If we treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat people as they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of becoming.

The saying contrasts two approaches to human character: accepting people only at their present level versus relating to them in light of their potential. It argues that purely “realistic” treatment can become a self-fulfilling prophecy—reinforcing limitations, bad habits, or low expectations—whereas holding someone to a higher standard (with respect and encouragement) can draw out latent capacities. The idea aligns with educational and ethical traditions that stress formation: people become, in part, what their communities expect and invite them to be. Read charitably, it is not a call to ignore reality, but to combine clear-eyed judgment with aspirational guidance.

1) “If you treat an individual as he is, he will remain as he is. But if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be.”
2) “Treat people as if they were what they ought to be, and you help them to become what they are capable of being.”
3) “If we treat people as they are, we make them worse; if we treat them as they ought to be, we help them become what they can be.”