From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Believe in youself, dammit! (was: Re: Singles Bar)
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:42:34 GMT
	<JMD.92Sep11173357@lion.bear.com> <rawdon.716262195@cs.wisc.edu>
	<JMD.92Sep14182500@lion.bear.com> <rawdon.716525733@cs.wisc.edu>
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu's message of 15 Sep 92 02:55:33 GMT


In article <rawdon.716525733@cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon) writes:

   I got your point fine.  You seem to have missed mine, that is to say, that
   I think that your assertion is (to use your own word) bullshit.

Look, Michael -- I don't want to start a flame war about this -- but
it seems to me that your history has got you by the naughty bits.  You
persist in allowing it to determine your future.  You apparently
believe that past failures ( in relationship, math, foreign language,
C, etc.) doom you to failure in the future.  As long as you cling to
that belief you indeed ARE doomed to failure.

Why is it that people want so much to be right that they are willing
to be miserable in order to prove themselves right and others wrong?
Why do they hold on so dearly to the belief that they are incapable?
I wish I knew.  

   >A counter-example to your argument: Identical twins A and B take the
   >SAT, and both get the same poor score.  Twin A takes a remedial course
   >(e.g. Princeton Review), twin B does nothing.  Both take the test
   >again.  Chances are that twin A will get a higher score than twin B.
   >Why? Because twin A put some effort into getting the result he/she
   >wanted!

   Sample set of 1 => Not very useful premises on which to base your data.
   (Besides which, I disagree with your assertion that "chances are that twin
   A will get a higher score than twin B."  Can you support this?)

Surely you jest.  True, I should have said that this is a hypothetical
example.  But surely you don't believe that math (or foreign language,
or C programming, or relationship ) skills are genetically determined!

   >New success is indeed very unlikely if one is unwilling to take action
   >to improve the chances of success.  

   Funny, these paragraphs bear very little resemblance to what you were saying
   in your last article.  Are we supposed to listen to what you mean and not
   what you say, then?

Mike, get a grip.  I don't see how being committed to creating
relationships and taking action toward that goal is contradictory with
the suggestion that people get out there and meet as many people as
possible.  You might note that I already recanted my "no formula"
statement.  Maybe I should have restated it as "no specific formula".
Perhaps you have to re-create yourself as the person you need to be to
get each task done.  That may mean busting up some of the limiting
beliefs you have about yourself -- or it may mean taking different
physical actions than you have taken before.  Either way (or both)
will be more effective than throwing your hands up in the air and
saying "I'm hopeless!".

					Spidey!!!

PS -- Maybe people would prefer me to take a more cynical attitude.
Maybe this is just another case of evolution in action.  Like the
people who go elevator surfing and snuff it falling down the elevator
shaft -- the stupid don't survive to reproduce.  Only in this case,
those who don't believe in themselves don't ever create that
relationship, and don't get a chance to reproduce.

But that wouldn't be my style.




--
 /\ \  / /\  Josh Diamond                              		   jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \          Beauty is the purgation of superfluities. -- Michelangelo