While I definitely had the idea that it was *possible* (I didn’t pick a weight that was greater than the current world record), during my personal record setting lifts I definitely didn’t have the conviction that I could do it. Sometimes I was pretty sure I couldn’t do it (but it was the weight that was written down on my workout sheet for the day) and I was wrong, and other times, I had no conviction, pro or con, but was willing to give it a shot.

In fact, I just remembered that on the day I did 2x my bodyweight, I made the 1st lift, then asked someone to take a picture of the second and said, “If I make it that is, and I’m not sure I will.” I made the 2nd lift but he didn’t get the picture! So, sure that I was too beat for a 3rd, but willing to give it a try anyway, I attempted — and made — the 3rd. He missed the picture again! So, now completely sure I’d miss a 4th attempt, I went for it… and made it… and got the picture… and didn’t try a 5th

I must have misunderstood. I understood you to be saying that you tried to lift various weights without even a conviction that it was possible. That seemed to me unlikely, hence my question: Why not try a thousand, or for that matter… a million?

If we have the idea: thoughts influence (let alone, determine) effects then, AFTER THE FACT, we’ll find a way to prove our story no matter what.

If I’m successful, it’ll be because I *must* have had some “positive” thought, no matter how fleeting, which MUST have led to the success.

I’m I’m unsuccessful, I either had “negative” thoughts or, if I report having “all positive” thoughts, my performance must have been influenced by some “counter-intention,” or “subconscious negativity,” or an “unconscious desire to fail,” or “self-sabotage,” or some other type of thought of which I’m unaware (suddenly making up a theory about thoughts we don’t know we have).

Part of the challenge here is that, in order to TEST the theory about “positive/negative” thinking and performance we would need, at the very least, a meticulous recording of thoughts/attitudes/etc. PRIOR TO performance (which would require a kind of honest self-reporting that may be difficult to obtain).

Imagine this scenario, just for the sake of exploring the theory: At 46 years old and 144 pounds, through some wacky lottery, I’m randomly selected to enter the Olympic shot put event. I’ve never done this event, I can barely lift the 16 pound shot, and I’m up against guys 1/2 my age and twice my strength. So I walk into the circle, step up to the line (why bother trying to do a spin throw since I don’t know how?) and heave the shot a whopping 20′.

Everyone laughs at me… and then all the other throwers come down with a case of stomach flu and drop out.

I WIN!

What do my thoughts have to do with it? Nothing.

Now, granted this is different than judging my performance, solo. But we use the same logic when looking at competitive events as we do with individual events. He “wanted it more,” she “saw herself on the winner’s stand,” the team “knew they could win,” etc.

One problem is that when we have a theory about performance, we justify it with the the worst and least reliable set of data possible, our own memories and anecdotal evidence.

We know that humans are unreliable at remembering accurately, and even perceiving accurately… but that’s THEM, those OTHER people.

Another bias we have is believing that WE are smart enough to not have the biases that all OTHER humans have (or at least that we can recognize them and not be swayed by them).

All of this is related to the cognitive bias that we look for, and expect, that we have control over many elements of our life and experience that, perhaps, we can’t control.

Given our desire to create specific outcomes, we’re wired to look for SOME causal factor. And if we can’t find an external one, we’ll use an internal one. And thanks to our “feeling of knowing,” (see “On Being Certain”) we’re also wired to FIND *an* answer, and get a reinforcing release of dopamine along with it, even though what we find may not be THE answer.

In a related note, many cognitive psychologists suggest that our discursive thoughts are, in fact, merely stories we make up to rationalize inner experiences and perceptions that have ALREADY PASSED. We have, for example, a bodily sensation of agitation, and based on the other information at hand, we’ll find ourself thinking, “Oh, I must be scared,” or in a different circumstance, “Oh, I’m sexually attracted to that turnip”… and it may be that we’re simply on a medication that causes jitters.

This happened to a psychologist friend of mine… he spent a lot of time/money/effort trying to resolve his panic attacks before discovering an unknown side effect of some medication that he was on: racing pulse and sweating.

The fact that I may have had an idea of what is physically possible, or that I may have had constraints on my attempts doesn’t change the argument.

Clearly, any knowledge on my part, or belief I may have held would not have allowed me to lift a 747 with my pinkies.

And, similarly, no amount of disbelief would have kept me from heaving a marshmallow (ignoring the possibility that I was someone who was susceptible to, and under, a hypnotic suggestion).

But there is a third state between positive and negative belief, namely, unknowing. Or curiosity.

Having no idea what I could lift can, literally, mean I have no idea. Not that it’s a counterfactual implying knowledge.

But back to my fleeting thoughts of possibility… so what? I’ve had more than fleeting thoughts of CERTAINTY that I could lift well UNDER my 1 rep max. After all, I’ve lifted, say 280, many times. But that has no effect on the days where, no matter how confident, I just can’t budge that bar.

And, I’ve had what we call “freaky days,” where I go for a new 1 rep maximum and it’s SO easy that I keep putting more and more weight on the bar, each time having no idea whether I can lift it, each time convinced that this MUST be the most I can do since it’s 30 or 40 or 50 pounds more than I’ve ever lifted… and each time the bar goes up… until I get to a point where it doesn’t.

Again, even if my choice of weights are constrained by some thought (more than a marshmallow, less than a 747), my point is that this does not translate into specific performance.

Talk to the top 5 sprinters in the world. At any given meet, each one of them is CONVINCED they can and will win. Not only are at least 4 of them wrong, but sometimes ALL of them are wrong and they’re beaten by a relative newcomer who, when being interviewed, will talk about how he never thought he could beat his idols let alone set a new world record but, somehow, it all just clicked. Usually at this point, they’ll thank some deity for their performance.

Knowing something is possible does not necessarily confer confidence.

“Knowing” it is not possible does not necessarily mean you will fail.

I’ll never forget a time in PE in about the 7th grade when I did something I would *never* *ever* have attempted, with no preparation whatsoever . . . and succeeded.

First, know that I have had what people are now calling “fibromyalgia” since elementary school. Walking a mile to school caused my calves considerable pain. I did not run. When the PE class was told to run, I walked. I avoided the pain as much as possible and made very low grades in PE while Aceing everything else. This was also before my teenage growth spurt, so I was a little chubby around the middle.

So, when my new young, but overweight PE teacher, who does not know me at all, on the first day of teaching us about the uneven parallel bars says “Come here, let me show you,” picking *me* of all people out of the crowd of little girls to show everyone how to mount these bars, I’m thinking “Oh no, she doesn’t realize who she’s picked.”

The next thing I knew I had done some kind of flip and was up on *top* of the lower bar supporting myself with my straightened arms. I had no idea how I got there, no plan of trying and was dead certain the teacher had picked the *wrong* girl for her example.

Refer again to the causality matrix. What seems to be truer is that confidence or its lack does not actually affect the outcome. For most of the kinds of causes and effects that things like pop psychology & “self-improvement” books try to tell us will be easier with “positive thinking,” it is truer that we can neither control nor predict the outcome.

The matrix of causes and influences is so great as to be truly unpredictable in things like money, relationships, success - all the things pop psychology books are written about.

In fact - *Isn’t that part of why life is SO MUCH FUN?* or to quote Forest Gump, “a box of chocolates - you never know what you’re going to get?”

Ask yourself a question, “Trying to predict outcomes - is this peaceful or stressful?”

Me, I’ll do my job - judging, trying to predict and control, and I’ll let the Universe or God do its job - surprising the f*ck out of me on a daily basis!

I have found that this is a far more fun formula to use:

“Success = Effective Action + the Conspiring Universe.”

. . . and to restate the definition . . .

“And by “effective,” I mean the action that occurs to us, in part, from our understanding that no specific outcome is guaranteed, and no specific outcome will be the source of lasting happiness, and that the idea we need to escape our present situation is probably inaccurate as well.”

I’ve been wondering whether you’re going through this as an excercise in logic or whether you have some kind of personal or practical application you would care to share with the class?

Just wondering.

Ann

“Well, at some point you MUST have at least had a fleeting thought/feeling/hunch that, maybe, at least possibly, you could have, given the wind blowing in the right direction and position of Mercury in Uranus, expected even a little that you might have made it.”

I’ll make a stronger statement than that.

“Let’s say I had no idea what I could possibly lift” Counterfactual? This implies that you do have an idea of what you can possibly lift.

“In other words, prior knowledge of my own performance and of comparative performance informs the decision to not go for what would be 3 pounds shy of the world *heavyweight* record.”

This demonstrates that your behavior is constrained by that idea.

Simple.

The gym I train in only has 600 pounds of weight for the deadlift bar.

Actually, considering that the world record under powerlifting rules is for someone my size is just over 700 pounds, and knowing that I’m not the strongest man in the world…attempting a 1000 pound lift doesn’t seem consistent with my intention to actually get the bar off the ground.

In other words, prior knowledge of my own performance and of comparative performance informs the decision to not go for what would be 3 pounds shy of the world *heavyweight* record.

Now, for the fun of it, let’s say I had no idea what I could possibly lift, nor did I have any information about any precedent… I can imagine coming to the decision to attempt 1000 pounds to discover what was possible… or to try 100 pounds for the same reason (coming at the answer from the opposite direction).

Any decision about an initial weight would be extrapolated from any imagined/remembered personal history that seemed relevant (or by the strength of my desire to impress anyone who happened to be in the gym).