IndieAgora

I think the diagram in tje image attatched is too simplistic..

It says: If you try you either win or lose and if you don't try you lose. So it has pressuposed that not trying is tje equivalent to failing.

Let's break this down a bit more.....


To win (good) or lose (bad) you have to try. Not trying is not even entering the realm of possibility so you just 'don't win' (not bad) but you also 'don't lose' (good). You need the value equation too in order to weigh up the asymmetry here.

Non action can also be an action.

It seems motivational concepts revolve around competition, which is good for people sometimes but other times the game isn't worth playing and reevaluation of all values is more beneficial. Therefore not trying is not to be seen as giving up and losing but a recognition of how making a choice is not always sufficient given the way a system works.



Added in 1 minute 5 seconds:
Hmm was unable to upload the file.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MotivationalTh ... UpbQ1BBdBn

RDT_20251209_0527358589371269531627429

This came up after I tried leaving the link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sindh/s/kuBUdkmsad

I liked your analysis and it makes me feel better about not trying.

Yours was better but a slightly sillier one could be:

Try - Win or Lose
Not Try - Win or Lose

Another could be:

Try - Lose
Not Try - Lose

Try - Win
Not Try - Win

In all these alternative equations with an energy preservation priority, where one doesn't want to "lose" energy, the Not Try option is the superior one.

In the case where there is a chance of doing well by not trying, the one who tries and also does well has lost energy while the other who did nothing and still got good results also didn't lose that energy, making them seem like the greater success, as the other person did more to get the same "win".

Similarly, if the trier could lose, and they tried and lost, the non-trier who could win and lose just the same, who loses, never wasted any effort in addition to getting the same result as the trier.

In every case where there is an option for a non-trier to get the same results as the trier, that makes trying in those cases the option where more loss may be involved, such as the loss of energy by trying.

This reminds me of those who are offered solutions, like medicine or procedures which may increase their chances of recovering or getting through an illness. In those case, there is a very high chance of death if one does not try, even if trying only slightly increases chances of living, not trying can be a self-imposed death sentence, like 100% death or 50% if one tries.

Coercion or putting a threat against someone would calculate similarly, a chance vs. no chance, which may be how the Redditor or whoever made that image was thinking.

When it comes to desires, the idea that developed among some was that not having a desire in the first place, would mean nothing to quench, no itch to scratch, so want not.

A variant or exaggerated version of that can be nihilism, leading further to self-harm, like if someone thinks that nothing is worth pursuing, and if people want to not even be able to pursue things, so they cut themselves off, like it suggests in the New Testament regarding chopping off limbs that want or may cause one to fall into error.

I think the best of all might be to take everything into account and make smart calculations, even importantly becoming sensitive and introspective in order to try to self-analyze and figure out if what one may think they want is really what they want or if it is something else really.

One can also save a lot of money by not wanting much, just like I've spent ridiculous amounts as a poor person pursuing my interests, never seemingly done at all, but at least also not seemingly tiring of what I've accumulated in my various dens.

If one had no limit on their energy and resources, would not trying still be the winner?

What I call God did not choose not trying, which is why we have all that we do, which I also think is trash and probably barely like or enjoy.

I'd probably not prefer perpetual nothing, even though I might think so after watching a few moments of YouTube.