So dear old Anna may or may not remember but the conversation was about VCE, ENTER and how the process isn't really a test of your intelligence, but rather a combination of intelligence and work rate. Whilst I couldn't figure out if she was whinging or just stating her observation, I thought "damn straight", because that's the way it should be. Being smart is fine, and I'm damn fine, but working hard is just as important.
So Natural Talent versus Work Ethics. It should be pretty obvious what they mean but just to make sure- Natural Talent being attributes that you have genetically inherited; like intelligence, physique, or big vocal range. Work Ethics being the ability to concentrate, work hard, and be persistent at what you do. Since I'm a visual kind of guy and I have a lot of time on my hands;
I don't really know why I chose cauldrons to describe this, but the point is, the cauldron of talent and the cauldron of work ethics mix together to create one big mix known as "performance". Performance is of course the results, the end product, how well you do at something. Talent would be different according to the activity; i.e intelligence would be the contributing talent in your performance in the VCE, Good muscly physique would be the relevant talent in bodybuilding etc. Broadly I'd say there are about 4~5 main types that people can be grouped into in this rather ambiguous and oversimplified "cauldron model" of mine:
Good amount of talent, not enough work ethic; mediocre results. These guys are the ones whose parents always say "he/she had so much potential, but..."
Not much talent, strong work ethic; still mediocre performance. One must respect the work rate, but working hard can only take you so far in the end.
The lethal low-low combination. I suppose it would be rather easy to fall into the trap of giving up trying when you don't have much talent. Better luck next reincarnation.
Me.
Good amount of each, pretty balanced-kind of person. Safe and steady.
So what type of student were you when you were at high school? Have you switched types since you started going to uni? So many questions, answers to which I don't really care about.
Personally I'd much rather see a hard working person with less natural talents succeed over someone with natural talents. There's just something so oddly honourable and satisfying about it. Like justice's been served or something. But then again, I've always been a fan of the underdogs.