Goals are for losers

[Haven]

I enjoyed Scott Adams' take on success in the article he wrote recently, specifically:

To put it bluntly, goals are for losers. That's literally true most of the time. For example, if your goal is to lose 10 pounds, you will spend every moment until you reach the goal—if you reach it at all—feeling as if you were short of your goal. In other words, goal-oriented people exist in a state of nearly continuous failure that they hope will be temporary.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304626104579121813075903866.html?mod=topix

 

[Thursday]

I agree. Philosophies and mantras are much more powerful, because they follow and guide everything you do. Goals and New Years Resolutions either get tossed out, ignored, or aren't what you get in the end.

 

[prplchknz]

I gave up on goals and long term plans.

 

[The Ü™]

The one thing I'm wondering right now is how to break into the drug trade. Not because I do drugs or even care about them, but because there's money to be made in that field. Anyone have any pointers that doesn't involve going to school to work at CVS?

 

[kyuuei]

I agree that, for guiding life, philosophies and mantras are strong and powerful tools in comparison to goals.

But I don't agree with the OP's quote at all otherwise. A goal is something to strive for. If you have a goal to finish school, it is a temporary and set concrete thing to look at. You aren't a loser while you're actively working towards something. A kid learning to play football isn't a loser because he's practicing to become better even if he wouldn't win any games right now. That mentality is so... pretentious. "Oh, you made a goal to lose 10 lbs? I don't have any weight to lose. *sips tea, calls security to drag the fat-ass out of there.*" If you have anything to challenge yourself, and you are actively striving for something, I'm sorry, but that sounds like a damn goal to me.

You say: I follow the mantras of Buddha.
I say: You have a goal to live your life like a Buddhist.

Sounds the same to me. Grammar doesn't change the amount of effort you put towards something. You can have a philosophy on something, but you can also say just as easily you have a goal to live your life within a certain philosophy. I just don't see the difference.

Where people mess up on goals is HOW they word them. "I'm going to lose 10 lbs." Great. That's a wish though, really, in different words. "I'm going to stick to this work out & diet plan in this book here in the attempt to lose 10 lbs in the next 2 months." Now, that, is a goal. It has set, definite parameters, with a definable start point, end point, and feasible means of accomplishment.

Yes, people are flimsy with goals and resolutions a lot of the time.. that tends to happen in general though. They say they aren't liars and then tell white lies, that's humanity. I don't think that people misusing a hammer makes a hammer less efficient at the job of driving nails though.

 

[Giggly]

Well, okay. Maybe that's true but consider these 3 things:

a) some people get bored not having goals. They will take the emotional hit in spite of
b) some people naturally have massive egos that need to be self-balanced
c) some goals are survival-based and are undertaken mostly for survival.

 

[Azure Flame]

Only those with no willpower think goals are stupid and unachievable.

I'm inclined to believe that the person who spends all their time with no goals doing nothing is a loser.

This guy is an idiot.

/Fi

 

[Coriolis]

I agree. Philosophies and mantras are much more powerful, because they follow and guide everything you do. Goals and New Years Resolutions either get tossed out, ignored, or aren't what you get in the end.

There is something to this in that, if you keep failing to meet your stated goals, something is missing. Your goals may be unrealistic, or even not things that are truly meaningful to you, so you have no motivation to pursue them. You may lack the self-discipline or the specific skills to meet your goals. Either way, some soul-searching is in order, and perhaps some study/practice. [MENTION=5578]bologna[/MENTION] mentioned somewhere about adjusting your inner perspective by imagining yourself as the kind of person who does whatever accomplishment is embodied in your goals. You progress, then, not by looking at some distant target, but by comparing your small decisions in the moment with such a person. (I hope I am restating this correctly.) This seems useful, but mostly in getting yourself out of a rut of perpetual failure and disappointment. Once you become that person who can do whatever, it is time to decide what to do with your newfound attitude, confidence, and skills. This is where more traditional goal-setting can productively come back into play.

From my own perspective, goals give me something to focus on, keep me accountable to myself, and break up my dreams into manageable pieces, which I can then realize one by one.

 

[highlander]

I do pretty well with goals actually.

 

[RaptorWizard]

"A goal is not always meant to be reached, it often serves simply as something to aim at." - Bruce Lee

 

[skylights]

I think there are sort of two components here. I like having something to work towards in the future. A goal. But it's also important to live a fulfilling life in the here-and-now. I dunno. I think a lot of it is about being able to see life at once as something in progress as well as already at it's destination. I definitely struggle to stay present-minded but that's where happiness is. But goals can be what help you become a more accurate external manifestation of who you want to be.

 

[kyuuei]

I think there are sort of two components here. I like having something to work towards in the future. A goal. But it's also important to live a fulfilling life in the here-and-now. I dunno. I think a lot of it is about being able to see life at once as something in progress as well as already at it's destination. I definitely struggle to stay present-minded but that's where happiness is. But goals can be what help you become a more accurate external manifestation of who you want to be.

I'd argue it is for the future that one can live in the here and now. Maybe this is just me but..
When you fail to meet your goals, or lack them.. you get too wrapped up in the present. Everything else feels far away. Likewise, when you create unrealistic goals, you get overwhelmed by them and retreat to the present--using it as a hiding spot versus a state of being.
When you have accomplished even one thing, a direct and active action towards the future.. The present feels so much more incredible. You can only enjoy smelling the roses if your nose isn't adjusted to the scent already.

If you constantly live in the present, or for the future, you miss out on one or the other. The point is to balance them in your life--to aim, and look forward, and strive and struggle a bit.. and take comfort and balance that work with the joys of what you already have.

No, I'm with the posters thinking the OP's title is stupid. If I don't finish school, a goal I set for myself, but I learned a lot in the classes I did take... I don't think that was wasted time, effort, nor would I feel like a loser for having learned something new. Even failed goals have meaning and purpose.

 

[Riva]

I'm having a hard time understanding this. He's saying not to have goals but to have a system? Does he mean something like an affirmation?The examples he gave were too specific. The only clear part was what the ceo he met in the flight had to say.

I agree. Philosophies and mantras are much more powerful, because they follow and guide everything you do. Goals and New Years Resolutions either get tossed out, ignored, or aren't what you get in the end.

Could you elaborate a bit? I like to hear what you have to say. Give an example. @kyueii you can add your two cents to it; the mantras. While you are at it please explain to me how to pronounce your username . Does he mean affirmations? I personally don't put deadlines to my goals. Simply have them written down and go through them to feel the need and to remind myself to look for opportunities.

 

[RDF]

I'm having a hard time understanding this. He's saying not to have goals but to have a system? Does he mean something like an affirmation?The examples he gave were too specific. The only clear part was what the ceo he met in the flight had to say.
[...]
Could you elaborate a bit? I like to hear what you have to say. Give an example. @kyueii you can add your two cents to it; the mantras. While you are at it please explain to me how to pronounce your username . Does he mean affirmations? I personally don't put deadlines to my goals. Simply have them written down and go through them to feel the need and to remind myself to look for opportunities.

There is a video attached to the article. I think the video is clearer on this point than the article is. In the video, the author of the book (Scott Adams) sets up a dichotomy between goals (on one hand) and processes (on the other).

In the video, Scott Adams talks about his book and explains how he used a process to write the book rather than a goal:

Goals are okay in their place, but what you need more than goals is a system, a process. So, for example, one of the processes for writing this book was that I blogged every day because it was practice, and because I thought that people would read it and they would maybe say, “Let’s reprint this article,” and it would give me an idea what I could write that would be a full book. So I didn’t have a goal of writing a book--this specific book by this day. [Instead,] I had a process that I was pretty sure was going to get me there.

Likewise if you’re trying to lose weight: I would say it’s bad to say, “I’m going to lose 10 pounds.” [Instead] it’s probably a lot more useful to say, “I’m going to learn how to eat right and I’m going to be active every day.” [...]

See the video for additional commentary.

 

[Coriolis]

There is a video attached to the article. I think the video is clearer on this point than the article is. In the video, the author of the book (Scott Adams) sets up a dichotomy between goals (on one hand) and processes (on the other).

Both goals and processes are important, but one tends to take precedence over the other. We've all heard the perspective that the ends justify the means, and are suitably cautious about using the worth of a goal to justify any process necessary to meet it. Too many people, however, do the opposite, and are so focused on or even wedded to their processes, that they will accept whatever outcomes they produce, however good or ill. In MBTI terms, J seems to focus more often on goals, and P on processes. Even here they get entangled, though. I like processes that work, for example, but I define what works by my goals, and how well the process supports my reaching them. I know some SJs for whom the process becomes a goal in and of itself.

 

[RDF]

Both goals and processes are important, but one tends to take precedence over the other. We've all heard the perspective that the ends justify the means, and are suitably cautious about using the worth of a goal to justify any process necessary to meet it. Too many people, however, do the opposite, and are so focused on or even wedded to their processes, that they will accept whatever outcomes they produce, however good or ill. In MBTI terms, J seems to focus more often on goals, and P on processes. Even here they get entangled, though. I like processes that work, for example, but I define what works by my goals, and how well the process supports my reaching them. I know some SJs for whom the process becomes a goal in and of itself.

You’re getting philosophical on me. I was just clarifying Scott Adams’s message.

But to pick up on a couple of your points and run with them:

First: I myself don’t really agree that goals and processes represent a dichotomy. When Mr. Adams declared that “Goals are for losers,” I think he was being a little over-the-top to make a point. Obviously one has targets, deadlines, and goals. But I would agree with Mr. Adams that it’s helpful if one can come up with a good organizational process to automate the work that one does towards one's goals and targets and put that work on auto-pilot.

Let’s say that I have a goal to lose 10 pounds. I could use starvation or a fad diet to hit that target quickly. Or instead I could institute a healthy-eating-and-exercise process and let that process take me to my goal at its own pace. If the healthy-eating-and-exercise process turns out to be sound and gets me to my target without too much discomfort, I may turn it into an open-ended process and take off another 10 or 20 pounds while I’m at it.

So in that sense I agree with Mr. Adams that a good process has a certain merit above and beyond the goal or target that’s associated with it.

Second: I tend to see processes as Fe and Te things. As a Perceiver myself, when I was younger I used to take an ad hoc approach to things, which led to blowing hot and cold and simply reacting to circumstances. To counter that problem, I now institute Fe and Te processes, and they lead to more uniform handling of things and more of an even keel on my part.

So I would tend to say the opposite as you: J is more about developing processes and using them as an organizational tool, whereas P is more ad hoc and reactive (and presumably more goal-oriented in that sense).

 

[Ene]

Isn't his aim to have a system? and to what end? Why have a system? I mean sure he didn't have a "goal" but he had a "system" but the "aim" of the system was to make money and that, was a goal. Just saying. It all seems like a matter of semantics to me. He kept fine tuning his system or his process until he achieved his end or rather reached his goal. Any time we set out to get from point A to point B [example-- from broke to rich, as in his case], we have some sort of goal. I'm up right now, getting ready to go to work. Why am I getting ready? To go to work. Isn't that a goal? It's not a major one, but it is a goal. A goal is simply something we aim at. If we miss the target, we reload and shoot again or maybe just zero in on another target and that is a system. A system can be a lifestyle, designed to reach one's goals. Everyone has goals of some sort. And I'm just killing time with all of this target talk. I have to get to work now

 

[Coriolis]

First: I myself don’t really agree that goals and processes represent a dichotomy. When Mr. Adams declared that “Goals are for losers,” I think he was being a little over-the-top to make a point. Obviously one has targets, deadlines, and goals. But I would agree with Mr. Adams that it’s helpful if one can come up with a good organizational process to automate the work that one does towards one's goals and targets and put that work on auto-pilot.

Goals and process are inextricably related, but they are quite distinct; think of mutually orthogonal axes, with one coordinate on each required to specify a point.

Let’s say that I have a goal to lose 10 pounds. I could use starvation or a fad diet to hit that target quickly. Or instead I could institute a healthy-eating-and-exercise process and let that process take me to my goal at its own pace. If the healthy-eating-and-exercise process turns out to be sound and gets me to my target without too much discomfort, I may turn it into an open-ended process and take off another 10 or 20 pounds while I’m at it.

So in that sense I agree with Mr. Adams that a good process has a certain merit above and beyond the goal or target that’s associated with it.

But as your example illustrates, the merit of that good process is that it makes it possible to reach additional goals, whether that be further weight loss, more stamina/strength, or preserving your overall health and fitness into your retirement years.

Second: I tend to see processes as Fe and Te things. As a Perceiver myself, when I was younger I used to take an ad hoc approach to things, which led to blowing hot and cold and simply reacting to circumstances. To counter that problem, I now institute Fe and Te processes, and they lead to more uniform handling of things and more of an even keel on my part.

So I would tend to say the opposite as you: J is more about developing processes and using them as an organizational tool, whereas P is more ad hoc and reactive (and presumably more goal-oriented in that sense).

J develops processes with specific purposes in mind. P develops processes with a focus on the nature of the process itself. I have worked with many INTPs and my SO is one as well, and mostly they seem to fall into processes that are comfortable to them. They have a certain way of examining questions or considering decisions that wants to be thorough and comprehensive, so they keep iterating it, almost forgetting that it is all supposed to produce "an" answer or decision at the end. The process of racking and stacking and sorting and rearranging is satisfying in and of itself.

Of course, this characterization is extreme, and usually they bring themselves to recognize that enough is enough and it's time to move on (especially if they have someone like me to prod them). They are driven much more by the nature and integrity of the process, though, than the worth and closure of reaching the goal as a J would be.

 

[Mole]

Great Caesar's Ghost, God is dead, privacy is dead, the individual is dead, the book is dead, and goals have gone the way of the Dodo.

God, privacy, the individual, the book and goals are artifacts of print.

Print is linear and sequential, books have a beginning a middle and an end, even God has His eschatology: all leading to a goal.

But electric media have abolished time and space and there is no time for goals, and no space for even one goal, rather we live in a world of resonance.

 

[kyuuei]

@kyueii you can add your two cents to it; the mantras. While you are at it please explain to me how to pronounce your username .

Key-ooo-E.

I think Mantras are a very beautiful tool to use in life--but falling short of them is just as loser-ish to this guy as falling short of goals. I can say "And harm none, do as ye will" all day long every day, the moment I harm someone without realizing it, I've broken that mantra. I've failed to chant my way to success. Does that mean I ought to give up and not care if I hurt others? Having a 'system' a 'philosophy' a 'insert a convenient word that sounds more pretentious than goals here' is all the same shit as far as I can tell.

- Person finds something that could help them in some way
- Person implements that thing
- Person sometimes succeeds, sometimes does not, and sometimes fails and then succeeds.

To me it's just pretentious grammatical nit-picking in the OP article. "Goals aren't the cool thing anymore.. a system is what you REALLY need in your life! Only losers make goals. You can't fail at a system." Systems fail all the time too. Non-human, human, take your pick.

You know who uses systems a lot? Pick up artists.