Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Does everyone have the potential for greatness?

Rate this topic


Rogue

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Everybody (excluding the mentally handicapped) has the potential to be really good at virtually anything, even great, depending on how you define it, though not everyone has the potential to be better than everyone else at anything.

I am not sure about that. I tend to think that everybody has the potential to be great at something but not necessarily anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a different question to the same topic:

Can the same person be greater in one field then he would be in another field?

This should provide an interesting insight.

I suspect that view that says everybody can be great, would have to also reply the same person can be equally great at anything he choses to.

Personally, I think a person is better set to some work and not the other. Personality traits along make quite a difference in different jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody (excluding the mentally handicapped) has the potential to be really good at virtually anything, even great, depending on how you define it, though not everyone has the potential to be better than everyone else at anything. But it requires tremendous dedication and a particular kind of hard work.

There's the rub: depending on how you define it. Certainly I think most people can learn to be pretty good at most things -- say, the top 20-30%, given dedication and practice. But personally I would define that simply as above average. Greatness is something that I reserve for the very top of the pyramid, the very top 1% or less (generally less), the hall of fame sorts of careers.

- “Scientific experts are producing remarkably consistent findings across a wide array of fields. Understand that talent doesn't mean intelligence, motivation or personality traits. It's an innate ability to do some specific activity especially well. British-based researchers Michael J. Howe, Jane W. Davidson and John A. Sluboda conclude in an extensive study, "The evidence we have surveyed ... does not support the [notion that] excelling is a consequence of possessing innate gifts."

I don't understand this summary. They did a study on talent but for some reason excludes intelligence and personality traits? So what else is there left? Magic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure about that. I tend to think that everybody has the potential to be great at something but not necessarily anything.

I disagree, because for the most part people do not come anywhere near their potential. The human mind is an extraordinary super computer, great at learning and very plastic. Now I wouldn't say that absolutely anyone can become great at absolutely anything, you might have physiological limitations, like the amount of oxygen your red blood cells store, that limit your potential in physical endurance. But for the most part, any normal human mind is capable of becoming an expert at virtually any task, it just takes a very long time and a lot of concerted effort (the author of that SciAm article estimates about 100,000 hours to become an expert at something) If you start this kind of directed training at a young age, while the brain and body are going through development, you will probably have a significant potential advantage over everyone else who did not start until later.

Still, even if starting late, and actually using a mind to it's potential (consider that all the greatest geniuses basically devoted their whole entire lives to their respective fields, often including foregoing personal relationships (such as Tesla and Newton) you have the potential to become great (or at least *really* good) at pretty much anything. That is not to say that it is easy, it takes a long time and is very hard work and requires a specific kind of learning and training where you always push yourself just past your limits, that is why even though we spend hundreds of thousands of hours driving, we do not become capable of performing stunts with cars. If an average person undertook that kind of directed study and training they could become really good at pretty much anything they wanted to. Consider, for example, learning to speak a full language. It takes us many years of directed study, but the average person (even mentally challenged people) eventually become really good at speaking and understanding languages. Imagine if the same directed effort and exposure was utilized with a different area, say physics. Pretty much everyone would also become really good at that as well. Though It might be easier for one person to become good or great than another person because of 'innate' differences, and their ultimate limitations might be similarly limited, it still seems that all the evidence collected so far suggests that pretty much any human mind can become really good (perhaps even great) at almost anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's the rub: depending on how you define it. Certainly I think most people can learn to be pretty good at most things -- say, the top 20-30%, given dedication and practice. But personally I would define that simply as above average. Greatness is something that I reserve for the very top of the pyramid, the very top 1% or less (generally less), the hall of fame sorts of careers.

I don't understand this summary. They did a study on talent but for some reason excludes intelligence and personality traits? So what else is there left? Magic?

Of course if you define 'great' as a relative percentage of people, it's obviously impossible for anyone (everyone) to be great. But if you define great more objectively, say as being able to achieve X Y and Z and drop it's relation to how well other people do (say, a great runner can do the mile in 5 minutes) almost anyone with lots of dedication and hard work would be able to achieve that, and could be considered 'great'

Look at the last sentence ""The evidence we have surveyed ... does not support the [notion that] excelling is a consequence of possessing innate gifts."" They were essentially summarizing the popular view (that people do great because they posses some 'innate ability' and then were explaining that is actually incorrect and most of our ability comes from our training and study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good: worthy of one's approval.

Great: worthy of one's admiration.

Although these are not quite objective definitions, it seems to me that these are useful in identifying and distinguishing between the good and the great.

Nothing in these suggest that the great is great only because other things are merely good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course if you define 'great' as a relative percentage of people, it's obviously impossible for anyone (everyone) to be great. But if you define great more objectively, say as being able to achieve X Y and Z and drop it's relation to how well other people do (say, a great runner can do the mile in 5 minutes) almost anyone with lots of dedication and hard work would be able to achieve that, and could be considered 'great'

Defining "great" as a relative percentage isn't any less objective than appointing a specific criteria. Take your own example: How did you come up with the number 5 minutes as a criteria for "great"? Certainly not arbitrarily. You come up with it by something along the lines of: an average fit person runs a mile in about 7 minutes, which means a person that runs a mile in 6 is above average, and therefore a mile in 5 is great.

Ask yourself this: if EVERYONE can run a mile in 5, would that still be considered great?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defining "great" as a relative percentage isn't any less objective than appointing a specific criteria. Take your own example: How did you come up with the number 5 minutes as a criteria for "great"? Certainly not arbitrarily. You come up with it by something along the lines of: an average fit person runs a mile in about 7 minutes, which means a person that runs a mile in 6 is above average, and therefore a mile in 5 is great.

Ask yourself this: if EVERYONE can run a mile in 5, would that still be considered great?

I think the crux of our disagreement here is that you associate 'great' with potential and I associate it with actual. I dont base what is great on how many people can do it vs how many can not do it in this example, but on a specific degree of achievement which *only* a person who dedicates a great deal of time, effort, and study to achieving it will be able to do. If everyone could actually run a 5 minute mile, I might still consider that great (everyone would be very fit and healthy) but the simple fact that everyone could with enough study does not mean that every one *will* do it. The simple fact that only few would every try hard enough to do it is enough to distinguish 'great' from 'good' seemingly according to your criteria (since only a small portion of people will be able to do it) while assigning a criteria to the task that is extremely difficult to accomplish (even though almost everyone could potentially do it) is enough to consider it 'great' to me. Functionally, the small number of people that actually would do it ends up then satisfying both of our criteria.

That is, no matter how many people run a 5 minute mile, I would consider it a great accomplishment for each of them, because only many years of dedicated training would make that possible. Even if every human on the planet trained enough to do it I would still consider it a great accomplishment. But just because anyone could do it in the imaginary world where everyone works out enough to do it doesnt mean it's not great for the people that actually do. Conversely, the actual number of people who accomplish it will be relatively small since most people hardly do anything more than sit around and watch TV, so you could still call their accomplishment great while making it relative to the accomplishments of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying I agree or disagree yet, but this seems to put "greatness" on somewhat of a relative scale, and/or a subjective scale.

For instance, let's say a carpenter thinks he's great, but every chair he makes collapses when someone sits on it. Has he achieved "greatness"?

What objective criteria can we put to man's judgment of his own greatness?

How else would you characterize greatness so that it is not on a relative scale?

Great, big, small, wide, important, slow, these adjectives can only be used on some sort of relative scale. When we are talking about an individual, which scale is most important? A scale determined by societal standards? Or a scale determined by the individual's standards?

Edited by tnunamak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How else would you characterize greatness so that it is not on a relative scale?

Great, big, small, wide, important, slow, these adjectives can only be used on some sort of relative scale. When we are talking about an individual, which scale is most important? A scale determined by societal standards? Or a scale determined by the individual's standards?

You can make the scale relative but still choose to base it on either *other people* or the intrinsic extent of the achievement, as relative to say, doing nothing. In the former case a 'great' runner is one who is better than 95% of all other runners, even if all other people are merely lazy sloths, in the latter a 'great runner' is someone who can do a 5 minute mile. As an objectivist, I don't particular care how well I perform compared to other people (seems rather 2nd handed to me), so basing an assessment of myself on that is pretty shoddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How else would you characterize greatness so that it is not on a relative scale?

Great, big, small, wide, important, slow, these adjectives can only be used on some sort of relative scale. When we are talking about an individual, which scale is most important? A scale determined by societal standards? Or a scale determined by the individual's standards?

Answer this. Can a man alone, perhaps on a desert island or something, objectively be great?

Or must there be an audience, and someone else competing with and losing to our subject, for our subject to be great?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, because for the most part people do not come anywhere near their potential.

Perhaps but that does not contradict what I said. I do think that I have the potential to master/learn great many things (the restictive factor is mostly time) but I don't think that I can be great in anything. For example, no amount of specialized training would ever make me a great singer. I don't have "the ear" for it, I never have (My mother arranged for testing when I was a young child to check if music would be worth pursuing for me).

But for the most part, any normal human mind is capable of becoming an expert at virtually any task, it just takes a very long time and a lot of concerted effort (the author of that SciAm article estimates about 100,000 hours to become an expert at something) If you start this kind of directed training at a young age, while the brain and body are going through development, you will probably have a significant potential advantage over everyone else who did not start until later.

I don't fully disagree. This maybe true for great many things. The factor of efficiency is, however, a very relevant one for me. To master certain skills or to perform certain tasks, it takes considerably less time and effort for some than it does for others. I have always considered my predispositions (or their lack) when chosing my goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps but that does not contradict what I said. I do think that I have the potential to master/learn great many things (the restictive factor is mostly time) but I don't think that I can be great in anything. For example, no amount of specialized training would ever make me a great singer. I don't have "the ear" for it, I never have (My mother arranged for testing when I was a young child to check if music would be worth pursuing for me).

Yes, I would be hesitant to say absolutely anything (I am always hesitant to make absolute claims even if there is only a tiny possibility of deviation) but I am very skeptical of a physiologically innate difference which would make you unable to differentiate tones with practice. There is little scientific evidence suggesting that people are literally 'tone deaf' and well over a billion of people speak languages that are heavily dependent on pronouncing and understanding different tones (Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Cantonese some major examples) a literally tone deaf person ought to have a very hard time in these societies. There are many companies selling products and programs they claim will give 'perfect pitch' or at least defeat tone deafness and they typically claim that tone deafness is actually a myth. Im not sure, and I am not very well able to distinguish tones but I think that with alot of practice I would be able to both distinguish them and reproduce them. The fact that you had a specialist of some kind tell you and your mother early on that you were not cut out to be a singer might have created a tendency for you to avoid ever pursuing even if his test and conclusion might have been spurious.

I don't fully disagree. This maybe true for great many things. The factor of efficiency is, however, a very relevant one for me. To master certain skills or to perform certain tasks, it takes considerably less time and effort for some than it does for others. I have always considered my predispositions (or their lack) when chosing my goals.

I think that is a good tactic, but I wouldn't completely limit myself to only things I expect will come quickly and easily. Entirely new things may be related to particular skills you acquired in other contexts which may help you in new ones, and you might surprise yourself at how good you are at them. Also I fully believe that the more things you learn and practice at the better you get at learning other new things. But also I go after things regardless of how easy I think they will be to me, just because I am very interested in them and really couldn't care how quickly it took someone else to learn it. But of course we have finite life spans and finite free time so we must use our time wisely and choose pursuits accordingly =P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I would be hesitant to say absolutely anything (I am always hesitant to make absolute claims even if there is only a tiny possibility of deviation) but I am very skeptical of a physiologically innate difference which would make you unable to differentiate tones with practice. There is little scientific evidence suggesting that people are literally 'tone deaf' and well over a billion of people speak languages that are heavily dependent on pronouncing and understanding different tones (Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Cantonese some major examples) a literally tone deaf person ought to have a very hard time in these societies. There are many companies selling products and programs they claim will give 'perfect pitch' or at least defeat tone deafness and they typically claim that tone deafness is actually a myth. Im not sure, and I am not very well able to distinguish tones but I think that with alot of practice I would be able to both distinguish them and reproduce them.

I can actually say Mike with personal experience those programs for perfect pitch do work. While I was studying music, my ability to identify specific pitch intervals was so-so. After dedicating myself to trying to identify pitch intervals I definitely got better at it over time. Those software programs do work (although I did break the occasional mouse in frustration when I got a pitch identification wrong) Every single music department in every college has courses dedicated to teaching pitch recognition. It is extremely difficult, time consuming, tedious, and frustrating endeavor. But so long as you have the time to commit to that kind of directed study improving pitch recognition or getting perfect pitch is attainable to most people. (Obviously a physical handicap like actual deafness being another matter)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How else would you characterize greatness so that it is not on a relative scale?

Please read my follow up posts and see if these questions remain unanswered.

But simply put, a man who sets his own standards (which for instance happen to be very low standards) and meets them has not achieved greatness. With that in mind, "greatness" requires more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greatness is by it's very nature a comparative term. I think thinking in terms that "everyone can be great" just because they meet their own standards is what leads up to accepting medocrity as a standard. For example; my (insert son or daughter here) is a great student, s/he made the C honor roll. I think that for greatness to have any real meaning, those people who qualify for it are necessarily going to be in a smaller subset of people than those who are simply average.

.

.

.

Because he set real low standards for his chairmaking. However, he met those standards which makes him "great".

I think before this discussion can make any sense, we have to identify the issue we're actually talking about. The term "great" IS relative to some standard, so in that sense a person can achieve greatness in many ways, depending on what you're comparing his actions to.

I was under the impression that the idea was to determine the best standard. Personally, if I look at the reality of my life, push myself to my most extreme capabilities and achieve them, I will not say "What a mediocre job I did! Good for me!" even if someone else could do what I did ten times better. Some of the people I personally admire most are far from succeeding at the level of the geniuses leading their industry, but I still consider them to be great because they do push themselves and succeed at it. But that's just my opinion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's just my opinion...

Me personally, I recognize that sometimes when I evaluate the results for which I may have worked hard, and I may have achieved the goal, sometimes the result was good, and sometimes it was great. For quite some time I put a lot of effort and practice into playing guitar, and I became better at it by a large degree, but I'm not a great guitarist by any stretch of the imagination, even if I achieved the most I could have possibly achieved in guitar-playing ability. I can look at it and say, man, I gave it my best and feel proud of that, but that did not make my guitar playing "great". To delude myself into thinking that I'm a great guitarist really breaks the "scale" when I consider folks like Eric Clapton, Eddie Van Halen, Robert Cray, BB King, etc. etc.

So that's where we differ then. But please understand, I'm not belittling those who "try their very best, but their best isn't great". To recognize that someone doesn't qualify as great doesn't mean that they aren't doing good or well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the crux of our disagreement here is that you associate 'great' with potential and I associate it with actual. I dont base what is great on how many people can do it vs how many can not do it in this example, but on a specific degree of achievement which *only* a person who dedicates a great deal of time, effort, and study to achieving it will be able to do. If everyone could actually run a 5 minute mile, I might still consider that great (everyone would be very fit and healthy) but the simple fact that everyone could with enough study does not mean that every one *will* do it.

No you're missing my point. You speak of an "objective" standard of greatness that's not based on a relative criteria -- the 5 minute mile. I was merely pointing out that the said criteria is in fact chosen in the first place because of its relative difficulty in the first place. Hence it is, in fact, still a relative scale. The point being that the standard being relative is not mutually exclusive with it being objective.

Another point is that the number you chose was quite arbitrary. Is there any objective reason why a 5 minute mile is the standard for greatness? Because most people can do it if they train hard enough? So why not choose something like, say, an under 4 minute mile (or an under 10 second one hundred meter dash, or whatever), where most people, even if they train very hard, probably would not be able to do? Wouldn't that be closer to greatness?

So no, I am not judging "greatness" based on potential, but rather on achievement. As in, being able to achieve something that few others can. Hence the relative scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me personally, I recognize that sometimes when I evaluate the results for which I may have worked hard, and I may have achieved the goal, sometimes the result was good, and sometimes it was great. For quite some time I put a lot of effort and practice into playing guitar, and I became better at it by a large degree, but I'm not a great guitarist by any stretch of the imagination, even if I achieved the most I could have possibly achieved in guitar-playing ability. I can look at it and say, man, I gave it my best and feel proud of that, but that did not make my guitar playing "great". To delude myself into thinking that I'm a great guitarist really breaks the "scale" when I consider folks like Eric Clapton, Eddie Van Halen, Robert Cray, BB King, etc. etc.

Rational Biker I believe you are correct that if we want to give any kind of meaning to the term "greatness" there must be some objective standards for it. Although there will be some epistemological disagreements we can still endeavor to make an objective standard for "greatness" given the specific talent we are addressing and make some kind of reasonable standard.

However if you say you "gave it your best" while learning to play guitar but you still don't match up to people like Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen leads me to believe you probably didn't give it your best. Probably because you don't have the time or desire to be the best guitarist. You most likely have other interests and distractions and guitar playing is not your primary concern in life. I have personally seen musicians that have guitar chops that blow away Eddie Van Halen's talents, and they got there from a huge amount of hours dedicated to playing their instrument, almost living and breathing their instrument every minute of the day for decades on end not just playing the same riff over and over again, but from concerted directed study.

I used to do nothing in my life but play the bass guitar. I got to the point where I could easily play riffs from Jaco Pastorius and play a wide range of jazz melodies that others never thought of playing on the bass. Others would ask "How did you get that good" or applaud me for being so good while attributing some kind of innate gift to my talent. I could only shake my head and ask them "How many hours have you spent playing the bass?" Or "How are you learning to play?" I literally was playing almost every minute of my life. Invited over to friend's houses? I'd bring my bass with me. Asked to go out with a bunch of friends to a bar or restaurant? Would decline and say "sorry I gotta work on this tune". I was giving up a good chunk of my social life to play my instrument. I would literally also skip meals or eat while playing. And what was my study ethic? Learn something new everyday. Don't stick with just one thing. Learn a new song, learn a new solo, keep taking theory courses, keep working on pitch recognition, try a new instrument to get a different perspective, etc.

Ask how Eddie Van Halen got his guitar chops and he tells you the same story. Sitting down in his bedroom with a 6 pack of beer while his brother went out on dates. That is Eddie's story, and the story of giving up a social life is common to anyone who achieves any kind of greatness.

One of course is not obligated to achieve greatness, the only measure of what you do in life is whether you are happy. Some people have a variety of interests, some people value time with friends and family and don't want to give that up to achieve greatness. I have since not played as much as I used to because I now value other things in my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However if you say you "gave it your best" while learning to play guitar but you still don't match up to people like Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen leads me to believe you probably didn't give it your best.

I hope you realize how speculative this is on your part.

The logical implication of your assumption is that everybody could possibly achieve the level of guitar greatness that Eric Clapton (etc.) has achieved if they simply put enough time and effort into it. I simply don't see the evidence, but I'm willing to evaluate your proof.

You use yourself as an example of one who puts endless hours into something and achieves great results. That means it's possible for some people to do it, but your task is to prove that if everyone did it they would reap equally successful results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you realize how speculative this is on your part.

The logical implication of your assumption is that everybody could possibly achieve the level of guitar greatness that Eric Clapton (etc.) has achieved if they simply put enough time and effort into it. I simply don't see the evidence, but I'm willing to evaluate your proof.

You use yourself as an example of one who puts endless hours into something and achieves great results. That means it's possible for some people to do it, but your task is to prove that if everyone did it they would reap equally successful results.

True while I'm giving you anecdotal evidence, I didn't get the results I got without giving up a lot of time for other activities. I put in a lot of time into it (I actually don't think Eric Clapton is that good a musician actually :o But that's a whole other thread) and there is nothing that terribly difficult about music that another person can't pick up if they put their mind to it. In fact RationalBiker, I found it offensive when someone tried to explain my talent as some kind of innate gift. It almost seemed I wasn't congratulated for my hard work and the fruits of my labor, but for some genetic predisposition that I really couldn't take credit for beyond what I was born into, i.e. talent through accident. That's not the praise I wanted, I wanted credit for my hard work, not my genetic makeup. My skill was not an accident, it was a result of giving up a lot of other things in life, a social life, other pursuits, time with my friends and family and even my wife.

Also I do believe there are many emprical studies that have lead scientists to believe with enough time and the right directed study, most people can achieve greatness. I am not a scientist and can't talk about the scienece of this at any great length, only that I don't know why I would doubt them as they are far more qualified than I am to speak about genetics and neuroscience. If you'd like proof I think there are many peer reviewed journals that speak about this. I can only speak on what I experienced, and I didn't get good at playing bass overnight or with minimal effort and would laugh at the idea that anyone can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact RationalBiker, I found it offensive when someone tried to explain my talent as some kind of innate gift.

Physiologically speaking, some people have advantages over others when it comes to certain skills or abilities. For instance, 4 fret chords are very difficult for me. My fingers are short and thumbs shorter. That's not a death sentence for playing the guitar, I know, but it can certainly make playing much more difficult and it offers limitations to what I can achieve.

As an extreme example, Verne Troyer could never acheive the same level of long distance running of someone like Kenenisa Bekele. He just doesn't have the body type. (I will say that he made a much "greater" Mini-Me though then Bekele) The mind can be powerful, but it still has to deal with certain limitations sometimes. And this doesn't mean that Bekele didn't invest a lot of time and effort in his running; I would suppose that he did. But he has a body build advantage for running that many people don't have and some cannot achieve.

I would never (have) accuse(d) Robert Cray or Stevie Ray Vaughan of being "gifted" (you might notice my tendency to admire blues guitarists :thumbsup: ). None the less, I think few people can (or could) rival their playing ability no matter how much time they put into it.

and there is nothing that terribly difficult about music that another person can't pick up if they put their mind to it.

Picking it up, and achieving greatness are two different things.

I actually don't think Eric Clapton is that good a musician actually

I disagree, but if you have some argument to back that up, start another thread.

Also I do believe there are many emprical studies that have lead scientists to believe with enough time and the right directed study, most people can achieve greatness ...(snip)... If you'd like proof I think there are many peer reviewed journals that speak about this.

Nope. I don't do your research for you. It's your claim. And "most" is not "everyone" anyway.

PS: I just saw BB King play live in Portsmouth, VA the other night. At 81, he's still "king of the blues".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However if you say you "gave it your best" while learning to play guitar but you still don't match up to people like Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen leads me to believe you probably didn't give it your best. Probably because you don't have the time or desire to be the best guitarist. You most likely have other interests and distractions and guitar playing is not your primary concern in life. I have personally seen musicians that have guitar chops that blow away Eddie Van Halen's talents, and they got there from a huge amount of hours dedicated to playing their instrument, almost living and breathing their instrument every minute of the day for decades on end not just playing the same riff over and over again, but from concerted directed study.

So you're saying that anybody, if they trained hard enough, can become say, an Olympic gold medalist 100 meter dasher, or a marathon winner, or a Bobby Fischer?

I'm sorry but I think that while it takes a lot of dedication to hard work to realize one's potential, that doesn't automatically mean everyone possesses the same capacities. If I have a hundred people that all train as hard as they can for something, chances are at the end of the day some people are just going to be better than others (whether it's due to genetics, intelligence, personality, training methods, or whatever else that doesn't have anything to do with work ethics).

But of course, all one hundred would probably be experts at their respective fields relative to an average folk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...