Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Everest
Fox has raised an interesting point in the comments of my last post.
I postulated that it is important to set “stretch” goals. Goals that perhaps cannot even be achieved, because by setting these we continually inspire ourselves to aim for more and more. We force ourselves to grow. Fox on the other hand was extolling the virtues of setting achievable goals, such that we would be able to encourage and inspire ourselves to keep working towards achievable targets.
In a way I think we're both right.
I was having a conversation with my sister a while back, in which I postulated every person needs an Everest. A giant insurmountable target that they wish to attain, to climb. If I was to go and attempt to climb Everest now, I wouldn't make it 10% of the way. I just don't have the skills or experience necessary to do so. That doesn't mean I can't sit down now and say I want to do it, it just means that if that is what I truly want, I need to first find a Kosciusko. A goal I can work towards which is not so insurmountable. But that in achieving, I will begin to develop the skills I would need for my Everest.
So the analogy I'm trying to draw here is this. Kosciusko is what Fox was pushing for. Or at least what I think we should be pushing for in the vein. The achievable goals. But there more to it than them just being achievable. They need to lead towards the Everest. The eventual (unattainable?) goal. We may need 5 or even 50 different Kosciusko's before we can tackle Everest. We may even never get there. But I think it is important to have the Kosciusko, rather than just a walk in the park. Because walking in the park doesn't challenge us. It doesn't make us grow at all.
And so our Kosciusko's have a meaning of their own, but also a greater meaning defined in terms of our Everest's.
So whatcha think? Am I on to something? To the comments!
Extra bonus section – Practical application. It's all well and good for me to say this, but here's the problem. I don't have an Everest. I try to define my Everest and I don't get anywhere. And without an Everest, Kosciusko's are rather hard to define. I can pick a smallish task that I think will challenge me and help me develop skills, but if I complete 5 different unrelated Kosciusko's then I'm only one step towards any actual Everest.
And it's also so easy to pick a walk in the park, and confuse myself into thinking its a Kosciusko. I think I need an Everest, but I have no Idea how I go about finding one. Thoughts? Take that to the comments too.
I postulated that it is important to set “stretch” goals. Goals that perhaps cannot even be achieved, because by setting these we continually inspire ourselves to aim for more and more. We force ourselves to grow. Fox on the other hand was extolling the virtues of setting achievable goals, such that we would be able to encourage and inspire ourselves to keep working towards achievable targets.
In a way I think we're both right.
I was having a conversation with my sister a while back, in which I postulated every person needs an Everest. A giant insurmountable target that they wish to attain, to climb. If I was to go and attempt to climb Everest now, I wouldn't make it 10% of the way. I just don't have the skills or experience necessary to do so. That doesn't mean I can't sit down now and say I want to do it, it just means that if that is what I truly want, I need to first find a Kosciusko. A goal I can work towards which is not so insurmountable. But that in achieving, I will begin to develop the skills I would need for my Everest.
So the analogy I'm trying to draw here is this. Kosciusko is what Fox was pushing for. Or at least what I think we should be pushing for in the vein. The achievable goals. But there more to it than them just being achievable. They need to lead towards the Everest. The eventual (unattainable?) goal. We may need 5 or even 50 different Kosciusko's before we can tackle Everest. We may even never get there. But I think it is important to have the Kosciusko, rather than just a walk in the park. Because walking in the park doesn't challenge us. It doesn't make us grow at all.
And so our Kosciusko's have a meaning of their own, but also a greater meaning defined in terms of our Everest's.
So whatcha think? Am I on to something? To the comments!
Extra bonus section – Practical application. It's all well and good for me to say this, but here's the problem. I don't have an Everest. I try to define my Everest and I don't get anywhere. And without an Everest, Kosciusko's are rather hard to define. I can pick a smallish task that I think will challenge me and help me develop skills, but if I complete 5 different unrelated Kosciusko's then I'm only one step towards any actual Everest.
And it's also so easy to pick a walk in the park, and confuse myself into thinking its a Kosciusko. I think I need an Everest, but I have no Idea how I go about finding one. Thoughts? Take that to the comments too.
