Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

pjhaggerty · 12-31-2009, 02:48 AM

I just finished reading the book 'Talent is Overrated' by Geoff Colvin. He argues that becoming world class is simply a matter of many many hours of deliberate practice, not talent or genetics. It's a good book, well written and in my opinion worth reading.

After reading it though, I am left with the question 'is becoming really excellent at something worth it?' I mean, obviously there are benefits to being good at things. But to become excellent, to be the best, is it worth it? According to the book, to achieve the highest levels of excellence, you basically have to become obsessed by the subject. you would have to spend 4-5 hours a day in deliberate practice (it's mentally impossible to do much more), which is an unenjoyable activity (according to the book, not me). You have to focus on it single-mindedly, to the exclusion of most other pursuits. This probably means that you will not have a social life or any hobbies outside of your one main activity. You basically have to become obsessed with this one area of life.

there are benefits. People who are excellent are generally financially secure due to their mastery of a skill, especially if it is an economically valuable skill such as selling, trading, leading, etc. instead of a lesser economically valuable skill such as playing hackysack or sailing. They are also generally revered and remembered. But are the benefits worth the price?

I think it's important, because on this forum we are all interested in personal development. The question is though, are we interested in developing ourselves to the best in one particular field to the exclusion of all others? Do we want to be the healthiest person in the world? The best social butterfly? The wealthiest person? Is the point of personal development to reach the top of each field?

Or are we here to achieve a personally meaningful level of contentment and pride with our lives? Perhaps we don't really want to be the healthiest person in the world. Maybe we just want to play basketball for an hour without running out of breath. Maybe we don't want to be the wealthiest person in the world. Maybe we just want to be financially secure enough to have a house and pursue our other hobbies. Maybe we don't want to be the most popular person in a room. We just want to have a close circle of friends who we enjoy spending time with.

After reading this book, I've come to a realization personally. I'm probably not going to be the best at the stuff I do. Not because I can't be. If I were to work hard enough, I could become the best investor in the world, or one of the best. Or the best piano player. Or the best pickup artist. Or the healthiest person. But, if I chose to be the best at any of these, I would probably end up being below average on all the others. And really, I don't want that.

I've realized that it's more important to aim for being good enough. I'm healthy enough. I'm rich enough. I can play piano well enough. etc. That is more personally meaningful to me than trying to be the best at any of them.

This doesn't mean I'm going to settle, though. I'm not going to throw up my hands and say, oh well, I'm not going to be the best so why even bother trying to be healthy, wealthy, musical or anything else. Instead I'm going to focus on getting good at most of them and great at a few. I just won't be excellent. And i'll probably still be miserable at some other things, like playing football or hip-hop dancing. But that's also ok.

Ultimately, it's more personally meaningful to me to be good enough and achieve my own personal goals in each of these areas than to be the best in the world. I'm still going to achieve my goals, but I probably won't be the best. And that's also ok. I'm not going to get mad or regretful that I'm not the best at something. I'm not going to beat myself up for not becoming the best piano player in the world. instead, i'll just realize that it's ok to be mediocre at some things, and it's ok to only be good at some things, and it's ok not to be the best. Actually, I don't really want to be the best and lose the rest.

Anyway, I thought I'd post this and hopefully spark some discussion. Has anybody on here come to a similiar realization? Is anybody on this forum truly the best in the world at something they do? Can they corroborate what the book is saying? I am sure interested in hearing from all of you.

12-31-2009, 02:48 AM	#1 (permalink)
pjhaggerty Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 402	Is becoming world class worth it? I just finished reading the book 'Talent is Overrated' by Geoff Colvin. He argues that becoming world class is simply a matter of many many hours of deliberate practice, not talent or genetics. It's a good book, well written and in my opinion worth reading. After reading it though, I am left with the question 'is becoming really excellent at something worth it?' I mean, obviously there are benefits to being good at things. But to become excellent, to be the best, is it worth it? According to the book, to achieve the highest levels of excellence, you basically have to become obsessed by the subject. you would have to spend 4-5 hours a day in deliberate practice (it's mentally impossible to do much more), which is an unenjoyable activity (according to the book, not me). You have to focus on it single-mindedly, to the exclusion of most other pursuits. This probably means that you will not have a social life or any hobbies outside of your one main activity. You basically have to become obsessed with this one area of life. there are benefits. People who are excellent are generally financially secure due to their mastery of a skill, especially if it is an economically valuable skill such as selling, trading, leading, etc. instead of a lesser economically valuable skill such as playing hackysack or sailing. They are also generally revered and remembered. But are the benefits worth the price? I think it's important, because on this forum we are all interested in personal development. The question is though, are we interested in developing ourselves to the best in one particular field to the exclusion of all others? Do we want to be the healthiest person in the world? The best social butterfly? The wealthiest person? Is the point of personal development to reach the top of each field? Or are we here to achieve a personally meaningful level of contentment and pride with our lives? Perhaps we don't really want to be the healthiest person in the world. Maybe we just want to play basketball for an hour without running out of breath. Maybe we don't want to be the wealthiest person in the world. Maybe we just want to be financially secure enough to have a house and pursue our other hobbies. Maybe we don't want to be the most popular person in a room. We just want to have a close circle of friends who we enjoy spending time with. After reading this book, I've come to a realization personally. I'm probably not going to be the best at the stuff I do. Not because I can't be. If I were to work hard enough, I could become the best investor in the world, or one of the best. Or the best piano player. Or the best pickup artist. Or the healthiest person. But, if I chose to be the best at any of these, I would probably end up being below average on all the others. And really, I don't want that. I've realized that it's more important to aim for being good enough. I'm healthy enough. I'm rich enough. I can play piano well enough. etc. That is more personally meaningful to me than trying to be the best at any of them. This doesn't mean I'm going to settle, though. I'm not going to throw up my hands and say, oh well, I'm not going to be the best so why even bother trying to be healthy, wealthy, musical or anything else. Instead I'm going to focus on getting good at most of them and great at a few. I just won't be excellent. And i'll probably still be miserable at some other things, like playing football or hip-hop dancing. But that's also ok. Ultimately, it's more personally meaningful to me to be good enough and achieve my own personal goals in each of these areas than to be the best in the world. I'm still going to achieve my goals, but I probably won't be the best. And that's also ok. I'm not going to get mad or regretful that I'm not the best at something. I'm not going to beat myself up for not becoming the best piano player in the world. instead, i'll just realize that it's ok to be mediocre at some things, and it's ok to only be good at some things, and it's ok not to be the best. Actually, I don't really want to be the best and lose the rest. Anyway, I thought I'd post this and hopefully spark some discussion. Has anybody on here come to a similiar realization? Is anybody on this forum truly the best in the world at something they do? Can they corroborate what the book is saying? I am sure interested in hearing from all of you.