Is working 5 days a week, "human"?

Luisella

After being an "employee" for two years, my experience taught me that..

Working five days a week, even if for 8 hours in each, doesn't leave you the time you need to "satisfy your intellectual and social requirements".

That to adequately dedicate to any activity, you need to spend the hours on it in a row, not in the fragmented manner that a 8 hour working day imposes.

Most importantly, your nervous system works under certain conditions. Scientific studies found that it reshapes itself on cycles of three weeks. If your life rhythm is shaped by a 5 days/week pace, your state of mind will always be dictated by the office work, and you wont be able to cultivate the activities that matter in your life.

I'm coming to agree with what I've read from Guy Debord, which said that if what you do ( your "work" ) is separated from what you are, that is, your work activity is not the mean by which you express yourself as a human being ( as it is for the artists ), your life is depressing and alienated.

I remember that ten years ago, technology, and especially the computer, were sold to us as means to allow people to work less. Well, it seems they are not being used that way.

Das Kitty

And how is this a personal issue exactly?

Blangis

Luisella wrote: »

Most importantly, your nervous system works under certain conditions. Scientific studies found that it reshapes itself on cycles of three weeks.

Sounds interesting. Is there more info on this somewhere?

Being an employee is all a lot of people can aspire to. It probably suits a lot of people to have difficult decisions like you are referring to taken out of their hands. Personal responsibility is not for everyone, just like the nine to five life doesn't appear to be for you.

"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men."

- H.L. Mencken

Gone Drinking

Luisella wrote: »

After being an "employee" for two years, my experience taught me that..

Working five days a week, even if for 8 hours in each, doesn't leave you the time you need to "satisfy your intellectual and social requirements".

That to adequately dedicate to any activity, you need to spend the hours on it in a row, not in the fragmented manner that a 8 hour working day imposes.

Most importantly, your nervous system works under certain conditions. Scientific studies found that it reshapes itself on cycles of three weeks. If your life rhythm is shaped by a 5 days/week pace, your state of mind will always be dictated by the office work, and you wont be able to cultivate the activities that matter in your life.

I'm coming to agree with what I've read from Guy Debord, which said that if what you do ( your "work" ) is separated from what you are, that is, your work activity is not the mean by which you express yourself as a human being ( as it is for the artists ), your life is depressing and alienated.

I remember that ten years ago, technology, and especially the computer, were sold to us as means to allow people to work less. Well, it seems they are not being used that way.

wat?

girlbiker

Write your own essay.:rolleyes:

JohnnyBbad

Suck it up to be honest.

Plenty of people manage to fit in hugely rewarding personal and social lives around their jobs, and a lot of those people work more than 8 hours a day too.

Burning Eclipse

Mods, perhaps a move to humanities... ?

Could spark a nice thread there!

Beruthiel

Moved from PI to Humanities.
b

Das Kitty

Now that it's here I shall reply

To be honest, I find I have loads of time for life outside of work. I have a lot of hobbies and I can spend hours on end on them after work. I start early and finish early though so I think that's the key. When you finish work at 4pm you still feel like you have the day ahead of you.

In general the idea of "I have no time to do something like that." is usually a vast overstatement. It's amazing how much you can fit into your time if you just start making it. There is a great feeling of achievement in filling your time.

I'm hoping to partake in NaNoWriMo this year and I'm not planning on taking time off work or giving up my classes either, it will fit.

I also have no problems with seeing friends, spending time with my husband. Whether you're going against natural rhythms by doing things in 5 day cycles or not I don't know, it's fine by me though.

Dades

Luisella wrote: »

Is working 5 days a week, "human"?

Feeding your family and collecting trinkets is human. Whether that requires a regular office week, or 16hrs a day, 7 days a week in a sweatshop is irrelevant.

In fact I'd say there's a lot of Irish people wishing they had a five-day week right now.

Luisella

Luisella wrote: »

After being an "employee" for two years, my experience taught me that..

I've been an employee for close to 13 years, so I'll throw in my experience. On average I would have worked from 8 am to 6 pm, 5 days a week. Other jobs have required more from me and I've worked longer accordingly.

Working five days a week, even if for 8 hours in each, doesn't leave you the time you need to "satisfy your intellectual and social requirements".

Regarding Intellectual requirements, I assume you're talking about your development? Which I would disagree, since most people working in office style industries will learn and develop as they work. They'll expand their knowledge either directly through working, or through educational avenues. Working can focus a person so that they'll have a focus in their lives.

As for social, nah. There is always a social backbone to any working environment if people are willing to open themselves up. External to the working environment, most people will have similar working hours, and you will have the time thereafter to socialise.

That to adequately dedicate to any activity, you need to spend the hours on it in a row, not in the fragmented manner that a 8 hour working day imposes.

Why? I'm genuinely curious to know why you think this is so.

Most importantly, your nervous system works under certain conditions. Scientific studies found that it reshapes itself on cycles of three weeks. If your life rhythm is shaped by a 5 days/week pace, your state of mind will always be dictated by the office work, and you wont be able to cultivate the activities that matter in your life.

Unless you can adapt your life around these working hours, and chose activities that conform to the free time that you have?

Modern society revolves for the most part around the 9-5 working day, and society provides adequate releases for people who are free after these periods.

I'm coming to agree with what I've read from Guy Debord, which said that if what you do ( your "work" ) is separated from what you are, that is, your work activity is not the mean by which you express yourself as a human being ( as it is for the artists ), your life is depressing and alienated.

Thats just sad. If you don't like what you're working in and don't receive any manner of satisfaction from it, why do it? re-educate yourself, and do something else.

For some people their lives revolve around work. I've had a few years with one company when this was so, and I didn't need anything else. I found satisfaction and joy in the manner of my work, and I didn't need anything else. And then later, it wasn't enough, so I moved on to another job where I worked less, and had more time to invest in other areas of my life. People have the choice to work. Your attitude removes responsibility for your life from yourself, and throws it into space..

I remember that ten years ago, technology, and especially the computer, were sold to us as means to allow people to work less. Well, it seems they are not being used that way.

Work less? no. To work more efficiently. Yes.

Blangis

Blangis wrote: »

Being an employee is all a lot of people can aspire to. It probably suits a lot of people to have difficult decisions like you are referring to taken out of their hands. Personal responsibility is not for everyone, just like the nine to five life doesn't appear to be for you.

Being an employee is a choice. People can choose to take the risk and start their own business, or service. Every person has the ability to be their own "boss". The simple fact is that most people are afraid to be in control, and responsible for their actions on such a level. (And responsible for their employees as well)

Personally, I worked in a small company for just over 7 years, and I learned that I liked being an employee. (My friend started it in college, and three of us continued thereafter.) As an employee, I didn't have to deal with all the headaches that being the boss entailed. I didn't get the major rewards either, but that was fine since I didn't go grey early either.

Blangis

Deleted User wrote: »

Every person has the ability to be their own "boss".

That's not true of every person I know, and it's most certainly not true of every person I see around Dublin every day. The bus drivers, and street sweepers; the shop girls and cops; the junkies, and alcos, and knackers; the gangs of identikit office workers in cheap suits talking about football. No way. Most of them are barely capable of asking for their porridge.

thebaldsoprano

Luisella wrote: »

that is, your work activity is not the mean by which you express yourself as a human being ( as it is for the artists ), your life is depressing and alienated.

Where did you get the idea that artists' work is 'expressing themselves as a human being'? While this may be true on some level for some art, it's a much broader area than a restrictive definition such as this would imply. Getting some work you like, or at least find tolerable might be a better place to start than ideas such as this.

nyarlothothep

Dades wrote: »

Feeding your family and collecting trinkets is human. Whether that requires a regular office week, or 16hrs a day, 7 days a week in a sweatshop is irrelevant.

In fact I'd say there's a lot of Irish people wishing they had a five-day week right now.

Why? Surely you're not defending a 16hr workday in a sweatshop, even if it is to feed your family, it doesn't make it right, therefore wouldn't it be relevant insofar as a sense of justice is human too?

Blangis

Blangis wrote: »

That's not true of every person I know, and it's most certainly not true of every person I see around Dublin every day. The bus drivers, and street sweepers; the shop girls and cops; the junkies, and alcos, and knackers; the gangs of identikit office workers in cheap suits talking about football. No way. Most of them are barely capable of asking for their porridge.

Which doesn't change that they have the ability to make a change and create something different. Something new. Or even rehash something already there and become successful. A bus driver could create a new type of paper clip, and make millions selling it. The dot.com companies of the 80's and 90's made millions for everyday people. Many of the richest people in business never got a university degree. Every person has the ability to imagine something, and act upon it.

The difference comes into effect when you consider those that are unwilling to take a risk and those that are willing. The potential of people is unlimited until people themselves place their own limits, either drawn from internal or external sources. But the potential is still there.

Blangis

Deleted User wrote: »

Which doesn't change that they have the ability to make a change and create something different. Something new. Or even rehash something already there and become successful. A bus driver could create a new type of paper clip, and make millions selling it. The dot.com companies of the 80's and 90's made millions for everyday people. Many of the richest people in business never got a university degree. Every person has the ability to imagine something, and act upon it.

The difference comes into effect when you consider those that are unwilling to take a risk and those that are willing. The potential of people is unlimited until people themselves place their own limits, either drawn from internal or external sources. But the potential is still there.

With respect, it sounds like you read a lot of self help books, and success manuals; and that you watch a lot of Hollywood movies and take them very seriously.

Dades

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Why? Surely you're not defending a 16hr workday in a sweatshop, even if it is to feed your family, it doesn't make it right, therefore wouldn't it be relevant insofar as a sense of justice is human too?

Not sure where you get the idea that I was defending slave labour. My point was that a working week has nothing to do with our "humanity". Humans are just animals that, in most societies, have moved beyond foraging and hunting to provide for their brood. So whatever job provides is human.

I also find is odd that the OP would pick a 1st world job to assess the humanity of it.

Blangis

Blangis wrote: »

With respect, it sounds like you read a lot of self help books, and success manuals; and that you watch a lot of Hollywood movies and take them very seriously.

I have an interest in reading about successful people whether it be Alexander the Great, or Bill Gates. And yes, I have read some self help books... As for Hollywood movies, not really. More into Chinese/Korean movies actually.

I have to wonder though why you disbelieve so much that people have the potential to improve upon themselves. Your comment even with the "respect" sounds sooo cynical. Have you hit such a rock bottom that there is no hope for you? Because if you believe that there is hope for you, why do you believe yourself superior to other people? What makes you so different?

Sunn

Luisella wrote: »

After being an "employee" for two years, my experience taught me that..

Working five days a week, even if for 8 hours in each, doesn't leave you the time you need to "satisfy your intellectual and social requirements".

That to adequately dedicate to any activity, you need to spend the hours on it in a row, not in the fragmented manner that a 8 hour working day imposes.

Most importantly, your nervous system works under certain conditions. Scientific studies found that it reshapes itself on cycles of three weeks. If your life rhythm is shaped by a 5 days/week pace, your state of mind will always be dictated by the office work, and you wont be able to cultivate the activities that matter in your life.

I'm coming to agree with what I've read from Guy Debord, which said that if what you do ( your "work" ) is separated from what you are, that is, your work activity is not the mean by which you express yourself as a human being ( as it is for the artists ), your life is depressing and alienated.

I remember that ten years ago, technology, and especially the computer, were sold to us as means to allow people to work less. Well, it seems they are not being used that way.

Red Sleeping Beauty

When you hear a psychiatrist tell you that working gives your life "value and justification and meaning" then you'll think differently I suppose.

fly_agaric

Blangis wrote: »

With respect.

you mean with contempt?

Blue_Wolf

Become a civil servant, work flexi hours, so work around your social life instead of the other way around.

Luisella wrote: »

After being an "employee" for two years, my experience taught me that..

Working five days a week, even if for 8 hours in each, doesn't leave you the time you need to "satisfy your intellectual and social requirements".

That to adequately dedicate to any activity, you need to spend the hours on it in a row, not in the fragmented manner that a 8 hour working day imposes.

Most importantly, your nervous system works under certain conditions. Scientific studies found that it reshapes itself on cycles of three weeks. If your life rhythm is shaped by a 5 days/week pace, your state of mind will always be dictated by the office work, and you wont be able to cultivate the activities that matter in your life.

I'm coming to agree with what I've read from Guy Debord, which said that if what you do ( your "work" ) is separated from what you are, that is, your work activity is not the mean by which you express yourself as a human being ( as it is for the artists ), your life is depressing and alienated.

I remember that ten years ago, technology, and especially the computer, were sold to us as means to allow people to work less. Well, it seems they are not being used that way.

CodeMonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to wonder though why you disbelieve so much that people have the potential to improve upon themselves. Your comment even with the "respect" sounds sooo cynical. Have you hit such a rock bottom that there is no hope for you? Because if you believe that there is hope for you, why do you believe yourself superior to other people? What makes you so different?

I agree that not everyone is capable of being successful. It's a combination of a having a minimum IQ regardless of education and qualification, motivation, discipline, hard work etc. If you have all those things then you might have the potential but without luck you will never be very successful like Bill Gates etc. A lot of people don't even have the minimum skillsets to try to be successful.

CodeMonkey

CodeMonkey wrote: »

I agree that not everyone is capable of being successful. It's a combination of a having a minimum IQ regardless of education and qualification, motivation, discipline, hard work etc. If you have all those things then you might have the potential but without luck you will never be very successful like Bill Gates etc. A lot of people don't even have the minimum skillsets to try to be successful.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/22/billionaires-gates-winfrey-biz-cz_ts_0626rags2riches.html

"While inheriting a billion dollars is still the easiest way to land on our list of the world's wealthiest, it certainly isn't the most common. Almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination, and not good genes. "

And thats only mentioning those that became rich. What about the thousands of people out there that saw a niche or had an idea that moved them from poor, to normal living status.

The point of this is that it comes down to having an idea, and going with it. Taking the risk, hurdling the challenges, and making something better of your life. Whether its the simplest idea or a complicated formula, the options are there for everyone. It could be creating a new product, filling a service demand, writing a book, starting a band, whatever... we all have the ability to think outside of the box, and do something more.

Talk about skillset requirements, is a way of getting us off the hook. If we decide to conform and live within certain boundaries, such talk is a way of justifying why we don't try something new.

CodeMonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

"While inheriting a billion dollars is still the easiest way to land on our list of the world's wealthiest, it certainly isn't the most common. Almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination, and not good genes. "

How is that relevant? I never said anything about genes. That would probably re-enforce what I've said.

And thats only mentioning those that became rich. What about the thousands of people out there that saw a niche or had an idea that moved them from poor, to normal living status.

Do you even understand what I've said? Lots of people have the IQ and skills to improve their situation. I am not disagreeing with that. I am disagreeing with your blanket statement that everyone can do it. That doesn't mean that when a lazy office worker with no ambition says he/she doesn't have the skills that it's automatically true.

The point of this is that it comes down to having an idea, and going with it. Taking the risk, hurdling the challenges, and making something better of your life.

My point is not everyone have the skills to do any of that. My point is your blanket statement only applies if the individual meets some minimal requirements like above average IQ, motivation, hard work etc.

Talk about skillset requirements, is a way of getting us off the hook. If we decide to conform and live within certain boundaries, such talk is a way of justifying why we don't try something new.

People with these skills and the IQ might use it as an excuse for not trying something new but there's a lot of people out there with a crap upbringing that doesn't give them the skills to achieve anything other than being a leech on society.

CodeMonkey

CodeMonkey wrote: »

How is that relevant? I never said anything about genes. That would probably re-enforce what I've said.

Actually, I picked that paragraph out of the whole article in response to your whole statement. As for re-enforcing what you've said... Did you even read the article?

Do you even understand what I've said? Lots of people have the IQ and skills to improve their situation. I am not disagreeing with that. I am disagreeing with your blanket statement that everyone can do it. That doesn't mean that when a lazy office worker with no ambition says he/she doesn't have the skills that it's automatically true.

And you're missing the point. I've said that everyone has the potential to make something more from their current situation. Either through the creation of a new product or the refinement of something already here. Everyone has some skill. The skills they have may not be complicated. It could easily be a skill with horses, or a skill with growing plants. All skills can be used as a grounding point to launch into something productive.

My point is not everyone have the skills to do any of that. My point is your blanket statement only applies if the individual meets some minimal requirements like above average IQ, motivation, hard work etc.

And I disagree. You're limiting people. I'm not. I'm looking at the past, and seeing hundreds and thousands of people who have moved from being poor to being quite wealthy. Many of these people would have failed the limitations you place. Read the article. There's some examples there. hell, use google, and you'll find plenty of other examples from all backgrounds.

People with these skills and the IQ might use it as an excuse for not trying something new but there's a lot of people out there with a crap upbringing that doesn't give them the skills to achieve anything other than being a leech on society.

Irrespective of a persons background we all have the ability to use our brains. To think of something new. To take a risk and achieve success. The potential is there. The ability is there.

CodeMonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, I picked that paragraph out of the whole article in response to your whole statement. As for re-enforcing what you've said... Did you even read the article?

Yeah, I've read the article. All the people listed in the article had the above average IQ, the motivation, the discipline and the luck to be really successful. Your average joe cannot achieve that kind of successful without all those elements in place. It re-enforces what I am saying.

And you're missing the point. I've said that everyone has the potential to make something more from their current situation. Either through the creation of a new product or the refinement of something already here. Everyone has some skill. The skills they have may not be complicated. It could easily be a skill with horses, or a skill with growing plants. All skills can be used as a grounding point to launch into something productive.

No you are missing the point. Not everyone can think outside of the box and better their situation because their upbringing might have conditioned them to be an underachiever. Sure, everyone have the potential if they had access to some basic minimal skill sets I was talking about. Even realizing that you can do better and get motivated to do something about it are some of the basic skills I am talking about.

And I disagree. You're limiting people. I'm not. I'm looking at the past, and seeing hundreds and thousands of people who have moved from being poor to being quite wealthy. Many of these people would have failed the limitations you place. Read the article. There's some examples there. hell, use google, and you'll find plenty of other examples from all backgrounds.

Yeah and I am looking in the past and see millions of people who have tried and failed. I win. You can't google them though cause failures aren't documented on the interweb.

Irrespective of a persons background we all have the ability to use our brains. To think of something new. To take a risk and achieve success. The potential is there. The ability is there.

Yeah potential is there. I don't disagree. Potential is useless without the necessary skills.

CodeMonkey

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Yeah, I've read the article. All the people listed in the article had the above average IQ, the motivation, the discipline and the luck to be really successful. Your average joe cannot achieve that kind of successful without all those elements in place. It re-enforces what I am saying.

Wow... so you know the IQ of all the people listed on the article? Cause i sure don't. I know that they made something more for themselves despite their many different circumstances, some of which being outright poverty. In fact many of the people in the article had lives less than the "average joe", which suggests that by your guidelines an "average Joe" should have more advantage. Which oddly enough doesn't support what you've been saying.

No you are missing the point. Not everyone can think outside of the box and better their situation because their upbringing might have conditioned them to be an underachiever. Sure, everyone have the potential if they had access to some basic minimal skill sets I was talking about. Even realizing that you can do better and get motivated to do something about it are some of the basic skills I am talking about.

You're making it too complicated. Just like people who put up stumbling blocks to stop themselves for doing anything. Keep things simple. What does it take to think of a useful product or service? Imagination. Its not about a skill set. Its not about education. Its about having the ability to think creatively for that one moment that allows them to have a unique thought, and then to act upon it.

Yeah and I am looking in the past and see millions of people who have tried and failed. I win. You can't google them though cause failures aren't documented on the interweb.

So what? They at least tried. The sought to achieve something of their potential. And how many of those that initially failed, succeeded at a later stage?

Its interesting that you avoid what I said, only to focus on failure. its as if you're unwilling to believe that people who start at nothing could achieve something special for themselves. Instead its more comforting to focus on those who have failed.... :rolleyes:

Yeah potential is there. I don't disagree. Potential is useless without the necessary skills.

You don't disagree? Glad you've changed your mind a bit... What determines the necessary skills for someone to achieve their potential?

Say.. you think up of a new way to design a paper bag making it capable of holding more... You could go to the local library, and research both through the books on file, and the internet, how paper bag are made, and where you could submit your design for sale. What are the skills needed? With the exception of reading?

CodeMonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow... so you know the IQ of all the people listed on the article? Cause i sure don't. I know that they made something more for themselves despite their many different circumstances, some of which being outright poverty. In fact many of the people in the article had lives less than the "average joe", which suggests that by your guidelines an "average Joe" should have more advantage. Which oddly enough doesn't support what you've been saying.

Being in poverty gives them motivation. Being an average joe and happy to be getting by is what leads people to make excuses to not try.

You're making it too complicated. Just like people who put up stumbling blocks to stop themselves for doing anything. Keep things simple. What does it take to think of a useful product or service? Imagination. Its not about a skill set. Its not about education. Its about having the ability to think creatively for that one moment that allows them to have a unique thought, and then to act upon it.

You're making it too simple. Why don't you come up with an idea and go make millions instead of preaching us about it.

So what? They at least tried. The sought to achieve something of their potential. And how many of those that initially failed, succeeded at a later stage?

Its interesting that you avoid what I said, only to focus on failure. its as if you're unwilling to believe that people who start at nothing could achieve something special for themselves. Instead its more comforting to focus on those who have failed.... :rolleyes:

So what? My point is just cause you try doesn't mean you can succeed like you claim. Not everyone can succeed like you claim. I am not saying don't try or let that stop you trying. I am saying you are making some pretty unrealistic statements. If there's enough reason for you to try again after failure because you are in a pretty bad situation anyway then feel free. Most people, the average joes, are just happy being average and living a comfy 9-5 lives instead of working really hard to do better.

You don't disagree? Glad you've changed your mind a bit... What determines the necessary skills for someone to achieve their potential?

I think you have no idea what i am talking about. Read my earlier posts.

Say.. you think up of a new way to design a paper bag making it capable of holding more... You could go to the local library, and research both through the books on file, and the internet, how paper bag are made, and where you could submit your design for sale.

Yeah, why don't you do all that and show us what a success story you are. Go on, do something with yourself, don't just tell us about it. Go do it for yourself, it's easy.

What are the skills needed? With the exception of reading?

Read my earlier posts and you ever watch dragons den? Anyway, I am done here, so long, farewell, off to being average.

CodeMonkey

CodeMonkey wrote: »

Being in poverty gives them motivation. Being an average joe and happy to be getting by is what leads people to make excuses to not try.

But surely by your reasoning the average joe would have a greater capacity for innovation since they have more skills and resources...?

You're making it too simple. Why don't you come up with an idea and go make millions instead of preaching us about it.

I made a point. You disagreed. You could have ignored what I said instead of responding. :rolleyes:

So what? My point is just cause you try doesn't mean you can succeed like you claim. Not everyone can succeed like you claim. I am not saying don't try or let that stop you trying. I am saying you are making some pretty unrealistic statements. If there's enough reason for you to try again after failure because you are in a pretty bad situation anyway then feel free. Most people, the average joes, are just happy being average and living a comfy 9-5 lives instead of working really hard to do better.

And i originally never mentioned success, beyond posting a link to those who had succeeded. You disagreed with my belief that everyone has the potential to better themselves, and create something new. You felt that I was making a sweeping statement that everyone has the potential to achieve something more than they currently were. Success and failure wasn't part of my post. You introduced that element.

I think you have no idea what i am talking about. Read my earlier posts.

Actually I do, but i don't think you're willing to actually consider what I'm talking about.

Yeah, why don't you do all that and show us what a success story you are. Go on, do something with yourself, don't just tell us about it. Go do it for yourself, it's easy.

Wow, so its about me now? Are you really that insecure?

Read my earlier posts and you ever watch dragons den? Anyway, I am done here, so long, farewell, off to being average.

Fine.

CodeMonkey

Guess I am not quite done with the thread.

Deleted User wrote: »

But surely by your reasoning the average joe would have a greater capacity for innovation since they have more skills and resources...?

Yes this is correct. Did I not make it clear that the average joe living in a comfortable lifestyle don't have the motivation to be very successful like the people in that article?

Let me repeat myself in case you missed the original point I was trying to make. I didn't disagree that everyone have the potential to do something different, better themselves, whatever. I disagreed that everyone is capable of being successful. To be successful you need all those elements I listed. There's a difference. Trying or just doing something different is not good enough to be successful. See all the people trying on dragon's den?

And i originally never mentioned success, beyond posting a link to those who had succeeded. You disagreed with my belief that everyone has the potential to better themselves, and create something new. You felt that I was making a sweeping statement that everyone has the potential to achieve something more than they currently were. Success and failure wasn't part of my post. You introduced that element.

Oh really? I introduced it? So you didn't say this:

Which doesn't change that they have the ability to make a change and create something different. Something new. Or even rehash something already there and become successful. A bus driver could create a new type of paper clip, and make millions selling it. The dot.com companies of the 80's and 90's made millions for everyday people. Many of the richest people in business never got a university degree. Every person has the ability to imagine something, and act upon it.

Or this:

I have an interest in reading about successful people whether it be Alexander the Great, or Bill Gates. And yes, I have read some self help books... As for Hollywood movies, not really. More into Chinese/Korean movies actually.

Or link to that article about successful people? Everything you are saying points to how everyone have the potential to be successful by doing something different etc. It's all about success. That's the point I am disagreeing on. Again, did you even read my posts?

Actually I do, but i don't think you're willing to actually consider what I'm talking about.

No you don't. You don't even know what I am disagreeing with.

Wow, so its about me now? Are you really that insecure?

Yes cause I am very average. Or maybe I just want to know if you are doing what you are preaching.

rantyface

Deleted User wrote: »

"Taking the risk"

I think the "taking the risk" part is key to why people don't do it. You are more likely to fail and ruin your family that way, than become a billionaire.

Anyway, who says being a billionaire is human or anything to aspire to? More than likely you would have to be completely morally reprehensible- the kind of person who'd lay off 100 workers on christmas eve to open a factory somewhere you can get children to do ten times the work for a fifth of the pay. You'd be talking and thinking about money all day. If you disagree, name a major multinational corporation that isn't involved in activities a moral person would object to.

Other than that, most mega rich people are involved in very boring, unfulfilling businesses- oil, rubber, cars, insurance, banking.

Anyway, I absolutely love what I'm doing in college (science), and have my dream job lined up doing original research into environmental protection. If you read something useful and interesting and educated yourself rather than read self-help crap that encourages people to believe in themselves with no grounding, you might be able to make something of yourself, other than a fool who thinks they have potential.

rantyface

Deleted User wrote: »

The potential of people is unlimited until people themselves place their own limits, either drawn from internal or external sources. But the potential is still there.

Some people are limited and some people are gifted.
I remember in school when we took aptitude tests and IQ tests near the end of fifth year, everyone who was already top of the class did the best.
In my school anyway, stupid people who studied really hard couldn't do as well as smart people did without making much effort.