I agree with your assessment of how important this topic is to broader political and social goals.

I think generally it's a good system, you'll be no doubt aware of the overlaps with something like REBT, which I have a lot of sympathy with.

Some - hopefully friendly - criticisms...

We're often not aware of goals which are, nonetheless important to us. Eating is one example. It's really important that we eat enough, but when you get people to list their goals in your therapy sessions, how many list eating? Eating, of course, is rarely something we have any trouble achieving either, it just serves as an uncontroversial example. Rest might be a more difficult one - definitely needed, rarely thought of as a goal, often difficult to get enough of.

Modern life is so fiendishly complicated that much of what we really need (for our mental well-being) is not being provided and yet our brains are simply not geared up to expect provision of it to be some kind of 'personal goal', we expect it to just be there (cue monstrous amount of evolutionary psychology - yuck!).

So getting people to focus on goals not being achieved is a great idea, but it would be good to include reference, in that process, to goals which one might simply think of as background, yet are not being achieved nonetheless. Otherwise you tend to get the standard 'bucket list' types of goal and less of the the real stuff that actually makes humans happy (climbing Everest is a surprisingly fleeting pleasure and rarely matches up to hearing a baby giggle).

Along the same lines, plans can suffer the same problem. We're woefully short on data when it comes to the question of how to get from where we are to where we want to be. Again, like with goals, we wouldn't plan in 'step 4 - eat lunch' and yet we kind of 'know' that eating lunch is going to be one of the steps in any plan (that goes over lunchtime). I'm using eating as an uncontroversial example again. More controversial, but important, examples might be, say, keeping up the social bonds which are needed for so many plans to work, but often neglected. Too often goal-oriented people neglect their role in helping others achieve their goals, and so miss an important (but perhaps, unexamined) goal of their own. Webs of social networks are often too difficult to track manually so including them in some kind of plan is difficult. Which leads to...

Planning can often be dominated by the easy-to-predict and neglect the difficult-to-predict, simply because it's hard work and we tend to avoid hard work. So deliberate plans can sometimes be worse at achieving goals than non-deliberate ones, simply because deliberate plans have neglected all the complex factors which help/hinder but were too difficult to manually account for. A bit like trying to catch a ball by actually doing the maths on the parabolic arc.

My favourite example of this is scarcity. The effect that material scarcity has on our brain's ability to carry out any other task is enormous (there's been some great work on this), and yet resolving scarcity is rarely considered number one on the goal list

Finally, lest my reply get longer than your OP, I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly?) that this is a form of CBT - you work out what behaviours are required to achieve your goals and then carry them out. But there's no mention of challenging the beliefs that are currently in the way. I'm not going to explain what it means because I know you already know. I'm just interested if there's a reason you didn't mention it.

I personally consider (C) to the hardest of the three more often than not. Recognising problems or goals and developing a concrete plan of action are also difficult for many people -- but in the end the biggest obstacle to growth, in my view, is simply doing it. Perhaps others disagree. — Xtrix

I think this is an important point. I've worked in the area of mental ill health and substance misuse for many years. In my experience (which is just one guy's view) many, perhaps most people know what they need to change in life. The problem is doing it. And not doing it when you know what needs doing often leads to lacerating self-hatred and blaming others.

I do think however that setting goals is a specific worldview and approach which not everyone relates to as the pragmatic common sense it is often understood to be. When I've worked with Aboriginal Australian clients, for instance, this seems to be the case.

A = Aims (objectives)
B = Blueprint (plan)
C = Carry it out (implement)

A simple and yet powerful algorithm that guarantees success; you can't fail, you simply can't!

:snicker: For me about 30 years too late; hopefully the younglings in here can put this idea to good use!

The force is strong with this one. — Master Yoda

I am happy to see that your framework has a lot of similarities with my idea of a spiritual path, that I described in detail in my book Walking, freely available on the internet. I considered in it what @Isaac said: self-criticism, criticism of your own path, should be an important part of a spiritual path. Without self-criticism there is no growth, no opening to different horizons and perspectives.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

you'll be no doubt aware of the overlaps with something like REBT — Isaac

I've always liked Ellis. Beyond the "ABC" I'm not aware of many other connections, at least consciously. It's been a long time since I've looked into it. I'm sure I've stolen from him somewhere in my post though.

We're often not aware of goals which are, nonetheless important to us. Eating is one example. It's really important that we eat enough, but when you get people to list their goals in your therapy sessions, how many list eating? — Isaac

True. Not many people will list breathing, either, but it's also vital for survival and often goes completely unnoticed. I've had a lot of discussions about diet and exercise, of course, but I take your point. However, my goal here is raising awareness of what one truly wants in life and, especially, in prioritizing those wants, with a view towards change. Simply living and being healthy is usually a big one, which would include eating -- which, it's true, is often taken for granted, especially in more affluent countries -- and especially eating well with the goal of having more energy, losing weight, etc. If there is no identifiable problem, then there's no need to formulate a goal -- you're already living it.

So getting people to focus on goals not being achieved is a great idea, but it would be good to include reference, in that process, to goals which one might simply think of as background, yet are not being achieved nonetheless. — Isaac

Sure, and I'd argue they're all in the background, in a sense, if one isn't aware of them. Here we can talk about habits of mind and body, for example -- mostly unconscious, but can be good or bad depending on what you want. Eating excessive amounts of sugar every day without really thinking about it, for example, may go completely unnoticed until there's a health crisis. How one relates to others -- perhaps never making eye contact or constantly interrupting -- can likewise create problems in one's life that one is completely unaware of.

For most people I talk to, it's not that they have no ideas about what they'd like to improve about themselves or their lives -- it's the lack of awareness about their actions and how these actions create the situation they want to improve in the first place. "I have no friends -- I want more friends," for example. In this case they've identified a problem, something they'd like to change. How aware are they of WHY they have no friends to begin with and how they contribute to it? Predictably, not very.

I could go on, but you see my point I think. It's very important to really stop and look at what you think, feel, and do. To formulate a plan for how to achieve what you want to change, it really helps to understand why the problem exists in the first place. In order to do so, you almost always need the help of others -- family, friends, teachers, religious leaders, therapists, anyone. So there's a social aspect to (A) as well. It's not simply a matter of meditating, for example. The blind spots we all have, that you rightfully point out, can only be illuminated with the aid of others. That's something I left out. But I digress.

Too often goal-oriented people neglect their role in helping others achieve their goals, and so miss an important (but perhaps, unexamined) goal of their own. — Isaac

Yes indeed.

Planning can often be dominated by the easy-to-predict and neglect the difficult-to-predict, simply because it's hard work and we tend to avoid hard work. — Isaac

Yes -- we certainly shouldn't be dogmatic or rigid with our plans. We don't want to become computers, running on algorithms. This is also something I neglected in my post. I only briefly mentioned Aristotle, but the ultimate goal should be to create habits -- i.e., to act in ways that are both desirable and unconscious. I think this can be achieved through theory and practice, at least at first, but in the end it should become second-nature. If it doesn't, it's unlikely to last. Imagine if we went through the same effort to drive, ride a bike, swim, tie our shoes, or type as we did when we were first learning every time we performed these activities? We'd be exhausted indeed.

Finally, lest my reply get longer than your OP, I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly?) that this is a form of CBT - you work out what behaviours are required to achieve your goals and then carry them out. But there's no mention of challenging the beliefs that are currently in the way. I'm not going to explain what it means because I know you already know. I'm just interested if there's a reason you didn't mention it. — Isaac

Again, I'm sure I've stolen from some aspects of CBT. As a system of psychotherapy, it can be very effective with phobias and has a decent success rate with anxiety and depression. It's also the preferred method (or was 20 years ago) of insurance providers.

But in full disclosure, I've been far more influenced by -- and am (at least consciously) drawing more from -- three sources: Carl Rogers, MBSR (Jon Kabat Zinn) and Vipassana meditation, and existential psychotherapy (particularly Irvin Yalom). Otherwise, as I'm sure most people familiar with me on this forum knows, my philosophical thinking as been influenced very much by Aristotle and Heidegger.

I do think however that setting goals is a specific worldview and approach which not everyone relates to as the pragmatic common sense it is often understood to be. When I've worked with Aboriginal Australian clients, for instance, this seems to be the case. — Tom Storm

Sure -- this is just one framework. I'm by no means married to it.

What do Aboriginal clients have to say about personal growth/change?

you can't fail, you simply can't! — Agent Smith

Well I definitely don't want to give the impression that any of this is fool-proof or guarantees anything. I'm not a self-help guru. This is just one way of talking about change -- one of many.

self-criticism, criticism of your own path, should be an important part of a spiritual path. Without self-criticism there is no growth, no opening to different horizons and perspectives. — Angelo Cannata

Sure. I'd put it a little differently, using "awareness" rather than criticism. But yes, self-criticism and assessment is crucial.

As a former "Queen of Planning", I’ll just say be careful what you plan for. — ArielAssante

Surely. That's why what I label "A" is so important. We should make sure we have our priorities in order. Not an easy task.

I want more spontaneity in my life. What's the plan?

I'm sorry, that's a feeble joke, but my heart sinks to read such stuff. Always more, always strife, always heading for a goal somewhere else, never content, forever becoming what one is not. It is a capitalist psychology par excellence and it is nothing new, but the same outdated paradigm that has brought us to the age of destruction.

I won't interrupt again, I just wanted to register my personal dissent.

[M]y heart sinks to read such stuff. Always more, always strife, always heading for a goal somewhere else, never content, forever becoming what one is not. It is a capitalist psychology par excellence and it is nothing new, but the same outdated paradigm that has brought us to the [edge] of destruction.

I won't interrupt again, I just wanted to register my personal dissent. — unenlightened

Yeah, wtf?! :100: :clap:

:death: (memento mori)
:flower: (memento vivere)

Always more, always strife, always heading for a goal somewhere else, never content, forever becoming what one is not. — unenlightened

Being content is also a goal. Sounds like you’re objecting to a state of affairs yourself— namely, that people are constantly striving and are never contented. In which case, becoming content is also striving to be something one is not.

More repeating of Buddhist doctrine. Which is fine — but has nothing to do with negating goals. Enlightenment itself is a goal.

It is a capitalist psychology par excellence — unenlightened

This is simply wrong. You can read even a fraction of my 3000+ posts to see why. Has nothing to do with capitalism— nothing. In fact the entire post is an attempt to frame personal change in the direction away from capitalism.

After a lot of talk on the Forum about politics, climate change, capitalism, unions, collective action, etc., I find that so many of our problems are largely due to the fact that public pressure isn't there to change them. There's a multitude of reasons -- we're polarized, heavily propagandized, poorly educated, misinformed, warped by media, etc. But whatever the reason, in order to change this scenario we need to change ourselves and how we relate to others.

No easy task. But perhaps a way of talking about such change is helpful.

Substantive as always. :roll: :snicker:

What do Aboriginal clients have to say about personal growth/change? — Xtrix

I haven't heard personal growth or change mentioned in such terms. Transformation and healing seems to come through connection to country and mob. (In other words, place based and through interactions with culture and others, especially elders.)

I want to climb to the top of that mountain — Xtrix

Since I recently just watched it, reminds me of the documentary Free Solo, about Alex Honnold climbing 3200 feet of El Capitan without a rope in 2017. It's the greatest free solo to date. Alex had the goal back in 2009. He kept a climbing journal, and would spend part of the year living in a van at Yosemite, so he could practice with ropes and other elite climbers. His implementation was going over the route until he was comfortable enough to climb without a rope. He had help planning it out from Tommy Caldwell, the most experienced big wall climber who has made his own incredibly challenging routes on El Capitan with ropes (free climbing). He also has a documentary.

The thing is Tommy said he would never climb El Cap without a rope, because one mistake and you're dead. Part of what makes Alex special is his mental approach. He states that we're all going to die one day, free soloing just makes that very present, and he enjoys doing it because you have to be perfect. Alex had also done free soloing a thousand times on easier climbs. His thing was to get himself into a place where he was no longer afraid, so he could climb a 3200 foot cliff without a rope and not freak out.

Just thought that was a good example of implementing a goal to accomplish something that seemed impossible.

Plan your work
work your plan.

Definitely. Just remember that as long as you work in line with inner imperatives, mountains will seem like molehills in the rear view mirror. If you aren't, small things will stump you. So pick up the threads of that inner directive and work with it, not against it.

You could think of it as blooming according to your DNA. You don't entirely control that. Where there's a control problem, that will show up as obsession with goals and "crushing" them as we say. Notice the violent imagery.

Transformation and healing seems to come through connection to country and mob. (In other words, place based and through interactions with culture and others, especially elders.) — Tom Storm

Hmm, interesting. As I mentioned to Isaac, I regret not including more of the social component to all of this. Seems very individualistic, although I don’t at all mean it that way. Collaboration with others is essential.



Just the thought of that frightens me — but yes, a good example, albeit extraordinary.

Seems very individualistic, although I don’t at all mean it that way. Collaboration with others is essential. — Xtrix

I understand and I wasn't disparaging your model, which seems sound.

Am curious about what philosophy (especially phenomenology) might reveal about goal directed thinking. To understand where we want to go, it may be necessary to understand why we want to go there and who we are now. How are we constructing the 'I' which seeks to become something more or something different?

Obviously there are presuppositions built into our view of self which may or may not be useful. Our goals may be calibrated around a series of faulty assumptions. People often hold views that they are ugly or stupid or unlovable and construct an entire worldview and set of behaviors around this, including their goals for change.

All good points. Having goals based on faulty assumptions or poor values is a big obstacle.

Having goals based on faulty assumptions or poor value is a big obstacle. — Xtrix

Thus, insofar as "having goals" requires applying "the ABC framework" to goal-formation itself, this infinite regress – problem of the criterion – tends to invalidate "having goals". Rather, practice aligning one's expectations with reality by reflectively unlearning maladaptive habits (vide Laozi, Buddha, Epicurus, Epictetus, Montaigne, Spinoza, Peirce-Dewey, Wittgenstein, Zapffe-Camus, ... Beck ... Yalom ... Achenbach-Schuster).

Thus, insofar as "having goals" requires applying "the ABC framework" to goal-formation itself, this infinite regress – problem of the criterion – tends to invalidate "having goals". — 180 Proof

It doesn't invalidate having goals any more than it invalidates wanting. It simply acknowledges that sometimes what we want, or what we prioritize, isn't always wise. Fairly common occurrence.

Rather, practice aligning one's expectations with reality by reflectively unlearning maladaptive habits (vide Laozi, Buddha, Epicurus, Epictetus, Montaigne, Spinoza, Peirce-Dewey, Wittgenstein, Zapffe-Camus, ... Beck ... Yalom ... Achenbach-Schuster). — 180 Proof

Sure.

I don't see where the "rather" fits in, but no matter. The framework I lay out is by no means meant to be exhaustive. Won't appeal to everyone and that's fine.

I don’t understand your criticism. If I’m following it right, in Xtrix’s framework A & B are validated by C. If C (practice) is ineffective then something must be amiss in A and/or B.

Both Buddhism and stoicism have the same basic framework and are goal based. Buddhisms goal is the cessation of suffering and eudaimonia is the goal of stoicism.

Being content is also a goal. — Xtrix

You can make anything a goal, if you make it your goal it is a goal.

It is a capitalist psychology par excellence
— unenlightened

This is simply wrong. You can read even a fraction of my 3000+ posts to see why. Has nothing to do with capitalism— nothing. In fact the entire post is an attempt to frame personal change in the direction away from capitalism. — Xtrix

I am not accusing you of being a capitalist. Nevertheless, your psychology as described is highly individualist as distinct from social in emphasis, materiallist and pragmatic and entirely directed to an endless succession of wants and needs, which is exactly the focus that capitalism demands of a consumer. If your goal is to get away from capitalism, this is not a good basis for doing so. That is my criticism, nothing personal.

Here is a nice little piece on Gregory Bateson, that might hint at other ways of looking at things.

You can make anything a goal, if you make it your goal it is a goal. — unenlightened

Exactly.

Nevertheless, your psychology as described is highly individualist as distinct from social in emphasis — unenlightened

It does appear that way, yes. I should have emphasized the social aspect -- alas, I left quite a bit out to keep it as brief as possible. But I don't think major changes can usually take place without the help of others.

materiallist and pragmatic and entirely directed to an endless succession of wants and needs, which is exactly the focus that capitalism demands of a consumer. — unenlightened

There's really nothing materialist about the OP. This is your projection, really -- read it again and you'll see it, I think.

As for being pragmatic -- yeah, I guess so? It's practical. Whether or not it's directed at "endless succession of wants and needs," I don't see that either. If you're content, so be it. It's not recommending we constantly strive for improvement -- even though I see no issue with that -- it's saying that if you do indeed want to change something about yourself or your life, then here's a way to talk about that change. Maybe it's silly and useless to you -- that's fine. But it says nothing about what you should or shouldn't want/need/aim for.

If your goal is to get away from capitalism, this is not a good basis for doing so. That is my criticism, nothing personal. — unenlightened

I really don't take this personally because I'm not attached to it. I was reluctant to even post something so formulaic and simplistic -- it reeks of self-help, quick-fix, pop psychology bullshit I really don't like. I'm just not seeing your point. I don't see anything materialist or capitalist about it. Individualist, yes -- I see that one. That was my fault for not incorporating the importance of one's milieu. But the jump from that to capitalism is a stretch.

Here is a nice little piece on Gregory Bateson, that might hint at other ways of looking at things. — unenlightened

:up:

I am not accusing you of being a capitalist. — unenlightened

He said the topic has nothing to do with capitalism, not that you were accusing him of being a capitalist.

Nevertheless, your psychology as described is highly individualist as distinct from social in emphasis... — unenlightened

Second to last paragraph of the OP:

After a lot of talk on the Forum about politics, climate change, capitalism, unions, collective action, etc., I find that so many of our problems are largely due to the fact that public pressure isn't there to change them. There's a multitude of reasons -- we're polarized, heavily propagandized, poorly educated, misinformed, warped by media, etc. But whatever the reason, in order to change this scenario we need to change ourselves and how we relate to others. — Xtrix

Hmm :chin: , sounds rather socially oriented to me.

... materiallist [sic]... — unenlightened

How so?

... pragmatic... — unenlightened

Good to see that you haven't missed that at least.

... entirely directed to an endless succession of wants and needs... — unenlightened

Clearly false so no need to bother trying to explain.

Bateson — unenlightened

Otrix's framework isn't the least bit opposed to a holistic look, as far as I can tell, and has nothing to do with technology.

It's funny, incidentally, that Bateson took a fancy to Buddhism in his later years, being that it's a belief system that only allows art that is supportive of its rigid structure and social hierarchy, and which is therefore lacking an avenue to self-correction. It's also prone to the abuses of an imbalance of power as any other social hierarchy, more so in that it's based on faith rather than reason.

[deleted]

There is no plan, no need for a plan. Make an improvement, then see where you are, and then go again. — Srap Tasmaner

How is the plan of making an improvement, reviewing the results, and then adjusting based on the results, not a plan?

If I wanted to improve my chess game I have a pretty good idea of how to go about it and I could develop a plan to do so. An important part of that plan would include coaching from an advanced player. They could offer feedback about my performance that I may not be able to notice myself, my being an intermediate player.

They say that chess is largely about pattern recognition so one of the best ways to improve is to study master games. Simply playing chess in order to improve would actually be a bad or slow plan for improvement.

So there are good plans and bad plans, and also the question of if we want to improve or want to enough to invest the effort. Personally, I would like to improve my chess game but I'm not willing to invest the effort, I have other priorities.

If I’m following it right, in Xtrix’s framework A & B are validated by C. If C (practice) is ineffective then something must be amiss in A and/or B. — praxis

If I understand you right, "the framework" is "validited" by the efficacy of (i.e. feedback from) C, which is external to "the framework", and not C itself. My objection was an internal critique of A (goals-forming/setting). As for "the framework" itself – even a broken clock is correct at least twice a day.

C is part and parcel of the framework and I don't see how it could reasonably be considered external.

Neither do I.

From my brief review of it this morning, the problem of criterion seems to center on an impossibility of validation.

Assumption: I'm too stupid to be an advanced chess player.

Result of assumption: I never develop to be an advanced chess player.

ABC Framework to the rescue!

Application of A: Hmm, maybe, just maybe, I'm not to dumb to be an advanced chess player. A stupid computer can be advanced, after all.

If B is sound then C validates A and advanced chess playing could not have been achieved without A.

That was an interesting post, and I didn't get a chance to finish reading it. I particularly like the example of chess. Why did you delete?

If I’m following it right, in Xtrix’s framework A & B are validated by C. If C (practice) is ineffective then something must be amiss in A and/or B. — praxis

You could look at it as validation, I suppose. I don't say that myself, but I can see that.

Taking the time to figure out what's important to you, who you want to be, how you want to treat others, etc., is important -- but may not lead to anything in particular. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing anyway, even if you don't act on it. In fact many people don't even get that far, and that's OK. It's when people are very unhappy or depressed that it becomes especially relevant to meditate on: what, exactly, is the problem? What is the source of your anxiety or unhappiness? Etc.

So formulating goals and making plans to achieve those goals -- A and B -- are important. How often do they lead to real action -- which is what I emphasize? I'd say it depends on how hard B is. Take losing weight. Plenty of diet plans one can follow, and most will give results -- *IF* one follows them. The fact that some people don't follow the plan doesn't necessarily invalidate the plan itself, right?

My objection was an internal critique of A (goals-forming/setting). — 180 Proof

I'm still not clear as to what the objection is, to be honest. What you've been saying sounds a lot like a solution in search of a problem. People want things and make goals and plans all the time. Nothing controversial about that. Not sure what's objectionable about it.