Comment by NoMoreNicksLeft
8 hours ago
> I'm fond of saying "You can do anything you want, but wanting is the hard part", because to truly be a grandmaster, genius-level mathematician, olympic athlete, etc, requires a dedication and
I was having a problem agreeing with this subthread, and I have you to thank for putting it into words that I can finally formulate my disagreement against.
Have you never met one of those people for whom they did not need to "want"? They could literally phone it in and still do better than anyone else, no matter how dedicated they were. Even should practice/study be necessary for them, they benefited from it to some absurd proportion that I couldn't even guess to quantify. I've known more than one of these people.
I think most believe they don't exist for two reasons. The first is the ridiculous number of television shows and movies that depict motivation as being the key to success. We're just inundated with the (unsupported by evidence) that this is the means to extraordinary genius. Second, I would say that this is the most comforting theory. "Why yes, I could have been a gifted whatever or a talented something-or-other if I had put the time in, but I chose this other thing instead."
Maybe some would say we all need to believe this, that a society that doesn't believe in it is harsher or more unkind.
I think I have met those folks. Maybe not. And you're welcome!
They're just quick. But the ones I've met, at least, are quick to make associations. When I really dig and ask them to explain themselves or a concept, they usually make analogies to things they know, but I don't. Then I have to go learn that thing. Then they try the analogy again, but I haven't fully learned it from years of making analogies about it.
Years of grad school experience was painful like this, until I got to a point 10 years after grad school, after a PhD, and well into research, that I "just got" things (in my subfield) as well. It's these experiences that made me feel that it's 80% preparation and perspiration (both of which are dominated by time), and 20% "other" mythology. Don't get me wrong, that 20% is what makes a 2 year old read earlier than others, and getting started reading at 2 (and continuing it!) for 4 years before starting school will make you light years ahead of your peers. The same goes for chess, math, etc etc. There is something legendary about Oppenheimer learning enough dutch in 6 weeks to deliver a lecture. Or perhaps learning to translate his lecture and memorizing it. Who knows.
Do we really believe there's a magical "genius" such that they can do anything? No, so what are the limits to their genius? The limits are defined by what they are a genius at. This is a tautological definition.
I'm not saying "Anyone at any time can become a genius at anything". I'm saying "If you take a kid, start early, and cultivate them just right so that you have time to realize compounding effects, - you can let them grow into basically anything" (probablistically speaking - there are learning disabilities and physical issues etc).
> I think most believe they don't exist for two reasons.
I add third (okay, 2b) - because the pain of coming up with the fact other people are better than you at a deep, fundamental level is too overwhelming.