We used to ask, when talking about if we were building a sports team, if we'd rather have a talented team that didn't work hard or a less talented team that worked hard.
I always go back and forth on this but in the end, how can you not go with work ethic? I will always value the person who works hard to perfect themselves as best they could over the person who takes their blessed talent for granted. It's all mental. One guy I used to play sports with would always say, "Heart wins over talent."
Which made me wonder if this can translate from sports into something like a country. What makes a country "great?" Setting the criteria for this would be challenging and probably would have to encompass things like economic might, history, number of influential figures and branding power. While those are usually the criteria that prevail, what about less tangible stuff like moral fiber, work ethic, education, manners, keeping promises and so on?
In other words, is it better to be a "talented" country that through its innovations and ideas changes the course of history or one that is "ordinary" but does all the little things that sustain a functional civilization that can last indefinitely?
The problem lies in the question. Neither scenario is really ideal and we can certainly do better than choose from one of two options posed by a bad question.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. I posed the question in a way that suggests there are no other options.
ReplyDeleteI have known talented peopke who worked very hard and ordinary people who thought they were very smart and were resting on their supposed laurels.
ReplyDeleteI have to reframe my question. I clearly didn't convey what I was trying to say.
ReplyDeleteMy point is some times we emphasize "excellence" so much we forget about the little things.
I'm a little tired now so I hope to get back to this.