The Psychology of Winning

This is how to achieve an organizational goal. It is not all about the end goal. It is about the small wins along the way and the human psychology necessary to get there.

[@EDX2308]

This is a serious psychological subject matter. Winning/success drives people to keep going. I think truly winning is being able to lose battles and winning the war in the end. Lots of people are not able to make that leap where if they keep losing they just give up. The real winners are the ones that keep going, trying different methods/techniques/tactics/ideas to get to their goal. I also believe there is a rare breed of human beings where winning isn't necessary but seeing the results and learning from a mistake or miscalculation. I guess that could constitute as a win for the scientist/observer.

[@Professor-Gerdes1]

You have to get those short term wins to keep going.

[@frederikkern8498]

Great Video! I'd like to add a neighboring hegelian thought: "Appearance is the essence of the essens, The essence must appear!" There are no "weak ideas", that are somehow good, but fail to manifest. We also see those, who fail to accomplish anything, as carrier of good ideas. (Btw. and just to annoy you a little bit, because you said you dislike Nietzsche in another video: This is my reading of "All will is will to power!") This is something that scares me a bit about Russia's attack on Ukraine. We watch a fledgling democracy struggle against tyranny. In one of her videos, Anna from Ukraine filmed a walk in a forest. It looked exactly like a forest here in Germany. The Ukrainian's love for dogs warms a Germans heart. They try to purge corruption from their system while fighting a war for survival. Those are our ideas in a fight for survival. What if Ukraine loses, what if those ideas lose, what if we lose? What will keep those populists at home in check, if democracy as such appears weak?

[@Professor-Gerdes1]

Nietzshe had some things right. I just don't like where we were going.

[@frederikkern8498]

@@Professor-Gerdes1 You don't like "where we were going"? Sry, I don't understand. I think Nietzsche is famous for all the wrong reasons. He was whitty, funny and smart, way smarter than he is given credit for, but he was never brilliant. When he accepted that, he wrote great commentary on contemporary discourse, when not, he publicy soiled himself while claiming to be one of the great minds of his time (or the future). He reminds me a bit of Jordan Peterson in this regard. Nietzsche also has the habit of using strawman arguments against people or positions he likes, so for a student of philosophy he is a fun read and a good way to double-check your knowledge, if you have the humor for it. (E.g.: His "attacks" on Christianity hit Catharism, but not Catholicism.)