
http://www.mead.com/

http://www.successconsciousness.com/index_000008.htm

http://www.chickensoup.com/

http://www.daytimer.com/birk/

http://www.daytimer.com/

Good points.

What if you lived in a tribe where there was no future tense in the language?

What if the word "potential" didn't exist in this culture?

Everyone says:

"I go"
"I eat"
"I run."

What if there are no phrases like "I'm going to." or "I really should."?

I think that a society like this could function.
Everybody in the process of doing something.

People wouldn't say: "You have the potential to hunt."
They'd say: "You hunt."

There would be constant activity.
Nobody would be mulling over what they could've done or could've had the potential to do.
If tribal roles were fixed for life, they might not have much choice over what they did anyway.

Last edited by AmberEyes on 25 Aug 2010, 11:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

---

You're right - that's what potential often means for many persons.

A family

A house with a car

A career.

Of course, there are exceptions where a few extraordinary persons can build the great ideas which they imagine.

http://www.justdisney.com/walt_disney/quotes/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Imagineering

Words

Imagination
Creative Imagination
Applied Imagination

(Source: H)

http://www.townplanner.com/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/theymadeamerica/

http://www.daytimer.com./
http://www.filofax.com/
http://www.memogendas.com/index.php

I used to know a person who was all rah-rah motivation/business success/extreme sports (you know the type) who would always talk about reaching some vague, undefined "potential"--the thing is, when you talked to him and got past all of the cliches that he kept spouting, he had hardly anything of substance to say; just a lot of blowing smoke. He was good at cultivating an image, but there wasn't really much underneath--a pretty boring person, actually. I've been suspicious of talk about "potential" ever since. I'm not saying such a thing doesn't exist; it's just a meaningless term thrown around for motivational purposes--images of mountain climbing, hang gliding, cliff diving, and other Mountain Dew-related activities.

Doing something more fulfilling than just sitting in a room wasting your life on hobbies would seem to be a greater realisation of potential. It's not always necessarily a form of social control to encourage people to do the things which others do, people often do the same things because these things are typically required for human happiness. In the same way that hunger is a universally human desire, there are other universal desires, some of which aren't capable of killing you when they fall unconscious and ignored, as hunger would, so they appear less as necessities and more as options. You may say "I don't need to do human things to be happy" but if you were satisfied with your life as it is then you wouldn't be looking for advice and becoming disgruntled when you can't find it, or when you disagree with it. From what you have posted, it may well be that you simply don't want to hear that others are doing something right and you are doing something wrong, and that your dissatisfaction is a result of this.

It's often the case that people are unhappy because they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing, because they've persuaded themselves that they don't want to and that there's nothing to gain from doing so, simply because the alternative of trying to do so appears too painful or distressing ("my way is better, they're all stupid" regardless of their happiness and your dissatisfaction), or because they have never personally experienced the feelings of satisfaction which those kinds of accomplishments bring (they don't know what they're missing and believe unhappiness is all there is, while again, happy people are stupid).

Whether I appear to be just another one of those "positive thinking zombies", I only believe what I believe now because I was once like you and realised through my own experience (not from a book) that I was wrong. The reason that many "positive thinkers" sound like parrots is because they have come to the same realisation. It can originally come across as brainwashing, "oh they all think the same, why not think differently, like me" but as it turns out there really aren't a multitude of "right ways" to think which are all equally valid and useful. For the human animal, thinking positively and hoping to fulfil some great potential is the only useful mode of thought, it is the only attitude which has brought the species as far as it has come, and any other mentality guarantees atrophy, and in turn, extinction. That's why it's common and prevalent, just as every other part of the human body is common and prevalent, because it is a built-in tool used to further the organism's advancement through life, rather than leaving it sitting and rotting while playing childish games in a corner and pretending that everything is fine.

Yes, most of the people who write all those books have never experienced any real challenges, and they don't know what they're talking about, but to assume that this is evidence that you have no hope is incredibly flawed logic. They propose the idea that you must think positively and that this will somehow magically change everything, of course it won't though, it's not that simple. If they had undergone any struggles themselves they may be in a better position to explain the merits of that mode of thought, and how it helped them, rather than just trying to sell you some paper with as much false hoped crammed onto it as they could fit. If they'd experienced real struggles (or even defeats) they may have been better able to communicate the understanding that thinking positively does not guarantee success any more than your fist guarantees that you will win a fight (that will hardly sell a book), but making a fist is much more likely to help you win than throwing a half-hearted open-handed slap, or simply running away and sulking in a hole.

You seem to believe there's no such thing as potential, and that you shouldn't seek to reach it, simply because no one can offer you advice which will guarantee you success with 100% certainty. Believing there is any point in trying, however, has more to do with whether you want a better life or not, and are willing to risk failure in order to pursue that possibility, and it has less to do with whether or not your current situation looks bleak. No one can give "advice" that will guarantee you anything, other than advising you not to try anything at all and guaranteeing that nothing will ever change or be worthwhile if you don't.

Attempting to realise your potential is about actually being willing to take the chance in spite of the fact that it might not work, after realising that the only alternative is having no potential anyway. One of these outlooks is useful for the human organism and is thus positive, and correct, the other is a one way ticket to atrophy, is useless, and is thus wrong. Subjectivity doesn't even come into it, it's a universal fact for a living creature that attempting to live in spite of all odds is healthy and giving up for any reason at all is diseased. You don't need a book written by some rich idiot (who has never had any problems) to tell you any of this, you just need to have a human body which has experienced enough misery to learn the difference between what it really wants and what it doesn't really want, to the point where it can easily make the decision to risk foolishly "trying" because it knows that failing won't be any worse than the already unsatisfactory situation which it faces, while even a 0.001% chance at changing it exists and is worth pursuing, or rather, it's not worth not pursuing.

Fun fact: A fox will chew its own leg off to escape if it becomes stuck in a rabbit snare. And it doesn't care if you think it has no potential, it will go on living and through sheer force of will and is over 1,000,000% more likely to succeed and "realise its potential" than one who doesn't try and is content to just lay around in the grass.

Last edited by Invader on 25 Aug 2010, 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.