5 comments

• 

  plonkee

  1 year ago

  I'll preface this by saying that until I met up with some pfbloggers in DC a few months ago, I'd never heard of Napoleon Hill and I still know nothing about this book.
  
  I disagree. I'm not sure that there's anything I'm in to win. I'm certainly passionate about my blogs, and my work, and many other things.
  
  I act on that passion, but at the end of the day I don't need to have the biggest blog in the world (for example) to make me happy. In fact, trying to win in that way is likely to make me unhappier in the long run.
  
  Maybe I'm missing something?
  reply
• 

  guinness416

  1 year ago

  I may be misremembering, I usually am, but in regard to Plonkee's point isn't Hill's book literally all about getting wealthy, rather than goals in general? In other words, all his potential causes of failure are "potential causes of you failing to accumulate huge amounts of money". Because I think wanting to be in "something" to win it (and remembering his mentor's obsess on money with a white hot passion advice) can really make you crazy. Or at least unpleasant to be around.
  
  I realized I'm sounding negative on all your TAGR posts, so I should probably say at this point that I didn't much like it.
  reply
• 

  Dana

  1 year ago

  Well, if you substitute any other major goal in your life for "getting rich," it's still pretty sound advice. And you don't have to be a jerk to focus hard on a goal, although you might still come across as one sometimes depending on the circumstances. Like, a workaholic trying to advance his career might not intentionally act like a jerk but come off as one anyway because he works so much he never sees his kids. But that's the only way to do your absolute best in some lines of work, or at least that's how the conventional wisdom goes.
  reply
• 

  Steve (Brip Blap)

  1 year ago

  @plonkee: I think the way I look at it is that winning means doing it the best you can. I don't think being the biggest blog in the world, for example, would mean you're the best. Winning is just about making sure you're 100% engaged in everything you do. I would say being passionate about something means you want to win, even if the only competition is your own expectations.
  
  @guinness416: I think "getting rich" and "getting wealthy" - at least to me - are two different things. I'm approaching his list of causes of failures more from a goal/life perspective, and that's the way I chose to interpret the book - but I don't discount the "rich" part. Hill puts a substantial emphasis on getting rich but almost the very first point he makes in the book is that if you get rich without an intention to give something in return then you are just a heartless machine. He even asserts that without a specific purpose built around giving back you won't manage to become rich in the first place.
  
  Hill and Wallace Wattles (who wrote The Science of Getting Rich, a predecessor of TAGR) both were emphatic that the purpose of wealth was to free up your life to achieve your purpose, and your purpose was to give back to the world in terms of charity or your talents or your knowledge. The failure to emphasize "giving back" is one of the reasons I am not as fond of new Law of Attraction works like The Secret. My idea of getting rich is so that I can become a better person, contribute more to the world and help others with my wealth - all while being happier with myself and a better provider for my family.
  
  I like the idea of thinking as every action I do as something I can win. I can fight the battle to be more intelligent, or smarter about saving money, or become more successful at business, etc. I don't think it makes me unpleasant - it's not like I'm challenging people to arm wrestle me all the time! Sorry you don't like the posts, though...
  
  @Dana: Great point on the "career man" - but I'll take that further and say that the problem there isn't working hard and not seeing your kids. I think it's failing to understand that there are multiple battles to win, and none are exclusive. You can't work 18 hours a day and neglect your family to be rich. You can't be the best stay-at-home parent in history if your spouse stays home, too - somebody has to earn money. This goes back again to the idea of being rich. I have several very specific reasons I want to be rich, but one of the first and foremost is that I want to be a full-time dad. I don't see any way to do that without getting rich enough to not need to work (a lot). But someone who works a lot is not winning, in my opinion, they are losing. The trick is to work smart, not hard. Bill Gates is a good example - until recently the richest man in the world, he's given $29 billion to charity, has three kids under 10 years old and is retiring early at the age of 53 later this year. That's much more effective than someone who works hard, buys a Lexus and retires at 65 once his kids are gone from home.
  reply
• 

  Dana

  1 year ago

  What I was getting at was not so much the getting rich angle as the being-the-best-in-your-field angle. Because of the way "being best in your field" is so often defined by others, you may find yourself becoming a workaholic to the point that you miss your kids growing up. Lots of career folk have fallen into this trap, men especially.
  
  You're absolutely right, though, that it's better to work smart rather than work hard (although you always need some degree of working hard--you just want more in the beginning and less later, ideally) if you want to amass wealth.
  reply