There are always exceptions. There are always outliers. There are always cases that we do not expect.

The question I am thinking about today is whether or not we judge ourselves against those "exceptions to the rules?"

Or...perhaps the better question...is why we cannot be those outliers?

We tend to base our "chances" of getting something off of the status quo. But why not base those chances off of the exception to the rule? 

Why cannot we aim to be that 1/100000? 

Why aim for the middle ground?

I think we do it as a safety net. We do not want to be disappointed by failure.

But I feel like...aiming higher does not always "increase our likelihood of being disappointed." If anything...I think it diversifies our "risk." Aiming for just the median sets us up for disaster when things go badly. 

Aiming really high, yes perhaps out of our own reach, at the minimum, sets us up for the median. 

I am only thinking this lately because I feel like people tend to discount "unrealistic" outcomes. 

However, once you dive into the reasoning behind this...it is generally something of "no one can do that." Or "that is impossible."

The follow up question to that statement is...what if I told you someone has done that? Would that change your mind? 

If they answer no, then perhaps they just want their bias confirmed.