So here is the trait-scenario table I came up with to analyze various types of people:
| Traits | Possible outcome | |
|---|---|---|
| No talent, No ambition | Bum | |
| Talent, No ambition | Overworked, underpaid | |
| Talent, Ambition | Executive, Top specialist, Rock star | |
| No talent, Ambition | Politician |
Trait-Scenario Table No. 1: Talent and Ambition
Well, no offense to politicians, but most political systems require no other criterion for office, except ambition. Also, the table entries are in a 'P implies Q' relationship: it doesn't necessarily mean that politicians have nothing except ambition, but one can be a politician armed only with ambition and nothing else.
And bums do have tough luck. Because my notion of talent means 'effective talent', people who have have potential but have been unable to develop it are also inadvertently classified as having 'no talent'.
Furthermore, there are a lot of people with neither talent nor ambition who are well off; the above table does little to explain the world's distribution of wealth. So I decided to factor in the luck column for a somewhat better picture:
| Traits | Tough luck | Lucky! | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No talent, No ambition | Bum | ala Paris Hilton | |
| Talent, No ambition | Overworked, underpaid | Paid enough, content | |
| Talent, Ambition | 'Almost' executive, 'almost' rock star, but never there | Executive, Top specialist, Rock star | |
| No talent, Ambition | ala Al Gore | ala Bush |
Trait-Scenario table No. 2: Talent, Ambition and Luck
Conventional wisdom would state that talent that fulfills our needs is rewarded. However, after looking at my trait-scenario tables, I have come under the impression that:
Talent is what the world needs, but luck and ambition are what the world rewards.
So sad.
Maybe I should come up with a less depressing model.
Or find happier thoughts about the current model.
