Some of us who took the SAT this weekend had an essay on whether persistence is more important to success than ability. I started thinking about this in class today when we were talking about destiny. One side of the arguement is that some people are born to do something and they figure out what that is and they are good at it. That their interests coincide with their skills. The other side is that people are born with free will and can decide to do whatever they want.
I think one thing that often happens is people like what they are already good at because, who doesn't like feeling like they are good at something? While its true some people really like something that they have to work really hard for, I think is is common for people to develop a desire to pursue a job that they are already naturally good at. Example: I don't understand chemistry because I have to deal with things that are not physical objects but more molecules. So I'm not good at chemistry so I wouldn't pursue a job in that area because I don't like the feeling of being the one who doesn't get it. However Physics deals with things I can see so I'm good at it. I naturally understand it and "get it" better than other people around me. So I would be more inclined to take a job in Physics.
This weekend I argued that with persistence you can achieve almost anything and you will feel more successful in the end because you had to work harder for what you want than the person who is naturally skilled. I talked about field hockey. Freshmen year there were 50 girls in our grade who played. This year there were only 18. Personally, I liked it better this way because only the girls who really wanted to be there were left. We were the girls who, even if we didn't have the best innate skills, could perservere and come out better players in the end. I'm not a naturally good runner but I worked really hard this season the come in faster every time we ran a perimeter. And I think I get a lot more pleasure out of improving my time then a certain someone who is always first because she has zero body fat and a natural born runner. As I mentioned earlier though, I wouldn't want to try to become a proffessional runner or field hockey player because I don't like not being the best at something. I would rather pursue something where I have particularly exceptional skill.
The age-old question of nature vs. nuture again. Do we start with a blank slate and then are influenced by our environment? Or are we born to be something? Is there such a thing as Destiny? Can we ever know the answer to these questions? Well, we can at least have fun trying.
(Kelley Volosin)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Very interesting points, Kelley. Regarding nature vs. nurture, I think a combination of this at work. We can have more than one interest, but the environment that we are in may impact the interests and talents that we develop.
But, I do tend to think that nature is the stronger player when it comes to nature vs. nurture. I think that people can be born with affinities toward certain things (interests) and talents. I really don't know how much of it can be explained by DNA, but this is really more of a personal opinion.
I think that interests and talents can be developed, but there has to be a source to each person's interests. I might stink at playing basketball, but really like it and therefore have a strong desire to improve that skill. Why don't I just take up another hobby that I'm better at than try to improve in an area where there's little hope? Because I have a natural, innate, interest in basketball.
I believe that each person does have a purpose in life and is born with certain interests and passions. Talents don't have to play a role, necessarily, but can certainly be helpful in acheiving one's purpose in life.
So, when it comes to nature vs. nurture, I think nature comes first and nurture develops what nature has already begun...
Thoughts?
Emily T.
Post a Comment