Mental Perception vs Ability

Training
141

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]PB Andy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]coyotegal wrote:
Mentally is everything! In all aspects of life![/quote]

I believe the same…but this idea was literally laughed at here recently.[/quote]
Ummm… I’ve been reading these threads, no one EVER said that. See Utah Lama’s post.[/quote]

Really?

Indeed, the whole positive attitude spiel is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read. You can’t stop Zyklon B from killing you just by having an Ubermensch style positive attitude.[/quote][/quote]

LMAO - you are one serious retard if you equate having a positive attitude regarding not fucking dying in a concentration camp on par with having a positive attitude and its effect on the ability to gain a certain amount of muscle.

Honestly, at this point you really are a fucking joke. So, gonna bitch and moan about me (and many, many others) “stalking” you on this site, and you take a quote I made in an entirely separate thread and post it in here, a thread in which I have not made a single post? Lol - and how long before you insist I’m “stalking” you?

You’re a fucking freak - book yourself an appointment with a shrink ASAP…

142

[quote]chillain wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

I mention it literally all of the time. That is why I mention people wanting to gain extreme amounts of muscle mass.

You need the genetics to do that and the work ethic. This activity has never really been about what “average” people can do. No one gets really big if they are only “average” or below.

143

[quote]dt79 wrote:

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.

[/quote]

Well said.

144

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[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]

The limit argument ties right in because if you perceive that to be a legitimate limit in spite of having the actual potential to do more, this can limit the actual potential reached.

145

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

LMAO - you are one serious retard if you equate having a positive attitude regarding not fucking dying in a concentration camp on par with having a positive attitude and its effect on the ability to gain a certain amount of muscle.
[/quote]

One could argue it is the same mindset that allows someone to overcome odds that would cause most to fail that would also allow someone to push past mental barriers in the gym.

146

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

LMAO - you are one serious retard if you equate having a positive attitude regarding not fucking dying in a concentration camp on par with having a positive attitude and its effect on the ability to gain a certain amount of muscle.
[/quote]

One could argue it is the same mindset that allows someone to overcome odds that would cause most to fail that would also allow someone to push past mental barriers in the gym.

[/quote]

Lame-ass, irrelevant, cherry-picked quote trick falls through, move on, try a new angle, and pretend it didn’t happen.

147

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

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]

In normative justification, justification refers to the reason why someone holds a belief.

Your statement about misogyny implies justification of the act itself…which is society based.

Yes, I can state that since it is a normal act in society to use the acts of someone to ascribe mindset even if that person has passed, it is not strange for someone to acribe a mindset to those in extreme peril that has hosted all sorts of media over the decades.

148

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Good post. I didn’t see a response to it.

149

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Good post. I didn’t see a response to it.[/quote]

150

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

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]

In normative justification, justification refers to the reason why someone holds a belief.

Your statement about misogyny implies justification of the act itself…which is society based.

Yes, I can state that since it is a normal act in society to use the acts of someone to ascribe mindset even if that person has passed, it is not strange for someone to acribe a mindset to those in extreme peril that has hosted all sorts of media over the decades.[/quote]

Perhaps “normative claims” would have better expressed what i was trying to say. I am not sure that the distinction you are drawing is watertight. It is often a tactic to justify something by reference to it’s societal occurrence and this is often couched in normative terms. Also, if you are saying that it is not strange, then why is this anything other than descriptive? If so, then it says nothing for either point that people often perform an action, therefore it is not strange for them to do so.

151

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

Perhaps “normative claims” would have better expressed what i was trying to say. I am not sure that the distinction you are drawing is watertight. It is often a tactic to justify something by reference to it’s societal occurrence and this is often couched in normative terms. Also, if you are saying that it is not strange, then why is this anything other than descriptive? If so, then it says nothing for either point that people often perform an action, therefore it is not strange for them to do so.[/quote]

It is about reality…like you mentioned before, which is completely subjective.

For the record, you should post more. However, you come up light claiming that something we see as common occurrence in society in nearly all forms (movies, books, etc) is somehow now to be questioned as illegit.

In society, we ascribe mindset to action. This is seen in criminal court cases the world over.

152

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

Perhaps “normative claims” would have better expressed what i was trying to say. I am not sure that the distinction you are drawing is watertight. It is often a tactic to justify something by reference to it’s societal occurrence and this is often couched in normative terms. Also, if you are saying that it is not strange, then why is this anything other than descriptive? If so, then it says nothing for either point that people often perform an action, therefore it is not strange for them to do so.[/quote]

It is about reality…like you mentioned before, which is completely subjective.

For the record, you should post more. However, you come up light claiming that something we see as common occurrence in society in nearly all forms (movies, books, etc) is somehow now to be questioned as illegit.

In society, we ascribe mindset to action. This is seen in criminal court cases the world over.[/quote]

Legally and factually, yes we do. FTR, I do not necessarily view it as illegitimate, my point is that occurrence does not, without more, justify anything. At the very least something descriptive is not, necessarily, something moral. Other than that, I accept your point.

153

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

Perhaps “normative claims” would have better expressed what i was trying to say. I am not sure that the distinction you are drawing is watertight. It is often a tactic to justify something by reference to it’s societal occurrence and this is often couched in normative terms. Also, if you are saying that it is not strange, then why is this anything other than descriptive? If so, then it says nothing for either point that people often perform an action, therefore it is not strange for them to do so.[/quote]

It is about reality…like you mentioned before, which is completely subjective.

For the record, you should post more. However, you come up light claiming that something we see as common occurrence in society in nearly all forms (movies, books, etc) is somehow now to be questioned as illegit.

In society, we ascribe mindset to action. This is seen in criminal court cases the world over.[/quote]

Legally and factually, yes we do. FTR, I do not necessarily view it as illegitimate, my point is that occurrence does not, without more, justify anything. At the very least something descriptive is not, necessarily, something moral. Other than that, I accept your point.

[/quote]

…which is why I made that post. Even though you were mocking the analogy, it did fit in my view as I listed here.

Some have stated this is the most important factor of what we do…mental perception.

With it being the most important, it is odd to see people mocking the existence of a thread about it.

154

Fair enough.
This was fun, but I think I we have both made the points we wanted to. I think I have clarified my stance, so that’s enough for me.
All the best.

155

[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]

Very good post.

156

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Good post. I didn’t see a response to it.[/quote]
[/quote]

Very good post.

157

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Good post. I didn’t see a response to it.[/quote]
[/quote]

Very good post.[/quote]

Uh, we just got done discussing that post. Did you miss it?

We (me and legalsteel) agreed…so why keep posting the same post over and over?

158

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Good post. I didn’t see a response to it.[/quote]
[/quote]

Very good post.[/quote]

Uh, we just got done discussing that post. Did you miss it?

We (me and legalsteel) agreed…so why keep posting the same post over and over?[/quote]

Really? I didn’t see the part where you explained why you took a quote out of context and tried to use it to help your argument.

159

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Good post. I didn’t see a response to it.[/quote]
[/quote]

Very good post.[/quote]

Uh, we just got done discussing that post. Did you miss it?

We (me and legalsteel) agreed…so why keep posting the same post over and over?[/quote]

Really? I didn’t see the part where you explained why you took a quote out of context and tried to use it to help your argument. [/quote]

Nice to see they both agreed it happened though, right?

160

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

Really? I didn’t see the part where you explained why you took a quote out of context and tried to use it to help your argument. [/quote]

We just discussed how his quote was actually in context.

I am asking again, did you read those posts and understand them?