There is no such thing as potential

Post Reply New Topic

I guess where you would use the word struggle I would use the word challenge. In the way I was thinking of the word "struggle" it is something imposed on you from the outside. There is no freedom in struggle that involves the expectations of others or the need for mere survival.

A challenge can be freely chosen and doesn't necessarily involve "winning" a competition, gaining personal status, or the "overcoming" of some hardship in life. Those are all secondary to the in-the-moment joy of *doing* something challenging. The *doing* is not necessarily based on inflating one's ego. In fact, the ego is irrelevant. All that matters is the joy of creating and discovering, or the exhilaration of accomplishing something that's personally rewarding.

Sorry if I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts.

I just looked at some excepts of that -- it does look good. Thanks. The stuff about telling people with cancer they need a positive attitude "or else" is downright evil. (I remember with CFS treatments that if it didn't work, that half the time the people doing it would start intimating that it was because I had a bad attitude.)

I'm not an advocate of always expecting the worst, but I think that an unrealistically positive view can equally create problems in dealing with reality in a sensible/healthy way.

I.e. I have what amounts to a mild brain injury, and lost certain abilities because of it. This happened slowly over years, so I naturally started fighting it at first: working harder, practicing more, etc. But as the years went on those abilities kept declining, so I kept upping the effort. But it continued to get worse, so I started going to doctor after doctor, desperately looking for an answer (it was affecting my ability to work by then, so things were getting dire).

I did trials of over 80 different drugs, biofeedback, endless vitamins and supplements, and on and on. Tens of thousands of dollars' worth of stuff (all the money I had), and none of it helped. That struggle had become my whole life -- no money or energy left over at the end of the month to do much of anything, for years.

Even after I ended up on disability I kept trying to bring back those old skills. But it wasn't working at all, and was making me miserable, failing over and over, and being endlessly reminded of what I'd lost.

I got happier (or less miserable, at least) when I finally accepted that some things were gone and not coming back. That I should stop flagellating myself, wasting my money, and my time on this Earth with further wild goose chasing.

But some people call that "giving up" (which I heard from relatives), and deride it as a negative view of the future. The reality, though, is that I've found it the opposite -- that to accept the loss and move on, and to try to learn new things (things I am capable of learning), as opposed to being stuck pining for the past, is a much better and more helpful view.

Hmm... I don't think that keeping something out of the language makes people unable to experience it. (Speaking as someone who had a great many experiences before understanding language at all.)

I'm not connected to this group, but I was browsing around and found this interesting discussion about Stoic Philosophy vs Worshipping Potential:

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/bl ... e=activity


Also, I'd be very grateful if someone could someone please explain the following to me please:

Why (if I'm applying for a job to be a supermarket shelf stacker) do I have to write down what my visions are for the future and what my contributions to the company will be?

For crying out loud, my contribution is to stack shelves!
It isn't exactly rocket science. It's stating the bleeding obvious.
My vision is to stack shelves to earn money and do a thorough honest job.


I just don't understand how doing a simple practical task requires me to advertise things about myself that having nothing to do with actually getting the job done properly.


The was a tutorial at university which was basically giving a presentation about why I had chosen to go there.

Why are you here?

Well I'm here because I wanted to study, not waste time discussing why I'm here.


This kind of casual chat is what the bar is for. I thought that I had got all of that non-sense about why I wanted to study out of the way at the admissions interview.

The "feel good" tutorials were like this. Just sitting in a circle or presenting stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with the academic content of the course. There was nothing useful about how to write an essay or how to use the lab equipment. Practical skills that actually would've helped us study the subject better and get better grades on coursework. No teaching of skills that would've helped us present the subject matter better. There were no teamwork skills taught either. We were just expected to somehow manage to get ourselves into groups and get on.

Instead we were asked to present a lot of "hot air" on why we were here and what our aspirations and "potentials" were. Then, people would waste half an hour chatting about what they were all doing at the weekend.

What utter bunk!

I talked about this with a staff member and he said that he didn't like the "Key Skills" changes on the syllabus enforced by employers and the government.

I dissented.

Last edited by AmberEyes on 26 Aug 2010, 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

This thread has potential

I think that is me.

Maybe I'd understand this idea of potential better if it was a physical substance, perhaps a liquid in a measuring flask that I carried around.

Then at least, I could determine exactly how much potential I had at any given time.

Maybe someone could put a potential thermometer in my mouth and measure my potential that way?


I think that it's helpful to give people positive encouragement for a job well done.
That's not the same as speculating about someone's "potential"


What I find especially irritating is when people say:

"He has the potential to be the next Mozart!"

If a kid has just played a couple of notes on the piano.

What if the kid prefers Jazz to Classical music?
What if the kid never touches a piano again?
What if the kid never gets past playing "Chopsticks"?
What if he decides to do painting instead?

Anyway, I know for certain that he's not going to be the next Mozart: the little boy is going to be the next Himself. Actually I don't think that the little boy would want to be an exact clone of Mozart. That'd be too disturbing losing his individuality.

I think we should just replace the word "potential" with "bullsh*t". That's what it is. I always wondered if people were just paid to pretend to take this stuff seriously.

The TV Talent Show is one example where people flaunt potential.

Judge: Hi there. Tell us what your hopes for the future are.

Daughter: I really think that I have the potential to win this competition.

Judge: Who would you compare yourself to?

Daughter: I'm going to be the next Kylie. I really want this. I'm going to sell Platinum Albums. My family says that I'm a brilliant singer.

Judge: Okay then, in your own time...

[Daughter caterwauls something by Kylie that's very out of tune]

Daughter [hopeful]: Did you like it?

Judge: No. It sounded like a cat stuck up a drainpipe!

Daughter [sobbing]: Please give me a chance!

Judge: Goodbye!

Later the Daughter's Mum Storms in...

Mum: How dare you treat my baby like that! You should've let her through you horrible man!

Judge: But Mrs X...Your Daughter can't sing a note...

Mum: But she has great potential!

Judge: Mrs X. Your daughter can't sing. Please leave...

Mum: But she can learn! She can get better!

Judge: Mrs X, your daughter is a hopeless case. She can't sing.,Please leave now before I have to call security.

[Daughter bawls her eyes out]

Mum: You are an evil man with a heart of stone. Look at what you have done to my daughter! She has great potential, let her through you...

Family Chanting: Let her through! Let her through!

Daughter [on her knees crying]: I'll do anything if you let me through. Please...please...

Security come and take the Daughter and her family out of the room, kicking and screaming.

I don't know whether this is staged cherade is funny or sad.

It shows how the idea of potential can mislead people and make them miserable.

That isn't the idea of potential, it's a judge in a talent show being a jerk, a mom being whiny, and a daughter getting emotional and crying.

I wonder what the idea of potential really is then.

Saying: "I have the potential to win this competition!"
When you've entered a Talent Show is a tautology.

Think about it: every one of the hundreds of people who enter the contest theoretically could win. The problem is, there can only be one winner.

So according to this logic, everyone has the "potential" to win the competition. Everyone, whether they sing like a bird or a cat stuck up a drain-pipe. People who don't enter the competition, by definition, can't win.

This is why the idea of potential confuses me. It's so abstract and seems to be a relative concept. To illustrate this point:

-The Daughter says that she has potential because she believes what her family told her

-The Judge says that the Daughter has no potential at all

So who's right?

Maybe the Mum's right, maybe if her Daughter practiced more she could get better. Also, winning the contest isn't a requirement for the Daughter to become a brilliant singer in her own right. Maybe her failure will motivate her to persue a singing career on her own. The Judge could be proved wrong.

Equally, the Daughter may try her very best and never have a singing career.

This is what's confusing me. The daughter seems to have different "potentials" depending on who she talks to and what situation she finds herself in!

The Daughter is still the same person, yet her "potential" seems to be dependent on social circumstances.

Or maybe it isn't? Maybe the Daughter has a natural aptitude for singing that she might never learn to use properly. But then again, some agent might put her in a girl group for her charisma and looks. She wouldn't necessarily have to be a good singer to make money.

The Daughter seems to have the "potential" to sing or have a singing career whether or not she has a "brilliant voice".

So why mention the word potential at all?
Why not just give straight forward praise or criticism on how she performs?
Trying to make a guess at how she's going to perform in the future seems strange to me.

It doesn't seem to help the situation.

Straightforward criticism is easier to verify, and it's also valuable. But I think attempting to figure out someone's potential could end up even more valuable.

If you have 2 5-year olds with the same practical ability in music, but one struggles and practices as hard as he can, and the other doesn't bother practicing much at all because it's so easy for him, then the second one has more potential. If you're a music teacher who wants to train great musicians, being able to tell which is which would be quite useful. The first musician might make a good student, but the second could be spectacular for the same effort.

I didn't mean for my posts to come out angry and negative.

I just feel frustrated when I'm told to practice a lot of "soft-skills" that aren't being used to further my or other people's understanding of academics/jobs. I used to feel sad when we'd be told to discuss things at great length that weren't academically related to the the course. I did feel like I missed out on learning practical and lab skills by doing this groupwork. I think that I'd have been happier if I could've discussed my practical work with my friends/colleagues while I was doing it. Perhaps I'd have felt more comfortable if I'd been actively doing things rather than being told to sit in a circle with my hands unoccupied. The results could've been pooled from individual, solo experiments.

I think that relating to people and conversation skills are really important for doing a good job. I find that I seem to work better if I'm occupied with practical work and can talk to people about this. I often feel lost when sitting in a group discussion because there doesn't seem to be a focus: there's no physical touchstone or hands on activity.

My communication style doesn't seem to match well with group discussion.


I find it much easier to mentor/help or talk to someone on a one to one basis.
I can relate and empathise with people much better if I can give my full attention to one
person at a time.

It's my fault for choosing the course that I did and any failures are my responsibility.

I just felt at a loss when I found myself being told to adopt a learning style that didn't match my cognitive and practical strengths.

I know that groupwork really benefits some people who are comfortable with chatting.
That's why I don't think that it should be got rid of all together.

Dr Searle sounds like she does a great job.

It's the vague approach that confuses me.
I know that she didn't mean to irritate people like me.

I seem to prefer a more direct concrete approach based on what I can do rather than motivational talk about what I might be able to do.

I often have difficulty switching my attention between doing a job and socialising.
I tend to compartmentalise my time into discrete blocks. Work hard on my own for a time. Stop. Then let people talk to me during coffee break/lunchtime. This what I do at "real" work.

I find it very confusing to do groupwork in an open planned academic setting. Groupwork seems to require that eye-contact, socialising, brainstorming and abstract work all take place simultaneously. I find all of these things exhausting and "hard to juggle" all at once. This is a shame given that I have a lot of ideas: I just seem to have difficulty bring able to contribute these ideas effectively. I sometimes feel angry inside when a group of people are chatting away and "leaving me behind".

I seem to be better at talking about the job rather than talking "around the job".

The potential of each runner in a race to win it does not imply that all of them can win at the same time...

I don't think you sounded angry, particularly.

And I can relate to a lot of what you've said about group work.

A potentiometer?

The paradox of potential... anything could happen, provided a lot of other things didn't happen, meaning everything can't happen. In the next minute I could go for a walk, read, eat, write... but only one of them. No matter what you do, there's way more things you don't do. How do you decide which one is "fulfilling your potential"? You can't do multiple things at once, so you can't fulfill it. If you're supposed to be able to fulfill it, you have to pick one, so it doesn't really mean potential. Rather, it's doing something. In which case, I'd be less interested in the theoretical possibility of me doing something, than in *how* I could do it. If I'm hungry, being positive and thinking "I have the potential of eating" isn't going to get me any food. I'll have to get it somehow. Teaching me how to cook is a lot more helpful than telling me I have the potential to eat.