If you persuade yourself that you can do a certain thing, provided this thing is possible, you will do it, however difficult it may be. If, on the contrary, you imagine that you cannot do the simplest thing in the world, it is impossible for you to do it, and molehills become for you unscalable.
This sounds like extremely naive optimism. A vast majority of games in all team sports, for instance, probably end in one team failing to do a possible thing they thought they could do.
Definition 1: possible as in “I can imagine winning, therefore it’s possible”
Definition 2: possible as in “actually possible for me to do in reality, independent of whether I imagine it to be so”
The quote was using definition 2: that is, “if you persuade yourself that you can do a certain thing, provided this thing is possible [in the real world when you attempt it], you will do it, however difficult it may be.” Desrtopa’s argument from team sports is using the first.
IOW, just because a given team imagines it possible to win does not mean they can win, because winning is not under their control. They can, however, imagine it possible to execute various skills at a high level of proficiency, and do this, whether they win or not.
In fact, it is generally reputed that the “winningest” teams tend to follow this philosophy: i.e., to practice the execution of basic skills to a near-exclusion of any consideration of “winning”. This is quite in keeping with the spirit of the original quote, which is regarding that which is actually possible given a particular set of circumstances (such as the state of the other team) which are not actually under your control.
“IOW, just because a given team imagines it possible to win does not mean they can win, because winning is not under their control”
But just because a team does not win, does not mean it was not possible.
I mean, think of all the things that a person does multiple times but doesn’t do every time. Hit a golf ball x yards, run a 7 minute mill, sing on key. The “imagining” has nothing to do with it.
In a deterministic context, things that are “possible to do in reality” and things that are necessarily going to happen have complete overlap. In this context, saying that if it’s possible then you will do it is vacuous.
In any case where we can’t predict future events with certainty, this definition is fairly useless. The colloquial, and more generally functional definition of possible, is that we cannot discount the potential that a thing might happen prior to the fact. Just because we can imagine something happening does not mean that it cannot be discounted as a possibility, and just because something is necessarily going to happen does not mean we can know that ahead of time and discount the possibility of events that would be exclusive with it.
By the practical definition of “possible,” the quote is not true, and by the strict deterministic definition the quote is still not true, because one can in fact do things one believes oneself to be incapable of.
If you interpret the quote to use the colloquial definition of “possible,” but assume that it only applies to things where no elements of the activity are outside your control, then it’s deceptively lacking in meaning, because beyond a trivial scale there is very little one can accomplish where this applies.
If you interpret the quote to use the colloquial definition of “possible,” but assume that it only applies to things where no elements of the activity are outside your control, then it’s deceptively lacking in meaning, because beyond a trivial scale there is very little one can accomplish where this applies.
Fallacy of the grey. An athletic competition involves a great deal of elements where one’s control is neither complete nor absent.
it’s deceptively lacking in meaning,
If the author had intended deception, he’d have seen no need to include the disclaimer regarding possibility. He effectively said, “if you believe you can, then you can do things that otherwise would be very difficult—you won’t do the truly impossible, of course, just the seemingly impossible.”
Since the beginning, not one impossible thing has ever happened. If it happened, it was possible, after all.
He said that if you believe you can do a thing, and it is possible, you will do it, which is quite different from saying that you can do it. If you add as many qualifications as are necessary for it to be accurate, it is no longer an interesting, or, I would think, particularly inspirational statement.
-- Émile Coué
This sounds like extremely naive optimism. A vast majority of games in all team sports, for instance, probably end in one team failing to do a possible thing they thought they could do.
Yes, I agree. The author also promoted therapeutic hypnosis. I like the quote in spite of its hyperbole.
Point one: I think you and he are using different definitions of “possible”.
Point two: “Win the game” is not a well-specified outcome in hypnosis or NLP, since it relies upon matters outside your control.
What do you think the different definitions of possible they are using are?
Definition 1: possible as in “I can imagine winning, therefore it’s possible”
Definition 2: possible as in “actually possible for me to do in reality, independent of whether I imagine it to be so”
The quote was using definition 2: that is, “if you persuade yourself that you can do a certain thing, provided this thing is possible [in the real world when you attempt it], you will do it, however difficult it may be.” Desrtopa’s argument from team sports is using the first.
IOW, just because a given team imagines it possible to win does not mean they can win, because winning is not under their control. They can, however, imagine it possible to execute various skills at a high level of proficiency, and do this, whether they win or not.
In fact, it is generally reputed that the “winningest” teams tend to follow this philosophy: i.e., to practice the execution of basic skills to a near-exclusion of any consideration of “winning”. This is quite in keeping with the spirit of the original quote, which is regarding that which is actually possible given a particular set of circumstances (such as the state of the other team) which are not actually under your control.
“IOW, just because a given team imagines it possible to win does not mean they can win, because winning is not under their control”
But just because a team does not win, does not mean it was not possible.
I mean, think of all the things that a person does multiple times but doesn’t do every time. Hit a golf ball x yards, run a 7 minute mill, sing on key. The “imagining” has nothing to do with it.
In a deterministic context, things that are “possible to do in reality” and things that are necessarily going to happen have complete overlap. In this context, saying that if it’s possible then you will do it is vacuous.
In any case where we can’t predict future events with certainty, this definition is fairly useless. The colloquial, and more generally functional definition of possible, is that we cannot discount the potential that a thing might happen prior to the fact. Just because we can imagine something happening does not mean that it cannot be discounted as a possibility, and just because something is necessarily going to happen does not mean we can know that ahead of time and discount the possibility of events that would be exclusive with it.
By the practical definition of “possible,” the quote is not true, and by the strict deterministic definition the quote is still not true, because one can in fact do things one believes oneself to be incapable of.
If you interpret the quote to use the colloquial definition of “possible,” but assume that it only applies to things where no elements of the activity are outside your control, then it’s deceptively lacking in meaning, because beyond a trivial scale there is very little one can accomplish where this applies.
Fallacy of the grey. An athletic competition involves a great deal of elements where one’s control is neither complete nor absent.
If the author had intended deception, he’d have seen no need to include the disclaimer regarding possibility. He effectively said, “if you believe you can, then you can do things that otherwise would be very difficult—you won’t do the truly impossible, of course, just the seemingly impossible.”
Since the beginning, not one impossible thing has ever happened. If it happened, it was possible, after all.
He said that if you believe you can do a thing, and it is possible, you will do it, which is quite different from saying that you can do it. If you add as many qualifications as are necessary for it to be accurate, it is no longer an interesting, or, I would think, particularly inspirational statement.