"Doing the unrealistic is easier than doing the realistic. It’s lonely at the top. Ninety-nine percent of people in the world are convinced they are incapable of achieving great things, so they aim for mediocre. The level of competition is thus fiercest for 'realistic' goals, paradoxically making them the most time- and energy-consuming… The fishing is best where the fewest go, and the collective insecurity of the world makes it easy for people to hit home runs while everyone else is aiming for base hits. There is just less competition for bigger goals."
I don't know if I agree completely with that, especially when the goal is related to personal betterment. I mean, the only competition for that is with yourself, right? But then I read on:
"Unreasonable and unrealistic goals are easier to achieve for yet another reason. Having an unusually large goal is an adrenaline infusion that provides the endurance to overcome the inevitable trials and tribulations that go along with any goal. Realistic goals, goals restricted to the average ambition level, are uninspiring and will only fuel you through the first or second problem, at which point you will throw in the towel."
I guess the thing that popped into my head was the question, "Why would you want to strive for mediocrity anyway?" When you say it that way, it sounds really lame. But then I thought about it some more, and realized that I do it every day. I don't necessarily set goals to BE mediocre, but that's pretty much what happens when I'm not making a goal and working at it to try to be better.
Anyway, there are many things in life that I CAN and WANT to do better at, and changing them all at once has always seemed like such an unrealistic goal. Maybe I have been limiting myself, though. Why don't I just make the goal and run with it? I just have to formulate the goals so I know what I am trying to do and who I am trying to become.
