The Myth of Confidence

[The_Adventurer]

Reading Globetrotter's post I begin to see that this discussion is far more complex than I initially thought. I think there is a lack of a common language here. This leads me to ask:

Globetrotter: What is confidence?

Winston: What is confidence?

Are you two certain your are talking about the same thing?

The one side of things, this internal side, makes me think of the old David Carradine Kung Fu TV series. The lead character, Caine, is probably one of the most quite, unassuming characters on TV. If not trouble is happening, he would probably be considered a passive beta loser by most standards. (Let's face it, he had no job, and usually no shoes) Yet we, the audience, know he had the internal side of things down. When you say Confucious knew it, or Plato or Jesus, I think this internal aspect is something that can exist in a man without ever being externalized. Many great men of old went about changing the world without much bravado or fanfare.

Then there is this other side. The so-called confidence of the swaggering, boastful, loud mouth. I consider this to be an act. Unfortunately, I get the impression that some posters are talking about this when they write negatively about confidence or consider it a myth.

What Globetrotter writes about, I don't know if I would call it confidence. I believe that confidence is the result of what he writes about, or a natural extension of it, but not the thing itself. Also, I see some confusion in regards to time. It seems like Winston is talking doing something in an instant, like flipping a light switch, whereas Globetrotter is talking about doing something over a period of time.

I myself I have confidence I will master Chinese and speak it perfectly, and be able to move around and do great things here. I am not very confident in my ability to walk outside this instant and strike up a conversation with someone, though. I simply don't have the vocabulary yet. I, however, remember my experience with learning Japanese. From the moment I opened my first book on the subject, I knew I would one day be fluent, but there was still a day, when I was sitting at a party, and I realized I understood most of what was being said and could really hold a conversation and really participate in what was going on. There was a great new feeling in that moment. SO if the first feeling was confidence, what was the second feeling?

[Winston]

Also, the word “confidence� is used in America as an escape for conmen. If I sell you an expensive $5000 PUA course, and it doesn’t work, then I can just tell you that it’s your fault for not applying the principles and getting confidence. I fulfilled my end of the contract by providing the material. The fact that it is bullshit and doesn’t work is your problem. The word “confidence� implies that you have all the control, whereas I only have the $5000. Notice that people in poverty in Catholic third world countries actually have some ability to be happy, because they believe in fate, and that they have no control over what happens to them, but discover that they actually can still be happy in the moment. Americans need to control everything and assume that they can control everything – and feel like miserable failures if they don’t. Maybe confidence has some better meaning in another culture like the Philippines, but then you don’t even have to use the word there.

That's a good point. How come people in other countries don't rave about having to be confident? Mostly Americans do.

There are also con artist techniques called "confidence games" if anyone wants to look that up.

Confidence is definitely overhyped in America.

[Winston]

Globetrotter, you are not understanding the main point.

Confidence isn't like a light switch you flip on and off. If it were, everyone would have it flipped on. Do you disagree with that?

You and he are unable to understand what I am writing.

You can't just spring confidence from nothing. It has to be BASED ON SOMETHING, even if it's something small, it has to be something.

You either did not read what I wrote or you have ignored it. I had complete confidence that I would be able to move to China, get a job, and be happy here. I had this attitude before I moved to China. I had never moved to China before. Your reasoning is flawed, I am sorry to say. My previous experiences in life gave me the confidence to do something new - something that I had never tried before.

When I first began as a DJ, as I wrote, I just knew I was good. Before I ever did it, before I ever practiced. I had the confidence that I was good at it, before I actually did it. And I was correct. This confidence was not based upon anything but my belief in myself. Pure belief in my self. That was all.

That is what confidence is, the belief in ones self to be able to do something that you have not done before.

Like the OP, you are an intelligent guy who has zero confidence. You think (wrongly) that confidence must be based upon something. You get in an infinite intellectual loop and think, talk and debate yourself to death. To you, you must do something well first. But you think you cannot do something well if you lack confidence, and you think that you cannot get confidence unless you can do something well, thus you think you are doomed and f***ed and will lack confidence forever as you have convinced yourself that it is impossible.

I can't change this. Arguing about it, talking about it, words, debate, intelligence - all of that is meaningless, Winston.

You lack confidence because you don't believe in yourself. That is all it is.

You will gain confidence once you believe in youself, and this is not conditional upon you being, doing or having any one thing or accomplishment.

You don't believe in yourself. I get that. I am not surprised considering the tenor of your posts and stories.

Globetrotter, if you play a sport that you suck at, are you going to be confident, if you know you're going to lose and are way outmatched? No of course not. You're going to lose and you know it.

You don't understand confidence. You just described COMPETENCE and ABILITY. Different.

You can't just be confident for no reason.

Yes you can. It is called self-belief in yourself, which is different than self-esteem.

I have the confidence that I can move anywhere on this planet, live, work and get a job; be happy, get a girl. This is based upon my internal belief in myself - nothing else. I certainly don't speak 20 languages or have $2 million to play with. I have not lived everywhere. Until last year I had only lived in the USA. By your reasoning it is impossible to do something before you do it. More analysis paralysis, again - from the very smart guys with no confidence.

I cannot help you. No one can. You must learn this on your own.

Debating, writing intelligently, being right, arguing with me - it is all pointless, Winston.

Do or Do Not. There is not Try.

The only person who can give you confidence is YOURSELF. No one else can. No external event can. Your confidence is not based upon EXTERNAL events or factors.

Globetrotter, dude, are you insane? You aren't getting it. This is not complicated. Why are you parroting pseudo politically correct typical American bullshit?

Of course you have confidence to move to China. If I wanted to move there, I'd have the same confidence too, cause I know that it is a realistic endeavor.

I've never been to China, and if I got on a plane tomorrow, I'd feel confident too, cause I have prior travel experience and can wing things.

But that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about creating confidence out of nowhere for no reason and no justification.

When I first swam, I knew I could swim and stay afloat, even without any prior experience. It was from an inner knowing, a subconscious knowing of my abilities. Sometimes you just know things, and they turn out to be correct.

I know what I am good at and what I am not. Confidence isn't going to change that.

If I'm good at tennis and I can kick your ass for instance, I'll feel confident about doing so. But if I suck, I'm not going to feel confident. How hard is that for you to understand?

It has to be BASED ON SOMETHING AND JUSTIFIED. You can't just feel confident for no reason. Why are you buying all that pop psychology bullshit? I thought you were a freethinker and smarter than that?

I ask you again: If you were playing Michael Jordan one on one, would you feel confident that you have a chance?

Sure if two tennis players of equal ability played, the one with more confidence would have an edge. But if they are of equal ability, they will usually feel the same confidence. The rest is up to endurance, luck, timing, strategy, mental focus, etc.

Bottom line: Confidence is a factor, but it's not going to make or break something or someone.

[Winston]

Globetrotter,
Question: If you were to play Michael Jordan one on one in basketball, would you feel "confident" about winning?

Why or why not?

If not, could I blame you for not feeling confident about winning?

Would I feel confident? Yes.

Is it realistic to think that I would win? That is not probable.

Also, you need to know that I am 6'3" and weigh about 235. I could keep up, a little, with a Michael Jordan. 8 years ago I could leg press 1080 pounds for 17 reps. Not now, tho. I could not, however, jump 48 inches. Never had much vertical jump.

Also there are guys who play pick up who ARE just as good as Jordan, but they lack the focus to play in the NBA, or they don't care, or they have other interests, or whatever. Video abounds of guys beating professionals in one-on-one pickup games for 15 points or so.

You are describing being intimidated by someone else's ability and reputation. Again, that's not confidence.

Winston, you are too smart to understand this.

Confidence is not related to your intelligence and you cannot think your way to confidence. This is your error. Stop thinking and analyzing and finding examples.

Confidence is not related to whether you win or not. It USUALLY increases if you win over and over, but you can be very confident and lose, or unconfident and win.

Because you lack the wisdom and experience, anything I say will be interpreted by your intelligence as pop psych b.s.

So if I tell you:

Confidence comes from within.

You will recall all the pop gurus who have said the same thing.

What you fail to grasp is that the concept 'Confidence comes from within' is thousands of years old. Kongzi knew it. Plato did. All the great philosophers did. Jesus, too.

Again, you are currently incapable of understanding this at this stage in your life.

Only time, growth and wisdom will (maybe) allow you to understand what I am posting.

This is an unfortunate side-effect of all great wisdom.

When it is retold to those who don't yet understand, it appears to them (to you and the OP) as nonsense, bullshit, or Pop Psychobabble.

It is so simple that the very intelligent (again, you and the OP) over think it and drive it into the ground with meaningless analysis.

You think it cannot be so because it is not a complex idea that your intellect enjoys thinking about, writing about, debating about.

"Do or Do Not. There is No Try."

Not much there to think about, is there? Not complex at all.

You and the OP are not yet ready.

When you are, both of you will understand (Get It), and both of you will have confidence.

I hope that you both do.

What you are talking about is self-esteem. That's another issue. I have that. Even if people think I'm shit, I still like myself and believe in myself. I have an inner knowing and connectedness that most do not have.

What we are arguing with is the way people blame everything on confidence, like it's some magical ability that will change everything. That's baloney. See my essay about attitude fanatics here:

http://www.happierabroad.com/Attitude_Fanatics.htm

[Winston]

Bravo, I think Globetrotter summed it up.

One of the fundamental problems I see here is that people keep making the chicken or the egg argument. People are saying that someone can't (or shouldn't) be confident if they don't have any achievement or talent to back it up with and that it's "false" confidence. In a way people in this thread are implying that only talented and successful people have genuine confidence? It makes no sense.

This isn't a world populated by only talented people who go on to become successful. You can't persevere or motivate yourself without confidence. If you believe everything you do is limited then you will never go beyond a certain point. Like I said the mental block is a real thing.

The "pros" are filled with people who aren't innately athletically gifted but possess a good ethic and confident determination that improved their skill set to compete at a certain level. Some started young which is why they had a long period to cultivate that confidence. That's called self development and progression. Without any confidence it's an uphill battle.

One thing that I admire about Japanese culture is that in the past they did believe in this dogged perseverance. This inner confidence. Go look up Yamato Damashi.

I'm not saying that confidence is not helpful. Of course it is. But it is not some magical make all or break all thing that pop psychology makes it out to be.

What you are referring to is perseverance. Thomas Edison had that when he kept failing, cause deep down he knew he would succeed eventually. Remember that quote "success is one percent genius and 99 percent perspiration"?

But that's a different issue. Some people persevere, even against all odds, cause they have an inner belief and knowing about what they are doing. That's true.

But that's not what we are debating. We are debating whether confidence is some magical thing you switch on that makes or breaks everything, and whether it is overhyped in pop psychology and with the lazy Generation-Yers.

[Winston]

Reading Globetrotter's post I begin to see that this discussion is far more complex than I initially thought. I think there is a lack of a common language here. This leads me to ask:

Globetrotter: What is confidence?

Winston: What is confidence?

Are you two certain your are talking about the same thing?

The one side of things, this internal side, makes me think of the old David Carradine Kung Fu TV series. The lead character, Caine, is probably one of the most quite, unassuming characters on TV. If not trouble is happening, he would probably be considered a passive beta loser by most standards. (Let's face it, he had no job, and usually no shoes) Yet we, the audience, know he had the internal side of things down. When you say Confucious knew it, or Plato or Jesus, I think this internal aspect is something that can exist in a man without ever being externalized. Many great men of old went about changing the world without much bravado or fanfare.

Then there is this other side. The so-called confidence of the swaggering, boastful, loud mouth. I consider this to be an act. Unfortunately, I get the impression that some posters are talking about this when they write negatively about confidence or consider it a myth.

What Globetrotter writes about, I don't know if I would call it confidence. I believe that confidence is the result of what he writes about, or a natural extension of it, but not the thing itself. Also, I see some confusion in regards to time. It seems like Winston is talking doing something in an instant, like flipping a light switch, whereas Globetrotter is talking about doing something over a period of time.

I myself I have confidence I will master Chinese and speak it perfectly, and be able to move around and do great things here. I am not very confident in my ability to walk outside this instant and strike up a conversation with someone, though. I simply don't have the vocabulary yet. I, however, remember my experience with learning Japanese. From the moment I opened my first book on the subject, I knew I would one day be fluent, but there was still a day, when I was sitting at a party, and I realized I understood most of what was being said and could really hold a conversation and really participate in what was going on. There was a great new feeling in that moment. SO if the first feeling was confidence, what was the second feeling?

Good question. To me, confidence is like a positive feeling that you will do well or do great at something you're about to do. Like I said, if you know you are good at something, or have done it well in the past, then you have a REASON to feel confident. But if you sucked in the past, like me with biology and calculus, then I will not feel confident cause in the past, I could not memorize all those words and formulas. It went in one ear and out the other, and I could not force my mind to memorize them, even though I tried. My mind just would not recall it.

If you walked into a nightclub of stuck up girls, and acted confident, what would that accomplish? The girls are still going to be stuck up and ignore you and laugh at you if you approach them, unless you are their type of course. So what difference will it make? It's a moot point.

The "Do or do not. There is no try." by Yoda does not apply. We do not have absolute control over the universe. We cannot walk through solid walls or fly without a plane. Limitations are a reality.

All this is common sense. Why are we even debating this?

[Shokkers]

Interesting banter here...

Although it doesn't affect anyone now, I wish the Japanese hadn't had all that "confidence" back in 1941. "Hmmm...I've got a great idea! We'll Sneak attack a country that can make a new aircraft carrier every month, when our own island doesn't even have any iron ore..."

That's confidence for you.

I wrote a new acting book, and at the end I tell the reader to GET OUT THERE AND FAIL. Because they will, over and over again. Nicholson, Stallone, Elvis, The Beatles, anyone you've ever heard of, FAILED AND FAILED AND FAILED AGAIN. They just kept going, is all. You want to be an actor? REALIZE you will get ONE role for any of 50 to 100 you audition for.

There is no real way to have CONFIDENCE with that realization. But you CAN take "failure" out of the equation. You can say "I showed up and did my job (auditioned)." The samurai would say "There is no failure, only death or success". Paraphrased, you can take that to mean, there is only A FAILURE TO ACT, or success.

When I audition, I am NEVER 'confident'. I am professional. I memorize my lines, I take direction, etc. Afterwards, I tell myself "OK, I don't have that part, what's next?" I am not attached to the outcome. Then when I get the call "You got the part", obviously I'm elated. If I don't get that call, it doesn't bother me.

It's not a bad thing to have confidence, but in a Zen sense it's illusory, like most everything else.

[ahardy57]

Reading Globetrotter's post I begin to see that this discussion is far more complex than I initially thought. I think there is a lack of a common language here. This leads me to ask:

Globetrotter: What is confidence?

Winston: What is confidence?

Are you two certain your are talking about the same thing?

The one side of things, this internal side, makes me think of the old David Carradine Kung Fu TV series. The lead character, Caine, is probably one of the most quite, unassuming characters on TV. If not trouble is happening, he would probably be considered a passive beta loser by most standards. (Let's face it, he had no job, and usually no shoes) Yet we, the audience, know he had the internal side of things down. When you say Confucious knew it, or Plato or Jesus, I think this internal aspect is something that can exist in a man without ever being externalized. Many great men of old went about changing the world without much bravado or fanfare.

Then there is this other side. The so-called confidence of the swaggering, boastful, loud mouth. I consider this to be an act. Unfortunately, I get the impression that some posters are talking about this when they write negatively about confidence or consider it a myth.

What Globetrotter writes about, I don't know if I would call it confidence. I believe that confidence is the result of what he writes about, or a natural extension of it, but not the thing itself. Also, I see some confusion in regards to time. It seems like Winston is talking doing something in an instant, like flipping a light switch, whereas Globetrotter is talking about doing something over a period of time.

I myself I have confidence I will master Chinese and speak it perfectly, and be able to move around and do great things here. I am not very confident in my ability to walk outside this instant and strike up a conversation with someone, though. I simply don't have the vocabulary yet. I, however, remember my experience with learning Japanese. From the moment I opened my first book on the subject, I knew I would one day be fluent, but there was still a day, when I was sitting at a party, and I realized I understood most of what was being said and could really hold a conversation and really participate in what was going on. There was a great new feeling in that moment. SO if the first feeling was confidence, what was the second feeling?

The second feeling was mastery.

[The_Adventurer]

I don't consider what the Japanese did in 1941 to be confidence, but rather the exact opposite. More like the little guy who decides to hit the big guy in the back of the head with a rock when he is not looking.

As for acting, or any kind of entertainment gig, there is certainly a medal to be awarded for perseverance. Some even say that this can work in the dating scene also. The guy who keeps going long after everyone else gives up will get the prize. Like Will Smith said, if you both get on a treadmill and start running, he will guarantee that he will be on that treadmill long after you, or die on it.

[YoucancallmeAl]

"So here’s the truth about confidence: You can only have confidence when other people give it to you. "
How'd all that confidence work out for them, Globetrotter??? Huh? Tell me. How useful was their confidence???

>'Do or Do Not.
There is no 'Try'.

That nonsense is only true in the fantasy world of Star Wars. Here in reality, we don't have "the force" to fall back on.

As I wrote, you are one of those intelligent guys who has no faith or belief in himself unless someone tells you that you are good. I cannot fix this, no one can.

If you lack the age, wisdom and life experience to realize that 'Do or Do Not, There is no Try' is actually thousands of years old and not from Star Wars, then you are going to be blind to my wisdom. This concept is not glib, it's not pop psych bs, it has nothing to do with The Force or George Lucas. It's eastern philosophy and it is about 3,000 years old.

Whether it is 3000 years old or not doesn't make any difference. It's still fantasy. And it's still nonsense. You're assuming that ancient = wise.
But the "ancients" believed the Earth was flat and the sun was a God. Not exactly wise there, were they?
The idea that there "is no try" is just laughable on it's face. Sure, it sounds all poetic and wisdom-y, but it's
just pseudo-wisdom psychobabble gibberish that ultimately means nothing and offers no useful or helpful insight.
Of course there is "try". People try all the time. Sometimes they try and succeed. Sometimes they try and fail.
And those who try and succeed will have more confidence than those who try and fail.

[globetrotter]

Whether it is 3000 years old or not doesn't make any difference. It's still fantasy. And it's still nonsense. You're assuming that ancient = wise.

But the "ancients" believed the Earth was flat and the sun was a God. Not exactly wise there, were they?
The idea that there "is no try" is just laughable on it's face. Sure, it sounds all poetic and wisdom-y, but it's
just pseudo-wisdom psychobabble gibberish that ultimately means nothing and offers no useful or helpful insight.
Of course there is "try". People try all the time. Sometimes they try and succeed. Sometimes they try and fail.
And those who try and succeed will have more confidence than those who try and fail.

As I posted, both you and Winston are not yet ready to understand.

The phrase 'Do or do not...' is not wise because it is old, it is wise because it is wise.

"but it's just pseudo-wisdom psychobabble gibberish that ultimately means nothing and offers no useful or helpful insight."

No it offers no insight TO YOU, because you are self-blinded.

Your intelligence is not helping you here, but you are self-blinded to this, too.

Stop thinking.

Just be.

[Winston]

How is it a myth?

Let's say you get two fighters in the ring, both have similar qualities, similar physical attributes, and a similar skill level. The one with the most confidence in his abilities and determination will pull through 9 times out of 10 barring any large unknown deficiencies. You see this time and time again in fighting sports like MMA, boxing, or even competitive weightlifting.

Confidence is all about a strong belief in your own abilities to succeed and having determination to at least attempt to follow through. A negative frame of mind or being overly cynical aka lack of confidence in yourself is self defeating because before you even begin you are already considering the loss.

You know Repatriate, it's funny that you now endorse the value of confidence, yet you keep trying to undermine mine by bashing me for my looks. If I had no confidence, I'd feel like shit and depressed cause of your insults about my looks. But I don't, cause I have TRUE INNER CONFIDENCE and an inner sense of self and spirituality that you've never gotten in touch with within yourself, cause you are attuned to the shallow world, not the spiritual one.

So you see, that's an example of true confidence. And another example of how my confidence is about ACTION, while yours is about words. You try to destroy my confidence. I try to bring it up. So who is the pro-confidence person here? Certainly not you.

Read that above again, so I don't have to repeat it and you don't act like you didn't hear it. Human ignorance is annoying.

If you truly believed in confidence, you'd be trying to uplift people here and making them feel good about themselves (like I try to do with others), not bringing them down. Happy confident people do not try to bring others down. Do you see Anthony Robbins trying to bring people down or criticize their looks and clothes? No. He uplifts people and inspires them, and tries to bring out the best in them.

[Winston]

Interesting banter here...

Although it doesn't affect anyone now, I wish the Japanese hadn't had all that "confidence" back in 1941. "Hmmm...I've got a great idea! We'll Sneak attack a country that can make a new aircraft carrier every month, when our own island doesn't even have any iron ore..."

That's confidence for you.

I wrote a new acting book, and at the end I tell the reader to GET OUT THERE AND FAIL. Because they will, over and over again. Nicholson, Stallone, Elvis, The Beatles, anyone you've ever heard of, FAILED AND FAILED AND FAILED AGAIN. They just kept going, is all. You want to be an actor? REALIZE you will get ONE role for any of 50 to 100 you audition for.

There is no real way to have CONFIDENCE with that realization. But you CAN take "failure" out of the equation. You can say "I showed up and did my job (auditioned)." The samurai would say "There is no failure, only death or success". Paraphrased, you can take that to mean, there is only A FAILURE TO ACT, or success.

When I audition, I am NEVER 'confident'. I am professional. I memorize my lines, I take direction, etc. Afterwards, I tell myself "OK, I don't have that part, what's next?" I am not attached to the outcome. Then when I get the call "You got the part", obviously I'm elated. If I don't get that call, it doesn't bother me.

It's not a bad thing to have confidence, but in a Zen sense it's illusory, like most everything else.

That's a great point, and a deep one too. I didn't know you studied Zen philosophy. You can fail your way to success. Babe Ruth had the most strikeouts as well as the most home runs.

It takes perseverance as well as an inner feeling of determination and will.

Have you read a book called "Acting Professionally" by Robert Cohen? He says that it is a myth that actors are discovered like they show in movies, where an agent discovers you, casts you in films and then you become a star. It doesn't work that way in reality. He said that all stars worked hard and got rejected at many auditions before they made it.

A lot of agents and casting directors told Harrison Ford when he was young that he was not cut out to be an actor. They were wrong.

But then again, most wannabe actors do not succeed. That's the reality. If they can make a living doing live theater or stage shows in the city, then they are lucky.

You can't predict who will become successful. Not even experts can. George Lucas was told that he would become a ticket taker at Disneyland when he was a teen, cause he was so shy and introverted with no ambition.

[Winston]

Whether it is 3000 years old or not doesn't make any difference. It's still fantasy. And it's still nonsense. You're assuming that ancient = wise.

But the "ancients" believed the Earth was flat and the sun was a God. Not exactly wise there, were they?
The idea that there "is no try" is just laughable on it's face. Sure, it sounds all poetic and wisdom-y, but it's
just pseudo-wisdom psychobabble gibberish that ultimately means nothing and offers no useful or helpful insight.
Of course there is "try". People try all the time. Sometimes they try and succeed. Sometimes they try and fail.
And those who try and succeed will have more confidence than those who try and fail.

As I posted, both you and Winston are not yet ready to understand.

The phrase 'Do or do not...' is not wise because it is old, it is wise because it is wise.

"but it's just pseudo-wisdom psychobabble gibberish that ultimately means nothing and offers no useful or helpful insight."

No it offers no insight TO YOU, because you are self-blinded.

Your intelligence is not helping you here, but you are self-blinded to this, too.

Stop thinking.

Just be.

You're not making any valid points here. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you had a real point or case, you'd make it. Thus your lack of a valid point speaks for itself.

Do you even understand what we are arguing here? I said that confidence is not some magic thing that makes or breaks anything. It does not determine whether a girl likes you or not. It is a factor, yes, but overhyped. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

Question for you:

- If you fought Mike Tyson in the ring, would you feel confident about your chances? If so, based on what reason?

You gotta have a reason to be confident. Being confident for no reason doesn't get results. You went to China and felt confident about it, cause going to live there was a REALISTIC and ACHIEVABLE goal. So you had a good REASON to be confident. It wasn't based on nothing. But if you tried to swim across the English channel at your age, would you feel confident? No, and you shouldn't, cause that's not a realistic goal that you can achieve, and it would be dangerous to attempt too.

Should I use the Yoda analogy and say "Do or do not. There is no try." in regards to you swimming across the English channel? lol

Confidence helps and gives you an edge. Yes. But it has its limitations. We all know that. Life is about multiple factors, not just one factor. We all know that. So what are you arguing about?

Do you contest any of this? If so, why? Explain yourself and give your reasons. No bullshit denial this time.

Otherwise this discussion is non-constructive.

[Winston]

Globetrotter,
Tell you what. I'll make you a deal. If you can use your mind to lift an X-Wing fighter out of the swamp (or any large object) like Yoda did in Empire Strikes Back, then I'll believe your "Do or do not. There is no try." wisdom.

Here is the scene where Yoda said that, just before he used the Force to life the X-Wing fighter out of the swamp.