Best

Several years ago I came across an interesting article about success--that decades of deliberate practice, not innate talent, is what separates the truly great from the also-ran. I believe the article was popular because it's elevated stick-to-it-iveness above genetics. I reshaped the message: if I finally get serious about things, I can truly be great. The author of the article has a new book out. I will probably buy it, in more ways than one. A review here.

I have re-reshaped the message even further to hew closer to how one Nobel chemist explained his success. I forget his name. He freely admits that he is not the brightest mind in his field. His colleagues think he is a jerk. So far we seem to have a lot in common, well, besides that Nobel thing. He explains how he competes with more gifted colleagues by noting that while his "best" is not better than their "best," most people don't do their best. Invariably, your "best" will be better than the half-hearted attempt of someone brilliant.

Eyring discusses a related concept--the law of increasing returns. This is directly the opposite of the economic concept of the law of diminishing returns, that an increase in effort yields marginally less results. Rather many things in life are governed by this law of increasing returns. Pick any analogy. In physics, it is critical mass. In the dismal science, it is economies of scale. In literature, it is what post-structuralism reveals about the relativity of truth...er, ok, not any analogy. Simply stated, you put in hard work up front and things work out.

This year, rather than trying to bet my way into a faster race time, I think I will just try to absorb these principles. Besides, if you decide to not measure things, how can you fail?