Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

But what is a "high level"? A proficient amateur is my definition. If you mean top 5% in the World, that is statistically impossible.

We do not see many famous, successful figures in the world. And those who remain there are included in your 5%. So it is practically impossible for all of us to reach there, I agree. But as per this author, if someone wishes to be in that 5%, and he/she is so passionate about that target, then the required talent will be there.

Didn't you just say that "it is practically impossible"? 100% of people can't be in the top 5%. The author has it backwards, if you have the talent to be in the top 10%, within that group of the talented, the top half (the top 5%) are going to be the most passionate among the top 10.

The statement is meaningless.
It is numerically impossible for 100% of the people to be in the top 5%, in the same way it is impossble for the top 5% to be the bottom 5%.
Reminds me of the moment that GW Bush learned with horror that approximately 50% of children were below average intelligence.

Yes, the statements are numerically wrong. But all these thoughts were generated due to the claim of the author for the connection between passion and talent. As per my understanding, if there is talent where enough amount of passion lies, then there should be a way for the 100% to be in the top 5%.

[LuckyR]

We do not see many famous, successful figures in the world. And those who remain there are included in your 5%. So it is practically impossible for all of us to reach there, I agree. But as per this author, if someone wishes to be in that 5%, and he/she is so passionate about that target, then the required talent will be there.

Didn't you just say that "it is practically impossible"? 100% of people can't be in the top 5%. The author has it backwards, if you have the talent to be in the top 10%, within that group of the talented, the top half (the top 5%) are going to be the most passionate among the top 10.

The statement is meaningless.
It is numerically impossible for 100% of the people to be in the top 5%, in the same way it is impossble for the top 5% to be the bottom 5%.
Reminds me of the moment that GW Bush learned with horror that approximately 50% of children were below average intelligence.

Yes, the statements are numerically wrong. But all these thoughts were generated due to the claim of the author for the connection between passion and talent. As per my understanding, if there is talent where enough amount of passion lies, then there should be a way for the 100% to be in the top 5%.

That is a very big "if", but I agree it could be true... in different fields. This guy could be a top 5% dancer, that guy could be a top 5% singer, another basketball, another in poetry etc.

[Sushan]

Didn't you just say that "it is practically impossible"? 100% of people can't be in the top 5%. The author has it backwards, if you have the talent to be in the top 10%, within that group of the talented, the top half (the top 5%) are going to be the most passionate among the top 10.

The statement is meaningless.
It is numerically impossible for 100% of the people to be in the top 5%, in the same way it is impossble for the top 5% to be the bottom 5%.
Reminds me of the moment that GW Bush learned with horror that approximately 50% of children were below average intelligence.

Yes, the statements are numerically wrong. But all these thoughts were generated due to the claim of the author for the connection between passion and talent. As per my understanding, if there is talent where enough amount of passion lies, then there should be a way for the 100% to be in the top 5%.

That is a very big "if", but I agree it could be true... in different fields. This guy could be a top 5% dancer, that guy could be a top 5% singer, another basketball, another in poetry etc.

I agree. When it comes to practical application, the number of opportunities becomes the most valuable factor than passion and talent. So, as you said, the 5% is practically possible only in different fields.