Posted on 08/09/2006 8:47:38 PM PDT by SamAdams76
Thanks for the post - Copied and sent off to granddaughter....
When I saw this article, I just had to post it. Because I have lived it. I'm not the smartest or most talented guy in the world but I have been able to rise to the top in my workplace on account of discipline. Setting goals for myself and getting things done, one small task at a time.
There is a lot of wisdom in this article.
ping
Interesting take on willpower.......
Cool.
But now I am confused...
Am I supposed to 'work out' my willpower or am I supposed to keep it in reserve?
Good article. Thanks for posting.
This suggests that only the two are major factors: intelligence and self-discipline. Self-discipline it not at all the same as the ability to concentrate, prioritize or focus. Perhaps those abilities were in fact what was being measured.
The one or two dollar test - to me that would be much more a test of intelligence, not self-control. I'm not very self-disciplined but that would be a no-brainer - wait for the two bucks!
btt
That said, I've done pretty well on aptitude and interpersonal skills despite being a pretty poor student with low self-control. It's all a matter of finding work that values fast thinking, improvisation, and flexibility than slow and steady performance and, to be honest, decent interpersonal skills probably trumps both aptitude and self-control in the business world.
I don't know how many "A" people I knew back in school who eventually pooped out. But I've seen "D" students miraculously transform when they develop a passion. (Myself included!)
This may be the major part of the correlation between studying music and academic success.
It's VERY hard to be a Gauss, but it is possible [after all, he did exist]. The adage about the relationship between inspiration and perspiration applies to the broad middle part of IQ bell curve. It most emphatically fails at either far shoulder. Therefore for most people persistence trumps a relatively weak ability. In the case of conspicuous disability [retardation] persistence does not pay, or pays very little. In the case of conspicuous ability [genius] persistence plays much less certain role, for such people could, and sometimes do, think in qualitatively different ways, by leaps and bounds. Sometimes they need not be persistent.
X = (1+100)*(100/2) = 101*50 = 5050 was obvious enough to me when my teacher gave it to us in 5th grade to stump us. If it took Gauss as long as 15 seconds, it was only to visualize it in the first place.
The article makes a good point in a round-about way -- a large part of measuring success is in defining it, focusing on what counts and letting other things slide.
My college GPA was a mediocre 2.5, but 14 years after graduation, I can explain concepts from those classes more clearly than most of my peers. I hated multiple choice tests and loved papers, because I was more interested in the ideas than in the grades. I spent more time working at the campus paper than in class, and that experience was more relevant to my later career than my GPA will ever be.
Ms. Fine (and the study she cites) is dead on in observing that drive counts more than talent in ... well, just about anything. Far more naturally gifted baseball players have failed to approach the records Pete Rose set through sheer determination.
I've known plenty of incredibly intelligent people who, in the vernacular of school counselors, failed to "live up to their potential." I've also known plenty of mediocre intellects who went on to do good work and make tons of money. Which is more "successful" is largely a function of how you define success.
One guy I used to run into every now and then stands out. I'll call him Oscar. He went into the Merchant Marine straight out of high school, and I have a degree straight out of a top-10 university, but we never came across a topic in which he couldn't hold up his end of the conversation, often putting me to shame. Seems the Merchant Marine offers time to read and few distractions, and he's a voracious autodidact.
He'd work in the states for a year or so, saving up enough money to live in Turkey or Tibet for a couple of years. When the money started to run out, he'd come back to the States and work for a while, then repeat the cycle. Not what most people would point to as a model of success, but if it's what makes him happy, can we call him a failure?
One college friend was one we had pegged for Wall Street, or the Senate, or a Law faculty. He got a BA with honors with very little effort -- he was that smart -- and got a full ride to a top-10 law school. He dropped out after one year. The one thing that really got him going was his time on the debate team in high school and college. So now he teaches high school history and coaches the debate team.
I'm not denigrating folks who get stellar grades, get great jobs, and make tons of money. More power to them. I have nothing but respect and admiration for people who set their goals and achieve them. But how many "failures" are so labeled because they did not reach goals that were never theirs?
I'm also not excusing a lack of effort. I have little regard for daydreaming wannabes who say they want to be actors but don't go on auditions because commercials are beneath them, or who say they want to be writers but don't actually sit down and f'n write.
Bottom line, a success is someone who sets goals and does the work necessary to achieve them; whether he's driven to make money, build skyscrapers, write novels, write songs, become a priest or minister or rabbi, raise children, teach children to read, heal the sick, feed the poor, fight the enemy, install cabinets straight and level, grow crops, or be the best damn plumber he can be.
And there's always the threat someone will press a button on his monitor and you'll disappear.
This test doesn't account for enough factors that I think it's a flawed test of instant vs. delayed gratification. First, it assumes that the student trusts the promise of two dollars later. If there's any doubt that someone will renege, a buck in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Another flaw is that it doesn't track what the kids will do with the dollar. I know I can take that one dollar to the corner store, buy ten 10-cent boxes of candy, and sell them at school for a quarter apiece (I knew kids in elementary school who did this). I could have $2.50 in a day instead of $2 in a week. I take that same $2.50 back to the store, and repeat the process until I've saturated the market. That's not a lack of impulse control, but a shrewd and entrepreneurial decision based on a clear and cogent cost-benefit analysis.
Or maybe you're hungry and forgot your lunch money. Take the dollar and eat lunch today, and get another dollar from the folks after school, rather than wait a week. No-brainer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.