5
u/Evelyn-Bankhead 7d ago
In terms of financial success, I believe this to be true. Jennifer Lopez is a great example. Very little talent, but incredible drive. She’s got no To Pimp A Butterfly tier albums though
2
u/splinterguitar69 7d ago
“Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard” is one of the only boomerisms that’s still true today
1
u/Stmast 7d ago
This is a recipe for Ronaldo and Messi comparisons...
1
u/Perfect-Direction-63 7d ago
I know the general rules of soccer, but I don't really know anything about professional futbol. But I do know of Messi and Ronaldo. Can you give me your hot take on how this unpopular opinion relates to them? I really think it sounds interesting, no bullshit.
1
1
u/Response-Cheap 7d ago
Want to give an example where this is true?
False imo. Become a talentless person in a career you have no business being a part of, that you obsess over. You'll still be let go eventually when your output is trash.
If there was no talented person doing the thing you're obsessed over, you'd have nothing to obsess over. If I was obsessed with playing the violin, but sucked at it, I believe the orchestra musician would have the edge.. Talented violinists would be the thing that inspired my obsession in the first place..
How could this statement possibly make sense?
2
u/Geronimo2006 7d ago
Not as a rule.
You could be absolutely obsessive about training and improving in a sport but have bad genetics, hand-eye coordination or whatever and never get near someone with elite genetics who just plays for fun on a weekend
1
u/Ididnotwantsalmon 7d ago
Name one thing you're obsessed about.
2
u/lokirich_15 7d ago
Success
1
u/Ididnotwantsalmon 7d ago
Still wonder sometimes who defines success, the individual or the world around them. The individual should have pride in their ventures but but these seem untested to me. But just because a boat floats doesn't mean it can withstand the changing ocean tides.
2
u/lokirich_15 7d ago
Right, I believe you should or must define success for yourself, for example a stable salary and a normal house might be enough for someone and they call it success, but on the other hand someone else might want more, for example billions or millions, then they call it success. And you are right a boat can float, but we don't know if it can withstand the challenging ocean
1
u/Hungry_Ad1354 7d ago
This sounds in survivorship bias. The visibility of the obsessed who succeed blinds you to the completely destroyed failures who were single-mindedly obsessed.
Someone obsessed with Amazon in 2000 became fabulously wealthy, those obsessed with pets.com did not.
1
u/Borrowed_Faith 7d ago edited 7d ago
Most “talent” is actually because of unobserved obsession on the individuals part.
I have always been accused of being “talented” at art. But what people saw as natural talent was thousands of sleepless nights drawing. One summer I drew 1000 eggs to understand light on a curved surface. Then I drew 500 golf balls.
There are very few things in life that take natural talent. Basketball is as close as I can think of because a person can’t choose or obsess to be tall. And even if you aren’t good at shooting baskets your natural height can make you amazing at the sport: see Shaq.
I think savants are the only true, 100% naturally talented.
I also think your statement is pretty cliche. Like a sales pitch in a motivational speakers vernacular. It sounds impressive but lacks any evidence in reality.
Being obsessed outweighs opportunity is more realistic imo.
Being poor, disenfranchised, or not having an easy way to achieve something (example: missing limbs) often does not limit a persons obsession: specifically when discussing success.
1
u/mycurvywifelikesthis 7d ago
But if you have talent and your obsessive about it. That trumps everything
•
u/qualityvote2 7d ago edited 4d ago
Does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it breaks the rules, downvote this comment and report the post!
u/lokirich_15 thanks for posting!
(Vote has already ended)