In the first chapter, Shenk talks about the extraordinary talent of Ted Williams and how he was “considered the most ‘gifted’ hitter of his time” (5). He was thought “to have laser-like eyesight,” which would allow him “to read the spin of a ball as it left the pitcher’s fingers and to gauge exactly where it would pass over the plate”(5-6). Yet Shenk argued that Ted Williams was a perfectly normal person, with just an uncanny motivation to practice, practice, and practice. Williams saw greatness not as a thing, but as “a process” (7). When Ted enlisted in the navy, mandatory eye exams revealed his vision to be “well within ordinary human range” (9). Shenk also explains how “most underachievers…have so far been unable to tap into their true potential” (11).
What do you think David Shenk means when he talks about how most underachievers have not been able to tap into their true potential? Was Ted Williams able to achieve this feat? Along with superior practice techniques, can evolution, such as mutations, also be beneficial for ones achievements? And how can it help? And do you think natural selection works for people without genetic advantages such as Ted Williams? And if so, how does it?
-Arjun Ahuja (aahuja12@gmail.com)
When Shenk says "most underachievers... have so far been unable to tap into their true potential" (11), he means that everyone's genetics allow them to be as great as Williams, as smart as Einstein, or as fast as Phelps. However, only the achievers such as these three reach their potential by engaging in the process. This process includes the rigorous practice rituals that all three participated in which stimulated their genes into influencing their traits towards being the best in the world at what they did. Still, Williams did not reach his full potential. It would be impossible for anyone to reach their full potential, because potential is an infinite, intangible concept. Potential is the infinity marker of talent, which Shenk describes as "not a thing; it's a process" (10). Even if someone worked at something for their whole life, they could never reach their full potential because their is always room for improvement. It may seem like they have because once their better than anyone else, they don't need to improve anymore so they slow down, but really they could keep going. A literal example of this is how Michael Phelps won 8 gold medals last olympics and decided to change his events for the 2012 games. He had already declared himself the best, so he stopped pursuing his potential in those events.
ReplyDeleteEvolution could be beneficial for achievements, but the chances that it would occur naturally on its own are very slim. Species only evolve if environmental stresses occur for long periods of time spanning over many generations, like in the fruit flies which have "a new generation appearing every eleven days" (p174). Not often would a restricted gene pool of people experience the same stresses which lead them to evolve in a specific, beneficial direction. Still, it does happen, like in the Kalenjin tribe (103) in Kenya where cattle raiding for centuries has developed dominating runners. Over generations, the Kenyans have evolved to become better runners because of how their ancestors and parents ran throughout their lives.
Still, most talent is developed over one life. The developmental process creates talent in one life through stimulation. In the "Duck tape special 3" episode of Mythbusters, Adam and Jaime both play chess while stranded on an island to keep up their mental stimulation. It's the environmental factors in practice like this which improve talent.
Natural selection does help an athlete or scholar to find there passion and their field with the highest ability, but after that its all up to the process of practicing. For example, I come from a family of strong swimmers, so when I was young I had the genetics to swim well in the local pool. Another parent affiliated with the local swim team noticed and suggested I join the team. It was my genetics that got me to begin practicing swimming, but practice from that point on brought me forward from there.
Josh Weisberg (superswimmer51@sbcglobal.net)