EPTOn July 30 2010 11:26 love1another wrote:
What you say may have a biological underpinning, and when we are talking about the realization of a person's genetic/physical potential this is might be a very valid point in that some people experience "growth spurts" (both mental and physical) at different times of development.
On the other hand if we aren't so much talking about the realization of that true potential but rather just getting to a socially acceptable level of proficiency, this is rarely the case. What ends up happening is that the people who start ahead end up getting further and further ahead in a sort of positive feedback loop.
I think Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece about how a small advantage in reading ability at a young age often snowballs into a huge advantage later, simply because that additional reading ability actually encourages the child to read more than his/her relatively disadvantaged counterpart.
And since very few things in life, with several exceptions like the Olympics or Pro-scene Broodwar, really require any of us to push a skill to our physical limits, this later argument (of reaching a socially acceptable level) is probably far more notable. To be successful in life, isn't being able to read the books you need to in school, and memoranda at work completely sufficient?
I could give many more specialized examples, but I think the point is pretty clear:
for >99% of the population, the presence of what we consider "extraordinary talent" is irrelevant to societal productivity and long-term happiness.
What you say may have a biological underpinning, and when we are talking about the realization of a person's genetic/physical potential this is might be a very valid point in that some people experience "growth spurts" (both mental and physical) at different times of development.
On the other hand if we aren't so much talking about the realization of that true potential but rather just getting to a socially acceptable level of proficiency, this is rarely the case. What ends up happening is that the people who start ahead end up getting further and further ahead in a sort of positive feedback loop.
I think Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece about how a small advantage in reading ability at a young age often snowballs into a huge advantage later, simply because that additional reading ability actually encourages the child to read more than his/her relatively disadvantaged counterpart.
And since very few things in life, with several exceptions like the Olympics or Pro-scene Broodwar, really require any of us to push a skill to our physical limits, this later argument (of reaching a socially acceptable level) is probably far more notable. To be successful in life, isn't being able to read the books you need to in school, and memoranda at work completely sufficient?
I could give many more specialized examples, but I think the point is pretty clear:
for >99% of the population, the presence of what we consider "extraordinary talent" is irrelevant to societal productivity and long-term happiness.
Interesting point. I haven't looked at those types of sources, but they make sense. I tend to look at the full extent of human potential all the time, but what you said is very true considering that a good, motivating environment is extremely important in helping one's growth in skill.
