I don\'t doubt that there are innate differences between people, but I submit that those innate differences are infinitesimally small compared to the similarities between people.
I\'d argue that very few folks here have maxed out their working potential, and that very few people in life ever do in any field, and that until that potential is maxed out, the innate differences don\'t matter.
And the innate differences at that level (the level of maxed working potential) are still dwarfed by the infinitely larger vagaries of chance that impact whether those differences will even have an opportunity to present themselves, nevermind whether or not those people will ever get the time, environment, and sustained effort necessary to maximize their working potentials.
This doesn\'t even begin to go into the hopelessness of defining \"it\" as something that people can gain and lose (as was mentioned in the Tiger Woods et al references above). It increasingly seems that \"it\" is really just a shorthand method of praising people who happen to be at the forefront of their respective fields for a brief moment of time while people are watching. It\'s lazy deification at best.
Aug 14, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Previous versions of tobicus's message #10883371 « To the higher end shooters... »
