You clearly can't; and geography and accident of birth can and will hold back many in achieving their true potential. However "luck" is often used as an excuse for inaction. Or seen as some divine gift, given only to the few.
When in fact many people who are viewed as lucky are in fact bloody hard (and smart) workers.
I left the Gary Player quote on your post because Player was somebody who was always accused of being lucky. He made incredible low percentage shots an unusually high percentage of the time.
This was seen as lucky, instead of being seen as what it was; him religiously practicing those low percentage shots hours a day, days a week, weeks a month and months a year, until they were high percentage for him.
Perhaps I was somewhat glib; however as most of your readers are in the Western world, surrounded by opportunities those in the developing world would kill for; I felt my statement to be well placed. :-)
I think you miss my point. Western, eastern or any part of the world has risks and opportunities. My point is we aren't all born with the same risks and opportunities. Some people are born with more natural wealth than others and location of birth is only one factor and may not even be the most critical.
I would say what family you are born into has a greater influence than the location of birth. Born into the right family in any location on earth can provide opportunities but just being born in the right location to the wrong family doesn't help as much. The family you're born into is entirely luck, as is the location.
The ability to practice such as in a competition is a relevant point but who says you'll make the team? If you don't make the team then no amount of practice matters. If you do make the team then depending on natural talent you might have to practice more or less but this is assuming you made the team. I think you're saying ambition (hard work) combined with talent is better than just talent provided you make it on the team and I don't dispute that.
So when you're talking about people who have natural talent and enough luck to make the team (the opportunity to use their gifts) then you'd have a point that it's just about applying the gifts. My point is many people including in our country will never make the team, never be able to use their gifts, or if they do it's not necessarily in a way where they can get rich or have financial success. This means that access to opportunity is not equal from person to person which is ultimately my point. On the other hand natural talent is everywhere, in every country, and widely distributed, far more distributed than the opportunities.
I would say what family you are born into has a greater influence than the location of birth. Born into the right family in any location on earth can provide opportunities but just being born in the right location to the wrong family doesn't help as much.
This is only true from a fixed mindset point of view; as in "you get the cards your dealt with and that's it". Whereas I believe that whilst there are different starting points, progress does not have to be down to this myth of "natural talent".
Natural talent is the end product that we like to worship and glamorise. When in truth, natural talent is no more than somebody being intensely into something enough, to really practice and get good at it.
We look at someone like Michael Jordan, and laugh at those early coaches that cut him from various teams. Because we feel they should obviously have spotted his "natural talent".
However the fact is, Jordan and many of his ilk, inside and outside of the world of sport. Simply put a hell of a lot of effort and work into their craft.
You might say; "but yes, there are people who are better at some things than others."
To that I'd say; sure there are, but it's only the ones willing to go that extra mile and fail a few dozen times, who will ever "make it".
Natural talent is the end product that we like to worship and glamorise. When in truth, natural talent is no more than somebody being intensely into something enough, to really practice and get good at it.
And I guess we disagree on this point. Natural talent, you can lift weights all you want and you might never be the next Mike Tyson or Brock Lesnar without taking steroids. Why? Because the amount of muscle fibers you have is set at birth, and the amount of muscle you can hold on your frame is set genetically. People resort to using steroids to bypass this genetic limit but the fact is some people have a natural ability to put on muscle easily and that is an example of natural talent.
If you are born with the ability to have persistence, the genes to make you want to work hard, to give your brain the right amount of dopamine so you'll push and push, this too is a result of you winning the genetic lottery. There are inevitably people who have a more effective natural brain chemistry than yours, and people who have less effective, for the goal of being productive.
Take for example Bruce Lee? He worked extremely hard, and his exploits are legendary. He didn't get to his level of success from natural talent alone but also because he dedicated his life to applying it to martial arts, to acting, and in essence he had natural ability to hyper focus on a goal.
You can learn the right way to do something but the natural motivation to want to be the best at something is also genetic. It's not taught. That is my point. Yes it is true that at times in life you might not know yourself or you might have someone who told you to always try to be the best, but to be able to then push yourself every day for years, for decades, that's something you can't teach.
However the fact is, Jordan and many of his ilk, inside and outside of the world of sport. Simply put a hell of a lot of effort and work into their craft.
People like Michael Jordan, Bruce Lee, Muhammad Ali, are some of the most competitive human beings in recorded history. These sorts of people always push themselves even if it's not necessarily healthy to do it because they put 100% of themselves into their craft. Nothing is wrong with this but let's not pretend like everyone can do this or that everyone has the necessary traits. There is likely a spectrum and some people have more of this quality than others but if we were to take the attitude that people with this quality deserve it then how is that any different from picking out any other genetic trait to highlight and say people with those traits deserve it?
Again I don't believe it is taught. My understanding of neuroscience is that dopamine levels in the brain determine motivation, along with some other elements like testosterone which may influence competitiveness.
I don't think a person can simply learn to be motivated which is why people drink coffee, take cocaine, and other stuff. I'd like to be proven wrong and if you can show a scientific study indicating it can be learned I will consider that.
My opinion on the subject is only by knowing human limitations (your own and the limits of others) can you transcend them. I used the example of the body builder because this is something anyone can test for themselves. Anyone can lift weights in competition with another person and see which one has more natural talent to build muscle. This will show without a doubt that natural talent for building muscle exists and for this reason steroids were invented to allow people who don't have the natural talent to use a drug to achieve the results of people who do.
Now let's bring it back to "hard work" or "daily grind". This too benefits from talent and for this too there are products and drugs which can help people focus, help people work with less rest, help people to be motivated. In fact there is transcranial magnetic stimulation which has the exact effect to give anyone the instinct which comes to some people by nature.
Experiments have shown results where people have been treated for depression. Other experiments have shown by using these methods a person can feel like a psychopath for a brief period of time. This indicates that yes there is a natural talent because if there wasn't then these devices would offer no improvement.
How do you practice at life before you were born?
You clearly can't; and geography and accident of birth can and will hold back many in achieving their true potential. However "luck" is often used as an excuse for inaction. Or seen as some divine gift, given only to the few.
When in fact many people who are viewed as lucky are in fact bloody hard (and smart) workers.
I left the Gary Player quote on your post because Player was somebody who was always accused of being lucky. He made incredible low percentage shots an unusually high percentage of the time.
This was seen as lucky, instead of being seen as what it was; him religiously practicing those low percentage shots hours a day, days a week, weeks a month and months a year, until they were high percentage for him.
Perhaps I was somewhat glib; however as most of your readers are in the Western world, surrounded by opportunities those in the developing world would kill for; I felt my statement to be well placed. :-)
Cg
I think you miss my point. Western, eastern or any part of the world has risks and opportunities. My point is we aren't all born with the same risks and opportunities. Some people are born with more natural wealth than others and location of birth is only one factor and may not even be the most critical.
I would say what family you are born into has a greater influence than the location of birth. Born into the right family in any location on earth can provide opportunities but just being born in the right location to the wrong family doesn't help as much. The family you're born into is entirely luck, as is the location.
The ability to practice such as in a competition is a relevant point but who says you'll make the team? If you don't make the team then no amount of practice matters. If you do make the team then depending on natural talent you might have to practice more or less but this is assuming you made the team. I think you're saying ambition (hard work) combined with talent is better than just talent provided you make it on the team and I don't dispute that.
So when you're talking about people who have natural talent and enough luck to make the team (the opportunity to use their gifts) then you'd have a point that it's just about applying the gifts. My point is many people including in our country will never make the team, never be able to use their gifts, or if they do it's not necessarily in a way where they can get rich or have financial success. This means that access to opportunity is not equal from person to person which is ultimately my point. On the other hand natural talent is everywhere, in every country, and widely distributed, far more distributed than the opportunities.
This is only true from a fixed mindset point of view; as in "you get the cards your dealt with and that's it". Whereas I believe that whilst there are different starting points, progress does not have to be down to this myth of "natural talent".
Natural talent is the end product that we like to worship and glamorise. When in truth, natural talent is no more than somebody being intensely into something enough, to really practice and get good at it.
We look at someone like Michael Jordan, and laugh at those early coaches that cut him from various teams. Because we feel they should obviously have spotted his "natural talent".
However the fact is, Jordan and many of his ilk, inside and outside of the world of sport. Simply put a hell of a lot of effort and work into their craft.
You might say; "but yes, there are people who are better at some things than others."
To that I'd say; sure there are, but it's only the ones willing to go that extra mile and fail a few dozen times, who will ever "make it".
Cg
And I guess we disagree on this point. Natural talent, you can lift weights all you want and you might never be the next Mike Tyson or Brock Lesnar without taking steroids. Why? Because the amount of muscle fibers you have is set at birth, and the amount of muscle you can hold on your frame is set genetically. People resort to using steroids to bypass this genetic limit but the fact is some people have a natural ability to put on muscle easily and that is an example of natural talent.
If you are born with the ability to have persistence, the genes to make you want to work hard, to give your brain the right amount of dopamine so you'll push and push, this too is a result of you winning the genetic lottery. There are inevitably people who have a more effective natural brain chemistry than yours, and people who have less effective, for the goal of being productive.
Take for example Bruce Lee? He worked extremely hard, and his exploits are legendary. He didn't get to his level of success from natural talent alone but also because he dedicated his life to applying it to martial arts, to acting, and in essence he had natural ability to hyper focus on a goal.
You can learn the right way to do something but the natural motivation to want to be the best at something is also genetic. It's not taught. That is my point. Yes it is true that at times in life you might not know yourself or you might have someone who told you to always try to be the best, but to be able to then push yourself every day for years, for decades, that's something you can't teach.
People like Michael Jordan, Bruce Lee, Muhammad Ali, are some of the most competitive human beings in recorded history. These sorts of people always push themselves even if it's not necessarily healthy to do it because they put 100% of themselves into their craft. Nothing is wrong with this but let's not pretend like everyone can do this or that everyone has the necessary traits. There is likely a spectrum and some people have more of this quality than others but if we were to take the attitude that people with this quality deserve it then how is that any different from picking out any other genetic trait to highlight and say people with those traits deserve it?
I've replied here because of the end of tree problem
This is wrong; read Mindset by Dr Carol Dweck, afterwards there is no way you will agree with the above statement.
Cg
Again I don't believe it is taught. My understanding of neuroscience is that dopamine levels in the brain determine motivation, along with some other elements like testosterone which may influence competitiveness.
I don't think a person can simply learn to be motivated which is why people drink coffee, take cocaine, and other stuff. I'd like to be proven wrong and if you can show a scientific study indicating it can be learned I will consider that.
My opinion on the subject is only by knowing human limitations (your own and the limits of others) can you transcend them. I used the example of the body builder because this is something anyone can test for themselves. Anyone can lift weights in competition with another person and see which one has more natural talent to build muscle. This will show without a doubt that natural talent for building muscle exists and for this reason steroids were invented to allow people who don't have the natural talent to use a drug to achieve the results of people who do.
Now let's bring it back to "hard work" or "daily grind". This too benefits from talent and for this too there are products and drugs which can help people focus, help people work with less rest, help people to be motivated. In fact there is transcranial magnetic stimulation which has the exact effect to give anyone the instinct which comes to some people by nature.
Experiments have shown results where people have been treated for depression. Other experiments have shown by using these methods a person can feel like a psychopath for a brief period of time. This indicates that yes there is a natural talent because if there wasn't then these devices would offer no improvement.
Reincarnation :D