There was a discussion in our house the other day about whether or not everyone is capable of being great at something. Daughter No. 2 was reading an article that suggested if your ring finger is longer than your index finger, then you are inclined to be good at math. If your index finger is longer, then you are inclined to be better at language studies.
The question followed, what happens if you are good at both things? How do you find out what you are great at? I suggested maybe not everyone is great at one thing. Maybe most of us can be just good at the things we do, and that can be enough.
I am good at quite a few things--I'm a pretty good cook when I set my mind to it. I am a pretty good writer, again when I set my mind to it. I am a pretty good musician and a pretty good graphic designer. I can knit a sweater, and dogs and small children love me. I'm not kidding--both are drawn to me for some reason. I am good at all of these things because I have worked at them. I collect cookbooks and take music lessons and have spent years honing my design skills. None of my skills have come naturally, but at none of them am I great. Do I need to be great? I believe I can be only good and be satisfied.
That's not to say that I should settle for being mediocre at the things I do. That's not to say I shouldn't continue working to improve my skills at the things I enjoy. But maybe "great" isn't a level of achievement everyone can reach. Even if it is, who decides when you've reached it? Who defines greatness, and what does it look like? And even if it is, no matter what you do, there is always someone who does it better.
I think the best I can do is to do my best. The best I can do is to keep working on the set of skills I have chosen as mine. I think "good" just might be good enough, and if I can be disciplined and joyful in the process of improving my abilities, then that would be great.
By the way, my ring finger and index finger appear to be the same length.
The question followed, what happens if you are good at both things? How do you find out what you are great at? I suggested maybe not everyone is great at one thing. Maybe most of us can be just good at the things we do, and that can be enough.
I am good at quite a few things--I'm a pretty good cook when I set my mind to it. I am a pretty good writer, again when I set my mind to it. I am a pretty good musician and a pretty good graphic designer. I can knit a sweater, and dogs and small children love me. I'm not kidding--both are drawn to me for some reason. I am good at all of these things because I have worked at them. I collect cookbooks and take music lessons and have spent years honing my design skills. None of my skills have come naturally, but at none of them am I great. Do I need to be great? I believe I can be only good and be satisfied.
That's not to say that I should settle for being mediocre at the things I do. That's not to say I shouldn't continue working to improve my skills at the things I enjoy. But maybe "great" isn't a level of achievement everyone can reach. Even if it is, who decides when you've reached it? Who defines greatness, and what does it look like? And even if it is, no matter what you do, there is always someone who does it better.
I think the best I can do is to do my best. The best I can do is to keep working on the set of skills I have chosen as mine. I think "good" just might be good enough, and if I can be disciplined and joyful in the process of improving my abilities, then that would be great.By the way, my ring finger and index finger appear to be the same length.
Comments
Thanks!
PF
You are also a great blogger.
Apparently, I'm NOT good at matching skill with finger length.
or i'm half ape. :))
Ick! Did I REALLY say that?