RE: ::scr Re: doesn't have the morlocks

[Dan Argent <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alaric Snell [mailto:alaric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 08 April 2002 18:19
> To: scr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: ::scr Re: doesn't have the morlocks
> 
> 
> On Monday 08 April 2002 17:33, you wrote:
> 
> > But the point is, if you believe that nature has such an 
> effect on you,
> > then you fall in to the trap you have above, that you would have to
> > *overcome* your nature to excell at something. You've 
> already put a massive
> > barrier in front of yourself.
> 
> Yes. This certainly holds for physical variation; why 
> shouldn't it hold for 
> mental variation? But *I* haven't put up a barrier; Fate has!

Can I ask then. Do you believe in fate, or are you the master of your own
destiny?
(yes, I know it sounds cheesy)

> It's not such a massive barrier, though, which was part of my 
> point. It makes 
> it more *challenging* for me to be good at, say, football 
> (let's not talk 
> about art any more!) since my musculature seems better 
> optimised for sudden 
> bursts of motion rather than sustained output and my 
> instincts tell me to 
> deal with competitive situations by blending into the 
> background until the 
> last moment then making a decisive strike... I'm better at 
> paintball than 
> football, and I can trace that to core aspects of my 
> mentality and pshyiology 
> rather than *practice*. I've had more practice at football 
> than paintball 
> (sadly).

>From the way you word things, you seem to enjoy challenges and stuff like
that. I'm sure you must realise the importance of mental attitude when you
face challenges.  This barrier you have now just put in front of yourself
can have a massive impact on your performace in the chosen discipline.

 
> So I don't have a head start at football; but is that such a 
> 'barrier'? 
> There's nothing stopping me trying; I'd just have to try harder.



Playing devil's advocate ...let's suppose "natural ablilty" exists:

 consider 1) Alaric and 2) Jim.

both spend eight hours a day. both spend eight hours a day, five days
a week training as hard as they can.  But Jim has "natural abililty".
Alaric thinks he can never be even half as good as Jim. 

Therefore Alaric becomes, let's say, roughly 1/4 as good a footballer as
Jim.

However in another world, Alaric does not accept that Jim has natural
ability,
and from that point of view learns to use his own physique and mind as an
advantage
on the football field, in a different way that Jim would.

Even if "natural ability" exists, and Jim is just cut-out to be a
footballer,
perhaps Alaric becomes 3/4's as good as Jim.

Or perhaps he becomes as good as Jim

Or perhaps, because of his attitude, becomes a BETTER footballer than Jim.


 
> > What if you (or hypothetical Bob) don't _have_ the nature 
> to be an artist?
> > Is it just a complete waste of time?
> 
> If you're not cut out to be an artist, then you're going to 
> find it hard to 
> produce better art than an accomplished artist, obviously...
> 
> ABS


Whatever the truth about natural ability is, it seems self defeating to even

acknowledge that it exists.