I'll admit that there's a fun element in strategic thinking, almost like an adventure, coming with this broad vision and the interconnecting links between different aspects of it, the anticipation and excitement of seeing patterns emerge, etc.
I'm not sure what chemical is released in the brain during this above-mentioned process, and how it influences our emotional attachment to certain outcomes.
But it always feels like waking up from a deep sleep and cognizing a magnificent aspect of reality, or so it seems.
That said, it all exists in the realm of potential or probabilities, which makes it quite insufficient against the reality of unpredictable human behaviour and the uncertainty of life.
I think as humans, it's not uncommon for us to adopt this potential view and see almost everything through that lens.
I see this person has potential, I'll support them based on that, hoping they'll fulfill my expectations or my investment will yield returns(in the case of a project with potential).
This very type of thinking is one of the things that inhibits us from seeing people and situations as they are in the present.
It's also based on a preconceived idea that a person's potential is something that we can accurately assess, perhaps, even influence towards inevitably reaching to success, as in, achieving that potential.
In my view, it's often quite the opposite. In the sense that, the gap between potential and actual achievement is as vast as our imagination and biases make it appear.
We really don't have much control over how potential materializes in reality, given the countless variables that influence outcomes and the complex interplay between circumstance, timing, and individual choice.
Arguably, the word potential is vague or lacks structure, compared to the word probability, which is more clearly defined.
Having a clearer picture of reality mostly comes from measuring concrete outcomes.
Based on the level of probability, we can make more grounded decisions by examining past patterns, current behaviors, and measurable indicators rather than just relying on intuitive assessments of potential.
Of course, there's a room for the latter, but only in the context of brainstorming and creative thinking, before moving to more rigorous evaluation methods.
For example, when evaluating a startup idea, we could initially be captivated by its potential to revolutionize an industry.
Then, a probability-based approach would examine market data, user adoption patterns, and resource requirements to assess its actual likelihood of success.
I know, a probability-based analysis seem less inspiring or optimistic. It's more factual, which 8 times out of 10 tends to be a bit pessimistic. And the brain likes to think less, and going from thinking 10 minutes on a particular topic to thinking half an hour or more is stressful.
On the other side of the spectrum, I much prefer a more reliable framework for decision-making and resource allocation. Because it removes a lot of the fluffy stuff that just gets in the way, unnecessarily.
Besides and in this case, "hope in potential materializing itself into reality" isn't necessarily eliminated. Now, it is put into a context through a framework of likelihood and evidence.
So, one can still support growth and development, but these investments - whether emotional, financial, or temporal – are guided by clearer indicators of probable outcomes.
I think more often than not, a person's capability manifests through consistent action, not the abstract potential we see in them at first or subsequent interactions.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
