5 ms·
Of course it can. If you can identify thoughts that are not aiding you, you can actively replace them with more constructive uses of your mind and will power.
by tmn 4y ago
Of course it can. If you can identify thoughts that are not aiding you, you can actively replace them with more constructive uses of your mind and will power.
- DarylZero 4y agoTo assess thoughts according to whether they "aid you," not whether they accurately reflect reality, strikes me as contemptible and weak.
- daedalus_f 4y agoThe world would be a very boring place if the only value of thought was its accuracy of reflection of reality.
- DarylZero 4y agoThat's not an accurate recounting of what I said, but I guess it's one that aids you!
- incrudible 4y agoJust because something accurately reflects reality does not mean you are obligated to occupy your mind with it, especially if there is nothing to be done about it.
- pessimizer 4y agoAlso destructive and amoral.
- markedle 4y agoTwo thoughts can reflect the same reality in different light.
- tmn 4y agoDoes it not reflect reality to recognize that time spent feeling sorry for yourself could be better utilized in any number of other pursuits? Why the hostility to this basic notion?
- DarylZero 4y agoIf feeling things actually took up time, you'd be making some sense, but as it is...
- spacemanmatt 4y agoWouldn't the constructive uses be more responsible for getting rich in this case? Removing a negative does not do the job by itself.
- tmn 4y agoI agree the removal is not sufficient, but it is helpful
- mjburgess 4y agoWealth is pareto distributed, by definition, almost no one can be rich and almost nothing you do can change that.
- QuarterReptile 4y agoFor a narrow enough definition of rich (10s of billions? You'd have to define "almost no one"). On a more useful level, reliable distributions of populations, no matter how reliable they tend to be, do not control individuals. There's a spot on the big fat end of the distribution for pareto nihilists.
- cy_hauser 4y ago> For a narrow enough definition of rich No matter where you lop the end of the Pareto distribution off the remaining curve still fits the same distribution. I though that was a defining characteristic of the principle. > ... reliable distributions ... do not control individuals. The people who've made it always talk to the people who haven't as if they can, by force of will, change their circumstances. That may be true if an individual has an untapped talent but in general luck will determine your outcome way more often than force of will. If it were possible for everyone to be rich there would be examples of that in society all across the world and all throughout history. I applaud your optimism though.