Malcolm Gladwell of The New Yorker recently wrote a piece about how genetic traits in elite athletes give them an advantage over others who lack said traits. Gladwell describes the genetic prowess of Donald Thomas, described in David Epstein's book, The Sports Gene, stating:
Donald Thomas, who on the seventh high jump of his life cleared 7' 3.25"—practically a world-class height. The next year, after a grand total of eight months of training, Thomas won the world championships. How did he do it? He was blessed, among other things, with unusually long legs and a strikingly long Achilles tendon—ten and a quarter inches in length—which acted as a kind of spring, catapulting him high into the air when he planted his foot for a jump.
Gladwell discusses many examples provided by Epstein, but this particular one is notable when you compare Donald Thomas to a much more acclaimed high jumper; one who possessed far less natural talent: Dick Fosbury.
The difference between the natural talent of the two is stark to say the least. Unlike Thomas's high jump beginnings, early in Fosbury's career, he would struggle to qualify for high school meets, which required a mere 5' jump. However, unlike Fosbury, Thomas has yet to win Olympic gold (it's worth noting that his personal best would've won bronze at the 2012 games). The rift between the two can be explained by what high jumpers call the "Fosbury Flop", the modern technique used to clear the bar. Fosbury's pioneering technique allowed him to win the 1968 Olympics and set an Olympic record of 2.24 meters (albeit, not a world record).
This comparison tells me that success is best achieved through hard work and innovation. Natural gifts, while useful and likely to give their holder a leg up, do not give one an advantage that hard work and innovation can't overcome. I played sports in college, and while this doesn't make me an expert by any stretch of the imagination, it has given me a perspective that others may not have. Many people look at the elite athletes of the world and think, "if only I was seven feet tall, I could do that" or, "he/she is only that good because of their long arms/legs," which while a perfectly natural reaction, is only barely true. The reality is that while physical gifts are helpful, there are plenty in the upper echelon of athletics who have the same gifts as those at the very top (i.e. top 8 in the world), but are regularly bested by those without them who instead choose to innovate and out work them. The ability to work with what you have, and to find a way to win despite what you lack, is what makes an athlete great, not God-given genetic dominance.
Natural talent and genetic prowess are important, but they're not everything; not in sport, school, or work. This got me thinking about what I'm naturally good at, and what I need to work on and innovate in order to get myself to where I want to be? I'm naturally pretty good at mathematics but I need to work on getting better at taking risks. What about you monkeys out there? What are you naturally good at, and what area of your life do you recognize as one where you'll have to work hard and innovate to improve? Also, I have to wonder, how many of you would switch the two? To give up your strength to ameliorate your weakness?
I'm pretty sure I would.
I think you make a lot of good points, and it'd seem to me (from the naturally very gifted people in certain areas that I've met) that a lot of people take their strengths for granted. If you don't have to work hard to become good at something, you aren't forced to innovate, adapt, and work towards attaining it.
Talented in mathematics and a very good memory.
my meat stick
I have an oddly good memory despite the herbs I smoke on an hourly basis, and that in turn allows me to learn and memorize things very quickly.
Tall. Somewhat good looking.
i can make a hamburger
I was blessed with the ability to win in Game 7. When my competitors take me the distance, I simply crush them... almost as if it never happened. I'm a natural dream killer.
Like one of the comments already made and several that have yet to ensue, I would like to reference my unit.
Hand eye coordination. Whether baseball, tennis, hockey, or any other sport...I was able to go from not playing to being competitive regionally in tennis and made state all-star in baseball after only 2 years.
Not world class but something
I would not give up my strengths to ameliorate my weaknesses. Reducing your strengths to bolster your weaknesses would be a mistake that would make you simply average IMO. Think of the people who are considered at the top of their field or "great". Many of them have extraordinary flaws (Amy Winehouse comes to mind). However, they are still considered great because they are so uniquely gifted in a particular skill that it overshadow's that person's flaws.
In essence, great strengths are always valuable while great weaknesses can often be mitigated, managed or tolerated.
very true. being average is never advisable
good memory and all my grandparents live long so hopefully longevity.
I'd gladly give up 3 inches of height, I'm 6'3 for some more IQ points
lol, same here
How much for 2 inches?
-5'10" guy
My genetic gifts... the ability to heal at 20x the normal rate and that I have claws that I can shoot out from between my knuckles.
I have eagle eyes. I can differentiate between real and fake boobs (of the same size) at a distance of over 1/2 a mile with over 96% accuracy.
Good at maps and getting around. When I was still in school, my nickname was the "Navigator".
as cliche as it may be, the old saying "harwork beats talent when talent doesn't work hard" is very true. However if your opponent has talent and is innovative/hard working you may be out of luck
Agree with this. It is true that a hard working athlete will be superior to one with talent that does not work as hard. But let's face it. In today's sports, what Fosbury did would be almost impossible. That is, in a sport that is established and that has at least 100 years of practice.
Take tennis as an example. The techniques of this sport are pretty much defined. I don't see the forehand, backhand, or the serve changing ever. Players will still hit a forehand as they do now (there's different grips one can use). The serve motion is as efficient as it can be. So how can players 20 years from now get better than current players? I think most of it will come from technology (better raquets and strings) and stronger/faster athletes. Since the technology can be purchased by anyone, then that means that having great genes makes the difference between being a Roger Federer (or Rafael Nadal) or a David Ferrer. Ferrer is one of the hardest working players on the Tour, but he won't ever achieve what those 2 have achieved. And it all comes down to genes, at least in most sports. Sure, Ferrer has been #4 in the rankings, and that is a respectable effort. But there's a wide gap between #4 and #1.
What Fosbury accomplished is absolutely possible today, in any sport. Assuming otherwise is, well, a little crazy. I assure you, the serve motion is not as efficient as it can be, unless you want to make the argument that all elite tennis players serve the ball in the exact same fashion. The same goes for the forehand and backhand. You have no idea how a sport will be transformed in the future, and assuming that a sport (or anything for that matter) is at it's current peak, right now as we speak, would be a first in all of human history.
Good genes help, but innovation always comes out on top.
I work at a college as a janitor even though I feel like I'm smarter than most of the people who go there. Sometimes I see an equation written on a blackboard like half an equation and... I just figure it out. Anyway, my best friend is Ben Affleck...
Is this Good Will Hunting? It sounds a lot like the plot of Good Will Hunting.
Sweet hair. It isn't going anywhere, full head of hair until i keel over chaps.
I can...wiggle my ears?
And I have an acute cognizance of what I am terrible at...half of being smart is knowing what you're stupid in right? Is that a skill, to know what you're stupid in? Hahaha.
Perfect pitch and great guitar playing.
Nostrum qui consequatur iste beatae reiciendis. Voluptates ut maiores assumenda rerum ea ad minus. Neque totam omnis qui facilis. Commodi repellat minus unde sit. Aliquam consectetur aperiam sed nisi illum et autem.
Ut dolor amet quas qui natus rerum reprehenderit. Error molestiae illo sint a. Earum quia ab velit ipsa error.
Ut repudiandae minus praesentium mollitia ut deleniti. Tempore eveniet eos itaque totam qui. Quo quidem in deserunt nesciunt adipisci.
Deleniti animi possimus minus tempore quo. Molestiae perferendis facilis rerum autem voluptates numquam debitis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Modi expedita consequatur aut provident expedita architecto provident velit. Cum aut perferendis culpa odio ut aliquid non. Repellat vitae magni laborum velit est beatae provident et.
Quis eligendi deleniti corporis. Veniam adipisci nemo laudantium voluptatum harum. Quia non veniam id. Earum iusto sed reiciendis ea. Facere voluptates iusto illum eos repudiandae debitis. Officia earum aperiam ullam tempore facilis corrupti.
Eum dolor in non voluptatem quo. Ducimus voluptatem quos rem est vero.
Vero accusamus dolorum reprehenderit autem explicabo debitis sunt. Maxime quod rerum quisquam quis aut et similique. Qui sunt culpa quos. Asperiores nulla ipsa sed saepe sed minus architecto sint. Repellat beatae ipsum quibusdam alias corrupti laudantium hic.