No Such Thing As Potential

I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts as to what this viewpoint corresponds to, in terms of type.

There is no such thing as potential. Possibilities do not belong to people or objects, rather they are simply implied by the rules of the universe. It is possible within the rules of the universe for a person to become a famous singer, and whether that actually happens has little to do with the person's innate abilities and more to do with what they actually manage to do. The person's singing abilities could be average or below average, but if they play their cards well, it is possible to be successful, and this has been done before as not all famous singers have great voices. By the same token, not everyone with great singing abilities will manage to become a famous singer. In other words, it's what you do, not what "potential" or "talent" you have, that influences outcome. If something is possible to be done, then it's possible for anyone and becomes a matter of what they manage to do with their resources. If something is not able to be done by someone at a given time, it's because they currently lack the resources to reasonably pull it off, but the possibility remains a given, it has nothing to do with the person lacking potential but rather with limitations of the situation at that time. So I find potential, as in possibilities within a person or object, to be a useless concept to me, like a train ticket when you already have a plane ticket to the same location. It doesn't get me anywhere new or provide any information not already covered by something else.

I associate this with Se and I'm pretty sure I've seen something about it in an Ne polr description (not going to dig though..)

Personally I don't take such a hard line (I don't think it's possible for anyone to do anything) but I'd rather think in terms of what I'm willing to do then what I have some kind of inherent glow of ability to do.

I don't think this is type-related, at least with regards to irrational functions. It's just confused logically (or maybe apperceptively). I wouldn't blame someone for feeling misgivings towards the concept though, people speak about potential like a mystical property and rarely take the time to say what they mean by it.

The exact opposite philosophy of mine, this is soooo LSI. Laws and actions are :Ti::Se: with some :Te: mixed in.

this is just a personal statement of Ti

you might as well say "according to my definitions and structural logic, I have excluded "potential" as a working category"

its like, okay, great; but to extend it onto the universe is not a statement on the universe-actual but a request for others to see it your way

it comes across as cynical and reductive (the implications of this would have deleterious effect on many cherished moral narratives), which I would associate more with sensing than intuition; and it seems to be a request thus more Se than Si; so Ti + Se

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts as to what this viewpoint corresponds to, in terms of type.

There is no such thing as potential. Possibilities do not belong to people or objects, rather they are simply implied by the rules of the universe. It is possible within the rules of the universe for a person to become a famous singer, and whether that actually happens has little to do with the person's innate abilities and more to do with what they actually manage to do. The person's singing abilities could be average or below average, but if they play their cards well, it is possible to be successful, and this has been done before as not all famous singers have great voices. By the same token, not everyone with great singing abilities will manage to become a famous singer. In other words, it's what you do, not what "potential" or "talent" you have, that influences outcome. If something is possible to be done, then it's possible for anyone and becomes a matter of what they manage to do with their resources. If something is not able to be done by someone at a given time, it's because they currently lack the resources to reasonably pull it off, but the possibility remains a given, it has nothing to do with the person lacking potential but rather with limitations of the situation at that time. So I find potential, as in possibilities within a person or object, to be a useless concept to me, like a train ticket when you already have a plane ticket to the same location. It doesn't get me anywhere new or provide any information not already covered by something else.

---

This is definitely an Se perspective. There is also an element of Te to it, so more specifically Gamma.

The Beta perspective is more like "It's what you actually do that matters more than your potential...but the system is oppressing certain people and prevents them from doing what they should be able to do." Here "the system" (Ti) means any kind of pre-existing conditions or unequal distribution of resources, something that Gammas tend to ignore. Not all Betas agree with the second part though, SLEs in particular who tend to be more opportunistic (Demonstrative Te).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

This is definitely an Se perspective. There is also an element of Te to it, so more specifically Gamma.

The Beta perspective is more like "It's what you actually do that matters more than your potential...but the system is oppressing certain people and prevents them from doing what they should be able to do." Here "the system" (Ti) means any kind of pre-existing conditions or unequal distribution of resources, something that Gammas tend to ignore. Not all Betas agree with the second part though, SLEs in particular who tend to be more opportunistic (Demonstrative Te).

---

I really disagree that this is Te. It seems like a bottom up Ti perspective with "potential" being excluded as consequence. To me, Te would just say, "this (thing/person/event) could have developed in any number of ways, it went one way instead of the others. The others we call potential"

"potential" in the eyes of Te doesn't need a Ti rationale, or place, with which one would bother to then play with; its just a form of (colloquially) intuition that results from observing the universe, and it follows so directly one is tempted to think of it as a property of the universe itself, i.e. the word we give to an inherently Te concept. i think potential is just how people describe situations like in my first paragraph without first sussing out a system, rather it is a natural part of a Te perspective itself and potential is an involutionary truth in that sense. what we have here in the OP is a bottom up exclusion of potential whereas i don't think Te could even do without potential or something identical performing its conceptual role

potential is precisely a Te concept because it is not useless to most people. to render it extraneous requires a very developed and valued Ti. its uselessness as a Te consequence is built on Ti primacy of the groundwork that excluded it. Te types would be very unlikely to build that groundwork in the first place because there is very little incentive to do so. ask yourself, what as a practical matter has OP gained? nothing really, actually he's likely set himself back in that regard. the little "well it has no use to me" is a red herring Te marker, because the real no use is even going down this zany Ti stroll

if you told a gamma type this theyd probably think something like "well I guess if you look at it that way it doesn't (exist)" and then immediately go on living their life as if it did (devalued Ti valued Te), whereas a Ti valuer would have trouble crossing the street for the next hour

It's fairly different from how I think.
Whenever you do something difficult competing with others with the same experience as you you are confronted with your potential vs. the potential of other people. I'd find it extremely difficult to ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

I really disagree that this is Te. It seems like a bottom up Ti perspective with "potential" being excluded as consequence. To me, Te would just say, "this (thing/person/event) could have developed in any number of ways, it went one way instead of the others. The others we call potential"

---

Why is that Te? It sounds more like Ti with Ne to me - considering a discrete set of possibilities.

Te with Se does not care about what "could have" happened, it cares about what did happen.

Quote:

---

"potential" in the eyes of Te doesn't need a Ti rationale, or place, with which one would bother to then play with; its just a form of (colloquially) intuition that results from observing the universe, and it follows so directly one is tempted to think of it as a property of the universe itself, i.e. the word we give to an inherently Te concept. i think potential is just how people describe situations like in my first paragraph without first sussing out a system, rather it is a natural part of a Te perspective itself and potential is an involutionary truth in that sense. what we have here in the OP is a bottom up exclusion of potential whereas i don't think Te could even do without potential or something identical performing its conceptual role

potential is precisely a Te concept because it is not useless to most people. to render it extraneous requires a very developed and valued Ti. its uselessness as a Te consequence is built on Ti primacy of the groundwork that excluded it. Te types would be very unlikely to build that groundwork in the first place because there is very little incentive to do so. ask yourself, what as a practical matter has OP gained? nothing really, actually he's likely set himself back in that regard. the little "well it has no use to me" is a red herring Te marker, because the real no use is even going down this zany Ti stroll

if you told a gamma type this theyd probably think something like "well I guess if you look at it that way it doesn't (exist)" and then immediately go on living their life as if it did (devalued Ti valued Te), whereas a Ti valuer would have trouble crossing the street for the next hour

---

I have no idea why you think potential is a Te concept, it's practically the definition of Ne and is universally agreed as such. The OP's reasoning makes perfect sense for an ILI worldview, for instance. I agree there is an element of Ti in his line of thought but not in the worldview and values per se.

This is a yoda concept

https://www.ketovangelist.com/wp-con...03/do-yoda.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

It's fairly different from how I think.
Whenever you do something difficult competing with others with the same experience as you you are confronted with your potential vs. the potential of other people. I'd find it extremely difficult to ignore.

---

This has sparked viewpoint #2:

People of course have different abilities and strengths, and it can be important to consider these, but low abilities need not stop a person from reaching their goal because there are many paths to it. If one path is blocked or not likely to lead to good results within reasonable investment, one can simply look for a different path to the same destination. There is almost always a way, if you do your research. If you want to know how to do something, it's a matter of looking for information via internet, asking people, books, etc. There are resources everywhere. If you missed your bus and are stranded, there are usually many possible ways to get home, or to gain information about ways to get home. If you want to accomplish something but lack the skills or abilities to do it in the typical way, there are usually other ways it can be done. Awareness of your abilities can help you choose a path, but it doesn't have to limit your destinations. It usually doesn't take special abilities or brilliance to accomplish something, it can be a matter of locating the right resources and information, utilizing them well, finding a way to make your goal happen, etc. No one strategy is absolutely essential, there are many approaches to accomplishing one's goals and too many to name. Of course, that's not to say absolutely anything can be done and all things are possible, but I find there are generally more possibilities than most people are aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteronfireee

This is a yoda concept

https://www.ketovangelist.com/wp-con...03/do-yoda.gif

---

This is more like a "pure" Se quote.

"Just do it."

I actually thought of bukowskis tombstone when I saw this thread. "don't try."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteronfireee

This is a yoda concept

https://www.ketovangelist.com/wp-con...03/do-yoda.gif

---

this bugs me. Wouldn't he say: "No try there is" :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

Why is that Te? It sounds more like Ti with Ne to me - considering a discrete set of possibilities.

Te with Se does not care about what "could have" happened, it cares about what did happen.



I have no idea why you think potential is a Te concept, it's practically the definition of Ne and is universally agreed as such. The OP's reasoning makes perfect sense for an ILI worldview, for instance. I agree there is an element of Ti in his line of thought but not in the worldview and values per se.

---

I see what you're saying and while I don't necessarily agree, I do think whether you call it Ne or not doesn't change the fact that its devalued, nor is it particularly sophisticated, because I think sufficiently strong Ne would not invalidate a Ne concept such as potential in a Te valuer, regardless of how it could be justified... in the end it seems like high Ti low Ne low Te, i.e.: a very LSI take on things. I rather think ILI would validate potential via these kinds of theorizing versus reducing it out. it very much does have that "teenage" Ni feel to it, i.e.: a yoda level concept (pseudo-philosophical); in other words, the next Kant we are not dealing with here. Although I admit it could possibly be a young ILI, because it can be difficult to tell an immature ILI's theorizing from an LSI's, whereas the LSI is capable in many other ways to make up for it, in pure theory they could be confused with nothing else to differentiate the type

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

This has sparked viewpoint #2:
It usually doesn't take special abilities or brilliance to accomplish something, .

---

Ok, I personally beg to differ when it comes to the above mentioned point. Or perhaps we have something different in mind. Usually, when people undertake these kinds of conversation, they have a really "difficult" goal in mind (say becoming a professional football player, getting a phd, etc.) where a modicum of special abilities or brillance is indeed necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Ok, I personally beg to differ when it comes to the above mentioned point. Or perhaps we have something different in mind. Usually, when people undertake these kinds of conversation, they have a really "difficult" goal in mind (say becoming a professional football player, getting a phd, etc.) where a modicum of special abilities or brillance is indeed necessary.

---

It depends on how realistic the goal is, of course. Becoming a professional football player is probably near impossible statistically, but getting a phd is not that difficult, I don't know why people think you have to be brilliant to get one. I'm in grad school and it's not harder than undergrad or high school were, it's just a lot of work, more of the same, really (not to imply all are the same, as it varies by program). A person with a phd isn't necessarily more intelligent than someone with a master's degree or bachelor's degree, it may be that they just did more. For some reason a lot of people also think a person must be brilliant for learning a foreign language, which doesn't make much sense because nearly anyone can learn a language if they are motivated and have the resources. Some things are nearly impossible, of course, like becoming president of a country. And some people will have a personality and strengths better suited for it than others, making them more likely to be able to do it. I'm not unaware of the fact that people who are good at something are more likely to be successful, but it's not usually how I prefer to conceptualize situations when they can be explained as a matter of finding an approach that works.

Not exactly sure what to think about this. I would agree that effort is generally the most important thing when it comes to accomplishing things, but I wouldn't go as far as to say innate abilities don't exist. Genetics do objectively limit or enhance our capabilities with certain task, that is a scientific fact.

That said, I'm aware of the value of this mentality, as thinking of yourself as defined by genetics and other uncontrollable innate factors can lead to holding yourself back in some areas.

I guess this is another way of saying, "I'll only believe what I can see".

But this line of thinking confuses me, because it's like saying "There's no such thing as air or electricity". And I'm like "what".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

It depends on how realistic the goal is, of course. Becoming a professional football player is probably near impossible statistically, but getting a phd is not that difficult, I don't know why people think you have to be brilliant to get one. I'm in grad school and it's not harder than undergrad or high school were, it's just a lot of work, more of the same, really (not to imply all are the same, as it varies by program). A person with a phd isn't necessarily more intelligent than someone with a master's degree or bachelor's degree, it may be that they just did more.

---

Let me put it this way, do you know a good amount of people who would likely NOT be able to get a phd in, say, mathematics?
I personally think I do.

Agreed instead on the foreign language thing, the greatest majority of people can do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy

Not exactly sure what to think about this. I would agree that effort is generally the most important thing when it comes to accomplishing things, but I wouldn't go as far as to say innate abilities don't exist. Genetics do objectively limit or enhance our capabilities with certain task, that is a scientific fact.

That said, I'm aware of the value of this mentality, as thinking of yourself as defined by genetics and other uncontrollable innate factors can lead to holding yourself back in some areas.

---

I have not claimed that innate abilities don't exist. I have simply defined ability as a resource rather than a possibility. It doesn't make much sense to say that someone has no potential, or no possibility to do something, simply because they aren't talented. Instead, I say that the goal is theoretically possible, and whether it is doable for the person depends on whether they are able to acquire enough resources and utilize them well enough. Innate ability or talent is just one kind of resource, there are many others.

The fact that potential is one of many factors does not mean it doesn't exist or is even insignificant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts as to what this viewpoint corresponds to, in terms of type.

---

Like others have already guessed, I would suspect you are probably an LSI hence the disregard for :Ne: and usage of :Ti:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

There is no such thing as potential. Possibilities do not belong to people or objects, rather they are simply implied by the rules of the universe. It is possible within the rules of the universe for a person to become a famous singer, and whether that actually happens has little to do with the person's innate abilities and more to do with what they actually manage to do. The person's singing abilities could be average or below average, but if they play their cards well, it is possible to be successful, and this has been done before as not all famous singers have great voices. By the same token, not everyone with great singing abilities will manage to become a famous singer. In other words, it's what you do, not what "potential" or "talent" you have, that influences outcome.

---

I disagree, people's innate ability does influence one's ability to accomplish things. I agree with you that what people actually manage to do is a contributing factor towards accomplishing a goal, but it is not the only factor. Innate ability affects several things in terms of accomplishing a goal, which are:

1. Skill floor - The skill you possess without any practice
2. Learning curve - How quickly you learn a specific skill set
3. Skill ceiling - The maximum amount of skill you can obtain after you have mastered it (10,000 hours of practice)

Let's say person A is a 2/10 in singing without any practice, which would be their skill floor, but after mastering it through significant amounts of practice they become a 7, which would be their skill ceiling, which is good, but far from spectacular.

Person B on the other hand is a 7/10 in singing without any practice due to natural talent, but after mastering it they become a 10/10, which would make their skill ceiling significantly higher than person B.

That is what potential is, it's what someone is capable of achieving through hard work and dedication. Person A had little talent in singing so was only able to achieve what person B naturally had without any practice. So of course person A could achieve the skill level of person B, but that's only if person B neglects to practice and person A practices significantly.

Of course, this example is an exaggeration, but I did it to prove a point. I'm aware that most people would fall in between these two extreme examples. If potential was an equation it would essentially be:

Potential = Talent x Hard work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akash

The fact that potential is one of many factors does not mean it doesn't exist or is even insignificant.

---

You might be taking my words too literally. I don't think in absolutes and my words shouldn't be interpreted as absolute either. Everything I say is describing a perspective, a way of looking at things, rather than a claim about how things absolutely are. This is how my thinking works, it's mostly all tentative hypotheticals and perspectives. In other words, I don't believe any of what I say because I'm not attempting to describe objective reality but rather the lens through which it's perceived. Things can be looked at any number of ways, meaning can be mapped and remapped endlessly. I personally at this time prefer to look at reality through the lens I described, but that doesn't mean I think potential literally doesn't exist or isn't a valid construct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raver

Like others have already guessed, I would suspect you are probably an LSI hence the disregard for :Ne: and usage of :Ti:.



I disagree, people's innate ability does influence one's ability to accomplish things. I agree with you that what people actually manage to do is a contributing factor towards accomplishing a goal, but it is not the only factor. Innate ability affects several things in terms of accomplishing a goal, which are:

1. Skill floor - The skill you possess without any practice
2. Learning curve - How quickly you learn a specific skill set
3. Skill ceiling - The maximum amount of skill you can obtain after you have mastered it (10,000 hours of practice)

Let's say person A is a 2/10 in singing without any practice, which would be their skill floor, but after mastering it through significant amounts of practice they become a 7, which would be their skill ceiling, which is good, but far from spectacular.

Person B on the other hand is a 7/10 in singing without any practice due to natural talent, but after mastering it they become a 10/10, which would make their skill ceiling significantly higher than person B.

That is what potential is, it's what someone is capable of achieving through hard work and dedication. Person A had little talent in singing so was only able to achieve what person B naturally had without any practice. So of course person A could achieve the skill level of person B, but that's only if person B neglects to practice and person A practices significantly.

Of course, this example is an exaggeration, but I did it to prove a point. I'm aware that most people would fall in between these two extreme examples. If potential was an equation it would essentially be:

Potential = Talent x Hard work

---

I don't disagree with any of what you wrote. It's just that I'm talking about achieving a specific goal, whereas you are describing reaching a certain level of ability. Naturally, if you use achievement of a certain skill level as the example, that's going to more directly be influenced by innate ability. But I am thinking more in terms of a specific external goal, such as releasing an album and having 1000 people buy it. External goals typically have many different paths and approaches you could take, allowing you to use your natural strengths to make up for wherever your ability is lacking. Maybe the person has an average voice, but is really determined to reach their goal and does a lot of networking and chooses a style that suits their voice and abilities.

Anyways, I don't see possibility as something linear or formulaic. Many people look at a goal and see one path to it, and then how far down the path the person can go is what they call potential. I prefer to see the goal as a point without any predefined path, and near infinitely many ways to get there. Ability influences how easy or hard it is to go down one particular path. If the one path is too hard, a different one that allows you to use your strengths may work better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

You might be taking my words too literally. I don't think in absolutes and my words shouldn't be interpreted as absolute either. Everything I say is describing a perspective, a way of looking at things, rather than a claim about how things absolutely are. This is how my thinking works, it's mostly all tentative hypotheticals and perspectives. In other words, I don't believe any of what I say because I'm not attempting to describe objective reality but rather the lens through which it's perceived. Things can be looked at any number of ways, meaning can be mapped and remapped endlessly. I personally at this time prefer to look at reality through the lens I described, but that doesn't mean I think potential literally doesn't exist or isn't a valid construct.

---

If your thoughts don't mean anything, why entertain them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akash

If your thoughts don't mean anything, why entertain them?

---

If all your thoughts came in the form of hypotheticals and perspectives, would you stop thinking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

If all your thoughts came in the form of hypotheticals and perspectives, would you stop thinking?

---

Ok, let me stop being lazy and entertain you. The potential of the situation is extremely important, your hypothetical and I are in agreement. Part of the potential of the situation is the individual. What creates potential in an individual is "implied by the rules of the universe," as you've put it. If a man was infinite, they would experience all possibility and so potential for any given state would be a matter of when. Man is not infinite, therefore potential matters insofar as it is a construct to describe the abilities of an individual given their time. Basically, I think you are saying potential doesn't exist and then proving the opposite. It seems to me that you are holding a child behind you and insisting to me that they don't exist, when you are holding onto it tightly and I can see the child. If this were going to be expressed as related to type, an example where there were no flaws in the rationale would illustrate the idea more clearly.

To answer your original question, the perspective expressed belongs to a high-dimensional Ne type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by akash

Ok, let me stop being lazy and entertain you. The potential of the situation is extremely important, your hypothetical and I are in agreement. Part of the potential of the situation is the individual. What creates potential in an individual is "implied by the rules of the universe," as you've put it. If a man was infinite, they would experience all possibility and so potential for any given state would be a matter of when. Man is not infinite, therefore potential matters insofar as it is a construct to describe the abilities of an individual given their time. Basically, I think you are saying potential doesn't exist and then proving the opposite. It seems to me that you are holding a child behind you and insisting to me that they don't exist, when you are holding onto it tightly and I can see the child. If this were going to be expressed as related to type, an example where there were no flaws in the rationale would illustrate the idea more clearly.

To answer your original question, the perspective expressed belongs to a high-dimensional Ne type.

---

It sounds like you are interpreting what I wrote through your own lens. I describe phenomena and you recognize where potential fits in it because that's a construct you use. I could use it too, if I wanted, but that's not the point. It's like this, say I describe a perspective in which there's no such thing as the color pink, and then explain that the color most people see as pink can be seen as light red instead. Then I get responses complaining that pink does, in fact, exist. They have not understood what I was doing. Here, you seem to be doing the same thing, saying I seem to be holding a pink flower and insisting pink doesn't exist while proving the opposite. Of course pink exists, what I am saying is that I have a perceptual preference for seeing it as light red rather than the separate color pink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

It sounds like you are interpreting what I wrote through your own lens. I describe phenomena and you recognize where potential fits in it because that's a construct you use. I could use it too, if I wanted, but that's not the point. It's like this, say I describe a perspective in which there's no such thing as the color pink, and then explain that the color most people see as pink can be seen as light red instead. Then I get responses complaining that pink does, in fact, exist. They have not understood what I was doing. Here, you seem to be doing the same thing, saying I seem to be holding a pink flower and insisting pink doesn't exist while proving the opposite. Of course pink exists, what I am saying is that I have a perceptual preference for seeing it as light red rather than the separate color pink.

---

I'm not sure if it's a strong enough difference to constitute a difference in the determining factor.

It's not so much about resources but about an internal state of being. Willpower and self confidence. It's so fiery and so gay that they just narcisisstically get whatever they want because they are that self-absorbed. (the law of attraction bitch was actually kind of right when she said if it feels like wild horses couldn't stop you from getting something, you probably most definitely will get it.) Wisdom is just knowing where your limits to your self can 'end' - but we tend to live in a society that doesn't see a lot of these limitations.

I drank the sip of this- I was on the precipice of glory, but I didn't want to be that selfish. To outsiders, it was though I lacked balls. But I had to face it: I was a goody goody. There was demons out there, darkness to face- and good people to inspire, help and save. I couldn't just sit in my timely decorated house and ignore it. Reality is just what you make it. It was like the end of the Buffy season eight, the comic book one. She could live in Heaven forever with Angel... or she could go back to the dark and depressing dreary world and help her friends. She rightfully chose the latter. I had a choice to drink wine with Miley and get my dick sucked with the best looking West Hollywood Chads- but instead I chose to help out straight people I don't even particularly like. Because it was the right thing to do. Because there is more to reality than just myself. But now... I need more of a balance, because everybody deserves to be a narcissistic whore now and then.

I mean just realistically, think of how much Jennifer Lopez sucked in 'Gigli' but how much she was still paid for it compared to the common minimum wage fast food worker and whatever. Skill had nothing to do with her getting that role really. She just actually believed she could do it, and did it. Self confidence. Or Trump becoming president. The actual merit or skill really doesn't mean much, sadly.

Celine Dion's music... also known by critics to be mediocre and crappy. Mainstream and offensively vanilla. Didn't stop the bitch from getting rich offa all those midwestern mommy suckers, did it?

And well, these people have failures and let downs like anybody else. But two weeks later these stuck up assholes are still trying to get us to buy their new perfume or clothing line or whatever else they are endorsing, and how often do we fall for it? They are certainly not psychoanalyzing 'why' on goyim message boards. They are just self confidently doing it like the type A Alphas they are. You just gotta have the drive man.

Potential to me is the chance or possibility of something happening, being achieved or being realized. Assuming the right combination of events, circumstances, opportunities and, or resources come along or take place.

In reguards to people or a person; that are aware, able and will to make the right combination choices, sacrifices and put in adequate amount of work they could attain similar results, in comparison to those who were in similar circumstances, and conditions or were in the same demographic. And possessed similar abilities, talents, aptitudes and capacities. These qualities mentioned can arbitrary in nature due to there being no established means of measurement, or evaluation.

I don't see why the concept/idea of potential can't exist according to my understanding and interpretation. Am I missing something?

that yoda quote was always kinda shitty to me because what if you just can't 'do.' Not out of a lack of self confidence or trying but what you're attempting is just impossible. In real life people can't telekinetically raise ships out of the water so i thought it was so dumb hollywood psychologist giving condescending useless advice to a blue collar worker because they have no interest in truly getting to know them ish. yeah become a narcissistic hollywood producer like me you fucking insect.

I Really wanna write for mad magazine haha.

((other than though I actually really like yoda I even dorkily own the talking Yoda doll.))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullets

I Really wanna write for mad magazine haha.

---

please do. I see so much potential in you.

I would say that people have aptitudes but not necessarily potentials. Potential has more to do with opportunity than ability. Now success is built on recognizing and taking advantage of ones potential, which also needs a certain amount of luck. Children of successful people have more potential to be successful simply due to their circumstance more than their abilities. I have known many who have achieved their positions because of who they know and not because of their abilities or accomplishments. Also, I've known countless people who can pass the test with flying colours but cannot do the job. Intelligence, education, aptitude and potential are mutually exclusive.

a.k.a. I/O

Ne PoLR...Sometimes simple questions deserve simple answers.

This sample of writing is indicative of high-dimensional Ne. It looks like the initial response by many here is to say, 'oh, he is devaluing 'potential' as a concept, must be Ne-PoLR' but that is not how it works. Their writing indicates a nuanced understanding of the concept of potential--and that they believe that commenting on the 'potential' of a person as some sort of concrete measure is an oversimplification. This person is already capable of analyzing the possibilities of any given situation. As a -Ne dom myself, when I meet a new person or enter a new group, I do not ask, 'what is that person's potential?' because that doesn't give me anything; I calculate my own estimations automatically. Fe-doms don't need to be told how you're feeling, they see it in your face, your eyes, your body language, your voice, the context of the situation. Similarly, the author here is saying that 'potential' as an attribute is unnecessary, it is already implied by the current state of reality.
The broadness of scope and ease and fluency with which the person discusses impossibility and limitations leads me to believe this is -Ne. The constant tracking feature suggests 4D as well, so LIE or IEE. It would help to know what this writing was a response to, or to have more writing to analyze.

I absolutely think it could be either Ne polr or Ti polr, but whether its a result of trying to capture the outer situation but in a systematically faulty way, or systematically trying to capture a faulty outer situation, the result is the same

I do think the Se valuing remains though

also I'm tempted to say its Te devaluing just because humanity and its greatest minds have made productive use of the concept "potential" for milennia and yet we have forums poster x thinking he's somehow going to explode that on the basis of some kind of Ti diddy

I also think it would probably never occur to Jack to waste their time on any of that

I didn't realize this was @isptn's viewpoint. So I guess there is more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

People of course have different abilities and strengths, and it can be important to consider these, but low abilities need not stop a person from reaching their goal because there are many paths to it. If one path is blocked or not likely to lead to good results within reasonable investment, one can simply look for a different path to the same destination. There is almost always a way, if you do your research. If you want to know how to do something, it's a matter of looking for information via internet, asking people, books, etc. There are resources everywhere. If you missed your bus and are stranded, there are usually many possible ways to get home, or to gain information about ways to get home. If you want to accomplish something but lack the skills or abilities to do it in the typical way, there are usually other ways it can be done. Awareness of your abilities can help you choose a path, but it doesn't have to limit your destinations. It usually doesn't take special abilities or brilliance to accomplish something, it can be a matter of locating the right resources and information, utilizing them well, finding a way to make your goal happen, etc. No one strategy is absolutely essential, there are many approaches to accomplishing one's goals and too many to name. Of course, that's not to say absolutely anything can be done and all things are possible, but I find there are generally more possibilities than most people are aware of.

---

Specific vocabulary in this and the other paragraph indicate Te-valuing (-Ne/+Ni). Resources, techniques, avoiding blocked paths / inefficient methods, alternative approaches, utilization of resources and information, etc. which supports my original hypothesis of LIE or IEE.
This wasn't written by a Se-ego. This writing is not about willpower or determination but about avoiding obstacles, about how there are multiple routes to the same objective and that there are a higher number of reachable goals than are apparently obvious because of all the alternative routes that can be taken to overcome disadvantageous starting conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

also I'm tempted to say its Te devaluing just because humanity and its greatest minds have made productive use of the concept "potential" for milennia and yet we have forums poster x thinking he's somehow going to explode that on the basis of some kind of Ti diddy

I also think it would probably never occur to Jack to waste their time on any of that

---

Not at all. Notice my intention that I stated in the very first sentence. I noticed a preference for perceiving possibility in terms of the whole situation over a quality possessed by individuals or objects, and I wanted to know what people's thoughts were on what this preference might correspond to in socionics. But it seems many people took the title of the thread literally and thought I was making some kind of statement about how potential literally does not exist or isn't important. I have no interest in convincing people of looking at it in this way because to me, how people arrange and define concepts doesn't particularly matter so long as it's valid and works for them. I don't believe that it's better to perceive possibility in the way I described, perceiving individual potentials is equally valid and useful, and I actually do use the concept of potential though I tend to prefer the other way or notice it first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

Not at all. Notice my intention that I stated in the very first sentence. I noticed a preference for perceiving possibility in terms of the whole situation over a quality possessed by individuals or objects, and I wanted to know what people's thoughts were on what this preference might correspond to in socionics. But it seems many people took the title of the thread literally and thought I was making some kind of statement about how potential literally does not exist or isn't important. I have no interest in convincing people of looking at it in this way because to me, how people arrange and define concepts doesn't particularly matter so long as it's valid and works for them. I don't believe that it's better to perceive possibility in the way I described, perceiving individual potentials is equally valid and useful, and I actually do use the concept of potential though I tend to prefer the other way or notice it first.

---

cool, it corresponds to Ti/Se valuing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts as to what this viewpoint corresponds to, in terms of type.

There is no such thing as potential. Possibilities do not belong to people or objects, rather they are simply implied by the rules of the universe. It is possible within the rules of the universe for a person to become a famous singer, and whether that actually happens has little to do with the person's innate abilities and more to do with what they actually manage to do. The person's singing abilities could be average or below average, but if they play their cards well, it is possible to be successful, and this has been done before as not all famous singers have great voices. By the same token, not everyone with great singing abilities will manage to become a famous singer. In other words, it's what you do, not what "potential" or "talent" you have, that influences outcome. If something is possible to be done, then it's possible for anyone and becomes a matter of what they manage to do with their resources. If something is not able to be done by someone at a given time, it's because they currently lack the resources to reasonably pull it off, but the possibility remains a given, it has nothing to do with the person lacking potential but rather with limitations of the situation at that time. So I find potential, as in possibilities within a person or object, to be a useless concept to me, like a train ticket when you already have a plane ticket to the same location. It doesn't get me anywhere new or provide any information not already covered by something else.

---

This looks like a strong understanding of the nuances of, yet a devaluing of, Ne.

(I'm obviously thinking of 4D Ne demonstrative, Se HA (wanting to "make it real"), LIE.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

cool, it corresponds to Ti/Se valuing

---

For a supposed Te valuer you are fucking unconstructive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

For a supposed Te valuer you are fucking unconstructive.

---

luuuungs!!

niffer is bullying again! :na:

even after resigning as a mod ... there is no escaaaaaaape

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

cool, it corresponds to Ti/Se valuing

---

Actually, his disinterest in discussing understandings seemed devalued Ti to me.

yeah I was assuming a lot here, this could either be Ti doing Te (as I had assumed, somewhat baselessly), or Te doing Ti. the diference being either the expression or the values are subconscious and its hard to know which are which. i.e.: it could be Te values, given a subconsciously and post hoc Ti structure, or a conscious and valued Ti structure giving rise to Te implications and statements. I had assumed the latter, but it could be either. its some kind of complex interaction between 3d+ ti and te. Ni/Se seems clear and its hard to tell whether its Ne polr or Ne demonstrative (or something else even), because if Te valuing it may be a brilliant Ne insight with seemingly problematic Ti (ignoring). it feels like could be that because of how it might be an accurate reflection of the outer situation in a Te valuing sense. devalued Ti means its less important how other people think of and collectively think of "potential" it really only matters from the point of LIE that it works in a Te sense for them and could be impressed on others as more or less atomic data point and still work in reality

my criticisms of the whole idea seem grounded in Ti Ni and to some extent Fe and Si (how this is going to work in the world as a Ti nugget keeping in mind its an iconoclasm to some degree)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isptn

I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts as to what this viewpoint corresponds to, in terms of type.

---

Coming back to this thread now.

To answer your question about type, I would think your way of seeing this topic is some kind of interest in Ne (potential of objective situation) but at the same thing a very idiosyncratic approach to it (so it doesn't sound like ego Ne) and your flexibility for ways of getting around along with your focus on resources instead of the focus on Se willpower like for example @bnd put it in #31 seems like Te ego. I don't really see Se valuing or at least I don't see you get at this from a primarily Se pov, though your ego not seemingly being Ne is what people have been commenting on in the thread. Hard to say what your Ne is like because at the same time you do have a focus on Ne even if very idiosyncratic. Your relativeness (not sticking to the most logical understanding) and general disinterest in discussing understandings (Ti) would seem like Te valuing again unless it's just Ne valuing being relative. XLI in any case is what I would guess from this too. LII is third option only but not entirely excluded. I guess same result as in your type thread so far, at least there's some consistency lol.

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as potential. Possibilities do not belong to people or objects, rather they are simply implied by the rules of the universe. It is possible within the rules of the universe for a person to become a famous singer, and whether that actually happens has little to do with the person's innate abilities and more to do with what they actually manage to do. The person's singing abilities could be average or below average, but if they play their cards well, it is possible to be successful, and this has been done before as not all famous singers have great voices. By the same token, not everyone with great singing abilities will manage to become a famous singer. In other words, it's what you do, not what "potential" or "talent" you have, that influences outcome. If something is possible to be done, then it's possible for anyone and becomes a matter of what they manage to do with their resources. If something is not able to be done by someone at a given time, it's because they currently lack the resources to reasonably pull it off, but the possibility remains a given, it has nothing to do with the person lacking potential but rather with limitations of the situation at that time. So I find potential, as in possibilities within a person or object, to be a useless concept to me, like a train ticket when you already have a plane ticket to the same location. It doesn't get me anywhere new or provide any information not already covered by something else.

---

OK commenting on this too. My reasoning if I was forced to say anything about potential and talents (since by default I just don't even think at all about this topic) would be more like, perseverance and willpower is what matters first and foremost, how much effort and push you put in for the goal that you want to get, in the face of direct obstacles too. Sure yes you will also need to have or acquire resources of course and whatnot. I don't really think tho' that all people will want to try to pull it all off for hard things. The end conclusion is the same tho', you can get what you want if you go at it persistently enough, potential is not a concept I use much, it doesn't give me anything either.

Out of curiosity, if someone comments on your talents/potential in a positive way, how do you feel about that?

Quote:

---

People of course have different abilities and strengths, and it can be important to consider these, but low abilities need not stop a person from reaching their goal because there are many paths to it. If one path is blocked or not likely to lead to good results within reasonable investment, one can simply look for a different path to the same destination. There is almost always a way, if you do your research. If you want to know how to do something, it's a matter of looking for information via internet, asking people, books, etc. There are resources everywhere. If you missed your bus and are stranded, there are usually many possible ways to get home, or to gain information about ways to get home. If you want to accomplish something but lack the skills or abilities to do it in the typical way, there are usually other ways it can be done. Awareness of your abilities can help you choose a path, but it doesn't have to limit your destinations. It usually doesn't take special abilities or brilliance to accomplish something, it can be a matter of locating the right resources and information, utilizing them well, finding a way to make your goal happen, etc. No one strategy is absolutely essential, there are many approaches to accomplishing one's goals and too many to name. Of course, that's not to say absolutely anything can be done and all things are possible, but I find there are generally more possibilities than most people are aware of.

---

Here I see some neat flexibility with using information and methods to get somewhere, it's reminiscent of Te creative descriptions with that kind of flexibility (or perhaps Ne, depending). Agreed with the conclusion. I just again start from how much I want the thing then I will be driven to find a way to get there no matter the obstacles (Se rather than Te or Ne in ego).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Out of curiosity, if someone comments on your talents/potential in a positive way, how do you feel about that?

---

Compliments are nice. But if the person is too pushy about it, acting like I have some kind of obligation to use my talent so that it won't go to waste, that can be annoying to me. If I wanted to do something then I would, and if I don't want to then what's the point?