Would You Start?
Would you start doing something if you knew definitively that you would be the worst at it? Not for a short period of time as you’re learning, but for the entire duration of the time you do it? For instance, would you dedicate hours of time attempting to become an itamae if the sushi you’d make would always be described as inedible? Or would you train for 10Ks if you knew that you’d come in last 100% of the time?
I was thinking about how I tend to try things that I believe I could potentially become good at — at least, not terrible at — but avoid things that I know without a doubt I will always be the worst one in the pack no matter how long I stick with it. Which makes sense when you know something definitively. No matter how many hours I practice, I will not be able to achieve great things on the basketball court. Or even make a basket unless everyone stops moving. And gives me unlimited throws. And even then, it may not be enough.
Do you dedicate yourself to things you know you will never be able to do moderately well? So what does it mean if you do try something? That deep down in your soul you sense that you do have the potential to do well enough one day, correct? Think about that one.
5 comments
That’s a very interesting question!
Generally, I would say no. Because things I am really bad at usually coincide with things that I have no interest in pursuing. Running, for example. Sewing. Shot put.
That said, I also 100% believe that if you dedicate yourself to something 100% (say, basketball) – you are bound to get better at it. And who cares if you are still in the bottom 1% compared to the rest of the universe, as long as you know that you have improved? As long as you enjoy it!!!
To your last question – what’s “well enough?” That would mean completely different things to different people. If I train for a marathon for a year – and still can’t run more than 3 miles (at a super slow pace) – on one hand, that’s terrible, because I failed the main objective. On the other hand, that would be a freaking amazing improvement compared with now (I may be able to go 200 m without stopping?)
But…throwing a basketball into the hoop is still satisfying even if you only get it in 2% of the time! I’m no Van Gogh, but I enjoy painting. I avoid things I’m bad at, sure, but it’s things like selling where the disappointing outcome is only overcome when I’m basically letting someone steal from me. I can throw a basketball poorly all day, and not be disappointed with a 2% success rate. But if my sales success rate is 2%, I’ve wasted a lot of time to get there (taking photos, posting on sakes sites, answering asinine questions, etc.) that throwing a basketball in a hoop doesn’t involve. So I guess it depends on how much effort it involves to be bad at something and still get a reasonable payback from it.
I’m terrible at a lot of things I *have* to do too. Like landscaping. And putting stuff away.
*sales
I would not be willing to devote significant time and effort to something that I knew I would never be good at. In my younger years, I would have refused to do those things even occasionally for fun, but I have now reached a point in my life where I can. But I mean occasionally and not with great effort.
Depends if I would enjoy doing it for the process, rather than the accomplishment or end result. I think that’s the difference. I know some kids who only want to do what they’re good at instantly, and never give themselves a chance to get better. And I know a kid who loves loves loves playing sport, even though she’s not very good. But she loves being in the team, and loves the physical activity of the sports.
Though I will admit for me, often, a lot of the pleasure of doing something is the pleasure of doing it well. Except yoga. I do it at home – would be mortified to try it in public. Like singing. I do them because I like doing them.