[quote]super saiyan wrote:
PX taking a quote out of context to bolster his argument? I’m shocked.[/quote]
Completely out of character. I hope he’s feeling OK!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
IIRC, there was substantial overlap between us on this issue. My criticism was narrower than an attack on the concept of positive thinking. In particular, my criticism was mostly about the attributing of a mindset to the dead. My problem was mostly with the analogy, if that was not sufficiently clear, then that is my mistake.
[/quote]
Either way, it was implied by this and many that the concept itself was a joke…so I responded to it.
We attribute mindset to the dead all of the time…almost every time a biography comes out. You can argue that we can’t literally read their minds, but to make it seem like the act is inane would be a mistake considering how it is a common part of our daily lives.
Back to the topic though, the idea was that for someone even with ultimate genetics potential, their ability to reach it is NOT guaranteed.
Michael Jordan wouldn’t have been able to fly if he didn’t practice his ass off to do it.
At any point along the way, his mindset could have ruined his ultimate potential…just like someone who COULD reach gaining more than 80lbs of lean body mass now thinking they can’t and avoiding pushing through the blood sweat and tears to do it.[/quote]
One cannot use frequency of occurrence for a normative justification. Misogyny occurs quite frequently among a large percentage of the population. The frequency does not, of itself, justify it.
But again, this is off topic. So I think this is a debate for elsewhere.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Seriously, another thread just to talk about the same things?
First it was several natural vs assisted threads in the bodybuilding section. Then it was body weight factor, body weight factor 2, 80-100 pound gain thread, limits thread and now this? All to whine about the same thing? Just let it go guys. Let it go.
Everyone except BrownDisaster that is. You are cracking me up kid.[/quote]
??? Why are you bringing up the bodybuilding section. Listen, this isn’t the bodybuilding subforum. If I had dieted down to “contest leanness” I would’ve had maybe one thread created about my prep experience.
I wanted a whole subforum.
Brick’s “limits” would have a poster capped at one “How do you train?” thread, one contest prep thread, and one training log thread. I am concerned that people here are allowing him to post such blatant lies, while guys like Super Saiyan have literally filled more threads than that with gifs in the past WEEK. I do not see him slowing down although he has been posting here past the 10 year “limit.”
To be honest I don’t see many here with their own subforum. It’s funny getting told every thread in my subforum is the same defense of a big bulk. In CO, CT and I talked about how he was bringing back his subforum and how he enjoys helping people here. Meanwhile you come here with your big lats, mature comments, and 200 POST COUNT??
It ain’t a good look, kid.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
@Professor X- I don’t know that you even need to be told that your studpid: Look at this research by Robert Rosenthal, Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Riverside
In the late 1960s, Rosenthal had the teachers in one elementary school give their students a test that was supposed to predict which students were destined to dramatically grow their I.Q. score during the school year. After the tests were collected, Rosenthal picked at random a small group of students to be labeled ?academic spurters.
Rosenthal told the teachers that students identified as ?academic spurters? were certain to grow their I.Q. over the next year. Let?s be clear here, these students were chosen at random, so this claim was completely imaginary. At the end of the school year, Rosenthal retested every student?s I.Q. in the school and found that the students labeled as ?academic spurters? had their I.Q.s rise an average of 12 points, while the rest of the student body only saw an 8 point increase. Teachers were tricked into believing their students were destined for academic growth and grow they did.[/quote]
How does this make me stupid?
[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
you missed his point lol[/quote]
Maybe I did because if that “study” is real, it doesn’t flow with what others have stated in this thread.
[/quote]
that is not SCIENCE
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
@Professor X- I don’t know that you even need to be told that your studpid: Look at this research by Robert Rosenthal, Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Riverside
In the late 1960s, Rosenthal had the teachers in one elementary school give their students a test that was supposed to predict which students were destined to dramatically grow their I.Q. score during the school year. After the tests were collected, Rosenthal picked at random a small group of students to be labeled ?academic spurters.
Rosenthal told the teachers that students identified as ?academic spurters? were certain to grow their I.Q. over the next year. Let?s be clear here, these students were chosen at random, so this claim was completely imaginary. At the end of the school year, Rosenthal retested every student?s I.Q. in the school and found that the students labeled as ?academic spurters? had their I.Q.s rise an average of 12 points, while the rest of the student body only saw an 8 point increase. Teachers were tricked into believing their students were destined for academic growth and grow they did.[/quote]
How does this make me stupid?
[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
you missed his point lol[/quote]
Maybe I did because if that “study” is real, it doesn’t flow with what others have stated in this thread.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Guys like Bill Nye are doing nothing but limiting the potential of today’s youth as he teaches them “facts” about science. I’m worried someone will listen to him and think they cannot one day run faster than the speed of light. Bill Nye does not know the genetics of every human that will ever be born. There are kids in the ghetto as we speak that eat nothing more than McDonald’s and are getting close to breaking the sound barrier.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I think anyone who has an education in psychology is aware of this. There have been quite literally hundreds (maybe thousands?) of studies that have proven that mental perception affects real world outcomes, whether we’re talking about lifting/physique accomplishments, educational accomplishments, work, whatever.
I don’t understand what’s worth arguing about here?[/quote]
I think I wrote out what was being argued…these specific numbers being thrown out and people saying it is impossible for a natural to pass that.
It is NOT believed that humans have no limits at all. The entire discussion stemmed from it being told to people that no one can do this.
I just posted how people were laughing at the idea of positive thinking…and the other jokes about it made it seem as if it were useless.[/quote]
The specific number thing is ridiculous. Too many variables to put a number on it. I’ve gained 60 lbs since I was 18, and I’m leaner now than I was then. And I certainly haven’t put in the effort/time that I could have. 80+ certainly seems reasonable for some.
That being said, I posted in here because I thought this particular thread was meant to leave the limit argument alone in order to talk about how perception relates to ability. I didn’t realize you still wanted to talk about the numbers thing in here too. Carry on.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Michael Jordan wouldn’t have been able to fly if he didn’t practice his ass off to do it.
[/quote]
Space Jam was just a movie. Michael Jordan can’t actually fly. [/quote]
Youtube has made “witty” passe.
[/quote]
Good to see you post as you dont seem to do that much lately
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
So, X Since you see this as a rebuttal to the post you quoted, then we can assume you think mental ability will help you defeat Zyklon B? Because that is what the post you quoted was in DIRECT reference to. Not any kind of “perceived” physical or mental limitation put forth by society, which you have clearly stated you are talking about.
A point about positive mentality not being able to save you from a lethal toxin =/=laughing at “mentality is everything! In all aspects of life!”
Inb4 rant that has nothing to do with what I just posted.[/quote]
PBAndy made the mistake of saying no one laughed at positive attitude.
This statement:
Is laughing at that concept.
Therefore, PBandy was wrong.[/quote]
Worst example of cherry picking a post I can remember.
Nobody was “laughing” at having a positive attitude…people were laughing at your inability to make any sense.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
So, X Since you see this as a rebuttal to the post you quoted, then we can assume you think mental ability will help you defeat Zyklon B? Because that is what the post you quoted was in DIRECT reference to. Not any kind of “perceived” physical or mental limitation put forth by society, which you have clearly stated you are talking about.
A point about positive mentality not being able to save you from a lethal toxin =/=laughing at “mentality is everything! In all aspects of life!”
Inb4 rant that has nothing to do with what I just posted.[/quote]
PBAndy made the mistake of saying no one laughed at positive attitude.
This statement:
Is laughing at that concept.
Therefore, PBandy was wrong.[/quote]
Ummm… he was speaking in context of his Zyklon B example?
It wasn’t my example. Someone mentioned Holocaust survivors. I was the first to mention the actual compound, but the attribution of a particular mindset as a reason for survival was not mine at all. I was merely noting my incredulity at the analogy, nothing more. I could have phrased it better and that mistake is mine.
[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
It wasn’t my example. Someone mentioned Holocaust survivors. I was the first to mention the actual compound, but the attribution of a particular mindset as a reason for survival was not mine at all. I was merely noting my incredulity at the analogy, nothing more. I could have phrased it better and that mistake is mine.[/quote]
Dude, there’s nothing to apologize about. This isn’t even ABOUT that conversation. X just clipped a few words from that conversation that didn’t have anything to do with what he’s talking about and used it out of context so he can be “RIGHT”.
It’s pretty lame, actually, the lengths he goes to. This was just particularly sloppy and transparent on his part.
Fair enough. Just thought I would clarify my words as I am here to do so. Better that than people speaking for me after all.
I absolutely believe 100% that what the mind believes is very important for human performance. The mind is the control for the nervous system and the nervous system is the basis for everything. So many athletes and coaches emphasize the mental part. I also believe that being around negative people (no shortage of those) has a negative affect on every aspect of life; conversely being around positive people positively affects every aspect of your life. I have experienced this firsthand and it is very powerful.
Bad news, PX is full of it.
He wrote
“.At any point along the way, his mindset could have ruined his ultimate potential…just like someone who COULD reach gaining more than 80lbs of lean body mass now thinking they can’t and avoiding pushing through the blood sweat and tears to do it”
He is against limits but he limits is point of view to 1 part of the equation.
How many got injured pushing too much?
How many died trying and believing?
I would never limit my view to saying he is black, he is also a man, a human being, a living unit but with all his science background it is not new to him. He just keeps on forgeting.
May i suggest he strarts he new thread about memory?
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Its not the actual setting of limits, its the constant discussion of limits that leads to more and more opinions from others who have achieved much less. Notice how the original limit, when challenged, went from 40lbs to 80lbs?
If this went on one sided, it might have actually dropped to 20lbs.[/quote]
I don’t know who changed the amount a natural could gain. I have stood by my guns the entire time with a reasonable 40 to 50 pound gain for a natural, and my estimation will stay.
When X constantly spoke of 80 pound muscle gains, I said, “No natural has gained 80 pounds of muscle”. Somehow this was misinterpreted as the new limit. He also formed a new limit of his own when I said, "After ten years, if everything is being done properly, gains will have stalled or dried up. This became a new “ten year limit”, when meanwhile I said repeatedly that gains will drastically diminish after the fifth to seventh year mark considering most fumble in the first few years. Then when I asked him how he is going to improve on his body when he’s been training for 15 years, that simple QUESTION to him lead HIM to come up HIS new perceived “15 year limit”.
Oh, I have shown some guys who might have gained 80 pounds LBM. Take a look here.
[/quote]
I didnt’t mean to make it sound like it was an attack on you. I’m saying when some limit is set, even the actual words will start to change more and more chime in with opinions.
Look at it this way. In a self-perceived hardgainer’s mind, how would he interpret it when its written that people with the BEST genectics can only gain 45lbs over an entire lifetime? If it is a bell curve to him, where would he logically place himself? [/quote]
And if there are people whispering in his ear ‘don’t worry dude you can totally get 80lbs easy’ he might also wonder why the fuck he is struggling to get to just 40. It works both ways.[/quote]
Well, if a self-perceived hardgainer can gain near 40lbs, he is obviously not a hardgainer, is he? Thats my point.[/quote]
Two things.
-
I didn’t say he was near 40 pounds, I said he was struggling to even get there. That could put him anywhere on the spectrum of 0-40 and having a hard time(kind of the definition of struggling, no?).
-
The only reason he thinks he is a hard gainer is because he is struggling so far away from the ‘no limits’ goal of somewhere north of 40-50lbs of muscle gains. So, in this scenario, the one who is giving him negative feedback is actually the people who are telling him he should be striving to be a shredded 5’10 220lb beast, not the ones who inform him that 5’10 200 is actually really, really impressive at quality levels of body composition. That’s the whole point I’m making: arguing limit vs no limit and the psychological effects of each goes both ways, for both arguments. They can BOTH hinder and encourage people based on how an individual takes in the … shall we call it stimulus?
The biggest difference in this case is that there is indeed somewhere a limit set by human physiology, unlike some of the abstract examples we’ve been talking about like ‘success in life.’
[quote]ac33ro wrote:
Students are tested all the time, so they should know where they stand in relation to other more accomplished learners; my point was that confidence/positive thinking in absentia of actual skill or talent isn’t really productive. These students believe in themselves absolutely; despite any real measurable benchmark confirming this they believe they are ah-mazing. For those in education such thinking retards progress because an additional step is tacked on; the, “No, you still need a great deal of work to be as awesome as you think you are.” So, while “If you dream it, you can achieve it” makes a great slogan on a poster, it’s incomplete; the caveat should include “Provided you work your ass off, and possess/develop the skills, talent, and training. Plus a shitload of luck. Get after it.” A positive and realistic, note the key word is realistic, sense of self doesn’t limit one; instead it allows for a better evaluation of actual progress or growth.
And remember, this isn’t the Bodybuilding forum. Many here have no desire to compete, so you cannot use bodybuilding standards of actually knowing LBM/progress as evidence. So, in regards to this forum and many posts–the physique trainer who does not accurately know his/her stats–how do these benchmarks limit him/her? (S)He can never know with certainty if (s)he has surpassed or achieved these benchmarks due to only rough estimates of LBM/leanness/etc.
[/quote]
Only within a given school or university though
If you live in a bubble you can get comfy with how smart you are, or how big/strong you are.
Once you tell those students that they rank in the bottom 10%, they will realize they are idiots unless they are clinically delusional.
Why wouldn’t the person not know their own stats, or be able to use the stats of people who are at known levels of bodyfat and muscle? That makes absolutely no sense. I know I am 214 lbs, I can get my bodyfat tested… I can look up somewhat accepted stats/estimates of bodybuilders to figure out where I stand. Students cannot do that.
As for “this isn’t a bodybuilding forum”, people who compete don’t know their stats either, just like posters in this forum don’t know their stats…
Also, pretty sure this is a bodybuilding forum, just for people who are interested in the gaining muscle aspect
[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
Only within a given school or university though
If you live in a bubble you can get comfy with how smart you are, or how big/strong you are.
Once you tell those students that they rank in the bottom 10%, they will realize they are idiots unless they are clinically delusional.
Why wouldn’t the person not know their own stats, or be able to use the stats of people who are at known levels of bodyfat and muscle? That makes absolutely no sense. I know I am 214 lbs, I can get my bodyfat tested… I can look up somewhat accepted stats/estimates of bodybuilders to figure out where I stand. Students cannot do that.
As for “this isn’t a bodybuilding forum”, people who compete don’t know their stats either, just like posters in this forum don’t know their stats…
Also, pretty sure this is a bodybuilding forum, just for people who are interested in the gaining muscle aspect[/quote]
I think we agree on this; that was my original point–that the extreme end of self-belief is delusion. And I used students as an example because the studies exist showing how a false/unearned sense of self importance impacts confidence, but is not necessarily tied to success or ability. And sadly, from experience, many students when they receive low marks refuse to accept it as a true assessment of their abilities and continue on in their delusional thinking. It’s no so much their work that is flawed, but the means of assessing them that sucks. Much has been written about the so-called Millenials and their self-image and esteem. Attempts to correct this behavior or simply point out shortcomings or errors is usually met with scorn.
I was also pointing out that positive thinking along with realistic self awareness both must be present to suceed. That’s the usefulness of benchmarks; it provides a realistic measuring stick to gauge development and a means of assessing both potential and progress.
In regards to the other part of my post it was addressed to lifters who rely on vague estimations, guesstimates, and flat out false perceptions and use this as their primary methodology of determing progress. I was being facetious, parroting back a common refrain from these threads…in short, I was being dickish. That point was not directed at you; I just threw it in for giggles. However, I do believe this vagary serves to shield a person from facing the truth about the legitimacy of his/her achievements. To some extent everyone does this–only when it becomes dogmatic and any real criticism is anathema to belief is it really problematic.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
All you can do is try your hardest and see what your body responds to. I don’t know anyone who would tell someone they don’t know that it is “easy to gain 80lbs of elan body mass”. It isn’t easy. Even with good genetics it would take so much effort that even if a person had the genes to do it, most will not be able to.
The issue is the people who do have the genetics but will avoid that extra push it takes to see their ultimate potential because they fall in line with “no one can do that”.
This was never about what someone with average or below average genetics can do.[/quote]
But if you’re only addressing those with above average genetics AND above average work ethic/inner drive AND above average ability to avoid perceived limitations… then you should mention that more often.
Professor X can will a metal crown off of his patients’ teeth.
Just kidding, but Magneto can.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Its not the actual setting of limits, its the constant discussion of limits that leads to more and more opinions from others who have achieved much less. Notice how the original limit, when challenged, went from 40lbs to 80lbs?
If this went on one sided, it might have actually dropped to 20lbs.[/quote]
I don’t know who changed the amount a natural could gain. I have stood by my guns the entire time with a reasonable 40 to 50 pound gain for a natural, and my estimation will stay.
When X constantly spoke of 80 pound muscle gains, I said, “No natural has gained 80 pounds of muscle”. Somehow this was misinterpreted as the new limit. He also formed a new limit of his own when I said, "After ten years, if everything is being done properly, gains will have stalled or dried up. This became a new “ten year limit”, when meanwhile I said repeatedly that gains will drastically diminish after the fifth to seventh year mark considering most fumble in the first few years. Then when I asked him how he is going to improve on his body when he’s been training for 15 years, that simple QUESTION to him lead HIM to come up HIS new perceived “15 year limit”.
Oh, I have shown some guys who might have gained 80 pounds LBM. Take a look here.
[/quote]
I didnt’t mean to make it sound like it was an attack on you. I’m saying when some limit is set, even the actual words will start to change more and more chime in with opinions.
Look at it this way. In a self-perceived hardgainer’s mind, how would he interpret it when its written that people with the BEST genectics can only gain 45lbs over an entire lifetime? If it is a bell curve to him, where would he logically place himself? [/quote]
And if there are people whispering in his ear ‘don’t worry dude you can totally get 80lbs easy’ he might also wonder why the fuck he is struggling to get to just 40. It works both ways.[/quote]
Well, if a self-perceived hardgainer can gain near 40lbs, he is obviously not a hardgainer, is he? Thats my point.[/quote]
[quote]Two things.
- I didn’t say he was near 40 pounds, I said he was struggling to even get there. That could put him anywhere on the spectrum of 0-40 and having a hard time(kind of the definition of struggling, no?).[/quote]
Then, if he is struggling at the mid point of this 0-40 spectrum, where would he place himself on the bell curve i stated above? What would he perceive his odds of progressing are?
If he is struggling on the low end, the he probably is indeed a hardgainer if all dietary needs are met and training intensity is consistant (which is rather unlikely). In which he would need to be realistic and live with the cards he’s been dealt. No one said be delusional, and life sometimes isn’t fair.
The first sentence could be true, but look at it in light of several other factors:
- Already putting himself in a box due to other perceived limitations such as generalized classifications of bodytypes,
Ectomorph
-Wrist size, bone structure, shoulder waist ratio etc, sometimes before full physical developement.
-“Naturally weak” - starting out at lower strength levels than others
-“Naturally skinny”- starting out skinny due to diet or natural metabolism level
-“Skinny Fat” - starting out with lower muscle levels due to inactivity
-
Progressing behind his peers due to inconsistant diet or overanalysing or miscalculation of macro nutrient breakdowns due to inexperience.
-
Fear of gaining fat
Not everyone stores fat equally. Some gain more fat in the abdominal region, unfortunately, while gaining muscle normally. This leads to fear of eating too much or cycles of bulking and cutting which largely impedes progress.
quote]
So, in this scenario, the one who is giving him negative feedback is actually the people who are telling him he should be striving to be a shredded 5’10 220lb beast, not the ones who inform him that 5’10 200 is actually really, really impressive at quality levels of body composition. That’s the whole point I’m making: arguing limit vs no limit and the psychological effects of each goes both ways, for both arguments. They can BOTH hinder and encourage people based on how an individual takes in the … shall we call it stimulus? [/quote]
I don’t think that any experienced lifter in his right mind is going to say gaining 80lbs is easy when someone is still struggling with gaining 20lbs. Nor do I think anyone would say 5’10 200 isn’t impressive when someone carries it well. This would be pretty irrational behavior or someone just trying to be an asshole.
However, if one has the genetics to push the boudaries of 220lbs and beyond, and is willing to do so, I think much support instead of ridicule is warrented even if he does or does not succeed, and even if general opinion states it would be virtually impossible.