[Discussion] How to start seeing the results you want.

Submitted by Disciplineking t3_119d1zq in GetMotivated

This is why you never see the results you want.

I learned how to get fit, I was still lanky.

I learned how to invest, I was still broke.

I learned how to flirt, I was still single.

I started working out daily and supplementing casein before bed. I got big.

I started automatically depositing 20% of my income into a brokerage. My networth hit $50K.

I started asking people I found attractive on dates. I found a girlfriend.

Your goals are 15% learning what to do and how to do it, and 85% doing it.

When you DO the work, You GET results.

57

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

HomoVulgaris t1_j9lvzbp wrote

My net worth hit more than $50k when I focused on my career and continued living in a decrepit shithole driving a beater and wearing clothes from the thrift store even after the fifth promotion.

Literally just living within your means.

22

Original-Ad-4642 t1_j9mfy8j wrote

So many people avoid going to the gym, investing, and dating because they’re scared. They’re afraid that if they try, they’ll fail. But it’s okay to fail; you just learn from it and try again.

I’m proud of you.

15

MinecraftVeteran001 t1_j9nofro wrote

Einstein said something similar to this "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration"

4

Anxious_Original_766 t1_j9pd2tb wrote

Replying to Marksideofthedoon (#1,941,872)

I understand what the phrase means. But from the looks of it I just inferred that he made a decent salary but was living in a state of squalor from what he described. I was just saying if you had increased your salary you could also increase your means of living ( obviously not by the same percentage as that would be the lifestyle trap ). However, to be fair I dont have a lot of metrics of this guys situation (e.g., cost of living, etc)

0

Anxious_Original_766 t1_j9pfagb wrote

Replying to Marksideofthedoon (#1,942,298)

That’s such an extreme and literal take on it. If Bill Gates says that he’s living within his means who is going to think that he is living on the streets?? Language is not always meant to be taken literally, especially a common saying

−2

Marksideofthedoon t1_j9pjy8g wrote

Replying to Anxious_Original_766 (#1,942,420)

Okay, then you tell me what it means.
I see nothing extreme about what I said at all, and since there's only two sides to the concept, I don't see how it could be taken any other way.
You either have less expenses than you have income, or you have more expenses than you have income.
The phrase speaks absolutely nothing about how far beneath or how far beyond your means you are living. You are simply injecting additional meaning where there is none from my point of view.
I genuinely do not see any other way to interpret the phrase.

1

Anxious_Original_766 t1_j9pq6rb wrote

Replying to Marksideofthedoon (#1,943,104)

Firstly, I disagree w/ you. It's not either or. At a macro level, sure you either are within your means or not. However, my point is that "within your means" comes at varying degrees. That is a spectrum. You can either use 50 percentage of your income to support your lifestyle or 1%. That is a huge difference. If someone bringing in 100,000 a year says they live within their means. I do not think it is a bad bet that they mean they are spending 30% to 40% of their income to support themselves as opposed to 10%. I would argue it is in fact far more likely to be the higher figures than the lower. You don't need to be an economist to make that assumption across a generalized population - it's just common sense.

All this is to say, that when you hear the "live within your means" most people are going to picture a more moderate portion of their income going to their life cost as opposed to the bare minimum. So like I was saying, language is going to be interpreted by people as not so literal most of the times ( unless youre a robot)

−1

Marksideofthedoon t1_j9prrim wrote

Replying to Anxious_Original_766 (#1,943,928)

what people picture and what the PHRASE means are two different things. You are creating a strawman argument for zero purpose other than to dig your heels in and be right.
We are not debating what people THINK. We are debating what the phrase MEANS.

Since you are intent on arguing a non-point to no clear end, I refuse to keep entertaining your obtuse interpretation of something that you've already conceded. Good day.

3