While the point of the article is specifically about work, there are concepts there that apply to fun. In fact, the end application is pretty irrelevant, as we're all basically just pleasure-seeking machines, and we derive pleasure from doing what we're good at.
Matt Burket said "good shooting is boring". I would agree, some of my best stages in matches felt slo motion and not good. Some of my worst I came out smiling saying man I blasted that!
I have fallen into the trap of doing what was fun, and not necessarily what was needed to be done.
i used to wannabe
Originally Posted by Luke
Ironically, having the disposition or work ethic to hammer on those things we're NOT good at seems to be a primary precursor to success, often regardless of "natural ability".
Most of the modern studies I've read seem to go against that idea. Yes, it's what we've all been told our entire lives, but it doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.
"work hard, and you can achieve anything!" The mantra of the lost-cause, the need to have one's achievements be about their effort not their ability, and the attempt to motivate everyone in the can-do society.
But it's not true.
The narrative isn't as fun if you say Mike Tyson was just predisposed to knock motherfuckers out, and that all Cuss did was find him and polish him up. Or that Tiger was predisposed to hit balls long and accurate, and that all his dad did was keep making him do it.
Which isn't to say that someone is going to simply walk onto the range and win the game. There is, obviously, some amount of specialized fine-tuning of natural ability that is required even to participate, let alone win. But while I don't believe someone with zero training or practice is going to win Nationals, neither do I believe that someone lacking the natural ability (and the joy that comes from exercising said ability) is even capable of doing so no matter how much "work ethic" they have.
I think this might apply to your legendary competitors in a given sport (Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Tom Brady, and so forth) but for your average person I think you can compensate for average natural ability with above-average work ethic. Consider, for example, how uncommonly terrible America is at our math education. American students come out of college at a significant disadvantage in mathematics vs. graduates from other countries - particularly Asian countries - such that they usually have to complete some degree of Masters coursework or other independent study to be brought up to par for PhD programs.
I don't think this is a case of a whole nation with a dearth of natural ability vs. the rest of the world. There will always be the Georg Cantors and Alan Turings of the world who will succeed no matter what environment they are plonked in, but for the majority of us on this forum we have a lot more we can wring out from increasing the frequency/quality of our dry and live fire practice.
This is especially true when you consider that the skills & qualities that go into good shooting (as with most sports) is highly multifactorial - upper body strength, visual acuity, manual dexterity, 'vision' for the 'field,' etc. You can be born with natural skill in some but not all of these areas - which is where hard work can help you make up the deficit, even if your natural ceiling is lower than most.
Funny, a guy named Jerry Miculek assessed his own talent as not being "natural"
He just has literally millions upon millions of trigger pulls in his lifetime.
Sure, you may not be the best without a certain natural disposition (excellent vision, hand eye coordination, resilience to muzzle blast, at least fairly decent strength and foot speed) much as certain mental tendencies bring other people to success in mathematics, art, music etc.
But hard work counts for a lot. Is Ben Stoeger national champ because he is a natural, or because lots of practice? He did classify GM his first time so there's a natural talent thing...but he also shot a lot before that so there's that too...
I'll probably never be the single stack nats ace shooter... maybe never even a GM, but damned if I won't practice and have a ton of fun doing it!
Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
One thing in common with the people on top is they know how to practice.
Want to know how Ben classified GM first time out? He looked at what it took to classify. He then broke that down and worked on those skills. Ben seems like the king of practice.
I think claiming he has "natural talent" is a disservice to his hard work he has put in.
Last edited by Luke; 08-09-2016 at 08:26 PM.
i used to wannabe
Agreed...it would seem that his natural talent is to be able to look at the sport and intuitively understand what he needed to achieve in practice to play at the highest level. I noticed in his podcast, he seems to be at best, lukewarm about what gun a shooter uses, what types of bullets, what types of powder, etc...seemingly because the most important thing is what you practice, how you practice it, and how often.
Well said and I completely agree. I pretty much see this argument literally as the struggle between free will and determinism. I don't care whether determinism is true; I simply find it repugnant and think it is unproductive as a personal philosophy.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
Reply With Quote