Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thought Provoking Way of Doing Life

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Supernova View Post
    An update on this...

    Been learning about Rockefellar, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt in a documentary called the Men who Made America. I'm taking in their mindsets and some of the things I have noticed:

    They are all about winning. It's not about money or impact, it's all about winning and largely that was measured for them in money.
    They play power games just as the ones in the 48 Laws of Power. They will deceive and turn their backs on others just to make more money, gain more power. It is sometimes ruthless.
    They all have the unwavering beliefs in themselves and the ability to play big or not at all. A few times they risk everything for more...

    One story that particularly struck me was when Rockefellar was barely making it in the oil business and he went to meet Vanderbilt who owned the trains. A partnership with the two would be lucrative, but the comparable value offered by Vanderbilt was significantly more in the deal. After he missed the train that was to take him to make the deal, Rockefellar got balls and viewed himself as an equal. He made the deal with Vanderbilt then exploded his wealth.

    Anyways, its more on mindset stuff. Still figuring it out, but these dudes actually didn't give much a shit about other people as they loved themselves much more. I had always thought the rich had an undying instinct to help people, but not so much the case. Carnegie worked the steel workers 12 hour days and didn't give a shit.
    Thanks for the tip, I watched the show too now and found it to be very interesting. Since I wasn't born in the US, most of the names (except Ford) were kind of new to me, really, and although I've heard them being mentioned out of context (in Carnegie Hall for example) I didn't know about the history. What struck me as the most interesting though was the way those guys supposedly saw the world and their role in it: they were basically acting like they were kings of their own country trying to win wars to expand their power. Like, they didn't so much seemed to focus on money as an end goal but rather on getting that strategic advantage of owning an important bridge or owning that logistically important network of trains, so others had to depend on them. They also basically operated outside of the states they were residing in, viewing the government or jurisdiction not so much as a superpower above all enterprise but rather as another rivaling power they could beat down if necessary.

    There's another interesting thought that came up watching the series, namely how in human history, most big advantages have been made in reaction to certain people being very ruthless and brutal. This is true in times of war, but if you look at the supposed history of Apple, from what you hear Steve Jobs must have been quite an annoying guy as a boss, but when he was, he managed to get things done. It's an interesting thought that for some reason, people who do not restrain themselves with common niceties or laws often create innovation. I've read a biography about Yassir Arafat a few years back, and reading that I think I understood for the first time in my life how in some situations, violence or even war might be necessary. There was described a system in which all lawful and nonviolent possibilities were designed to keep up a status quo that was injust in the first place. One could question if using violence is the only way out, but foregoing the law can be a necessity in these situations.

    I realize this is dangerous stuff even to think about for it's not too far away from uprising and (civil) war, but it's very interesting nonetheless if you start seeing these closed and in themselves protected closed systems in place all around you. Mind that in general I'm a pacifist and do not like violence or even the idea of it, but still, it seems like I'm starting to realize the necessity of the supposed "darker side" of humanity these days. It looks pretty much like that in order to enable the majority of the population to live in a "pure" life of friendlyness, love and happiness, there's a necessity of the existence of some other people who are ready to embody the darker side so as to protect that pureness from the outside world that isn't so pure. Like, we can have peace on the inside if there are people who protect and uphold the borders of our "peaceful" country. Mind my thinking about this stuff is still very young and I might get many things wrong yet, but I'll be getting to the full truth of it sooner or later

    Now another aspect of the whole thing I'm curious about is if all those big business leaders like Rockefeller were planning on keeping on controlling their business long term or not. In a way, being the king of a country (like those businesses were), you're basically responsible for the well-being of that country and its inhabitants, so although you are probably more free than your underlings in terms of deciding, you are still not free because you're bound to the role of king in that country. So I wonder what one would do differently in their shoes if the end goal was independence rather than becoming king. For as far as I have found out about myself, I would probably enjoy being a wandering wise guy or something much more than formally being king of anyone.

    Jester

    P.S.: Started watching "John Adams" yesterday, which deals with a lot of those questions as well, very interesting!

    Comment


    • #77
      What struck me as the most interesting though was the way those guys supposedly saw the world and their role in it: they were basically acting like they were kings of their own country trying to win wars to expand their power. Like, they didn't so much seemed to focus on money as an end goal but rather on getting that strategic advantage of owning an important bridge or owning that logistically important network of trains, so others had to depend on them. They also basically operated outside of the states they were residing in, viewing the government or jurisdiction not so much as a superpower above all enterprise but rather as another rivaling power they could beat down if necessary.
      Exactly. These dudes were kings and gods in their own right and just because they decided to do so. It was even shown how they colluded together to get their president elected lol. Not even politics could touch them (for some time).
      There's another interesting thought that came up watching the series, namely how in human history, most big advantages have been made in reaction to certain people being very ruthless and brutal. This is true in times of war, but if you look at the supposed history of Apple, from what you hear Steve Jobs must have been quite an annoying guy as a boss, but when he was, he managed to get things done. It's an interesting thought that for some reason, people who do not restrain themselves with common niceties or laws often create innovation. I've read a biography about Yassir Arafat a few years back, and reading that I think I understood for the first time in my life how in some situations, violence or even war might be necessary. There was described a system in which all lawful and nonviolent possibilities were designed to keep up a status quo that was in just in the first place. One could question if using violence is the only way out, but foregoing the law can be a necessity in these situations.
      I noticed this myself and also observed over the last few years I kind of have a dick personality. I did a personality test last week that kind of stated I don't care about the details and can only be happy when I am at a higher level leading others. I normally hate personality tests, but this one took 15 min and was right on point. (www.tonyrobbins.com/ue) It pretty much even explained why I didn't work out in corporate world. I wasn't interested in social games and just wanted to boss people around and be efficient. I break rapport often because I don't want to hear stories and just want to get to what matters.
      I realize this is dangerous stuff even to think about for it's not too far away from uprising and (civil) war, but it's very interesting nonetheless if you start seeing these closed and in themselves protected closed systems in place all around you. Mind that in general I'm a pacifist and do not like violence or even the idea of it, but still, it seems like I'm starting to realize the necessity of the supposed "darker side" of humanity these days. It looks pretty much like that in order to enable the majority of the population to live in a "pure" life of friendlyness, love and happiness, there's a necessity of the existence of some other people who are ready to embody the darker side so as to protect that pureness from the outside world that isn't so pure. Like, we can have peace on the inside if there are people who protect and uphold the borders of our "peaceful" country. Mind my thinking about this stuff is still very young and I might get many things wrong yet, but I'll be getting to the full truth of it sooner or later
      We don't even know how much probably goes into the dark side of life. Think about this, at just $35k of income you are in the top 5% of the world in terms of wealth. This could be chinese slaves making handbags or foreign countries imposing super dark stuff on its people. I've been in places in the Philippines where the only way girls knew how to make money was in a prostitution bar where it was encouraged for them to do so.

      I'm sure there are other things such as that, but I often wonder what the governments and such entities do to keep us safe or other things like that. I know they were fighting over Syria and other oil countries, but they don't really tell you why we care about any of these countries. Usually it is always about money, but then I don't know because I don't really feel like we know the full story, but then again maybe they are doing all that to protect the masses in a form of secrecy.

      Now another aspect of the whole thing I'm curious about is if all those big business leaders like Rockefeller were planning on keeping on controlling their business long term or not. In a way, being the king of a country (like those businesses were), you're basically responsible for the well-being of that country and its inhabitants, so although you are probably more free than your underlings in terms of deciding, you are still not free because you're bound to the role of king in that country. So I wonder what one would do differently in their shoes if the end goal was independence rather than becoming king. For as far as I have found out about myself, I would probably enjoy being a wandering wise guy or something much more than formally being king of anyone.
      I wonder too, but I also know for myself I really like helping people and being the center of that change or that help. For me it would feel good to be in such a position, could you imagine being the boss who leads teacher reform and everyone looks to you for guidance? For me that sounds like a cool calling, but maybe such positions do become daunting.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Jester View Post
        Now another aspect of the whole thing I'm curious about is if all those big business leaders like Rockefeller were planning on keeping on controlling their business long term or not. In a way, being the king of a country (like those businesses were), you're basically responsible for the well-being of that country and its inhabitants, so although you are probably more free than your underlings in terms of deciding, you are still not free because you're bound to the role of king in that country. So I wonder what one would do differently in their shoes if the end goal was independence rather than becoming king. For as far as I have found out about myself, I would probably enjoy being a wandering wise guy or something much more than formally being king of anyone.
        You can take things to whatever degree you like, we look to Rockefeller types because they're the extreme, a more complete example to gather information from. You can go even further, looking to power structures and tactics of places like North Korea, which show you cross a line where the quest for power begins to considerably diminish the returns for both yourself and everyone else (IE Kim's people are suffering, and he can't go anywhere without fear of assassination. Lose/lose power and leadership structure.)

        Its true, that with more power comes more responsibility, and potentially less freedom. I personally don't want to be caught up in political quagmire type power (which requires playing the beta game 100% until you're the guy at the top, which most don't achieve, all the while constantly imprisoned by responsibility. Trump is a prisoner right now IMO, not the kind of power i'd ever want), I'm more into developing a fun, engaging, creative, free-flow, and productive company, that allows me a fair amount of freedom while providing me a day-to-day with good people that's along the lines of what I'd naturally be doing for fun anyway.

        Leadership and power can be pointed in any direction. You can analyze and understand Kim Jong Un's power tactics, and utilize what's useful for this:

        Originally posted by Supernova View Post
        I wonder too, but I also know for myself I really like helping people and being the center of that change or that help. For me it would feel good to be in such a position, could you imagine being the boss who leads teacher reform and everyone looks to you for guidance? For me that sounds like a cool calling, but maybe such positions do become daunting.
        For example, Kim's insistence on totally eliminating anyone he deems poisonous to his mission, including family. He takes this to the extreme of killing them, but the general concept is a powerful one that can be used for good.
        Last edited by pureevil; 06-20-2017, 09:00 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          "I had to record this video on my phone the other day (its very short). They were discussing what would make Kevin Durant's season with a new team a "success," and one poor guy brings up "happiness" as a measure of success.."

          That guy is just equating "happiness" with "easy life".

          Note the very crucial fact that he ain't kevin durant.

          Guys who are the best at their craft invariably care more about their craft and their own skills with it. Worrying about "success", is the lesser part of success. Its hard to recignize this though, if you are coming from a "hack it" rather than "passion" mentality.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by hangman View Post
            "I had to record this video on my phone the other day (its very short). They were discussing what would make Kevin Durant's season with a new team a "success," and one poor guy brings up "happiness" as a measure of success.."

            That guy is just equating "happiness" with "easy life".

            Note the very crucial fact that he ain't kevin durant.

            Guys who are the best at their craft invariably care more about their craft and their own skills with it. Worrying about "success", is the lesser part of success. Its hard to recignize this though, if you are coming from a "hack it" rather than "passion" mentality.
            I think the point of more benefit here is that the media is sending the message to the listener that to be happy is wrong. That you need to struggle and do the right thing. This is the kind of poison that can be imposed on the masses.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by hangman View Post
              Guys who are the best at their craft invariably care more about their craft and their own skills with it. Worrying about "success", is the lesser part of success. Its hard to recignize this though, if you are coming from a "hack it" rather than "passion" mentality.
              For sure. Mastery of craft to set yourself up to best execute the product of your passion is key. I've chirped on this like a parrot around here lol.

              This doesn't mean you can't clearly see the impact of success on the masses though, and speak about its role in gaining power, influencing people, and opening opportunity for yourself.

              Kevin Durant is clearly focused on both. He's building skills and mastering his craft out of love and passion for the game, while simultaneously setting his sights on the highest success possible: winning the championship, which he accomplished last month by making very specific moves OUTSIDE "passion and craft" to set him up for maximum success in the NBA. He both loves the game and craves success. People have multiple motivations and goals and interests and passions fueling them in everything they do. Its quite natural to both be highly passionate about your craft and crave success, and simultaneously make moves and devise strategies to better achieve both.

              Originally posted by hangman View Post
              "I had to record this video on my phone the other day (its very short). They were discussing what would make Kevin Durant's season with a new team a "success," and one poor guy brings up "happiness" as a measure of success.."

              That guy is just equating "happiness" with "easy life".

              Note the very crucial fact that he ain't kevin durant.
              You'd have to see the clip, it wasn't that. In the context of "success in the NBA given Durant's stated goal of winning the championship," the answer "if he loses at least he's happy in Oakland" got clowned for good reason.

              And yeah, the comment was made by a fill-in guest speaker who's a far cry from Durant lol.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Supernova View Post

                I think the point of more benefit here is that the media is sending the message to the listener that to be happy is wrong. That you need to struggle and do the right thing. This is the kind of poison that can be imposed on the masses.
                I dont think media is promoting a hard work culture AT ALL.

                That said-

                I, me, myself thinks one has to struggle and do the right thing. But that right thing is neither being a 9-5 slave necessarily, nor being a reactionary rebel. Figuring out the right thing is half the battle really.

                As I expected, despite all the talk about success, this thread is about the easy way out. Thats what talk about disembodied success without actual context usually is.

                There isn't an easy way out. The ONLY choice you are given is the choice of WHAT battle you can wage. Suffering, you will endure. But you are given the option of making that suffering meaningful. The way you make suffering meaningful (from what I have been able to discern so far) is by choosing to confront it like a motherfucking warrior, instead of living a lifetime trying to avoid it.

                Comment


                • #83
                  I've found that this world is both brutal and beautiful, but you have to face and adapt to the brutality, to be strong enough to build a shelter on top of it, where the beauty can breathe and be. However, you have to be strong enough to be soft enough, to not get twisted by the effort of facing brutality, to not lose touch with that beauty, once you're strong enough and capable enough to build for it.

                  ... a lot of people lose that second part, and also a lot of people never come to terms with the first part. The second step failures being cynics, and the "I don't give a fuck" or "care about anything" crowd. Those who can't bear how bad the world really can be and take on making it better. They just wallow in the "truth" of brutality and think that's all the world really is and worse, that that is all they really are. And the first step failures are all the different, avoidant flavors of staying in the "cave of safe". Being bound by comfort and conformity, taking only what's offered, rather than making your own. Rarely moving beyond their edges and horizons, and expanding their capacities.

                  Life is strange.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by hangman View Post
                    I dont think media is promoting a hard work culture AT ALL.
                    Sports media does quite intensely, their commentary and interviews and documentaries like the 30-for-30 series focus strongly on work ethic, pushing through the pain in order to improve, being the first one to the gym every day and the last one to leave, and going through the mental struggles and ups and downs that are inevitable in the process of becoming your best self. That's what it takes to be a top athlete and performer, so networks covering top athletes naturally focus on all that outside the games.

                    Not much else though. . I find ESPN to be the most nutritious food on mainstream TV, though it certainly can be shit at times too. TV is TV.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I dont think media is promoting a hard work culture AT ALL.
                      Not sure if it is their direct aim, but in effect, the large messages received are to make us weaker. "Buy this truck and you will get girls." "Get this diamond and she will love you forever." "Go to school, work hard and you will get ahead."

                      All that is behind this is in effect hard work. Yet, sometimes it is promised as "the easy way" or "just follow these secrets to success" what inevitably happens is the one listening to the message has to go to greater lengths and more hard work to get past the message and find the truth in it all. "Anyone can build a website and start their own business today..."the work behind it and the illusion of it being easy is what is communicated yet the effect is that others have to work harder to find the truth in it.

                      But for the vast majority of us, if Kevin Durant makes an easy decision and wins an easy championship, and we are sitting here struggling then what does that say about us? The media wants us to find our idols struggling and grinding for the win rather than make 'that right' or 'that easy' decision to be a champion.

                      If we see our idols struggle and toil then it comes to be the case that more people will struggle and toil to keep the machine running.

                      I, me, myself thinks one has to struggle and do the right thing.
                      Interesting, how would you come up with that?

                      Figuring out the right thing is half the battle really.
                      Why is this so? In my experience, we have the innate ability to tell truth and lie. We feel it. Yes, sometimes there are things blocking us etc. Yet when we are given a great truth that we cannot deny it is felt.

                      As I expected, despite all the talk about success, this thread is about the easy way out.
                      If you read that, you are misreading it. It most certainly is not about an easier way, but a more efficient way. This most of the times is not easier. Much much harder to take the reins, own your business, and lead others than it is to have a day job with just a few responsibilities. It takes a different level of mindset is what we are talking about.

                      But you are given the option of making that suffering meaningful.
                      Meaningful to whom? Lol we are on this planet a very very short time. In 100 years you will be atoms scattered around some kind of existence. And this lifetime we live is just a mere tiny tiny fraction of the whole time of the universe, and this space the same compared to the vast universe. Meaningful while you are here maybe and the only reason I bring this up is for the intent of rising higher while we can. This meaningful stuff is great, but we gotta realize very very little of any of this matters or is significant. This for me, gives more incentive to make it meaningful whatever the hell that is.

                      The way you make suffering meaningful (from what I have been able to discern so far) is by choosing to confront it like a motherfucking warrior, instead of living a lifetime trying to avoid it.
                      Suffering is stupid and unnecessary, so we have to confront our suffering to make our lives meaningful?

                      I've found that this world is both brutal and beautiful, but you have to face and adapt to the brutality, to be strong enough to build a shelter on top of it, where the beauty can breathe and be. However, you have to be strong enough to be soft enough, to not get twisted by the effort of facing brutality, to not lose touch with that beauty, once you're strong enough and capable enough to build for it.
                      The duality in it all of course. Think this is what pureevil means when he says navigate the world through finesse.

                      Sports media does quite intensely, their commentary and interviews and documentaries like the 30-for-30 series focus strongly on work ethic, pushing through the pain in order to improve, being the first one to the gym every day and the last one to leave, and going through the mental struggles and ups and downs that are inevitable in the process of becoming your best self. That's what it takes to be a top athlete and performer, so networks covering top athletes naturally focus on all that outside the games.

                      Not much else though. . I find ESPN to be the most nutritious food on mainstream TV, though it certainly can be shit at times too. TV is TV.
                      They do it like crazy. And I'm not sure if it really is the hard work that these athletes use to make themselves successful or instead terrible attitudes (Draymond Green), capabilities for breaking the law (Ezekial Eliot), propensities to abusing women (Floyd Mayweather) and maybe just overall an intenser attitude that is the real key to their successes.


                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Supernova View Post
                        But for the vast majority of us, if Kevin Durant makes an easy decision and wins an easy championship, and we are sitting here struggling then what does that say about us? The media wants us to find our idols struggling and grinding for the win rather than make 'that right' or 'that easy' decision to be a champion.
                        Yeah I don't see Durant's move as the easy way out, he's playing smart and by the agreed upon rules. LeBron started the trend and won it all, Durant amplified it and won it all, now Paul George and Chris Paul are following suit in their own longer shot ways which should make next season quite interesting, and the Lakers and others are angling hard to pull the superteam move big time after next season.

                        An innovation in the game behind the game was made by LeBron when he said "fuck you" to the "you need to do it this way or its not respectable" follow-the-way-its-always-been-done crowd and put together a dominant team that would win. Controversial for a while as the masses of "do it this way" betas recovered from the shock, now he's highly respected as a champion and one of the greatest to ever play, and will go down legend in the end. I loved when he made that move and I became a bandwagon Miami fan while he was there (I owned that i was bandwagon even at the time, yes, I keep it real). I wanted to watch someone say "fuck you" to "the way" and then dominate.

                        "But what about all the other teams???" Beta empathy. I want to watch the best presentation of the game possible under the current agreed upon rules. I want to see people testing limits and doing things that haven't been done before to make championships happen. Golden State and Cleveland are both smaller market teams that have mostly been insignificant throughout the history of the NBA and now they've taken it over and made it their bitch. Good on them. Other teams? Adapt like they did. Figure it the fuck out. That'll be interesting as hell to watch


                        Originally posted by Supernova View Post
                        And I'm not sure if it really is the hard work that these athletes use to make themselves successful or instead terrible attitudes (Draymond Green), capabilities for breaking the law (Ezekial Eliot), propensities to abusing women (Floyd Mayweather) and maybe just overall an intenser attitude that is the real key to their successes.
                        Its BOTH. They're doing BOTH. Becoming amazing at what they do, and then drawing x-factor attention to themselves. Everyone wants to reduce it to one thing. There's no "instead". . the words that go there are "also" and "and."

                        My takes on your examples:

                        Draymond Green's clownin' and having fun and fearlessly testing every limit possible in all directions to see what he can get away with (taking the consequences when he goes too far), as alphas do. I love him, he's fun to watch, makes the games a lot more interesting for a lot more people, and gives everyone in sports something to talk about for days at a time. Two seasons ago he lost control and crashed the whole team. . but. . finesse. He came back way more calibrated, is still drawing attention to himself and creating stories (through both dominant play with impressive statistics, and his antics), but not crossing any lines this year, helping bring the win and giving the story some spice.

                        Ezekiel made a huge name for himself last year through a display of unexpectedly dominant skill, that's what his conversation was mostly about. . "woah!" type stuff. He could be the big story in so many other way right now. He's young and dumb and out of control and fucking himself up off the field. There's clearly no alpha in his life, hopefully he figures shit out quick.

                        Mayweather is a one of a kind undefeated champion who knows the hype game inside and out. Most people don't know about his abuse or have forgiven him like with Mike Tyson.

                        I look at these young athletes in their early 20s for what they are: young guys in the process of becoming fully developed people. With Draymond Green for example, you can, in real time over the years, witness an alpha testing limits and learning finesse, without letting what people think of him in the moment stop him from testing. Its pretty cool to watch. He's going to end up beloved by everyone and one of the most respected voices in basketball like Charles Barkley in the end: fully in the pocket, getting away with stuff no one else on earth can while remaining more loved than most, with all the right kinds of edge in all the right places. I'd put a lot of money on that.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Supernova View Post

                          The duality in it all of course. Think this is what pureevil means when he says navigate the world through finesse.
                          Nah, finesse is not the primary or foundational trait, it's character or the true human spirit, that exists independent of emotional platitudes and either rises or falls in the face of stress. In my opinion, the frame where PE operates from still isn't there yet on that 2nd step. But, that's not meant as disrespect, both steps are fucking hard to meet and move through properly and it's a life long maturation. I'm still working at it myself.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            I agree that what I mean by finesse in terms of navigating the beta-dominate world as an alpha is not what you're meaning. Finesse as I'm meaning it is about pragmatic action -> reaction, there's nothing abstract there, just a synonym of calibration. IE: "Throw legs wildly where you might "accidentally" kick a guy in the nuts to get under his skin -> get thrown out the game by the rule-enforcing betas -> learn finesse and recalibrate -> more covertly get under the opponent's skin next game without tipping off the rule-enforcing betas -> stay in the game and win."

                            But can you elaborate on what you're trying to say beyond that? You're dropping some vague poetry and then a "he's not there yet," which is true in that I'm very much in the process, but elaborate on what you mean? My posts in this thread are zeroing in on a small portion of the whole, which boils down to analyzing the colder harder pragmatic moves and cost/benefit decisions that have to be made by those who run things and are clear alphas and championship-type winners in life.

                            I'd love to be shown any holes or thoughts or advancements or elaborations in a way that could get a discussion going, but not really into short vague poetic drive-bys lol.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Yeah I don't see Durant's move as the easy way out, he's playing smart and by the agreed upon rules. LeBron started the trend and won it all, Durant amplified it and won it all, now Paul George and Chris Paul are following suit in their own longer shot ways which should make next season quite interesting, and the Lakers and others are angling hard to pull the superteam move big time after next season.

                              An innovation in the game behind the game was made by LeBron when he said "fuck you" to the "you need to do it this way or its not respectable" follow-the-way-its-always-been-done crowd and put together a dominant team that would win. Controversial for a while as the masses of "do it this way" betas recovered from the shock, now he's highly respected as a champion and one of the greatest to ever play, and will go down legend in the end. I loved when he made that move and I became a bandwagon Miami fan while he was there (I owned that i was bandwagon even at the time, yes, I keep it real). I wanted to watch someone say "fuck you" to "the way" and then dominate.

                              "But what about all the other teams???" Beta empathy. I want to watch the best presentation of the game possible under the current agreed upon rules. I want to see people testing limits and doing things that haven't been done before to make championships happen. Golden State and Cleveland are both smaller market teams that have mostly been insignificant throughout the history of the NBA and now they've taken it over and made it their bitch. Good on them. Other teams? Adapt like they did. Figure it the fuck out. That'll be interesting as hell to watch
                              To your earlier point made in this thread. The alphas are villains for making this decision until they win. Until they get that success you talked about earlier (the trophy, the wife, the kids, the bestselling book, etc. etc.) In the betas eyes they have not made it. Durant was hated by most of the fans, but now his mom is talking on ESPN and the media is phrasing it as a redemption story. Same with LeBron, even before he went back to Cleveland.

                              My takes on your examples:

                              Draymond Green's clownin' and having fun and fearlessly testing every limit possible in all directions to see what he can get away with
                              With my examples, I sense the greatest theme to be a willingness to push things to the edge in all areas of life. This has been apparent in rockstars doing tons of drugs and smashing tons of girls. Wilt Chamberlain smashing 1,000 women, living in NY and still being able to make Philadelphia to win a basketball game. Tiger woods is another example. Championship golfer when he is fucking tons of bitches, now he is a scrub.

                              My friend who is a natural would do this shit too. He would just take everything bigger and push the limits to get all the girls on our college campus. It wasn't about working hard, but going after everything which often is easier than going after a bit of the piece.

                              I'm not convinced it is anything about hard work or mastering your craft. I am open to the idea, but more convinced that we are led to believe to work hard at something. The hard work part implies that you have to do something to be good enough. Whereas guys like Wilt are just going out and tooling guys because its what they do. He is just smashing hundreds of girls because its what he does. Did it take a lot of hard work to get there? Maybe. But in all of my experience, what I have seen is that the difference between one to the other wasn't hard work.

                              I watched the Ask Gary V show the other day. There Gary V is with Tony Robbins on the show. And I came to an interesting realization. Gary V is always saying put in the work. Post everyday on facebook, instagram, etc. etc. He is the process guy, and the one all about putting in the work. Sounds like great and noble ideas, but there looking at him with Tony it made me think. And having studied Tony for years in my profession, I know that Tony was making $10,000 a month at age 19. At age 24 he had his best selling book out and was living in a $100 million house. This was before we had internet and when most business was done on the telephone. I don't doubt that Tony is and was a hard-worker, but this difference in him and anyone else being hard work. No way.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Supernova View Post
                                To your earlier point made in this thread. The alphas are villains for making this decision until they win. Until they get that success you talked about earlier (the trophy, the wife, the kids, the bestselling book, etc. etc.) In the betas eyes they have not made it. Durant was hated by most of the fans, but now his mom is talking on ESPN and the media is phrasing it as a redemption story. Same with LeBron, even before he went back to Cleveland.
                                Fascinating isn't it. Its repeatedly observable at all levels and stages.


                                Originally posted by Supernova View Post
                                I'm not convinced it is anything about hard work or mastering your craft. I am open to the idea, but more convinced that we are led to believe to work hard at something.
                                It depends on the field and the stage of the process. For the best in sports hard work is always there. Music and arts sometimes. Other times its about capitalizing on opportunity. Are there also ways to go big without being great at something? Yeah for sure. Obama said "fuck sitting around working hard as a senator for years like I'm supposed to, I'm going straight president bitches." Also Durant and LeBron hit a point where they didn't "work harder" to win the championship once they found their current setup no longer optimal. They went to where they needed to go to succeed and won. Again, its a lot of both. . hard work and playing the games behind the game to set yourself up.

                                What I'm building towards is a fun, open, free flow, deadline-less, creative environment that fosters talent in quality compatible people who are eager to impact big in some way, which is exactly how I like to fill my day to day. Instead of ME or mostly me carrying the workload which is how its been for years, I can turn "me" into "us" and own a controlling percentage of everything, because I'm the provider of hard earned opportunity at this point and they're signing on to work for me. I've put in years working my fucking ass off to get this position, and now I'm entering into it. The next several years are going to be candy.

                                A lot of times its hard as fuck work followed by downhill fun. Until you hit the coast point though, what else can you do? You work harder, you work smarter, you move to wherever you need to be to best position yourself, and you push push push till you're over the hill and coasting down the other side.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X